# The Commons Bar Mk IX - MHoC Chat Thread Watch

Announcements

This discussion is closed.

Report

#8461

(Original post by

It usually works out around;

35%=C

45%=B

65%=A

85%=A*

At least that's what it was when I took it last year.

**James Milibanter**)It usually works out around;

35%=C

45%=B

65%=A

85%=A*

At least that's what it was when I took it last year.

(Original post by

Yep. 95/200 (47.5%) for a B.

28.5% for a C

47.5% for a B

66.5% for a A

82% for a A*

http://www.mascalls.kent.sch.uk/pdfs...ndaries_v5.pdf

**The Financier**)Yep. 95/200 (47.5%) for a B.

28.5% for a C

47.5% for a B

66.5% for a A

82% for a A*

http://www.mascalls.kent.sch.uk/pdfs...ndaries_v5.pdf

0

Report

#8462

(Original post by

What are everyone's thoughts on the GCSE Maths sweets question? I personally think they're all kicking up a fuss for no bloody reason... they just need to grow up and accept a bit of failure to get a question right.

**mobbsy91**)What are everyone's thoughts on the GCSE Maths sweets question? I personally think they're all kicking up a fuss for no bloody reason... they just need to grow up and accept a bit of failure to get a question right.

That seems to be the way Edexcel maths exams are going at A-level too this year, unlike then past papers so you have to think more in the exam.

0

Report

#8463

What? We use a system similar to what Kitty mentioned (there are exceptions, e.g. some university courses require at least 60% to pass). Our B is between 81% and 90%. Plus the requirements are being adjusted so that the grades are roughly normally distributed over the above 50% range.

I've had a similar moment of bafflement in regard to the Yanks' SAT which seemed far too easy.

I've had a similar moment of bafflement in regard to the Yanks' SAT which seemed far too easy.

0

Report

#8464

(Original post by

I'm tempted to create a petition for Edexcel to increase the grade boundaries now. As I think G_P said, you only need 57/200 for a C last year, with under 50% needed for a B. This just takes the piss out of our education system.

**The Financier**)I'm tempted to create a petition for Edexcel to increase the grade boundaries now. As I think G_P said, you only need 57/200 for a C last year, with under 50% needed for a B. This just takes the piss out of our education system.

0

Report

#8465

(Original post by

Haha, you're not going to have to resit... My complaint is about the number of people who have no idea about grade boundaries, and that as it's clear so many found it hard, that the grade boundary will reflect it...

**mobbsy91**)Haha, you're not going to have to resit... My complaint is about the number of people who have no idea about grade boundaries, and that as it's clear so many found it hard, that the grade boundary will reflect it...

Although, after remembering what GCSE grade boundaries are like bc of what everyone's posted, I dont think the grade boundaries should reflect it at all...its okay for a question not everyone can do to be inserted every so often without the boundaries having to be lowered bc of it but yes- I know what you mean.

Posted from TSR Mobile

0

Report

#8466

(Original post by

I'm not being mean, but I just think that an A level student should be able to do that question...

Unfortunately you have to pay on the IB site, so have to hunt elsewhere...

This is a standard level maths paper, from 2006 (Paper 2)

My internet is playing up a bit, but I will try and get you a Higher paper a bit later.

**mobbsy91**)I'm not being mean, but I just think that an A level student should be able to do that question...

Unfortunately you have to pay on the IB site, so have to hunt elsewhere...

This is a standard level maths paper, from 2006 (Paper 2)

My internet is playing up a bit, but I will try and get you a Higher paper a bit later.

0

Report

#8467

(Original post by

It was one of those questions that's difficult to revise for because you have to apply and combine rules rather than just plug values into memorised formulas and methods.

Isn't that the kind of testing you wanted to make universal? Its separates the creative mathematicians from those who expected to see the same questions in their textbook with different numbers.

**RayApparently**)It was one of those questions that's difficult to revise for because you have to apply and combine rules rather than just plug values into memorised formulas and methods.

Isn't that the kind of testing you wanted to make universal? Its separates the creative mathematicians from those who expected to see the same questions in their textbook with different numbers.

