ATAR Notes: Forum
Archived Discussion => Business Studies => 2013 => Exam Discussion => Victoria => Legal Studies => Topic started by: sam.utute on November 12, 2013, 10:11:45 am
-
Hi all,
Please use this thread for all post-exam discussion.
Good luck to all of you this afternoon.
Wishing you all the best,
Sam :)
P.S. If you email me a copy of the exam, I will endeavour to create some suggested solutions.
-
the exam was so easy!! hope everyone killed it :)
-
I agree. It was definitely the easiest I have ever done! I was actually expecting the exam to be a lot harder.
-
It wasn't the best exam I've ever done! The referendum question came out of nowhere, we hadn't discussed any successful ones in detail.
-
I thought it was a decent exam. I didn't finish :(( I had two more sentences to go but noooooooooooooooooooooooo. Also, I didn't compare properly since I left like 15 mins for the question (sounds like a lot of time, but it srsly isn't)
edit: lol two, not to
-
Hopefully you guys did well.
Don't feel shattered if it didn't go as expected. I had a rough (and I mean really rough considering I was rank 1) exam in 2011 but it still turned out good :)
-
i stuffed up the reform question by giving a reform and an alternative :'(
-
Were we supposed to evaluate the last question, the 10 marker? I did but a lot of girls in my cohort didn't..
-
damn for question 12 I used the wrong case for the high court interpretation, the worst thing is walking out knowing you knew the case but I just went blank when having to write it. that's 4 marks down the drain..
-
Oh my goodness thank you VCAA <3
That exam wasn't EASY so to speak, but I'm just soooooo relieved all my weak areas weren't tested: no civil pre trial procedures, no VLRC steps or examples, no doctrine of precedent, no recent changes/problems with the legal system. I didn't even revise these properly and thankfully they weren't on the exam :')
Started the extended response with half an hour left, and had time at the end to check over. My hand was hurting, but not enough to prevent me from writing so I'm just so grateful right now. I don't care how tough VCAA will mark or anything, I'm just happy that it's over now.
Off topic: NO MORE EXAMS FOR ME!! Oh gosh I'm so happy I could cry
Hope everyone else was happy :)
-
In regard to the reform question, would it matter if you gave alternatives instead of reforms? Because I did, and I think that reforms could technically count as any change. I just forgot pretty much all 'reforms'. But technically a 'change in order to improve something', which is what the 'alternatives' are.
-
damn for question 12 I used the wrong case for the high court interpretation, the worst thing is walking out knowing you knew the case but I just went blank when having to write it. that's 4 marks down the drain..
Did the same thing except realized half way through and had to cross out a whole page.
Which case did you use?
-
i stuffed up the reform question by giving a reform and an alternative :'(
Oh wow I just realised I did the same thing, used abolishing the jury as a reform. How on earth did I make that mistake
-
Anxiously awaiting an upload of the exam :(
-
I didn't say abolishing the jury, but I more said modifying it. I then went on about specialist jury, so there is a jury but... and then about professional jurors, so there still is a jury...but people are paid to do it. Which is still a jury system, just reformed slightly. Technically reformed just means changed, and the study design doesn't stipulate what the reforms, so as long as it's a change, I'm hoping I'm okay. I know in the book it separately lists them as reforms and alternatives, but I think that's just silly as they essentially mean the same thing.
-
Did the same thing except realized half way through and had to cross out a whole page.
Which case did you use?
I used the freedom of political communication one instead of franklin dam how about you did you write anything after you crossed it out?
-
Someone will probably upload it by then, but I need to go to school tomorrow, and I want a copy of the exam so I might be able to upload it tomorrow if no one else has :)
-
I used the freedom of political communication one instead of franklin dam how about you did you write anything after you crossed it out?
Yep that's what I wrote first, I used the Brislan case after I crossed it out but I didn't write nearly enough to get 8 marks
-
how much people to guys reckon get 100% in legal? does A+ A+ A+ guarantee 40 and above.
-
Oh wow I just realised I did the same thing, used abolishing the jury as a reform. How on earth did I make that mistake
ugh its so depressing! it was so simple and yet i screwed it up
-
how much people to guys reckon get 100% in legal? does A+ A+ A+ guarantee 40 and above.
