The Student Room Group

A2 Government and Politics AQA Govp 4B - 10th June 2013

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Original post by GodisTheWayForward
I'm doing ethnicity and gender. What do you think the 10 marker will be.

Does anyone have any extensive notes on the environment? And Education?


Well for ethnicity and gender I think a feminism or gender related 10 maker is pretty probable considering there's never been one yet and then ethnicity being the 30 marker
Reply 21
Original post by millie-rose
Oh lord - where would you start?

I would start my intro by stating their traditional ideological beliefs:
Conservatives- support free market economics (Milton Friedman)
Lib Dems- support market economics with a little bit of regulation ( Adam Smith) Maybe give an example of core party policy

Yes they have:
-Tax policy
-Approach to banks (breaking them up)
-Public sector cuts

No they haven't:
-Public disagreement on how to handle the deficit
-Inheritance tax
-Increase in tuition fees

Overall, I think that you would need to use examples from the coalition agreement, Liberal Democrat and Conservative 2010 Manifesto.

Also now thinking about the question, I think it would be more inclusive of labour!
Feel sorry for people doing the economy. My teacher said the chief examiner advised not to do it.

I've been looking at past questions. What are peoples predictions on the environment?
Original post by GodisTheWayForward
Feel sorry for people doing the economy. My teacher said the chief examiner advised not to do it.

I've been looking at past questions. What are peoples predictions on the environment?


Why did the chief examiner advise not to do it?
Original post by millie-rose
Why did the chief examiner advise not to do it?


I can't remember why. Sorry.
Why isn't anyone posting.?
gotta learn whole sylabus in 5 days
:frown:
Original post by mandem2k11
gotta learn whole sylabus in 5 days
:frown:


same my attendance was pretty poor towards the end of the year aha.

hoping climate change/ environment comes up/ tragedy of the commons. quite confident on that.
Gonna revise heavily on terrorism/nuclear weapons and all that as well.
Reply 28
Hey, was wondering if anyone could help me with the structure of the answers.

How do you guys structure your 10 and 30 mark questions to ensure you get both AO1 and AO2 marks?
Reply 29
Original post by av_kidd
Hey, was wondering if anyone could help me with the structure of the answers.

How do you guys structure your 10 and 30 mark questions to ensure you get both AO1 and AO2 marks?


For 10 marker - describe or explain a term if necessary or what the question demands, use 1 or 2 relevant examples and people involved, I don't think introductions are necessary as they only waste time.

30 marker - make a plan of the debate of for and against and make it clear what side I am for throughout so for example if it was on whether multiculturalism is failed and I was balancing my argument for why it hadn't failed but there was a critique to it then I would mention it there so whilst it being a 2 sided argument there is critique throughout, i also try and use as many examples I can remember! :smile:

Hope this makes sense!!
Predictions for Education/Economy anyone?
Reply 31
There doesn't seem to be many people doing this module.. I have a feeling a multiculturalism question is due.. did anyone else thing so? As for education perhaps something involving the state/public divide or role of education and for environment, something to do with challenges?
Original post by studentgrace
There doesn't seem to be many people doing this module.. I have a feeling a multiculturalism question is due.. did anyone else thing so? As for education perhaps something involving the state/public divide or role of education and for environment, something to do with challenges?


I know it's a shame there's not more doing it as a lot of other forums debate with each other to revise but don't think that's possible on here!

I think the role of education is likely - economic role/end it itself/social engineering etc.
Reply 33
Original post by millie-rose
I know it's a shame there's not more doing it as a lot of other forums debate with each other to revise but don't think that's possible on here!

I think the role of education is likely - economic role/end it itself/social engineering etc.


That is what is kinda putting me off education though as the only question that could allow you to really put up a good balanced argument would be an ideology one which has already been up twice as for role of education, I would struggle to say as much :/.. ahhh
Reply 34
Original post by studentgrace
That is what is kinda putting me off education though as the only question that could allow you to really put up a good balanced argument would be an ideology one which has already been up twice as for role of education, I would struggle to say as much :/.. ahhh


If a question came up asking the role of education, you could still talk about quite a few issues.

For example, the tripartite system - you could discuss it's intention (provide free education for all & to introduce equal but different schools/opportunities) and what's it's role was. (to prepare their future roles in the economy, social change or broaden their minds..)

It could be either one really depending on how you put your argument forward. E.g. by separating pupils from an early age, categorising their intelligence to ensure they went to the 'correct' school could be an example of it preparing for their future roles in the economy (link to conservatism of natural hierarchy, and being part of an organism, in which everyone in society has a particular role)

The act itself was to provide free secondary education for all, so that in itself could be argued as allowing pupils to broaden their mind. By going to school pupils are educated etc.