0

Report

#8468

You can understand the frustration when they've been told nothing that isn't in past papers will come up though.

0

Report

#8469

(Original post by

You can understand the frustration when they've been told nothing that isn't in past papers will come up though.

**KingStannis**)You can understand the frustration when they've been told nothing that isn't in past papers will come up though.

0

Report

#8470

**KingStannis**)

You can understand the frustration when they've been told nothing that isn't in past papers will come up though.

...

Personally I think that nobody under 50% should betting a C.

0

Report

#8471

(Original post by

They are not obliged to tell you anything, its closed book.

...

Personally I think that nobody under 50% should betting a C.

**Rakas21**)They are not obliged to tell you anything, its closed book.

...

Personally I think that nobody under 50% should betting a C.

0

Report

#8472

(Original post by

What? We use a system similar to what Kitty mentioned (there are exceptions, e.g. some university courses require at least 60% to pass). Our B is between 81% and 90%. Plus the requirements are being adjusted so that the grades are roughly normally distributed over the above 50% range.

I've had a similar moment of bafflement in regard to the Yanks' SAT which seemed far too easy.

**Life_peer**)What? We use a system similar to what Kitty mentioned (there are exceptions, e.g. some university courses require at least 60% to pass). Our B is between 81% and 90%. Plus the requirements are being adjusted so that the grades are roughly normally distributed over the above 50% range.

I've had a similar moment of bafflement in regard to the Yanks' SAT which seemed far too easy.

10 = 100 percent = A*

9 = 90 percent = A

Then I figure 85 - 89 percent = A-

80 - 84 percent = B

And so on.

I'm just baffled that anything under 50 percent would class as a pass, let alone a C.

0

Report

#8473

That question was absolutely **** easy, a two-liner if that: simply equate basic probabilities and re-arrange. Granted, I spent a year studying Maths and now study Comp Sci at uni which is also very mathsy so I'm obviously not the question's target student But there's nothing out of the ordinary in that question. It's the exact same technique that GCSE kids are taught to calculate probability/ apply the probability chain rule but it tests whether they truly understand what they are doing- ie: there are the students who know that 'AND' means 'multiply the numbers together to get another number' and then there are the ones who have a grasp of basic combinatorics who know how to count outcomes, calculate probabilities from those outcomes, and then how to apply that to two events that occur one after the other.

I think I've written about it before but this is EXACTLY the type of question we need MORE of. Full on synoptic assessment - something that actually tests understanding to separate the crammers from the ones who know their stuff. We don't want what we've had for the past couple of decades of just setting the same exam every year and turn students into computers. We should want them to learn how to solve a problem and to have some basic grasp of proof. I know it makes me sound like a ****, but GCSE Maths is too easy and the uproar over this question just proves it. Back in the 50s you'd have to know differentiation, integration and matrices to do your O-Level. The first two topics are now C1, and the latter topic isn't even covered at A-Level now unless you do Further Maths, it's quite tragic, matrices are beautiful Then there's the grade boundary issues: The story I always tell is the one where I lost about 20% percent of the raw marks on my Mod3 exam... and still got full UMS. I was obviously very pleased but I think it's absolutely ****ing ridiculous that we're effectively saying that the top 1% of Maths students can comprise a guy who managed to lose a fifth of the entire paper's marks! No wonder the rest of the world is eating us alive if our approach is to set the same exam every year and set the bar ridiculously low.

Of course this is far bigger a problem than just a tricky question, it's a problem with society spanning several generations. Put simply: It's sociably acceptable to despise maths from a young age, and as a result we're **** at it. So how about we teach more of it? And by that I mean both more content and more time dedicated to each section of content. We need to help the people who struggle to do the very basics by dedicating more time to them and helping them build up their problem solving skills by tailoring the teaching towards their needs. And then we need to push the people at the very top a little bit harder rather than handing A/A* out like flyers. I spent about three hours of classes a week studying maths at GCSE versus about 12 hours for science and about 8 hours for english, and I know many other schools have similar splits: it comes from the fact that a lot of students do 2/3 science GCSEs, 2 english GCSEs but only one in maths. If you want to know why the average Joe struggles with his fractions you have your answer.

