Leni Riefenstahl (1 Viewer)

[p342i]

It will be interesting to see how this works out next week when we start marking Modern History (starts on 11th November).

My reading of the question and knowledge of Leni is that her rise to prominence doesn't end in 33 but really only begins there - it is the making of TOW and Olympia that makes her a prominent figure.

The problem with the question is going to be on interpreting the term 'rise to prominence' and how the examiners when designing the question and the marking guidelines have interpreted that question.

I suspect from marking in the past that we will be expecting to at least take her to the end of 38 and the release of Olympia, if not to end 45.

The problem with this question is the use of the term 'rise to prominence' which as has been pointed out is a section of the syllabus and really no one should be penalised if all they discuss are the four dot points under that heading in each personality but I suspect that we will be expecting students to go further than that with the personalities.

We have two points of view expressed in this thread - one is that the concept 'rise to prominence' is restricted to the points listed in the syllabus and the other is that 'rise to prominence' more realistically covers at the absolute minimum the making of the two films that make her a person worth studying in the first place i.e. whether the term in the question meant only the section of the syllabus or a broader judgement as to when she became prominent.

To those of you who have studied Leni I would expect you to actually include the films at the very least but I wouldn't expect you to go past denazification. However when I see the marking guidelines and have been briefed as to what to give marks for it will become clearer - by that time the examination committee will have briefed the senior markers about what they intended with the question and the senior markers will have read a couple of hundred actual responses and be able to advise us markers accordingly.

I wouldn't get too hung up either way as I suspect that students who take the strict interpretation will be compensated - if done properly with more than 5/10 while those who take the broader interpretation will also be compensated.

At this stage I really don't know what the interpretation will be but I suspect a more liberal interpretation and I will certainly raise the issues mentioned here in the briefing session if necessary once I have seen the marking guideline (assuming that I am put on Personalities again)

Thankyou - but just one thing. Leni's rise to prominence continued after her de-Nazification. Her photography of the Nuba tribes in the 1960's and her underwater filming of marine life up until her death in 2003, were incredibly important to her rise to prominence. Those later life activities allowed her to reach an entirely new audience. In fact, the second question in the Personalities section which talks about unbalanced interpretations. When you look at the interpretations that are out there now: Susan Sontag, Audrey Salkeld etc... they are from the modern generation who were introduced to Leni by her later life activites.

Regardless of what the marking centre decides, I am myself confident and unmoved in the belief that Leni's rise to prominence occured throughout the entire course of her life, therefore the length and detail of the narration should be distributed accordingly.

 

[p342i]

Where did I try to be sophisticated?

How do you know this? Either way I am confident in the fact that I will score higher than 80, and will get into Uni next year.

But in your case lets say you get 100 UAI! Congratu-fucking-lations. You left school with NO friends and probably spent every waking hour of the day studying. That's not a very healthy way to live your life Domenic. However it seems that you find some conselation in coming to an internet forum and bragging in every thread about how good you are and trying to demean others who did'nt do as well as you, get over yourself, you arn't Gods gift and will probably die lonely.

Yes I will have fun, because thats what life is about in the end is'nt it?
Dom, cmon man... I hope that I encounter you again, atleast once, so I can see how successful you became! Yet you still won't have friends, or even come close to getting some pussy.

Joel, why do you seem to have so much animosity against me when i have hardly ever spoken to you; either as a friend or enemy?

In response to your question, where did you try to be sophisticated; I was utilising irony to display the lack of tact you have in calling someone a 'fag' [a socially unacceptable term] which I am not: considering I have a g/f right now. You wern't being sophisticated; instead you were being offensive.

I hope you do get above 80 and get into whatever you want; but dont pass judgement on those who want to achieve more than that either out of personal satisfaction or else because they actually have to do get into the career that they want to.

I will not get a UAI of 100

I did not leave school with no friends, in fact some of my closest friends are from Aloys - Paul Ellis, Finley Hipkin, Graham Purcell, Guy Flint, Tom Nicol, Mathew Pirozzi etc... I'm most likely end up at the same univesity with them next year, and I have no doubt that I will be friends with most of them for the rest of my life.

