English HL - marked hard or easy?!

catrina101

i thought it was marked easy considering i got a C1 in the mock and a B1 in the l.c

i got 83% and i repeated. delighted! i was sure i only got a B3!

Acid_Violet

Had a look at my paper but need to see it with a teacher. I can see why a very pernickity person would mark me down on some things but I was absolutely robbed on the Macbeth and Keats. No offense to those in question but it does worry me that someone can get full marks without even reading the text.

QueenOfLeon

Seems ours were marked easier than normal....I honestly dont know whats going on with mine, full marks in the Paper 1 essay, the question B and the Macbeth essay....wont complain, but its a teeny bit messed up

Toto Wolfcastle

Acid_Violet wrote: »

Had a look at my paper but need to see it with a teacher. I can see why a very pernickity person would mark me down on some things but I was absolutely robbed on the Macbeth and Keats. No offense to those in question but it does worry me that someone can get full marks without even reading the text.

If someone gets a good set of notes and knows the story then it is highly likely that they will get high marks without reading the text. And if their writing style is impressive then why shouldn't the high marks turn to full marks?

reindeerarmy

In response to above posts:

My single text: Jane Eyre
Chapters:47 or 48
Amount i read:20 chapters
What did i do: Sparknotes.com and pinkmonkey.com

Poetry: Only studied Keats, Knew a little bit of Bishop but not enough
My reaction on exam day when Keats came up: In a volume that everyone could hear "thank christ"

How i did: A2:cool:

nicola09

bythewoods wrote: »

Just viewed my scripts earlier, and I've decided English must've been marked **** easy.

I got 99% overall- 100% on Paper 2! I didn't even read Macbeth!!

Haha same! Well I did read Macbeth quite a few times though! Where did you lose the marks out of interest?:pac: Coz at the part where I lost the 3, the correcter had "20/20" and then scribbled it out and wrote "17/20". Maybe they aren't allowed give full marks lol.

Acid_Violet

janeybabe wrote: »

If someone gets a good set of notes and knows the story then it is highly likely that they will get high marks without reading the text. And if their writing style is impressive then why shouldn't the high marks turn to full marks?

The point of studying literature is to engage with a text by analysing it in detail, not to analyse some notes on it. I say it's worrying because if someone can get full marks by having good notes and a good writing style (and this isn't a dig at the person who got the full marks) then it's hypothetically very possible to get full marks through learning by rote and spoonfeeding, something the SEC have naturally been trying to prevent through the exam system.

Jammyc

Every time I see this thread I giggle a little. I just remember the origional title 'outrage..' :pac:

randylonghorn

Acid_Violet wrote: »

.... then it's hypothetically very possible to get full marks through learning by rote and spoonfeeding, something the SEC have naturally been trying to prevent through the exam system.

Lol, just have a look at the other current threads in this forum!

Toto Wolfcastle

Acid_Violet wrote: »

The point of studying literature is to engage with a text by analysing it in detail, not to analyse some notes on it. I say it's worrying because if someone can get full marks by having good notes and a good writing style (and this isn't a dig at the person who got the full marks) then it's hypothetically very possible to get full marks through learning by rote and spoonfeeding, something the SEC have naturally been trying to prevent through the exam system.

That is the way of the Leaving Cert. unfortunately. People don't want to engage with the text. People want good marks that they can translate to points.

johnl

Easy, as with all LC papers.

eoins2345

Jammyc wrote: »

Every time I see this thread I giggle a little. I just remember the origional title 'outrage..' :pac:

My bad!I was just a tad annoyed on results day with English.:pac:

Acid_Violet

janeybabe wrote: »

That is the way of the Leaving Cert. unfortunately. People don't want to engage with the text. People want good marks that they can translate to points.

And that is worrying.

Johnnyjump

Were your papers for the mocks corrected by your own teacher or externally?

Johnnyjump

If it was your own teacher maybe that s/he was subjective whereas if it was an external marker, I would be asking more questions. Go for the recheck. You have nothing to lose. Good Luck.

eoins2345

It was marked by an external examiner.Gettin the recheck anywa!hope its upgraded!

bythewoods

nicola09 wrote: »

Haha same! Well I did read Macbeth quite a few times though! Where did you lose the marks out of interest?:pac: Coz at the part where I lost the 3, the correcter had "20/20" and then scribbled it out and wrote "17/20". Maybe they aren't allowed give full marks lol.