(Also, hello! It's been a while since I've lurked around these parts! How's everyone doing?)

I think I've written about it before but this is EXACTLY the type of question we need MORE of. Full on synoptic assessment - something that actually tests understanding to separate the crammers from the ones who know their stuff. We don't want what we've had for the past couple of decades of just setting the same exam every year and turn students into computers. We should want them to learn how to solve a problem and to have some basic grasp of proof. I know it makes me sound like a ****, but GCSE Maths is too easy and the uproar over this question just proves it. Back in the 50s you'd have to know differentiation, integration and matrices to do your O-Level. The first two topics are now C1, and the latter topic isn't even covered at A-Level now unless you do Further Maths, it's quite tragic, matrices are beautiful Then there's the grade boundary issues: The story I always tell is the one where I lost about 20% percent of the raw marks on my Mod3 exam... and still got full UMS. I was obviously very pleased but I think it's absolutely ****ing ridiculous that we're effectively saying that the top 1% of Maths students can comprise a guy who managed to lose a fifth of the entire paper's marks! No wonder the rest of the world is eating us alive if our approach is to set the same exam every year and set the bar ridiculously low.

Of course this is far bigger a problem than just a tricky question, it's a problem with society spanning several generations. Put simply: It's sociably acceptable to despise maths from a young age, and as a result we're **** at it. So how about we teach more of it? And by that I mean both more content and more time dedicated to each section of content. We need to help the people who struggle to do the very basics by dedicating more time to them and helping them build up their problem solving skills by tailoring the teaching towards their needs. And then we need to push the people at the very top a little bit harder rather than handing A/A* out like flyers. I spent about three hours of classes a week studying maths at GCSE versus about 12 hours for science and about 8 hours for english, and I know many other schools have similar splits: it comes from the fact that a lot of students do 2/3 science GCSEs, 2 english GCSEs but only one in maths. If you want to know why the average Joe struggles with his fractions you have your answer.

(Also, hello! It's been a while since I've lurked around these parts! How's everyone doing?)

5

Report

#8474

(Original post by

That question was absolutely **** easy, a two-liner if that: simply equate basic probabilities and re-arrange. Granted, I spent a year studying Maths and now study Comp Sci at uni which is also very mathsy so I'm obviously not the question's target student But there's nothing out of the ordinary in that question. It's the exact same technique that GCSE kids are taught to calculate probability/ apply the probability chain rule but it tests whether they truly understand what they are doing- ie: there are the students who know that 'AND' means 'multiply the numbers together to get another number' and then there are the ones who have a grasp of basic combinatorics who know how to count outcomes, calculate probabilities from those outcomes, and then how to apply that to two events that occur one after the other.

I think I've written about it before but this is EXACTLY the type of question we need MORE of. Full on synoptic assessment - something that actually tests understanding to separate the crammers from the ones who know their stuff. We don't want what we've had for the past couple of decades of just setting the same exam every year and turn students into computers. We should want them to learn how to solve a problem and to have some basic grasp of proof. I know it makes me sound like a ****, but GCSE Maths is too easy and the uproar over this question just proves it. Back in the 50s you'd have to know differentiation, integration and matrices to do your O-Level. The first two topics are now C1, and the latter topic isn't even covered at A-Level now unless you do Further Maths, it's quite tragic, matrices are beautiful Then there's the grade boundary issues: The story I always tell is the one where I lost about 20% percent of the raw marks on my Mod3 exam... and still got full UMS. I was obviously very pleased but I think it's absolutely ****ing ridiculous that we're effectively saying that the top 1% of Maths students can comprise a guy who managed to lose a fifth of the entire paper's marks! No wonder the rest of the world is eating us alive if our approach is to set the same exam every year and set the bar ridiculously low.