I did not spend much of this year studying at all outside the periods directly before exams. I play ice-hockey, go snowboarding for a month or so, go out regularly, go gambling at Star City, see movies; just like everyone else. Yes, I do prioritise school work above most things but that is because I both want to and have to in order to achieve what I want. I don't live an unhealthy life, in fact you probably are more unhealthy than man as I am pretty sure you have taken more drugs (whether they be legal or illegal; i dont know) than me.

I dont brag on any thread; I post stuff so that people can compare their answers to mine, and so that we can discuss the question. Its almost like a kind of debriefing, or release.

I am not God's gift, and I'm not full of myself.

I wont die lonely either, and how dare you try and make a prophecy on something like that. Less emotionally or psychological confident people could act upon things like that, so I would be very careful about what you say, and what effect it may have on some people.

If I do encounter me again, then you will see how successful I have become. But you will also so how happy I am in the company of whoever I'm with at the same. I'll be surrounded by friends.

And I've already gotten some pussy, started a long time ago. And how would you know anyway Joel?

Good luck with whatever you have left - but dont criticise me of my disappointment with Aloys. Perhaps not just the school itself, but the kind of people who graduate from it; your comments stand as a testimony to that.

 

[cem]

Thankyou - but just one thing. Leni's rise to prominence continued after her de-Nazification. Her photography of the Nuba tribes in the 1960's and her underwater filming of marine life up until her death in 2003, were incredibly important to her rise to prominence. Those later life activities allowed her to reach an entirely new audience. In fact, the second question in the Personalities section which talks about unbalanced interpretations. When you look at the interpretations that are out there now: Susan Sontag, Audrey Salkeld etc... they are from the modern generation who were introduced to Leni by her later life activites.

Regardless of what the marking centre decides, I am myself confident and unmoved in the belief that Leni's rise to prominence occured throughout the entire course of her life, therefore the length and detail of the narration should be distributed accordingly.

Your argument is valid but if you read my post at all you would have realised that there is a difference in interpretation in this thread based on the wording in the syllabus and the interpretation of those who have actually studied her.

If the examiners, when they set the question and then the marking guidelines specify a cut-off date based purely on the syllabus headings then anything after 33 will be ignored in the marking centre as that is the cut-off date in that section of the syllabus. This situation happened a year or so ago when the question specified 'within the period studied' and students argued on here about what that meant - the markers stopped in '45 with both Speer and Leni because the topic was Germany 1918 - 45 (I am fully aware that the topic dates have changed for this year). My point is that the examiners told us to ignore anything after 1945 or before 1918 in either personality as that was outside the dates in the syllabus. The same thing could happen here with people writing about things after '33 not getting credit if the examination committee determine, in their marking guidelines, that 'rise to prominence' is only to be the things under that heading in the syllabus.

This is a difference between studying a person etc for the intrinsic value of that study and studying a topic in preparation for an exam. Ib preparing for the exam it is essential that people know what the terms are that can be used in the question and apply them accordingly.

Your response is an excellent one but whether it will get 10/10 or not I can't say because a) I haven't seen the marking guideline and b) it does do a lot after '33 and not anywhere near as much before particularly putting her into the context of the 20s during her 'rise to prominence' in Germany leading to her getting the commissions to do the big films for Hitler and the Nazis.

 

[p342i]

Your argument is valid but if you read my post at all you would have realised that there is a difference in interpretation in this thread based on the wording in the syllabus and the interpretation of those who have actually studied her.

If the examiners, when they set the question and then the marking guidelines specify a cut-off date based purely on the syllabus headings then anything after 33 will be ignored in the marking centre as that is the cut-off date in that section of the syllabus. This situation happened a year or so ago when the question specified 'within the period studied' and students argued on here about what that meant - the markers stopped in '45 with both Speer and Leni because the topic was Germany 1918 - 45 (I am fully aware that the topic dates have changed for this year). My point is that the examiners told us to ignore anything after 1945 or before 1918 in either personality as that was outside the dates in the syllabus. The same thing could happen here with people writing about things after '33 not getting credit if the examination committee determine, in their marking guidelines, that 'rise to prominence' is only to be the things under that heading in the syllabus.

This is a difference between studying a person etc for the intrinsic value of that study and studying a topic in preparation for an exam. Ib preparing for the exam it is essential that people know what the terms are that can be used in the question and apply them accordingly.

