Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jackgyork)
    think i missed the last question how many marks was it worth? the one with ph graph
    It was 2 marks but it wasnt the last question....There was another side one 2 marker i think and one last 1 marker
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I have to say I'm surprised by all the negativity about this paper. There were no major hiccups if you really think about it.
    It didn't ask us to do anything outside the parameters of the course.
    Hydrolyse it as you normally would and just write the product. No complication there.
    If it deviates from the standard conditions in two ways then that's two sources of inaccuracy for a cell emf reading.
    When oxidising between two ions it's always been a platinum electrode.

    It could have been a much worse paper, personally I don't know that there is a better paper out there for testing literally every area of the specification. Almost the entire specification was fitted into the 32 mark vanadium steel question alone.
    If you knew all of unit 4 you should have been able to do all of the paper.
    If you new 50% of unit 4 then really can justify expecting to have done better than get 50%? Yet realistically you probably will.

    I think there is a problem with culpability with some people on this site, it's not the exam board's fault if they give a well balanced paper and you don't know some of the answers. Either it's your teachers to you or you to the paper who have failed to communicate.
    A good paper should separate wheat from chaff and A students from B and C so in that sense it was certainly a good paper.
    So the real question is when you go to complain on here:
    Are you wheat worried about the odd mark or two... Or are you chaff worrying about your application for That position at sports direct?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I've realised in my rush to finish i forgot that 'increasing pH' means becoming more alkaline not acidic like a complete moron... oops
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EmmaDalby97)
    I've realised in my rush to finish i forgot that 'increasing pH' means becoming more alkaline not acidic like a complete moron... oops
    LOOLL omg sameee what was that question? ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Shout outs to all the students like myself who studied paper after paper, mark scheme after mark scheme, and then sat the f334 paper today and realising this paper had as much resemblance to previous papers as Bruce jenner has to Caitlyn Jenner
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Stop making people worry why would you come on here and tell everyone it is our fault? We all know we are in major trouble for uni places now so the last thing we need is people who don't know us telling us so especially when I am already physically sick after that. I wrote our chemical ideas in its entirety, the Middle finger of my writing hand has a lump the size of a tic tac on it from friction with the pen, I revised like a naive idiot who thought by grafting all year I could rely on OCR to not be a douche.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMS96)
    Personally I have to say I'm surprised by all the negativity about this paper. There were no major hiccups if you really think about it.
    It didn't ask us to do anything outside the parameters of the course.
    Hydrolyse it as you normally would and just write the product. No complication there.
    If it deviates from the standard conditions in two ways then that's two sources of inaccuracy for a cell emf reading.
    When oxidising between two ions it's always been a platinum electrode.

    It could have been a much worse paper, personally I don't know that there is a better paper out there for testing literally every area of the specification. Almost the entire specification was fitted into the 32 mark vanadium steel question alone.
    If you knew all of unit 4 you should have been able to do all of the paper.
    If you new 50% of unit 4 then really can justify expecting to have done better than get 50%? Yet realistically you probably will.

    I think there is a problem with culpability with some people on this site, it's not the exam board's fault if they give a well balanced paper and you don't know some of the answers. Either it's your teachers to you or you to the paper who have failed to communicate.
    A good paper should separate wheat from chaff and A students from B and C so in that sense it was certainly a good paper.
    So the real question is when you go to complain on here:
    Are you wheat worried about the odd mark or two... Or are you chaff worrying about your application for That position at sports direct?
    It was more the shock that they didn't throw out as much application based questions before and to have so many to do(there was an extra question in this paper) in the constrained time created a panic(did for me). Application based questions require much more time than simple "remember hydrolysis conditions" etc.
    OCR have tended to always( well for the past set of papers in this spec) to follow the trend of questions that aren't hardcore "use your knowledge and think of situation....but then oh wait what about that" kind of questions. It felt almost as though they wrote the paper not for a level students but for degree level.
    Its also unfair to us if they change their pattern and the way they ask certain questions at the end of the spec when throughout their spec (season) they've asked questions in a different way and knowing we use past papers, they should know we wouldn't be expecting something to such a different level- we havent been exposed to this style of exam questions from them before
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What were all the questions?
    (1) polymers
    (2) more polymers?
    (3) vandium stuff
    (4) biology
    Is that right? I'm already forgetting the trumatic experience...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jessio)
    It was more the shock that they didn't throw out as much application based questions before and to have so many to do(there was an extra question in this paper) in the constrained time created a panic(did for me). Application based questions require much more time than simple "remember hydrolysis conditions" etc.
    OCR have tended to always( well for the past set of papers in this spec) to follow the trend of questions that aren't hardcore "use your knowledge and think of situation....but then oh wait what about that" kind of questions. It felt almost as though they wrote the paper not for a level students but for degree level.
    Its also unfair to us if they change their pattern and the way they ask certain questions at the end of the spec when throughout their spec (season) they've asked questions in a different way and knowing we use past papers, they should know we wouldn't be expecting something to such a different level- we havent been exposed to this style of exam questions from them before
    Believe me I do know where you're coming from. I revised off the same past papers. And spent my morning troubleshooting with the 'chemistry crew' discussing the nuances of how answers have changes since the 2010 papers and how to word the action of a transition metal ion being a homogenous catalyst.

