Maths (H) Paper 1

Brendygg

20 marks is 3.3 percent just make up for it in p2 dats all u can do its in the past no

stevoxbx

True no point talking about it now. We should be studying for paper2 rather than complaining about paper1. Best of luck with it!

Brendygg

ya iv a irish papr cudnt give **** tis only pass

JackKelly

There are 3 reasons this paper sucked

one. Far too confusing. Complicating things on purpose. Netwon Rhapson for example. Even stupid things like replacing the k with a t in the factor theorem. It wont throw you but its unnecessary.

two. Mixing it up. The reason there is a choice ,is so students don't have to do every topic. They can leave out a topic or two they arn't good at. Happened to me with the Binomials. Went in saying "im not doing them". They didn't appear where they should have,and instead were spread out in two completely seperate topics. Another example is the c part of 4.A joke.

three. Questions too long and totally unexpected. When under such pressure , its totally unfair to throw so many difficult questions, unseen before. The whole idea of a test is to TEST WHAT YOU KNOW. i've spent the last two years studing what i think will show up, and then on the day, they give me something completely abstract. If i sat down on my own, with infinite time, i could manage the paper, but when im under pressure and continually worring about doing the next question, i don't have time to figure out new methods etc.

As a lot of us it seems, i went in for an A1 and came out devastated. It seems those who studied for an A are getting the same as those who went in looking to scrape a C. No reward. A waste of my time. I would have been better dropping to pass.

Teslacuted

Hear, hear!

chicken_food

So it didnt go according to plan timay? Thats well rough-i know you'v spent most of your time on that one subject,you deserved alot more than that kick in the teeth paper.
Having failed maths last year (hence reason im repeating) i can honestly say i dont think honours maths rewards the amount of work,effort and sweat required to get a 'decent grade'. It is a shambles. The only thing i can say is GET IT RECHECKED as soon as you can. Chances are there will be a revised marking scheme,allowing for the low percentages.

JackKelly

chicken_food wrote:

So it didnt go according to plan timay? Thats well rough-i know you'v spent most of your time on that one subject,you deserved alot more than that kick in the teeth paper.
Having failed maths last year (hence reason im repeating) i can honestly say i dont think honours maths rewards the amount of work,effort and sweat required to get a 'decent grade'. It is a shambles. The only thing i can say is GET IT RECHECKED as soon as you can. Chances are there will be a revised marking scheme,allowing for the low percentages.

its true. My dad just showed me an article from a few days ago in the irish times, saying that honoues maths didn't give a justified reward. If they had just kept the article a day or two longer it would be all too appropriate. You don't take on honours maths because you have to, (which is usually the case with ordinary), so i think to create such a difficult paper, for a crowd who are working so hard, and genuinely, is pure evil.

And i don't want to go on (bit difficult at this stage!) but giving a paper like that which is innevitably going to throw the majority, ends up knocking you totally out of place. I was hard pushed to go into the irish test after that maths. It feels like im fighting a losing battle already.unfair.unfair.unfair.

as a matter of interest, is there a government website where you can vent your frustration. Meet the makers so to speak.

Murv

i'm so glad i'm not the only one who was thrown. i was sitting in the exam thinking "i bet i'll go out and everyone will be all smiles and happy faces and sunshine." but it seems that lots of people are unhappy with it.
Newton Raphson? What? oh whatever. its over. i just hope there is sufficient uproar that the marking scheme is changed. someone get onto joe duffy! quickly!

StupidLikeAFox

TimAy wrote:

two. Mixing it up. The reason there is a choice ,is so students don't have to do every topic. They can leave out a topic or two they arn't good at. Happened to me with the Binomials. Went in saying "im not doing them". They didn't appear where they should have,and instead were spread out in two completely seperate topics. Another example is the c part of 4.A joke.

Well technically if you know the course it shouldnt be a problem. There is a syllabus, and at the end of the day they aint bound to any set format

JackKelly

ColHol wrote:

Well technically if you know the course it shouldnt be a problem. There is a syllabus, and at the end of the day they aint bound to any set format

If i am to know the course totally and fully, why is there a choice of 6 from 8?
It completely defeats the purpose of having any such choice, if they decide to spread a certain topic out, into other questions. I'd almost have preferred to have only 6 question, but know in concrete what was coming up in them.

