Ethics 2024 Exam Predictions

On By Aimee HorsleyIn UncategorizedLeave a comment

Ethics is the hardest exam to predict because there are many question variations (topics asked on their own or as application) and a significant amount of areas have been asked over the years. On this note I must be clear that I do not share my predictions with you to be correct, I share them with you to give you an idea of what to expect or what to be prepared for. I make my predictions simply by looking at previous questions, recognizing the obvious gaps (using the spec) and making possible questions from here (no secret magic trick here). So here goes…

Specific questions could be:

  1. Meta Ethics: Ethical Naturalism e.g. Evaluate the extent to which ethical terms such as good, bad, right and wrong have an objective factual basis that makes them true or false in describing something.​ My reasoning is that meta ethics was not on last year’s paper and it is a specific part of the syllabus that has never been asked before.
  2. Sex Ethics: Specifically on premarital sex, extramarital sex or homosexuality e.g. “No theory is useful when dealing with issues surrounding homosexuality.” Discuss. Or specific to Kant e.g. ‘To what extent can issues surrounding sex ethics be judged as good, bad, right or wrong based on the extent to which duty is best served.’​ I might be wrong on this one because sex ethics did appear last year and there was also a Kant question, however examiners usually like at least two application questions and there are more areas of sex ethics that have not been asked than euthanasia. For example there has never been a general question on the themes of sex ethics and that seems to me like a big gap.
  3. Conscience: General Q e.g. “Conscience is just an umbrella term for moral decision making based on culture and environment not God.”​ Cosncince was not on last year’s paper and only one fgneral conscince qustion has been asked (2021).
  4. Business Ethics and/ or Utilitarianism: General Q on Business (e.g “Globalisation discourages the pursuit of good ethics as the foundation of good business.” Discuss.) Business with Utilitarianism (e.g. “Utilitarianism is not useful when making ethical decision regarding issues surrounding business ethics.”) or general Utilitarianism (e.g. “The strengths of Bentham’s utilitarianism outweighs its weaknesses. Discuss) ​I think you may get a business question and a utilitarianism question. Utilitarianism has never been asked in the second year exam. Utilitarianism and business has not been asked since 2019 – however I doubt they will ask for Utilitarianism and Utilitarianism with business. I think the question will be a general business theme (probably not whistleblowing as this is the only theme that has been asked in 2021). It could be a business question that has been asked in the first year such as “good business decisions are always good ethical decision.s”
  5. Natural Law: To what extent are the primary and secondary presents of Natural Law unhelpful in moral decision making. Or Assess the view that Natural Law is too reliant on telos in making moral decision. ​There are a number of areas of NL that have not been asked in the second year and the last time a question on NL was on the exam was in 2021. High likeability.

Good luck to all of you! You have worked very hard, so this is your opportunity to show off! Don’t forget to join the live stream on Sunday 16th June at 6.00 for last minute exam support.

Philosophy 2024 Exam Predictions

On By Aimee HorsleyIn Exam Preparation, Philosophy New SpecLeave a comment

As I say every year, it is impossible to accurately predict exam questions due to the magnitude of questions the exam board could ask. The exam board also deliberately ask curveball questions to avoid people like me ‘accurately’ predicting the questions. They may ask questions that have previously featured in the first or second year exams (even the exact same wording could be used) or they may ask questions on areas of the specification never asked before. For example, last year the examiner’s asked a question on Descartes and a very similar question on Descartes appeared the year before in the first year exam. With this in mind, these predictions are just my own musings and may be completely wrong, so you must still revise all areas on the spec. But if I was going to write an exam paper this is how I would do it…

  1. Plato/ Aristotle: Evaluate the claim that Aristotle’s Prime Mover is far clearer than Plato’s Form of the Good (or rationalism vs empiricism).​ My reasoning is because Plato has not been asked in three years, a compare question was asked in the first year exam last year and Aristotle wasn’t on last year. Examiner’s also like compare questions as they are more challenging.
  2. Arguments for Existence of God (I doubt you will be asked two questions from this section):
    • Teleological: “The challenge of evolution far outweighs the evidence of a designer God.” Discuss.​ Area of the spec that has never been asked in the first or second year exam.
    • Cosmological: “The logical fallacies in Aquinas’ first three ways cannot be overcome.” Discuss. Or “Hume’s criticisms against the cosmological argument are effective.” Discuss. ​No Cosmological question has been asked in the second year.
    • Ontological: Critically assess the view that existence can be treated as a predicate.​ Only one question has been asked on the Ontological argument in the second year exam (Gaunilo – 2021), also ‘predicate’ is a clear part of the spec that has not appeared in the first year exams either.
    • Teleological/ Cosmological/ Ontological: “An a posteriori argument is far more persuasive than  an a priori argument.” Discuss.​ Discussion point on the spec that has never been asked – would be a challenging question if they did.
  3. Religious Language Apophatic (Analogy): “Aquinas’ analogical approach does not support effective expression of language about God.” Discuss​ Part of the spec that has not been asked and Religious Language hasn’t been on exam since 2021 (not to be confused with Religious Language 20th century which was on last year).
  4. Nature of God: “Swinburne successfully resolves the problems surrounding God’s omniscience and human free will.” Discuss Or “God cannot have divine foreknowledge and be fully benevolent.” Discuss​ A number of areas of NOG that have not been asked, so two obvious questions would be Swinburne and/or benevolence. There is going to be at least one question from the second year topics.

