Can I still get quasi-50?

[99.90 pls]

Beyonce is not a standard unit of measurement, you guys...

OP, no sense fussing over numerical SAC scores as you can always climb back from them. I lost my voice the day before the Year 12 oral and accidentally dropped my cue cards way too many times. I also screwed up the first Context SAC so hard, I essentially gave up on the possibility of scoring highly for English and just wrote fun, interesting stuff within the boundaries of the criteria.

OP, no sense fussing over numerical SAC scores as you can always climb back from them. I lost my voice the day before the Year 12 oral and accidentally dropped my cue cards way too many times. I also screwed up the first Context SAC so hard, I essentially gave up on the possibility of scoring highly for English and just wrote fun, interesting stuff within the boundaries of the criteria.

So whilst I admire your motivation, don't let that "50 or bust" attitude get the better of you. Aim high, but be aware that some things are out of your control.

Thanks for all the solid advice, I'll definitely keep it in mind!

A friend of mine (from MHS) got a B+ on that sac and got 49. I'm sure you will be fine.

All the way back in 2009 at my old high school, a student got a B+ in the oral SAC because he couldn't be bothered writing out notes for it.  In a cohort of around 200, the average (MEDIAN and MEAN) mark for that SAC was an A+.  Said student got a 50.

There was a guy in the year above me who got C+ on his Year 11 grades as well as his first 3/4 SAC, he ended up getting 47 in English. Getting an A or A+ at MHS really doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things.

While A may be average in your class, remember that the standards you're held up to are very different from other schools.

OT: this sac doesn't mean anything, guy last year got b+ on all his sacs (had Marotus) aced exam and got 50 so ez dw bout it

All super motivating stories, thank you everyone! I definitely have a more hopeful outlook on the future now. Much love <3

Marotus scam gg

lel
nah but marotous is actually good, gave him 5 stars on ratemyteachers

[g1mp1e]

Thanks for all the solid advice, I'll definitely keep it in mind!

All super motivating stories, thank you everyone! I definitely have a more hopeful outlook on the future now. Much love <3

lel
nah but marotous is actually good, gave him 5 stars on ratemyteachers

Bl Will, rekt.

[vox nihili]

Hi AN,

Got my oral SAC back today. Ended up with an A. I'm not usually one to whinge about SAC scores; if I receive a poor result, I'll usually accept it because it was my fault.

In this case though, I genuinely believed that I was marked inconsistently. It may sound arrogant but my speech was pretty well-received and this was reflected in the comments my teacher wrote.

(Image removed from quote.)

The rest of the class received mostly As and A+s, while a small minority received B+, putting me well under the rank I'm striving for.

I asked my teacher about the result and she was quite vague and only tried to console me by saying that our school's SACs are moderated upwards... Is there any way I can ask for a review of the mark? Is it still possible to get 50 or near 50 if I ace my other SACs?

Thanks.

You're more than welcome to post the oral here or send it to me and we can have a look to see why perhaps you didn't make the A+. As has been said though, one SAC won't matter too much and MHS is quite brutal when it comes to SACs

[M_BONG]

OP: The next text response SAC should give a good idea where you're going. If you get, say, a B+ then you don't really have anyone to blame (not even your teacher) but yourself because that next SAC will be cross marked by all the other English teachers.

I disagree that MHS SACs for English are marked any more harshly than any other school so going to MHS and getting back disappointing scores is not a good consolation. For example, the average score for my class in the Oral SAC is 18.2/20 (Mahoney). I think it's more so we are a stronger cohort and that's why our SAC scores scale up.

But yeah - no point dwelling since there is no Oral assessment after this, and MHS will not change your SAC scores. I wouldn't bother posting my Oral here because it won''t change anything - it will just stop you from moving on.

[99.90 pls]

OP: The next text response SAC should give a good idea where you're going. If you get, say, a B+ then you don't really have anyone to blame (not even your teacher) but yourself because that next SAC will be cross marked by all the other English teachers.

I disagree that MHS SACs for English are marked any more harshly than any other school so going to MHS and getting back disappointing scores is not a good consolation. For example, the average score for my class in the Oral SAC is 18.2/20 (Mahoney). I think it's more so we are a stronger cohort and that's why our SAC scores scale up.

But yeah - no point dwelling since there is no Oral assessment after this, and MHS will not change your SAC scores. I wouldn't bother posting my Oral here because it won''t change anything - it will just stop you from moving on.

