2013 legal exam question!

[kayuki]

Hello everyone
Sorry Im a bit late!!
I am in Year 11 this year so I am still freaking out about my Legal exam 2 weeks back (my only year 12 subject). I know you all prob don't even care about it anymore but someone please answeer me?

Anyways I have kept thinking about this question. My teacher isnt too sure either about how the vcaa is going to mark.

what does "using high court and referendum, analyse how the division of power has changed actually mean? "

Like can we just focus on the two cases or do we have to do some sort of strength and weakness of each method?

Like will I get 4/4 if I only described Brislans case basic facts, how states power went down, s109 applied, eroded state, cwlth went up?
Or would VCAA expect me to say ebcause courts are not politically influenced they can change the div of power more easily or something like that?

Hehe ty guys!

[chasej]

I don't know the answer to the question, but you sound panicky. There's nothing you can do now, it isn't like you can go back and change the answer. Take some deep breaths and wait for dec 16th. I'm sure you did well.

I have a few concerns about my economics 3/4 exam but really I've moved on from them as it's pint less to worry as trees nothing that can be done. I'm sure all VCE students have some doubts/worrys about exams.

[kayuki]

I don't know the answer to the question, but you sound panicky. There's nothing you can do now, it isn't like you can go back and change the answer. Take some deep breaths and wait for dec 16th. I'm sure you did well.

I have a few concerns about my economics 3/4 exam but really I've moved on from them as it's pint less to worry as trees nothing that can be done. I'm sure all VCE students have some doubts/worrys about exams.

Hello!
I am not panicky hehe. I just finished all my year 11 exams and I have nothing else to worry about tbh. So I am just excited not panicky for my 3/4 results!!!
especialyl when i love legal studies as a subj so much!!

[Anchy]

bump

There is really no point in dwelling on something you can't change!

In regards to your question, no one really knows how VCAA will mark them. Guess you'll just have to wait until Dec 16.

[meganrobyn]

The direction "analyse the impact", when used in previous exams, has *not* meant you needed to give the strengths and weaknesses of the method (ie HCA interp, referendum, referral of powers) itself.

Analysing the impact is more about focusing on the way in which a simple change in definition can increase the practical scope of everyday power for one parliament, and often result in a corresponding decrease for another - how did that happen in the case? why did it happen? what is the link between the facts of the case and the practical effect on jurisdiction and power?

Really, it's just that no-one wants you to limit yourself to "Yeah, so the Commonwealth went up and the states went down. Done."

[kayuki]

The direction "analyse the impact", when used in previous exams, has *not* meant you needed to give the strengths and weaknesses of the method (ie HCA interp, referendum, referral of powers) itself.

Analysing the impact is more about focusing on the way in which a simple change in definition can increase the practical scope of everyday power for one parliament, and often result in a corresponding decrease for another - how did that happen in the case? why did it happen? what is the link between the facts of the case and the practical effect on jurisdiction and power?

Really, it's just that no-one wants you to limit yourself to "Yeah, so the Commonwealth went up and the states went down. Done."

Hehehe thanks for the response! That really clarified thigns up - has "analyse how the d.o.p changed" ever been on past exams?

I swear i looked through 2002-2012 vcaa exams and no such questions was on before/ Like, vcaa did not use the specific taskword "analyse" which according to my teacher (and suggested solutions posted on here by connect education)  requires me to use s + w of the process. Got me worried since it was a 8 marker and I thought the whole question was about s+w, so I thought I lost 8 marks already because I didnt talk about s+w!

Thankss for that meganrobyn!!

[meganrobyn]

Ahhh, I tend to smudge similar task words together - so it might not have been analyse! I don't have my past questions list on me. But the gist has been the same: that focus on looking at the impact in detail, really explaining how and why and looking at it from both the federal PoV and the state PoV. And it's still the *impact* that's being analysed, rather than the HCA itself (although I'm sure you could weave HCA comments into a good answer!).

Also, those kinds of 'analyse' task words mean closer to "weigh up both sides" than strictly strengths and weaknesses a lot of the time. Think about analysing the extent to which the courts CAN change the law - that's not strengths and weaknesses... that's can versus can't. So in this context, I would approach 'analyse' more as big increase vs small increase, increase one plt vs decrease another, and so on.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I'll be surprised if the Assessor's Report says you needed to have strengths and weaknesses of the HCA in general!

[mad_maxine]

Hi, question directed to Megan, (but welcome all opinions), I've said this in a previous post but didn't get replies.. I'd also like clarification on this question and how I answered it. 

What I did for that question was I talked about the effectiveness in impacting the div of powers overall for referenda (including low success rate for referenda, and other factors influencing its success e.g. Double majority, including some strengths and weaknesses, just to be on the safe side). I did the same for high CRT interps too.

I then gave an in depth example case study for each, brislan and 1967 ref, and explained the impact they each had on the div powers.

Using the example of the impacts and evidence of each method's effectiveness in altering the div powers, I concluded that, overall, HC interpretations of the constitution were more effective than referenda, so tying up and giving an opinion.
 
