apologize all you want, but those who wrote two related texts will not be disadvantaged unless their content was worse than yours. Both texts shall be marked.
Hmm... thomas i get what your saying but then what's the point of the board requesting one related text - the point of it was most likely (well this is largely speculation) to catch out regurgitated essays like you say but by simply saying ok... let's not penalise them because it might affect people who didn't answer the question or the minority that ignored the question in the hope of going above and beyond really just makes concessions that those who did have pre prepared essays. It essentially fails to bring down the system it set out to beat. i'm not even up for penalising them - i just think it's more reasonable to have the first related text that is stated to be marked and the other to be disregarded. Essentially MARK what it is requesting. How do you distinguish between which is the better text if you did two related? You don't just choose the first text that is mentioned and is described in detail and this can be applied across the board maintaining what i believe to be equality for both people who did 1 essay and people who did 2 related texts. If you truly had enough depth in your (by that i don't mean you aerath im just talking generally) related texts then you wouldn't be disadvantaged by the system of marking that im proposing. It leaves no rooms for buffers for people who did 2 and still maintains the idea that the board of studies is looking for the greater depth in responses. But then again this is just my little rant
I could not agree more. ReppedHmm... thomas i get what your saying but then what's the point of the board requesting one related text - the point of it was most likely (well this is largely speculation) to catch out regurgitated essays like you say but by simply saying ok... let's not penalise them because it might affect people who didn't answer the question or the minority that ignored the question in the hope of going above and beyond really just makes concessions that those who did have pre prepared essays. It essentially fails to bring down the system it set out to beat. i'm not even up for penalising them - i just think it's more reasonable to have the first related text that is stated to be marked and the other to be disregarded. Essentially MARK what it is requesting. How do you distinguish between which is the better text if you did two related? You don't just choose the first text that is mentioned and is described in detail and this can be applied across the board maintaining what i believe to be equality for both people who did 1 essay and people who did 2 related texts. If you truly had enough depth in your (by that i don't mean you aerath im just talking generally) related texts then you wouldn't be disadvantaged by the system of marking that im proposing. It leaves no rooms for buffers for people who did 2 and still maintains the idea that the board of studies is looking for the greater depth in responses. But then again this is just my little rant
Yeah but, responses with ONE related text would be susceptible to band 3-4 as well... Wait a minute, are you actually making a point or are you just wasting oxygen?
Yeah but the ones with 2 related texts are more likely to be there since I doubt many kids who wrote about two related texts can get very far since their discussion is limited. It'll be hilarious if one of the kids responses with the two related texts ends up being in the exemplar responses.
kids that can write fast and just regurgitate can have as much depth with 2 related texts easy. When people can easily due 13+ with 2 related im pretty sure the discussion won't be limited.
It would be unfair to penalise people who have simply went above and beyond the actual requirement simply because they believed they had more to say and they could dish out an equal amount of depth required by both related texts - it'd be impossible to differentiate between them and the people who didn't read the question. That's why i proposed the system where you simply ignore the second related text.
But they didn't. The question didn't say- use ONE related text, but feel free to go above and beyond the actual requirement, because you're used to using a second text. At the end of the day, the people who did 2 related texts should have played it safe and just answered the question.
it's because they didn't say that they went and above the actual requirement of one text by using two texts - that is if they went indepth with two texts, but i still maintain the view that the markers should only be mark on the requirements of the examination which is 1 related text.
Actually, I agree with pretty much all of that. Only thing is, I was actually asking that question to people who decided to 'cap' those who did two related at numbers they pulled out of their ass, like 13, 12, and god forbid, even 9.Hmm... thomas i get what your saying but then what's the point of the board requesting one related text - the point of it was most likely (well this is largely speculation) to catch out regurgitated essays like you say but by simply saying ok... let's not penalise them because it might affect people who didn't answer the question or the minority that ignored the question in the hope of going above and beyond really just makes concessions that those who did have pre prepared essays. It essentially fails to bring down the system it set out to beat. i'm not even up for penalising them - i just think it's more reasonable to have the first related text that is stated to be marked and the other to be disregarded. Essentially MARK what it is requesting. How do you distinguish between which is the better text if you did two related? You don't just choose the first text that is mentioned and is described in detail and this can be applied across the board maintaining what i believe to be equality for both people who did 1 essay and people who did 2 related texts. If you truly had enough depth in your (by that i don't mean you aerath im just talking generally) related texts then you wouldn't be disadvantaged by the system of marking that im proposing. It leaves no rooms for buffers for people who did 2 and still maintains the idea that the board of studies is looking for the greater depth in responses. But then again this is just my little rant
Amen to that.