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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well the examiners apparently are looking into the Russian History exam as it was insanely difficult and not many of the topics were covered in that paper. I'm not complaining though! :tongue:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by afridi10)
    It's totally different when you get hit by questions you were not expecting in such a time limit. People looking at the exam for the first time thinks its not bad but its totally different in the exam you have to express your answers in a way in which marks are picked up and that takes time you have to carefully examine all the data and graphs to make sure you haven't missed something then chose what answer to write. This takes time most of the queations would have had multiple amswers so it is hard to see what they are really asking which wastes time.

    Problems with the paper:
    1. Timing- wasted time with giving tables which were not needed and information not required, otherwise should have increased the time of the exam.
    2. Vague questions
    3. Missed out a question on genetics for shrews.
    4. Questions not drawing information from most fundamental aspects of the course e.g. respiration.
    5. To many graphs, I think the examiners can judge if your good at reading graphs or not no need to use them in nearly every question 1-2 questions is enough.
    6. To much emphasis on the same skills.
    7. Not compatible with teaching.

    Do you think this is the first time someones ever taken an exam?

    1. Timing- tough crap, trail papers are done with all new specs, and a time allowance was made with this, this isn't the examination boards fault but possibly yours for lack of time managment and exam skills. Looking back on my own A2's when before i'd finish an exam 10-20minutes before the end i'd only ever have time with 5 minutes to spare if that in my A2 levels


    2. Not vague questions, more questions asking you to put your knowledge down, use common sense to deduct more vital information and structure an appropiate response

    3. So genetics wasn't there? Big deal- not all topics in the module are examined on, or should come up

    5. On a module where its looking at ecology, and a huge part of this is interpreting data, looking at population sizes- i'd expect a lot of graphs.

    6. I dont see any questions the same or similar, or asking for something on the same skill, but more using a skill and applying it with a different area of science

    7. Perfectly compatible with teaching, part of the module assumes you've done practicals where there have been learnt
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vas876)
    Yes it is something new for AQA.

    But to say it was off the Spc is a blatant lie, its irrelevant and vague, but its definitely on the spec. (yes iv seen the paper)

    OCR have been doing this for years!

    (I retook the OCR biology legacy paper on Monday, and as they knew it was being taken by people who have completed their A Levels, they took liberties with the questions)

    SNAB has been well known for years for being irrelevant and vague, and it looks like AQA and OCR have caught up with the style of exam questions, you just have to look past what is being asked
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by sil3nt_cha0s)
    Loads of people came out some exams saying "I didn't do that in class".

    As was always the case, it was because they hadn't revised it. There is no such thing as being tested on something which you haven't done IN LESSONS. Forget the specification, you're bound to have touched on it in lessons. If all you go on is the specification, then that's pretty stupid, isn't it?
    Its in the Spec!

    People clearly just did not use it and used the text book alone.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    SNAB has been well known for years for being irrelevant and vague, and it looks like AQA and OCR have caught up with the style of exam questions, you just have to look past what is being asked
    Vague and Irrelevant questions, with irrelevant information given is what A2 is about!
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    The new GCE Science examination focuses on the application of science to a greater degree than was the case with the old A-level. As with all examination question papers, the examination for Unit 4 was written to meet the assessment objectives set by QCA (now QCDA) which included this change. The assessment objectives are published in the specification and on our website. The examination paper properly reflects these assessment objectives. - Message from AQA


    I believe I have a say in this, because as a taxpayer who pays towards education, to help people recieve qualifications, if there was a concern in the exams- then yes, I should KNOW about it and also have a say into whether it was the quality of teaching, education system- whatever.

    Please go look at the paper- go look at the spec, and tell me exactly which questions were off spec and why...
    This was aslo the case at GCSE we got asked pointless questions which had no element of common sense and the mark scheme basically had precise things, I still came out with good marks because you only needed about 70% to get full marks, it was a waste of learning things, teachers also complained so they reduced some hsw stuff. In A-level same thing is happening with bio they are giving full marks for example in unit 2 if you got 67/85. Chem and Phys whilst have tried to o introduce a bit of hsw and there boundaries have got lower but not as low as bio, so why in bio are they obsessed with it. Everyone knows hsw failed at gcse and no-one really liked it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Some students say that the spec clearly stated there is no need to study X (e.g spearman's rank), however it was on the paper. I looked at that paper and it was very much a math stats paper than any biology. For this reason, I extend my sympathies to the AQA students.

