The Student Room Group

Can someone please explain factoring quadratic equations?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Original post by Muttley79
Long division? No, that is a route to madness as it's never needed even at A level

Polynomial long division is in the OCR A, OCR B MEI, Edexcel and AQA Mathematics Advanced Level specifications - please get your facts checked before you provide information on here.
Reply 61
Original post by Muttley79
You misquote me - where did I say it wasn/t on the spec and we are discussing GCSE factorising wherer it certiainly isn't.
I said it wasn't needed - every question can be done without using it! Post a question requiring it please?

'It's never needed even at A Level'

I have got questions last year that were from MEI past papers as extensions that required the use of polynomial long division to factorise cubics, so using factor theorem as working wouldn't work.

An example: Use long division to find the quotient and the remainder when x3+3x2+5x-3 is divided by x + 1. Pretty simple either way. Answer in case you need it: x2 + 2x + 3 and remainder of -6
Reply 62
'It's never needed even at A Level'
I have got questions last year that were from MEI past papers as extensions that required the use of polynomial long division to factorise cubics, so using factor theorem as working wouldn't work.
An example: Use long division to find the quotient and the remainder when x3+3x2+5x-3 is divided by x + 1. Pretty simple either way. Answer in case you need it: x2 + 2x + 3 and remainder of -6

I'm just confused at this point, I have no idea what anyone is talking about i know I say I'll leave but it makes me really sad people are still arguing.
'It's never needed even at A Level'
I have got questions last year that were from MEI past papers as extensions that required the use of polynomial long division to factorise cubics, so using factor theorem as working wouldn't work.
An example: Use long division to find the quotient and the remainder when x3+3x2+5x-3 is divided by x + 1. Pretty simple either way. Answer in case you need it: x2 + 2x + 3 and remainder of -6
Show me the paper that question is on - they cannot specifiy a method like that since the new spec.
Original post by EeveeSAMA
I'm just confused at this point, I have no idea what anyone is talking about i know I say I'll leave but it makes me really sad people are still arguing.

It's a discussion ... not an argument
Original post by EeveeSAMA
I'm just confused at this point, I have no idea what anyone is talking about i know I say I'll leave but it makes me really sad people are still arguing.

Your comment is the one that renders me addled... all I see is but discussion, not a hint of arguement.
Reply 66
Original post by Mr_Pizza
Your comment is the one that renders me addled... all I see is but discussion, not a hint of arguement.

I tend to do that to people. Anyway bye.
Reply 67
Original post by Muttley79
Show me the paper that question is on - they cannot specifiy a method like that since the new spec.

Have a look at the OCR MEI specification before harassing me about it. Get you're facts straight - you're a teacher.
LOL I just read through this thread wondering why there are 74 posts about quadratics. So amusing to see 😂 Some people can't give it up. I'm very sorry @Mr_Pizza @EeveeSAMA @sdfj
Original post by Tryingtohelpout
LOL I just read through this thread wondering why there are 74 posts about quadratics. So amusing to see 😂 Some people can't give it up. I'm very sorry @Mr_Pizza @EeveeSAMA @sdfj
@EeveeSAMA, there's better parts to this site than Muttley and toxic arguments so I encourage you not to leave the site entirely. Report, don't engage, move in.

Please don't read if you think you'll get offended


Interesting... one of my posts here got declined? I didn't do anything wrong!
Don’t forget to make use of the block list for accounts you find consistently unhelpful.
Reply 71
Original post by Admit-One
Don’t forget to make use of the block list for accounts you find consistently unhelpful.

Ok thanks - I'll do that now
Original post by EeveeSAMA
I reported them saying they are angering people to making them leave (for urgency) so they actually do something.

I advise against this. Just move on, they're a frank & thorough teacher, someone who is supposed to be there to support you. It's best not to take action in the digital world against those who are lightly being hollow to you, in your times of desperate need. I re-read the whole post, and I find almost nothing wrong with it. He was simply trying to state things, which I can see might not please you, but the perspective was a completely different angle.
(Note: This message is to all and is to invoke not to create any conflict in any form, it only devolves.)
(edited 1 week ago)
Have a look at the OCR MEI specification before harassing me about it. Get you're facts straight - you're a teacher.

Again, where did I say it wasn't on the spec but you NEVER need to use the method. You can use grid method instead to get the answer - this has been run past the exam board btw.

Find an exam question that insists on long division set since 2017
Reply 74
Original post by Muttley79
Again, where did I say it wasn't on the spec but you NEVER need to use the method. You can use grid method instead to get the answer - this has been run past the exam board btw.
Find an exam question that insists on long division set since 2017


The question specifically asks for long division to be used - seen in the mark scheme too.

That question was in OCR and since 2017
The question specifically asks for long division to be used - seen in the mark scheme too.
That question was in OCR and since 2017

Which paper? I teach Edexcel btw and all boards agreed not to do this.
Reply 76
Original post by Muttley79
Which paper? I teach Edexcel btw and all boards agreed not to do this.


I found the question - it was actually a 2023 OCR FSMQ paper question. Mistook it for another question from MEI then.
I found the question - it was actually a 2023 OCR FSMQ paper question. Mistook it for another question from MEI then.

So not an A level paper ... so I was correct -
Reply 78
Original post by Muttley79
So not an A level paper ... so I was correct -

Still on the specification - so I was correct
Still on the specification - so I was correct

I never said it wasn't on the spec - point to the post where I said that? I said it wasn't needed which it isn't - of course I teach it but show the better approaches e.g. grid method.

Quick Reply