* Honours Maths paper 1 * AFTERMATH

LilMissCiara

muggy wrote: »

Ya true comment, if ders dat many actual A's the marking scheme will be sick hard...Ppl wud want to cop the **** on telling lies id say...If the deparment see that poll we will get no lee-way at all

You really think that the SEC will or will not change a marking scheme depending on the results of an anonymous poll on an independent website?

Let's all delete our answers and change them to Ds and Es so. Then the marking scheme will have to change..! :rolleyes:

conormccarthy92

quoted straight off the syllabus . aims of the course : "to develop a postive attitude towards mathematics" . "To foster their appreciation for mathematics" . my arse .....

also for that q8 part c the syllabus says that "applications to area and volumes of revelution are confined to cones and spheres"

Gumbi

conormccarthy92 wrote: »

quoted straight off the syllabus . aims of the course : "to develop a postive attitude towards mathematics" . "To foster their appreciation for mathematics" . my arse .....

also for that q8 part c the syllabus says that "applications to area and volumes of revelution are confined to cones and spheres"

A "disc" is not included in that limitation, as it is 2D. As such, it does not have to be revolved around an axis.

spazzy

I can be positive i got 8 a and b in like 5minutes:) so i didn't fail in THAT question:)

partyatmygaff

spurious wrote: »

Try a Leaving Cert paper from about 1979 if you want to see really hard.

We would have, had the year been 1980 or 1981. But it wasn't, the year is 2011 and for the past 14 years the exams had been of a certain standard. People have six or seven other subjects to study for besides maths and they choose to study maths up to the standard that the exam expects of them. To suddenly raise the standard of the exam to such a point that it's unreasonably difficult compared to the past 14 years is unacceptable.

spurious

partyatmygaff wrote: »

We would have, had the year been 1980 or 1981. But it wasn't, the year is 2011 and for the past 14 years the exams had been of a certain standard. People have six or seven other subjects to study for besides maths and they choose to study maths up to the standard that the exam expects of them. To suddenly raise the standard of the exam to such a point that it's unreasonably difficult compared to the past 14 years is unacceptable.

Until the results come out, the standard of the exam has not been raised.
The marking scheme will ensure that the same (rough) percentage of A1s, A2s, B1s etc. will come out in August. No-one will be at a disadvantage for having done this exam.

PJelly

partyatmygaff wrote: »

We would have, had the year been 1980 or 1981. But it wasn't, the year is 2011 and for the past 14 years the exams had been of a certain standard. People have six or seven other subjects to study for besides maths and they choose to study maths up to the standard that the exam expects of them. To suddenly raise the standard of the exam to such a point that it's unreasonably difficult compared to the past 14 years is unacceptable.

My point exactly.
If the exams were gradually becoming more and more difficult, then none of this uproar would have started. Because we would know what is to be expected from us and prepare accordingly.

But the exams were becoming easier and easier. Take 2010 for example. This jump is like going from 2010 maths, to 1990 maths. Uncalled for.

spazzy

I hope everyone passes and gets the course they want

spazzy

spurious wrote: »

Until the results come out, the standard of the exam has not been raised.
The marking scheme will ensure that the same (rough) percentage of A1s, A2s, B1s etc. will come out in August. No-one will be at a disadvantage for having done this exam.

UNTRUE ppl who were capable of higher grades paniced and left the exam hall crying, thus they screwed up parts they could have done. So even with the bell-curve students used to achievin maybe a low C might fail as they weren't in the right mind!
i'm only lucky i persevered through my blatant mistakes to get some kind of answer!

PJelly

spazzy wrote: »

UNTRUE ppl who were capable of higher grades paniced and left the exam hall crying, thus they screwed up parts they could have done. So even with the bell-curve students used to achievin maybe a low C might fail as they weren't in the right mind!
i'm only lucky i persevered through my blatant mistakes to get some kind of answer!

Same thing happened to me. After a quick read through the paper, I was for lack of a better phrase, s****ing bricks. I didn't get 1 (a) right even. 1 A!
But what's done is done.

partyatmygaff

spurious wrote: »

Until the results come out, the standard of the exam has not been raised.

You know that's untrue. Confident students who generally speaking did well in Maths had their confidence shattered by that exam. I went in to the exam calm and reasonably confident. During the exam, it felt as if I was in the middle of a nightmare. I had to double take over simple part As due to the fact that the mantra of "Save yourself, Save yourself, Save Yourself" kept running through my head. You don't know how disheartening it is to spend a year working extremely hard at a subject only to end up feeling as if it all went to waste.

josephdaly111

Does anyone know if they can ask difference equations outside the probability questions?

Fbjm

If everyone's saying how horrific it is, why did more people vote that they got an A in paper one than any other grade? I thought I'd be one of the few voting A and was shocked when I saw the results of the poll.

