Do you lose marks for having 2 related texts? (2 Viewers)

[Justin123456789]

hey,

say we did 2 related materials and 3 of the poems of our prescribed text. but we still did the 3 poems and 1 related in great detail as i only had a small paragraph on my 2nd related material in comparison to the vast detail i put in the others, can we still achieve a 13-15?

 

[jellybelly59]

OK, so it seems a lot of people are arguing about whether people who wrote two texts should be penalised for not reading the question properly etc.

A lot of people in my school wrote about 2 texts, although they had read the question properly. Why? They had about 15 minutes to spare where they could've:

a) Done nothing
b) Written about another poem (and done badly, leaving the marker with a bad taste)
c) Written in more detail about one of their poems (and done equally as badly, making up quotes)
d) Written about their second learnt related text.

an alternative could have been checking their work?

 

[chuboy]

hey,

say we did 2 related materials and 3 of the poems of our prescribed text. but we still did the 3 poems and 1 related in great detail as i only had a small paragraph on my 2nd related material in comparison to the vast detail i put in the others, can we still achieve a 13-15?

Probs, but what people here would have to remember is that the markers don't ignore information that is irrelevant, if you have it in there but it's just 'waffle' in terms of what they are looking for then you cannot get good marks for having a strong, coherent, well-structured essay.

It's not so much that you will lose marks for not reading the question correctly as not answering it correctly.

 

[chantszhin]

WTF is wrong with you people going,
WHY WOULD YOU WRITE ABOUT 2 WHEN IT ASKED FOR ONE?

I'm pretty sure the MAJORITY of people MISREAD the freakin question (and i'm one of them), so in our perspective (omfg conflicting perspectives) we did it correct but too bad we epic fail. So shut up with that "why would you write about 2 when it asked for one". Geez. I'm screwed, fml

 

[mynamewastaken9]

Ok, for all you twat faced douches, here's the story for people who were like me.

We sit down, read the question and off we go. It has been TWO related text for 10 years so why did we have any reason to suspect any change? We didn't have a memorised essay and that's not why we missed it. We missed it because it was a ridiculous tactic by the BoS used to weed out people who had memorised essays and caught other people in the process.

I HATE people saying that I had a memorised essay, because I DIDN'T. All I had in mind were a few techniques and quotes.

Along with that, where it says "refer to ONE related text" isn't part of the question, it is information ABOUT the question. So we didn't misread the question, we just didn't pay careful attention. to the extra information.

Something ELSE? The outcomes assessed aren't "Refers to ONE related text", they ARE however, "how well you: analyse, explain and assess the ways belonging is represented in a variety of texts"

Therefore the Board of Studies can NOT actually mark those who have written two texts down, nor can they even mark them differently because we MET THE SAME OUTCOMES.

If you think it's unfair, then feel free to have a bitch about it, but that's the way it is.

P.S. I think it was more of a test then a trap.

Amen.

An like i'd written SO MANY practice essays, like SOOOO MANNNYYY to SOOO MANNNNYYYY questions asking for TWO. Having only responded to ONE would have sent 12 months of preparation out the window.

 

[aeiss]

as much as I want to hammer ruse for getting even MORE of an advantage
when they clearly dont need it
i heard some of them wrote about two texts anyway? im not sure
but i dont think the supervisors have any authority for anything anyway

i have to say
what the fuck
the course is called "english"
if you cant speak english
if you can't read
go back to where you came from
the esl kids wouldn't have missed this.

stop blaming others for your inability to read
wording is critical, and in the future could mean the difference between life&death (ok not that extreme, but still, significant)

at least everyone learnt a lesson out of this

READ YOUR BLOODY QUESTION AND QUIT THE CRYING

 

[rowdyroddy]

as much as I want to hammer ruse for getting even MORE of an advantage
when they clearly dont need it
i heard some of them wrote about two texts anyway? im not sure
but i dont think the supervisors have any authority for anything anyway

i have to say
what the fuck
the course is called "english"
if you cant speak english
if you can't read
go back to where you came from
the esl kids wouldn't have missed this.

stop blaming others for your inability to read
wording is critical, and in the future could mean the difference between life&death (ok not that extreme, but still, significant)

at least everyone learnt a lesson out of this

READ YOUR BLOODY QUESTION AND QUIT THE CRYING

this is serious business

 

[supermiraa]

:jaw:gaaah totally didnt read it properly until the last minute. I contemplated on whether or not i shouldve crossed out one text, because i like the second text i wrote about more than my first related text.
do you think that if they dont give marks for one other text, they'll give you marks for the better one you wrote about?


stressss.