What annoys me so much, is that, i studied so much for Higher maths, was good at higher maths, and now, i probably would have been better to do pass and get an A. Wheres the justice in that.

rainbow kirby

Just looked at the paper...
That was nasty. There'll definitely be some messing around with marking schemes.
Just try and relax, and try to get in as much work as you can for paper 2.

the smiley one

yeah....I came out crying... I NEVER cry about school stuff!!! ('sok, cuz all my friends gathered around and shared the pain....except some of them are super good at maths and thought the paper was grand...oh well)

Yeah!! We should rise up, student's revolt!!!

After paper 2...

andrew163

bit late here but...

I thought it was alright

- Got all of 1 except for the very last bit of c (partially 'cos I ran out of time)
- Exact same for 2
- 3.....Got hit with a mental block and forgot how to do matrices ... didn't get (b)... got (c)(i) and ran away screaming (er..metaphorically.. :rolleyes: )when I got to (c)(ii)
- Got 5(a), about 2/3 of 5(b), nothing for (c)
- All of 6(a), gave (b) a decent try but got stuck about halfway (got a few points for it though methinks)... Got (c)(i) and (ii)... didn't have a clue for (iii)
- Got 8(a) out, THINK I got (b)(i) out.. I got an answer but not sure if it's right... might've screwed up substitution... didn't get too far on (b)(ii)

Don't think I got any of 8(c)

It's good by my standards anyway ....all I need is a pass.... and Paper 1 is always worse than paper 2 for me...

Tis looking up Especially if they mark it easily...

Got that 2^(1/4) thing out as soon as I saw it ... and double-checked it with a calculator when I finished it...
It's probably already been done out by someone but..

2^(1/4) + 2^(1/4) + 2^(1/4) + 2^(1/4) =
4.2^(1/4) =
2^2.2^(1/4) =
2^(8/4).2^(1/4) =
2^(9/4)

Type 2^(1/4) + 2^(1/4) + 2^(1/4) + 2^(1/4) into a calculator and you get 4.756
Type 2^(9/4) into a calculator and you also get 4.756

*does little dance* I beat the smart kiiids I beat the smart kiiiiiids

..

I've had my moment

StupidLikeAFox

haha, that sounds a lot like my exam /\, i would still count that as tough.

I looked at that 2^1/4 thing and was like, "wtf?? Should we use our calculator? How the hell are ya supposed to add these? I mean, 2^1/4, and do it 4 bloody times! 4 times....4 2^1/4's..... 2^1/4 four times......BINGO!"

I was thinkin about it longer that it took to do the question!

andrew163

hm......thinking about it... I'm starting to think that that paper was more geared towards testing your ability to do maths (figure things out on the fly) then it was towards testing people's knowledge of the course....if that makes any sense....

That's if they put any thought into it at all... could've just been an examiner in a bad mood....

BraveheartGal

me too

BraveheartGal

andrew163 wrote:

bit late here but...

I thought it was alright

- Got all of 1 except for the very last bit of c (partially 'cos I ran out of time)
- Exact same for 2
- 3.....Got hit with a mental block and forgot how to do matrices ... didn't get (b)... got (c)(i) and ran away screaming (er..metaphorically.. :rolleyes: )when I got to (c)(ii)
- Got 5(a), about 2/3 of 5(b), nothing for (c)
- All of 6(a), gave (b) a decent try but got stuck about halfway (got a few points for it though methinks)... Got (c)(i) and (ii)... didn't have a clue for (iii)
- Got 8(a) out, THINK I got (b)(i) out.. I got an answer but not sure if it's right... might've screwed up substitution... didn't get too far on (b)(ii)

Don't think I got any of 8(c)

It's good by my standards anyway ....all I need is a pass.... and Paper 1 is always worse than paper 2 for me...

Tis looking up Especially if they mark it easily...

Got that 2^(1/4) thing out as soon as I saw it ... and double-checked it with a calculator when I finished it...
It's probably already been done out by someone but..