The lowest study score that achievable with 3 A+'s is 38 (from what I heard) so there's some possibility that you won't get a 40+ but you're in for a chance depending how high or low your A+ is.
-
The lowest study score that achievable with 3 A+'s is 38 (from what I heard) so there's some possibility that you won't get a 40+ but you're in for a chance depending how high or low your A+ is.
Yeah not true I got A+, A+ and A and got 42.
-
how much people to guys reckon get 100% in legal? does A+ A+ A+ guarantee 40 and above.
Straight A+s guarantees anywhere between 38-50.
-
Yeah not true I got A+, A+ and A and got 42.
Well I apologize for providing misleading information
-
lol easy
-
This question was hard to elaborate on:
Q5B) about parliament cannot make laws that override decisions made by the supreme court of victoria??
is this statement correct or incorrect??
i said this is incorrect,
-
This question was hard to elaborate on:
Q5B) about parliament cannot make laws that override decisions made by the supreme court of victoria??
is this statement correct or incorrect??
i said this is incorrect,
Pretty sure incorrect*
Parliament has supreme law making power to abrogate common law. It just can't override the decision of the HC in constitutional cases
-
Omg I blanked out on that question and said something similar :/ whoops!
-
Pretty sure it's true.
Parliament has supreme law making power to abrogate common law. It just can't override the decision of the HC in constitutional cases
DUDE, what????
it says the supreme court not high court??
-
Such a great exam, I loved it. So glad that there was hardly anything on pre-trial procedure or operation of the doctrine of precedent. The VCAT question did trip me up a bit though...
-
also about the court thing and not being bound, i said how court of appeal is the highest in victoria therefore it is not bound by its own precedents, furthermore the material facts of the case may have not been similiar thus being about distinguish its own precedents. not exactly what i wrote but it was one of those tricky things like last year LOL
-
DUDE, what????
it says the supreme court not high court??
Yeah, whoops. I was meant to say incorrect, typo
-
Yeah, whoops. I was meant to say incorrect, typo
haha all good man, this is the only subject i actually want to not be over for some reason. it has been an awesome subject that i am happy to say the time i put in it was worth it. the exam was pretty easy.
-
Such a great exam, I loved it. So glad that there was hardly anything on pre-trial procedure or operation of the doctrine of precedent. The VCAT question did trip me up a bit though...
VCAT and courts? I just completely agreed with the statement and talked about the strengths of VCAT being a cost-effective, informal etc at resolving disputes and then contrasted this against the weaknesses of the courts.
-
haha all good man, this is the only subject i actually want to not be over for some reason. it has been an awesome subject that i am happy to say the time i put in it was worth it. the exam was pretty easy.
:) Yeah, same here! Legal is really great subject, so glad I took it up this year
-
How did you guys find the last question?
I had 15 minutes left and I wrote only 2 pages. Does that mean that I cannot get a high mark, because they gave us 3 pages?
Plus, I found the question really narrow. You were only allowed to talk about two features of the adversary system, compare, and relate it to one element of an effective legal system.
Is it just me or did you guys struggled to find enough points?
I waffled on about cultural barriers/indigenous people :(
-
How did you guys find the last question?
I had 15 minutes left and I wrote only 2 pages. Does that mean that I cannot get a high mark, because they gave us 3 pages?
Plus, I found the question really narrow. You were only allowed to talk about two features of the adversary system, compare, and relate it to one element of an effective legal system.
Is it just me or did you guys struggled to find enough points?
I waffled on about cultural barriers/indigenous people :(
Wait, I'm pretty sure you could about as many features as you wanted, but you had to contrast at least 2?
-
Wait, I'm pretty sure you could about as many features as you wanted, but you had to contrast at least 2?
Omg really? I thought it said discuss two features?
FK!! I was so tempted to talk about a third feature to make up my points.... but I know if they specify 2 points, they won't read the rest.
-
VCAT and courts? I just completely agreed with the statement and talked about the strengths of VCAT being a cost-effective, informal etc at resolving disputes and then contrasted this against the weaknesses of the courts.
