Chemistry build up and aftermath

Killaqueen!!!

I hate you smart boardsie people ya all seemed to have done really well in chemistry :mad: lol

I thought it was really hard

aine-maire

Killaqueen!!! wrote: »

I hate you smart boardsie people ya all seemed to have done really well in chemistry :mad: lol

I thought it was really hard

You're a boardsie too!;)

Well I'm sure you found some subjects easy that other people found really difficult.
And for the record, the paper was not easy...!

OxfordComma

aine-maire wrote: »

You're a boardsie too!;)

Well I'm sure you found some subjects easy that other people found really difficult.
And for the record, the paper was not easy...!

Agreed. It's starting to worry me how people keep saying it was easy... It was fairly tough in places! And there seems to be a lot of confusion regarding certain questions...

rainbowtrout

Des23 wrote: »

I don't know, I'd say you could nearly get away with it.

I mean all it is is a benzene ring with an aldehyde functional group attached so I think Banzanal should be acceptable..

No, organic chemistry has a strict naming nomenclature. The chemical is called benzaldehyde and that will be the only acceptable answer. They might also accept the older non IUPAC names Benzoic aldehyde or Phenylmethanal..... but made up names like benzanal will not be accepted.

Also marks in chemistry are given out in 3s normally unless otherwise stated on the marking scheme. So it's a right or wrong, 3 or zero, no 1s or 2s given out.

aine-maire

rainbowtrout wrote: »

No, organic chemistry has a strict naming nomenclature. The chemical is called benzaldehyde and that will be the only acceptable answer. They might also accept the older non IUPAC names Benzoic aldehyde or Phenylmethanal..... but made up names like benzanal will not be accepted.

Also marks in chemistry are given out in 3s normally unless otherwise stated on the marking scheme. So it's a right or wrong, 3 or zero, no 1s or 2s given out.

Way to burst my bubble there

rainbowtrout

aine-maire wrote: »

Way to burst my bubble there

May as well bring you down to earth with a bang instead of a small bump! :pac:

Des23

rainbowtrout wrote: »

May as well bring you down to earth with a bang instead of a small bump! :pac:

Would I be right in assuming your a teacher? or do you just know a lot about chemistry?

If the former is the case, what did you think of the paper?

rainbowtrout

Des23 wrote: »

Would I be right in assuming your a teacher? or do you just know a lot about chemistry?

If the former is the case, what did you think of the paper?

Well spotted, yes I'm a chemistry teacher. I thought the paper was fair, one of the nicer ones in the last few years, easier to pass than previous years but with a few things thrown in to separate out the top students from the average students.

I think while the anion experiment on first reading looked easy enough, and to be fair it was fairly straightforward, I can see a lot of students getting the chemicals mixed up as only the formulas were given (eg sulphite and sulphate). Thought the other two experiments were straightforward enough.


Q5 Atomic Theory was nice, no surprises there.

Q6. The kerosene fractions question possibly threw a few people having to figure out the third fraction as heptane and give the octane number.

The benzaldehyde question has been mentioned already, I have a feeling there will be a few that will write down eugenol because of the clove oil experiment and not because of the logic needed to answer the question

There wasn't too much else that caught my attention. Perhaps the catalyst question with the platinum wire but that's about all. It was a fair paper I think.

Des23

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you. I would think that it probably would be a bit easier to get a B or so, but I do think there was enough small bits in there that required a bit more in depth knowledge.

Out of interest if this was, hypothetically, an easier paper, how much would they leave the % of top grades go up before they get to adjusting marking schemes, to bring things back to the levels of previous years?

Or does that happen to the extent that us students believe?

Des23

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you. I would think that it probably would be a bit easier to get a B or so, but I do think there was enough small bits in there that required a bit more in depth knowledge.

Out of interest if this was, hypothetically, an easier paper, how much would they leave the % of top grades go up before they get to adjusting marking schemes, to bring things back to the levels of previous years?

Or does that happen to the extent that us students believe?

Fair play to you as well actually, I think this place could be far more beneficial if more teachers were around, for advice and stuff... although the risk would then be run it would lose its identity as a place for students.

