Very true, the question should only have been asked if it said something like, "By referring to juvenile justice, OR ONE other current criminal justice issue, compare and contrast the problems faced by TWO different groups when coming into contact with the Criminal Justice System".
I believe that's how it was asked in a past HSC paper. The fact is that Question 17 (c) is not on the syllabus - yes some people did it and by chance they got lucky - the issue here isn't whether one should have been able to apply extra-curricular knowledge, the issue is that many students did not do juvenile justice and many students did, as far as i know the HSC Exam has one purpose - to provide a complete NSW-wide way of ranking every student for a course - and to do that the BOS devises the Syllabus which is everything that can be asked of the students. It gives equality of opportunity - one thing that was not given in the HSC Exam. And that's the issue - equality.
Was the question equally fair to ALL students?
No.
If it was, why would so many be angry?
The question was not on the syllabus. Ergo, should not have been asked.
If you can find the dot point of the syllabus that says, "Juvenile Criminal Justice issues for young male and young female offenders", I will gladly take off my hat and admit that you are right. Did I come across juvenile issues in my study? You bet ya, and I made a note of it, as well as the other 14 criminal justice issues I had ready depending on what the question might be leaning to. The syllabus dot point gives each and every student an option - they can do whatever issue they wish, and they can do as many as they wish, which is the way it should have been asked in the exam - an option - providing equality to all.
For the people who believe it was fair I'm not here to attack you - if I was in your position I would be feeling lucky as hell and would probably have the exact attitude you have now.
But I ask you this, If the issue was "DNA testing of the criminal justice system using examples" would you be feeling the way you are? Chances are you'd be feeling like everyone else not in your position. If the issue was "Compare/Contrast gay and lesbian offenders and their contact with the Criminal Justice system" would you be feeling the way you are now?
The point is that asking issues specifically immediately discriminates between students who are lucky and those who are not - the HSC is to discriminate between the good, better and great students; which is why questions are asked fairly - our essays are a prime example - how many students were able to remember and address every single issue and remedy of world order or workplace or family, with examples of legislation, media articles, quotes from books and cases? The good students address most with legislation and some cases, the better students address all issues and remedies with legislation and cases, maybe even a media report, the great students address every issue, with a tonne of legislation, many case studies, quotes and references to media articles, and quotes from books by journalists and lawyers.
That's how we are judged - not on "Damn you were lucky, you studied 2 or 3 legal issues and one of em was on the test". We are judged fairly and equally to give every student the opportunity to show their potential. The idea of hard questions is to try and see what each student knows, has studied, was taught, and remembered all in combination. When faced with Question 17 (b) there will be students who didn't have a clue, some who had a mild idea, and others who knew exactly the ways to prevent crime - note that this question was fair because it made students link what they knew (Methods of Crime Prevention) with juveniles, it's applying knowledge. 17 (c) did not do this. Even 17 (d) had it's link to the syllabus - one needed to know the headings to assess "effectiveness" (from the syllabus) and then apply it to their knowledge of adults (which is studied in crime) and juveniles (which is broader and thus easier than specifically male and female offenders in (c)) and one could argue it was possible for a good student to manage a top quality answer.
I think what most people are getting a little edgy about with your attitude is simply that they want you to see it their way. From what I studied of juvenile issues I'd say I'm closer to your position than most, i knew SOME stuff. Just don't completely and utterly believe you are right. You might be, others might be, it's all up to the BOS now, but just realise that people here aren't looking to get attacked, they're obviously in this thread specifically because they believe there was an injustice - do you? If not, why are you in this thread? They don't want you to support the whole effort to pressure the BOS, they don't want you to attack them. They simply want you to think, "hey if I was in their position, that's what I'd be doing..."