I wasn't thinking straight when I did that one. I said that VCAT is great for minor civil claims less than $10,000 or when a non-monetary order (e.g. injunction or interim order) are being sought, then went on about how people might want to use the courts for more complex civil cases (e.g. class actions/contractual disputes) or to challenge the law through statutory interpretation... (Pretty sure I bullshitted so hard on that question)
-
VCAT and courts? I just completely agreed with the statement and talked about the strengths of VCAT being a cost-effective, informal etc at resolving disputes and then contrasted this against the weaknesses of the courts.
I disagreed to an extent. VCAT is not appropriate for a number of cases, such as when one party is dominant over the other or when there's an unhealthy relationship existent between the two parties, and may be a waste of time as the decisions are not binding in the case of mediation and conciliation.
I don't really like completely agreeing with statements. It felt better to explore it rather than just methodically agree to it.
-
For the court of appeal question, how many marks would i get for saying: that precedent is only legally binding upon inferior courts in the same hierarchy where material facts are similar. Since decisions previously made by the Court of Appeal are on the same level of the hierarchy, such decisions are merely persuasive and thus the Court of Appeal is not legally bound to follow previous decisions it has made.
I didn't mention disapproval :S
-
How did you guys find the last question?
I had 15 minutes left and I wrote only 2 pages. Does that mean that I cannot get a high mark, because they gave us 3 pages?
Plus, I found the question really narrow. You were only allowed to talk about two features of the adversary system, compare, and relate it to one element of an effective legal system.
Is it just me or did you guys struggled to find enough points?
I waffled on about cultural barriers/indigenous people :(
DARN man that was a shame, me personally filled up the whole book even the extra response because some questions did not provide enough lines. not that having more discussion is always better.
but i think because you saw there was 15 mins left you started to panic and didn't have as good discussion as you hoped when doing trial exams for example.
i use fair and unbiased hearing,
intro had some crap about our legal system consists of F.A.T and then i stated how the adversarial system allows for a fair and unbiased hearing. but dw dude, you most likely smashed the other questions. i swear all of us this year have been great in the legal thread. answering all the other peoples questions. and plus debating with megan lol even though she is always right.
-
I disagreed to an extent. VCAT is not appropriate for a number of cases, such as when one party is dominant over the other or when there's an unhealthy relationship existent between the two parties, and may be a waste of time as the decisions are not binding in the case of mediation and conciliation.
I don't really like completely agreeing with statements. It felt better to explore it rather than just methodically agree to it.
Yeah, I was going to do that, but I just didn't have time for that.
Omg really? I thought it said discuss two features?
FK!! I was so tempted to talk about a third feature to make up my points.... but I know if they specify 2 points, they won't read the rest.
Idek anymore! I'm so scared now :S SOMEONE CLARIFY.
-
I disagreed to an extent. VCAT is not appropriate for a number of cases, such as when one party is dominant over the other or when there's an unhealthy relationship existent between the two parties, and may be a waste of time as the decisions are not binding in the case of mediation and conciliation.
I don't really like completely agreeing with statements. It felt better to explore it rather than just methodically agree to it.
YEAP good man, i did not completely agree either, because courts are way better with ensuring one does not dominate proceedings. therefore by using courts through the rules and procedure it ensures that both parties have an equal change to present their case.
-
how do you even analyse impact of high court interpretation on div of law making power using one case only? o_o
-
Wait, I'm pretty sure you could about as many features as you wanted, but you had to contrast at least 2?
How did you structure your response? I thought 6 marks for evaluating and 4 marks for comparing two.
That would make 3 strengths and 3 weaknesses regarding to the effectiveness right?
-
How did you guys find the last question?
I had 15 minutes left and I wrote only 2 pages. Does that mean that I cannot get a high mark, because they gave us 3 pages?
Plus, I found the question really narrow. You were only allowed to talk about two features of the adversary system, compare, and relate it to one element of an effective legal system.
Is it just me or did you guys struggled to find enough points?
