Should it matter if you branch out from an essay topic a bit?
Theoretically: no; so long as you're careful.
I'll give some background to this question - we recently completed our first English SAC at school, and I received a lower mark than I was hoping for, and to be honest, lower than I expected (before you write me off as arrogant, please listen read!).
Below is a fairly generic representation of the topic we were given.
"Event A is driven solely by cause B. To what extent do you agree?
For a prompt like this, I'd say you're
meant to question absolutes like "solely." An essay that just takes this statement as fact and provides evidence to support it would be quite weak, regardless of how well the discussion was conducted - it'd still be reductive. Having said that, it may depend on the circumstances, so could you let me know which text & prompt you were dealing with.
(I know I tell people to minimise the text-specific nature of their inquiries, but this is one instance that is highly dependent on each individual case
)
To which I responded with something like this...
1. Cause B is influential - here's why it's influential - here's how it came about
2. Though Cause B was influential, Cause B itself was actually the product of something much broader, which due to it's impact on Event A, is of a much higher significance than Cause B
3. Both of my previous paragraphs are relevant, but here's what I think actually drove Event A
This
seems safe, but it could have come across as contradictory if you didn't have a clear, overarching contention. The trouble with 'challenge' paragraphs is that they can subvert your discussion if you don't do them properly; they're meant to give the illusion of challenging your points whilst in reality strengthening your contention.
eg.
Prompt: The tragic downfall of Charlie the Octopus was solely the result of his pride.
Para 1: Charlie's pride is dangerous - here's how it affects him and other characters.
Para 2: His pride is very complex - here's how and why it came about.
Para 3: The tragedy is actually due to lots of different things, not just his pride.
Contention: ?
A structure like this doesn't allow for much complexity because you're limiting yourself to three separate discussions without giving yourself much chance to tie them all together.
As you can see, the first two paragraphs stuck fairly closely to the topic, and made specific mention of what the topic included, whereas the 3rd paragraph was entirely original - I didn't completely agree with the topic ("To what extent do you agree? ..."), therefore I wrote about what I actually thought, even though it was different to where the topic would lead you.
If this was the case, you probably should have been challenging the prompt from the start rather than going along with it for half an essay and
then introducing a contrary point.
You are allowed to disagree with the prompt*in the exam
Fundamentally, my question is this: Could that third paragraph be a problem?
Yes, but it's more likely that your contention was problematic rather than one specific paragraph letting you down. (This is just conjecture for the moment, so just based on the plan you've outlined) I think you may have lost sight of the implications of the prompt and just been focusing on individual arguments.
The feedback we got for the SAC was pathetic - all we received were numbers.
The Criteria: (each out of 10)
1. Close analysis and understanding of the chosen text 9
2. Ability to interpret text in response to the task 9
3. Control of the conventions of the English language 10
Urgh, I hate it when teachers do this; I feel your pain, man. If possible, maybe sit down with your teacher and ask him/her whether there are any specific areas where you could improve? Most will be open to this, and it's a good way to show them you're committed to improving.
If not, it'll be up to you (/ATAR Notes
) to find these areas of weakness.
1. If you've lost a mark here, it's probably the result of some minor interpretational errors throughout your piece. 'Errors in interpretation' is a kind of strange phrase because you'd assume it means 'you thought this character died and they didn't' or 'you thought these characters were in love when they weren't' but more often it's about
precision of wording. If there are two characters having a minor disagreement and I call it a 'fight' or 'clash,' this can fall under the umbrella of being an 'interpretational error' even though what's
actually wrong is my word choice. Do this a couple of times in a row, and it all adds up to one mark lost (so you may have to pinpoint several 'mistakes' rather than there just being one easily identifiable paragraph/sentence where the mark was compromised.)
2. *facepalm* I hate vague criteria so much... This is essentially the same as the first, though I'd say this has more to do with how you conduct your discussion in relation to the prompt. So if, in your teacher's opinion, you've gone off-topic or you lacked a cohesive focus, then that could've put you on the 9/10 side rather than the 10/10.
Yes, this doesn't look like a bad mark on the surface, but a lot of students got 26+/30 who don't write anything original, and don't usually show much depth of thought. Point and click. (This is not an assumption - I have proof read their work in the past)
That sounds frustrating and unjust, but short of some Freaky-Friday-teacher-student-brain-swap, there's nothing you can do to change other people's marks. Most of the time, students like this get the marks they
deserve at the end of the year when exam criteria comes into play, so I wouldn't worry about it for now. The only thing that's in your control is your own score, so just do what you can to beat your own record rather than other peoples'.