Your response is an excellent one but whether it will get 10/10 or not I can't say because a) I haven't seen the marking guideline and b) it does do a lot after '33 and not anywhere near as much before particularly putting her into the context of the 20s during her 'rise to prominence' in Germany leading to her getting the commissions to do the big films for Hitler and the Nazis.

Once again, the incompetency of the BOS is evident if it indeed does turn out that way.

I think this is riddiculous if you "cem" are saying that there is indeed a valid argument here as I see it. There are definetly two ways of looking at the question and I admit to the fact that there is an ambiguity. You can see it in the reality of her life, and where her rise to prominence ended. Or else you perceive it in context of the syllabus.

But it is OUTRAGEOUS if there can be two valid interpretations, but then the BOS has to sit to and clarity amongst themselves what they meant. Our HSC aspirations effectively get put in the hands of a bunch of feminazis who couldnt ariculate a 10 mark "DESCRIBE" question with clarity.

Also Cem, you seem to have changed your opinion. Originally you said that you believe her rise to prominence went beyond 1933. Plus you have said that my argument was valid. Now you say that the BOS may well cut it at 1933.

I would also point out that as it was BACKGROUND and RISE TO PROMINENCE - one would think that an equal amount of time should be allocated to both. Or if not, more would go into the prominence bit than background. If that is the case, if you look at the syllabus, rise to prominence only goes from:

1932 (Blue Light) - 1933 (Victory of Faith)

I think its pretty unfair to give us a one year timefram for at the very least, 5 marks of a question. I think that when the markers begin to read responses, they will at the realise that people are writing to 1936 with Olympia, and so set the time frame accordingly. I think that the syllabus is terribly structured, and is so far flung from the reality. No wonder my school did so poorly last year with one band 6 and 16 people on 89 when our teachers tell us to do half of it, Triumph and beyond.

You are saying that both interpretations are valid, yet in the end only one will get the marks. That is a massive injustice to whover is on the raw end of the decision.

 

[cem]

Once again, the incompetency of the BOS is evident if it indeed does turn out that way.

Not incompetency - but pedanticness (?) - the syllabus has headings that they have used in the question and they therefore may limit the accepted response to just the areas specified under those headings in the syllabus but that also assumes that students have not only learnt the content of the syllabus but also the terms used in the syllabus to divide up that content which from my own experience with my own class certainly won't be the case.

I think this is riddiculous if you "cem" are saying that there is indeed a valid argument here as I see it. There are definetly two ways of looking at the question and I admit to the fact that there is an ambiguity. You can see it in the reality of her life, and where her rise to prominence ended. Or else you perceive it in context of the syllabus.

What is ridiculous about seeing two interpretations as being perfectly valid - one being the way you have interpreted the question - i.e. a broad interpretation based on her life or a second interpretation based simply on the break-down the BOS has put in its syllabus under that heading - both are valid interpretations

But it is OUTRAGEOUS if there can be two valid interpretations, but then the BOS has to sit to and clarity amongst themselves what they meant. Our HSC aspirations effectively get put in the hands of a bunch of feminazis who couldnt ariculate a 10 mark "DESCRIBE" question with clarity.

This question is a generic question and Leni may just be the one that on this question has the most narrow interpretation assuming that the exam committee are going to specify only the points under those headings in the syllabus. That may be a problem - we don't know that until the marking guidelines are revealed next week. If last year's guideline is applied then the markers will have to deal with the following phrase

'Clearly identifies relevant key features of the specified period of the individual's career'

This is where the problem will arise - what is meant by the 'specified period' - just the things covered by the syllabus or will the markers be able to go beyond that.

Also Cem, you seem to have changed your opinion. Originally you said that you believe her rise to prominence went beyond 1933. Plus you have said that my argument was valid. Now you say that the BOS may well cut it at 1933.

I haven't changed my opinion - one is a personal opinion - i.e. that her rise to prominence goes beyond 33 and the other is one based on a possible interpretation from the BOS, with which I wouldn't agree but would have to apply if I mark that question.