I would feel that people like you and MathsManiac (whether he is a teacher or not I don't know) definitely make this place better for the students.

rainbowtrout

Des23 wrote: »

Yeah, I'd have to agree with you. I would think that it probably would be a bit easier to get a B or so, but I do think there was enough small bits in there that required a bit more in depth knowledge.

Out of interest if this was, hypothetically, an easier paper, how much would they leave the % of top grades go up before they get to adjusting marking schemes, to bring things back to the levels of previous years?

Or does that happen to the extent that us students believe?

Fair play to you as well actually, I think this place could be far more beneficial if more teachers were around, for advice and stuff... although the risk would then be run it would lose its identity as a place for students.

I would feel that people like you and MathsManiac (whether he is a teacher or not I don't know) definitely make this place better for the students.

There are a few teachers that post here, but they are mainly to be found on the teaching and lecturing forum. You're right it is a place for students, but I often see a post on something and there can be a lot of confusion and misinformation so I'll post what is correct and MathsManiac(a former teacher I think) and many other teachers would do the same, especially if it is something written in stone such as the way marks are allocated for practical projects, CAO requirements etc etc.

I can't comment on the chemistry marking scheme and adjustment of grades, but marking schemes can be adjusted in all subjects. I'm not saying they are adjusted in all subjects every year, sometimes there is no need, but there is room in all subjects to adjust as needed, up or down as the case may be.

I wouldn't like to comment percentage wise but the Dept do like the % of grades to largely be in line from year to year. A large discrepancy either way may be a reflection that a paper was pitched too easy or too hard in a given year. 1 or 2% either way isn't going to matter from year to year though.

Sometimes there is very little leeway in a marking scheme for adjustment especially in maths and sciences where things tend to be right or wrong.

To give an example: if there was a year where everyone was scoring highly and one of the answers in chem or science was a colour change/indicator, it might be the case that only 'brick red' would be an acceptable answer so half the country aren't getting A's as that is not reflective of the population as a whole, on the other hand if the paper was made way too hard and there were a large no of fails it might be the case that 'red' or 'reddish-brown' or 'orange' might be an acceptable answer to the same question to allow students to gain extra marks. And so on through a marking scheme. Or in a question where it says 'Give three reasons for....' it might be the case that there are ten marks going for it 4,3,3 it might have to be changed to say 5,4,1 if students are scoring poorly so a student would score 9/10 bringing up marks instead of 7/10. The reverse can happen too of course.

Of course there is nothing you can do for a student who leaves blank spaces. I always tell my students to write something down, it might just get them a few marks no matter how silly they think it is at the time.

Having said all that, grades don't deviate too wildly it's not like there will be 20% of students getting an A in chemistry one year and 5% the next year.

Crystler

rainbowtrout wrote: »

No, organic chemistry has a strict naming nomenclature. The chemical is called benzaldehyde and that will be the only acceptable answer. They might also accept the older non IUPAC names Benzoic aldehyde or Phenylmethanal..... but made up names like benzanal will not be accepted.

Also marks in chemistry are given out in 3s normally unless otherwise stated on the marking scheme. So it's a right or wrong, 3 or zero, no 1s or 2s given out.

Is this in regard to the compound found in the clove oil (or organic compound, question i vaugley remember) Can you not also call it eugenol?... because I learnt it by that name instead of the benzanal :S... because eugenol(I went about it in the experiment way the extration of clove oil, was this wrong?) is a benzene ring structure and has a methyl compound attached to it i think... or I could be confused and it might just be an alcohol... but just want to be sure, I've been bugging my chemistry teacher too much. Granted I need the points from this subject and it's what I regard to be my favourite and best subject, but I don't want to dissapoint my teacher also... so ya pressure to get this organic chem right! because it's my best topic

(NOTE: to any 5th years or lower... don't rush through the chemistry paper, take the allotted time to do each question (22.5mins each) and just don't speed through it just cause you can... you will drop points left right and centre... like I might have)

aine-maire

Crystler wrote: »

Is this in regard to the compound found in the clove oil (or organic compound, question i vaugley remember) Can you not also call it eugenol?... because I learnt it by that name instead of the benzanal :S... because eugenol(I went about it in the experiment way the extration of clove oil, was this wrong?) is a benzene ring structure and has a methyl compound attached to it i think...

