Has anyone noticed...

TimeToShine

That Chemistry is just some dude coming along every 100 years or so and saying "EVERYTHING IS WRAWNG ITS ALL WRAWNG THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY" and all that gets implemented and ground breaking research takes place yet people still have to learn the shíte thatcame before it and is totally wrong?

Chuchoter

Chemistry is ridiculous for that especially at JC.

Bohr had most of his **** wrong but your going to learn it like gospel until 5th year comes and you have to unlearn all of it but still keep bits and pieces for every now and again when we need it! When you get to college, that will probably turn out to be wrong too!

thetonynator

crayolastereo wrote: »

Chemistry is ridiculous for that especially at JC.

Bohr had most of his **** wrong but your going to learn it like gospel until 5th year comes and you have to unlearn all of it but still keep bits and pieces for every now and again when we need it! When you get to college, that will probably turn out to be wrong too!

You dont unlearn it all, you have to remember it all just in case it comes up while also remebering the theories of everyone that came beore him and everyone that has come since . . .

grinds

I get your point but maybe it's the stuff that was wrong that directs us to new developments, new discoveries, new theories... Call it evolution, progress or whatever... Basically you learn from your mistakes.. In order to develop new theories we have to learn the "mistakes" made in the past and move forwards...

Since your talking about leaving cert chemistry.. Take Thompson's Plum Pudding model of the nucleus... Sounds stupid now but without it Rutherford wouln't have carried out the gold foil experiment... the structure of the atom would never have been discovered... electricity would never have been understood... computers and the circuits within would never have been developed... boards.ie would never have existed... You can thabk Thompson and his plum pudding model for posting here today...

So go and open up Chemistry Live... learn from these mistakes.. Only then will you be able to make some groundbreaking mistakes of your own someday. Good luck!:)

thetonynator

grinds wrote: »

So go and open up Chemistry Live... learn from these mistakes.. Only then will you be able to make some groundbreaking mistakes of your own someday. Good luck!:)

That would be fine if it wasnt for he fact that my chemistry teacher (who is very good) has to point out every 2 pages a mistake that was acceptable 10 years ago but you will now lose marks on in the exam . . .

TimeToShine

I did my Chemistry exam last year, I despised the subject for two years and I still do. Fair enough we should get an overview of the mistakes and then learn how they were disproved, but forcing everyone to rote learn every single failed chemical theory in existence is ridiculous.

grinds

thetonynator wrote: »

That would be fine if it wasnt for he fact that my chemistry teacher (who is very good) has to point out every 2 pages a mistake that was acceptable 10 years ago but you will now lose marks on in the exam . . .

One example please?

TimeToShine

Uh the whole of question 5 on the 2010 paper? F*cking ridiculous.

grinds

I just don't get why your chemistry teacher would be constantly pointing out stuff in your textbook that is now wrong and would lose you marks in your exam?? All the books i know of have been approved by the dept. of education and others shouldn't worry that the content in them is incorrect.

Good luck with it anyway!

spurious

The Department of Education doesn't approve any text books in Ireland.

thetonynator

grinds wrote: »

One example please?

Most recent one:

Radiation, beta particles, when

4He is emitted after the particle breaks down, the book says just 4He
2...........................................................................................2

Our teacher siad that last year in the reviewed scripts anyone who worte that got no marks, but several years ago they did. In order to get the marks you had to write

......+2
4He
2

Chuchoter

Same thing with Daltons Atomic Theory.
The 3 things given in the book were:

• All matter is made up of tiny particles called atoms
• Atoms are indivisible
• Atoms can neither be created or destroyed

The last one you did not get marks for if you put it down in the exam.

For the flame test, it would only accept platinum wire/nichrome wire, soaked wooden splint was not in the marking scheme.

thetonynator

crayolastereo wrote: »

For the flame test, it would only accept platinum wire/nichrome wire, soaked wooden splint was not in the marking scheme.