I would also point out that as it was BACKGROUND and RISE TO PROMINENCE - one would think that an equal amount of time should be allocated to both. Or if not, more would go into the prominence bit than background. If that is the case, if you look at the syllabus, rise to prominence only goes from:

1932 (Blue Light) - 1933 (Victory of Faith)

Background and Rise to prominence wouldn't be given equal weight in the sense of a marker having to count up to 10 points to give 10 marks with 5 marks to each section - it would be possible to get high marks if one did more on one section than the other depending on how well it was done but certainly the 10/10 response would require from the beginning to the end date (whether that is specified as '33 or not is up to the exam committee and won't be known until next week). If they use last years marking guideline then an interpretation up to only '33 could be applied using the phrase 'specified period of the personality's career'

I think its pretty unfair to give us a one year timefram for at the very least, 5 marks of a question. I think that when the markers begin to read responses, they will at the realise that people are writing to 1936 with Olympia, and so set the time frame accordingly. I think that the syllabus is terribly structured, and is so far flung from the reality. No wonder my school did so poorly last year with one band 6 and 16 people on 89 when our teachers tell us to do half of it, Triumph and beyond.

Please note that the markers wouldn't be allocating marks on a 5 marks for background and 5 marks for rise to prominence but would consider the entire response.

I agree that the syllabus is terribly structured as rise to prominence should cover more than up to meeting Hitler but should include her films - however this is the syllabus we have to use and has been examined.

You are saying that both interpretations are valid, yet in the end only one will get the marks. That is a massive injustice to whover is on the raw end of the decision.

No, I am saying that both interpretations are valid but we don't know what way the exam committee will go. They could go with both interpretations.

Can I please also point out that I have a class of students who gave the wide interpretation and I would expect that most students in the state did so but I am not on the exam committee and what interpretation they come up with is still to be seen.

The problem will be if a wide interpretation is allowed and students only give the narrow interpretation then how to compensate them for knowing the terms in the syllabus along with the content and not penalise the students who give the wider interpretation.

Look I know this is your HSC and you want the maximum marks you can get but will you believe me when I tell you that we, as markers, also want to give you as many marks as we possibly can. The biggest angst with markers is just how high can I take this response?

 

[p342i]

Not incompetency - but pedanticness (?) - the syllabus has headings that they have used in the question and they therefore may limit the accepted response to just the areas specified under those headings in the syllabus but that also assumes that students have not only learnt the content of the syllabus but also the terms used in the syllabus to divide up that content which from my own experience with my own class certainly won't be the case.



What is ridiculous about seeing two interpretations as being perfectly valid - one being the way you have interpreted the question - i.e. a broad interpretation based on her life or a second interpretation based simply on the break-down the BOS has put in its syllabus under that heading - both are valid interpretations



This question is a generic question and Leni may just be the one that on this question has the most narrow interpretation assuming that the exam committee are going to specify only the points under those headings in the syllabus. That may be a problem - we don't know that until the marking guidelines are revealed next week. If last year's guideline is applied then the markers will have to deal with the following phrase

'Clearly identifies relevant key features of the specified period of the individual's career'

This is where the problem will arise - what is meant by the 'specified period' - just the things covered by the syllabus or will the markers be able to go beyond that.





I haven't changed my opinion - one is a personal opinion - i.e. that her rise to prominence goes beyond 33 and the other is one based on a possible interpretation from the BOS, with which I wouldn't agree but would have to apply if I mark that question.




Background and Rise to prominence wouldn't be given equal weight in the sense of a marker having to count up to 10 points to give 10 marks with 5 marks to each section - it would be possible to get high marks if one did more on one section than the other depending on how well it was done but certainly the 10/10 response would require from the beginning to the end date (whether that is specified as '33 or not is up to the exam committee and won't be known until next week). If they use last years marking guideline then an interpretation up to only '33 could be applied using the phrase 'specified period of the personality's career'



Please note that the markers wouldn't be allocating marks on a 5 marks for background and 5 marks for rise to prominence but would consider the entire response.

I agree that the syllabus is terribly structured as rise to prominence should cover more than up to meeting Hitler but should include her films - however this is the syllabus we have to use and has been examined.



No, I am saying that both interpretations are valid but we don't know what way the exam committee will go. They could go with both interpretations.

Can I please also point out that I have a class of students who gave the wide interpretation and I would expect that most students in the state did so but I am not on the exam committee and what interpretation they come up with is still to be seen.

