essay word limit

[kdgamz]

are the following word limits alright for the exam???

Text response: 700 words

Context: 700 words

Language analysis: 600 words

thanks

[hard]

i'd opt for 800+ each.

[ReVeL]

I would've done 600-700 words max for each section in last years exam, was pretty dissapointed with myself. Ended up with an A. So I suppose its true that quality > quantity. Having said that, aiming for 800 would be a good idea.

[kdgamz]

thank... but i barely make the 700 words...i just cant find another argument for another 100 words....

[xXNovaxX]

You dont have to have too many arguments. I tend to do 3-4, and I easily reach the 900-1000 mark. I have seen people do 4-5 and also reach this.

You might be having your points too brief, and not elaborating enough. Depending on how much you understand your novel, you should easily be able to reach this.

[shinny]

My recommendation is probably 900-1000 on text response, 500-600 on language analysis and all your leftover on context, depending really on what sort of text type you're writing (expositories will need to be around 800 at least, the other two can be shorter if you're writing well).

[Craxe]

There is no reason for language analysis to be shorter than the other responses. The structure is the same as a text essay. Indeed, it's the easiest to write a lot about without rambling.

Context - a limit of 700 is about right. Maybe a hundred words or so short, but in this part of the exam - imo, more than the others - quality is far more important than quantity.

Text; gonna have to echo what others have said. 700 doesn't really cut it. To demonstrate your depth of knowledge, to develop a clear, coherent argument, it needs to be longer. 1000 seems like a lot ... and it probably is: examiners know you're under time constraints. 800-900 seems about optimal.

[shinny]

There is no reason for language analysis to be shorter than the other responses.

You only need to show examiners that you have the ability to analyse, as opposed to analysing every single technique in the article. This is done best by choosing the best and only the best examples so that the quality of your analysis stays strong, since obviously, quality techniques give rise to quality analysis. If you start choosing much weaker or quite abstract techniques and so on to analyse, crappier analysis is bound to follow, giving examiners an excuse to take marks off you. In contrast, text responses require multiple views to display a sense of complexity. While of course it is preferable to cover all of the quality techniques in your LA, given how imperative it is to write lots in your text response, it is obvious where your priorities lie in terms of time allocation. Still, it is still possible to score 9s and probably even a 10 on LA even with a relatively low word count if what you've given is truly quality.

[Craxe]

But I struggle to see how you can analyse the path the writer is directing you down, the specific ways in which they do so and the intended impact of these chosen mechanisms, plus any discussion of societal impact, in 500 words. Long analysis doesn't equal 'crappier' analysis. It also doesn't implicate that you choose every single technique. Personally, I choose the most evocative, the most contentious, and pursue it in-depth. Ceraintly not the only way, and definately does not ensure success, but if you running at 500 words I can't see how you've analysed, identified intended effect etc...

At the end of the day - each component is marked equally. You get three hours. An hour a piece is the recommended allocation; and if you spend less/more on a piece then you run the risk of compromising its quality. Text may be the hardest to do well in with limited words, but that doesn't mean you have to spend longer. An hour is plenty of time to structure it. Eliminate the flowery crap, demonstrate to the examiner that you know what the topic is about, what the text is about, and - most importantly - the intersection between these.

I'm not delibrately targetting what your saying... i just don't agree with it :p

[shinny]

But I struggle to see how you can analyse the path the writer is directing you down, the specific ways in which they do so and the intended impact of these chosen mechanisms, plus any discussion of societal impact, in 500 words. Long analysis doesn't equal 'crappier' analysis. It also doesn't implicate that you choose every single technique. Personally, I choose the most evocative, the most contentious, and pursue it in-depth. Ceraintly not the only way, and definately does not ensure success, but if you running at 500 words I can't see how you've analysed, identified intended effect etc...

I didn't equate 'long' with 'crappier'. I said if you start using worse techniques, then it will, and that's what tends to happen in long pieces as I've observed with my own students. If you're choosing the most persuasive and analysing them extremely in-depth, then that's good. It's just that most people aren't capable of continuing on about a single technique and analysing it to its fullest extent. 500 words was probably a bit of a too low-end estimate, and 600 words is really my guideline. Most of my pieces ended up at 650 words approx.

At the end of the day - each component is marked equally. You get three hours. An hour a piece is the recommended allocation; and if you spend less/more on a piece then you run the risk of compromising its quality. Text may be the hardest to do well in with limited words, but that doesn't mean you have to spend longer. An hour is plenty of time to structure it. Eliminate the flowery crap, demonstrate to the examiner that you know what the topic is about, what the text is about, and - most importantly - the intersection between these.