2^(1/4) + 2^(1/4) + 2^(1/4) + 2^(1/4) =
4.2^(1/4) =
2^2.2^(1/4) =
2^(8/4).2^(1/4) =
2^(9/4)

Type 2^(1/4) + 2^(1/4) + 2^(1/4) + 2^(1/4) into a calculator and you get 4.756
Type 2^(9/4) into a calculator and you also get 4.756

*does little dance* I beat the smart kiiids I beat the smart kiiiiiids

..

I've had my moment

i used sequences and series for that
cant remember how i did it, but took like 2 lines
i got p=9
q=4

do you think ill be ok?

Dublinstiofán

that was a very difficult one there was stuff on it that hasnt been on ever. Keep finding new ways to surprise us. Hope paper 2 is easier. Only thing that was handy was the factor theorem out of the two algebra questions. They were mad.

Rredwell

I think sequences and series should be OK. If you look at past marking schemes, there is always a variety of methods which qualify for full marks.

I personally found that part of that question easy. The part C really threw me though. I think I got full marks on Q 2, and 49 on Q 8 (integration). Overall I'd say I got 82% - but I am aiming for an A, and so I think the paper is really unfair - mainly due to that ridiculous Newton-Rhapson question. Like TimAy, I really really like Maths and have put in the work.

But I hope that the teachers' marking conference takes note of the unfair differentiation question. I have been talking to someone in USS and he said it has been noted.

sixdraw

in the USS?

JackKelly

andrew163 wrote:

hm......thinking about it... I'm starting to think that that paper was more geared towards testing your ability to do maths (figure things out on the fly) then it was towards testing people's knowledge of the course....if that makes any sense....

That's if they put any thought into it at all... could've just been an examiner in a bad mood....

which is stupid, as, given more time, it would be possible to figure out far more questions, but with the time limit, it just causes panic.

*Angel*

Rredwell wrote:

But I hope that the teachers' marking conference takes note of the unfair differentiation question. I have been talking to someone in USS and he said it has been noted.

The only thing maybe 'unfair' in that differentiation question (c) (iii) (show that the curve is its own image under the symm in the point of intersection of the asymptotes) the rest of the question was common stuff. And for (c) (iii) you should at least have been able to get the image of the curve...

There was an article in the 'exam times' part of the Irish Times today saying that teachers have requested the marking be revised for the newton-raphson in question 7.

Charmin'

andrew163 wrote:

hm......thinking about it... I'm starting to think that that paper was more geared towards testing your ability to do maths (figure things out on the fly) then it was towards testing people's knowledge of the course....if that makes any sense....

That's if they put any thought into it at all... could've just been an examiner in a bad mood....

I'd have to agree with that, since most people in my higher level class knew the course backwards, while I only maybe looked over it the night before. heh. But I'm naturally able to do maths, and I found it fine. Admittedly it WAS a hard paper, harder than previous years, but if you're lucky enough to be able to do maths as you said, then it's not so bad.

Attempted all 8 questions, mainly because I didn't even analyse each question, just took each one as it came and did it as I could. Didn't even know prior to the exam which topic comes up in which question, which is why I didn't really notice certain topics being mixed in with others like some of ya have said.

Question 1: Did all of it, and as far as I can tell looking back over it, I got everything out perfect. Hopin for the full 50 marks on this one.
Question 2: Got (a) and (c) out perfectly, but (b) just totally threw me. Never once since I started doin' higher level maths back in first year have I had to get the roots of a cubic, so I just moved past it.
Question 3: First two parts were no bother, but what the hell was up with DMT? O_o I worked some things out, so I'm hopin for attempt marks, but that question was totally messed up.
Question 4: Like question 1, I reckon I've gotten a full 50 marks on this one.
Question 5: Got (a) and (c) but the Induction was a bit confusing, so I moved on and thought I'd go back at the end, but never got the time to.
Question 6: Couldn't get (b), and NEVER have I heard anything about the image of a curve in calculus for LC. :-s Wasn't in my book that's for sure, and my awesome teacher never showed it to us.
Question 7: I feel so ashamed, I messed up first principles. Only got the f(x) - f(h) and forgot it was meant to be f(x - h) - f(x). Kicked myself afterward for that. Forget if I got (b) (i) out, but for (ii) I got dy/dx as being 0 which couldn't have been right. For (c) I got -k and was tearin my hair out cos what I'd done seemed flawless.
Question 8: Was fine until I blanked on (c) (i). Looking at it now I realise I shoulda completed the square and gotten (x - 1)^2 + (√2)^2 right? Was goin mad at the volume of a cone, cos I wasn't sure if the slope was r/h or h/r, eventually got it and that worked out nicely for me.