Typically, Criteria 1 and 2 are my strengths! (based on feedback from past few years) I'm better at thinking about, and exploring a topic than using long and fancy vocab - yet I lost marks for the first 2, and actually got full marks for criteria 3. Both my second and third (especially third) paragraphs were original - something the examiners supposedly look for - no one else would have had the 'same' ideas.
Firstly, your strengths will likely fluctuate, and whilst it's good you're aware of what you're confident in, you won't always be losing marks in the same area every time. Secondly, yes the examiners look for originality (and yes, your method is definitely preferable to the passive 'Yes, because A B and C' approach a lot of other students take) but that's more of a secondary component of the criteria.
No. 1 is RELEVANCE! Id what you're writing isn't relevant, you could be doing absolutely everything else perfectly but that wouldn't matter.
My English teacher said he once marked an exam piece on Shakespeare's
Richard III, the first line of which was '
Richard III is a tragic play written by William Shakespeare, just like
Macbeth' and from there on, it was a
Macbeth essay. He said it was the best
Macbeth essay he'd ever read, but it was still on the wrong text. From memory he ended up taking it to the Chief Assessor like 'wtf do I do with this?' See- the technical criteria VCAA operate on contains things like 'ability to use language appropriate to the task' and objectively speaking, the student did that perfectly. But relevance rules everything, and that kid got a 1/10 cause at least he got the author right.
Thirdly, you have no idea whether or not other people will have the 'same' ideas; don't rely on this to boost you up. Maybe your class is comprised of sheep who never think independently, but that won't mean the rest of the state will be. Maybe they wrote totally different ideas, but they did it better. Even though you're being compared to the state's standards at the end of the year, for now and for the sake of self-improvement, best to put other people's capabilities out of your mind and concentrate on your own work in a vacuum.
English is meant to reward people who think
English is meant to do a lot of things. Unfortunately English is run by English teachers who are flawed at best and downright petty at worst. I'm not saying this to make you cynical or pessimistic, but you need to be aware of this subject's... subjectivity. For the most part, if you're hitting the criteria then you're safe, but you'll still be relying on the assessors to recognise what you're doing is right.
Given we're now in the 7th year of this study design, VCAA have essentially weeded out any ridiculously biased exam markers and the standards are pretty clear now, but if you really want to do well:
you have to think like an assessor, not like whoever wrote the criteria.and my frustration is that I believe thinking cost me marks here - my argument was original, it was relevant and showed logic and depth of thought. But the marks I got lead me to believe that I was penalised because I branched out from the topic. According to my markers, I didn't 'interpret' the prompt properly. Again, if specifics are required - either because you don't understand what I'm asking, or because you're sceptical (I'm not concerned if you are) - I will provide.
If you want a second/exam-based opinion I'm happy to offer one, but the most helpful thing to do at this juncture would be to talk to your teacher/markers whenever possible. Even if it turns out what you're doing is completely acceptable from an exam point of view, you'll still have three or four more in-house SACs to complete where you're writing for your teachers, not the examiners. It appears you're in the unfortunate situation of needing to learn two ways of writing; one that hits your teacher's preferences, and an objectively 'safe' way to write for the end of the year. Luckily the two shouldn't be too radically different (your teacher hasn't given you fours when you deserved tens) but you'll still need to split your mindset between these two modes of writing.
And even if your teacher is an exam marker - no teacher marks SACs the same way they mark exams. For SACs they're trying to mould how you write, and are allowed to let their inherent biases come to the surface. In the exam, they can't afford to do this.
Let's say you had one of those weirdly restrictive teachers who said 'unless you use 7 quotes per paragraph I'll never give you full marks.' In the SACs they could enforce this, but when they're marking exam papers, there are different standards. Every essay is marked at least twice by two different people, so if the marks are too far apart, it goes to a third assessor and they take the closest of the scores.
eg.
Suppose I wrote an essay that one teacher (A) gave a 5/10 because it pissed her off for some reason, while another teacher (B) gave it a 10/10 because I'm wonderful. My essay would then get sent to a third assessor (C,) who agrees with B that I'm wonderful and gives me a 9/10. My score would end up being 19/20; assessor A's name goes on a 'watchlist' of sorts, and if they're continually assigning suspicious or questionable marks, they're kindly asked to step down from their role as an exam marker. Like I said, most of these wacky markers have been gotten rid of over the years, so nowadays you won't see much disparity, but it still pays to be aware of the process.
You certainly seem like a competent writer, and I'm sure the rankings/SAC scores will even themselves out in the end, so I'd say don't panic too much. Just be clever about how you approach your SACs and be aware of your audience. Some subtle conversations with your teacher about what they like to see wouldn't go astray either
But thank you so much for being specific with your question! This is way easier to respond to than 'I only got 28/30! Whyyyy?'
If you want me to be more specific, let me know what that prompt was and I can deconstruct it with you.