 

[NMK]

so - rumour has it (although it's been pretty much confirmed)..that some students at ruse asked about the one related text..and their supervisor ANNOUNCED to the grade to reinforce that the question was asking for ONLY ONE related text.
hence, ruse students probably weren't AS screwed over..presumably.
bloody scandal. is that even legal for the supervisors to give directions like that.
like the maths ext. 1 black out with extra time from last year..
..this is not directed against ruse students at all. but wtf is going on with those supervisors :\

Nothing is "going on with those supervisors". From your story, all they did was repeat the question. Your idiotic tone makes it seem like James Ruse is involved in some kind of HSC insider trading, and you try to hide your fantastical accusations behind the "supervisor" strawman.

Saying "hence" does not validate your argument. You're a moron, and no amount of sophistic bitterness towards the apparent best is going to change that.

 

[princejester]

relax guys you all sik kunts!

 

[MGNBKR]

relax guys you all sik kunts!

+1

 

[cassiecocaine]

As many people have said, chill out, it's over, stop whinging and get studying for paper two. I wish you all the best of luck

 

[ruse09]

as much as I want to hammer ruse for getting even MORE of an advantage
when they clearly dont need it
i heard some of them wrote about two texts anyway? im not sure
but i dont think the supervisors have any authority for anything anyway

i have to say
what the fuck
the course is called "english"
if you cant speak english
if you can't read
go back to where you came from
the esl kids wouldn't have missed this.

stop blaming others for your inability to read
wording is critical, and in the future could mean the difference between life&death (ok not that extreme, but still, significant)

at least everyone learnt a lesson out of this

READ YOUR BLOODY QUESTION AND QUIT THE CRYING

No you shutup.
I find it quite proposterous that there is such animosity to the OP. Having been brought up in an environment where we do not degrade each other, i find it quite disgusting that you and others continually insult him.

 

[chuboy]

No you shutup.
I find it quite proposterous that there is such animosity to the OP. Having been brought up in an environment where we do not degrade each other, i

Too bad you have to go out into the real world soon =(

 

[ashllis92]

Too bad you have to go out into the real world soon =(

That's exactly the sort of negative comment he's reflecting on... Completely unnecessary and designed to make other people feel shit.
Please try to grow up

 

[ruse09]

Define real world.
What we currently live in is classified as the real world, is it not? Some may say it is a facade, but that's what i interpret from your post.

That being said, i think there is no sure way of settling if writing 2 related texts will cause you to lose marks or not. We'll just have to wait till the results are released.

 

[chuboy]

That's exactly the sort of negative comment he's reflecting on... Completely unnecessary and designed to make other people feel shit.
Please try to grow up

Not really, it wasn't directed at anyone in particular.

The real world makes you feel shit anyway, that's a fact. May as well get used to it.

 

[latenite69]

Well in a way it was good cause it caught out all those fucks who memorised essays and got me nervous who just went in their with quotes and techniques. But they should'nt mark you down for stating another text. But who in the world would've thought that BOS would pull that out of their ass after a decade. I think i speak for everyone when i say 'thats two tests BOS has fucked us over on, one Business=complete joke with a spelling mistake in it and english. Hope thats the last one of them. P.S does anyone reckon that they will mark business easy or scale it up??

I AGREE WITH YOU ON BUSINESS! It was harder than I thought. And it wasn't even worth bringing a calculator. PLUS WHAT WAS UP WITH THE ASX QUESTION?!

 

[Aerath]

an alternative could have been checking their work?

This:

I'm guessing their reading task and creatives were pretty much spot on.

Ah, my english teacher just emailed me: She said that the 2nd one definitely won't get a look at and it won't work in favour for a B6 response because it looks prepared.

Too bad your teacher isn't on the BoS. People have called up BoS and they've said that second relateds will be marked.

I AGREE WITH YOU ON BUSINESS! It was harder than I thought. And it wasn't even worth bringing a calculator. PLUS WHAT WAS UP WITH THE ASX QUESTION?!

There's a Business Studies forum.

 

[Macdwg]

If you're too stupid to read the question you don't deserve anything above 13 maximum. Enough said. Also if they DO mark the second text that disadvantages every other person who did one.