I understand. Next SAC is Lang Analysis but I have moved on regardless, I'll post the oral though, out of nothing but curiosity

You're more than welcome to post the oral here or send it to me and we can have a look to see why perhaps you didn't make the A+. As has been said though, one SAC won't matter too much and MHS is quite brutal when it comes to SACs

Thank you

I'm 99.90% sure I full-marked the presentation/delivery aspect (audience feedback as well as the teacher's mark sheet). She said the issue was content.

One fateful day, Brendan took his nine-year-old daughter out for a walk on St Kilda Beach. It was on this day that her life was changed forever, when she stepped on a used syringe. Upon rushing her to hospital, it was discovered that she had contracted the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, better known as  HIV. Eventually, it will transition into AIDS and she will most likely become one of the thousands of Australians who die drug-related deaths every year. She's the victim of an insidious, heinous (hay-nus) industry which maims and murders in the name of profit.

She is a victim of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran: the ringleaders of the ‘Bali Nine’, both of them, serial traffickers of heroin and in the past, cocaine. This is the Bali Nine which attempted to smuggle 8.3 kilograms of heroin into our country. That's equivalent to 83000 shots of heroin! Just imagine the amount of human carnage and destruction 83000 shots is capable of... something beyond our wildest nightmares. The pain, the suffering, the crime, I'm sure you're all aware. [pause, then calmly]

Yet bleeding-heart activists continue to expect Indonesia to completely disregard its principles and policies, to jeopardise its own war on drugs and let these clowns walk free.

Not only is this a selfish request, but it's also a fruitless one, considering Indonesia has already made its intentions extremely clear with their Ambassador's recent statement re-iterating that their decision is firm. Despite this, we continue to waste governmental and social resources on defending these thugs and condemning our closest allies. It's something which needs to stop at once.

The fact of the matter is, Chan and Sukumaran are cold-blooded mass murderers. Their so-called [no pause] ‘rehabilitation’ pales when compared to their crimes against humanity.

[no pause] Yet, some of us are still defending them. Why? Because they're Australian. You see, as a nation, we say that we oppose capital punishment because it [listing sarcastically] violates human rights, [stuttering] it's cruel, it's barbaric... [rapidly] let me tell you something. [spelling each word out] That is all bullshit a petty excuse. [PAUSE] The truth is, Australia only ever objects to capital punishment when Australians are involved.

In 2003, when the Bali bombers were being sentenced to death, you'd think that Australia, as a nation which claims to be “unconditionally against capital punishment” would object, right? Wrong. In fact, here's what our beloved former PM... John Howard had to say on the matter:

"Some people say that I should be thumping the table and saying, ‘don't execute'. I'm not going to do that because I respect the judicial processes of Indonesia. I also believe for me to do that would offend many Australians who legitimately feel, as decent Australians, that a death penalty is appropriate." [pause]

Those who die from drugs are just as dead as those who die in a bombing. But because it is now Australians who are standing trial,we've suddenly changed our minds and decided it's not okay for Chan and Sukumaran to face the same consequences. Ask yourself, is that not hypocritical in the slightest? [pause]

If Australia is to assume a particular stance on capital punishment, it needs to remain consistent. Our current stance reeks of moral superiority. In fact, I dare say that our current stance on capital punishment is downright racist, in the sense that we're essentially saying it's perfectly fine for Indonesia to execute its own people or other nations' people but not Australians.
It's a stance which undermines our nations' integrity and it's a stance which shows the world, and more importantly, ourselves, that we are conceited hypocrites. It's a stance that needs changing.

I believe the best thing we can do, as a nation, is to adopt the passive stance towards foreign capital punishment which Howard put forward in 2003, for two main reasons.

Firstly, Indonesia is inherently entitled to sovereignty, a sovereignty which we, on the other hand, are not entitled to meddle with. As a global citizen, this is something that we must respect. Secondly, the stance of 'to each his own' definitely does a better job at reflecting core Australian values such as liberty of thought and speech, as well as indiscrimination. Not to mention that in a recent poll, it was revealed that 52% of Australians are actually in support of the death penalty for the duo.

Anyway, the bottom line is, instead of quibbling in Indonesia's affairs, it is far more appropriate for us to just observe and respect their right to make decisions for themselves. [pause]

Finally, in the case that they are executed, Chan and Sukumaran will be, in a way, martyrs who died for a noble cause. Their death will no doubt deter Australians of the future from treading a similar path for a long, long time, potentially saving thousands of lives at the cost of two deplorable criminals... Not just the lives of would-be-smugglers and would-be junkies but above all, the lives of innocent victims like Brendan's daughter. If they have truly rehabilitated, mind and soul, then they should find solace and satisfaction in the positive influence they will bring after death.

