What bos said about the sor 2009 hsc exam (1 Viewer)

[MzBiiBii]

whoa...do you know if the HSC supervisors advised them to do it? or was it sort of...a rebellion type thing?

I read it somewhere in one of the threads... that they just pasued everything because of the amount of students that were shocked and upset etc. I think they were just confused, it was probably something they've never experienced before ?

read this
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/maralynparker/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/studies_of_religion_exam_stopped_for_one_hour/

couldnt the students have chosen a different religious tradition for the extended response?

To be honest, apparently Budhism nd Hinduism (excuse my spelling) had better options...I personally don't know coz i do the other three...that's what upset people aswell because they said those who did Budhism nd Hinduism had more of an advanatge than others.

I personally did Christianity I didn't bother thinking twice bout Islam or Judiasm, Christianity seemed the better option.

 

[louie1107]

so XTY and judaism were the problem questions

 

[louie1107]

jsut read louie1107's link, and oh my god...i really hope the BOS reads the comments below the article.
as for those who 'got the marks they paid for' thats complete bullshit. i go to a private school and we didn't complain. so excuse us for paying for our education. the BOS does not award extra marks to private schools. just thought i'd clear that up.

and fine, i'll give them that. so they were stressed, crying, and chucking a tantrum. fair enough--i can see how a mentally unstable person obsessed with the HSC would panic at section 3 (i don't empathise for these people, but yes. i do see how they would panic). it's the calm students in the exam who have benefited from this, however.
they had A WHOLE HOUR TO PLAN THEIR ESSAYS. and i'm sure those who were unsure consulted the 'smart kids' during that hour, in which the supervisors would have been too busy controlling the students in tears to ensure that the rest of the room completely refrained from discussion.

lol yeah i did christianity too. it really wasn't that bad. have no idea how people even TRIED to do judaism.
and as for the 'better' questions for buddhism and hinduism...that's really unfair. i hope the BOS is only lenient in section III for judaism, islam and christianity...
if not...that sort of defeats the whole point of 'taking the unexpectedness of the question' into consideration, since the buddhist and hindu qs weren't much different to previous papers.

ahaha I know, i thought the same thing about BOS reading their comments
there is a thing going around on facebook asking for ppls opinions on the paper and they are going to send it officially to the BOS

 

[louie1107]

do you think the BOS will read everything though? they're being swamped with complaints-- NATIONALLY. and this is only for ONE subject, which hardly anyone does...
on top of that they've got a dead line for marking.

far outttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt IM FUMINGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!

hahah i know, reading all this stuff makes me heaps mad
i feel so powerless as well because realistically people are not
going to confess they had extra time and its too hard
to monitor or whatever, lucky fkers

 

[Skaps]

IMPORTANT:
I have written a letter which i intend to send to the Board of Studies regarding my concerns and those of others regarding the 'delay' of up to one hour which some schools had immediately after writing time.

anyone who wants to put their name to this letter, leave your name (initial for last name is fine) and school.

Here is the text of the body of the letter:
To the Office of the Board of Studies NSW,
On behalf of the students who underwent the 2009 Higher School Certificate Studies of Religion Examination, I would like to convey to you a series of concerns that a significant number of students have expressed in relation to the way that the said examination was conducted in a series of exam centres.
Reports have been released by the media, and passed on via students who underwent the examination in these exam centres, that these exams were significantly delayed. It also appears, and I quote Rebecca Lloyd of the Office of the Board of Studies NSW, that there was “a school with a delay of an hour in starting the exam”. While it was then stated that this delay was “not used as extra preparation time”, Lloyd acknowledges that the delay occurred during reading time, and after the students had been able to read through the examination paper and the questions that it contains. This delay is said to have been caused by “confusion about the question”, particularly in relation to the question contained in section III of the examination paper.

What I and a significant number of my peers are concerned about is that this delay occurred after the students involved had been given the opportunity to read and consider the questions. While Rebecca Lloyd claims that this time was not utilised as extra preparation time, the very fact that the delay was considered necessary to settle the confusion surrounding the question is indicative of the fact that the students in this particular exam centre, and those that also had a similar delay, were considering the questions within the exam paper for the duration of this period. This time would have allowed the students to plan their essays and/or to consider how to best answer the questions that were posed.

