Inter Studies Exam thoughts!

[saaaaaam]

So what did everyone think?

I thought the global conflicts extended response was horrible! The nature of armed conflicts one. Although I wrote some sort of answer that included pre-emption among other things.

I wrote on the third essay topic. I don't think too many others in my class did, but I'm very happy with the essay.

Overall I thought it was a good exam

[AVeryAverageUsername]

Really I loved that global conflicts topic. I talked about how there was a move to ethnic based conflict and internal ones as opposed to two superpowers.

I think I did Question 1 from memory, something about regional relationships? Pretty crappy but I'm told the examiners expect as much given the time constraints and all the extended responses to do.

[fujiismydog]

Yeah the nature of conflict was a bit tricky. All I think you had to write was a conventional army vs non-conventional gorilla fighters aka asymmetrical warfare in Afghanistan. The typical definition of war involves a state vs state conflict. With the Taliban and Al-Qaeda being pushed further across state borders into Pakistan/Tribal Areas this is not typical of a cold war conflict thus the definition of war. Also the nature has changed to cyberspace, have to deal with a war on ideas, with organisation and recruiting occurring on terrorist websites.

[jaccerz]

i thought the exam was great.

[Greggaz]

I thought it was a lot easier than I had expected - and all the extended responses were 'discuss' or 'describe' ones, as opposed to 'evaluate', and 'assess', which annoyed me, because it almost made it too simplistic. Essay topics were pretty decent, chose the third one, which seemed to be the hardest of the three, but it was well suited to a discussion of the difference of national interest, i.e pragmatism under Howard, and idealism under Rudd/Gillard, in recent times. Only question that I'm really worried about was the first one for the global conflicts section - list one terrorist attack since 2004 - I did the March 11th, 2004, Madrid bombings, because of the fact that they had a major political effect, and it tied in to the subsequent question well...but some people from my class think that 'since 2004' means 2005 onwards...anyone have an opinion on that? Cheers .

[lexi]

the global conflicts section - list one terrorist attack since 2004 - I did the March 11th, 2004, Madrid bombings, because of the fact that they had a major political effect, and it tied in to the subsequent question well...but some people from my class think that 'since 2004' means 2005 onwards...anyone have an opinion on that? Cheers .

don't worry I'm sure it's correct! Because if there was, for example, an AFP essay topic that asked to "Evaluate the changes in AFP since 1996" you would definitely discuss about the Coalition under John Howard who was in office from 1996-2007. So I guess it's the same concept

[Greggaz]

Cheers for that Lexi, major weight off my mind .

[lexi]

no probs

[jaccerz]

mentioning a terrorist attack from 2004 is fine.

what was weird about that question i found is that they did the since 2004 where the year before they made a point for one question to be since 2000.

but this years exam seemed to be really simple. while that is good for us, i think it makes the moderating against everyone a little harder

[Greggaz]

I guess it was because the follow on question was one political effect, and they were trying to give us a hint towards the Madrid Bombings, because that's the only attack since 2002 which has had a significant political effect (the government was voted out the next week, and Spain withdrew from the 'War on Terror'), so possibly it was just trying to help us out there...? I agree though, really simplistic - the examiners are going to have trouble sorting out the average from the bad, and the excellent from the good, etc.

[jaccerz]

actually, the london bombings also had political effect.
as did the bombing in jakarta of the aust embassy.

[Greggaz]

47 yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaah boiiiiiiz