Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    back in the day when i did a-levels, i had to do edexcel SNAB...now that exam is in a league of its own
    Edexcel are just ridiculous. >_< I've only had them for two exams, but I hate them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    I agree! :yep:

    I got loads of neg rep last night now everyone seems to be of a degree of agreement at some point
    Well I agree.

    It is people's responsibility to study and prepare for an exam themselves. For my A-Level subjects, I read, re-read, copied, noted, memorised everything I needed to learn for myself. The teacher's job was to introduced us, guide us and give us a rudimentary understanding of what we were supposed to study and revise. They didn't spoon feed us.

    These pupils struggled in the exam because they failed to study what they were supposed to study. As a meerkat would say, simples.

    Also, people negging you because they disagree with your opinion is pathetic. Don't worry about it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joseph90)
    Well I agree.

    It is people's responsibility to study and prepare for an exam themselves. For my A-Level subjects, I read, re-read, copied, noted, memorised everything I needed to learn for myself. The teacher's job was to introduced us, guide us and give us a rudimentary understanding of what we were supposed to study and revise. They didn't spoon feed us.

    These pupils struggled in the exam because they failed to study what they were supposed to study. As a meerkat would say, simples.

    Also, people negging you because they disagree with your opinion is pathetic. Don't worry about it.

    Oh dw i'm not fussed about rep! Its the same old clowns anyway.

    I'd urge anyone who's going to comment in this thread, to actually look at the exam paper themselves, have a quick scan of the specification- and then tell us what you think!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    Oh dw i'm not fussed about rep! Its the same old clowns anyway.

    I'd urge anyone who's going to comment in this thread, to actually look at the exam paper themselves, have a quick scan of the specification- and then tell us what you think!
    Is there a link to the exam in this thread somewhere? I'm not trudging through 9 pages to find it, you might want to link them both in your original post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    you didnt do the exam? you probably haven't read the spec?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I've edited the OP to show a link to the spec and also how to get hold of said exam paper
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrightGirl)
    ...did you even do the exam?
    No. But that hasn't stopped the OP from attacking those who did it, so I can't see why it should stop me from defending them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Playboy King)
    Having spoken to many biology students, they really thought this paper was just outrageously irrelevant and the board have said they'll be taking into account (translation: low grade boundaries).
    Yeah it was a joke...

    Aaah Superbad
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    The problem was that what they threw at us was totall unexpected, random and nnit trialled correctly as timing was all wrong.
    I wouldn't mind if they told us the paper is going to be all application in unfamilliar situations with knowledge examined from 2 areas if the spec. But when they expect you to learn concrete things so thorougly and don't test the spec you feel like you wasted your time.

    The problem is why make such a drastic change without training teachers helping students ti improve data handling skills. The paper was full of stats giving people doing some subjects an advantage. What is the point of having it all hsw if you already have the ISA devoted to it.

    The point about application is that most of it wasn't applying rather common sense and data analysis. Common sense should be tested but not with 1-2 mark questions which have specific answers. If you test it they should give mire marks and allow you to justify your suggestion to validate it.

    Even the senior examiners don't agree with the chief examiner on some of his answers as one teacher I know is going to challenge an answer, they are so open ended that when doing the exam you have many suggestion but can only pick one.

    Lastly, the paper didn't distinguish who was good at biology because it didn't test your understanding but rather your interpretation of data. What's the point of setting such papers and having so low grade boundaries like at gcse 1st year the trialled it 23/45 was an A* due to hsw question in which hardly anyone matched their answers to the examiners.
    At a-level phy and chem have introduced a few hsw which is fair and they actually need practical application of our knowledge. Whereas in bio it is just random.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Having read through the exam paper with the spec, it seems to touch on nearly all of the topics listed in the spec, but it can't be expected to have everything. Realistically it just seemed to be a fairly vague paper.