I wrote a lot for this question, not sure if all was necessary for an in depth analysis.
Do you think this was necessary and/or enough to obtain the 8 marks? I looked at how to analyse (task word) in textbooks and a+ notes etc. and it mentioned weighing up both sides of an argument with strengths and weaknesses. Pls tell me if I'm mistaken     

[meganrobyn]

Ahhh, I tend to smudge similar task words together - so it might not have been analyse! I don't have my past questions list on me. But the gist has been the same: that focus on looking at the impact in detail, really explaining how and why and looking at it from both the federal PoV and the state PoV. And it's still the *impact* that's being analysed, rather than the HCA itself (although I'm sure you could weave HCA comments into a good answer!).

Also, those kinds of 'analyse' task words mean closer to "weigh up both sides" than strictly strengths and weaknesses a lot of the time. Think about analysing the extent to which the courts CAN change the law - that's not strengths and weaknesses... that's can versus can't. So in this context, I would approach 'analyse' more as big increase vs small increase, increase one plt vs decrease another, and so on.

I guess what I'm trying to say is I'll be surprised if the Assessor's Report says you needed to have strengths and weaknesses of the HCA in general!

EDIT

I'm going to do this edit as a separate post, so you can see what the changes relate to.

Okay, I was working off a slightly incorrect version of the wording of that question. Now I'm looking at a copy of the ACTUAL exam.

Everything I said before about analysing the *impact of the case* or the *impact of the referendum* I still stand behind. It doesn't make sense to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of a case decision when it is what it is: what you're really using it for is to show HOW it changed power, increasing for some and decreasing for others.

But!

The question also asks for a general analysis of the *methods* of referendum ans HCA interp (which is what the version of the question I was looking at made a bit different, sorry). As in, you discuss, comment on, etc, the general impact of those two methods in addition to the specific case studies. In my opinion you can totally put your focus onto the two case studies (court case and referendum), but I think you'd also need to include some more overall/theoretical material about HCA interp and referenda in general - and here's where you could put in some of those strengths and weaknesses of the HCA, strengths and weaknesses of s128.

The Chief Assessor, in consultation, has the role of deciding the weighting to be allocated to each part of a question, and how flexible it's going to be - sometimes extremely flexible; other times not so much. And that's what we all wait on the Assessment Report for, with bated breath, because no-one else can say definitively what you must or must not write. We're all just guessing, to varying degrees

So I still stand by what I said about analysing the "impact" of a case or referendum - but with this particular question I would also, personally, have introductory pros and cons of referenda in general and HCA interp in general. But I haven't had time to sit the exam yet

[meganrobyn]

Hi, question directed to Megan, (but welcome all opinions), I've said this in a previous post but didn't get replies.. I'd also like clarification on this question and how I answered it. 

What I did for that question was I talked about the effectiveness in impacting the div of powers overall for referenda (including low success rate for referenda, and other factors influencing its success e.g. Double majority, including some strengths and weaknesses, just to be on the safe side). I did the same for high CRT interps too.

I then gave an in depth example case study for each, brislan and 1967 ref, and explained the impact they each had on the div powers.

Using the example of the impacts and evidence of each method's effectiveness in altering the div powers, I concluded that, overall, HC interpretations of the constitution were more effective than referenda, so tying up and giving an opinion.
 
I wrote a lot for this question, not sure if all was necessary for an in depth analysis.
Do you think this was necessary and/or enough to obtain the 8 marks? I looked at how to analyse (task word) in textbooks and a+ notes etc. and it mentioned weighing up both sides of an argument with strengths and weaknesses. Pls tell me if I'm mistaken     

Does my previous post answer your question? The way you approached it sounds very much like the way I would approach it! And probably WILL approach it, when I finally get around to making time to sit it... (joy)

[mad_maxine]

Does my previous post answer your question? The way you approached it sounds very much like the way I would approach it! And probably WILL approach it, when I finally get around to making time to sit it... (joy)

Yes!!! Thanks so much Megan, you've given me so much closure!!!! Thought that's what the question was asking, so thought I might as well go for it!!!

It's interesting how so many teachers have given different answers to this question (and others). This brings to question whether assessors can mark everyone similarly. Do assessors get solutions to questions so they can be fair and equal? I know the exams are cross marked, but they may still have a different approach to the question from other assessors... Wouldn't it be fairer and more accurate to be given answers to the exam beforehand? Not sure how it works 

Thanks again Megan!!! Appreciate your help, I can now sleep well til the 16th!!!! 

[meganrobyn]

Yes!!! Thanks so much Megan, you've given me so much closure!!!! Thought that's what the question was asking, so thought I might as well go for it!!!

It's interesting how so many teachers have given different answers to this question (and others). This brings to question whether assessors can mark everyone similarly. Do assessors get solutions to questions so they can be fair and equal? I know the exams are cross marked, but they may still have a different approach to the question from other assessors... Wouldn't it be fairer and more accurate to be given answers to the exam beforehand? Not sure how it works 

Thanks again Megan!!! Appreciate your help, I can now sleep well til the 16th!!!! 

