Before I say anything else, please read this very short The Age article online:
This way I don’t have to explain it all.
So, yes, in summary, I did include George Clooney into my GAT. I was tempted to include it into the informative piece, where I was writing about the lifespan and functions of the worker bee, and how in its “Golden Years” – much like George Clooney is now…but no I decided it would only be wise to include it in the opinion section.
The opinion section was about possessions. So:
“…to have possessions would make people happy. And happiness is an individual thing. Some people may be happy with what little they have, such as George Clooney and his Nespresso coffees…”
“…sure, possessions lessen our appreciation for traditional things, as was George Clooney’s appreciation of fine women for instant coffee shots…”
And I only thought about this one after I finished it:
“…possessions make us happy. Just like if one was to possess George Clooney.”
Now, as you may have read, VCAA did not say if they would mark down those who mention Clooney. But hey I think if they do, that’s just a reflection of their stupid conservative ways, and absolute rigidity. Here, we finally have all the students uniting to be CREATIVE in such a boring assessment, and actually looking FORWARD to sitting the GAT, and what do you do? You reward them by marking them down. Bad children, who taught you to be creative and find fun in life? You MUST do things as we tell you and be stuck in the mould we’ve set.
Well, we’ll see what happens. I’m pretty sure if they (VCAA) marked this down the students would all revolt. After all, as long as it was relevant, it’s like marking someone down for using black pen instead of blue.
I finished the thing an hour early. Had time for a Maccas run.