At a personal level, I too was initially confused by the question contained in section III and, as such, had to stop and give due consideration to the question. The fact that I, and the students for whom this letter is written, were forced to plan and prepare to answer this question within the original parameters of the exam whilst a series of other examination centres had a delay within which to consider the questions puts us at a distinct disadvantage. In the eyes of those students for whom this letter is written, confusion resulting from a legal question does not necessitate a delay which unfairly benefitted the centres concerned. It is also highly implausible that all the students in the centres concerned had a significant issue with the question and as a result those who were able to interpret the question had the full duration of the delay to refine the structure and nature of their responses.
According to an article posted on the website of the Daily Telegraph, a teacher was also called in at a particular school to aid the examination supervisors in what Lloyd defined as “settling the confusion” concerning the question. This appears to be an opportunity for the students to discuss the question with the said teacher, again putting them at a significant advantage to those who underwent the exam as expected.
The same correspondence by Lloyd then indicates that the delays were treated in the same manner as emergency situations such as “an emergency evacuation... or floods”. Lloyd acknowledges that it is “unusual that this delay was caused by a question” and yet claims that the “manner in which it was handled was within our normal procedures for abnormal events.” As far as I was aware, exam related stress and the simple fact that the question posed varied from previous questions do not qualify as ‘abnormal events’.
In closing I would indicate that I, and the many that share my perspective, are deeply distressed that the Office of the Board of Studies has not as yet released a statement acknowledging that students who experienced such a delay were put at a distinct advantage. As a result we propose that these delays are taken into consideration in the marking centre in order to ensure that the consistent examination conditions for which the Office of the Board of Studies NSW claims are one of its primary objectives. A refusal to acknowledge the advantage at which the students in these marking centres were put would serve to establish a dangerous precedent whereby students who are yet to undergo their Higher School Certificate could collaborate to ensure that they too receive such a delay in the period immediately following reading time.
With profound concern,
Nick S.
Thanks in advance

 

[mitch47]

I am a bit contemplative on this subject. I do one unit and when they said reading time we all looked around at each other like wtf .... i ended up doin Christianity and just wrote about what I felt comprised the religious tradition and included all aspects (teachings, significant person, practice, ethics) because I figured the question can't be on anything other than those three things.......the one thing that confused me was the fact that the question said 'with reference to the statement above' which I felt implied the answer required constant links to the statement on resurrection.....I could not decipher what section it was on (I have heard it is meant to be on ethics) so just wrote from common knowledge.....you can't get into the hsc and write 'invalid question' on the paper and those people should not be rewarded....rather the people who made an attempt at the question using their own knowledge and didn't freak out should be judged equally...I don't want to lose marks because I didn't focus solely on ethics but if there is really a problem and everyone was confused, it will be brought up when they are marking the papers

 

[MzBiiBii]

Skaps: That's a pretty good letter


mitch47: My teacher said we should have focused on both practice and ethics...since our person was from the middle ages

So technically it didn't have to be only on ethics. I did baptism, and it was okay

 

[Skaps]

Skaps: That's a pretty good letter

does that mean you would like to put your name behind it?
if so could u give me your first name, initial of your last name and the name of your school

thanks

 

[possessionless]

I am a bit contemplative on this subject. I do one unit and when they said reading time we all looked around at each other like wtf .... i ended up doin Christianity and just wrote about what I felt comprised the religious tradition and included all aspects (teachings, significant person, practice, ethics) because I figured the question can't be on anything other than those three things.......the one thing that confused me was the fact that the question said 'with reference to the statement above' which I felt implied the answer required constant links to the statement on resurrection.....I could not decipher what section it was on (I have heard it is meant to be on ethics) so just wrote from common knowledge.....you can't get into the hsc and write 'invalid question' on the paper and those people should not be rewarded....rather the people who made an attempt at the question using their own knowledge and didn't freak out should be judged equally...I don't want to lose marks because I didn't focus solely on ethics but if there is really a problem and everyone was confused, it will be brought up when they are marking the papers

it was ethics or significant practice.

 

[louie1107]

IMPORTANT:
I have written a letter which i intend to send to the Board of Studies regarding my concerns and those of others regarding the 'delay' of up to one hour which some schools had immediately after writing time.

anyone who wants to put their name to this letter, leave your name (initial for last name is fine) and school.