I waffled on about cultural barriers/indigenous people :(
Our teacher always stressed to us that the 10 mark is more 'quality over quantity' and as long as you cover what the question asks you to do, you can get full marks no matter how much you write...
Going by that, I discussed the features of party control, role of the judge and strict rules of evidence and procedure, then related them back to how they help achieve a fair and unbiased hearing. Then I went into the inquisitorial/adversary thing by comparing role of the judge and rules of evidence and procedure between the two systems.
I managed to stretch that out into 2 pages and finished it with about 5 minutes to spare. Hopefully I did enough :)
-
It was a very good exam. I wouldn't say easy but your knowledge to respond to questions were tested and if you couldn't think on your feet, you were definitely in trouble.
I'm so happy now because I am finished!
NO MORE EXAMS!!! PARTAAAAYYY!!
-
How did you structure your response? I thought 6 marks for evaluating and 4 marks for comparing two.
That would make 3 strengths and 3 weaknesses regarding to the effectiveness right?
can someone type that question up please??....
-
Our teacher always stressed to us that the 10 mark is more 'quality over quantity' and as long as you cover what the question asks you to do, you can get full marks no matter how much you write...
Going by that, I discussed the features of party control, role of the judge and strict rules of evidence and procedure, then related them back to how they help achieve a fair and unbiased hearing. Then I went into the inquisitorial/adversary thing by comparing role of the judge and rules of evidence and procedure between the two systems.
I managed to stretch that out into 2 pages and finished it with about 5 minutes to spare. Hopefully I did enough :)
so you talked about three features? Can someone confirm/ type up question please.
-
Was a really easy exam, ran out of time on the last question :'(
-
How did you structure your response? I thought 6 marks for evaluating and 4 marks for comparing two.
That would make 3 strengths and 3 weaknesses regarding to the effectiveness right?
Intro
Role of the judge (how it links to fair and unbiased and intertwined my comparison within my discussion)
Rule of evidence and procedures (how it links to fair and unbiased and intertwined my comparison within my discussion)
Legal representation (how it links to fair and unbiased)
-
so you talked about three features? Can someone confirm/ type up question please.
It went something like discuss the extent to which the features of adversarial system achieves one element of an effective legal system, compare 2 features of the adversarial system to inquisitorial system
-
It went something like discuss the extent to which the features of adversarial system achieves one element of an effective legal system, compare 2 features of the adversarial system to inquisitorial system
:( yup youre right. could have talked about more features.......
-
so you talked about three features? Can someone confirm/ type up question please.
If I remember right, the question said something like 'To what extent does the adversary system achieve one of the elements of an effective legal system. In your response, compare two features of the adversary system to the inquisitorial system.'
Breaking this down, I put it into two parts.
1. To what extent? This can be discussed with whatever because it's not being compared to inquisitorial
2. Inquisitorial. Fairly self explanatory, compare two (and only two) features.
That's how I interpreted it, at least
-
:( yup youre right. could have talked about more features.......
Look, M_BONG it's okay, you can get the marks! It's all about HOW you discussed as opposed to the AMOUNT. As long as you addressed the question, you're all good :) Don't let this bog you down -- it was just one stupid (!) question.
-
Can someone confirm question 1b... Something about why the supreme court not having to follow precedent in the same court. It's really bugging me
-
Can someone confirm question 1b... Something about why the supreme court not having to follow precedent in the same court. It's really bugging me
bc a court is not bound by its own decision on same level.
plus you can add material facts dissimilar to justify not following the persuasive precedent.
-
bc a court is not bound by its own decision on same level.
plus you can add material facts dissimilar to justify not following the persuasive precedent.
did you have to mention disapproval of the previous precedent?
-
Feeling really good about that exam. Only complaint was the length or maybe that was just me writing too much.
With 1b I used distinguishing.
-
You could also add that if that precedent has been abrogated (declared as no longer a 'good law') then that precedent will no longer exist.
Yes, And I also agree with the above post. They could have cut at least one question out but overall, I was happy with my progress.
-
Feeling really good about that exam. Only complaint was the length or maybe that was just me writing too much.
With 1b I used distinguishing.
but doesnt disfinguishing imply it was bound at the first place? idk i might be wrong.
plus its only worth two marks!!
