Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    relevent paper??? do u not see, science is about application of knowledge not remembering countless facts that a monkey can do. In my view application of knowledge requires intelligence because u have to understand what you are learning. If you dont understand the material then you cant apply it, hence all of the students whining and the stupid facebook groups
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    this is what AQA say about it:

    http://web.aqa.org.uk/news/messages.php#cp260110
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanNature1992)
    It's good that you guys are getting media attention - but the OCR paper was just as bad - completley irrelevant, and wasted time spent on revision..I wish ours made it in the news :erm:
    I agree, still don't know the answer to that question about the seal.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WinstanleyGirl)
    I agree, still don't know the answer to that question about the seal.
    Big Lungs FTW :horns:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If this was Facebook, my teacher would 'like' this.

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CHEM1STRY)
    Cells in sliced apples respire. Like any other cell.
    Oh good. I'm glad my answer wasn't wrong then. :laugh:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fox_the_fix)
    I think it is far more likely that the students F'ud up than the exam board...
    what 9,000 of them against the few people who put together the exam?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by damus)
    relevent paper??? do u not see, science is about application of knowledge not remembering countless facts that a monkey can do. In my view application of knowledge requires intelligence because u have to understand what you are learning. If you dont understand the material then you cant apply it, hence all of the students whining and the stupid facebook groups
    it was all stats and geography, a few "application questions" are fair , but not a whole paper. There were so many sections of the module they didn't even touch on in the exam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    Well I read through the paper, and although I found a lot of the questions answerable, I can definitely see where all the outrage is coming from. The paper was pretty unfair in how it was essentially 100% "A-grade" questions, while even in a subject as challenging as Chemistry you only really get at most 40% of the questions being "A-grade" questions, for Higher anyway- dunno about A-level. Of course not all students can apply their knowledge. Not everyone possesses that academic intelligence, and these people who can learn stuff but not apply it make up the B and C grade students.

    Also, a few of the questions were just stupid and unrelated. You had to state the advantages of using "Faunagoo glue"? Why?! The questions were very vague on the whole- such as "Why would increased CO2 concentration in an are (which reduces the mean mass of a population of caterpillars) not actualy reduce crop loss due to caterpillars?" and you wouldn't really be sure what exactly you were required to put.

    What _is_ the answer to the catapillar Q? :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xarcul)
    The OCR paper was also bad...
    Questions on respiratory adaptations of bloody seals....
    What does that have to do with what we were taught?
    It shows an understanding of respiration, no?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *MJ*)
    I love essays?

    Give me a 25 marker tomorrow on all the possible aromatic reactions and my personal benzene ring will start to nitrate. :sogood:

    :woo:
    Me too, but the BIO4 exam isn't marked like that, that was my point.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by T-Dog)
    What _is_ the answer to the catapillar Q? :confused:
    I don't know for sure, obviously, I'm not a mark scheme lol, but if I was doing the exam here's what I would have put:

    2. (b) The growth rate is the gradient of the line, right? Since the line is straight and at its steepest between 17.5 and 25 days, you can find the gradient anywhere within this to give a value for maximum growth rate. We'll use 20-25 days. So gradient equals y2-y1/x2-x1 which subs in as (400-200)/(25-20), which gives a maximum growth rate of 40mg/day.

    (c) Plants grown in increased carbon dioxide concentration will have a lower nitrogen content, as they will have less nitrogen compared to carbon. Since plants need nitrogen to synthesize protein, this suggests they will have a lower protein concentration.

    (d)
    1. It doesn't account for how other factors besides CO2 concentration may affect the mean mass of caterpillars.
    2. The results don't account for how CO2 concentration affects the population size of the caterpillars.

    I'm fairly sure (b)/(c) are correct. I'm not sure about (d). I'd score that as a 1 out of 2 really. I don't know what the second reason should be. It was a really tough paper actually :confused:


    (Original post by raspberryice)
    what 9,000 of them against the few people who put together the exam?
    Don't worry about it. Some people just want to keep riding that high horse of theirs throughout life. I've seen numerous replies that it's more likely that all the schools messed up rather than the exam board messed up, which of course they should know highly statistically unlikely, so these people would have hardly done so well in this exam when there were so many questions on statistics lol.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    okay so i havent actually taken the examm but
    from what i've heard the exam was unfair not because it was impossibly difficult- i think people were annoyed cos it was mainly testing common sense, wtih very little biological content so someone entering the exam with a high level of common sense, yet with only some knowledge, would get more or less the same grade as someone having the same degree of common sense yet having spent hours revising.

    I agree exams should be written in a way so that they seperate those who can only regurgitate(sp?) ,from those who are intelligent and can think independantly( not me unfortunately ) however imo grades should still reflect those who are actually interested and have knowledge on the subject from those who dont...it doesnt look like the aqa paper did that, so overall a bit unfair, for those who worked hard nd that
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I didn't take the AQA biol4 exam, but have looked over the paper.
    I don't see what all the fuss is about.
    Alot of the content was ecology based.. and your paper was about the envrionment? How was this unfair?
    As previous posters have said the paper showed students abilities to actually use information they have recieved and put it into practice. I think this is the right way to do it for a science exam. Why should exam boards just churn out good grades for people with little understanding of a topic. Because in my opinion just being able to repeat what you have learned without being able to use it in different situations is not understanding.