Before the assessors start marking they all go to a full day meeting. The Chief Assessor gives out a draft marking guide, then they go through the entire guide, question by question, discussing what every assessor thinks should be rewarded, expected etc. Any changes made are made to everybody's marking guide so they all stay the same. Then a number of exams are assessed, and every assessor compares marks for each individual question, discussing differences. THEN you get to go home and apply that to the exams in your pile!!

Look, no system is absolutely foolproof - but there are definitely strategies in place to make it as fair as possible

[mad_maxine]

Before the assessors start marking they all go to a full day meeting. The Chief Assessor gives out a draft marking guide, then they go through the entire guide, question by question, discussing what every assessor thinks should be rewarded, expected etc. Any changes made are made to everybody's marking guide so they all stay the same. Then a number of exams are assessed, and every assessor compares marks for each individual question, discussing differences. THEN you get to go home and apply that to the exams in your pile!!

Look, no system is absolutely foolproof - but there are definitely strategies in place to make it as fair as possible

Wow that's so good!! Really thorough, makes the system so much fairer! Appreciate what the examiners do every year, must be a very difficult job 

Thanks again for your help, much appreciated 

[kayuki]

EDIT

I'm going to do this edit as a separate post, so you can see what the changes relate to.

Okay, I was working off a slightly incorrect version of the wording of that question. Now I'm looking at a copy of the ACTUAL exam.

Everything I said before about analysing the *impact of the case* or the *impact of the referendum* I still stand behind. It doesn't make sense to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of a case decision when it is what it is: what you're really using it for is to show HOW it changed power, increasing for some and decreasing for others.

But!

The question also asks for a general analysis of the *methods* of referendum ans HCA interp (which is what the version of the question I was looking at made a bit different, sorry). As in, you discuss, comment on, etc, the general impact of those two methods in addition to the specific case studies. In my opinion you can totally put your focus onto the two case studies (court case and referendum), but I think you'd also need to include some more overall/theoretical material about HCA interp and referenda in general - and here's where you could put in some of those strengths and weaknesses of the HCA, strengths and weaknesses of s128.

The Chief Assessor, in consultation, has the role of deciding the weighting to be allocated to each part of a question, and how flexible it's going to be - sometimes extremely flexible; other times not so much. And that's what we all wait on the Assessment Report for, with bated breath, because no-one else can say definitively what you must or must not write. We're all just guessing, to varying degrees

So I still stand by what I said about analysing the "impact" of a case or referendum - but with this particular question I would also, personally, have introductory pros and cons of referenda in general and HCA interp in general. But I haven't had time to sit the exam yet

This is soo good clarification! I know you are only giving your opinion and such so I won't quote you on this; 

But, the way I, and my teacher, interpreted the division of power question after the exam, is that you had to: 1. Talk about your two cases; 2: Talk about how those two cases changed the division of power; 3. Comment on how these two cases illustrate the effectiveness of the two methods in changing d.o.p?

I only did "1" and "2" and failed to do "3". Meganrobyn (and others) do you think I could still get 8/8 if I don't comment on how these two cases illustrate the effectiiveness of the two methods in changing the d.o.p?  (eg. I did not chuck in points such as low success rate, HC passive). Do you think VCAA is going to insist on that being included, or are they usually flexibile with these 8 markers?


Oh, since you also have one copy of the exam can I ask you one last question:

The last question on the adversary system; would I be cutting it too thin if I only talked about two features? The question asked to talk about one element and compare two features (inquisitorial v adversary) but did not specify how many features you could talk about in relation to the one element. I only talked about two features plus I chucked in a possible reform (lol) which I don't think will get any marks; I read past reports of similar questions and it said "generally students who perform well discussed three or more features", so I guess my  question is "how flexible do markings go in VCAA? Are the assessors really strict with what you have to have and what you don't need to have"?

THank you so much!!!

[90+FTW]

Hello everyone
Sorry Im a bit late!!
I am in Year 11 this year so I am still freaking out about my Legal exam 2 weeks back (my only year 12 subject). I know you all prob don't even care about it anymore but someone please answeer me?

Anyways I have kept thinking about this question. My teacher isnt too sure either about how the vcaa is going to mark.

what does "using high court and referendum, analyse how the division of power has changed actually mean? "

Like can we just focus on the two cases or do we have to do some sort of strength and weakness of each method?

Like will I get 4/4 if I only described Brislans case basic facts, how states power went down, s109 applied, eroded state, cwlth went up?
Or would VCAA expect me to say ebcause courts are not politically influenced they can change the div of power more easily or something like that?

Hehe ty guys!

FIRSTLY I'm pretty sure that analysing does NOT include evaluating the strengths/pros and weaknesses/cons. You had to use a High Court Interpretation and a Successful Referendum to EXPLORE and INVESTIGATE  how the division of powers has altered, in most cases, the Commonwealth's control has expanded to the detriment of the state's residual power. Particularly in the cases of concurrent powers, where the state's control is further reduced by virtue of S.109 etc (you could go on forever).