***2015 LC Maths Paper 1 - Ordinary Level - June 5th***

skippy1977

randylonghorn wrote: »

I won't, because as I said I'm not a fan of PM, and for that matter I felt the standard had fallen even on the old course in latter years ... And don't even start me on the number of people in shops who can't figure out change without the till telling them!

Nor am I a great believer in the 25 points across the board thing for that matter.

I'm not as convinced as you are of the great conspiracy though ...

Ah that's fair enough! We won't fall out over it....think I'm a bit tired and cranky...4 hours of Maths this morning with 2 different classes...one Ordinary/ one Higher...the Higher all smiling ...and the Ordinary...well...not!

Paddyg96

patriciaf6 wrote: »

Can you explain how you get 50,000 and also how you get value at 7.5 years? It's an exponential graph but I can't find a pattern without approximating only?

sorry i can't remember but I just did it all in my head/calculator and didnt do any rough work just wrote down the answer..

RosemaryMcC

Imagine you had never been in higher!!!

randylonghorn

skippy1977 wrote: »

Ah that's fair enough! We won't fall out over it....think I'm a bit tired and cranky...4 hours of Maths this morning with 2 different classes...one Ordinary/ one Higher...the Higher all smiling ...and the Ordinary...well...not!

That I understand.

Hopefully Monday will bring smiles back to one group without knocking them off the other!

RosemaryMcC

Whats the point in having a OL paper that only seems to suit you if you dropped from higher! Some cannot or never could attempt higher!

electromix

just looked through all the solutions to paper one and realized that answers look easy, they just phrased questions very badly.

Bsd

electromix wrote: »

just looked through all the solutions to paper one and realized that answers look easy, they just phrased questions very badly.

Where are solutions online?

Username44

Ive been in OL maths since second year. Yesterday was interesting.

brickeyvalley

From a teachers perspective it was a nice, varied paper that made students think, normally the (a) and (b) were easy in the short 1 - 6, E.g. Q1 the (a) (b) were easy but then you needed to know how to get the i or something. The point of this being so difficult is because now the SEC have decided that Project Maths works and now have to upper the standard to that of other European countries (hence the development of project mats, less a memory test of slotting numbers in formulas and more making students think as the maths standard in Ireland was lower than other EU countries). It was predicted by some teachers on studyclixs and other teacher websites that it was going to be tough at OL. However the problem is for some of you is what constitutes a difficult paper? Some of my own students who were logical, and were able to think found it easy, other less logical students panicked and found it difficult. The point of them making it more difficult and unpredictable was to make it unpredictable as maths, English, engineering, History and more are so predictable it's sinful. The good news however is that if you attempted all of the paper your in the money, as they say. Because facts remain when correcting, if you do a formula and you do the question out right you will get attempt marks, If you go Into an English exam and write anything and don't make a simple spelling mistake you have to get atleast 10% for Spelling and Grammar, etc). Now the thing about the marking scheme is an interesting one. Does who studied a good good bit or dropped from HL to OL probably found it an easy paper, they'll get the B's and A's atleast. But however nobody knows yet the X amount that dropped to OL on the day and too FL, so unfortunately it's a game of chance in that area. If the results overall calculate a lower average result then the marking scheme will be made easier to an extent. All subjects must apply to the Bell cure which means there must X amount of NG's, X amount of E's, X amount of D, C, B & A's meet quotas and then there will be a tolerance of + or - X, now any maths teacher, or logical thinker can follow that train of thought. And if your a student who followed the explanation of the bell curve and studied chances are you did well in the paper cause if you understand that train if thought you shouldn't of had problems. The same amount of ABCDEFNG must be given the thing ye need to hope for, for those who struggled, is the overall country sitting OL maths experienced similar problems but like saying that some will find it hard, others found it easy, some grand.

Unfortunately this paper is done and cannot be influenced, don't alter CAO courses, don't panic, they do realise ye are students. Normally the papers reflect each other and I now wouldn't be surprised if something like differentiation appeared in paper 2 seeing as elements of paper 2 appeared in paper 1, I don't think they would just do it to one paper and not the other. I would not study anything on paper 1 if you think it may come up as it will be only worth, 10-15 marks at max. I do think that if you feel you did well on (a) and (b) on the Q1 - Q6 on paper 1 and fine the long questions Q7 - Q9 on (a) - (c) or (d) then you probably did far better than expected. Paper 2 is generally harder so I would suggest doing two or three full exam papers between now and Monday. Lastly, attempt EVERYTHING, write any formula of relevance, it doesn't matter if your completely wrong, do it your way and doing it right your way and then you'll get attempt marks. For time, I saw recommended by a teacher online to see the amount of marks the question is worth, divided it by 2, and that's how long to spend on that question, e.g. 25 marks - 12. 5minutes, 50 marks - 25 minutes, 70 marks - 35minutes, 40 marks - 20 marks and so on. There's a famous saying, how do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice, Practice, Practice.

otter13

Kremin wrote: »

A lot of people on FB who dropped from Hl to OL in september said the paper was great for them... I think most people just panicked and completely through everything out the window.
I still think last years HL paper was easier than this years, but a lot of people struggled with it this year so calling it "too easy" is a bit unfair for those who stuck with it.