    Also i've read on other threads about people saying AQA want to "remove the hair from shrews" this is not what a hairtube does.
    Hairtubes are frequently used by ecologists to study population size in a given area. They remove the dead/loose hairs from the animal entering allowing their numbers/species to be studied. They don't remove the entire animals fur!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HumanNature1992)
    Big Lungs FTW :horns:
    I put about anaerobic respiration, whoops :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by little_penguin)
    I was wondering if any current students would say something like this. I thought it lacked depth due to the high number of short-answer questions. Despite the fact I have done next to no ecology for 4 years I could still answer the majority of the paper (although I suppose I won't know if I was correct or not). So, in contrast to what most are saying I think this paper is actually too easy and you will end up with 2 very distinct groupings of students - those that can apply knowledge and those that can't - although UMS will somehow have to even this out and this is where problems could arise.
    Being able to apply knowledge is definitely an advantage, although I don't think there is such a simple dichotomy of those who can and those who can't. The actual difficulty of the paper is dependent on the candidates' study methods. I think it is those who have dedicated hours of time into revision who feel let down the most (rightly or wrongly). Even if people have an intuition for these things, your intuition will rarely be more reliable than your memory, which you can use to gain the marks with almost certainty. During exam periods, students want whatever will get them the highest UMS at that time -- the actual value or purpose is only really considered at a later stage in their lives, e.g. university.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The main problem was that it was too long and far too complex for the time scale.

    As at least 70% of the questions involved you looking at some form of data provided ie. a stupid bubble graph and then interpreting it, this was definitely not a mark per minute paper.

    I arrived at the last 15 marks of the paper with only 10 minutes to go. I had also missed out two questions by that time, so around 4 marks were at least lost by that time and I had to bulldoze through the final marks that were the actual real earners for the exam.

    Provided we had more time, the paper would have been do-able to a decent standard, but that isn't the case when you're rushed to cram in the knowledge of someone doing a Biology degree and would actually know about this kind of stuff, during an exam.

    It felt more like a General Studies exam rather than a Biology exam too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It certainly wasn't a fair reflection on the specification, it was an unfair exam on the basis that people who revised a lot may end up with similar grades to those with common sense. The exam was ok at parts, the first questions was about natural selection so thats nice and relevant, but as you got into it, there was a lot of analysis of statistics and quantative data - that is also in the spec but it isn't highlighted in the AQA revision guide made by AQA!! maybe their revision guide needs an good checking over to see if its teaching us how to apply knowledge and see how science works. there is two paragraphs about analysis of statistics underneath the mark-release-recapture technique and that is about it. Some however was expected to be synoptic knowledge.

    its unfair that people who sat the a-level course last year or the year before got far easier exams testing their knowledge of Biology with a minimal amount of maths or how science works! they will have grade A's and B's when people this year struggle to get C's even though they probably understand just as much as the past students did.

    its also true that students this year could have not revised inheritance, respiration, photosynthesis and still got away with getting the grade. thats awful in my opinion, where is the fairness?

    I've sent my complaint to AQA by e-mail. so ive done my bit! woo!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    I don't know for sure, obviously, I'm not a mark scheme lol, but if I was doing the exam here's what I would have put:

    2. (b) The growth rate is the gradient of the line, right? Since the line is straight and at its steepest between 17.5 and 25 days, you can find the gradient anywhere within this to give a value for maximum growth rate. We'll use 20-25 days. So gradient equals y2-y1/x2-x1 which subs in as (400-200)/(25-20), which gives a maximum growth rate of 40mg/day.

    (c) Plants grown in increased carbon dioxide concentration will have a lower nitrogen content, as they will have less nitrogen compared to carbon. Since plants need nitrogen to synthesize protein, this suggests they will have a lower protein concentration.

    (d)
    1. It doesn't account for how other factors besides CO2 concentration may affect the mean mass of caterpillars.
    2. The results don't account for how CO2 concentration affects the population size of the caterpillars.

    I'm fairly sure (b)/(c) are correct. I'm not sure about (d). I'd score that as a 1 out of 2 really. I don't know what the second reason should be. It was a really tough paper actually :confused:




    Don't worry about it. Some people just want to keep riding that high horse of theirs throughout life. I've seen numerous replies that it's more likely that all the schools messed up rather than the exam board messed up, which of course they should know highly statistically unlikely, so these people would have hardly done so well in this exam when there were so many questions on statistics lol.

    Thanks. It was D that I was unsure about :confused: :eek3:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I love how all the exams from then on have a 'xxxx exam on xxxxx day was a disgrace' group on Facebook! :p:
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: March 22, 2011
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

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.