Laws, Cases, Media Reports, etc - RANKED BY "IMPRESSIVENESS" (2 Viewers)

[The Expert]

This diagram was made after doing HSC Marking a couple of times and seeing how the Markers reacted to different types of "evidence" in Crime, Family and World Order essays. Some evidence seemed to impress the markers more, so I had a go at ranking the relative levels of impressiveness (?) for each category (statute law, common law, treaties and resolutions, media (print and tv), reports and statistics).

Using these doesn't guarantee you great marks, but it makes it more difficult for you to end up with a bad mark.

It's just a general idea, so don't complain that you've heard that one is better than another, or "MY teacher said blah blah blah".

In the end, it matters just as much HOW you use these types of evidence. It also helps to have a RANGE of different types of evidence

Anyway, here it is:

 

[Selador]

The legal coverage in the SMH has nothing on that in the Australian and AFR.

The SMH in general is no longer a very heavy paper. Lots of fluff. Surprised you've put it above the Oz.

 

[The Expert]

The legal coverage in the SMH has nothing on that in the Australian and AFR.

The SMH in general is no longer a very heavy paper. Lots of fluff. Surprised you've put it above the Oz.

It was more for political reasons, and it really does depend on the topic. Teachers are generally (GENERALLY) left-leaning. They wouldn't usually go for The Australian's views on, say, asylum seekers. The Australian also had this crusade for a few months against having a Charter of Rights (which most Legal teachers generally think should happen).

It's really NOT about the ACTUAL quality of these resources.

 

[enoilgam]

Using these doesn't guarantee you great marks, but it makes it more difficult for you to end up with a bad mark.

In the end, it matters just as much HOW you use these types of evidence. It also helps to have a RANGE of different types of evidence

Couldnt agree more with this - sources exist to support a response. You cant expect to throw in a stack of resources and get a good mark, you need to use them to support a sustained argument.

 

[alyssa21]

Just a general question about use of LCMID in Legal Studies: is it possible to get away with making up media articles? I realise Legislation, Case Studies etc are extremely obvious when made-up (especially to experienced teachers), but what about media articles, where I'm supposing even the most experienced markers would never be able to know ALL the articles in all papers across all issues?

I know it might seem like I'm trying to find an "easy way out", but the sheer content and memorisation involved in Legal is quite overwhelming at times...!

 

[The Expert]

Just a general question about use of LCMID in Legal Studies: is it possible to get away with making up media articles? I realise Legislation, Case Studies etc are extremely obvious when made-up (especially to experienced teachers), but what about media articles, where I'm supposing even the most experienced markers would never be able to know ALL the articles in all papers across all issues?

I know it might seem like I'm trying to find an "easy way out", but the sheer content and memorisation involved in Legal is quite overwhelming at times...!

Yeah, you're right. As long as it seems legitimate, and there's actually a point being made using the imaginary article, it'll get through. Not because markers are dumb, there are just time constraints. A marker won't spend more than 5 minutes on an essay, so there's no time for googling or fighting over whether an article is real. But like enoilgam said, everything's gotta be there for a reason. If you're smart enough to understand the law itself AND the perspective that a PARTICULAR news organisation has about that law, and you make up an article name on the spot, then you're probably gonna be ok anyway!

What IS interesting is the general "Mark easy at the bottom and hard at the top" feel at the marking centre. Getting out of the bottom 2 bands really just requires do SOME sort of evaluation/judgement and throw in a few cases/articles (even if they're not completely accurate, or if they're a bit suss). But at the TOP, it's ridiculously hard. Some brilliant responses end up with 21 or 22 out of 25 for what really seems like very subjective reasons. And if one teacher gives it 22 and another recognises its brilliance and gives it 25, it doesn't even come up on the radar as being an issue, you just get halfway between the two.

The word that gets used a lot is "sophistication". You have to do whatever you can to make your responses seem "sophisticated".

I still don't know how to make sure that happens... Wear a top hat and monocle to the exam?

Contrasting media sources is probably a good idea though. It shows the marker that you're sophisticated enough to understand that there are different perspectives on each issue.

 

[studyhappy]

this is great! thanks bro!

 

[enoilgam]

What IS interesting is the general "Mark easy at the bottom and hard at the top" feel at the marking centre. Getting out of the bottom 2 bands really just requires do SOME sort of evaluation/judgement and throw in a few cases/articles (even if they're not completely accurate, or if they're a bit suss). But at the TOP, it's ridiculously hard. Some brilliant responses end up with 21 or 22 out of 25 for what really seems like very subjective reasons. And if one teacher gives it 22 and another recognises its brilliance and gives it 25, it doesn't even come up on the radar as being an issue, you just get halfway between the two.

The word that gets used a lot is "sophistication". You have to do whatever you can to make your responses seem "sophisticated".

I still don't know how to make sure that happens... Wear a top hat and monocle to the exam?

To me, there is a big difference between an essay worth 21-23/25 and one worth 24 or 25. Low-mid band 6 essays often present simplistic arguments which are sustained and supported by strong evidence. In contrast, a high band 6 response presents a much more sophistic argument which has greater depth and scope to its analysis. These essays employ stuff like counter-arguments and the whole "thesis, anti-thesis and synthesis" style of analysis. The skill and techniques required to pull this off are very high - because incorperating advanced arguments into a 1000 word essay in 45 minutes is something which requires superior writing and analytical skills. Not to sound arrogant, but when I was doing practice essays for my teachers during the HSC (both were HSC markers), I could usually score a band 6, but to lift them to 24 or 25 was extremely difficult and something which I only accomplished once. In my opinion, any marker worth their salt should be able to reliably distinguish between a high band 6 response and a low band 6 response because the difference is quite noticeable.

To be honest, its very similar at a uni level with essays - moving from a pass to a distinction is relatively straightforward if you know what you are doing, but moving from a D to HD is another ball game altogether.