MikeHough

Fbjm wrote: »

If everyone's saying how horrific it is, why did more people vote that they got an A in paper one than any other grade? I thought I'd be one of the few voting A and was shocked when I saw the results of the poll.

solid point

KoolAidRelic

josephdaly111 wrote: »

Does anyone know if they can ask difference equations outside the probability questions?

It was a bit of a surprise to see difference equations in Q4, but a difference equation is a type of recurrence equation and that's where recurrence equations come up.

spurious

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You know that's untrue. Confident students who generally speaking did well in Maths had their confidence shattered by that exam. I went in to the exam calm and reasonably confident. During the exam, it felt as if I was in the middle of a nightmare. I had to double take over simple part As due to the fact that the mantra of "Save yourself, Save yourself, Save Yourself" kept running through my head. You don't know how disheartening it is to spend a year working extremely hard at a subject only to end up feeling as if it all went to waste.

All I'm saying is wait for the results.
There are people here talking themselves out of doing well in Paper Two (or other exams).

GV_NRG

it is very sad thing that even though we did a horrible exam they are still going to fix it to fit the curve. it makes you realise that they do this in every subject. it also makes you realise that no matter how you do in your exam, your result is going to be rejigged to make it fit a curve so it will look like the creators of the papers are doig a good job. it is a very sad day indeed.

Catacomb

spurious wrote: »

Until the results come out, the standard of the exam has not been raised.
The marking scheme will ensure that the same (rough) percentage of A1s, A2s, B1s etc. will come out in August. No-one will be at a disadvantage for having done this exam.

I'd like to disagree with this statement, I was (until yesterday) usually a c/b student in maths. The problem was that the exam completely discombobulated me. I started to panic in the exam because of the unstudied questions being asked, I completely messed up my timing and spent to much time on seemingly unsolvable questions and even in the doable questions I dotted it with mistakes like mixing up "a+1/a" and "a(1/a)" in question 2 part b.

Of course one could say this was "my" problem for panicking but had I gotten a "normal" paper like I expected this wouldn't have happened, I wouldn't have started to panic and completely bugger the whole thing down to a borderline fail. And even with a strict bell curve I'd still be way below what I should have gotten, because I was essentially more "punished" for having a nervous character, that would have been held at bay if it wasn't for that farce of a paper.

Patri

spurious wrote: »

People don't like change.
Try a Leaving Cert paper from about 1979 if you want to see really hard.

I don't mind change if it happens gradually with some kind of warning, that's natural. I take it however you didn't sit this exam? I did the 2010 paper one one week ago in 2 hours, I got it corrected, 92 percent. I did this exam, I added up my marks quite generously I got 60 percent. I was expecting an A1.

I've worked my bollox off for the past year, and all I've done is maths. I've done everything that was ever asked of me, that I could do but it all blew up in my face yesterday. Hard work should pay off, it didn't. I'm unbelievably disheartened by what happened, and your view is so tainted and naive that you should look at "1979" why the **** would we do that? It's 2011, that's completely irrelevant to anything. Jesus, some people need to cop on.

daniels.ducks

Some of the parts were so hard that you had to think twice about the 'easy' bits. I was thinking 'hold on now there must be some catch in this'. That's where the grades dropped... people were in the wrong frame of mind and were overly suspicious of the easier bits.

Gileadi

Patri wrote: »

I did the 2010 paper one one week ago in 2 hours, I got it corrected, 92 percent. I did this exam, I added up my marks quite generously I got 60 percent. I was expecting an A1.

This isn't a fair comparison as you would no doubt have seen and done these questions lots of times this year. Being able to redo questions you seen before is a different shark to doing an unseen paper

PseudoFamous

spurious wrote: »

All I'm saying is wait for the results.
There are people here talking themselves out of doing well in Paper Two (or other exams).

Lets pretend I somehow magically get 100 marks on paper one. That still leaves me with a normally attainable 230 marks to get a C3, that I MUST get, or miss out on college. This has already put a gigantic amount of pressure on me. Even worse is the fact that I was going in looking for a mid to high B, and _passing_ this exam is now looking unlikely. If I do not get 230 marks, I completely miss out on college.
Note that I did not pull this aim for a B out of my arse, and that I studied hard for maths and physics, as I want to be an engineer. In the mocks, I got a B1 in maths, and an A2 in physics. Physics, hopefully will not have changed, but even if I scrape a C in maths, I've fallen 25 marks, also potentially lost my course.
My worst case scenario leaves me with 60 marks. That leaves me with 270 marks to get. That would have been hard normally, but now in the fear that I may get another hard question, more than likely in further calculus, I don't think I can possibly do that.
While people may say "it was a difficult but doable paper", note that this wasn't being done in leisure. We were given 150 minutes to do questions I had never seen before, despite doing every exam paper between 2010 and 1997 regularly. Even questions I would normally do fine in seemed bloody impossible, as I was in a state of panic.

