The paper was a joke. (1 Viewer)

[=(]

Honestly....they expect the state to do well with that paper?

no wonder the average 70 odd as a UAI.

not that the paper was particularly hard......but an extra text with extra materials.....wats with that?

and come on......weve got like so little time....the board should ditch the booklet n extend the time of the exam.

im sure many people will go well.....im jus saying that before the board go round throwing curveballs......maybe they should give the first 5 years a break!

down with feature articles!

 

[Mistress Lilith]

What surprised me actually was the extra text
But then, on second thought, if they had left it with the first three texts only, then my creative writing bit would have suffered alot--I wrote to the web site designer

 

[Emmerage]

I thought the extra text thing sucked too, it was a bit sly of them...
The other thing that sucked was the obvious direction of the texts, ie evironment, development etc. It was dodge because some people actually studied stuff about that sort of thing (ie the last text was easy or me as I had actually studied very similar texts in ext. english...)
I really hate the way that the people who design these things put themes and stuff in.. it is the same with the change booklet texts, it is so obvious that our minds are being shaped for thoughts of reconciliation and post modernist ideal... whatever happened to creativity???? We are effectively being told what to think.. albeit subconsciously...

 

[bathtub]

are yous kidding???
that english paper was 20 times easier than i expected!!
and i thought the extra test was like as if they said..."here you go, heres yet another easy chance to gain more marks"
easy as!

 

[Alienator]

I TOTALLY AGREE DOWN WITH THE FEATURE ARTICLES
having extra texts was just a pain in the arse

 

[1234567]

actually the paper was easy!!!!!

but i stuffed it coz i was toooooooo nervous!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ThA MaN2]

that exam pissed me off.....especially the first section...wtf was with the 4 texts....i swear, were just guinea pigs....fukin guinea pigs...cauz of that extra text, i spent WAY 2 much time on the first section, and i didnt get 2 finish the thrird section off.....

 

[Chicken]

I saw the extra text as an advantage - same total amount of marks allocated to the section, but more questions to answer, means that there's no one question with a lot of marks attached to it!! Excellent!! Less chance of totally stuffing up!!

 

[utopian731]

the syllabus sucks so therefore the paper sucks! lol

im told by very reliable sources that the top raw mark for a section in the advanced paper (iknow, wrong forum) was 14/20!

what a joke

i say we shit on the syllabus and mail it to whoever wrote it

 

[ninefourseven]

i tottally agree,,,,dat extra text was a bit unfair...
i thot the paper was orrible.....i knoe it was kinda easy but i didnt hav enuff time....as usual....i knoe i did so badd

 

[Ozz^E]

I didnt think there was anything wrong wiht having four texts. Like the 2001 exam had three but there were two longer reading texts whereas this yr we had 4 but none were long. And the same number of marks were spread out...so essentially it was probably a lil easier.

 

[anti]

Hmm, IMO more time would have made it harder - since you'd have more people writing higher quality answers. Yeah, it shows the intelligence of the candidates, but since when was that the point of the HSC ?

I think, given more texts, the idea is to make sure people look at and analyse how much a question is WORTH and write accordingly. Without wanting to sound pompous or anything, if you KNOW you're bad at creative writing sometimes it helps to do it first, or shorten some answers if you go overtime. I like creative writing so I did that last.

I think a specimen paper with four texts would be nice, since I don't think any of the trials I did had more than three..?