A2 AQA Geography GEOG 3 2016

What absolute rubbish.

AQA give you the specification. The spec included volcanoes....therefore you should have revised volcanoes.

I was merely stating that they'd never done that before. I did revise volcanoes, as I said. I was asking if anyone else found it annoying that they did this for the first time in 6 years. If you think it's 'rubbish' then go look at all the past papers and come for me when you have the receipts.

If you are so keen on looking at past papers then maybe.... if you looked at last years mark scheme- you would have been more prepared and less " annoyed".

Get over it mate.

Why would I analyse a mark scheme and expect the same question from the previous year when that's never occurred? Like I said, I was prepared for the essay question I just wasn't expecting it to come up, as they've never given an identical question two years in a row. I was wondering if other people had noticed the same thing.

If you were expecting identical questions to come up, then I'm glad that worked out for you. Otherwise, don't bother coming into my notifications.

No. I wasn't expecting identical questions ..... but I had revised.

You were the one who put a long paragraph about how you are annoyed at AQA. I hope AQA reads it and apologies to you - I hope you calm down soon.

yes omg!! how did you find today though, tbh by the end of it i has 'a feeling that marijuana rotting my brain'

No. I wasn't expecting identical questions ..... but I had revised.

You were the one who put a long paragraph about how you are annoyed at AQA. I hope AQA reads it and apologies to you - I hope you calm down soon.

I used London Docklands and am so worried now that this is wrong too, the fact that the previous question was urban decline and that they used the word 'regeneration' is what led me to think they meant partnership schemes, property led regeneration or gentrification as the answer. I stared at the question for a good 2 minutes in the exam trying to decide what it meant, it was ridiculously ambiguous, you shouldn't have to waste time in exam trying to find out what the question actually wants from you.

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

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.

Couldn't agree more. I sat for literally 3-5 minutes trying to get my head around the question. In the end I briefly mentioned hulme and then went onto to talk about enterprise zones and urban development corporation in Manchester city centre. Absolute travesty that question


Posted from TSR Mobile

If they do us over like in Jan 2013, I will be really ****ing angry

although it is not mentioned on the syllabus there are many case studies supporting the regeneration of the city centre, so unfortunately you may be wrong.

There are many case studies? So I may be wrong? I don't understand your logic

Posted from TSR Mobile

what did you put? lddc?

For the world cities question?

I put a paragraph in about Hulme but then noticed that was inner city so I left it, I didn't cross it out though.
I then did about 3 paragraphs on Manchester city centre and the developments there (tram line, gay village, china town etcetera)


Posted from TSR Mobile