-
How did you guys find the last question?
I had 15 minutes left and I wrote only 2 pages. Does that mean that I cannot get a high mark, because they gave us 3 pages?
Plus, I found the question really narrow. You were only allowed to talk about two features of the adversary system, compare, and relate it to one element of an effective legal system.
Is it just me or did you guys struggled to find enough points?
I waffled on about cultural barriers/indigenous people :(
omg same! i literally had 15 mins to writ and literally wrote about the judge and legal rep and how it results in fair and unbiased hearing for adversary but not inquisitorial
-
did you have to mention disapproval of the previous precedent?
I said it could disapprove :S
-
but doesnt disfinguishing imply it was bound at the first place? idk i might be wrong.
plus its only worth two marks!!
'Its previous decisions' attests to the fact that they were bound, methinks, otherwise, why would it have been there in the first place.
@ Flor
If they disapprove it, they would still have to follow it, unless the higher court (High Court) reverses the precedent on appeal or overrules the lower court's precedent.
-
Guys don't waste time stressing over whether you got the answer right or wrong. Honestly, you can't do anything about it now- what's done is done. Also, you're probably more likely to remember your mistakes walking out, so try to avoid thinking about it. Maybe wait for suggested solutions as well before actually confirming your answers! :)
-
'Its previous decisions' attests to the fact that they were bound, methinks, otherwise, why would it have been there in the first place.
@ Flor
If they disapprove it, they would still have to follow it, unless the higher court (High Court) reverses the precedent on appeal or overrules the lower court's precedent.
I thought disapproving on the same level worked differently. It would create two contradictory sets of precedents.
-
I thought disapproving on the same level worked differently. It would create two contradictory sets of precedents.
According to my teacher disapproved precedent still has to be followed? Anywho, I guess we'll find out later. Time to relax :D WOOOO!!
-
Finished with 18 mins left and went over everything....not sure if I didn't write as much as I should have or all those practice exams payed off?
-
According to my teacher disapproved precedent still has to be followed? Anywho, I guess we'll find out later. Time to relax :D WOOOO!!
yea it is. even though they disapprove it they still have to follow it but state it in their judgment that they were forced to do so. But thats for lower courts following precedent from superior courts only isnt it?
-
What did everyone get for the question about the courts using two dispute resolution methods?
Was it meant to be mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or judicial? Because I thought that those methods were by tribunals and not courts... but I wrote them down anyway haha :P
-
What did everyone get for the question about the courts using two dispute resolution methods?
Was it meant to be mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or judicial? Because I thought that those methods were by tribunals and not courts... but I wrote them down anyway haha :P
All forms of ADR are employed by BOTH the courts and VCAT. So i used judicial determination and mediation. (Correct me if i'm wrong :S)
-
What did everyone get for the question about the courts using two dispute resolution methods?
Was it meant to be mediation, conciliation, arbitration, or judicial? Because I thought that those methods were by tribunals and not courts... but I wrote them down anyway haha :P
Yeah -- that's right! These dispute resolution methods are also used in the courts :) Also, I think you only had to talk about 2?
All forms of ADR are employed by BOTH the courts and VCAT. So i used judicial determination and mediation. (Correct me if i'm wrong :S)
Defs not wrong! Any two would do. Anyways, did you give an example of how it's used at the courts?
-
I'm sorry if I come about sounding too stressed, but it's cuz I only have one 3/4 to worry about. :P
By the way,
for the VCAT vs Courts question, the question was, from memory something like "VCAT is always the better option as it is faster and cheaper than courts".
Would you be allowed to talk about something other than cost and time or did your arguments had to stick to those two points only? I talked about limited right to appeal from VCAT decisions..
-
Yeah -- that's right! These dispute resolution methods are also used in the courts :) Also, I think you only had to talk about 2?
Defs not wrong! Any two would do. Anyways, did you give an example of how it's used at the courts?
Did you have to also state when it was used?... Did it just in case but nearly cost me in the end.
