super katie said:
The actual objectives and outcomes of the course hasnt changed, markers are still marking to the same standards they always have been under the new HSC.
This is very wrong. I've given true information about official BOS stuff on these forums before, but it's anyone's prerogative whether to believe the following or not. I know, for a fact, that at the marking of 2001 and 2002 major works, the Examiners were still intepreting the syllabus requirements. Especially in the first year, they had absolutely no idea how to implement effective criteria to mark the majors. What it came down to were the major works that read the best - investigation, purpose, refinement of audience were all secondary. They are only recent evolutions to the marking. The students of HSC 2001 were told they wouldn't be marked too harshly in any subject; for EE2, this was definitely the case.
I honestly think that the reason the number of top candidates is dropping is because the marker's expectations are becoming higher. Yes, there is a lot of crap out there, but I disagree that this crap was not prevalent in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004. Such amounts of poor writing are probably what led the markers to reinterpret the syllabus requirements in subsequent years, feeling they had been too easy, and place a different weighting on different aspects of the major work. I know one very highly-placed EE2 official, whom in 2001 was telling teachers that the Reflection Statement was going to be used as a summary of the journal; only to verify authenticity. How things have changed...
wrong thread for this but anyway.