I had a friend who dropped recently from higher and thought the same. It was very similar to the types of questions on HL so I thinks that's why.. Because they were used to it. The sequences and series question was almost identical from a past HL paper. People who dropped on the day probably regretted seeing how easy the HL was than normal but I know someone who got an A1 in pass maths in the mock and she was in shock over that exam. Overall it was a stupid move by SEC and completely unreasonable towards students who are already penalised with pathetic points for pass

pa limerick

otter13 wrote: »

I had a friend who dropped recently from higher and thought the same. It was very similar to the types of questions on HL so I thinks that's why.. Because they were used to it. The sequences and series question was almost identical from a past HL paper. People who dropped on the day probably regretted seeing how easy the HL was than normal but I know someone who got an A1 in pass maths in the mock and she was in shock over that exam. Overall it was a stupid move by SEC and completely unreasonable towards students who are already penalised with pathetic points for pass

I think think people are just going off the media reports that the higher level paper was really easy, although it was easier than usual for the short question, it was still very tricky in many parts in the long questions and that is not being portrayed , but I do agree that the ordinary level was harder than usual due to the unusual wording and badly picked questions, but I don't get how people are saying they would have rathered the higher level paper! People should not. worry about it because they will adapt the whole marking scheme for it!

katie7980

Hi! New to boards and posting via mobile phone so apologies in advance for grammatical errors!
Our Q7 on the 2015 OL LC paper was very similar to that of the sequence and series Q in the 2013 HL paper. Also our complex numbers question was to be found in similar means to various HL ones in the past papers.
This paper would have suited previous HL students, not OL ones. But that's subject to argument, which is totally fine!
Imo due to the unprecedented nature of the OL exam and it's stark similarity to past HL questions, I am not at all happy with the SEC.
For those of us who opt for the OL paper it is mainly because we are not competent in Maths. But getting an exam like that, diffevent layout from what we've been practicing all year was very inappropriate! I can conclude that the textbook we use, would not have fully prepared us for that exam. College places are at stake here people, bc the SEC decided to throw such a curveball at us!

But for those of you who it went well for, I am delighted! Very well done as it was a difficult paper! All I ask is that you don't preach or question it in terms of simplicity with people who are visibly upset over it, as due to the nature of the paper, some people's college places are UN jeopardy!

spl99

Paper 1 is usually the better paper for me...not looking forward to tomorrow :P

I was annoyed that financial maths never came up...In the Pre's our class hadn't even made it around to fully covering it yet I did pretty damn good in it and was looking forward to answering it in this because of that (Yep, I did just say I was looking forward to it...).
The first few questions were lovely and then it just became a splat of ****. Ahwell, I did my best and I'm sure the rest of you did too! Isn't that all that can be asked of us?

However, dreading tomorrow and I shall be sure to bitch about that regardless of how nice/awful the paper is

otter13

Anyone know if the SEC can only fail a certain % of students each year and if so what is that %?

jgirl18

How are people with theorems I haven't a clue. Do you have to know loads?

Goldengirl

This post has been deleted.

DT1

Goldengirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really? Where's the link?! Boy do I have a rant for them to read. It's because of this maths paper that my dream course has been shattered. I really don't think the marking scheme will allow me to achieve the course I wanted. The exam was that hard.

ogradyliam5

AulBiddy wrote: »

Dropping from higher to ordinary this was an exceptionally difficult paper, I didn't find it too bad but it would be very difficult for someone who struggles at OL. Only question that truly caught me out was the last question 9b - couldn't figure it out at all

You just had to create a Tn formula for Cathal and another for Amanda, put them equal to eachother and get your answer for n, the answer was 50'000km i think!

skippy1977

jgirl18 wrote: »

How are people with theorems I haven't a clue. Do you have to know loads?

The good news is you don't have to really learn or prove any. You just need to know what they mean.

Example: Theorem 4 the three angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees. You'd be surprised by how many you know already.

cab15

TheSunderz wrote: »

ok ehm I used trial and error but there was a simpler way id say. Got 50000 divided it by 15 and multiplied it by 1.5 to get cost of fuel. For cathals car divide 50000 by 10 and multiply by 1.5. Then add the cost to each car and they should both work out around 30000ish.

I did that too jesus christ it took about half an hour with all the different figures i was trying

maude6868

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/leaving-cert-higher-maths-paper-1-easiest-on-record-1.2240566

cab15

^^^

" what’s left is on a par with the ordinary level papers of old." What a ****ing joke - where's our 25 points?

Scirpt

Guys what do you think of this answer for Q9B.

So I took the poorly phrased question to mean "at what KMs does each car have an equal cost?"
So I said cathal must travel 16668 and two thirds KMs, and Amanda must go 3KMs and then the costs will both be €25000.30. It never says anywhere they have to travel the same distance. Shouldn't my answer be considered correct? I think it was poorly phrased and they should have specified they have to go the same distance.

Laurenom

Scirpt wrote: »

Guys what do you think of this answer for Q9B.