Whether Chan and Sukumaran have truly rehabilitated, not externally, but in here [points to heart], that's something we'll never know for sure. Nor does it matter, really. What does matter is that we've done what we can. We've written letters, we've made pleas, we've spent thousands upon thousands of taxpayer dollars on legal representation. But Indonesia just won't budge and frankly, that's their right. It is now time for us as a nation, to accept and respect their decision. It's time for us to move on to greater and more pressing issues at home like our own war on drugs. [slowing down] Above all, it's time to stop wasting precious governmental and social resources on decriminalising... mass murder.

[vox nihili]

I'm 99.90% sure I full-marked the presentation/delivery aspect (audience feedback as well as the teacher's mark sheet). She said the issue was content.

One fateful day, Brendan took his nine-year-old daughter out for a walk on St Kilda Beach. It was on this day that her life was changed forever, when she stepped on a used syringe. Upon rushing her to hospital, it was discovered that she had contracted the Human Immunodeficiency Virus, better known as  HIV. Eventually, it will transition into AIDS and she will most likely become one of the thousands of Australians who die drug-related deaths every year. She's the victim of an insidious, heinous (hay-nus) industry which maims and murders in the name of profit.

She is a victim of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran: the ringleaders of the ‘Bali Nine’, both of them, serial traffickers of heroin and in the past, cocaine. This is the Bali Nine which attempted to smuggle 8.3 kilograms of heroin into our country. That's equivalent to 83000 shots of heroin! Just imagine the amount of human carnage and destruction 83000 shots is capable of... something beyond our wildest nightmares. The pain, the suffering, the crime, I'm sure you're all aware. [pause, then calmly]

Yet bleeding-heart activists continue to expect Indonesia to completely disregard its principles and policies, to jeopardise its own war on drugs and let these clowns walk free.

Not only is this a selfish request, but it's also a fruitless one, considering Indonesia has already made its intentions extremely clear with their Ambassador's recent statement re-iterating that their decision is firm. Despite this, we continue to waste governmental and social resources on defending these thugs and condemning our closest allies. It's something which needs to stop at once.

The fact of the matter is, Chan and Sukumaran are cold-blooded mass murderers. Their so-called [no pause] ‘rehabilitation’ pales when compared to their crimes against humanity.

[no pause] Yet, some of us are still defending them. Why? Because they're Australian. You see, as a nation, we say that we oppose capital punishment because it [listing sarcastically] violates human rights, [stuttering] it's cruel, it's barbaric... [rapidly] let me tell you something. [spelling each word out] That is all bullshit a petty excuse. [PAUSE] The truth is, Australia only ever objects to capital punishment when Australians are involved.

In 2003, when the Bali bombers were being sentenced to death, you'd think that Australia, as a nation which claims to be “unconditionally against capital punishment” would object, right? Wrong. In fact, here's what our beloved former PM... John Howard had to say on the matter:

"Some people say that I should be thumping the table and saying, ‘don't execute'. I'm not going to do that because I respect the judicial processes of Indonesia. I also believe for me to do that would offend many Australians who legitimately feel, as decent Australians, that a death penalty is appropriate." [pause]

Those who die from drugs are just as dead as those who die in a bombing. But because it is now Australians who are standing trial,we've suddenly changed our minds and decided it's not okay for Chan and Sukumaran to face the same consequences. Ask yourself, is that not hypocritical in the slightest? [pause]

If Australia is to assume a particular stance on capital punishment, it needs to remain consistent. Our current stance reeks of moral superiority. In fact, I dare say that our current stance on capital punishment is downright racist, in the sense that we're essentially saying it's perfectly fine for Indonesia to execute its own people or other nations' people but not Australians.
It's a stance which undermines our nations' integrity and it's a stance which shows the world, and more importantly, ourselves, that we are conceited hypocrites. It's a stance that needs changing.

I believe the best thing we can do, as a nation, is to adopt the passive stance towards foreign capital punishment which Howard put forward in 2003, for two main reasons.

Firstly, Indonesia is inherently entitled to sovereignty, a sovereignty which we, on the other hand, are not entitled to meddle with. As a global citizen, this is something that we must respect. Secondly, the stance of 'to each his own' definitely does a better job at reflecting core Australian values such as liberty of thought and speech, as well as indiscrimination. Not to mention that in a recent poll, it was revealed that 52% of Australians are actually in support of the death penalty for the duo.