If you are asked three Q from first year topics, other alternatives might be: John Hick (POE), Materialism/ critics of the concept of soul (Body, Mind, Soul) or psychological/ physiological / critics of RE (Religious experience)​. These are clear areas of the spec that have not been asked before.

I hope your revision continues to go really well! Don’t forget to join the live stream on Sunday 9th June at 6.00 on YouTube for any last minute exam support. Good luck and remember you have worked very hard for the last two years so this is your time to show off!!

*Note: I sometimes refer to the exams by the first and second year. This is because OCR still set a paper for students who wish to sit the exam in the first year of the course (formerly known as the AS year), however most colleges no longer do this. The second year refers to the full A level exam (sat by everyone who completes the course) covering all 32 units.

RS Exam Support 2024

On By Aimee HorsleyIn Exam Preparation, Philosophy and Ethics: R.S1 Comment

Powerpoint of Past Exam Questions:

Powerpoint of Gaps and Possible Questions:

Predictions:

Also check out Philosophy 2024 Exam Predictions for the reasoning behind my predictions.

Live Streams for last minute exam support (membership exclusive):

Philosophy:

Ethics:

DCT:

Don’t forget to check out the Examiner’s Report summaries (Examiner’s Reports Summary (2022-2023) and Goldilocks and the Three Exam Papers) These will give you an insight into what the examiner;s are looking for and what to avoid.

Work Smarter not Harder: CPD with Mr. P ICT

On By Aimee HorsleyIn CPDLeave a comment

A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending one of Mr P’s CPD sessions in Leeds (www.mrpict.com/). My attention was first drawn to Mr P during lockdown, when he spoke candidly about education and the pressures of teaching during covid. Since then he has pioneered his unfiltered views of education through social media outlets, shared his expertise in using technology in the classroom, started a popular podcast with his brother and developed an impressive AI website to support and save time for primary school teachers (teachmateai.com/). As you can probably tell, I was a big fan before I attended the course, so the pressure was on…would he live up to my expectations.

Well yes, he did. It was a morning of funny anecdotes (comparing a secondary teacher going into a primary class to that of I’m a celebrity being dropped in the jungle), practical classroom ideas and brutal honesty. Here are some of the highlights that resonated the most with me:

  • Lost Lockdown Learning –we did not continue what we learned in lockdown. Teachers significantly adapted and evolved during this time, especially how they utilised technology through streaming lessons, collaborative online learning and creative strategies to engage students. All of which were ceremoniously binned as soon as we returned to the classroom and the ‘old ways’.
  • Marking – Mr P response to marking – don’t do it! Of course he did not mean this literally but instead ensure you ask the important and valid question of ‘why are we doing this?’. Why are we actually marking so much? Why does the colour we mark in make a difference to the feedback given (why does marked work have to look like a ‘unicorn defecated’ – one way to put it!) The problem is that we work in a “system driven by fear”, fear that without tones of evidence of up to date marked work, that we are in some way not doing our job properly. Marking is not for the students – feedback is for the students. Marking and feedback are different. Ofsted want to see impact of feedback (not marking) so instant oral feedback, whole class feedback and evidence of how feedback moved on the learning are best.
  • Forced Wellbeing – Yoga is not the solution. Teachers need time, trust and a reduced workload.
  • AI Technology – There is apprehension around AI due to a lack of understanding. We have gone through the struggle with technology (dial up, trojan horse virus, paperclip face) yet AI can make life easier. Things have moved on quickly in the AI world into ‘generative AI’ where it no longer just follows patterns but has creative powers. This will never replace the humanity of teaching but might reduce workload when it comes to planning, report writing and assessment marking.
  • “Teaching is broken” – 40,000 teachers left the profession last year (not including retirement). What is the cause of this mass exodus? Well it could be many things from burn out, impossible work/ life balance or maybe it is the constant scrutiny. We need to find more efficient ways of working, where we are not doing the same job in three different ways. Stop gas lighting teachers and taking advantage of the view that this job is a ‘calling’ or ‘vocation’ and thus entitles the government to expect higher levels of commitment. This is not sustainable.

My final take away was more of a lingering question -when did teaching become like ‘hunger games’ where we are pitched against each other in some sort of performance squid game? Mr P talked about how teachers need to stop gloating over how hard they work, parading it around like a ‘badge of honour’ and projecting this onto others. What this does is creates a subconscious festering of ‘teacher guilt’, where you feel you are not doing enough and should be doing more. I feel that this is the pandemic driving teachers out.