It was a silly exam. My friends and i were pissed off that anyone could have bullshitted the whole thing and got a badn5. no kidding. I think i could have not studied and gotten a good mark. I hated it.
not saying i got 100%, I made the stupidest mistakes here and there.
anyway, why do i think it's crap?
-Communications, the question on advances in technology to assist people with hearing and vision impairment to assist in communications. 7 marks.
Where were the parameters to answer this question in a succint and direct manner? It was broad, general, and begged the student to babble on and go on and on on everything they know. problem is that one question covers about 6 syllabus dot points. One could easily write a whole 8 page booklet. What do I concentrate on? cataracts? cataract surgery? glasses, contact lenses, refractive surgery, hearing aids, cochlear impalants. Explain how they work, link it to technology and how it has advanced, whilst explaining the importance of communications by defining it and then intertwining it on why it is needed. Why are the people impaired? etc. i could go on and on.
It was 7 marks? does that mean 7 points? but that hardly reflects the broadness of the question. there was nothing to focus on. I can't be bothered to find the question, but i know so many people who were like, "what a stupid exam".
They don't test us. it begs a student to get as many marks as possible.