What schools can actually afford platinum wire these days??!!!

rainbowtrout

thetonynator wrote: »

Most recent one:

Radiation, beta particles, when

4He is emitted after the particle breaks down, the book says just 4He
2...........................................................................................2

Our teacher siad that last year in the reviewed scripts anyone who worte that got no marks, but several years ago they did. In order to get the marks you had to write

......+2
4He
2

Because something is printed in a book doesn't mean it's right. Also marking schemes are adjusted from year to year to keep grades in line from year to year. If there were too many A grades last year, then it is decided at the marking conference to only accept specific answers. This is probably what happened here.

thetonynator

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Because something is printed in a book doesn't mean it's right. Also marking schemes are adjusted from year to year to keep grades in line from year to year. If there were too many A grades last year, then it is decided at the marking conference to only accept specific answers. This is probably what happened here.

You misunderstood me. What i'm saying is that every year up until last year that example was accepted, the papers in question when viewed were actually seen to have been recorrected and marked up to increase the number of a's, but some of these examples were still marked wrong as they will not accept some answers anymore.

rainbowtrout

thetonynator wrote: »

You misunderstood me. What i'm saying is that every year up until last year that example was accepted, the papers in question when viewed were actually seen to have been recorrected and marked up to increase the number of a's, but some of these examples were still marked wrong as they will not accept some answers anymore.

Without knowing what happened at the marking conference it's impossible to say. Even if the scheme was changed and other questions marked up as you say, it could have been the case that those questions were changed because they were the most popular ones. i.e. it's pointless changing the marking scheme on a question that hardly anyone is attempting etc etc.

I think you'd have to see it next year if there was a similar question to see if that's the new acceptable answer or if it was just a once off. It may also have been the case that grades weren't high enough in previous years and the less detailed answer was accepted.

The cynic in me would say that the 2002 paper (the first year the syllabus was examined) was very straightforward and easy in order to get the syllabus off to a flying start with good results and no major problems. A difficult paper would have given the subject negative publicity. There have certainly been more difficult papers since then.

Fad

TimeToShine wrote: »

That Chemistry is just some dude coming along every 100 years or so and saying "EVERYTHING IS WRAWNG ITS ALL WRAWNG THIS IS THE RIGHT WAY" and all that gets implemented and ground breaking research takes place yet people still have to learn the shíte thatcame before it and is totally wrong?

It is much easier to understand something when you know the theory that led to its discovery.

grinds

thetonynator wrote: »

Most recent one:

Radiation, beta particles, when

4He is emitted after the particle breaks down, the book says just 4He
2...........................................................................................2

Our teacher siad that last year in the reviewed scripts anyone who worte that got no marks, but several years ago they did. In order to get the marks you had to write

......+2
4He
2

When a Beta particle is emmited you should never write down 4He
2.. You write this down when describing the emission of an alpha particle... A Beta particle is a fast moving electron... not a Helium nucleus.

I'm not sure what your teacher is on about... If you write He with a mass number of 4 and an atomic number of 2 describing the emmission of an alpha particle you are correct... What's in Chemistry Live is 100% correct so students shouldn't worry about this

thetonynator

grinds wrote: »

When a Beta particle is emmited you should never write down 4He
2.. You write this down when describing the emission of an alpha particle... A Beta particle is a fast moving electron... not a Helium nucleus.

I'm not sure what your teacher is on about... If you write He with a mass number of 4 and an atomic number of 2 describing the emmission of an alpha particle you are correct... What's in Chemistry Live is 100% correct so students shouldn't worry about this

Oops meant alpha particle!! I obviously havent learned it properly yet!!!

But what i am saying is if you do not include the charge of the heliem you don't get the marks but in the book it never mentions this.

grinds

thetonynator wrote: »

Oops meant alpha particle!! I obviously havent learned it properly yet!!!

But what i am saying is if you do not include the charge of the heliem you don't get the marks but in the book it never mentions this.

Sounds crazy to me... I'd double check that.. If you write an alpha particle as 4/2He ...i.e. Helium with a mass number of 4 and an atomic number of 2 you will get your marks... I'd certainly question anyone who told you different..