So I took the poorly phrased question to mean "at what KMs does each car have an equal cost?"
So I said cathal must travel 16668 and two thirds KMs, and Amanda must go 3KMs and then the costs will both be €25000.30. It never says anywhere they have to travel the same distance. Shouldn't my answer be considered correct? I think it was poorly phrased and they should have specified they have to go the same distance.

I did the same as you I didn't know they had to do the same distance I probably didn't even read it right but I just found out how many kms they had to drive to match the price of their car?

Scirpt

Laurenom wrote: »

I did the same as you I didn't know they had to do the same distance I probably didn't even read it right but I just found out how many kms they had to drive to match the price of their car?

Yeah exactly! Such a horribly phrased question, we should be given full marks. I wouldn't mind if they said in the question "Both cars must travel the same distance" but they didn't!

Anonymagician

Scirpt wrote: »

Guys what do you think of this answer for Q9B.

So I took the poorly phrased question to mean "at what KMs does each car have an equal cost?"
So I said cathal must travel 16668 and two thirds KMs, and Amanda must go 3KMs and then the costs will both be €25000.30. It never says anywhere they have to travel the same distance. Shouldn't my answer be considered correct? I think it was poorly phrased and they should have specified they have to go the same distance.

I did something like this as well. Thought they were looking for at what point each car's fuel cost will match cost price. Gave two different answers, one for each person.

Peregrine

Now that the dust has settled a bit, did yous find all the Section A questions hard? I know everyone found Q5 and Q6 tricky.

Anonymagician

Nim wrote: »

Now that the dust has settled a bit, did yous find all the Section A questions hard? I know everyone found Q5 and Q6 tricky.

Yes honestly and I only dropped down at the start of the year. We hadn't done exchange rates so it was guess work. The functions questions were not nice. They asked long division in a tricky way and don't even start me on the complex numbers!

skippy1977

You know my initial reaction to the Paper was that it wasn't particularly nice. I still feel this but having gone through some of the questions I can picture how they'll mark this and anyone who kept there heads and continued on and tried things shouldn't worry.
For example

Q1 (a) multiply 2 numbers 10 marks Q1 (b) Divide two numbers 10 marks

Q2 (a) not too bad, an ok ratio question that they will give 10 marks to (b)(i)(ii) and (c) reasonable area and volume question despite the scientific notation...5 marks each with 3/4 out of 5 for any relevant sphere formulae.

Q3 (a) easy simplification 10/15 marks (b) easy inequality 5/10 marks (c) very trickily phrased division or factorisation question BUT it will be worth 5 marks.

Q4 (a) - formula, pretty straightforward 10 marks (b) differentiation - wording very straightforward 5/10 marks (c) graph 5/10 marks. Wouldn't be a bit surprised to see 15 for the (a) part here with 10 for just writing the formula. Seriously this is how it works.

Q5 A very badly phrased question. Difficult to know how they will mark this but anyone who let the lines equal and tried to solve would get up to 15 marks....The marking scheme for the quadrilateral will have marks for 'any attempt at drawing a quadrilateral'.

Q6 Again a very badly worded question, or at least a question presented in a difficult manner for ordinary level students. Having said that part (a) is pretty easy and worth 10/15 marks (b) and (c) might be only worth 5 each....and you will get 3/5 for any attempt at finding the modulus.

Q7 Gets tricky as the question goes on BUT the problem here I believe is that teachers aren't used to teaching this and may not have covered this question well with students. The area of patterns and generating formulae is a big part of the course now but teachers are new to this too. Check out Active Maths 3 pages 86 to 93.
Regardless....draw the shape 15 marks, fill in the table 15 marks, 5 marks each for the next 8 bits....and 3 or 4 marks given for 'any attempt at...'

Q8 (a) easy enough, students well used to seeing this...10/15 marks, (b) well used to this 10/15 marks (c) read graph...10 marks (d) and (e) 10 and 5 marks ....actually a nice question.

Q9 (a) (i) and (ii) very straightforward 5/10 each (iii) bit trickier. (b) very wordy but not outrageous. 10/15 marks

So on reflection it wasn't a nice paper but you can see how it will still be achievable to accumulate points.

So don't despair, it won't be as bad as you think.

...oh...this is not what will definitely happen so no point coming back to me and saying they won't give 15 for that and they will give 5 for this...it's an idea for people on how things will be marked and to hopefully reduce the worries that some people have of passing, of getting that B, of whatever.

DT1

skippy1977 wrote: »

You know my initial reaction to the Paper was that it wasn't particularly nice. I still feel this but having gone through some of the questions I can picture how they'll mark this and anyone who kept there heads and continued on and tried things shouldn't worry.
For example


Q7
Regardless....draw the shape 15 marks, fill in the boxes 15 marks, 5 marks each for the next 8 bits....and 3 or 4 marks given for 'any attempt at...'

Wait a minute now. Was filling it in really necessary? Seriously? You think 15 marks should be given for shading in the next pattern?? Is that even maths? I didn't shade it in as I thought that wouldn't have been necessary and a huge waste of time. For me, every mark on this exam goes a long way. So this is a big deal for me. No way 15 marks should be given for shading in boxes, that doesn't even happen in FL Junior Cert!