Freedom of Information refused :\ (1 Viewer)

[Patar]

I went to get my exam paper back through FOI, it was refused because BOS thought I'd be using the papers to get raw cut offs.

And they said I am dp624 - a user part of a campaign to disclose raw marks apparently.

Well I'm not dp624 and as I told them I really only wanted it back to see what I wrote. Seems a bit unfair. I'm wondering if I should pay the $40 to write in again.

Lazurus and co, what do you reckon?

 

[kevinx2]

Getting exam papers back under FOI have always been turned down since a couple of years back.

A wow, dp624 is part of a campaign like that? <3 bosers

 

[Dragonmaster262]

Getting exam papers back under FOI have always been turned down since a couple of years back.

A wow, dp624 is part of a campaign like that? <3 bosers

Lol, well a guy called dp624 was on a campaign to get his exam papers back.

 

[iRuler]

dp624, what a legend! keep at it man, u'll get it!

@Patar you should try again... and get some advice from Lazurus, since he did get his paper back

 

[dp624]

what the fizz
you're definitely not me fizzle

and no, i was not 'wanting' to figure out the raw band cutoffs, just wanted my papers back really. the Board is like paranoid

i think they 'know' who i am (in real life) so unless you ARE me then i don't know how the hell they could mistake you for me

 

[Pwnage101]

lol looks like the Board of Studies comes on these forums.

By 'part of a campaign to disclose raw marks' i think they (exaggerating the situation of course) mean he [dp] (and many others, including myself) posted on threads which had to do with the topic of guesstimating Raw Marks OR showing an interest in raw marks OR discussing getting our papers back OR something of the like.

and dp, i agree, it's not hard to realise who you are in real life, so for the Board to make a mistake like that surprises me.

So to me it looks like they are scanning this site for people potentially who are going to mark their own paper aand post their approximate raw mark and what that aligned to, or post the paper, or something of the like; and refusing to give exam scripts back to people who they identify as having posted on such threads.

And if that is the case, well Board it is very easily solved. And future HSCer's will learn from our mistake. Simply Don't discuss anything to do with raw marks or getting exam scripts back or the like on this forum until you actually receive your papers back. It's too late for 08er's [and perhaps namu as well, lol], but 09er's should take note of this, cause thats the way it seems the Board is playing it.

 

[Lazarus]

I went to get my exam paper back through FOI, it was refused because BOS thought I'd be using the papers to get raw cut offs.

And they said I am dp624 - a user part of a campaign to disclose raw marks apparently.

Well I'm not dp624 and as I told them I really only wanted it back to see what I wrote. Seems a bit unfair. I'm wondering if I should pay the $40 to write in again.

Lazurus and co, what do you reckon?

It is a bit unfair, particularly as they have wrongly identified you as another user.

To be honest, unless you're willing to take it all the way to the tribunal - which is probably not worth it for you right now - there's not much you can do.

They have adopted a practice of discriminating between applicants based on whether or not they think the applicant will self-mark their exams to estimate their raw marks and then use those estimated marks to estimate and publish raw band cut-offs.

It means that applicants are being treated inconsistently and are prejudiced by being a member of this website. In my opinion that is grossly unfair, but unless you want to spend money and time fighting it, they can pretty much do whatever they like.

May I suggest the following - write back to them and explain that you are not dp624, that you don't care about band cut-offs and that you would really just like to see your scripts. Give them your username so they can review your posts. Just try to provide a genuine and honest explanation about why you'd like to see your scripts.

Don't include the $40 fee - don't ask for an internal review - just see if they are willing to reconsider their position based on the new information you give them which shows they made a mistake.

If they are satisfied you're not trying to discover any cut-offs they should be reasonable about giving you access. If they accept that they made a mistake they should be OK about not charging you an additional fee.

In a perfect world you wouldn't have to do any of this, but realistically it is probably the only avenue that might meet with success.

 

[AnandDNA]

hey sorry but i dont get what the big issue is with revealing raw mark band cut offs??

 

[Eclipse008]

hey sorry but i dont get what the big issue is with revealing raw mark band cut offs??

Based on the only raw marks that have ever been made available, the published marks are substantially higher. Media would claim that the board inflates marks. (which they do)
Also, they don't want to jeopardise the 'integrity' of the HSC

 

[Lazarus]

hey sorry but i dont get what the big issue is with revealing raw mark band cut offs??

The Board of Studies is concerned that future markers involved in the setting of future cut-offs might be unduly influenced if they know past cut-offs.

 

[Patar]

It is a bit unfair, particularly as they have wrongly identified you as another user.

To be honest, unless you're willing to take it all the way to the tribunal - which is probably not worth it for you right now - there's not much you can do.

They have adopted a practice of discriminating between applicants based on whether or not they think the applicant will self-mark their exams to estimate their raw marks and then use those estimated marks to estimate and publish raw band cut-offs.

It means that applicants are being treated inconsistently and are prejudiced by being a member of this website. In my opinion that is grossly unfair, but unless you want to spend money and time fighting it, they can pretty much do whatever they like.

May I suggest the following - write back to them and explain that you are not dp624, that you don't care about band cut-offs and that you would really just like to see your scripts. Give them your username so they can review your posts. Just try to provide a genuine and honest explanation about why you'd like to see your scripts.

Don't include the $40 fee - don't ask for an internal review - just see if they are willing to reconsider their position based on the new information you give them which shows they made a mistake.

If they are satisfied you're not trying to discover any cut-offs they should be reasonable about giving you access. If they accept that they made a mistake they should be OK about not charging you an additional fee.

In a perfect world you wouldn't have to do any of this, but realistically it is probably the only avenue that might meet with success.

Ahh, thanks Yeah, I don't like the idea of paying $40 for an internal review.

Well, anyway, they called me the other day and asked why I wanted them back (This was before I received the decision). I told them truthfully I just wanted them back for a keepsake thing. Perhaps a different department handled the decision from the one that called me.

But I'll be writing. Why would they accuse me of being dp624 if they know him in real life, and if his signiture, university, etc doesn't reflect any of the same subjects/courses as mine? It seems weird.

I'll write a letter now. Thanks guys

 

[Lazarus]

No, I never asked for them, and now they are long gone.