Of course this is far bigger a problem than just a tricky question, it's a problem with society spanning several generations. Put simply: It's sociably acceptable to despise maths from a young age, and as a result we're **** at it. So how about we teach more of it? And by that I mean both more content and more time dedicated to each section of content. We need to help the people who struggle to do the very basics by dedicating more time to them and helping them build up their problem solving skills by tailoring the teaching towards their needs. And then we need to push the people at the very top a little bit harder rather than handing A/A* out like flyers. I spent about three hours of classes a week studying maths at GCSE versus about 12 hours for science and about 8 hours for english, and I know many other schools have similar splits: it comes from the fact that a lot of students do 2/3 science GCSEs, 2 english GCSEs but only one in maths. If you want to know why the average Joe struggles with his fractions you have your answer.

(Also, hello! It's been a while since I've lurked around these parts! How's everyone doing?)

**Jarred**)That question was absolutely **** easy, a two-liner if that: simply equate basic probabilities and re-arrange. Granted, I spent a year studying Maths and now study Comp Sci at uni which is also very mathsy so I'm obviously not the question's target student But there's nothing out of the ordinary in that question. It's the exact same technique that GCSE kids are taught to calculate probability/ apply the probability chain rule but it tests whether they truly understand what they are doing- ie: there are the students who know that 'AND' means 'multiply the numbers together to get another number' and then there are the ones who have a grasp of basic combinatorics who know how to count outcomes, calculate probabilities from those outcomes, and then how to apply that to two events that occur one after the other.

I think I've written about it before but this is EXACTLY the type of question we need MORE of. Full on synoptic assessment - something that actually tests understanding to separate the crammers from the ones who know their stuff. We don't want what we've had for the past couple of decades of just setting the same exam every year and turn students into computers. We should want them to learn how to solve a problem and to have some basic grasp of proof. I know it makes me sound like a ****, but GCSE Maths is too easy and the uproar over this question just proves it. Back in the 50s you'd have to know differentiation, integration and matrices to do your O-Level. The first two topics are now C1, and the latter topic isn't even covered at A-Level now unless you do Further Maths, it's quite tragic, matrices are beautiful Then there's the grade boundary issues: The story I always tell is the one where I lost about 20% percent of the raw marks on my Mod3 exam... and still got full UMS. I was obviously very pleased but I think it's absolutely ****ing ridiculous that we're effectively saying that the top 1% of Maths students can comprise a guy who managed to lose a fifth of the entire paper's marks! No wonder the rest of the world is eating us alive if our approach is to set the same exam every year and set the bar ridiculously low.

Of course this is far bigger a problem than just a tricky question, it's a problem with society spanning several generations. Put simply: It's sociably acceptable to despise maths from a young age, and as a result we're **** at it. So how about we teach more of it? And by that I mean both more content and more time dedicated to each section of content. We need to help the people who struggle to do the very basics by dedicating more time to them and helping them build up their problem solving skills by tailoring the teaching towards their needs. And then we need to push the people at the very top a little bit harder rather than handing A/A* out like flyers. I spent about three hours of classes a week studying maths at GCSE versus about 12 hours for science and about 8 hours for english, and I know many other schools have similar splits: it comes from the fact that a lot of students do 2/3 science GCSEs, 2 english GCSEs but only one in maths. If you want to know why the average Joe struggles with his fractions you have your answer.

(Also, hello! It's been a while since I've lurked around these parts! How's everyone doing?)

**Jarred**)

That question was absolutely **** easy, a two-liner if that: simply equate basic probabilities and re-arrange. Granted, I spent a year studying Maths and now study Comp Sci at uni which is also very mathsy so I'm obviously not the question's target student But there's nothing out of the ordinary in that question. It's the exact same technique that GCSE kids are taught to calculate probability/ apply the probability chain rule but it tests whether they truly understand what they are doing- ie: there are the students who know that 'AND' means 'multiply the numbers together to get another number' and then there are the ones who have a grasp of basic combinatorics who know how to count outcomes, calculate probabilities from those outcomes, and then how to apply that to two events that occur one after the other.

I think I've written about it before but this is EXACTLY the type of question we need MORE of. Full on synoptic assessment - something that actually tests understanding to separate the crammers from the ones who know their stuff. We don't want what we've had for the past couple of decades of just setting the same exam every year and turn students into computers. We should want them to learn how to solve a problem and to have some basic grasp of proof. I know it makes me sound like a ****, but GCSE Maths is too easy and the uproar over this question just proves it. Back in the 50s you'd have to know differentiation, integration and matrices to do your O-Level. The first two topics are now C1, and the latter topic isn't even covered at A-Level now unless you do Further Maths, it's quite tragic, matrices are beautiful Then there's the grade boundary issues: The story I always tell is the one where I lost about 20% percent of the raw marks on my Mod3 exam... and still got full UMS. I was obviously very pleased but I think it's absolutely ****ing ridiculous that we're effectively saying that the top 1% of Maths students can comprise a guy who managed to lose a fifth of the entire paper's marks! No wonder the rest of the world is eating us alive if our approach is to set the same exam every year and set the bar ridiculously low.

Of course this is far bigger a problem than just a tricky question, it's a problem with society spanning several generations. Put simply: It's sociably acceptable to despise maths from a young age, and as a result we're **** at it. So how about we teach more of it? And by that I mean both more content and more time dedicated to each section of content. We need to help the people who struggle to do the very basics by dedicating more time to them and helping them build up their problem solving skills by tailoring the teaching towards their needs. And then we need to push the people at the very top a little bit harder rather than handing A/A* out like flyers. I spent about three hours of classes a week studying maths at GCSE versus about 12 hours for science and about 8 hours for english, and I know many other schools have similar splits: it comes from the fact that a lot of students do 2/3 science GCSEs, 2 english GCSEs but only one in maths. If you want to know why the average Joe struggles with his fractions you have your answer.

(Also, hello! It's been a while since I've lurked around these parts! How's everyone doing?)

It seemed like a good question to separate the good mathematicians from the great ones!

Some people were reporting it on Twitter as 'The girl has 2 sweets, prove that N2-n-90=0 but it has actually turned out to be a longer question, with more meaning behind it!

A load of fuss over nothing.

0

Report

#8475

i think a big problem we have is we reinforce math anxiety at young ages and condone it.

0

Report

#8476

(Original post by

I'm just baffled that anything under 50 percent would class as a pass, let alone a C.

**Kittiara**)I'm just baffled that anything under 50 percent would class as a pass, let alone a C.

I certainly believe that grade boundaries should be calculated solely as relative to other students' performance, and not to the raw score on the paper though. That way, unless people become more stupid, grade inflation should be impossible.

(Original post by

i think a big problem we have is we reinforce math anxiety at young ages and condone it.

**KingStannis**)i think a big problem we have is we reinforce math anxiety at young ages and condone it.

0

Report

#8478

(Original post by

Thanks, guys! That is mad! Makes it pretty much impossible to fail, and it doesn't give the grades much value...

**Kittiara**)Thanks, guys! That is mad! Makes it pretty much impossible to fail, and it doesn't give the grades much value...

0

Report

#8479

The real scandal here is how small a proportion of the candidates are capable of over 50% in their Maths GCSE. As has been said, the questions are not massively difficult, although we are probably not a "typical" cohort.

I was planning to do some calculations with the normal distribution and bell curves to come up with a better way of calculating grade boundaries to share with the Education Secretary, and I might bring that plan forward.

I was planning to do some calculations with the normal distribution and bell curves to come up with a better way of calculating grade boundaries to share with the Education Secretary, and I might bring that plan forward.

0

Report

#8480

(Original post by

The real scandal here is how small a proportion of the candidates are capable of over 50% in their Maths GCSE. As has been said, the questions are not massively difficult, although we are probably not a "typical" cohort.

**Saracen's Fez**)The real scandal here is how small a proportion of the candidates are capable of over 50% in their Maths GCSE. As has been said, the questions are not massively difficult, although we are probably not a "typical" cohort.

**I was planning to do some calculations with the normal distribution and bell curves to come up with a better way of calculating grade boundaries**to share with the Education Secretary, and I might bring that plan forward.
0

X

new posts

Back

to top

to top