AQA A level Sociology 5th June 2018

Marty1900

how did everyone find the exam? What did you write for the first and last questions?

I did Value consensus is outdated (pretty much used the post modernist theory of multiculturalism and identity) and said it overemphasis how social institutions work in harmony e.g religion and science and in conflict and how scientific institutions led to risk society (no too harmonious eh)

Research and Methods one I don't feel confident on.

I did.

Good = Emphasis on the participant and helps researcher unravel mysteries of every day life and this is important for seeing how teachers and student both view exclusion differently (shooting myself for not using the worlds Verstehen (but I don't know how to spell it)
Good = don't over long period of time allowing clear pattern to emerge and how this is important in understanding the effect of exclusions
Bad = A lot of data and they may get too close to the groups and start romanticising them that leads to bats on the reporting of exclusion
Bad = only a small group so disliked my positivists and lack reliability and representativeness.

And only managed to finished 5 paragraphs on the 30 marker, but I did use all the space, but missed the oppurnity to talk about socialisation in regards to Douglas and Fenstein and only had being socialised into restricted and elaborated code (Bernstein)

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 2

will89

1

On the 30 mark people needed to AO3 external factors ( eg material dep) with internal factors ( labelling) and that’s how you answered the Q instead of listing it out, please tell me I’m not the only one to do that because the book and exam even said to interlink them

Reply 3

Yenson

11

Original post by will89

On the 30 mark people needed to AO3 external factors ( eg material dep) with internal factors ( labelling) and that’s how you answered the Q instead of listing it out, please tell me I’m not the only one to do that because the book and exam even said to interlink them

I don't understand what you mean?

I did Labelling that I followed onto Setting and streaming then followed that onto Self fulfilling prophecy. (For internal) then did Material Deprivation (Bull and Howard) then I did Cultural deprivation (Language).

Reply 4

Paniniception

15

**** me on the last question I put can’t apply it to society today bc things like definitions change so we can’t compare but value consensus stuff sounds clever

Reply 5

will89

1

Nah the item mentions “ interrelation” and in the book it says avoid simply listening them separately you have to evaluate a external ( material dep ) with a internal ( labelling ) so you say yes people are poor and underachieve but arguably the teachers label this which leads to a SPF and then joining subcultures. So in my conclusion I said it’s actually a combination of internal and external factors which together chase underachiever as one wouldn’t exist with the other. + the last line I said the children are “ culturally different not deprevied”

Reply 6

Paniniception

15

Original post by will89

Nah the item mentions “ interrelation” and in the book it says avoid simply listening them separately you have to evaluate a external ( material dep ) with a internal ( labelling ) so you say yes people are poor and underachieve but arguably the teachers label this which leads to a SPF and then joining subcultures. So in my conclusion I said it’s actually a combination of internal and external factors which together chase underachiever as one wouldn’t exist with the other. + the last line I said the children are “ culturally different not deprevied”

Omg yes I put that! About culturally different not deprived. Keddie in 1973 right? :smile:

Reply 7

Yenson

11

Original post by will89

Nah the item mentions “ interrelation” and in the book it says avoid simply listening them separately you have to evaluate a external ( material dep ) with a internal ( labelling ) so you say yes people are poor and underachieve but arguably the teachers label this which leads to a SPF and then joining subcultures. So in my conclusion I said it’s actually a combination of internal and external factors which together chase underachiever as one wouldn’t exist with the other. + the last line I said the children are “ culturally different not deprevied”

We were taught differently but still to evaluate each one.

e.g Labeling... then I criticised it by saying it too deterministic and people contradict their own identities sort of thing. and I cant remember what I did for my conclusion, it was along the lines of agreeing with the theories but rejecting them for being too deterministic and failing to see students can construct their own identities.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 8

minivampire

15

What points did you make about the marketisation question?

Reply 9

will89

1

Original post by minivampire

What points did you make about the marketisation question?

The funding formula and parentocracy

Reply 10

mendie_0

1

In my sociology GC I got told that apparently regardless of the amount of marks you get, the top 20% in the UK get automatic A*. Like surely that cant be right, thats absolutely disgusting of them

Reply 11

Kim567

3

Does anyone know how to explain the concepts of action theories?

Reply 12

Paniniception

15

Original post by Kim567

Does anyone know how to explain the concepts of action theories?

OMG I can’t do this either

Reply 13

Carly2289

12

Original post by mendie_0

In my sociology GC I got told that apparently regardless of the amount of marks you get, the top 20% in the UK get automatic A*. Like surely that cant be right, thats absolutely disgusting of them

Yeah, that's how grade boundaries work. That's why they change each year, to make sure the right percentage gets each grade. The UMS marks needed for each grade never changes, but the relationship between raw mark and UMS changes...something like that, but yeah it is only a percentage that gets each grade. You couldn't get every person getting an A*

But yeah...it is unfair in a way because it means its just a competition really!

Reply 14

mendie_0

1

Original post by Carly2289

Yeah, that's how grade boundaries work. That's why they change each year, to make sure the right percentage gets each grade. The UMS marks needed for each grade never changes, but the relationship between raw mark and UMS changes...something like that, but yeah it is only a percentage that gets each grade. You couldn't get every person getting an A*

But yeah...it is unfair in a way because it means its just a competition really!

So if 30% of people got the marks required for an A* they would only give the top 20% with the highest marks an A*?

Say the maximum marks you can get is 300 (its not but use this as an example). If the boundary to get an A* is 260 and 20% of students get above 270 marks. Does that mean those that still achieved an A* but got 265 marks, because they are just below the top 20%, only get an A?

Reply 15

Carly2289

12

Original post by mendie_0

So if 30% of people got the marks required for an A* they would only give the top 20% with the highest marks an A*?

Say the maximum marks you can get is 300 (its not but use this as an example). If the boundary to get an A* is 260 and 20% of students get above 270 marks. Does that mean those that still achieved an A* but got 265 marks, because they are just below the top 20%, only get an A?

They work out the grade boundaries after all the raw marks have been given, so they find the top 20% and then they can see where the A* grade boundary would be from that, if that makes sense?

Reply 16

Marty1900

OP

5

Original post by will89

On the 30 mark people needed to AO3 external factors ( eg material dep) with internal factors ( labelling) and that’s how you answered the Q instead of listing it out, please tell me I’m not the only one to do that because the book and exam even said to interlink them

I did and tried to link them as well by saying how Bernsteins idea of restricted and elaborated code is an external cultural factor but is used within schools for exams and interacting with teachers etc. I hardly did anything on internal factors only managed to talk about labelling/self fulfilling prophecy and another on setting/streaming the other three were external factors