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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shark67)
    When there's 3000 people complaining AQA should listen
    Really? A spokesperson has noted the comments although if there are any issues you should go to your exam centre and make them and then the centre can bring up the issue with the exam board. Not all 3000 people would have taken the exam and it will be difficult for AQA to take the names from FB and then look at the names in the entry, especially if you have someone called Jane Doe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by afridi10)
    If people think a-levels are wrong then change all subjects why only bio I had chem 2day and it was a really good paper, it requires application of knowledge e.g synthesis and NMR.
    Some people need both Biology and Chemistry to do their course at uni..
    I think that's what you're getting at..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I sat the OCR paper, which was much the same; the links between the syllabus and what was actually asked were tenuous at best.

    People seem to be going off the deep a lot about the stats element of the AQA paper. It's all very well if you have a maths background, or are good at maths. I am good at biology - I got high A grades last year for AS, but that was because last year it was actually a biology paper, not a Stats paper. I am rubbish at maths, and all I can say is that I am so glad that the OCR paper did not include any stats at all. There is also the point that our year have been the guinea pigs for new specs all the way through our education, and the OCR gateway science scheme, together with the new maths gcse we sat meant we learnt very very very little about stats.

    What we did have were very few questions that actually tested our biological knowledge. If I had wanted an applied science A level, I would have taken one.

    The real issue here is that the students who worked really hard won't be distinguished from those who put in very little, so may not get the grades they deserve.

    Also, it's all very well saying read around the issue, but consider this. You study 3 or 4 demanding A level subjects. You have other exams and coursework to do. You have to fit in an element of extra-curricular stuff so that you can support your university application. You have to prepare for interviews at universities. The specifications are also very specific in terms of the vocabulary you use, so apart from physically finding the time to do loads of extra reading, you may actually harm your grades by learning a whole load of stuff not actually required.

    Rant over. I'm sorry, there are a lot of strong feeling out there on both sides of this argument, and I think there is a little over simplification of the issues out there too. It's not just a question of this was or wasn't on the spec.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Exams have got harder they require application now before you needed to memorise text books. But soon books will come out on how to handle these q's and hsw so people will just practice and get better. There are very few things in which practice doesn't make you better. I am sure if your a doctor you need knoledge and be able to apply it but you don't get asked stupid one mark questions on why is the end of the stethoscope round? Suggest an answer, then 1 line to answer. It's about what you learnt and how thoroughly you understand it. So in accordance to this that paper was rubbish. They made a mistake beacause they didn't trial the paper, simple as that they'll need to change it otherwise the bounderise for A will remain at 60 percent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woozeybear)
    Yeah same so rubbish - all the questions were though! How heat would affect the electrical impulse?! I guessed and put something to do with enzymes haha.
    Oooh yea I didn't know that one either I just went for it will damage the sodium ion channels :confused: who knows! Re-sits for me I think!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tinkerbelle ♥)
    Oooh yea I didn't know that one either I just went for it will damage the sodium ion channels :confused: who knows! Re-sits for me I think!
    Lol maybe! The next question said something about the impulses stopping when it went to high and I made it up
    Re-sits should be fun
    I love your sig!!!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    what did the question ask?
    On the OCR paper?
    It showed you 3 pictures of a seal above water, going under water and then back up for air. And asked something like how are seals adapted to staying under water for a long time?
    It's the kind of question that throws you a bit..luckily I knew the anatomy of a seal perfectly.. :|
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by afridi10)
    when it says in the endorsed up to date text book you don't need to know a test and it comes up, the evidence is valid enough. Plus it's about leveling the playing field it gives advantage to those doing stats and geog.
    Leveling the playing field?!
    Hahahaaaa...
    Sorry... but I believe that everyone who doesn't do maths and does physics is at a severe disadvantage to those who do both.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woozeybear)
    On the OCR paper?
    It showed you 3 pictures of a seal above water, going under water and then back up for air. And asked something like how are seals adapted to staying under water for a long time?
    It's the kind of question that throws you a bit..luckily I knew the anatomy of a seal perfectly.. :|

    but you don't need to know that though...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    well they'll have to won't they, with all students getting low grades, the boundaries will go down anyway with or without input from the exam board.

    The media complains about a-level exams being too easy- and now when maybe one exam was a bit harder, and made you think a bit more outside the box, the students complain?
    The media, quite frankly, can go screw itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woozeybear)
    Lol maybe! The next question said something about the impulses stopping when it went to high and I made it up
    Re-sits should be fun
    I love your sig!!!!!
    Yep I blagged my way through it. Which is really annoying. Ask me from start to finish about photosynthesis or respiration and I could do it perfectly. Ask me why seals can stay under water for 20 minutes - well I'm sorry I don't often watch the national geographic channel. Grrr.