Anyway, the bottom line is, instead of quibbling in Indonesia's affairs, it is far more appropriate for us to just observe and respect their right to make decisions for themselves. [pause]

Finally, in the case that they are executed, Chan and Sukumaran will be, in a way, martyrs who died for a noble cause. Their death will no doubt deter Australians of the future from treading a similar path for a long, long time, potentially saving thousands of lives at the cost of two deplorable criminals... Not just the lives of would-be-smugglers and would-be junkies but above all, the lives of innocent victims like Brendan's daughter. If they have truly rehabilitated, mind and soul, then they should find solace and satisfaction in the positive influence they will bring after death.

Whether Chan and Sukumaran have truly rehabilitated, not externally, but in here [points to heart], that's something we'll never know for sure. Nor does it matter, really. What does matter is that we've done what we can. We've written letters, we've made pleas, we've spent thousands upon thousands of taxpayer dollars on legal representation. But Indonesia just won't budge and frankly, that's their right. It is now time for us as a nation, to accept and respect their decision. It's time for us to move on to greater and more pressing issues at home like our own war on drugs. [slowing down] Above all, it's time to stop wasting precious governmental and social resources on decriminalising... mass murder.

It's a pretty solid oral really. Particularly pleasing that it's written as a speech should be written and not as an essay.

Some of the paralinguistic (speech patterns, body language etc) instructions you've left yourself could have detracted from your speech. On a few occasions, you've used sarcasm to convey a point. This can be effective, but you have to ensure that your audience is completely with you. The occasions that you have used such sarcasm, I think you've used it before you'd have completely convinced your audience. In truth, it's a difficult one because the likelihood is that your audience probably doesn't entirely share your views, so sarcasm is always tricky. Sarcasm works best when it's something that pretty much everyone agrees with. The only occasion that I've used it extensively was to poke fun at A Current Affair.

Content wise you always had a difficult task. You're championing a view that isn't particularly popular among students, and even less popular among teachers. Your view, however, is one that is shared by a significant number of Australians. There were a few concerns:

-your anecdote is good, but it's not a typical "drug related death" (i.e. HIV). So it would have lost its weight because your audience would have had to take a couple of seconds to think about how getting HIV from a syringe is related to drugs. Granted, that's not a big problem though, it's some very minor nitpicking from me there
-you need to emphasise the impact of drugs on Australia, something that I don't think you did entirely. Your strongest point was that the Bali 9 were essentially putting people to death. I feel like you could have expanded on this point a lot more by providing some statistics about drug related deaths and also talking about the effects of drugs a little bit more. In this regard, you take far too much for granted. An example: Just imagine the amount of human carnage and destruction 83000 shots is capable of... something beyond our wildest nightmares. The pain, the suffering, the crime, I'm sure you're all aware. . This sentence, I think, explains exactly why you lost marks for content. You haven't actually explained anything, you've just asked your audience to fill in the gaps. As a speaker, it is your responsibility to elaborate and it is your responsibility to make sure that your audience understands. You should never assume that they know something, unless it's very, very, very, very, very obvious. On something like the damage of drugs, it's your responsibility to define that damage, not leave it up to them.


Anyway, that was particularly rambly because I'm tired as all hell. The short version of it is is that the speech has been well structured and well written. You did deserve to lose marks for content though, because you assumed too much of your audience. You have to make a complete case when it comes to a speech and there were far too many rhetorical questions and I'm sure you knows in this.

That said, you did a good job! Speeches are something very foreign to most students, and you're never actually taught how to do them properly. So bearing that in mind, well done.

[goku69]

Just out of curiosity, why do you want specifically exactly 50 and an ATAR of 99.90?

[99.90 pls]

*snip*

Thank you Mr. T-Rav!

Your feedback was definitely not rambly; you provided a lot of valuable insight that my teacher didn't give me, which I really appreciate! In hindsight, I did make a pretty big mistake by cutting out the "why drugs are bad" part of my speech, one of the best opportunities for emotion and rhetoric.

Your analysis has provided me with much-needed closure by showing me that my speech wasn't as perfect as I thought. Thank you, once again <3

Just out of curiosity, why do you want specifically exactly 50 and an ATAR of 99.90?

So I can prove to myself that I am more than what I currently am.