-
I'm sorry if I come about sounding too stressed, but it's cuz I only have one 3/4 to worry about. :P
By the way,
for the VCAT vs Courts question, the question was, from memory something like "VCAT is always the better option as it is faster and cheaper than courts".
Would you be allowed to talk about something other than cost and time or did your arguments had to stick to those two points only? I talked about limited right to appeal from VCAT decisions..
Hmm, well,I agreed completely, but I talked about more than just faster and cheaper. I made sure to state it in my intro though. So, I guess if you indicated it in your intro, you should be fine? Idk though :S
Did you have to also state when it was used?... Did it just in case but nearly cost me in the end.
Tbh, not sure. I did it though.
-
Did you have to also state when it was used?... Did it just in case but nearly cost me in the end.
Yeah I did it too :D
-
Really good exam! Just wondering, the last question- I interpreted it as 'evaluate the adversary system and compare two of its features with the inquisitorial system' is that right? Then I spoke about 4 features of adversary and COMPARED and sort of evaluated those with the inquisitorial. Then the rest of the adversary features I just evaluated in relation to how they achieve a fair and unbiased hearing. Was that right or was it just compare two features??
-
I think the exam was straightforward enough. Ran out of time on the last question so I missed out a final comparison of one inquistorial feature. I think I may have left a thing or two out of my answers. Was the Tasmanian Dam case alright to use for High Court interpretation? I discussed it's impact but I didn't remember mention anything about interpretation I don't think and I didn't repeat the case facts at least.
For the court of appeal one, I said that it was neither higher or lower in the court hierarchy so it was not bound by it's previous decisions. I didn't mention disapproval or distinguishing because I filled up my lines and i thought my answer was sufficient. For the 2 dispute resolution methods used by the courts, would that have involved discussing ADR and Judicial Determination, Arbitration and Judicial determination or any ADR because I just used Mediation and Arbitration because they were methods used by the courts. (The courts would refer cases to ADR as a method of resolving the disputes). Not sure if it's right, hopefully I get a good mark. Got 100% on most sacs this year (Even though they will get standardised) so if I do good hopefully I get a good final score! :)
-
with the court of appeal question you didnt have to mention dissaprove or distinguish that is irrelevant, you must say that because the decisions of the court are at the same level in the heirarchy it is not a binding precedent, but only persuasive, thus the court of appeal doesnt have to follow past decisions.
also dissaproving works two ways. (1) lower court dissaproves precedent made in higher court through obiter dictum but must follow cause they are bound. (2) same level they can disaaprove the precedent and establish there own precedent as the precedent previously set is not binding, just persuasive, so what that leaves is two precedents.
-
Hmm, well,I agreed completely, but I talked about more than just faster and cheaper. I made sure to state it in my intro though. So, I guess if you indicated it in your intro, you should be fine? Idk though :S
Tbh, not sure. I did it though.
you could talk about as many concepts as you wanted but you had to mention those two, so you could of spoke about three things, but two of the things had to be the ones mentioned, marks are awarded for students being able to respond to stimulis.
-
did anyone write about S109 for the restriction on law making on the states, that was correct yeah?
-
Were we supposed to evaluate the last question, the 10 marker? I did but a lot of girls in my cohort didn't..
you had to speak about the extent, so you have to refer to the degree that you disagree or agree with the statement, and provide reasons why generally through strengths and weaknesses, so yes it is very similar, but not exactly like an evaluation.
-
did anyone write about S109 for the restriction on law making on the states, that was correct yeah?
Didnt write that myself, however it is correct :)
-
How exactly do you ANALYSE the impact of High Court cases in influencing the division of power?
I mean.. you can't really talk about one case (eg. tas dam) then say BOOM the Cwlth division of lawmaking changed and claim you have analysed the division of law-making??
-
How exactly do you ANALYSE the impact of High Court cases in influencing the division of power?
I mean.. you can't really talk about one case (eg. tas dam) then say BOOM the Cwlth division of lawmaking changed and claim you have analysed the division of law-making??
I AGREE oh my god, there is only so much you can write.
-
Didnt write that myself, however it is correct :)
hope so, thanks for that!
