Q Crime (c) young male and young female (1 Viewer)

[Kirika]

yeah i got that email about 'looking into the situation'... wonder if they actually are? well anyway it was good of them to reply so quickly. hope they do something about it though.

 

[irnie]

i bet they wont

 

[rnitya_25]

don't be taken aback, the only reason it was replied to so quickly was because its a default mail/letter. they've probably sent those exact same words to anyone who complained. they just MIGHT look into it. don't count on the letters working though!

 

[rink]

did u guys only complain about question c or about both c and d?

 

[Rafy]

well imo Question D needed complaining about as well.

What it pertained to was in the syllabus, but again there is a seperation of "people" into adult, and children. again questions of fairness are raised as those who did juviniele justice as their optional case study, are better handled to answer the question.

The question should have related to course content that all students would have covered,

 

[rink]

yeah D was ridiculous aswell, i mean it wasn't in the syllabus and it was so broad
can someone show me where in the syllabus question d could possibly relate to?

 

[Rafy]

yeah D was ridiculous aswell, i mean it wasn't in the syllabus and it was so broad
can someone show me where in the syllabus question d could possibly relate to?

Hmmm this i think, at least a few parts of it anyway:

Effectiveness of the Law
¥ factors to be considered when evaluating the effectiveness of law in achieving
justice:
Ð for individuals: equality, accessibility, enforceability, resource efficiency,
protection and recognition of individual rights
Ð for society: resource efficiency, law as a reflection of community standards
and expectations, opportunities for enforcement, appeals and review,
balance of individual rights and values and community rights and values



Regardless, D was poorly phrased and ambigious as well. What is "EFFECTIVENESS of treatment" meant to mean??

 

[rink]

i fail to see how that has anyhting to do with the q. The q was ''evaluate the effectiveness of the treatment of adults and juveniles by the criminal justice system''
the q didn't ask to evaluate the effectiveness of achieving justice or whatever, it said evaluate the effectiveness of their treatment.......and plus, the syllabus doesnt categorise people into adults and juveniles, it categorises people into the individual and society
it's way too vague and broad
stupid q......12marks..........those who studied juveniles will be majorly advantaged

 

[Chelsea1706]

Complaint re: Crime

Ok everyone, i have just written a formal complaint via email to the board of studies in regard to that stupid "male and female juvenile offenders" question. Please do the same:

customerliaison@boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au

Like a few on here have said before me, we can only rectify the situation if we ALL complain about it! If everyone pitches in and complains to the BoS then they will have no choice but to make ammends and either award everyone with 100% (as has been done in the past) or simply not count it at all.

But EVERYONE NEEDS TO COMPLAIN if anything is going to be done. It only takes a few minutes.

I've made the effort, please make the effort too.. because the voice of a crowd much louder that a couple of individuals. Don't let the bastards screw with your hsc!

 

[rink]

Will do, thanks chelsea

and people

complain about question d aswell

it was ridiculous and not on the syllabus and every1 who studied juvenile in class or by themselves will be advantaged.......i dun care if im whinging - the whinging is crucial

 

[SaMi5]

gay as crime!

hey im new to this so i dont kno if this wil work but omg crime was gay! im not the best legal student so i thort it was just me sitting there goin wtf! im glad u al were too... i found the rest of the exam easy tho and yeh i ful on think we have to so somethin bout the crime sectionm it just isnt fair! BOS fuked us over bad as!

 

[rink]

glad u think so sami.....plz complain to them!!! those q's together were worth 19marks.....that could be the difference between u getting into uni or not, my bro missed out on his course coz his UAI was .05 off the cutoff!

 

[SaMi5]

yeh exactly rink... i was sittin there goin if i dont get hose 19 marks i can only get a max of 81 n thats stupid as... god i hope somethin is done about it, i kno our techer is complaining n lest hope everyone elses does!! we cant just let them get away with it coz they r all high n mighty, we gota stand uo to them!

 

[forgotten_dark]

hey as much as I think it was a pretty dodgy question thats not in the syllabus, and I wasn't all that prepared for it, I think it will be stupid if they award "100%" for that section or make it not count or whatever - its unfair on those who might have sacrificed time in one of their essays to finish the crime section off...the best thing they can do, as they have done in the past, is just be lenient with the marking in that section...otherwise it puts others at a disadvantage (and im not speaking for myself by the way, i finished the entire paper, but im just looking from another point of view - there will be people who may have omitted a whole additional focus study essay in order to complete crime due to time management) but anyway i think the appeal is good idea, as long as its not making it a 100% section...

 

[Rafy]

We have the board's response thanks to the media!

rofl, and the smh quoted my post!

