A2 SCLY4 Crime and Deviance Sociology Exam June 2014

didn't have a clue about right realism remembered wilsion and kelling and thats it
i revised gender and only made one revision card on ethnicity so only talked about gilroy and made up what hall said
the MIC was okay pretty straight forward
the 33 marker was the nicest out of the options because i just went through an essay plan i revised, did theoretical reasons for methods then practical reason then ethical then the same for topic concluded theoretical perspectives always make the choice the others just limit possibilities

so all in all a horrific exam 42 marks down the drain and feel awful just to make anyone else out there feel better

Maximum marks I got was 10/11 marks on the 33 marker. Failed that...

Did I lose marks for not referring to or using the item?

Did I lose marks for not referring to or using the item?

SORRY BUT WHAT THE FLYING F WAS THAT 33 MARKER?!

Omg no. I'm praying for low boundaries too! It was like 62 for an A* last year and the year before iirc so yeah that was pretty low! Then the other grades are in increments of about 5-7 below.

reading around I'm not sure I even did the 15 marker right, I didn't really use the terminology reliablity or validity.... I wrote:

- definition of corporate crime and official statistics are the intro
- I said they were quick and easy, as they're secondary evidence they remove the time consuming gathering of primary evidence
- I said about Snider's theory that laws were biased and protected ruling class interests, so their crimes are viewed more leniently
- I said that official statistics weren't a full picture, then

For the 33 I kind of ran out of time, only wrote ~2.5 pages... I did about feminism (mentioned Ann Oakley, she studied housework, which was of interest to feminism as it's about gender equality), then I wrote about funding being more important because sociologists need funding, then I wrote Durkheim because his suicide study was very important for functionalism - it showed socieyt had a function in suicide because he found "social facts" in the patterns of suicide. Then I kind of ran out of time and did a brief crap paragraph about the careers of sociologists and how some might "chase" something if it has more chance of being published because that were further their career


Argh. I hope the first paper before it was rewritten wasn't really easy or I'll be very annoyed if some guy stealing a van could cost me a uni place.... I've been counting on sociology for my A* to get into Cardiff as long as the crime paper was as good as beliefs. But nooo, of course not </3

Rant over, oops.

Also for everyone worrying about the 33 marker:
Our teacher went through what we'd right in the case of that specific question and it's basically positivism/interpretivism, and feminism/marxism etc as well as PET stuff and mentioning the funding body and values of society as a constraint.

Any of those things amongst others will get you marks, so it's not a case of one over the other ^_^

Don't worry everybody!

Does anyone know what the original SCLY4 paper was please? Thanks!

For the 33 marker, I literally spoke about the differences between positivists and interpretivists (quantitative, qualitative data etc) and why they preferred their choices of methods. I then spoke about other influences such as practical issues (time, cost), ethical issues (informed consent, harm to participants) and reliability and validity. I also spoke about funding bodies. Does anyone think this will get any marks - I've seen that some people have spoke about feminists and Durkheim but I never did