    With that in mind it was a level playing field and totally not what I expected from this exam but was it really that difficult?
    More like a tad irrelevant asking why things should be in a database
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMS96)
    Believe me I do know where you're coming from. I revised off the same past papers. And spent my morning troubleshooting with the 'chemistry crew' discussing the nuances of how answers have changes since the 2010 papers and how to word the action of a transition metal ion being a homogenous catalyst.

    With that in mind it was a level playing field and totally not what I expected from this exam but was it really that difficult?
    More like a tad irrelevant asking why things should be in a database
    Irrelevant and nonsense "scientists have been researching to improve medicines how else can they be improved" um where is that in the spec as well?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    That exam was the most bull**** F334 paper they have ever written, I am literally so annoyed and upset after that. Thank God I do biology or else I would have been even more screwed than I already am, I feel so do sorry for those who don't and had to get their biology information from the useless depths of storylines. The entire paper was an absolute shambles for me and I have never dropped below an A in all the in class tests and past papers which I did. I just think it is so unfair how OCR can write such horrific papers when people have spent so much time grafting to have all that effort voided just because the paper was hard and off specification in many parts.
    The time pressure as well was ridiculous, 90 marks in 90 minutes sounds fine but when you have to read all the bs introductions to each question and get over the confusion of what an awful paper it is you need far more time
    i worked so so hard for this exam all year, I am going to do a chemistry degree at uni (although I wouldn't put too much money on that now...) and I just feel so stupid. I hand copied the entire chemical ideas textbook and the new to A2 sections I did several times. Done most past papers either in class or myself, have an excellent teacher, went to the revision sessions, literally slaved day in day out for this and they can't even write a decent and fair exam. Could not possibly have done more to prepare for it but I am sure if this has all gone belly up I will be finding out just how big the lump on my finger can get from writing when I resit the whole thing
    only saving grace is that (most) other people seem to have found it awful as well
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jessio)
    Irrelevant and nonsense "scientists have been researching to improve medicines how else can they be improved" um where is that in the spec as well?
    I'm sure that will be deemed as part of the scope of combinatorial chemistry. As that's all about the modifying the structures to make them more effective Though in 6 words I guess 'it's not really there is it...' Just about covers that.
    although that said all sorts of stuff is on the spec that my teacher didn't know about.
    Direct quote from revision class yesterday 'oh I've never noticed this before. I don't think I've ever taught that. Though that means I haven't seen questions on it so it must not come up'
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    What did people get for Average rate?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I got 1.2 something x10-something

    Initial concentration - final concentration divided by time (290)

    According to le internet that's how you calculate average rates but seems like everyone got whole numbers?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocbrownie)
    I got 1.2 something x10-something

    Initial concentration - final concentration divided by time (290)

    According to le internet that's how you calculate average rates but seems like everyone got whole numbers?
    I got that too. I mean. Isn't rate defined by concentration change over time?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMS96)
    Personally I have to say I'm surprised by all the negativity about this paper. There were no major hiccups if you really think about it.
    It didn't ask us to do anything outside the parameters of the course.
    Hydrolyse it as you normally would and just write the product. No complication there.
    If it deviates from the standard conditions in two ways then that's two sources of inaccuracy for a cell emf reading.
    When oxidising between two ions it's always been a platinum electrode.

    It could have been a much worse paper, personally I don't know that there is a better paper out there for testing literally every area of the specification. Almost the entire specification was fitted into the 32 mark vanadium steel question alone.
    If you knew all of unit 4 you should have been able to do all of the paper.
    If you new 50% of unit 4 then really can justify expecting to have done better than get 50%? Yet realistically you probably will.

    I think there is a problem with culpability with some people on this site, it's not the exam board's fault if they give a well balanced paper and you don't know some of the answers. Either it's your teachers to you or you to the paper who have failed to communicate.
    A good paper should separate wheat from chaff and A students from B and C so in that sense it was certainly a good paper.
    So the real question is when you go to complain on here:
    Are you wheat worried about the odd mark or two... Or are you chaff worrying about your application for That position at sports direct?
    I struggled with chemistry. But over the last few months, I've been basically keeping a past paper on hand at all times. Seriously. I was doing the past papers, but also getting familiarised by looking at one as I waited for the bus. Generally, if I had 5 minutes and couldn't do a past paper, I'd at least read one.

    The issue is the fact that OCR basically changed the entire exam style at the last minute with no warning. If you've been mulling over past papers and learning not only the knowledge but the style. Then you pretty much got screwed over massively by this exam. It would be fine if OCR had always done exams like this one, there would be much more preparation and struggling could be easily blamed on not enough revision. But they didn't. It basically added unnecessary worry to people who could do without it right now.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Hey, is there an unofficial markscheme available or is someone willing to make one?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chuffers)
    yeah you had to say between the 2 which one it was, (was the tri due to no O-H bond i think)
    Apparently it was diethanoate
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocbrownie)
    Apparently it was diethanoate
    Im pretty sure it was tri.....loads of ppl got tri :/
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    still so annoyed ughh.
    what did you guys write for modifying medicine?
    and for the hydrolysising one - one of them had a -COOH and -OH right...?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.