Some Legal Studies students yesterday vented anger over a section of Friday's exam that required them to discuss an issue not covered on the syllabus.

One student wrote on the boredofstudies HSC website that the question, worth seven marks out of 100, had caused "uproar and controversy among the student cohort".

The question asked students to "compare and contrast the problems faced by young male and female offenders when they come into contact with the criminal justice system".

A spokeswoman for the NSW Board of Studies said: "Some people were worried that some part of the question was not covered in the syllabus. But we only had 15 emails and phone calls out of 9000-odd students."

"The chief examiner and the supervisor of marking will assess each student's response and if necessary modify the marking guidelines to ensure students get an appropriate mark," she said.

One father had consulted a QC at the weekend about whether the question was fair and appropriate.

http://smh.com.au/news/national/do-...mean-high-marks/2005/10/24/1130006061406.html (Towards the end of the article, after the Maths ramble)

Pupils with a legal gripe

October 25, 2005

BUDDING legal eagles tested the skills of the Board of Studies yesterday when they questioned the legitimacy of part of the HSC legal studies exam.

The Board of Studies confirmed legal studies exam markers would give special consideration to students' answers for Question 17 Part C, after the HSC hotline was inundated with complaints after Friday's exam.

Many students claimed the question – Compare and contrast the problems faced by young male and female offenders when they come into contact with the criminal justice system? – dealt with a topic not covered by the syllabus.

The controversial topic was one of four parts to Question 17, worth a total of 25 marks.

Legal studies teachers yesterday echoed the concerns of their students, claiming many stood to be disadvantaged by the question as they had not covered the issue since Year 11.

Legal studies Association president and Moorebank High School teacher Brian Elliott said that only students who had dealt with juvenile justice in class would have been able to answer the question.

"It wasn't on the syllabus and that's the issue," he said.

Board of Studies spokeswoman Rebecca Lloyd yesterday urged the students not to worry about their answers for Question 17, and to focus on their next exam.

"The chief examiner and the supervisor of marking will consider each student's response and, if necessary, modify the guidelines to ensure each student is awarded the appropriate mark," Ms Lloyd said.

The angst of many legal studies students was added to yesterday as they prepared to sit their maths exam.

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,17019287-5001021,00.html


So know we know their response now: "The chief examiner and the supervisor of marking will assess each student's response and if necessary modify the marking guidelines to ensure students get an appropriate mark," she said.

i.e. they will look at people's responses first and if nessecary, mark leniently.

Its only Part C, probally dosent cover D....

(Btw only 15 people complained according to smh?? But the telegraph says bos was inundated? <3 the media)

 

[rink]

yeah anti mathmite is right......i mean even if they do mark leniently, think of all the people who DID cover juvenile justice in class as part of fulfilling the section of the syllabus that states study a current criminal issue......eg: i did the decriminalisation of cannabis, im sure some ppl would have done juvenile justice........IT'S NOT FAIR

but if ppl left that part blank, that was pretty silly of them

 

[Rafy]

yeh i gotta agree with that. Although i do think that the Board and the markers need to read through the student responses for the question first to see the full extent of the problem. Perhaps more appropriate action will be forthcoming once they see what students wrote.

I do agree that the question should not be allowed to stand.

But yeh the board are taking the cautious approach and are not willing to rush into any decision. They'll read the student responses, and then go from there.


Btw keep sending your complaints to the board and detail unequivocally why the only acceptable course of action is the removal of that question. Keep up the pressure.

 

[Kirika]

only 15 people complained?? that is crap, the first time i rang up i got told that 'im sorry there is no one here who can help u with that'!!! GRRRRRR.... stupid board of studies people. and what does 'mark more leniently' mean anyway? will they give more marks for less answers? more marks for wrong answers?? either way it doesnt get rid of the disadvantage, the question should be taken out!

 

[rnitya_25]

i was talking to my friend who did her hsc last year and did legal studies. i regurgitated crime (c) and (d) to her and she was like.....wow man that is so god damn easy. if i got that, i'd be so happy, there's so much to write about. and she told me what more i could have written about apart from what i already had written. dayam! i guess our year didn't focus much on that area of equality between females, males, and youngsters and adults.

 

[Kirika]

yeah because it wasnt on the syllabus! it wasnt even one of the 'key questions and issues' that they have been throwing around over the lastt few years. anyone who studied it either had some kind of mind power to know they had to or they did coz there teahcer though it was good extra curricular stuff. there is nothing that tells teachers to study the different problems of male and female offenders... and while you cant appeal on the basis that you werent taught something on the syllabys.. IT WASNT THERE!!!!!!