-
In regard to the reform question, would it matter if you gave alternatives instead of reforms? Because I did, and I think that reforms could technically count as any change. I just forgot pretty much all 'reforms'. But technically a 'change in order to improve something', which is what the 'alternatives' are.
yeh it does matter, tbh technically they are different things according to vcaa and thats shown in exam papers that they mark, so unfortunately yes you had to exclusively mention reforms
-
This question was hard to elaborate on:
Q5B) about parliament cannot make laws that override decisions made by the supreme court of victoria??
is this statement correct or incorrect??
i said this is incorrect,
you are correct by stating 'incorrect'
-
Off topic; but I was just looking at past VCAA exams and never (in past 5 years) has VCAA put a 10, 8, 8, 7 mark question consecutively..usually it's one 10 marker and one 8 marker and then the rest of 5/6 markers.
There were very few 1-3 markers this year ( 3 questions only) so I guess it explains why a lot of us ran out of time :S
But dang I was predicting courts v parliament, doc precedent, Aus v another country to be on there so I only prepared for those haha guess you can't predict these things.
-
What do you reckon the mark for an a+ etc will be since it was a relatively easy exam? Also everyone is making me worried I missed a page or something if they didn't finish because I finished with 35 minutes to spare, writing on every line?
-
what were the two 8 markers and the 7 marker again?
-
what were the two 8 markers and the 7 marker again?
I am pretty sure there was only one 7, 8 and 10 marker. Not 2 8 markers
7 marker- VCAT
8 marker- Referendum/High Court interpretation
10 marker- Adversary System
-
I am pretty sure there was only one 7, 8 and 10 marker. Not 2 8 markers
7 marker- VCAT
8 marker- Referendum/High Court interpretation
10 marker- Adversary System
Yeah you are right; I realised after someone uploaded all the questions.
I guess I just wasn't well prepared for the exam, can't blame the length :P
-
Yeah you are right; I realised after someone uploaded all the questions.
I guess I just wasn't well prepared for the exam, can't blame the length :P
You had me scared shitless that I forgot to do an 8 marker hahaha
-
What do you reckon the mark for an a+ etc will be since it was a relatively easy exam? Also everyone is making me worried I missed a page or something if they didn't finish because I finished with 35 minutes to spare, writing on every line?
dw i just did the exam at home cause i finished last year and i finished with 30 minutes to spare so dont stress.
-
Would you be allowed to talk about something other than cost and time or did your arguments had to stick to those two points only? I talked about limited right to appeal from VCAT decisions..
I talked about cost, informality and time, hopefully that works out ok!
-
In regard to the reform question, would it matter if you gave alternatives instead of reforms? Because I did, and I think that reforms could technically count as any change. I just forgot pretty much all 'reforms'. But technically a 'change in order to improve something', which is what the 'alternatives' are.
Yes it does matter.
Reforms are where changes are made to the jury system but it is still retained. i.e. making jurors give reasons for their answers, reduce the number of challenges.
Alternatives are where the Jury System is abolished and replaced with something else i.e. Trial by judge or a panel of judges, specialist jurors, professional jurors etc.
-
Yes it does matter.
Reforms are where changes are made to the jury system but it is still retained. i.e. making jurors give reasons for their answers, reduce the number of challenges.
Alternatives are where the Jury System is abolished and replaced with something else i.e. Trial by judge or a panel of judges, specialist jurors, professional jurors etc.
Depends how they interpret it though...
You see, you said an alternative is where the jury system is abolished, but then said specialist jurors, professional jurors are alternatives ; which still utilizes is still a jury system.
-
Connect will be releasing our suggested solutions in a few minutes! :)
-
Connect will be releasing our suggested solutions in a few minutes! :)
on fb or here or both?
-
on fb or here or both?
Link to FB will be posted here.
-
I found the exam pretty easy. Fingers crossed.
-
Hi all,
Please use this thread for all post-exam discussion.
Good luck to all of you this afternoon.
Wishing you all the best,
Sam :)
P.S. If you email me a copy of the exam, I will endeavour to create some suggested solutions.
Hi, for Question 12 it states "Using one referendum and one high court case, analyse the impact of referendum and the high courts interpretation of the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers."
