Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
***2015 LC Maths Paper 1 - Higher Level - June 5th***
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
I know most people were pretty relieved after doing this paper, and I'm expecting like a solid C from this without attempt marks, but it just worries me how the media make it out like there was absolutely no difficulties with this paper whatsoever, kinda has me believe we'll get some bs marking scheme
what does everyone reckon? 0 -
I know most people were pretty relieved after doing this paper, and I'm expecting like a solid C from this without attempt marks, but it just worries me how the media make it out like there was absolutely no difficulties with this paper whatsoever, kinda has me believe we'll get some bs marking scheme what does everyone reckon?
The media is guided by teachers. Every year, a particular one from a well-known grind school is consulted. He has long been an opponent of the reformed curriculum.0 -
The media is guided by teachers. Every year, a particular one from a well-known grind school is consulted. He has long been an opponent of the reformed curriculum.
I can vouch for this well-known teacher though, | did an applied maths class every Saturday with him and his teaching style is amazing, he knows exactly what to cover and how long to spend on each topic.
Eventually his comments are going to start getting through and the maths paper is going to be multiplied in difficulty, and I feel sorry for anyone who does maths the year this happens
.
I do think its ridiculous saying anyone could have done that HL paper though.. sure they could've made the language more tricky, more project-maths style etc but what does it really change?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
http://i.imgur.com/U1CMjhq.jpg There's most of question 8.
Stop procrastinating and go study :P
And, be careful with your units
0 -
-
-
-
I can vouch for this well-known teacher though, | did an applied maths class every Saturday with him and his teaching style is amazing, he knows exactly what to cover and how long to spend on each topic.
Eventually his comments are going to start getting through and the maths paper is going to be multiplied in difficulty, and I feel sorry for anyone who does maths the year this happens.
I do think its ridiculous saying anyone could have done that HL paper though.. sure they could've made the language more tricky, more project-maths style etc but what does it really change?
As can I: I had him (/her) full-time for both Maths and AM. But I don't think his excellence as a teacher necessarily lends him more credibility than others. On occasion, he used his class as a propaganda exercise against the PM syllabus.
To be clear, he is far from the only one in opposition: this is a withering paper written by some academics George Humphrey, author of Concise Maths series, is also in that camp. I have read their arguments extensively, and sympathise with some, but all seem blind to the premise of the reform: that the old syllabus was not encouraging engagement with the principles of maths; people were rote-learning in place of understanding.
All LC subjects are in some way watered down from their true academic grounding. I presume you want to go on to do something mathematical in college. Think of the student who wants to go on to do economics: they're stuck with a woefully reductive and unrepresentative LC curriculum; or a foreign language: they won't encounter any literature in that language despite the fact that it forms the back-bone of a university degree; or physics: the fact that AM is a better preparation for a physics course is pretty telling; etc. It's not right to expect that you should have a thorough grounding in mathematics at the expense of the overwhelming majority who don't wish to continue it, when virtually no other subject offers a particularly good preparation for college.
That said, for all the difficulties that would arise, I think there should be another, more-advanced subject that caters for those who want study further maths. But how could there be universal provision, and would it get the same weighting as every other subject? And if it could only be taken instead of the standard maths subject, few would study a more difficult subject for no points gain, but if it could be taken alongside standard maths, it's like automatically giving someone who is very good at maths two As.
Anyway, new maths curriculum may be flawed, but it's not brainless.0 -
I honestly have no idea how teachers are complaining that the higher paper was too easy, sure, the section A part might have been not that difficult, but I found the section B to be fairly hard.
What irks me is that the majority of people in this thread said it was a breeze, so maybe it was easy. 0 -
-
As can I: I had him (/her) full-time for both Maths and AM. But I don't think his excellence as a teacher necessarily lends him more credibility than others. On occasion, he used his class as a propaganda exercise against the PM syllabus.
To be clear, he is far from the only one in opposition: this is a withering paper written by some academics George Humphrey, author of Concise Maths series, is also in that camp. I have read their arguments extensively, and sympathise with some, but all seem blind to the premise of the reform: that the old syllabus was not encouraging engagement with the principles of maths; people were rote-learning in place of understanding.
All LC subjects are in some way watered down from their true academic grounding. I presume you want to go on to do something mathematical in college. Think of the student who wants to go on to do economics: they're stuck with a woefully reductive and unrepresentative LC curriculum; or a foreign language: they won't encounter any literature in that language despite the fact that it forms the back-bone of a university degree; or physics: the fact that AM is a better preparation for a physics course is pretty telling; etc. It's not right to expect that you should have a thorough grounding in mathematics at the expense of the overwhelming majority who don't wish to continue it, when virtually no other subject offers a particularly good preparation for college.
That said, for all the difficulties that would arise, I think there should be another, more-advanced subject that caters for those who want study further maths. But how could there be universal provision, and would it get the same weighting as every other subject? And if it could only be taken instead of the standard maths subject, few would study a more difficult subject for no points gain, but if it could be taken alongside standard maths, it's like automatically giving someone who is very good at maths two As.
Anyway, new maths curriculum may be flawed, but it's not brainless.
Just so we're on the same page... is this well known teacher -- or am I completely out of the loop. I never heard him/her discuss the PM syllabus in our class, odd.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement