VCE HHD Question Thread!

[heids]

So if we're given a table comparing the health status of a developing country in comparison to a developed country. Do we literally just say something like ' The life expectancy of India is much lower than Australia with only 50years in comparison to Australia's of 80 years ' or do we have to give reasons as to why this is?  ( It reminds me of comparing the different groups in unit 3, so i thought it would be more in depth here )

Thanks so much for your help. I hope you understand what i mean

Yes, that's all you say!  With HHD (and all subjects actually) stick exactly to what the question says; nothing annoys an assessor more than someone going off on a random tangent that isn't very relevant.  The biggest tip I can give people is - just read the question and answer it!

That's one of the idiocies of the study design.  The two are literally exactly the same, I don't know why it repeats.  And I don't know why they're in 'key knowledge', they're not even 'knowledge', they're actually 'skills' since you don't have to learn anything, you just have to learn the skill of comparing data!

[girl1234]

Yes, that's all you say!  With HHD (and all subjects actually) stick exactly to what the question says; nothing annoys an assessor more than someone going off on a random tangent that isn't very relevant.  The biggest tip I can give people is - just read the question and answer it!

That's one of the idiocies of the study design.  The two are literally exactly the same, I don't know why it repeats.  And I don't know why they're in 'key knowledge', they're not even 'knowledge', they're actually 'skills' since you don't have to learn anything, you just have to learn the skill of comparing data!

Okay cool! Thanks so much for your help

[girl1234]

Hey guys, Can anyone tell me the strengths and limitations of the HDI. Thanks

[girl1234]

I'm also not fully understanding the elements of sustainability

So the dot point says: Definitions of sustainability (including elements of appropriateness, affordability, equity)
 
The cambridge textbook doesn't have actual definitions for the social, economic and environment elements, or the appropriateness, affordability and equity elements, just explains it. . .

Any help will be appreciated :-)

[heids]

Hey guys, Can anyone tell me the strengths and limitations of the HDI. Thanks

Strengths:
> broader than purely economic indicators - focuses more on people and their achievements
> two countries with similar income can have a very different HDI; this encourages countries with unexpectedly low HDI to question their national policy choices and figure out why other people with the same income are managing to get a higher HDI

Limitations:
> data isn't available from all countries
> it's not a complete measure of human development - doesn't include difficult-to-measure indicators, like gender equality or respect for rights

I'm also not fully understanding the elements of sustainability

So the dot point says: Definitions of sustainability (including elements of appropriateness, affordability, equity)
 
The cambridge textbook doesn't have actual definitions for the social, economic and environment elements, or the appropriateness, affordability and equity elements, just explains it. . .

Any help will be appreciated :-)

Learn the definition of sustainability: Meeting the needs of others without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

You don't need a definition of social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainability (yes, they're dimensions not elements; I lost a mark on a SAC because it said 'dimensions' and I translated it as 'elements', and thus wrote about appropriateness/affordability/equity).  They're not mentioned in the study design and I personally don't think you have to know about them at all, I don't think they'd be on a VCAA exam.

Again, I don't think you need a definition of the three elements that ensure sustainability of programs. Normally you're asked to show how a program shows the elements, or last year's exam asked you to create a program, taking into account two of the elements.

Appropriateness is about a program addressing the community's needs, empowering the community, and focusing on those most in need.  e.g. involving the locals in planning/implementation of the program, respecting cultural values, being appropriate to the illiterate through stuff like drama or music, being accessible by foot.  If it's not appropriate to the community's needs and wishes, they won't keep supporting it so it won't get anywhere.

Equity is about a program providing all people with equal access to services.  e.g. targets women and those in rural/remote areas.

Affordability is about a program being affordable for the community long-term (i.e. once it's set up, they can sustain it, without needing constant payments).  e.g. it involves education (like, if you just give them food you'll need to keep that up, if you teach them soil and irrigation techniques they can grow more food for free from then on), it involves one-off infrastructure, it involves teaching the community to be teachers, etc.

Let me know if that doesn't make sense; pretty much, you've got to know vaguely what each of the elements and dimensions is (they may nastily throw you an unexpected question), but in general it's just about applying the three elements to a program.

[girl1234]

in general it's just about applying the three elements to a program.

Thank you so much.

Would you by any chance have a sample response on a question like this?

[xeon88]

How does HDI impact on human development? How do the HDI indicators contribute to human development?

Also, for the characteristics of Developed vs Developing countries, my textbook doesn't mention mortality rates (U5MR, adult, child, infant), life expectancy, gross domestic products, but instead mentions other environmental and social characteristics such as access to food and gender equality. Is it safe to assume for the upcoming SAC that I need to know about mortality rates, LE and GDP as characteristics?

[heids]

Would you by any chance have a sample response on a question like this?

Program
CARE Australia is working with the people most at risk of dirty water by protecting water sources, constructing free pumps, boreholes and toilets in schools and households, and providing training in hygiene and sanitation.
We’ve constructed:
•   40 hand-dug wells
•   20 water pumps
•   one roof water harvesting system
•   13 pit toilet blocks.
We have established 43 water committees made up of local community members to manage water points, and trained 172 people on water point management and climate change adaptation.  60% of the water committees are led by women, and 54% of the water committee members are women.


> Appropriateness: this program is appropriate to the community’s needs, as it targets those most at risk of dirty water.  OR: this program involves local community members in its implementation, who can ensure that it is appropriate to the community’s needs.
> Equity: this program caters to those ‘most at risk’, and also to women, ensuring that marginalised groups are targeted.
> Affordability: the pumps, wells, and toilets are free to the communities, so they can afford them.  OR: Once the pumps and wells have been established, there very little ongoing cost, as building the infrastructure is a once-off cost and the community is trained to carry out maintenance themselves.

Ultimately, it really doesn't matter very much about wording or what not, there are heaps of ways to do it and as long as you show how the elements are shown, you'll get full marks.

How do the HDI indicators contribute to human development?

That's like life expectancy, GDP and mean/expected schooling, right?  I don't know about life expectancy, but GDP and schooling - think about how you link INCOME and EDUCATION to HD, and you've got your answer.

Also, for the characteristics of Developed vs Developing countries, my textbook doesn't mention mortality rates (U5MR, adult, child, infant), life expectancy, gross domestic products, but instead mentions other environmental and social characteristics such as access to food and gender equality. Is it safe to assume for the upcoming SAC that I need to know about mortality rates, LE and GDP as characteristics?

Yes, you should - just have to know, developed countries have lower mortality rates (all types) than developing countries, developed countries have high LE, developed countries have high GDP, etc.  Nothing specific, no specific numbers either, it should take you about 5 min max to learn.

[tashhhaaa]

this is quite an URGENT question as I have a SAC tomorrow and realised i'm unsure about this

if the question were to ask:

Describe the impact of peace/political stability on health in developing countries and Australia,

would this be a suitable response?

When there is peace, resources can be used to promote health and human development. In the event of conflict, the risk of physical injury is increased, local infrastructure (eg. hospitals, schools, housing, electricity & water supplies) is destroyed, people are displaced and resources are directed to war efforts rather than health promotion. Conflict also increases women's and children's vulnerability to violence and rape. The above factors all result in increased morbidity and mortality rates and decreased life expectancy which reduces overall health.

I'm unsure of the link to health there -- I was thinking of health status but now I'm not sure if health status and health are the same thing in 3/4?

Please help :s

[heids]

this is quite an URGENT question as I have a SAC tomorrow and realised i'm unsure about this

if the question were to ask:

Describe the impact of peace/political stability on health in developing countries and Australia,

would this be a suitable response?

When there is peace, resources can be used to promote health and human development. In the event of conflict, the risk of physical injury is increased, local infrastructure (eg. hospitals, schools, housing, electricity & water supplies) is destroyed, people are displaced and resources are directed to war efforts rather than health promotion. Conflict also increases women's and children's vulnerability to violence and rape. The above factors all result in increased morbidity and mortality rates and decreased life expectancy which reduces overall health.

I'm unsure of the link to health there -- I was thinking of health status but now I'm not sure if health status and health are the same thing in 3/4?

Please help :s

Do you mind if I pull your whole answer apart?  It's not bad, just I want to straighten out a few different things!

Yes, health and health status are different.  Instead, link to physical, mental and social health.

You didn't mention 'developing countries' vs. 'Australia'.  You should say something like 'Australia has peace and thus... [good health], whereas developing countries may face conflict arising from political instability, and thus... [bad health]'.

Finally, you could be a bit more specific and explain more how specific results of conflict lead to specific changes in health. e.g. you could say, as part of your answer: conflict can destroy local infrastructure (e.g. hospitals, schools, water supplies), leading to decreased access to healthcare.  This could lead to people not being treated for conditions such as ___ and ___ [be specific], thus increasing mortality from these diseases and decreasing life expectancy.  Destroyed pumps and wells could also lead to consumption of contaminated water, increasing burden of disease from waterborne diseases such as cholera, diarrhoea and hookworm. (whoops just linked to HS, but you can do the same for health).  It ends up long-winded, I know, but you can't ever cover all the impacts of conflict, and if you pick on one or two and explain them in detail, your links will be much stronger than just a general 'see all this stuff reduces health status'.  You get me?  Very vague isn't very 'convincing'.

[tashhhaaa]

Do you mind if I pull your whole answer apart?  It's not bad, just I want to straighten out a few different things!

Yes, health and health status are different.  Instead, link to physical, mental and social health.

You didn't mention 'developing countries' vs. 'Australia'.  You should say something like 'Australia has peace and thus... [good health], whereas developing countries may face conflict arising from political instability, and thus... [bad health]'.

Finally, you could be a bit more specific and explain more how specific results of conflict lead to specific changes in health. e.g. you could say, as part of your answer: conflict can destroy local infrastructure (e.g. hospitals, schools, water supplies), leading to decreased access to healthcare.  This could lead to people not being treated for conditions such as ___ and ___ [be specific], thus increasing mortality from these diseases and decreasing life expectancy.  Destroyed pumps and wells could also lead to consumption of contaminated water, increasing burden of disease from waterborne diseases such as cholera, diarrhoea and hookworm. (whoops just linked to HS, but you can do the same for health).  It ends up long-winded, I know, but you can't ever cover all the impacts of conflict, and if you pick on one or two and explain them in detail, your links will be much stronger than just a general 'see all this stuff reduces health status'.  You get me?  Very vague isn't very 'convincing'.

Thank you!

I was never really sure if being vague or listing everything is better, because like you said it becomes very long-winded... I thought if I just focused on a couple of things there wouldn't be much depth to my answer? (not that there was to begin with)

so an improved answer could be:


When there is peace, resources can be used to promote health and human development. In the event of conflict, the risk of physical injury is increased and local infrastructure (eg. hospitals, schools, housing, electricity & water supplies) is destroyed, leading to reduced access to health care. This means that individuals are unable to be treated for conditions that were previously treatable such as injuries and infections, increasing morbidity and mortality due to these conditions and decreasing life expectancy. (or physical health?). Conflict also results in people being displaced, meaning that they may be unable to access essentials such as food, which can increase mortality due to malnutrition/starvation and decrease life expectancy, therefore decreasing overall health.

I don't think it's perfect yet, I feel like I'm missing something

[heids]

Thank you!

I was never really sure if being vague or listing everything is better, because like you said it becomes very long-winded... I thought if I just focused on a couple of things there wouldn't be much depth to my answer? (not that there was to begin with)

No, there wouldn't be much breadth to your answer.  It's about a balance of breadth - covering more ground - and depth - explaining a few things in specific detail.  I personally prefer depth, anyway, because if you explain one thing thoroughly enough to get marks, you'll probably get more marks than listing three things, none of which deserve a mark because you didn't actually explain how the links worked.  Practise being as specific as possible, it doesn't hurt to end up writing 6 marks' worth for 3 marks to keep yourself happy (as long as it's always directly relevant to the question and isn't just listing for the sake of it and you have enough time, I always did).

so an improved answer could be:

When there is peace, resources can be used to promote health and human development. In the event of conflict, the risk of physical injury is increased and local infrastructure (eg. hospitals, schools, housing, electricity & water supplies) is destroyed, leading to reduced access to health care. This means that individuals are unable to be treated for conditions that were previously treatable such as injuries and infections, increasing morbidity and mortality due to these conditions and decreasing life expectancy. (or physical health?). Conflict also results in people being displaced, meaning that they may be unable to access essentials such as food, which can increase mortality due to malnutrition/starvation and decrease life expectancy, therefore decreasing overall health.

I don't think it's perfect yet, I feel like I'm missing something

As I said above, you need the link to Australia [peace --> good health] vs. developing countries [conflict --> poor health].

That's a much better answer, though, because it specifically explains all the steps in how conflict impacts health status. 

If the question asked, as it does, for health rather than health status (whoops my bad last night for giving an HS example), you'd have to say stuff like:
> conflict ---> injury and water-borne disease ---> poor physical health
> conflict ---> death and tearing apart of families ---> poor mental health
> conflict ---> illness, injury or imprisonment ---> can't interact/participate as much ---> poor social health
If it asks for health, the answer you gave would NOT score full marks imo.  Life expectancy is totally irrelevant, you need to link to PMS.

Also, your first sentence probably isn't the best, being quite vague and generalised.  Your aim is to start the examiner off with a good impression, rather than starting them off thinking that you can't answer the question properly.  Sure, you'd still probably get full marks for this answer (it's good), but cut anything vague/too listy or at least put it further into your answer, rather than at the start.

[Izzy1]

Discuss how water borne diseases are both a cause of poverty and an outcome of poverty?

[heids]

Discuss how water borne diseases are both a cause of poverty and an outcome of poverty?

Cause of poverty: water-borne diseases ==> sick so can't go to work, plus medical fees ==> loss of income ==> poverty.
Outcome of poverty: poor ==> can't afford pumps/wells/filters/closed toilets ==> contaminated water ==> water-borne diseases.

[tashhhaaa]

No, there wouldn't be much breadth to your answer.  It's about a balance of breadth - covering more ground - and depth - explaining a few things in specific detail.  I personally prefer depth, anyway, because if you explain one thing thoroughly enough to get marks, you'll probably get more marks than listing three things, none of which deserve a mark because you didn't actually explain how the links worked.  Practise being as specific as possible, it doesn't hurt to end up writing 6 marks' worth for 3 marks to keep yourself happy (as long as it's always directly relevant to the question and isn't just listing for the sake of it and you have enough time, I always did).
As I said above, you need the link to Australia [peace --> good health] vs. developing countries [conflict --> poor health].

That's a much better answer, though, because it specifically explains all the steps in how conflict impacts health status. 

If the question asked, as it does, for health rather than health status (whoops my bad last night for giving an HS example), you'd have to say stuff like:
> conflict ---> injury and water-borne disease ---> poor physical health
> conflict ---> death and tearing apart of families ---> poor mental health
> conflict ---> illness, injury or imprisonment ---> can't interact/participate as much ---> poor social health
If it asks for health, the answer you gave would NOT score full marks imo.  Life expectancy is totally irrelevant, you need to link to PMS.

Also, your first sentence probably isn't the best, being quite vague and generalised.  Your aim is to start the examiner off with a good impression, rather than starting them off thinking that you can't answer the question properly.  Sure, you'd still probably get full marks for this answer (it's good), but cut anything vague/too listy or at least put it further into your answer, rather than at the start.

thanks for your help, sorry couldn't respond while AN was down!

so the take home message is:
discuss a few specific examples rather than a broad approach? or for 3 marks, 3 examples?