I got 99/100 for the essay, and 49/50 for the comprehensions. C'est tout, everything else was perfect!

Acid_Violet wrote: »

The point of studying literature is to engage with a text by analysing it in detail, not to analyse some notes on it. I say it's worrying because if someone can get full marks by having good notes and a good writing style (and this isn't a dig at the person who got the full marks) then it's hypothetically very possible to get full marks through learning by rote and spoonfeeding, something the SEC have naturally been trying to prevent through the exam system.

Of course that's the point.
I agree.
And to clarify, I actually love literature. Have had my head stuck in books all my life. Always reading. Always writing, etc etc.

I repeated this year.
Last year I engaged the hell out'a my texts. I can still spurt out reams of Othello. I know the story inside and out. I studied about 4 poets. Went all out blah blah blah.
Got an A2.

This year I used wikipedia and stuff a bit and got the gist of my texts. Wrote some killer essays. Got an A1.
It was all my own work (For the most part anyway. I robbed a few lines from essays in Key Notes and stuff, but I did write the originals myself)
I'd also like to clarify, for Paper 1 I fabricated my essay on the spot. I used some pretty questionable lines like "The education system is like being spit at by a sheep" and the examiner just ate it up.

I didn't have good notes. I had no notes apart froma few revision books and some stuff I found online. My teacher was an absolute ****tard.

I don't think i deserved an A1. All I'm sayin' is, you don't need to read through Macbeth a lot to get an A1 if you're able to bull****. Whcih I clearly am :P

fearanpost

I thought it was marked pretty easy, i got 70/70 in the comparative and 55/60 for macbeth... so proud!!:P got a b2 overall which is a big jump from my d1 in the mocks, so i was happy with the marking!!:D

Piste

In my comparative, where they're meant to code with a "C" all the comparative links that are made, there were about 5 red "C"s when several links were made. Also in poetry the examiner had to mark "T" for "tensions" and "I" for "inventive" in the Walcott question. I got sick of using the same words over and over so I used synonyms, but they didn't get marked. Looking at my paper it seems overly harsh.



Oh fúck I just realised I had to send in that bank giro today to get the script rechecked and I totally forgot >.,

bythewoods

Piste wrote: »

Oh fúck I just realised I had to send in that bank giro today to get the script rechecked and I totally forgot >.,

They're not being sent out til tomorrow from the schools, so if you get up and do it early it'll probably still be grand.

JSK 252

Piste wrote: »

In my comparative, where they're meant to code with a "C" all the comparative links that are made, there were about 5 red "C"s when several links were made. Also in poetry the examiner had to mark "T" for "tensions" and "I" for "inventive" in the Walcott question. I got sick of using the same words over and over so I used synonyms, but they didn't get marked. Looking at my paper it seems overly harsh.



Oh fúck I just realised I had to send in that bank giro today to get the script rechecked and I totally forgot >.,

I had only 4 Cs on my comparative and got 67/70 but they were good comparisons.

I got 50/50 in the poetry for bishop and they coded Q for questions and U for unique style but sure the majority of her quotes are questions so there were Qs all over the place along with Us and a good few QUs.

Piste

Phew I went down to ther school and pleaded my case this afternoon and it's sent off now!

overmantle

Most people seem to think it was marked hard, by comparison to last year. Mind you, there are those who did Leaving Cert many years ago who would say that the marking has been too soft for a number of years by comparison to several years back.

implausible

Piste wrote: »

In my comparative, where they're meant to code with a "C" all the comparative links that are made, there were about 5 red "C"s when several links were made. Also in poetry the examiner had to mark "T" for "tensions" and "I" for "inventive" in the Walcott question. I got sick of using the same words over and over so I used synonyms, but they didn't get marked. Looking at my paper it seems overly harsh.

I think I can explain this. They changed the coding this year. instead of making a 'C' everywhere you saw a good comparison, you had to put a 'C' for a whole paragraph or point and put in brackets or lines to show where the C applied to, hence less Cs on the paper. The same goes for T and I.

Note: it is possible to get a lot of good Cs, but if the whole thing is badly strung together or badly expressed, marks can be lost.

Piste

Oh that makes more sense, I was going by what previous marking schemes had said and thought it was a bit harsh.