We got the easiest papers in the history of the HSC (2 Viewers)

[jippie154]

if ur complaining ur paper was easy just be glad u didnt do the standard paper lol!

was standard really easy?

 

[emelia_11]

i found the paper actually really difficult, i got totally thrown off at such specific questions. i didn't mind module c, but module b and especially module a (pride and prej, letters to alice) completely screwed me over and i'll be suprised if i get a 70!

 

[Dog-en-men]

Business wasn't easy

 

[RBKSoulja]

OG, you're a dick. Having seen past questions for these modules, I haven't seen many as weird and different as this paper. I mean, Blade Runner/Frankenstein (ModA) wanted "Disruption" and "Identity" neither of which had anything to do with the syllabus and we'd never learnt about in class. We had 6 other themes/concepts, but not them.

but the easy thing about disruption is that its so vague, and basically u can BS ur argument about the texts. it could be disruption of life, nature, harmony, ethicality just to name a few. and identity is even better cos u can just talk about the loss of it through sci and tech advancement within the two texts and how the "monsters" of each text act as metaphors of that. but i guess its a bit late to say this now =p=p

IMO, the paper was pretty easy compared to previous years; our school did the Frankenstein/BR, kenneth slessor and Julius Caesar (conflicting perspectives). the questions were really broad and most of us could easily fit our thesis to the question and just churn out stuff from the night b4 with minor additions and alterations =p

 

[Makro]

The issue was it wasn't something specific like "understanding" (paper 1) which you could find in the syllabus. They're asking random shit, though yes it was okay to answer if you didn't freak out. Dunno about you guys but our school told us about 6 different themes/concepts/ideas for BR/Fr. Role of women, role of science, nature of humanity, something environment, something religion and can't remember the 6th. In any case the syllabus seemed pretty useless (except for belonging).

What happened to "If it's not in the syllabus, you can't be tested on it, so don't worry"? Read an email from one of our teachers and he says the teachers are outraged about the paper because they had no idea it was going to be like that. From a student's perspective, we're thinking "Oh, fuck, quickly adapt my thesis to this question and GO" whilst teachers are thinking "What the hell? They can't answer this, they're not prepared to talk about these concepts".

English syllabus' need to be a shitload more informing or the BoS can not ask such random questions. I understand the crackdown on pre-planned essays, however if they just did what they did for belonging, then that'd be fine. At least put these themes/concepts into the syllabus so we know they exist.

In the end, I still answered them to my ability, which would've smashed my trial (even if the trial was easier), but it's just silly.

 

[daniel81]

I understand the crackdown on pre-planned essays, however if they just did what they did for belonging, then that'd be fine.

What, ask for ONE related text and then not punish those that just wrote two because their pre-prepared essay had two?

 

[RBKSoulja]

What, ask for ONE related text and then not punish those that just wrote two because their pre-prepared essay had two?

hah i know right? thats f*cken messed up big time. cos technically they haven't answered the question. and its screwed up if the examiners are gonna go "oh they have 3 texts, we'll just take the best two" cos every1 else whos had to adapt and cut short their essay is probably not as set, depending on who you are. personally, i found it ok to adapt to cos one of my texts didnt have much analysis anyway.

whatever happened to READING and ANSWERING THE BLOODY QUESTION!? ><"