Phoenix 12
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 48
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
- Uni Grad
- 2014
It said at least one. Do you think that an in depth analysis of one speech is better than a superficial analysis of two speeches?
-
Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this! Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Module B Hate Thread (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter brettymaccc
- Start date
That's what I did - mostly because the other speeches I knew were Keating and Sadat, and I thought I could make more of a judgment using Bandler by drawing on Suu Kyi's call for women and knowledge etc etc
jerseyshore
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2010
- Messages
- 22
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
Message from BOS president
largarithmic
Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2011
- Messages
- 202
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
Sorry for digging up an old post to quote but this user did try refute some earlier claims I made, so I may as well start from the claim that speeches are harder than hamlet
The thing is because you know that the various speeches are disparate I assume no marker expects you to come to some sort of overwhelming conclusion about what they all mean specifically, but something broader about teaching idealism or humanism or something that basically can come in any form and is pretty adaptable and within that you just analyse each speech. Essentially what you have to do is read all seven, come up with the techniques and general appreciation of how they work, and come to some conclusion about how they may or may not fit together as a whole. Given no marker will expect this to be highly specific it mustnt be that hard.
By contrast Hamlet is seriously a ridiculously messy play, the sort of thing people write PhD thesises centred around. In my opinion it's sorta designed as that; in terms of its genre, its style, whatever it is a hotchpotch of so many different things. It has a ridiculous number of very significant scenes (each of which probably is harder to analyse than any one of the speeches), which don't create a unitary text but rather a play thats divided and confused (perhaps intentionally on Shakespeare's part). To make it worse, the ending is probably one of the weirdest and most confusing parts of the whole play. And not only do students have to come up with some sort of meaningful reading supposedly of the whole text, and a reading much more in depth than what I'd assume you'd have to do for the speeches, but they have to prepare to answer a ridiculously huge range of questions for which their readings just might not fit. HSC two years ago was about the "importance of loyalty" - for a lot of people, you'd be really struggling to twist the definition of loyalty there to fit your reading of the play. Essentially memorising a Hamlet essay just doesn't make the cut if you want to secure a good mark, you have to learn much much more material than you could ever use in one single essay. And if you ask me that's what mod b is designed for.
Maybe I'm a cynical bastard but I don't have that much sympathy for people complaining they only learnt two or three speeches or poems and the one on the paper specified didn't match what they're studied. Becuase what you're supposed to do in this module is 'critically study' (whatever that means) the text you are given, here it is a collection of speeches, so youre meant to look at the collection of speeches. Not a sub-collection of the collection. Teachers and coaching colleges instructing students only to learn two of them are sorta cheating the system and teaching to the test, that's something that is bad and undermines the aim of teaching students literature. The board of studies realises this and thus keeps it within its right to throw odd questions; for example when they changed AOS to ask for only one related by surprise in 2009: the course tells you to learn two relateds, but this doesnt mean learn one paragraph for each of your relateds which you can then parrot in the test (or even worse as part of an entire parroted essay). If you have just prepared for what you assumed the exam would be, well that means you haven't properly prepared for the course; and the examination is an examination of the course not some dreamt up vision of what every HSC exam is likely to look like by people who run coaching colleges.
I'll start by saying I think the speeches are inappropriate for modb in the first place given what modb is supposed to be, but although I don't do them I am convinced that even if you choose to study all seven they are considerably easier than Hamlet and the other texts in the module.thats a fair argument and im not trying to say that hamlet in any case is easy, otherwise i doubt they would have set it for the advanced course, though for the question, i do think a text that consists of one entirety of one text is much easier to approach thana bunch of speeches or essays.. and how you said about it having 2 main themes that contradict, i guess if you only talked about one and backed up your evidence and it soundly answered the question, then it would work, wouldnt it? because a marker looks at what you present them, not other pieces of the text that you dont talk about.. and if that answers the question then thats all you need
The thing is because you know that the various speeches are disparate I assume no marker expects you to come to some sort of overwhelming conclusion about what they all mean specifically, but something broader about teaching idealism or humanism or something that basically can come in any form and is pretty adaptable and within that you just analyse each speech. Essentially what you have to do is read all seven, come up with the techniques and general appreciation of how they work, and come to some conclusion about how they may or may not fit together as a whole. Given no marker will expect this to be highly specific it mustnt be that hard.
By contrast Hamlet is seriously a ridiculously messy play, the sort of thing people write PhD thesises centred around. In my opinion it's sorta designed as that; in terms of its genre, its style, whatever it is a hotchpotch of so many different things. It has a ridiculous number of very significant scenes (each of which probably is harder to analyse than any one of the speeches), which don't create a unitary text but rather a play thats divided and confused (perhaps intentionally on Shakespeare's part). To make it worse, the ending is probably one of the weirdest and most confusing parts of the whole play. And not only do students have to come up with some sort of meaningful reading supposedly of the whole text, and a reading much more in depth than what I'd assume you'd have to do for the speeches, but they have to prepare to answer a ridiculously huge range of questions for which their readings just might not fit. HSC two years ago was about the "importance of loyalty" - for a lot of people, you'd be really struggling to twist the definition of loyalty there to fit your reading of the play. Essentially memorising a Hamlet essay just doesn't make the cut if you want to secure a good mark, you have to learn much much more material than you could ever use in one single essay. And if you ask me that's what mod b is designed for.