It could then also be argued to be a way of being upwardly mobile in terms of social class. Technically, all one had to do was pass the 11+ and they would go to a grammar school (of course you can debate/argue that grammar schools were predominantly middle class anyway). But even so, it allowed a working class pupil to go to grammar school, get a good education, go to university, get a well paid job. This system was based on meritocracy (which could once again be argued whether this is fair or not - socialist deemed it as unfair)

You could then do the same kind of thing with the introduction of comprehensive schools. What did it do? Tony Crosland's view was to provide a 'grammar school education for everybody, despite the needs of the economy' (essentially he was saying a good quality education should be provided for everyone (egalitarian approach - socialism)). But was it also to improve standards so pupils were better educated, thus, able to get a good job and contribute back to the economy? (help economic growth, pay higher taxes etc) But, surely, by giving all students a good education, it allows them to also be upwardly mobile in terms of social class too?

Basically I'd just make points similar to above, and argue it either way and hope it got me marks :tongue:
Reply 35
Original post by studentgrace
For 10 marker - describe or explain a term if necessary or what the question demands, use 1 or 2 relevant examples and people involved, I don't think introductions are necessary as they only waste time.

30 marker - make a plan of the debate of for and against and make it clear what side I am for throughout so for example if it was on whether multiculturalism is failed and I was balancing my argument for why it hadn't failed but there was a critique to it then I would mention it there so whilst it being a 2 sided argument there is critique throughout, i also try and use as many examples I can remember! :smile:

Hope this makes sense!!


This was helpful, thank you :smile:. But for the 30 mark question, how would you make it clear what side you are on throughout the essay? And is it necessary to do so? I struggle with that :/
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by av_kidd
This was helpful, thank you :smile:. But for the 30 mark question, how would you make it clear what side you are on throughout the essay? And is it necessary to do so? I struggle with that :/


It is necessary as it shows clear & concise argument.

I got an A in Jan and this is how I write mine...

I start with an introduction in the 30 mark which includes my conclusion. I'll use the education question about pragmatism vs ideology as an example:

-- In this essay I will analyse whether education policy pursued by the government has been due to pragmatism or ideology. From the evidence and evaluation, I thus conclude that rather than being one or the other, it is a mixture of both.

Then start with my arguments

-- Argument

-- Counter Argument

-- Link back to Q and mini conclude

-- Repeat until you only have about 5/10 mins left for conclusion

Conclusion

-- From the evaluation and evidence shown I therefore have come to the conclusion that policies do not simply fit into Black and White categories of pragmatism or ideology, but remain in an area of Grey.

-------------------------------------------

That's pretty much how I do it. I know some teachers tell you not to use 'i', but I always do. I've spoken to examiners themselves and they say it's hard to have a decent essay without saying 'I' as this is what you do at uni. Having your conclusion in your intro and then linking your end conclusion back provides two neat bookends to your essay. It enables you to get into the high mark categories for 'clear and coherent structure' and 'sustained argument'.

Also, it means that you don't have to quickly come to a rushed and inconsistent conclusion as your essay has already been structured from the beginning.
Hope that helps!!
Reply 37
Original post by millie-rose
It is necessary as it shows clear & concise argument.

I got an A in Jan and this is how I write mine...

I start with an introduction in the 30 mark which includes my conclusion. I'll use the education question about pragmatism vs ideology as an example:

-- In this essay I will analyse whether education policy pursued by the government has been due to pragmatism or ideology. From the evidence and evaluation, I thus conclude that rather than being one or the other, it is a mixture of both.

Then start with my arguments

-- Argument

-- Counter Argument

-- Link back to Q and mini conclude

-- Repeat until you only have about 5/10 mins left for conclusion

Conclusion

-- From the evaluation and evidence shown I therefore have come to the conclusion that policies do not simply fit into Black and White categories of pragmatism or ideology, but remain in an area of Grey.

-------------------------------------------

That's pretty much how I do it. I know some teachers tell you not to use 'i', but I always do. I've spoken to examiners themselves and they say it's hard to have a decent essay without saying 'I' as this is what you do at uni. Having your conclusion in your intro and then linking your end conclusion back provides two neat bookends to your essay. It enables you to get into the high mark categories for 'clear and coherent structure' and 'sustained argument'.

Also, it means that you don't have to quickly come to a rushed and inconsistent conclusion as your essay has already been structured from the beginning.
Hope that helps!!