Here is the text of the body of the letter:
To the Office of the Board of Studies NSW,
On behalf of the students who underwent the 2009 Higher School Certificate Studies of Religion Examination, I would like to convey to you a series of concerns that a significant number of students have expressed in relation to the way that the said examination was conducted in a series of exam centres.
Reports have been released by the media, and passed on via students who underwent the examination in these exam centres, that these exams were significantly delayed. It also appears, and I quote Rebecca Lloyd of the Office of the Board of Studies NSW, that there was “a school with a delay of an hour in starting the exam”. While it was then stated that this delay was “not used as extra preparation time”, Lloyd acknowledges that the delay occurred during reading time, and after the students had been able to read through the examination paper and the questions that it contains. This delay is said to have been caused by “confusion about the question”, particularly in relation to the question contained in section III of the examination paper.

What I and a significant number of my peers are concerned about is that this delay occurred after the students involved had been given the opportunity to read and consider the questions. While Rebecca Lloyd claims that this time was not utilised as extra preparation time, the very fact that the delay was considered necessary to settle the confusion surrounding the question is indicative of the fact that the students in this particular exam centre, and those that also had a similar delay, were considering the questions within the exam paper for the duration of this period. This time would have allowed the students to plan their essays and/or to consider how to best answer the questions that were posed.

At a personal level, I too was initially confused by the question contained in section III and, as such, had to stop and give due consideration to the question. The fact that I, and the students for whom this letter is written, were forced to plan and prepare to answer this question within the original parameters of the exam whilst a series of other examination centres had a delay within which to consider the questions puts us at a distinct disadvantage. In the eyes of those students for whom this letter is written, confusion resulting from a legal question does not necessitate a delay which unfairly benefitted the centres concerned. It is also highly implausible that all the students in the centres concerned had a significant issue with the question and as a result those who were able to interpret the question had the full duration of the delay to refine the structure and nature of their responses.
According to an article posted on the website of the Daily Telegraph, a teacher was also called in at a particular school to aid the examination supervisors in what Lloyd defined as “settling the confusion” concerning the question. This appears to be an opportunity for the students to discuss the question with the said teacher, again putting them at a significant advantage to those who underwent the exam as expected.
The same correspondence by Lloyd then indicates that the delays were treated in the same manner as emergency situations such as “an emergency evacuation... or floods”. Lloyd acknowledges that it is “unusual that this delay was caused by a question” and yet claims that the “manner in which it was handled was within our normal procedures for abnormal events.” As far as I was aware, exam related stress and the simple fact that the question posed varied from previous questions do not qualify as ‘abnormal events’.
In closing I would indicate that I, and the many that share my perspective, are deeply distressed that the Office of the Board of Studies has not as yet released a statement acknowledging that students who experienced such a delay were put at a distinct advantage. As a result we propose that these delays are taken into consideration in the marking centre in order to ensure that the consistent examination conditions for which the Office of the Board of Studies NSW claims are one of its primary objectives. A refusal to acknowledge the advantage at which the students in these marking centres were put would serve to establish a dangerous precedent whereby students who are yet to undergo their Higher School Certificate could collaborate to ensure that they too receive such a delay in the period immediately following reading time.
With profound concern,
Nick S.
Thanks in advance

AGRREEEED!!!! x10 ....a gazillion

 

[NCB619]

IMPORTANT:
I have written a letter which i intend to send to the Board of Studies regarding my concerns and those of others regarding the 'delay' of up to one hour which some schools had immediately after writing time.

anyone who wants to put their name to this letter, leave your name (initial for last name is fine) and school.

Here is the text of the body of the letter:
To the Office of the Board of Studies NSW,
On behalf of the students who underwent the 2009 Higher School Certificate Studies of Religion Examination, I would like to convey to you a series of concerns that a significant number of students have expressed in relation to the way that the said examination was conducted in a series of exam centres.
Reports have been released by the media, and passed on via students who underwent the examination in these exam centres, that these exams were significantly delayed. It also appears, and I quote Rebecca Lloyd of the Office of the Board of Studies NSW, that there was “a school with a delay of an hour in starting the exam”. While it was then stated that this delay was “not used as extra preparation time”, Lloyd acknowledges that the delay occurred during reading time, and after the students had been able to read through the examination paper and the questions that it contains. This delay is said to have been caused by “confusion about the question”, particularly in relation to the question contained in section III of the examination paper.

What I and a significant number of my peers are concerned about is that this delay occurred after the students involved had been given the opportunity to read and consider the questions. While Rebecca Lloyd claims that this time was not utilised as extra preparation time, the very fact that the delay was considered necessary to settle the confusion surrounding the question is indicative of the fact that the students in this particular exam centre, and those that also had a similar delay, were considering the questions within the exam paper for the duration of this period. This time would have allowed the students to plan their essays and/or to consider how to best answer the questions that were posed.