The problem will be if a wide interpretation is allowed and students only give the narrow interpretation then how to compensate them for knowing the terms in the syllabus along with the content and not penalise the students who give the wider interpretation.

Look I know this is your HSC and you want the maximum marks you can get but will you believe me when I tell you that we, as markers, also want to give you as many marks as we possibly can. The biggest angst with markers is just how high can I take this response?

Look, I know its not you Cem and you seem to be on the side of everyone here.

But I still think that if the BOS has to even HAVE a process whereby they define the specified period AFTER the exams are written and considering that this seems to be a recurring problem, then there is something terribly wrong with the entire system. If they have had this problem in the past, why do they not specify a time period for each personality, rather than leave the student to interpret it: and as evident, there are multiple interpretations. It seems horribly unfair if we are forced to interpret it ourselves, yet do so not knowing whether it is the correct one.

Why not accept multiple interpretations, [as subjects such as English do] and mark each response on the merits of what is written, not what is not written as seems to be the case.

I am certainly not saying that my, or the narrower interpretation is correct. I will be the first to admit that there is an ambiguity and therefore I feel that both are just as valid.

Cem I hope if you get the opportunity, you will express the concerns raised here; because I feel that there are going to a vast amount of students who interpreted the question AT LEAST up to Olympia in 1936; and also some who went all the way to her Nuba photography in the 1960s, and underwater filming in the 1970s all the way up to her death.

Also, will you be able to inform us of the Committee's decision on what they decide to be the timeframe? It would just be better to soften the blow, rather recieve a lower than expected mod his mark on the 19th, and be forever worrying if it was that damned Leni question.

Injustice occurs when our marks are determined by a post-exam decision. Anyway, I am going to take this up with the BOS personally if I can. I had great faith in the HSC being a fair an equitable system of assessing overall academic performance. Now I'm not so sure...

 

[cem]

Look, I know its not you Cem and you seem to be on the side of everyone here.

But I still think that if the BOS has to even HAVE a process whereby they define the specified period AFTER the exams are written and considering that this seems to be a recurring problem, then there is something terribly wrong with the entire system. If they have had this problem in the past, why do they not specify a time period for each personality, rather than leave the student to interpret it: and as evident, there are multiple interpretations. It seems horribly unfair if we are forced to interpret it ourselves, yet do so not knowing whether it is the correct one.

Actually as I have been thinking about this overnight I think they have defined the time-frame by setting the question using the terms from the syllabus but that being said how many students actually learn the pages from the syllabus and the points within the syllabus. That is where the problems lies - students must not only know the content but they must know the actual divisions within the syllabus - if they do then there is no confusion with the question as it has used the exact wording from the syllabus - making it a good and clear question.

Why not accept multiple interpretations, [as subjects such as English do] and mark each response on the merits of what is written, not what is not written as seems to be the case.

The problem is that the question uses specific terms from the syllabus and to have multiple interpretations isn't possible - the syllabus is clear and the exam committee used those terms. That may very well be their argument but as a teacher of students who have enough trouble learning the content and who were very pleased to have written three pages on this question and spent most of the time of TOW and Olympia I don't like it.

I am certainly not saying that my, or the narrower interpretation is correct. I will be the first to admit that there is an ambiguity and therefore I feel that both are just as valid.

Both interpretations are valid until we look at the terms of the syllabus - to an historian then the wider interpretation makes perfect sense but the only thing the teachers and students have in common to go by is the syllabus and therefore the argument could very well be put that only the areas covered by those specified in the syllabus can be considered.

Cem I hope if you get the opportunity, you will express the concerns raised here; because I feel that there are going to a vast amount of students who interpreted the question AT LEAST up to Olympia in 1936; and also some who went all the way to her Nuba photography in the 1960s, and underwater filming in the 1970s all the way up to her death.

I will certainly put my point of view forward if I am on personalities marking team but as there are many personalities to be marked on the same criteria (there is only one criteria for all personalities) and unless this is a problem with other personalities then I probably won't get very far - but I will definitely try.

Also, will you be able to inform us of the Committee's decision on what they decide to be the timeframe? It would just be better to soften the blow, rather recieve a lower than expected mod his mark on the 19th, and be forever worrying if it was that damned Leni question.