Ah ok I see, thanks for the advice. So, using the example you have given, you would argue points, say, in favour of pragmatism over ideology. Then, in favour of ideology over pragmatism, Ensuring you have a balanced argument either way?

Also, what do you mean by a mini conclusion? And isn't 10 minutes rather long for the actual conclusion? What do you include in that? I normally spend about 2-3 minutes on mine :s as I feel if I spend too long on it I often repeat what I've said earlier on in the essay.

And what's your structure like for the 10 mark question if I may ask?
Original post by av_kidd
Ah ok I see, thanks for the advice. So, using the example you have given, you would argue points, say, in favour of pragmatism over ideology. Then, in favour of ideology over pragmatism, Ensuring you have a balanced argument either way? Also, what do you mean by a mini conclusion?


Yes, make sure it's balanced as an argument must respond to criticism. If you only provide one side then it is not a debate which is what your marked for. Example:

----The marketisation of education can be seen as ideological as the New Right sees market forces as an ideological doctrine. This re-instates the ideas of Friedman, Hayek and Adam Smith who believed that governments have no place to intervene in markets and that to get the best out of the market you should 'leave it be' i.e. laissez-faire economics. Applying this to the education sector led to an internal market between schools increasing competition in the hope it would drive standards up. This can thus be seen as ideological.

^^^ my argument for the ideology part

---However, on the other hand, at the time Thatcher took power the standard of education was declining and was not producing a workforce fit for a globalised economy. For example, companies such as Dyson which was started in the UK, moved their production to Malaysia as costs were cheaper. This shows that to be attractive to investors, the UK must produce a highly skilled & qualified workforce. Thus, Thatcher's implementation of market forces into education can also be seen as a pragmatic way of driving up standards to make our workforce be competitive internationally.

now we have seen both sides of the argument, by mini-conclusion I mean link back to the question. If you do not link back or leave the argument like this it becomes unclear at what your saying. however, you don't want a full on conclusion...

--- In this sense, it can be seen that there are ideological and pragmatic reasons for the marketisation of education. This disagrees with the statement in question, and thus shows that rather than being either/or, it is more a mixture of ideology and pragmatism that was present.

now you have linked back it provides clarity at what your argument was getting at :smile:.. then carry on to your next point - when reaching the FINAL conclusion at the end, link back to all this analysis you made

And isn't 10 minutes rather long for the actual conclusion? What do you include in that? I normally spend about 2-3 minutes on mine :s as I feel if I spend too long on it I often repeat what I've said earlier on in the essay.


Yes 10 mins is a bit long, I usually spend 5, so whatever is best for you. Some people like to take the time to re-read there essay that's why I said 10. Literally, I conclude exactly what I put in the previous post. 1. Mention from the analysis you have done etc, that 2. your conclusion is .... and make sure your conclusion follows from the intro and analysis. NOTE: never raise a new point in your introduction, only refer back to ones you may have already done but do not analyse/evaluate them again.

And what's your structure like for the 10 mark question if I may ask?


it's hard to say because they vary a lot, I can give you an example?

Q: Argue the ideological case against private education.

- Define private education - make sure you REALLY define it. Not just one sentence, but an indepth definition is what is needed for higher marks. E.G. not just privately funded education, but ones which are independent from the state, offer some scholarships, can range in size/type etc.

Then I start arguments for private education until I run out of time. Arguments structured like;

- Point - Private education leads to money being able to buy you better life-chances
- Evidence - they make up 7% of student population yet are over-represented in high paying careers like politics, law, media etc.
- Evaluate - This leads to the fact that parents can effectively 'buy' life chances for their children, undermining the notion of a right to education and undermining meritocracy
- Conclude - This is thus a reason against private education, as we cannot live in a true meritocracy without a 'level playing field'
Reply 39
Original post by av_kidd
This was helpful, thank you :smile:. But for the 30 mark question, how would you make it clear what side you are on throughout the essay? And is it necessary to do so? I struggle with that :/


Sorry i've only just seen this, yes but perhaps not to the extent as millie-rose but i guess it shows that you can do whatever works best for you and should still get good marks if you are answering the questions.

I do a for and against (definitely not chronological though or you fall into the trap of being too descriptive),

so reasons why "we are all greens now" ... argue why this may be seen as being true (all major parties mentioning green jobs and advocating light green approaches of small sustainable changes) but if in your opinion you don't agree with this then counter that argument in the same paragraph so it effectively outweighs what you first said although you did balance it.

Then go on to the side you agree with more and it will be felt that the examiner will perhaps already know what your conclusion will be as evidence has shown throughout.. :smile:

Quick Reply