Advanced Higher Maths 2011-2012 : Discussion and Help

You already know the answer to that.

I'm not sure now. Upon reconsideration it's not as fast as I thought it would be and it does assume quite a bit of stuff that's not in the syllabus so it might be better if you don't get distracted by it

...

I've noticed the recent increase in snide comments directed at SQA and the course, and I'm going to call you out on it. I think much of it misplaced. I disagree with many of your opinions of the course content itself, but I at least recognize your intentions. However, I'm intrigued by the description of a method as 'nothing the uptight SQA would approve of'. To the best of my knowledge, any valid method is acceptable. Having occasionally applied extracurricular techniques at the time without ill effect, I'd be interested to hear if you have evidence that this is not the case.

I've noticed the recent increase in snide comments directed at SQA and the course, and I'm going to call you out on it. I think much of it misplaced. I disagree with many of your opinions of the course content itself, but I at least recognize your intentions. However, I'm intrigued by the description of a method as 'nothing the uptight SQA would approve of'. To the best of my knowledge, any valid method is acceptable. Having occasionally applied extracurricular techniques at the time without ill effect, I'd be interested to hear if you have evidence that this is not the case.

This is an approach I disagree with since it shows the exam is ultimately testing your ability to apply given methods. It's probably unrealistic for the system to change though, so maybe I'm just moaning.

Whilst I agree that's an unfortunate consequence, I don't immediately see any sensible way for it to be consistently remedied short of requiring every such case to be brought to a markers' meeting. Having said that, I think that 'testing your ability to apply given methods' is precisely what an exam should do, so I don't think there's much sense in taking that discussion any further.

Thanks for the explanation, though.

I sympathise with this.

No problem, it's always nice for someone to challenge your views and cause you to reflect them

If I was running the Maths part of SQA I would be tempted to set up an alternate/additional course on top of AH Maths with a looser syllabus, larger more integrated problems that demand some creativity to solve and marking that is based on "this guy is making some progress towards solving the problem and I can see where this is going so he should get some credit" as opposed to "he wrote down x which deserves 1 mark according to the marking scheme". So something that is STEP-style but probably not as hard. It will of coursed be labelled "for the best students/people considering doing maths at uni only" and this should counteract the more demanding marking the course would require. I just feel that the state should do more to cater for those with a very high aptitude for maths and especially promote independent thought and creativity amongst them. Instead now you have a course that is very good at hitting the middle case but leaves people like Jordan unfulfilled and I think a bit unchallenged.

The whole thing is probably just an unrealistic rant but one can dream



Thanks

Agreed, that'd be bloody brilliant. I would (and I'm sure most of the folks in this thread would too) love that. But I guess that's what uni is for!

Also, not quite so sure I have a "very high aptitude" for maths... though I do appreciate the complement nonetheless.

It is more similar to what a uni education is like but if more and more of the pupil population is amenable to it at a younger age then that's only a good thing and the state should move to accommodate. I am willing to bet that this is the most prevalent in maths currently but ideally this should happen for any subject where the number of high-achievers has become significant.

Better than me anyway, at your age I wasn't learning what you are learning

For example... the determinant in a matrix or something. I (believe) it can basically be thought of as the volume of its columns if you were to draw them out and connect them all up... and that's why a matrix that has no inverse has a determinant of 0.

Then how do you explain determinants of 4x4 (or larger) matrices?

I'm not sure now. Upon reconsideration it's not as fast as I thought it would be and it does assume quite a bit of stuff that's not in the syllabus so it might be better if you don't get distracted by it

Guess I'll just have to learn to do the current method a bit faster then. haha

Whilst on the subject of acceptable methods, do you HAVE to use the sigma method in binomial theorem or can you just use pascals triangle?

No you have to do the binomial theorem I think. And for the questions where it just wants one coefficient you aren't allowed to expand out all the brackets, you have to do it by finding what r would be for that x term and yeah. I've seen it specifically mentioned in marking schemes that you can only do that. So..

See, I've spent two years thinking the binomial theorem was this:


(x + y)^4 = (x)^4 + 4(x)^3(y) + 6(x)^2(y)^2 + 4(x)(y)^3 + (y)^4

Have you not been taught it?

That's is there (if you can read it, silly picture is really small).