At a personal level, I too was initially confused by the question contained in section III and, as such, had to stop and give due consideration to the question. The fact that I, and the students for whom this letter is written, were forced to plan and prepare to answer this question within the original parameters of the exam whilst a series of other examination centres had a delay within which to consider the questions puts us at a distinct disadvantage. In the eyes of those students for whom this letter is written, confusion resulting from a legal question does not necessitate a delay which unfairly benefitted the centres concerned. It is also highly implausible that all the students in the centres concerned had a significant issue with the question and as a result those who were able to interpret the question had the full duration of the delay to refine the structure and nature of their responses.
According to an article posted on the website of the Daily Telegraph, a teacher was also called in at a particular school to aid the examination supervisors in what Lloyd defined as “settling the confusion” concerning the question. This appears to be an opportunity for the students to discuss the question with the said teacher, again putting them at a significant advantage to those who underwent the exam as expected.
The same correspondence by Lloyd then indicates that the delays were treated in the same manner as emergency situations such as “an emergency evacuation... or floods”. Lloyd acknowledges that it is “unusual that this delay was caused by a question” and yet claims that the “manner in which it was handled was within our normal procedures for abnormal events.” As far as I was aware, exam related stress and the simple fact that the question posed varied from previous questions do not qualify as ‘abnormal events’.
In closing I would indicate that I, and the many that share my perspective, are deeply distressed that the Office of the Board of Studies has not as yet released a statement acknowledging that students who experienced such a delay were put at a distinct advantage. As a result we propose that these delays are taken into consideration in the marking centre in order to ensure that the consistent examination conditions for which the Office of the Board of Studies NSW claims are one of its primary objectives. A refusal to acknowledge the advantage at which the students in these marking centres were put would serve to establish a dangerous precedent whereby students who are yet to undergo their Higher School Certificate could collaborate to ensure that they too receive such a delay in the period immediately following reading time.
With profound concern,
Nick S.
Thanks in advance

Nic B. - Marian Catholic College, Griffith

 

[Pain]

IMPORTANT:
I have written a letter which i intend to send to the Board of Studies regarding my concerns and those of others regarding the 'delay' of up to one hour which some schools had immediately after writing time.

anyone who wants to put their name to this letter, leave your name (initial for last name is fine) and school.

Here is the text of the body of the letter:
To the Office of the Board of Studies NSW,
On behalf of the students who underwent the 2009 Higher School Certificate Studies of Religion Examination, I would like to convey to you a series of concerns that a significant number of students have expressed in relation to the way that the said examination was conducted in a series of exam centres.
Reports have been released by the media, and passed on via students who underwent the examination in these exam centres, that these exams were significantly delayed. It also appears, and I quote Rebecca Lloyd of the Office of the Board of Studies NSW, that there was “a school with a delay of an hour in starting the exam”. While it was then stated that this delay was “not used as extra preparation time”, Lloyd acknowledges that the delay occurred during reading time, and after the students had been able to read through the examination paper and the questions that it contains. This delay is said to have been caused by “confusion about the question”, particularly in relation to the question contained in section III of the examination paper.

What I and a significant number of my peers are concerned about is that this delay occurred after the students involved had been given the opportunity to read and consider the questions. While Rebecca Lloyd claims that this time was not utilised as extra preparation time, the very fact that the delay was considered necessary to settle the confusion surrounding the question is indicative of the fact that the students in this particular exam centre, and those that also had a similar delay, were considering the questions within the exam paper for the duration of this period. This time would have allowed the students to plan their essays and/or to consider how to best answer the questions that were posed.