Don't forget that the judges will also have a say - namely about the cut-offs for each level and if this question does raise these sorts of issues they will take that into consideration.

Injustice occurs when our marks are determined by a post-exam decision. Anyway, I am going to take this up with the BOS personally if I can. I had great faith in the HSC being a fair an equitable system of assessing overall academic performance. Now I'm not so sure...

It is perfectly fair when the exam committee use the terms from the syllabus to set the question - what is fairer - they used the terms that all students and teachers had in common - the problem is that most students probably hadn't learnt their content under those specific headings.

This would certainly not be a post-exam decision.

I am hoping for a broad interpretation for all personalities but ...

I will tell you what I can, assuming that I am on the personalities marking team and not moved to another one this year.

 

[Asheroth]

Actually as I have been thinking about this overnight I think they have defined the time-frame by setting the question using the terms from the syllabus but that being said how many students actually learn the pages from the syllabus and the points within the syllabus. That is where the problems lies - students must not only know the content but they must know the actual divisions within the syllabus - if they do then there is no confusion with the question as it has used the exact wording from the syllabus - making it a good and clear question.

See, I learnt my personality study under the syllabus headings - it's how I did all my topics - and so the question seemed pretty clear to me: "talk about the syllabus dot points under these two headings".

But, p342i, even if the markers do decide on a narrow interpretation, there's enough detail and stuff in the first half of your response that deals with the specified time period to assure you of good marks. So you should be safe anyway.

Injustice occurs when our marks are determined by a post-exam decision. Anyway, I am going to take this up with the BOS personally if I can. I had great faith in the HSC being a fair an equitable system of assessing overall academic performance. Now I'm not so sure...

It's perfectly fair. The question is very straightforward (in one sense) and the fact that you may have misinterpreted it doesn't make it unfair. Again I stress that there's enough detail in the first part of your response (how many exam pages was that monster, anyway?) for you to do well regardless.

If you're going to ask questions of fairness, I could draw attention to the fact that the second Personality question was very clearly geared towards historiography when historiography is not a specific part of the syllabus (as it is in Ancient). I probably bombed out on that question...

 

[p342i]

I did know how the syllabus was structured, but upon looking at past questions and the one in the exam, in conjunction with everything that every single modern history teacher has told me - I though that the BOS couldn't possibly expect us to write a proper narration on her background, and then her syllabus outlined 'rise to prominence' considering it covers only a one year time frame and because it is outrageously incorrect.

Plus, the existence of this debate has shown that there is indeed a argument concerning this, so how was anyone suppose to know which was was the 'correct' was to go. It seems now as if it is all sheer chance, you merely pick an interpretation and then go with it and hope against hope that the unclear BOS rules in your favour.

Cem, you seem to be fluxtuating again as before you were saying that you predicted a broad interpretation, but if they went narrow then this would happen. However now you seem resolved that they will say only up the 1945.

May I also ask, why the fuck did they change the syllabus to place a far greater emphasis on her later life, yet not include it in the question?

Even if my response is good enough to go well based on the first half, I am still outraged. I don't think it will be, plus its the whole principle of the BOS being incompetent in both setting the riddiculous and incorrect syllabus outline and in not being clear enough. And don't say that they have been clear as evidenced by the syllabus outline because obviously they havent if the majority of students do a broad appraoch.

Sadly, the way you speak Cem makes it sound as if this whole damn process is merely about getting marks by conforming to the BOS. Rather than what it should be about, education. If I went to an expert on Leni Riefenstahl and said I believed that her rise to prominence began in 1932 and ended in 1933 because the BOS said so, he would laugh at me and say "shiza"

Its becomming a debate between using common sense as to what Leni's rise to prominence really is, or whether you conform to the syllabus outline. Either way, it seems both is a gamble. If they interpret it broadly then the person who conformed to the syllabus will looked like they didnt answer the whole question, or if they interpret it in a narrow way, the broad answer will largely be discounted leaving only a small amount of what is answering the question.

Can either of you two, Cem or Asheroth see the insanity of it when one of the two appraoches, both as valid as each other is going to get disadvantaged? Even if its not a post-exam decision, they at least need to notify what is meant before we do the damn thing.