Now, it looks like I'm going to have to waste a year of my life in order to get my course, a course I was nearly certain of getting. I'm not angry at the SEC, I'm disgusted by them. I can only wonder how people who were going to barely scrape a pass in normal conditions would have fared.

I'm certainly not the only one who is in this position, as the vast majority of my class are pissed off, as well as my friends from other schools.

MikeHough

Catacomb wrote: »

I'd like to disagree with this statement, I was (until yesterday) usually a c/b student in maths. The problem was that the exam completely discombobulated me. I started to panic in the exam because of the unstudied questions being asked, I completely messed up my timing and spent to much time on seemingly unsolvable questions and even in the doable questions I dotted it with mistakes like mixing up "a+1/a" and "a(1/a)" in question 2 part b.

Of course one could say this was "my" problem for panicking but had I gotten a "normal" paper like I expected this wouldn't have happened, I wouldn't have started to panic and completely bugger the whole thing down to a borderline fail. And even with a strict bell curve I'd still be way below what I should have gotten, because I was essentially more "punished" for having a nervous character, that would have been held at bay if it wasn't for that farce of a paper.

ya confidence is a huge thing for it.
like for example im de exact opposite to u. i went in in a positive frame of mind focussed on bein strict with myself about leavin de 1s i wudnt be able to do.and it was amazin how much confidence i got from gettin de first few all right like. then it was like i was on a roll for the rest of it...cudnt get bogged down by any of de qs.
so ya confidence is verrry important

dontaskme

Gumbi wrote: »

A "disc" is not included in that limitation, as it is 2D. As such, it does not have to be revolved around an axis.

I'm a math graduate (from a long time ago) and I just had a look at the paper out of interest.

you could revolve a straight line, say y=1 around the x- axis to get the volume of a cylinder between say 0 and h and then say divide by h to to get the area of a disc, but it's a bit iffy.

2ciii - I got a>10 but I found this tricky enough - the answer comes when the bit under the square root in the solution to a quadratic is less than 0. Basically the function will go crazy if the thing under the line is smaller than one so you have to try to solve the inequality (quadratic >1) and then find when it doesn't have a solution.

The graph question I didn't find so bad but I guess it's a "you see it or you don't" sort of question.

The polynomial question with the odd numbers - that's another one that you either see it or you don't. I guess it's a bit unfair that if you didn't know it beforehand you wouldn't really have the time to work it out in the exam.

Patri

Gileadi wrote: »

This isn't a fair comparison as you would no doubt have seen and done these questions lots of times this year. Being able to redo questions you seen before is a different shark to doing an unseen paper

I hadn't done it before I hadn't seen the questions. I deliberately left that it 'til last week to do. And we didn't do exam questions in class til May, I left to study at home at the start of May. That paper was unseen for me. So ya, it is a fair comparison.

dontaskme

I'd feel sympathy for people saying it wasn't like previous papers but I think personally exams should be a little bit unpredictable. Maths should be a little bit about the inspiration as well as the perspiration. Having said that, I think that paper was also a bit too long

owenthorp7

I am going to be honest and say i think i got about 25% out of 100% on Paper 1. I know that there are a few people that were A students and went down to a low B in that exam but it worries me how I was a B/C student who could now face repeating maths next year. Paper 1 was always my banker to come out with about 75% nearly passing me overall. Paper 2 i have always found harder usually only getting 45-50% out of 100% and coming into that paper on monday morning is scaring me that I might not have enough to actually pass me overall. Realisticly i can only see myself going from a hopeful and well worked 75 point right down to a fail or 45 points. I really did work hard all year doing full exam papers all year doing one full exam every weekend. I am just praying for a miracle at mass and HOPING i can forget this paper and look to paper 2 with optimistic eyes that i'll be going to college next year.

Catacomb

dontaskme wrote: »

I'd feel sympathy for people saying it wasn't like previous papers but I think personally exams should be a little bit unpredictable. Maths should be a little bit about the inspiration as well as the perspiration. Having said that, I think that paper was also a bit too long

fine by me but then they should at least say that it's "unpredictable" in advance instead of making people belive its predictable.

Patriciamc93

dontaskme wrote: »

I'd feel sympathy for people saying it wasn't like previous papers but I think personally exams should be a little bit unpredictable. Maths should be a little bit about the inspiration as well as the perspiration. Having said that, I think that paper was also a bit too long

The key is they should be a little bit unpredictable. But that's was really unpredictable!

PJelly

dontaskme wrote: »

I'd feel sympathy for people saying it wasn't like previous papers but I think personally exams should be a little bit unpredictable. Maths should be a little bit about the inspiration as well as the perspiration. Having said that, I think that paper was also a bit too long

A little different, mix things up a little, sure, bring it on. Fosters critical thinking and the like.
However, our paper wasn't "A little bit unpredictable". It was a complete deviation from anything we've ever seen before.

It's almost as if they just gave us a paper from a completely different maths course all together.