    And thanks
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    The media complains about a-level exams being too easy- and now when maybe one exam was a bit harder, and made you think a bit more outside the box, the students complain?
    This is absurd. The material to be examined upon should be harder then. Asking people questions that none of them know the answer to isn't a test of intelligence. What would be a test of intelligence is asking the students about something they have been taught in such a manner that all the students could answer it with a rudimentary knowledge but can also differentiate themselves along different grades according to ability.

    It's a bit like saying Maths exams are too easy, then putting in an English essay piece without letting anyone know. Yes it makes it "harder" - but it isn't about being "hard" or "easy" is it? It's about helping young people think smarter. Adding random tosh, does not do that.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    This is absurd. The material to be examined upon should be harder then. Asking people questions that none of them know the answer to isn't a test of intelligence. What would be a test of intelligence is asking the students about something they have been taught in such a manner that all the students could answer it with a rudimentary knowledge but can also differentiate themselves along different grades according to ability.

    It's a bit like saying Maths exams are too easy, then putting in an English essay piece without letting anyone know. Yes it makes it "harder" - but it isn't about being "hard" or "easy" is it? It's about helping young people think smarter. Adding random tosh, does not do that.

    go look at the op..

    click on the exam paper, and click on the spec, and come tell me whether you think the questions were irrelevant
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrGalago)
    The real issue here is that the students who worked really hard won't be distinguished from those who put in very little, so may not get the grades they deserve.
    You don't deserve a high grade because you worked hard.

    You deserve a high grade if you can answer the question well. Whether that is achieved by working hard, or other means - is irrelevant.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by woozeybear)
    Lol maybe! The next question said something about the impulses stopping when it went to high and I made it up
    Re-sits should be fun
    I love your sig!!!!!
    Looky!
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8482880.stm

    It's been noted!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    go look at the op..

    click on the exam paper, and click on the spec, and come tell me whether you think the questions were irrelevant
    Well I read the OP but I do have to take what I said back having looked at the exam paper&specification. To be honest you don't even need the specification, a lot of the questions are common sense ones anyway. Perhaps the student outrage is more indicative of a failure to apply critical thinking skills. I've noticed these kind of students in all levels of education. Can learn facts well, but cannot think. Either way I'm inclined to agree with you. Felt like I was reading a GCSE paper half the time anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8480563.stm

    I think this campaign set up by the students is ridiculous. I know I've come out atleast of one of my GCSE/a-level exams thinking 'we didn't do that in class' but then realising that- it was touched on, but it was my responsibility to also learn it.

    The whole point of a-levels is to promote an independance and different approach to your learning, to take responsibility for it. If a teacher doesn't cover a topic- big deal! You go and make sure what you need to learn for yourself, those who were spoon fed students at school now struggle in the first semester at university, complain about 'but the lecturer only spent 5 minutes on that topic, what are we going to do?' - how about go and do your own work?!
    Another huge part of a-levels, is also collaberating your knowledge as a whole, and coming up with more detailed and analytical answers- thinking outside the box, putting 2 and 2 together- yes so the questions may not have been about directly what they were taught, but i'm ready to bet a huge part of it was linked in, and they had to use their brains to answer it!

    If the exam board looked at it, agreed that the questions covered the specification- and i'm sure the exam standards board (can't remember the name!) will look into it and also come up with the conclusion


    What does everyone else think about this? to sum up, i think on the students part its very petty and immature


    EDIT: The exam paper in question: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...9&postcount=70

    The specification: http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gce/pdf...10-W-SP-10.PDF
    The module is B104


    you havent done the exam, also the specification is what people will learn to pass the exam why would one wonder off revise other things the specification doesnt need. anyways your debate sucks balls :yep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I did so, so much revision for this exam, literally might as well have not gone to any of the lessons and spent half an hour flicking through the revision guide before the exam the amount of good it did me.. I don't think I could have got an A in that paper even if i'd had the textbook in front of me
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    but you don't need to know that though...
    Lol no we didn't need to know it at all I was joking about knowing it but it was a stupid question because you could just make it up without any knowledge of biology - just like the rest of the paper. Plus half the exam was was very vague..

    Also the media don't take exams and I don't mind people having opinions - as long as it's not based on what they've heard from them. When have you ever seen a student agree that the exams are easy?

    It's unfair that we always get a new exam syllabus first gcse, now a level..
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RyanT)
    Well I read the OP but I do have to take what I said back having looked at the exam paper&specification. To be honest you don't even need the specification, a lot of the questions are common sense ones anyway. Perhaps the student outrage is more indicative of a failure to apply critical thinking skills. I've noticed these kind of students in all levels of education. Can learn facts well, but cannot think. Either way I'm inclined to agree with you. Felt like I was reading a GCSE paper half the time anyway.

    Surely part of doing a science a-level, especially one on a module such as ecology does need you to look critically anyway?
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 27, 2010
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • 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.