Once again, the way I see it is that LA only requires you to show that you have the ability to analyse, therefore not really requiring you to show this ability over and over again. A few quality examples analysed well tends to suffice. In contrast, text response requires you to show complexity, and often this will require 4 strong body paragraphs with relevant evidence. This inevitably takes around 900 words from personal experience. As a result, the way that I see it is that since LA only requires you to show an ability, and although adding another body paragraph in of quality analysis can obviously only be beneficial, its benefits are marginal given that you've shown this ability already. In contrast, in text response, complexity tends to require 4 body paragraphs, and the addition of an extra body paragraph can often increase the strength of your essay by a lot. So while they are marked equally, the weight of this additional paragraph as I've hoped you've realised is worth a lot more in a text response than in an LA.

I'm not delibrately targetting what your saying... i just don't agree with it :p

That's fine; I'm not taking this personally and I hope you aren't either. I'm just hoping that whatever comes out of this is productive for others in terms of how they decide to structure their time.

[TrueTears]

My recommendation is probably 900-1000 on text response, 500-600 on language analysis and all your leftover on context, depending really on what sort of text type you're writing (expositories will need to be around 800 at least, the other two can be shorter if you're writing well).

I tend to write shorter essays on LA; around 700-800 words.

Text response is generally around 1000-1100 and context is also around 1000-1100.

[dejan91]

I'm just hoping that whatever comes out of this is productive for others in terms of how they decide to structure their time.

Well it's just changed the way I'm thinking about the exam! I don't know if that's good or bad at this stage...? I usually get 700-800 for LA and 900 or so for text response. Context hovers around 800. I'm scared of text response

[shinny]

I'm just hoping that whatever comes out of this is productive for others in terms of how they decide to structure their time.

Well it's just changed the way I'm thinking about the exam! I don't know if that's good or bad at this stage...? I usually get 700-800 for LA and 900 or so for text response. Context hovers around 800. I'm scared of text response

That sounds about right.

My recommendation is probably 900-1000 on text response, 500-600 on language analysis and all your leftover on context, depending really on what sort of text type you're writing (expositories will need to be around 800 at least, the other two can be shorter if you're writing well).

I tend to write shorter essays on LA; around 700-800 words.

Text response is generally around 1000-1100 and context is also around 1000-1100.

I'm assuming this is when you're writing for stuff that you've relatively prepared for? Pretty difficult to achieve otherwise (unless you didn't mean under timed conditions).

[NE2000]

Have to disagree with you shinny here. Longer language analysis can really mean in-depth analysis of how the writer is positioning the audience to share a particular viewpoint; I mean it can go a lot deeper into the fundamentals and how language works together. You need more words to do that. Furthermore, a teacher (very experienced) told me that when they read a 600-word top-notch analysis then they are a bit more hesitant at giving out 9-10 as opposed to when they read a 1000-word top-notch analysis. This doesn't mean you won't get one (you very well could), it just means that the longer you go the more your chances increase. This is assuming you aren't listing techniques but are using the words to go into deep analysis.

Also I think TT's word amounts are quite achievable in 1 hour with 5 minutes planning for each. Once you do a lot of practice the ideas sort of come to you faster and all that's left is writing speed.

[shinny]

Have to disagree with you shinny here. Longer language analysis can really mean in-depth analysis of how the writer is positioning the audience to share a particular viewpoint; I mean it can go a lot deeper into the fundamentals and how language works together. You need more words to do that. Furthermore, a teacher (very experienced) told me that when they read a 600-word top-notch analysis then they are a bit more hesitant at giving out 9-10 as opposed to when they read a 1000-word top-notch analysis. This doesn't mean you won't get one (you very well could), it just means that the longer you go the more your chances increase. This is assuming you aren't listing techniques but are using the words to go into deep analysis.

Once again, it's just the fact that if you do write 600 words, as you've said yourself, it's very still possible to get a 9-10 or so. However, adding that extra body paragraph on your text response is almost imperative in securing yourself that 9-10. That's the fundamental distinction I'm making here. It's easy to say that adding more words to your LA is beneficial; I know that, but the point is deciding where your priorities lie. Plus, the majority of the state isn't capable of writing anything that much more meaningful in their extra paragraph. It tends to be just a repeat of what they've already done, but done with a worse example, leading to worse analysis. Most of this is really generalising to give general advice for most of the state; not top end students who happen to be the ones refuting what I'm saying (and for good reason too I guess since I didn't make this clear).

This is really the time structure I had to follow myself since I knew I wouldn't have been able to get that paragraph in otherwise, and I think the majority of people can't either, but if some of the others here seem confident that they can get depth in their text response as well within just the hour (which I acknowledge is very well possible for some), then of course you'd spend the extra time to secure yourself the 9-10 on LA with extra length. I'm speaking for the majority of the state who can't happen to write 900-1k words an hour.

Also I think TT's word amounts are quite achievable in 1 hour with 5 minutes planning for each. Once you do a lot of practice the ideas sort of come to you faster and all that's left is writing speed.

I never said it wasn't possible; I was just saying that that speed tends to require you to have some sort of experience with the topic already so that the only limiting factor is physical writing speed (which is basically what you said), although I didn't make that last part clear.