At a personal level, I too was initially confused by the question contained in section III and, as such, had to stop and give due consideration to the question. The fact that I, and the students for whom this letter is written, were forced to plan and prepare to answer this question within the original parameters of the exam whilst a series of other examination centres had a delay within which to consider the questions puts us at a distinct disadvantage. In the eyes of those students for whom this letter is written, confusion resulting from a legal question does not necessitate a delay which unfairly benefitted the centres concerned. It is also highly implausible that all the students in the centres concerned had a significant issue with the question and as a result those who were able to interpret the question had the full duration of the delay to refine the structure and nature of their responses.
According to an article posted on the website of the Daily Telegraph, a teacher was also called in at a particular school to aid the examination supervisors in what Lloyd defined as “settling the confusion” concerning the question. This appears to be an opportunity for the students to discuss the question with the said teacher, again putting them at a significant advantage to those who underwent the exam as expected.
The same correspondence by Lloyd then indicates that the delays were treated in the same manner as emergency situations such as “an emergency evacuation... or floods”. Lloyd acknowledges that it is “unusual that this delay was caused by a question” and yet claims that the “manner in which it was handled was within our normal procedures for abnormal events.” As far as I was aware, exam related stress and the simple fact that the question posed varied from previous questions do not qualify as ‘abnormal events’.
In closing I would indicate that I, and the many that share my perspective, are deeply distressed that the Office of the Board of Studies has not as yet released a statement acknowledging that students who experienced such a delay were put at a distinct advantage. As a result we propose that these delays are taken into consideration in the marking centre in order to ensure that the consistent examination conditions for which the Office of the Board of Studies NSW claims are one of its primary objectives. A refusal to acknowledge the advantage at which the students in these marking centres were put would serve to establish a dangerous precedent whereby students who are yet to undergo their Higher School Certificate could collaborate to ensure that they too receive such a delay in the period immediately following reading time.
With profound concern,
Nick S.
Thanks in advance

 

[mesbaz]

IMPORTANT:
I have written a letter which i intend to send to the Board of Studies regarding my concerns and those of others regarding the 'delay' of up to one hour which some schools had immediately after writing time.

anyone who wants to put their name to this letter, leave your name (initial for last name is fine) and school.

Here is the text of the body of the letter:
To the Office of the Board of Studies NSW,
On behalf of the students who underwent the 2009 Higher School Certificate Studies of Religion Examination, I would like to convey to you a series of concerns that a significant number of students have expressed in relation to the way that the said examination was conducted in a series of exam centres.
Reports have been released by the media, and passed on via students who underwent the examination in these exam centres, that these exams were significantly delayed. It also appears, and I quote Rebecca Lloyd of the Office of the Board of Studies NSW, that there was “a school with a delay of an hour in starting the exam”. While it was then stated that this delay was “not used as extra preparation time”, Lloyd acknowledges that the delay occurred during reading time, and after the students had been able to read through the examination paper and the questions that it contains. This delay is said to have been caused by “confusion about the question”, particularly in relation to the question contained in section III of the examination paper.

What I and a significant number of my peers are concerned about is that this delay occurred after the students involved had been given the opportunity to read and consider the questions. While Rebecca Lloyd claims that this time was not utilised as extra preparation time, the very fact that the delay was considered necessary to settle the confusion surrounding the question is indicative of the fact that the students in this particular exam centre, and those that also had a similar delay, were considering the questions within the exam paper for the duration of this period. This time would have allowed the students to plan their essays and/or to consider how to best answer the questions that were posed.

At a personal level, I too was initially confused by the question contained in section III and, as such, had to stop and give due consideration to the question. The fact that I, and the students for whom this letter is written, were forced to plan and prepare to answer this question within the original parameters of the exam whilst a series of other examination centres had a delay within which to consider the questions puts us at a distinct disadvantage. In the eyes of those students for whom this letter is written, confusion resulting from a legal question does not necessitate a delay which unfairly benefitted the centres concerned. It is also highly implausible that all the students in the centres concerned had a significant issue with the question and as a result those who were able to interpret the question had the full duration of the delay to refine the structure and nature of their responses.
According to an article posted on the website of the Daily Telegraph, a teacher was also called in at a particular school to aid the examination supervisors in what Lloyd defined as “settling the confusion” concerning the question. This appears to be an opportunity for the students to discuss the question with the said teacher, again putting them at a significant advantage to those who underwent the exam as expected.
The same correspondence by Lloyd then indicates that the delays were treated in the same manner as emergency situations such as “an emergency evacuation... or floods”. Lloyd acknowledges that it is “unusual that this delay was caused by a question” and yet claims that the “manner in which it was handled was within our normal procedures for abnormal events.” As far as I was aware, exam related stress and the simple fact that the question posed varied from previous questions do not qualify as ‘abnormal events’.
In closing I would indicate that I, and the many that share my perspective, are deeply distressed that the Office of the Board of Studies has not as yet released a statement acknowledging that students who experienced such a delay were put at a distinct advantage. As a result we propose that these delays are taken into consideration in the marking centre in order to ensure that the consistent examination conditions for which the Office of the Board of Studies NSW claims are one of its primary objectives. A refusal to acknowledge the advantage at which the students in these marking centres were put would serve to establish a dangerous precedent whereby students who are yet to undergo their Higher School Certificate could collaborate to ensure that they too receive such a delay in the period immediately following reading time.
With profound concern,
Nick S.
Thanks in advance

I gave you a private message with my details

 

[monsters]

just a big lol at everything concerning this now, and how so many people continue to appeal. the board of studies will, at most, be lenient with marking. they knew what they were doing when they wrote the paper. c'est la vie hey.