    Q8 on ATP, Energy transfer and food production (all of which are specifically listed in the spec).
    Q7 is a bit weird and vague.
    Q6 is on succession (in the spec)
    Q5 is in the spec - "The principle of limiting factors as applied to the effects of temperature, carbon dioxide concentration and light intensity on the rate of photosynthesis."
    Q4 is in the spec - "analyse and interpret data relating to the distribution of organisms, recognising correlations and causal relationships"
    Q3 is on the spec - "interpret growth curves, survival curves and age-population pyramids"
    Q2 is similar to Q5, just a bit more vague and asking more for common sense than science knowledge.
    Q1 is in the spec - "Geographic separation of populations of a species can result in the accumulation of difference in the gene pools."

    Its all in the spec really, its just most people found it a hard paper. Anyone who says only 1/8 questions was actually on biology is wrong. People just got taught badly it seems.
    Offline

    0
    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?
    Hard does not mean having to think outside the box........If they did six pages on the calvin cycle, it would probably be harder, and the complaints would be no way be as big as this......
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rubgish)
    Having read through the exam paper with the spec, it seems to touch on nearly all of the topics listed in the spec, but it can't be expected to have everything. Realistically it just seemed to be a fairly vague paper.

    Q8 on ATP, Energy transfer and food production (all of which are specifically listed in the spec).
    Q7 is a bit weird and vague.
    Q6 is on succession (in the spec)
    Q5 is in the spec - "The principle of limiting factors as applied to the effects of temperature, carbon dioxide concentration and light intensity on the rate of photosynthesis."
    Q4 is in the spec - "analyse and interpret data relating to the distribution of organisms, recognising correlations and causal relationships"
    Q3 is on the spec - "interpret growth curves, survival curves and age-population pyramids"
    Q2 is similar to Q5, just a bit more vague and asking more for common sense than science knowledge.
    Q1 is in the spec - "Geographic separation of populations of a species can result in the accumulation of difference in the gene pools."

    Its all in the spec really, its just most people found it a hard paper. Anyone who says only 1/8 questions was actually on biology is wrong. People just got taught badly it seems.

    Q7 is just a question about research methods, and applying it to an example of an investigation
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revolution is my Name)
    No. But that hasn't stopped the OP from attacking those who did it, so I can't see why it should stop me from defending them.

    it's not an attack, please grow up and learn the difference between and 'attack' and criticising a campaign which in my opinion has no valid evidence for complaint
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    If they replaced 7 for a genetics one it would be alright. The problem is that hard work should to some degree correlate with success and that paper didn't allow it. The main problem was timing to short to enable people to handle application. All the question took time to answer as you had to carefully think about it and the exam didn't give enough time. Also the common sense element didn't allow expansion on answers.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    If it specifically said that a certain part would not be covered in the exam and then it does actually come up, then students have a right to be pissed off.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I remember getting frustrated when my A-level Biology had god knows how many marks on coppicing and pollarding - something in the silabus that we had learned, but deemed such a pointless and insignificant part of the subject no one revisied it.

    I can understand this whole "reading arround the subject" in degree, where generally you will have a very specific course, for instance "cell biology" or something where you can go read books on that, but in A-level to read arround just "biology" seems stupid - the scope is just too big.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    It's all covered, just that the module is heavily ecology/population based and unlike the other 5 modules where you need to be more technical.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    There is one thign in a school or two teaching their students the wrong stuff. Its another matter when its widespread all over the country.

    Obviously something has gone amis and seemingly it is the exam boards fault
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by afridi10)
    If they replaced 7 for a genetics one it would be alright. The problem is that hard work should to some degree correlate with success and that paper didn't allow it. The main problem was timing to short to enable people to handle application. All the question took time to answer as you had to carefully think about it and the exam didn't give enough time. Also the common sense element didn't allow expansion on answers.

    isn't asking questions about natural selection a part of genetics?

    it's easy to say that all exams don't have enough time however, I found all my a-level exams didn't have enough time avaliable to me that i felt comfortable with- it's not an uncommon complaint
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Subcutaneous)
    it's not an attack, please grow up and learn the difference between and 'attack' and criticising a campaign which in my opinion has no valid evidence for complaint
    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.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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
The home of Results and Clearing

3,145

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
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.