Legal Studies Exam Discussion

[AmericanBeauty]

If VCAA start deducing marks because we wrote that it is a limited implied right (Which it is) they deserve a belting.

[RamGill]

Anyone feel that a lot of it was poorly worded intentionally to trip kids up?


I have many qualms by them referencing Parliament 'changing' the law, because even though I referenced everything I would've if they were talking about initiating law, and just changed the word 'initiate' to 'amend', I feel the question was there to fuck people over.. I know they want to separate people, but do it through knowledge, rather than wording.

[AmericanBeauty]

Anyone feel that a lot of it was poorly worded intentionally to trip kids up?


I have many qualms by them referencing Parliament 'changing' the law, because even though I referenced everything I would've if they were talking about initiating law, and just changed the word 'initiate' to 'amend', I feel the question was there to fuck people over.. I know they want to separate people, but do it through knowledge, rather than wording.

Yes. Probably half the questions were ambiguously worded. The ten marker, the referendum one and a few others that escape me were worded terribly.

[M_BONG]

Anyone have copy of the questions/exam? Just curious.

Of all VCAA exams, I think they have all been fairly worded (haven't seen this year's) although there was one about 'retention of juries' in 2010 which would screw a few people because a few wouldn't know what 'retention' means. But yeah, doubt they would be ambiguous with wording to separate people...

[AmericanBeauty]

Anyone have copy of the questions/exam? Just curious.

Of all VCAA exams, I think they have all been fairly worded (haven't seen this year's) although there was one about 'retention of juries' in 2010 which would screw a few people because a few wouldn't know what 'retention' means. But yeah, doubt they would be ambiguous with wording to separate people...

They used unusual words that aren't on the study design. Nobody has a damn copy of the exam but I'll try find a few questions from VCE Discussion Page.

[M_BONG]

They used unusual words that aren't on the study design. Nobody has a damn copy of the exam but I'll try find a few questions from VCE Discussion Page.

Wait, they don't have to use words from SD. That would be silly because the exam would have no element of surprise: just study the study design word for word then. But yeah, have to admit the pre-trial procedure question was really dodgy because you're only supposed to know about the general purposes of them.

[AmericanBeauty]

Wait, they don't have to use words from SD. That would be silly because the exam would have no element of surprise: just study the study design word for word then. But yeah, have to admit the pre-trial procedure question was really dodgy because you're only supposed to know about the general purposes of them.

Well it is like 'discuss the ability of parliament in changing the law' rather than initiating laws and a few others. I'll try remember some more I can't find the posts on fB.

[vceisajoke]

Well, I think I recall using Brislan's case for the question asking about the effects of statutory interpretation, linking it with the whole "other like-services" drama.  Unless I completely missed the point of it... which was me during most questions.  Especially the 10-mark one.

Speaking of which... What did everyone write for that question? Only a few things came to my mind.

[AmericanBeauty]

Speaking of which... What did everyone write for that question? Only a few things came to my mind.

I said that they make laws 'in futuro' but are limited because they are unable to be a clairvoyant and see into the future, better wording but I got it wrong regardless. Left it there despite realising the question said 'changing.'

Then I wrote about being limited to change the constitution as they must pass referendum.
I spoke about the need of bi-partisan support to change laws.
I spoke about the ability to abrogate laws.
I spoke about the ability to override common law and statute.
I wrote on I think one more thing in detail.
Then I made one sentence comments on their jurisdiction being a limitation and another thing which I forget.

[chasej]

I said that they make laws 'in futuro' but are limited because they are unable to be a clairvoyant and see into the future, better wording but I got it wrong regardless. Left it there despite realising the question said 'changing.'

Then I wrote about being limited to change the constitution as they must pass referendum.
I spoke about the need of bi-partisan support to change laws.
I spoke about the ability to abrogate laws.
I spoke about the ability to override common law and statute.
I wrote on I think one more thing in detail.
Then I made one sentence comments on their jurisdiction being a limitation and another thing which I forget.

Interesting. I tackled it a completely different way talking about the effectiveness of parliament such as investigation/debate etc. allowing for better laws ensuring the law is changed effectively.

I don't think it's so bad questions were ambiguous, makes it easier to answer the questions because you can fit it around what you know instead of being forced to talk about things which your knowledge on may not be so great.

[engton1796]

Speaking of which... What did everyone write for that question? Only a few things came to my mind.

I put that they may need to change laws to keep up with changing values in society, making laws in futuro, and codifying common law into regular law/Trigwell case.

Immediately realised I stuffed up when a friend said he discussed what restricted their ability to change law...

[engton1796]

I said that they make laws 'in futuro' but are limited because they are unable to be a clairvoyant and see into the future, better wording but I got it wrong regardless. Left it there despite realising the question said 'changing.'

Then I wrote about being limited to change the constitution as they must pass referendum.
I spoke about the need of bi-partisan support to change laws.
I spoke about the ability to abrogate laws.
I spoke about the ability to override common law and statute.
I wrote on I think one more thing in detail.
Then I made one sentence comments on their jurisdiction being a limitation and another thing which I forget.

Except the changing of Constitution via referendum, I'd think you were on track, just as long as you justified it with "change" instead of "initiate"  
< Was constantly double-checking over and over to make sure I was using the words in the question.

[chasej]

I put that they may need to change laws to keep up with changing values in society, making laws in futuro, and codifying common law into regular law/Trigwell case.

Immediately realised I stuffed up when a friend said he discussed what restricted their ability to change law...

You didn't stuff up. It was an open ended question which allowed students to make any relevant points they want.

[AmericanBeauty]

Interesting. I tackled it a completely different way talking about the effectiveness of parliament such as investigation/debate etc. allowing for better laws ensuring the law is changed effectively.

I don't think it's so bad questions were ambiguous, makes it easier to answer the questions because you can fit it around what you know instead of being forced to talk about things which your knowledge on may not be so great.

Yeah just remembered I also wrote on the extensive resources available to them. Spoke about the VLRC consulting with the community and investigafing within the community to educate community members about a change.

[zeiinaaa]

Wait so can someone please just state what you HAD to mention for the 10 marker? Because I have no idea if what I wrote is correct, what did everyone else write for it?

Oh and I wrote below the lines when I ran out of space! Is this bad?? Because apparently they won't mark it or it won't be scanned properly..