For this question i used the right cases but did not explain the strength and weaknesses because after reading the questio several times i came to the conclusion that they were not asking us for strength and weaknesses, but to 'analyse' how these 'cases" changed the division of law making power
i explain this in great detail, about the impact of these cases on the division of law making power due to the interpretation/deletion/amendment of the wording of the constitution
I really believe the question is not asking us to give the strengths and weaknesses due to the nature of the question and how it is directed precisely to the impact of the cases rather than an evaluation of the process
I am really worried about this because the suggested answers say other wise!!!!! Please tell me what you think, and what marks i would have received for naming the right cases and analyzing percisely how they changed the division of law making power in their own unique ways
-
Hi, for Question 12 it states "Using one referendum and one high court case, analyse the impact of referendum and the high courts interpretation of the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers."
For this question i used the right cases but did not explain the strength and weaknesses because after reading the questio several times i came to the conclusion that they were not asking us for strength and weaknesses, but to 'analyse' how these 'cases" changed the division of law making power
i explain this in great detail, about the impact of these cases on the division of law making power due to the interpretation/deletion/amendment of the wording of the constitution
I really believe the question is not asking us to give the strengths and weaknesses due to the nature of the question and how it is directed precisely to the impact of the cases rather than an evaluation of the process
I am really worried about this because the suggested answers say other wise!!!!! Please tell me what you think, and what marks i would have received for naming the right cases and analyzing percisely how they changed the division of law making power in their own unique ways
To be honest, if VCAA decides to be really tight on this question, they would require you to give some form of strengths and weaknesses/analysis. By only describing cases, you are at best illustrating or explaining. The question says "analyse HC and referendum in changing the division of powers" therefore it is not asking you to explain how the cases you used change the div. of powers but rather, use your cases to back up your argument/illustrate how the processes can change the div. of power. That is how I see it. I regret not doing it on the exam though.
This is probably one of those contentious/trick questions. :( I am worried about it as well.
I think if you only talked about your cases, plus talk about its impact on div of power without considering the whole process (eg. High Court interpretation)'s effect on div of power, you can max get 4-6 marks. This is because you haven't done one component of the question.
Don't quote me on this, though. I haven't checked with any official sources.
EDIT: Would be great if someone who has checked with a teacher can confirm/refute what I have said above. Thanks.
-
What I did for q12 (M_BONG, I too believe its a trick question :o ), was I talked about its effectiveness in impacting the div of powers overall (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 then gave an in depth example case study, namely 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.
I definitely wrote a lot for this question, not sure if all was necessary for an in depth analysis.
What do you guys think? Do you think this was necessary and/or enough to obtain the 8 marks? Is this what vcaa wants?
VCAA, WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM US???! ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
This is probably one of those contentious/trick questions. :( I am worried about it as well.
It's probs meant to be the only "tricky" question on the exam that makes you think. Probably to get that bell curve, make sure "top" students (because it was an easy exam) are separated from the pack. Just my take on the exam....
-
To be honest, if VCAA decides to be really tight on this question, they would require you to give some form of strengths and weaknesses/analysis. By only describing cases, you are at best illustrating or explaining. The question says "analyse HC and referendum in changing the division of powers" therefore it is not asking you to explain how the cases you used change the div. of powers but rather, use your cases to back up your argument/illustrate how the processes can change the div. of power. That is how I see it. I regret not doing it on the exam though.
This is probably one of those contentious/trick questions. :( I am worried about it as well.
I think if you only talked about your cases, plus talk about its impact on div of power without considering the whole process (eg. High Court interpretation)'s effect on div of power, you can max get 4-6 marks. This is because you haven't done one component of the question.
Don't quote me on this, though. I haven't checked with any official sources.
EDIT: Would be great if someone who has checked with a teacher can confirm/refute what I have said above. Thanks.
Thankyou for your insight! I am extremely worried because now i wish I had written more, cause I totally had the info, just didnt write it down cause didnt realise thats what they were asking after reading the question sooooo many times! Let's hope vcaa is lenient with their marking and see how this question could have been interpreted in two ways!