 

[Asheroth]

Okay, well first off it seems that it was harder to write about Leni than Douglas Macarthur (the personality I did). There's heaps of stuff in his background and rise to prominence to talk about.

did know how the syllabus was structured, but upon looking at past questions and the one in the exam, in conjunction with everything that every single modern history teacher has told me

Past questions are irrelevant because of the new Personality syllabus and exam question structure.

May I also ask, why the fuck did they change the syllabus to place a far greater emphasis on her later life, yet not include it in the question?

Only if you let me ask why I had to learn about the whole Cold War if I was only going to be able to answer questions to do with crises 1948-1962 or the impact of the invasion of Afghanistan. Same principle.

Even if my response is good enough to go well based on the first half, I am still outraged. I don't think it will be, plus its the whole principle of the BOS being incompetent in both setting the riddiculous and incorrect syllabus outline and in not being clear enough. And don't say that they have been clear as evidenced by the syllabus outline because obviously they havent if the majority of students do a broad appraoch.

I'm sorry, I'm calling you here. There is no evidence that a 'majority' of students have done it your way; likewise for my interpretation. Currently you outnumber me 2 to 1, which proves nothing. We don't know the dominant interpretation. And if you're that truly fed up with the Board of Studies, make an appointment with somebody or register a complaint. They might listen to you if you leave that supercilious attitude at the door; hell, you might even find out that they might actually know what they're talking about.

Sadly, the way you speak Cem makes it sound as if this whole damn process is merely about getting marks by conforming to the BOS. Rather than what it should be about, education.

DINGDINGDING! That's correct! The whole HSC year is not about 'learning' as such. It is about conforming to the expectations of the Board of Studies. Education is a side-effect of that, if you do it properly. The expert on Leni Riefenstahl wouldn't do well if he didn't know how to answer a question correctly. You don't have to believe that it's so. Just say you do, get the marks, and go to university where someone of your intelligence can shine in the less dictatorial learning environment.

Can either of you two, Cem or Asheroth see the insanity of it when one of the two appraoches, both as valid as each other is going to get disadvantaged? Even if its not a post-exam decision, they at least need to notify what is meant before we do the damn thing.

Yes, I agree that this is unfair. I never said I didn't. What brought me into this argument was your statement of 'half marks for everyone who stopped at Triumph.'

Has anyone considered that they might accept both intepretations? It's happened before when there's been an ambiguous question.

 

[the hsc sucks]

n. pl. stig·ma·ta (stg-mät, -mt, stgm-) or stig·mas
A mark or token of infamy, disgrace, or reproach: “Party affiliation has never been more casual... The stigmata of decay are everywhere” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.). See Synonyms at stain.

Stigmata yes can mean a religious experience whereby the affected person experiences the wounds Jesus Christ recieved while dying on the cross; i.e. lacerations in their hands and feet.

But as the above definition states [the first to appear on dictionary.com] shows that a stigmata is far more generic than you make out. Stigmata is merely the noun and/or plural form of stigma. So next time you question my grasp of language, make sure you know what your talking about.

I feel sorry for you if you stopped once she had become famous, I really do. Leni's fame continued post-Triumph; and in accordance with the Head fo History at Aloys [a head marker at BOS] I am pretty sure they require you to talk about her entire life. Anyway, I have no doubt that I will be vindicated on the 19th of December.

No, I dont get exam doubt because I am fully aware of both the extent and limitations of my knowlegde. You are pretty pathetic if you think that people who express what they know and wrote on, the very purpose of these forum, are full of themselves then you obviously are either very insecure or are intimidated by people who actually put emphasis on the HSC, which you evidently dont as cited in you display name.

Considering that I have been employed I am a paid tutor in English for HSC this year, whilst doing it myself, I merely try to mimmick that in other subjects.

