And why many strong responses still fell short
The 2024 VCE Economics exam did not surprise students with unfamiliar content. The questions sat squarely within the Study Design, drew on well-rehearsed policy areas, and used data formats students had seen many times before.
Yet the examiner’s report makes one thing very clear. A significant number of students underperformed not because they lacked knowledge, but because they misjudged how that knowledge needed to be applied in specific questions.
The issues that emerged in 2024 were not random. They followed clear, repeated patterns.
Extended responses stalled when students explained instead of addressing the task
One of the most consistent themes in the examiner’s commentary was that students wrote responses that were technically accurate but task-incomplete.
In several extended-response questions, students explained economic concepts or policies correctly but did not respond to what the question was actually asking them to do. This was particularly evident where task words required evaluation, assessment or justification.
Responses often stopped at explanation, even when the question demanded a judgement or conclusion. From the examiner’s perspective, these answers demonstrated understanding of Economics, but not control of it.
Data was described accurately but rarely used as evidence
The 2024 exam included multiple questions that required students to engage with economic data.
According to the examiner’s report, many students accurately identified trends, changes and comparisons. However, a large proportion failed to explain what those trends showed about economic conditions or policy effectiveness.
In questions involving inflation, growth or unemployment data, students often restated figures without linking them to aggregate demand, supply-side constraints or economic objectives.
Marks were awarded when data was used to support an argument, not when it was paraphrased.
Monetary policy answers lacked context and timeframe
Monetary policy featured prominently in the 2024 paper, and examiner feedback highlighted a familiar weakness.
Many students explained how changes in interest rates influence consumption and investment, but failed to identify the economic condition prompting the policy response. Others did not acknowledge the time lag associated with monetary policy transmission.
Without reference to inflationary pressure, demand conditions or timing, these responses sounded generic. They could have applied to almost any scenario.
High-scoring responses explicitly linked policy action to the condition shown and considered how effects unfold over time.
Fiscal policy responses ignored trade-offs
Fiscal policy questions in the 2024 exam exposed gaps in evaluation.
Students frequently explained expansionary or contractionary fiscal policy well, but did not consider the broader implications. In particular, many responses failed to address budgetary impacts, opportunity cost or longer-term consequences.
The examiner’s report notes that stronger responses weighed benefits against limitations and prioritised outcomes in line with the objective identified in the question.
Listing effects without evaluating their relative importance capped marks.
Diagrams were correct but disconnected
The examiner’s report also highlighted that many students drew correct diagrams but failed to integrate them into their written responses.
Aggregate demand and aggregate supply diagrams were often labelled accurately, but students did not explain how the shifts shown related to the scenario or data provided.
In these cases, the diagram added little value. Marks were awarded when diagrams were explicitly linked to economic outcomes and used to support reasoning.
Evaluation was weakest where judgement was avoided
Evaluation questions proved to be the clearest separator in the 2024 exam.
The examiner’s report repeatedly notes that students avoided making clear judgements. They described multiple effects, acknowledged uncertainty, and then stopped short of a conclusion.
Strong responses identified which outcome mattered most in the given context and justified that prioritisation using economic reasoning and evidence.
In 2024, hesitation was more costly than being decisive.
What the strongest 2024 responses did consistently
High-performing responses in the 2024 exam shared the same characteristics.
They:
- stayed tightly aligned to the task word
- used data selectively and purposefully
- anchored policy explanations to economic conditions
- acknowledged timeframe and trade-offs
- finished with a clear judgement where required
These responses did not try to cover everything. They focused on what mattered.
What the 2024 exam means for future Economics students
The 2024 VCE Economics exam reinforced that success in this subject comes from precision, not volume.
Students who continue to rely on generic explanations, broad theory and descriptive data use will remain capped. Students who learn to interpret tasks carefully, apply content to context and commit to judgements will score more consistently.
The exam did not reward more writing. It rewarded better writing.
Working with ATAR STAR
ATAR STAR Economics tutoring is built around the patterns revealed in exams like the 2024 paper.
We help students learn how to read questions with intent, use data as evidence, apply policy to specific conditions and finish responses decisively. This approach supports both high-performing students seeking consistency and capable students whose marks do not yet reflect their understanding.
The 2024 exam made one thing clear. In VCE Economics, marks are lost through misalignment, not misunderstanding.