This paper marks the low quality of papers in the HSC, especially Area of Study. I guess the rule of thumb in good examinations like the Cambridge Pre-U is that the examination board could not assume its universality. Which this is obviously a case for this paper, where the board assumed that place is a common theme in all of the texts... Evidently, I don't know how this works, but I think they're trying to make paper 1 more literal to the standard class and a lot more abstract for the advanced class, so there's this level of thought separation between the ability to argue philosophically, or argue within the plot of the story... so does this minimise the quality? I think yeah it does significant, but... i'm sure an exam board always have their reasons on why things are set this way.... Paper 2 won't be a bitch for advanced in my opinion... it couldn't get anymore far fetched than section 3....
Section 1 is pretty straight forward I would say, nothing was hard at all... If you focused on the how, and also how the 'how' had supported the why, then you would get at least 13/15... I employed this formula, so I'm hoping that I would do pretty well... Well section 1 is about formulas isn't it?
Section 2 just marks the failure of the exam, it's all about pre-preparing the answer, adding a few memories of people to a few places then that's basically a band 6 creative. That's really bad, I mean, why would an examination board say you MAY use the stimulus... Why did you even put it there in the first place? I did a pre-prepare a story about London being bombed to bits, and there's a philosopher remembering the way London used to be and how it connects with his idea of belonging... It's really abstract the story, he tries to recover London using his memory but eventually dies due to hunger and the development of a flu. Pretty vague idea for a story... so I don't know how I went. Quoted a lot of philosopher in this story, YUMMY.
Section 3: I'm on your side guys, having studied The Crucible this is a bit wtf for the whole of our school. I just said yes how place did influence the perceptions of belonging and not belonging (Proctor's alienation, but he still belongs to himself, that's why he chose to DIE), how the relationship between the Proctors devoid the concerns of the hypocritical state, and how belonging to a place would have no influence if a person is not belonged to themselves... I didn't finish my conclusion though, ran out of time. I'm thinking of 10/15... I walked in with a lot of quotes, and I've used all the quotes and how it shows the statement in the question... so fingers crossed, I hope I'm lucky... Oh by the way, my related text in Kanye West's thirty five minute film Runaway, quite a good analysis cause i could use the camera angles, the lyrics in his movies like 'Let's have toast for the douchebags' and also the rare dialogue use.... and especially when the Phoenix burnt herself to belong, it shares quite a symbolic gesture with a crucible.
But again, I stand by my point that this paper is pretty much a failure in its ability to exhibit examination quality. That's why paper 2 is often the clincher.