Here's hopin Paper 2 goes as well for me, I've been expectin an A1 for two years, I'm not about to lose it cos someone at the department felt like setting a hard maths paper.

OTliddy

I thought the paper was ok.Everything was just normal learing except6(c)(iii), 7(c)(ii), and 5(c)(ii). Thats only 7.5% of the test, and if you left out 2 of those then 3 1/3%. Q1,2,3,4 and 8 wern't bad. Twas strange cos after 40 mins I had next to nothing done. Then i got P'd off and did each qtn in 15 mins! Paper 2 is even more unreliable than 1. its much more to do with improvisation rather than learning. G'luk evryone

Rredwell

sixdraw wrote:

in the USS?

Yes, because the USS is one of those bodies that makes a report to the SEC after the exams to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

exiztone

Will the paper be marked easier, do you think? Or are you able to mark a maths paper easier? You're either right or you're wrong

D-Generate

Ah quit moaning. Sure it was a tough paper but everything on it was on the course. The syllabus doesn't state that they can't mix up questions but it does state that you are supposed to know everything on the course. Yes they may have asked questions differently but if you understand the basis behind the maths then you should be able to figure it out.

They didn't ask the Factor Theorom, they just asked you to prove (x-k) is a Factor of f(x)-f(k). Nothing is wrong in asking that, its pretty basic. Its like asking to prove (8-4) is a factor of 22-6. I'm glad that part wasn't a test of my ability to learn verbratim.

Graphs are on the course also. They have come up many times in many different sections. Symmetry is also on the course. Therefore they can put them both together in the same question.

Question 6 part b was indeed very tricky but not unseen before. Many of you will have done similar manipulation of trignometric functions in Question 4 or 5 of Paper II. I avoided this question because it wasn't worth the time or the effort for the 20 marks.

Newton Raphson comes up every year. Odd way of asking it though.

Question 8 was very standard fare this year and anyone who has taken the time to look at Integration will surely have got 40+ marks in this.

I approve of this type of paper format. Its better that Maths does not become another learn by rote subject.

Oh and to be an ass I say i got 290/300, losing 10 marks because of a slip in Question 3 b and Question 4 c

JackKelly

D-Generate wrote:

I approve of this type of paper format. Its better that Maths does not become another learn by rote subject.

Thats crazy. The leaving cert is ALL about learning by rote.
That would mean, that everyone doing the course would need an above average ability in maths, which is totally stupid when it is a Leaving Cert subject.
A LOT of student take higher maths to obviously go towards their points. They may not have an exceptional ability but they can get by on the fact, that they can do the past papers and rely on standard questions to come up. Get rewarded for their work.
If the Dep. were to spring a test like this every year, people would be screwed left right and center.
At this stage in life, people arn't just picking maths because they are very good at it or they love it. They need points.
So why punish them by putting up new, tricky questions. I'd agree that in college, it would make sense to have tests with completely new material that require a high ability, as at that stage you would have chosen a maths course and have recognised your ability in maths.

I would regard myself quite good at maths. Unfortunately, im obviously not good at pressure, as i completely messed up my paper. Im sure if i sat down with no time limit, i could work out the questions i didn't get, but i can't do that when im worring about time.

as for

The syllabus doesn't state that they can't mix up questions

Of course, techinically they can do what they want. Technically, in the real world, i can do plenty of things within the Law, that will entirely screw people over. They can mix them if they want, but it's still very unfair.

andrew163

D-Generate wrote:

They didn't ask the Factor Theorom, they just asked you to prove (x-k) is a Factor of f(x)-f(k). Nothing is wrong in asking that, its pretty basic. Its like asking to prove (8-4) is a factor of 22-6. I'm glad that part wasn't a test of my ability to learn verbratim.

It's virtually identical to the proof of factor theorem though.. (give or take about 2 lines)

I got it out so I'm happy

*Angel*

D-Generate wrote:

I approve of this type of paper format. Its better that Maths does not become another learn by rote subject.

I prefer this too, but you have to admit that it isn't fair on some people.