although i do agree that it was cruel of the BOS to throw in an 20 marker based on year 11 content noone had revised, i also, to an extent, agree with the above comment.
the HSC has been designed to allow those who have 'memorised' responses and facts (some of which they themselves don't really understand, but have merely tattooed to their memories) to succeed with flying colours, when really exams should be testing a student's understanding and knowledge of the content, not the level of their desperation to do well (and hence their ability to vomit up facts and essays they don't even understand).
section 3 this year, however, will provide a more accurate demonstration of a student's knowledge and understanding, as it requires an analysis of the course content, allowing those students who DO have a proper understanding of their study to provide an adequate response, while those who had memorised an essay on a person/practice/ethic AND had a thorough understanding of their study would have been able to apply their memory to the question even more effectively (thus rewarding a student not only for a deeper understanding of the content, but also their hard work in memorising an entire essay...which is what the hsc is about).
meanwhile, those who had merely memorised an essay without really engaging with the concepts and ideas of their course would have failed, thus filtering out 'a massive group of people who memorise the coursework (and don't know how to a apply it in a broad and generalised context) from getting a band 6'.
so yes. i take off my hat, too. maybe not quite so enthusiastically as 'bored of sc', but it's off nonetheless.
there's my defence, before people start attacking him/her.