Maybe I'm a cynical bastard but I don't have that much sympathy for people complaining they only learnt two or three speeches or poems and the one on the paper specified didn't match what they're studied. Becuase what you're supposed to do in this module is 'critically study' (whatever that means) the text you are given, here it is a collection of speeches, so youre meant to look at the collection of speeches. Not a sub-collection of the collection. Teachers and coaching colleges instructing students only to learn two of them are sorta cheating the system and teaching to the test, that's something that is bad and undermines the aim of teaching students literature. The board of studies realises this and thus keeps it within its right to throw odd questions; for example when they changed AOS to ask for only one related by surprise in 2009: the course tells you to learn two relateds, but this doesnt mean learn one paragraph for each of your relateds which you can then parrot in the test (or even worse as part of an entire parroted essay). If you have just prepared for what you assumed the exam would be, well that means you haven't properly prepared for the course; and the examination is an examination of the course not some dreamt up vision of what every HSC exam is likely to look like by people who run coaching colleges.
Last edited:
kirstyanne-xx
Member
With the speeches unit, I prepared for Keating and Bandler but remembered 2 quotes and some techniques for Suu Kyi. This allowed me to structure the essay Suu Kyi through personal context, Bandler through personal context, Suu Kyi through social context (where I used quotes from the given excerpt and analysed it) and Bandler through social context.
It was possible to take aspects of the provided extract and form analysis on that...even though the question was a bit too generalised.
It was possible to take aspects of the provided extract and form analysis on that...even though the question was a bit too generalised.
Wiz Apprec Soc
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 7
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
Isn't this a "Hamlet Hate Thread"? Just saying... because no one really cares
Wiz Apprec Soc
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 7
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
Boy did I just make an arse out of myself.
kirstyanne-xx
Member
HAHA this is why I dislike this is website, so many critical people.
"Isn't this a "Hamlet Hate Thread"? Just saying... because no one really cares"
Haha thanks for that
I'll make sure to not put my opinion on a forum about all about Module 2 - which evidently was the most challenging module in the second paper thus alot of people would have an opinion about it, including myself. This website is meant to be helpful and for discussion, "just saying".
Last edited:
jamesfirst
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2010
- Messages
- 2,005
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
Phoenix 12
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 48
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
- Uni Grad
- 2014
ahh I did keating but i drew a connection between their affirmation of universal identity as well as nominalising the favourable qualities of women in kyi, and the soldier in keating. hopeully thats ok LOL i also said that they both resonate beyond their original context...
I talked about how the final scenes exemplify the struggle of individuals against a repressive society. I talked about how Hamlet's struggle between classical and christian methods of acting showed how social constructions like religion prevent individual desire and actualisation, then linked it to the end/gravedigger scene. I talked about how women were repressed by similar social constructions, again linking it to ophelia's death in the gravedigger scene, while also talking about the strength of family in supporting individuality, linking it to fortinbras' good connection with his uncle/father, and laertes (sp) connection with his.
It was a fairly open ended question tbh.
Glorious
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 219
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2011
Yeah, I agree. It was.
Wiz Apprec Soc
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2011
- Messages
- 7
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
Loud and clear BUDDYHAHA this is why I dislike this is website, so many critical people.
"Isn't this a "Hamlet Hate Thread"? Just saying... because no one really cares"
Haha thanks for that
you lucky bitch!! it was sooo different to anything we did ever, whole class made it up! didnt really suit my reading very well either...
this is very true, good point
so damn annoying for gwen harwood! so much bullshitting...i just wrote like 'i can relate' and tried to personalise but they'll probably think i'm a total idiot :/ otherwise i would've known exactly what i was talking about if it was a normal question!
mirakon
nigga
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 4,221
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2011
Ummm.....the question didn't solely concern the Fortinbras extract, but the closing scenes.
kirstyanne-xx
Member
Squishxmishyx
Olive You.
For a split second in the exam I forgot who Fortinbras was.
All I could think of was 'I fought in your bras'. (I tend to make up jokes in very stressful moments in my life)
OMG I had like Ophelia's fidelity all prepared with critics and shiz but this question was so specific =[
Had to talk about Order and Chaos, which I have absolutely nothing on, and mortality..
Frankenrunner was alright.
And I regret not studying enough for the last module. It was a good question but I didn't have enough knowledge about it...
In conclusion, modules raped me.
Begone english.
All I could think of was 'I fought in your bras'. (I tend to make up jokes in very stressful moments in my life)
OMG I had like Ophelia's fidelity all prepared with critics and shiz but this question was so specific =[
Had to talk about Order and Chaos, which I have absolutely nothing on, and mortality..
Frankenrunner was alright.
And I regret not studying enough for the last module. It was a good question but I didn't have enough knowledge about it...
In conclusion, modules raped me.
Begone english.