Maths (H) Paper 1

*Angel*

TimAy wrote:

The leaving cert is ALL about learning by rote.

I would tend to disagree, I think that subjects like maths, physics, app maths, td are focused on understanding really, there is no point in just learning something, however if you understand the basics you are able to apply them to other harder questions.

JackKelly

*Angel* wrote:

I would tend to disagree, I think that subjects like maths, physics, app maths, td are focused on understanding really, there is no point in just learning something

Ok,I'll agree with you as far as Maths and App Maths. They do require some basic abiltiy in maths, but almost all the other courses (incl physics,td,chem etc.) only require you to be able to learn information.If you are asked to apply those learned things (eg physic questions), it is almost always to predefined situations. (also, if you wanted, you could just go for a pass in ordinary level in any subject that required basic understanding, and leave yourself with 6 subjects that solely require learning)

Back to maths, what happened in this paper, is that those, who have the basic ability and have worked hard have been totally screwed over to those who have the higher ability.
As i said in the last post, im all up for tests with new ideas, but i think its totally unfair those who have either only a basic ability or those who can't manage time. Once again, in college when you have narrowed down your interest and ability, it is fair to ask you to apply it in new situations, but not in an exam whose primary reward is to those who study.

It is common knowledge that high marks can be achieved by the most intelligent person on the planet, and equally by the biggest idiot.

Edit: If you think about it, if those with the higher ability and those who handle exams better are being rewarded in the likes of this exam, that the dep are given the people who can do things natually, and put in less work, a bigger reward than to those who have lesser ability but have put in more hours and study

*Angel* wrote:

however if you understand the basics, you are able to apply them to other harder questions.

i don't agree. I completely understand the basics of certain topics in Maths, and yet, i did horribly in that test. Understanding and Appyling are two totally different things.

sixdraw

TimAy wrote:

Back to maths, what happened in this paper, is that those, who have the basic ability and have worked hard have been totally screwed over to those who have the higher ability.

That's why they call it Higher level, Ordinary level is for the basic ability

JackKelly

sixdraw wrote:

That's why they call it Higher level, Ordinary level is for the basic ability

not at all. most of the time, ordinary level is for people who just want to pass maths, as in low/no ability for the subject

priestboy

I must say well done to the education board on the Maths Paper 1, it was a great paper very challenging but very fair!! Big shout out to the study group gang, who would have thought spending our weekends studying Maths would pay off so well!! Def A1 there lads!!

*Angel*

TimAy wrote:

If you think about it, if those with the higher ability and those who handle exams better are being rewarded in the likes of this exam, that the dep are given the people who can do things natually, and put in less work, a bigger reward than to those who have lesser ability but have put in more hours and study.

Do you not understand that the dep cannot control the fact that students naturally good at certain subjects are always going to get maybe a better grade than they deserve.

I honestly think this was maybe a tougher paper than previous years and a little mixed up, but I didn't think that it was aimed at the naturally good at maths students, I didn't think there was anything to make a huge deal about until I came out of the exam and so many people were upset.

I've said this before but if generally students found it difficult (which seems to be common) that the marking schemes will be adjusted, you could just look back on this and laugh after you get your results.

randomfella

priestboy wrote:

Big shout out to the study group gang, who would have thought spending our weekends studying Maths would pay off so well!! Def A1 there lads!!

who?

JackKelly

*Angel* wrote:

Do you not understand that the dep cannot control the fact that students naturally good at certain subjects are always going to get maybe a better grade than they deserve.

Of course. Those naturally good will always do the best. Papers are usually made so that A and B parts are generally managable and not too challenging. Its the C parts that distinguish the A1's from the B1's. I thought, and obviously so did a lot of others, that some b-parts were far too difficult and long, and same with c. It was too inconsistant.

There were those going in who would always get a1's, there were those going in who had done enough work to get an a1 and there were those going in who were looking to get a C. The ones who were always getting an a1, got it, while everyone else got thrown into the same boat.

*Angel*

I'm not trying to argue with you...

Most students are naturally talented at something though and have downfalls in other areas, it doesn't mean they have an easy time of it, for instance I rarely study for my better subjects but that doesn't mean I don't have to study a lot for subjects I suck at.

BraveheartGal

TimAy wrote:

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.

oi!

i studied my ass off for that test
i did jus as much work as anyone else, even those lookin for an a1
i was hopin for a c because i find it hard not because i dont do work

and i was very happy with the paper

the smiley one

Surely the whole point of the leaving cert is to reward work done...the person with the most work put in should get good grades...is that not fair?!

So technically if a person could do all the past papers regardless if they have a natural talent for maths, they should get a good grade.

That's not what happened in this exam unless they SEVERELY adjust the marking scheme. It seemed to me, marks, in that exam, were rewarded for natural mathematic ability...and that's just plain unfair.

I understand that people who are gifted at maths will think it was an fair exam, but can you not just look at it from the point of view of the not-so-gifted (I'm not a bad student, but I'm not a maths genius either)?

I would totally agree with timay, although I made stupid mistakes I shouldn't have made, I think that exam was a "thinker" rather than a "learner", and if every exam in the LC was like that, there would be uproar - am I wrong?

*Angel*

the smiley one wrote:

Surely the whole point of the leaving cert is to reward work done...the person with the most work put in should get good grades...is that not fair?!

Never going to happen!

Oh come on, most of that paper was stuff we've dealt with before, it was not for the 'gifted' at maths.

Son Goku

the smiley one wrote:

What he said.

To be fair though, Leaving Cert Maths couldn't be Maths for the gifted.
It doesn't have the scope.
Look at French and Irish. To do them at honours level you have to be practically able to speak them.
Is that unfair for the people with high mathematical ability, but poor linguistic ability?

the smiley one

*Angel* wrote:

Never going to happen!

Oh come on, most of that paper was stuff we've dealt with before, it was not for the 'gifted' at maths.

ok, well I'd never seen 6b) before or the newton Raphson thing before...I didn't do Q1 but that looked tricky, and question 3, I abandoned half way through because of the part b.....( maybe it's just me but) that means only the 'gifted' at maths have a shot at an A1 or A2 (other slips and the like...) - fair? no.

*Angel*

Son Goku wrote:

To be fair though, Leaving Cert Maths couldn't be Maths for the gifted.
It doesn't have the scope.
Look at French and Irish. To do them at honours level you have to be practically able to speak them.
Is that unfair for the people with high mathematical ability, but poor linguistic ability?

That's it!

rainbow kirby

Son Goku wrote:

To be fair though, Leaving Cert Maths couldn't be Maths for the gifted.
It doesn't have the scope.
Look at French and Irish. To do them at honours level you have to be practically able to speak them.
Is that unfair for the people with high mathematical ability, but poor linguistic ability?

TBH I've always thought the Leaving Cert itself was unfair on people with high mathematical ability but poor linguistic ability.

Son Goku

rainbow kirby wrote:

TBH I've always thought the Leaving Cert itself was unfair on people with high mathematical ability but poor linguistic ability.

To be honest, it isn't.

Irish, French, English.............. There are tons of available languages.

Available mathematical subjects:
Mathematics, Applied Mathematics.

It's a criticism often levelled against Ireland by International education groups.

sixdraw

The smiley one its like your saying that anyone who tries their best at maths should get an A1 but that doesn't make sense at all.If your not good at a subject drop to pass , of course the exam is going to be fairer on those who are more talented at maths because it is after all a maths exam. Just cause someone spends the most time revising maths but got 10% of the paper done doesn't mean they should be the A standard.
Its the way the world seems to work, you can't take it that you'll be the best at everything, the maths people will be good at maths but probably **** at languages etc....

D-Generate

I think some people don't grasp exactly what an examination is. Its not to do with rewards or applauding those who study, its to do with testing peoples ability and skill in a certain field. An A1 isn't an award, it is a grade, i.e it is an easy referance to your position on a scale of ability. This is what the Leaving Cert should be and what this Maths exam tried to emulate.

P.S, I bite at any language except English Of course I'm going to want my just desserts for being crap at languages but good at mathematics.

sixdraw

couldn't agree more. Anybody know where you can get a full version of the maths syllabus.Probably the best way not to miss stuff when your revising

JackKelly

D-Generate wrote:

I think some people don't grasp exactly what an examination is. Its not to do with rewards or applauding those who study, its to do with testing peoples ability and skill in a certain field.

Outside a select few, there is no skill required. So in most cases it IS rewarding those who study.

Also, im not saying anyone who only tries hard deserves an A. Im saying that that paper didn't cater for the middle of the road-those who did enough work, and knew enough of the course, and practiced enough to get an A but got screwed on the day. As all teachers say, the leaving cert is there to TEST WHAT YOU KNOW.

the smiley one

sixdraw wrote:

The smiley one its like your saying that anyone who tries their best at maths should get an A1 but that doesn't make sense at all.If your not good at a subject drop to pass , of course the exam is going to be fairer on those who are more talented at maths because it is after all a maths exam. Just cause someone spends the most time revising maths but got 10% of the paper done doesn't mean they should be the A standard.
Its the way the world seems to work, you can't take it that you'll be the best at everything, the maths people will be good at maths but probably **** at languages etc....

ok, I'm not saying that an incredibly stupid person who takes the exam and has done maths every hour of their life should get an A1; I'm saying that an intelligent person, but not neccessarily a "maths person" who has worked hard at the subject through the year, should at least have a shot of getting an A1 (I'm speaking as myself). I'm probably in the top 10 in my year at maths (or there about), yet afaik I didn't have a shot at an A1 at that paper, and that, is completely unfair.

The maths/languages debate is for another day....it doesn't really have anything to do with this...

jacksie

the smiley one wrote:

Surely the whole point of the leaving cert is to reward work done...the person with the most work put in should get good grades...is that not fair?!

So technically if a person could do all the past papers regardless if they have a natural talent for maths, they should get a good grade.

That's not what happened in this exam unless they SEVERELY adjust the marking scheme. It seemed to me, marks, in that exam, were rewarded for natural mathematic ability...and that's just plain unfair.

I understand that people who are gifted at maths will think it was an fair exam, but can you not just look at it from the point of view of the not-so-gifted (I'm not a bad student, but I'm not a maths genius either)?

I would totally agree with timay, although I made stupid mistakes I shouldn't have made, I think that exam was a "thinker" rather than a "learner", and if every exam in the LC was like that, there would be uproar - am I wrong?

But thats what maths is about, solving problems. Exams are to test your ability in that subject, or SHOULD be, just because it's a change from what is wrong doesnt make it wrong, its totally right to have the exam that way imo.

this is coming from C student btw:P