!! Physics 2015 ... predictions, guesses and discussion

qweerty

DarraghF197 wrote: »

Above my post, yeah I understand. Sometimes it is better to just focus solely on the minimum questions and do the best possible there. It seems to happen a bit that the marking schemes can be pretty horrible and you have to mention key words/phrases to get marks, and consequently cab lose quite a bit just because of not directly adhering to the marking scheme. That's why I think it might be better to do extra, and also because I think I will have plenty of time.

I dunno that that is true, man. Unlike in Chemistry, Physics marking schemes are usually pretty consistent. As for having time, I actually did an extra two questions and all four Q12 parts, but that was just for fun and because I wanted to get a medal. (I wasn't successful ) Strongly, strongly suggest people look back over what they've done: everyone drops a handful of marks that they ought to have got...and that could make all the difference.

Broseph

qweerty wrote: »

I dunno that that is true, man. Unlike in Chemistry, Physics marking schemes are usually pretty consistent. As for having time, I actually did an extra two questions and all four Q12 parts, but that was just for fun and because I wanted to get a medal. (I wasn't successful ) Strongly, strongly suggest people look back over what they've done: everyone drops a handful of marks that they ought to have got...and that could make all the difference.

did you think you were going to get one and were surprised when you didn't or were you doubtful from directly after the exam?

DarraghF197

qweerty wrote: »

I dunno that that is true, man. Unlike in Chemistry, Physics marking schemes are usually pretty consistent. As for having time, I actually did an extra two questions and all four Q12 parts, but that was just for fun and because I wanted to get a medal. (I wasn't successful ) Strongly, strongly suggest people look back over what they've done: everyone drops a handful of marks that they ought to have got...and that could make all the difference.

I thought you only get a medal in Accounting or Applied Maths? Or is this something else?!

Our teacher can be a hard marker, but he marked hard because he realises that we could get a horrible examiner who is mean on giving marks. I'll point out a few places where I lost marks not because of my ability:

Teacher did not notice a point that was hidden in my graph, minus three. Got zero marks for F=ma experiment when asked why mass is kept constant. My answer was correct, but it didn't address the key phrase- we cannot measure three variables on a graph. Calculation for the frequency of a stretched string: asked to use graph, while I took points that lay on graph but were given, therefore losing three. Snell's law, didn't mention protractor when asked the procedure, minus three.

The marking scheme can be pretty tough. It may not be as bad as the Markets in Economics, foe example, but you can easily lose marks for silly reasons.

qweerty

Broseph wrote: »

did you think you were going to get one and were surprised when you didn't or were you doubtful from directly after the exam?

Tbh, I was only aware of rumours regarding medals, so didn't know criteria or anything. Pretty certain I got full marks in anything involving numbers, so uncertainty was about descriptive stuff. I was definitely a bit disappointed when letter didn't arrive. Kinda glad I didn't get it, tho: success at lc is only proof of work-ethic.

Broseph

qweerty wrote: »

Tbh, I was only aware of rumours regarding medals, so didn't know criteria or anything. Pretty certain I got full marks in anything involving numbers, so uncertainty was about descriptive stuff. I was definitely a bit disappointed when letter didn't arrive. Kinda glad I didn't get it, tho: success at lc is only proof of work-ethic.

You do need 100% to get one I think not fully sure.

qweerty

DarraghF197 wrote: »

I thought you only get a medal in Accounting or Applied Maths? Or is this something else?!

Our teacher can be a hard marker, but he marked hard because he realises that we could get a horrible examiner who is mean on giving marks. I'll point out a few places where I lost marks not because of my ability:

Teacher did not notice a point that was hidden in my graph, minus three. Got zero marks for F=ma experiment when asked why mass is kept constant. My answer was correct, but it didn't address the key phrase- we cannot measure three variables on a graph. Calculation for the frequency of a stretched string: asked to use graph, while I took points that lay on graph but were given, therefore losing three. Snell's law, didn't mention protractor when asked the procedure, minus three.

The marking scheme can be pretty tough. It may not be as bad as the Markets in Economics, foe example, but you can easily lose marks for silly reasons.

Most subjects do them. http://www.iopireland.org/about/awards/leaving/page_48957.html

I get you, but some of those could have been spotted if you'd gone back over them. The second law assumes mass is kept constant; you sure that that phrase was required?

DarraghF197

qweerty wrote: »

Most subjects do them. http://www.iopireland.org/about/awards/leaving/page_48957.html

I get you, but some of those could have been spotted if you'd gone back over them. The second law assumes mass is kept constant; you sure that that phrase was required?

I don't know, he didn't give us the solutions, just went through the test on the board. Usually when I do look up marking schemes, though, they do seem to be a hit or miss generally.

Maybe it's gold medals that are only for Applied Maths and Accounting.. One guy a few years back was one mark off 100% in Accounting because of theory before, didn't get one! I think they also limit them to three medals each for those two subjects. Although there's always uproar because the winners of the Applied Maths competition get one as well! That's all I know about them anyways!

MmmPancakes

For the experiment with glycerol, variation of R with temp for metallic conductor/thermistor, why would you not place the metallic conductor/thermistor & thermometer in the water? Also why use glycerol?

OMGeary

MmmPancakes wrote:

For the experiment with glycerol, variation of R with temp for metallic conductor/thermistor, why would you not place for the metallic conductor/thermistor & thermometer in the water? Also why use glycerol?

Glycerol is a better conductor of heat

Peregrine

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057446845