What time does paper 2 start? (1 Viewer)

[zemaj]

j/k

What'd you think? I thought is was pretty good. The conversations Section II was pretty unusual for critical study of texts, but I thought it worked quite well! I was doing King Lear and it seemed to work well going through the various productions.

However, the Section III is didn't like. Having one question for all of the texts didn't work well for Telling the Truth. You can't really approach the topic very well like that. It didn't really address the idea of building up ideas of the truth which the topic is all about. I talked about it anyway, but I'm not sure what they were looking for. It seemed to be aimed much more at the other two electives.

No more english ever!

-zemaj

 

[Milly]

THANK GOD THAT'S OVER

What a relief! It certainly didn't live up to my expectations of horror and carnage and grief.

It was pretty weird how they had the same question for every elective of each module - I wasn't expecting that - but the questions were quite general, which I liked because it let us interpret it however we wanted to yeah, I agree the conversation format was really good for Lear, it let you be nice and rambly and compare the interpretations much more directly than you can in an essay.

All in all, I'm happy with it.

 

[jane]

I think it was alright. i'm just so glad it's all over. The conversation worked pretty well with king lear however i think my two guys were arguing a little too much. i agree that the final question didn't work well with Telling the truth. i talked about how the personalities in frontline abuse their power and manipulate the truth for ratings. I think a more precise question would have given more direction.
My brave new world/Blade runner was alright too i guess. except i was confused whether i was meant to talk about context as well as the ideas. i ended up just brushing over context at the beginning then goin into values etc. what did everyone else do?

 

[Dan_the_man]

I think I went down in flames
didn't like the Frontline question too much or any of the paper anyway no more english ever again

 

[zemaj]

Originally posted by jane

My brave new world/Blade runner was alright too i guess. except i was confused whether i was meant to talk about context as well as the ideas. i ended up just brushing over context at the beginning then goin into values etc. what did everyone else do?

I sort did 50/50 on context and text. Although as I was doing context I put in a bit of basic text. Then with the values thing I basically focused on human nature and the way it is presented as the important values.

-zemaj

 

[chanfky]

Well, the only thing I'm thinking right now is "NO MORE ENGLISH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

mm... the exam was ok... the Frontline question is not very good... I don't exactly know what they want us to write. I don't like the way they include all the electives in one question. Bet the Board of Studies people were too lazy to make up another question.:mad1:

King Lear was ok. It's good that I learnt two perspectives.

Transformation question was ok too... talk about the usual stuff. but I kinda ran out of time.

 

[fillstar]

Originally posted by zemaj


I sort did 50/50 on context and text. Although as I was doing context I put in a bit of basic text. Then with the values thing I basically focused on human nature and the way it is presented as the important values.

-zemaj

i too focused more on human nature and the complexites of it.

 

[jessika]

Okay, well I actually didn't mind the Frontline question. It was way too general, but I had done heaps of work on that module so I was prepared for anything, which in a way was bad in the exam because I spent more than an hour on it.

I actually didn't like the King Lear question that much, because what I wanted to say would have worked better in essay format.

The Brave New World and Blade Runner question was heaps good; I was expecting something much harder. The context thing was weird, because we didn't study that, but I used my general knowledge.

Having one question for a couple of texts was a bit annoying though, because it lacked general direction and I was like hmm what do they want me to talk about.

Overall, though that paper was much better than the AOS which I completely screwed up. But yay is english is finished!

 

[McLake]

I had fun ...

Much better than paper 1 ...

(hey, it rhymes ...)

 

[Alex]

I luckily had a relook over the br/bnw rubric and if you read it, it bloody states all this shit about context and how it has effected the text. THAT WAS THE MAIN THING. So I hurredly learnt some context details

 

[banx006]

well if they were looking for context and humanity and nature and all those lovely things i should ace it..what about the comparison? i think i wrote they have the same primary idea...humanity blah but have differing other ideas due to context

 

[BlackJack]

No trouble...
No more english...
No more rhetoric...
*starts to relax, then jumps up to prepare for exams he hasn't studied for*

Yes, the rubric says so... it's so funny that ou don't even have to talk much about the text...

 

[tammer]

THANK GOD ENGLISH IS OVER! I think our head teacher was just as relieved as we were. The paper wasn't too bad, but I'll be surprised if I get a pass

 

[alys]

Originally posted by jane
My brave new world/Blade runner was alright too i guess. except i was confused whether i was meant to talk about context as well as the ideas. i ended up just brushing over context at the beginning then goin into values etc. what did everyone else do?

well, i tried to integrate the context and values together, as in show how the values resulted from the texts' respective contexts and deal with it that way. i liked that question - it was a lot like some extension ones, especially from prelim. i'm not sure if i addressed all aspects well enough. for the comparison, i used the basic point of their approach to technology as a similarity, and then other things on context as the differences. i tried to link it all together, so either it'll be good and integrated, or disastrous and messy.