Maybe you just have tall poppy syndrome?

first of all, i very much doubt that all examiners are going to know that definition of "stigamata". if this was an english exam then the teacher should know the word, but being modern history, i dont belive it would be a high priority of any marker to have a dictionary sitting next to them as they mark papers.

second of all, i stopped at leni meeting hitler at wilmershaven, saying how she was commissioned to make films for him. see, by this time, she'd had a successful solo dance career, acted in films and directed films too. she was well known. hitler wanted someone who would do a good job with his films, so he wasnt going to pick someone no one knew about was he? his reputation was on the line, because of his desires for power. he needed to enter politics with a bang to make a difference and gain power for himself.

third of all, your lack of exam doubt seems to be contradicted by the desire you expressed to make a complaint to the board of studies. if you are so sure your answer will get you brilliant marks, then why appeal? personally, this is what i reckon: you are one student out of 65000 ish. if your whole class had an issue then maybe you would be considered for allowances opr similar. however, i really doubt the board will listen much now. maybe they will accept both interpretations. i mean, i could tell you how i answered part B but i wouldnt want to waste my time, because everyone would omly hear you whinge about the unfairness of it all.

to finish up here, i do not take the hsc any less seriously to anyone else. i do however, maintain a balance in my life. the hsc sucks because it seems that for a year we are expected to drop everything so we can get insane uai's. this is not the reality for many people that i know, many of whom, will not walk away with a "bad" uai. the most interesting people i know get good marks and have a balanced life.

btw im a redhead

 

[p342i]

first of all, i very much doubt that all examiners are going to know that definition of "stigamata". if this was an english exam then the teacher should know the word, but being modern history, i dont belive it would be a high priority of any marker to have a dictionary sitting next to them as they mark papers.

second of all, i stopped at leni meeting hitler at wilmershaven, saying how she was commissioned to make films for him. see, by this time, she'd had a successful solo dance career, acted in films and directed films too. she was well known. hitler wanted someone who would do a good job with his films, so he wasnt going to pick someone no one knew about was he? his reputation was on the line, because of his desires for power. he needed to enter politics with a bang to make a difference and gain power for himself.

third of all, your lack of exam doubt seems to be contradicted by the desire you expressed to make a complaint to the board of studies. if you are so sure your answer will get you brilliant marks, then why appeal? personally, this is what i reckon: you are one student out of 65000 ish. if your whole class had an issue then maybe you would be considered for allowances opr similar. however, i really doubt the board will listen much now. maybe they will accept both interpretations. i mean, i could tell you how i answered part B but i wouldnt want to waste my time, because everyone would omly hear you whinge about the unfairness of it all.

to finish up here, i do not take the hsc any less seriously to anyone else. i do however, maintain a balance in my life. the hsc sucks because it seems that for a year we are expected to drop everything so we can get insane uai's. this is not the reality for many people that i know, many of whom, will not walk away with a "bad" uai. the most interesting people i know get good marks and have a balanced life.

btw im a redhead

Meh meh meh: I got 95 in this exam: so either i aced everything and fucked Leni; or just lost a few marks here and there.

And I disagree with the whole concept of a 'good' or 'bad' uai. I got 98.55 and I consider that bad, yet others wouldn't.

 

[nichhhole]

For question (B)

I thought this suited Leni to perfection, as she the interpretations of her are unfairly unbalanced. I began by throwing in a Arthur Balfour quote, "history is written by the winners" - a conviction compounded by Winston Churchill who claimed he was going to "write himself into history". I went on to say that Leni's assocation with the Third Reich had resulted in her labelling as one of the loser's in history, evidenced by the stigmata of "Nazi Sympathiser". Consequently, history delves into hyprocrisy in its attempt to interpret her; and that this claim is supporter simply in the disparity in both number of prominence of the various interpretations of Mrs Riefenstahl. I therefore supported my argument by presenting five interpretations of Leni, four of them which can be classified as 'negative' and only one that is 'postiive'.

NEGATIVE

Dr Jacquiline Hollingworth

Elllen Cheshire

Andrew G Bonnell

Susan Sontag

POSITIVE

Audrey Salkeld

Therefore, as evident in the inbalance of interpretations.... bla bla bla.

I though the question was suitable for Leni, but limiting. I think it would be hard to mount a case that tried to prove it was balanced. Plus it seems all you could do was compare interpretations; once again Modern History promotes itself as a subject reminescent of science or maths whereby who knows the most and can express it in the most boring way possibly is rewarded; whilst innovation and originality [traits valued in English Adv, Ext 1 and 2; Ancient and Extension History] goes without success.

Still I shouldn't be complaining, I'm assured I will get a high band five if not band six.

This is the end to a terrible relationship between me and modern history.

ahh thats an excellent way of responding, but wasn't it Orwell?