A2 AQA Geography GEOG 3 2016

See it has to be a UDC, imo because redevelopment is not the same as regeneration so i think its like MDC or LDDC, urban splash is sheffield i used that for my urban decline question. just going t have to let it go

But the exam board cannot expect people to have specifically learnt an exact case studies that comes under city centre and regeneration though

The World Cities 10 mark question is arguably the most poorly worded and ambiguous question I have ever faced in an exam: "With reference to one or more examples, evaluate the impact of measures to regenerate town or city centres".

As can be seen from the specification points "Urban decline and regeneration within urban areas" and "Retailing and other services": http://imgur.com/7wxW8cM, there is no mention of 'regeneration' regarding city centres on the specification.

Therefore, using the specification, the question is open to two very contrasting interpretations:

1# Should the question have been answered as if it concerns 'regeneration', but risk getting 0/10 since there is no reference to specifically 'regeneration' with regards to 'city centres' on the specification.

OR

2# Should the question have been answered as if it concerns 'city centres', but risk getting 0/10 since 'city centres' are only mentioned on the specification with regards to 'redevelopment' and NOT 'regeneration'.

This is an absolutely disgraceful question here, not only because the examiners knew it caused issues back in Jan 2013 #this is even MORE ambiguous# but also because the previous question #concerning urban decline# suggests that the 10 marker should have been answered regarding 'regeneration' and NOT 'redevelopment of city centres'.

Personally, I used Park Hill #a regeneration scheme# but I very fearful #like many other people#, that I will get 0/10 since it isn't specifically a 'city centre'. If anyone has anymore thoughts on this question please reply to me as I am very concerned right now. Thanks

Surely if a lot of people complain about the World Cities 10 marker then AQA will be notified?

I honestly think it's worth as many of us as possible writing to AQA? Makes sense.

This makes so much sense and I agree! The word 'regeneration' appears on the specification only with regard to 'Urban regeneration: gentrification, property-led etc..' Which would suggest they wanted us to write about one of those case studies, e.g. Docklands. This naturally would have been what many candidates did.

The part of the specification which refers to retail/city centres uses the word 'redevelopment', which they should have used in the question instead?

I think its an unfair, badly-worded and possible wrongly-worded question. They seem to have mixed up two separate sections of the specification..

I think its worth writing to AQA about? I'm certainly going to.

Yes I agree! We should all totally do this. It's so out of order - why word questions so awkwardly when it can cost people 1 or 2 grades?!

Is anyone else seriously annoyed at AQA not only for the 10 marker in world cities, but the tectonics 40 marker?

This year was the first incidence since 2010, from what I've seen, that AQA have repeated the same topic for a 40 marker 2 years in a row, in an attempt to catch students off guard. The tectonics 40 marker from June 2015 was practically identical to the one they gave this year.
I for one revised seismic case studies more than I did volcanic case studies due to last years 40 marker being based purely on the effects of volcanic hazards.

For comparison:

June 2015:
‘Systems of prediction, preparation and prevention are so well developed, catastrophe isavoidable.’ In the context of volcanic hazards, discuss the extent to which you agree with this view.

June 2016 (As close to what I can remember):
'Advances in our knowledge, understanding and technology in recent years mean natural disasters are far less likely to cause death and destruction.' Discuss this view in the context of volcanic hazards.

Really annoying! I ended up doing the question anyway because I was not about to answer a weather 40 marker, and I actually did prefer this essay to the globalisation one. But still, the same year that they plan to give us a misleading world cities 10 marker, they throw in 40 markers identical to the year before.

Obviously you're allowed to be annoyed at AQA but it's not like they're not allowed to ask the same question two years in a row

I wrote about London Thames gateway regeneration project ! Was this right??
I didn't do London Docklands because thats reurbanisation

Thanks, I wasn't sure if what I wrote made sense. To be perfectly honest, the question was extremely misleading and as you say wrongly-worded. Questions are supposed to be written coherently enough that we can actually figure out what they want. It would also make sense that they wanted a regeneration scheme since they asked about urban decline in the previous question, which makes it even more misleading how they've used 'city centre'.

Thats an excellent idea to write to AQA, what email address will you be sending a complaint to, and I'll do the same

London Docklands is also regeneration.

Yeah I know, it's just the revision guide had it as re urbanisation so I went for Thames Gateway because it was written specifically but it includes docklands too, so it should be fine I'm hoping

Is anyone else seriously annoyed at AQA not only for the 10 marker in world cities, but the tectonics 40 marker?

This year was the first incidence since 2010, from what I've seen, that AQA have repeated the same topic for a 40 marker 2 years in a row, in an attempt to catch students off guard. The tectonics 40 marker from June 2015 was practically identical to the one they gave this year.
I for one revised seismic case studies more than I did volcanic case studies due to last years 40 marker being based purely on the effects of volcanic hazards.

For comparison:

June 2015:
‘Systems of prediction, preparation and prevention are so well developed, catastrophe isavoidable.’ In the context of volcanic hazards, discuss the extent to which you agree with this view.

June 2016 (As close to what I can remember):
'Advances in our knowledge, understanding and technology in recent years mean natural disasters are far less likely to cause death and destruction.' Discuss this view in the context of volcanic hazards.

Really annoying! I ended up doing the question anyway because I was not about to answer a weather 40 marker, and I actually did prefer this essay to the globalisation one. But still, the same year that they plan to give us a misleading world cities 10 marker, they throw in 40 markers identical to the year before.