 

[Okayla]

the board of studies will, at most, be lenient with marking.

I hope not. The majority of people I believe who are complaining did not know their topic well enough and were not taking SOR as seriously as they should have. I know from my school that alot of people did not take SOR 1 as seriously as a subject like english or math. Each subject should be treated with the same amount of dedication. The questions were broad allowing students to answer in relation to Ethics and/or Practice and if they were smart, and depending on their religion of choice sig person/school of thought.

If there was an issue with the paper it was Section 4 on religion and peace because I'm a fair fan of Richard Dawkins and agree with his statement 110% after reading his books and watching his documentries. It was like writing a booklet of lies just to make the religious institution happy.

​

 

[Bigboyjames lol]

lets be honest, people read ISLAM and went crazy

 

[leana.]

Question 4- Islam ( 20 marks)

The ultimate guidance is the Qur’an given by God through Muhammad...The Qur’an enables humans to see and understand the guidance God has inbuilt in creation.

H Coward.
​

With reference to the quotation, analyse the role played by the revelation through the Prophet in the life of Muslims.
__________________________________________________

--> I truly do not understand why people interpreted this question to be about the Prophet Muhammad. We did not study him as a "significant person", obviously, so why would the BOS force us to centre our responses around him?

The words "revelation through the Prophet" have simply substituted the word "Qur'an"
Hence, the question reads:

With reference to the quotation, analyse the role played by the Qur'an in the life of Muslims.

The question was clearly about the Islamic sacred text being the "ultimate guidance" in the life of Muslims.

The problem I encountered in responding [and i'm sure people can relate], however, was in regards to what sections of the religious tradition Depth Study I should write about [ethics, practice, significant person OR all of above in a very "broad" answer]. The confusion was fuelled by the fact that past papers have clearly divided the Sections to accommodate only ONE of the areas, and although we may have had the knowledge to answer very broadly and include all three, many were uncertain of the consequences of breaking away from the "traditional" response.

There is nothing wrong with the syllabus, the questions were just far too ambiguous, open-ended, and in many cases, directionless when compared with past HSC SOR Section III questions

 

[LinziJane]

I think what the point is for a lot of people is that, regardless of how strong they are in SOR, the questions were worded in a way that confused people. For those who are strong in english perhaps interpreting the question wasnt so difficult, but not everyone who does SOR is a brilliant english student.

I think it was dodgy because it wasn't so much the content or information that people were struggling with, it was the initial interpreting of the question and trying to figure out what information the board of studies were looking for. Fair enough for english extension, but it's not really english skills they're supposed to be testing for in this exam.

 

[MzBiiBii]

I think what the point is for a lot of people is that, regardless of how strong they are in SOR, the questions were worded in a way that confused people. For those who are strong in english perhaps interpreting the question wasnt so difficult, but not everyone who does SOR is a brilliant english student.

I think it was dodgy because it wasn't so much the content or information that people were struggling with, it was the initial interpreting of the question and trying to figure out what information the board of studies were looking for. Fair enough for english extension, but it's not really english skills they're supposed to be testing for in this exam.

I don't think the problem really was about interpreting the question, because many people still managed to answer it.

I think it was mainly due to the fact that it was not what many people expected, which then caused them to panic etc etc etc etc

However, many people still managed to answer the question, despite the fact that they weren't 100% sure of what it was asking them

 

[annikab]

Last year's Notes from the Marking Centre for Studies of Religion stated "teachers and candidates should be aware that examiners may ask questions requiring an integration of the knowledge and skills gained through the study of the course"

Thats all fine and dandy, but as HSC students weve been told a million times to look over the syllabus, study the syllabus, know your syllabus inside out. NO ONE SAYS " check out and analyse every comment in the marking criteria it gives hints into what questions you will get next year "

I doubt you were even aware of this comment. No one picks up these things. But its clear it was planned by the bos from last year.

[/quote]

Actually, Notes from the Marking Centre are made for this EXACT purpose. That is what they are for, you should have checked them to be prepared. It is common practice at my school for EVERY subject to do this. Just a tip.