    I very much enjoy a challenge, but if the paper did not have much relevance to the bulk of biology I studied over so many months, I would feel very frustrated and angry for not being properly tested on my biological knowledge.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sorry, but the students just have to grow up, they will be going to university soon, stop crying... by the way it is all in the spec, I sat the same exam. It's called "How Science Works" which is specifically mentioned in the spec.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HotCoco.)
    Some students say that the spec clearly stated there is no need to study X (e.g spearman's rank), however it was on the paper. I looked at that paper and it was very much a math stats paper than any biology. For this reason, I extend my sympathies to the AQA students.
    for what can only be the 10th time..

    the spec clearly says you need to know the APPLICATION of statistical tests, the question is asking ABOUT the application of statistical tests...NOT about spearmans rank!!!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by resortini)
    I'm sorry, but the students just have to grow up, they will be going to university soon, stop crying... by the way it is all in the spec, I sat the same exam. It's called "How Science Works" which is specifically mentioned in the spec.

    I do do a mini internal 'lol' everytime i read someone saying 'they've robbed me of my university place'
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by HotCoco.)
    Some students say that the spec clearly stated there is no need to study X (e.g spearman's rank), however it was on the paper. I looked at that paper and it was very much a math stats paper than any biology. For this reason, I extend my sympathies to the AQA students.
    Actually it says you will not need to know the theory behind it but you will be required to use and apply it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The exam was not that hard, lets just face the facts- these guys are not grown up enough, they really need to act like 17 and 18 year olds, everyone at my school said it was okay, maybe their teachers told them otherwise at their own schools. It's not all about learning stuff off by heart, it's about applying your knowledge at the end of the day.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vas876)
    Actually it says you will not need to know the theory behind it but you will be required to use and apply it.
    who cares? it is just common sense at the end of the day... lol Is it that hard to answer a few questions about a statistical test, even if you have never learnt if before, what else is it going to be used for apart from showing whether things are due to chance or not, or whatever??? They wouldn't be complaining if they;d revised enough for it and answered the other 95% of the paper right, which was knowledge clearly expected of them to know...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    It wasn't unknown, it was in the specification..they probably were taught it, and learnt it but didn't have the capacity to take what they've learnt and apply it in a different setting - this is what learning, and being an adult learner is about
    Im sure this has been covered many times but i'll say it anyway.

    You're wrong.

    [/thread]
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    I do do a mini internal 'lol' everytime i read someone saying 'they've robbed me of my university place'
    It's true for some people there furute depends on these exams, I thought the paper was unfair, and all I need is low C's in all my exams this year to get 3 A's and I'm complaining, think about those people who worked hard sacrificied their time to get to uni and got that paper.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Just read the paper, what's all the fuss about?

    You basically just have to apply the knowledge that you'd learnt as opposed to just regurgitating it. Surely that's a good thing?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Guys, this is so immature, some of you are arguing when you didnt sit the paper and in my opinion if you had an exam in which it was very important that you achieved an A, then youd be disappointed if the paper wasnt really what you expected.
    I think people are a little over reacting, i answered all the questions i just think that they missed too much of the actual biology to be a biology paper, 30% how science works is fine, 70% is a little over the top, either way i was just disappointed as i revised my arse of and the ones that didnt stood just as much chance to me due to the lack of bio related questions on the paper.
    It might not be as bad as saying its buggered up my plans for uni, but it does mean i might have to retake which is annoying when i already have enough exams in the summer
    Either way we all have to accept it anyways, but shame lowering the grade boundaries still wont help as much as if the paper was better written, anyways just my personal opinion
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    I do do a mini internal 'lol' everytime i read someone saying 'they've robbed me of my university place'
    This I agree is an over-exaggeration. There is always a June resit. But what I am getting at is the annoyance of spending considerable months in the run up to exams and not getting assessed in topics you expect to come up in some shape or form. I wouldn't call interpreting graphs that mind-boggling. Exam papers are not perfect, I've sat some papers where the grammar is wrong and where questions were removed because they were too vague.

    AQA will probably lower the grade bounderies or remove certain questions (or do nothing!) which is annoying for me because if I'm taking OCR and the bounderies remain the same, someone on AQA could be getting a better grade for a similar percentage score.

    Anyway If one has not taken the exam it's hard for them to pass a fair judgement of the students who did! I recall a documentry a year or two ago where examiners sat an O-level paper due to controversy about the exams being too easy, and If I remember correctly they all failed, which just goes to show. :p:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vas876)
    (I retook the OCR biology legacy paper on Monday, and as they knew it was being taken by people who have completed their A Levels, they took liberties with the questions)
    The legacy OCR Biology course was perfectly fine.

    Yes, the applications can be a bit strange at times but they are often interesting to come across (especially when not in exam conditions).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Also, I'd like to note that I'm not "struggling in my first semester at uni" :ta: I'm actually finding it much much easier compared to A Levels.

    I am spamming up the thread with crap. I did the old specification, on exam boards which don't **** up things, and for well respected A Levels.
 
 
 
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
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

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.