Legal Studies Exam Discussion

[lucy11]

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?

[hola123]

what were the two 8 markers and the 7 marker again?

[Ozil]

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

[M_BONG]

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

[hola123]

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

You had me scared shitless that I forgot to do an 8 marker hahaha

[lloyd18]

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.

[uprising]

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!

[TheWackyCheese]

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.

[unfamila]

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.

[sam.utute]

Connect will be releasing our suggested solutions in a few minutes!

[lloyd18]

Connect will be releasing our suggested solutions in a few minutes!

on fb or here or both?

[sam.utute]

on fb or here or both?

Link to FB will be posted here.

[90+FTW]

I found the exam pretty easy. Fingers crossed.

[EstherR]

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

[M_BONG]

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.