Legal Studies is one of the most deceptive VCE subjects for hard-working students.
In many subjects, effort has a visible payoff. You write more, you revise more, you cover more, and your marks tend to rise. In Legal Studies, that logic breaks down. Not because the subject is unfair, and not because students are doing something wrong morally. It breaks down because the exam is designed to reward a specific kind of performance.
Legal Studies does not reward effort in the way families expect.
It rewards precision.
Effort is still necessary. It just does not convert into marks unless it is aimed correctly.
The mistake parents and students make early
Parents often assume that if a student is reading the textbook, making notes, and doing practice questions, they will inevitably score highly. Students assume that if they show the examiner everything they know, they will be credited for it.
No, it is not “show everything you know”. It is “show exactly what the question demands”.
That single shift explains most of the gap between capable students and high-scoring students.
How marks are actually awarded in Legal Studies
Legal Studies is not an essay subject where writing can be interpreted generously.
In the VCE exam, assessors are not awarding marks because a student sounds knowledgeable. They are awarding marks when a response contains the specific features that the marking guide can reward. That is why structure and task alignment matter so much.
A student can write accurate information and still lose marks if:
- they do not answer the full question
- they use the wrong type of reasoning for the command term
- they provide a description where an evaluation is required
- they include examples but never use them to prove a point
- they write an informed conclusion that does not match the reasoning asked for
This is not personal. It is mechanical. It is assessment design.
Precision begins with reading the question properly
The most expensive mistakes in Legal Studies happen in the first ten seconds.
Students skim. They see a familiar topic. They start writing what they know. Under pressure, this feels efficient. It is usually the opposite.
Legal Studies questions often contain two layers:
- the topic
- the task
The topic might be “sanctions” or “the Charter” or “parliament and courts”. That is what students recognise.
The task is what actually earns the marks. The task is hidden in the command term and the phrasing.
This is why two students can “know the same content” and score very differently. One student answers the task. The other answers the topic.
Why command terms are the centre of the subject
Command terms are not vocabulary. They are instructions.
A student who does not respond to the command term is not simply writing “a weaker answer”. They are writing a different answer to a different question.
Here is the most important distinction:
No, it is not “explain everything you know”. It is “do the type of thinking the command term demands”.
Examples of what this looks like in practice:
Explain
Explain is controlled. It requires a clear point and the reason why it is true. It does not invite a debate. Students who “explain” by listing multiple points without reasoning often sound busy but do not build creditable meaning.
Discuss
Discuss requires breadth. It expects students to explore more than one aspect and show that they can handle complexity. The biggest mistake is treating discuss as explain. The student gives a single line of reasoning and never opens out into multiple considerations.
Evaluate
Evaluate is the make-or-break command term in Legal Studies. It demands a judgement. Not a vibe. A supported judgement.
The judgement is not optional and it is not something you add at the end when you remember. It must shape the whole response.
Most students evaluate like this: they explain for a page, then tack on “overall, it is effective” in the final line.
That is not evaluation. That is an afterthought.
Evaluation is the repeated weighing of effectiveness and limitation, linked to the question, across the response. The conclusion should simply crystallise what has already been argued.
Why effort often turns into overwriting
Overwriting is one of the most common causes of underperformance in Legal Studies.
It happens when students do not trust that a precise answer can earn marks. They write more to feel safer.
Overwriting looks like:
- giving multiple definitions when one would do
- repeating the same idea with slightly different phrasing
- adding another example because the student is unsure if the first “counts”
- explaining background content that was not asked for
- writing an extra paragraph “just in case”
No, it is not safe. It is expensive.
It steals time from the higher-mark questions that actually decide the outcome. It also reduces clarity. The examiner has to work harder to find the relevant reasoning, and Legal Studies is not designed to reward hidden reasoning.
If a marker cannot see the point you are making, it is not a point in the eyes of the marking guide.
Precision is also about selecting the right content, not the most content
A high-scoring Legal Studies student does not know less. They are simply more selective.
They choose content that is:
- directly relevant to the task
- able to be developed into reasoning
- capable of supporting a judgement
This is why some students with encyclopaedic notes do not score as highly as expected. Their knowledge is broad but not always deployable.
Precision means the student is making decisions like:
- which principle is actually being tested here
- which institution is actually relevant here
- which example will prove this point most efficiently
- which limitation is the most persuasive limitation for this question
That is not effort. That is control.
Why Legal Studies becomes harder in Year 12 even for strong students
This is where parents often misread the situation.
Year 12 Legal Studies is not harder because the content is incomprehensible. It is harder because the required performance is more exact.
Students are asked to evaluate systems against the principles of justice. They are asked to discuss effectiveness. They are asked to justify. They are asked to weigh.
This means:
- students cannot rely on memorised paragraphs
- students cannot rely on generic structures
- students cannot write “everything they know” and hope it earns marks
They must write with intent.
The three places where precision wins marks immediately
If you want to improve results quickly, precision shows up in three visible places.
1. The first sentence
Strong students start with an answer, not a warm-up.
They state their position, their judgement, or the exact focus of the response. They do not begin by rephrasing the question or giving a generic definition.
A first sentence should tell the assessor: this student understands the task.
2. Paragraph purpose
Each paragraph in an extended response should have a job.
No, it is not “write until you run out of time”. It is “one paragraph, one clear idea, one clear contribution”.
This is how a student protects themselves under pressure. They reduce decision-making while writing.
3. Sustained judgement
When evaluation is required, precision means the student is evaluating throughout.
That looks like:
- stating an effectiveness point
- supporting it
- stating a limitation
- linking it to fairness, equality or access
- returning to the question’s wording
Then repeating, building, refining.
Not dumping a conclusion at the end and hoping the evaluator infers the judgement.
What parents should take from this
If your child is working hard but marks are not rising, do not assume they need more notes.
Often, they need:
- more practice with command terms
- stricter structures under timed conditions
- feedback that targets alignment, not just content
- training in when to stop writing
Legal Studies is one of those subjects where students can improve dramatically without “learning more”, simply by learning to execute more precisely.
The takeaway
Legal Studies does not reward the student who knows the most.
It rewards the student who can demonstrate the right knowledge in the right way, under time pressure.
No, it is not effort that decides the score.
It is precision.
Effort is the fuel. Precision is the steering.