EDIT: In the past 11 years of my schooling, I've always slacked off and had a terrible work ethic in pretty much everything I do. But you know that nagging feeling that there's someone better inside you that you can be? I want to tackle that feeling once and for all, using VCE as a springboard into a better, more fulfilling life altogether.

[goku69]

I understand what you are saying, I am pretty sure you'll get it because you go to Melb High lol and you work hard. Also just saying but isn't it a bit superficial that your grades dictates how you view yourself rather than your personality, qualities and how you could contribute to society.

[ValiantIntellectual]

[So I can prove to myself that I am more than what I currently am.

EDIT: In the past 11 years of my schooling, I've always slacked off and had a terrible work ethic in pretty much everything I do. But you know that nagging feeling that there's someone better inside you that you can be? I want to tackle that feeling once and for all, using VCE as a springboard into a better, more fulfilling life altogether.
[/quote]]

This is a little off topic but I can totally relate to this. I am exactly in the same boat as you! Never been anything special, but I want VCE to be truly reflective of my abilities!

considering your Chinese study score, your are definitely capable of a 99.90 and a 50 in English and you have the right attitude.
Good luck and let's make 2015 our year!

[Shenz0r]

Just out of curiosity, why do you want specifically exactly 50 and an ATAR of 99.90?

Because he's from MHS, where top scorers are essentially worshipped as gods.

Mr. T-Rav is spot on with his critique. You might also want to tone down some of the language because phrases like "bleeding-heart activists" and "clowns" don't add anything to your argument, in fact they detract it because it's just name-calling, rather than reason. Makes me take you less seriously.

Also, you need to qualify your language more. I'm pretty sure many Australians are disgusted when women in Saudi Arabia are beheaded, and so stuff like "Australians only object to the death penalty when Australians are involved", as well as your hypocrisy comment, become indefensible. You also make some faulty assumptions, like

In fact, I dare say that our current stance on capital punishment is downright racist, in the sense that we're essentially saying it's perfectly fine for Indonesia to execute its own people or other nations' people but not Australians.

You're assuming, in this case, that everybody only cares because Australians are about to be executed. Risky assumption to make, I'm sure many people would oppose the death penalty regardless of nationality. We have human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, who have campaigned to abolish capital punishment for years now. Just because more attention is given to the Australians at present, it does not necessarily mean that people couldn't care less about executions of other nationalities. Equating all of this to racism may seem very controversial for your teacher in this light. It strikes me as a bit extreme.

If I also think you would have scored higher if you had a more elaborate discussion on the rehabilitation. You've ignored a very big part of the issue here, but if you want to convince people you have to address it, you can't just give minimal attention to it. The whole point of the speech is to be convincing, and you're not convincing if you don't anticipate and deliver a solid argument against opposing points. If you did, it would have demonstrated a far more complex understanding of the underlying issues in the case. From my perspective it seems very black and white. Or you could have approached the issue by explaining how the drug trade is extremely prevalent in SE Asia and how capital punishment may help solve the problem.

Take my criticism with a grain of salt, it's been a while since I did VCE English. Your speech is still good, but it wasn't the best in my opinion.

Curious, is your teacher Crosley? I recognise the handwriting, I think. If so, she should be more than willing to sit down with you and go through the nuts and bolts of each part of your essay.

[brenden]

Yeah, it was solid, but the ratio of rhetoric to argument was way too high... The point isn't directlty to shove your speech full of rhetoric, although that should certainly be done at points - and rhetoric is particularly ineffective when you aren't preaching to the choir.

[Shenz0r]

Thanks, I hope so too
As for the bit about racism, it was based off John Howard, who was essentially representing the country's views, insinuating that execution was okay but I take your point about not all Australians sharing the same viewpoint.

And the reason why my speech tends to veer away from the big issues like rehabilitation is because the Bali Nine topic was surprisingly popular in our class, so I wanted to approach the topic from a different perspective. In hindsight though, other people's speeches shouldn't have mattered and I missed some of the big ideas surrounding the debate in favour of less prominent ones.

And yes, it's Crosley! :.

It would have been better for your argument if you found out how many Australians supported the death penalty for the bombers at the time (as in, find old polls), otherwise the audience could wonder how many are the "many" Australians that Howard referred to. Quantitative data would have been more convincing. This is all nitpicking by the way but if you want to seal the A+ you gotta go the extra mile.

And yup, how you develop an argument determines how high you score in any form of essay writing. Flowery language can be effective but you need to go in depth, building up a argument carefully. Always put more emphasis on the argument than the language you use, that should apply to all of context, text response and LA.