sugared plum
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2003
- Messages
- 302
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2003
okay i do tutoring, and a yr 11 student had a legal studies essay to write.
the question was:
“Rules and laws, morals and social etiquettes are needed to help maintain social cohesion. Without effective rules or laws to limit the disruptive behaviour of individuals or where society’s social values are challenged or lost, individual members of society, generally the strongest, will be allowed to lead the weakest towards uncivilised or primitive actions they might not otherwise consider.”
Discuss this statement and provide examples to justify your agreement or disagreement to it.
so, the student wrote an essay about the relationship between law and society, as the first phrase indicates, and then discussed the contradictions inherent in words like "uncivilised" and "primitive" highlighting the problems of language and the legal system, the mistaken idea that law = justice. essentially the student was "disagreeing" with the statement, arguing that the processes outlined in the quote (individuals lead weakest towards "primitive" actions/law maintaining order and "civilisation") were not necessarily true.
for the essay, which was well written and the points clearly established and supported, the student was given 6/10. the teacher's comment was, "you are meant to DISCUSS, not disagree with the statement".
what should i do??
the question was:
“Rules and laws, morals and social etiquettes are needed to help maintain social cohesion. Without effective rules or laws to limit the disruptive behaviour of individuals or where society’s social values are challenged or lost, individual members of society, generally the strongest, will be allowed to lead the weakest towards uncivilised or primitive actions they might not otherwise consider.”
Discuss this statement and provide examples to justify your agreement or disagreement to it.
so, the student wrote an essay about the relationship between law and society, as the first phrase indicates, and then discussed the contradictions inherent in words like "uncivilised" and "primitive" highlighting the problems of language and the legal system, the mistaken idea that law = justice. essentially the student was "disagreeing" with the statement, arguing that the processes outlined in the quote (individuals lead weakest towards "primitive" actions/law maintaining order and "civilisation") were not necessarily true.
for the essay, which was well written and the points clearly established and supported, the student was given 6/10. the teacher's comment was, "you are meant to DISCUSS, not disagree with the statement".
what should i do??