I don't recall eugenol being on the paper at all. I was referring to the question where they asked for the aldehyde found in almond kernels...
What question did they ask about clove oil?

Are you mixed up?

rainbowtrout

Crystler wrote: »

Is this in regard to the compound found in the clove oil (or organic compound, question i vaugley remember) Can you not also call it eugenol?... because I learnt it by that name instead of the benzanal :S... because eugenol(I went about it in the experiment way the extration of clove oil, was this wrong?) is a benzene ring structure and has a methyl compound attached to it i think... or I could be confused and it might just be an alcohol... but just want to be sure, I've been bugging my chemistry teacher too much. Granted I need the points from this subject and it's what I regard to be my favourite and best subject, but I don't want to dissapoint my teacher also... so ya pressure to get this organic chem right! because it's my best topic

(NOTE: to any 5th years or lower... don't rush through the chemistry paper, take the allotted time to do each question (22.5mins each) and just don't speed through it just cause you can... you will drop points left right and centre... like I might have)

This is the point I was making in another post. Eugenol and Benzaldehyde are not the same chemical. They are completely different, but because of the way the question was asked 'aromatic compound used in flavouring' some students probably did write eugenol as it's the first one that comes to mind because of the clove oil experiment. You are right in saying eugenol has an alcohol functional group, but this question asked for an aromatic compound, so it had to have a benzene ring and it had to have the same functional group as compound B on the paper which was an aldehyde, hence benzaldeyde. The clove oil experiment did not appear anywhere on this year's paper.

JSK 252

rainbowtrout wrote: »

There wasn't too much else that caught my attention. Perhaps the catalyst question with the platinum wire but that's about all. It was a fair paper I think.

The platinum wire experiment is nowhere to be found in Chemistry Live! but can be found in Declan Kennedy's Rapid Revision book where even in that case it doesnt give enough details required by the syllabus. This is rediculous in my opinion.

Also regarding the rates of reaction chapter there is another discrepancy. There are no clear diagrams for exothermic or endothermic reactions ( this can only be found in.......... you guessed it!..... his rapid revision book ) nor does it tell the correct way to calculate the exact time for the start of the reaction to produce oxygen or placing it on the neck of the conical flask horizontally. There is no mention of putting manganese dioxide in a test tube and then tilting it so that it makes contact with the h2o2. This diagram is only available in rapid revision book!

Basically my advice to future 6th years is that the rate of reaction chapter in chmeistry live is badly done!

rainbowtrout

JSK 252 wrote: »

The platinum wire experiment is nowhere to be found in Chemistry Live! but can be found in Declan Kennedy's Rapid Revision book where even in that case it doesnt give enough details required by the syllabus. This is rediculous in my opinion.

Also regarding the rates of reaction chapter there is another discrepancy. There are no clear diagrams for exothermic or endothermic reactions ( this can only be found in.......... you guessed it!..... his rapid revision book ) nor does it tell the correct way to calculate the exact time for the start of the reaction to produce oxygen or placing it on the neck of the conical flask horizontally. There is no mention of putting manganese dioxide in a test tube and then tilting it so that it makes contact with the h2o2. This diagram is only available in rapid revision book!

Basically my advice to future 6th years is that the rate of reaction chapter in chmeistry live is badly done!

Actually there is a photo and description of the Pt wire experiment in Chemisty Live in the Rates of Reaction chapter. It's on the page with the photo of the iodine snake, but this tends to grab most peoples attention. It's in the section on homegeneous/heterogenous/auto catalysis


What you need to consider is that the Dept of Education don't produce these books. They are produced by publishers who are out to make profit and enlist teachers and lecturers to write the books, hence the variety of books and the variance in quality. A book is an interpretation of the syllabus. It is NOT the syllabus. So a reaction of 'that's not fair, it's not in my book' is met with 'it's on the syllabus and that's what's being examined'

Personally I think Chemistry Live is quite a good book and aside from the discrepancy in the diagram for the Decomposition of hydrogen peroxide experiment I don't have any problems with it. I tell my students every year to alter that diagram myself. I have no idea what it looks like in the RR book, I've never used it.

Plenty of students have been getting A1s with that book since it came out so I don't think the book is largely to blame. If you have a look at this years paper you will see a couple of things that were put on it which could have been easily overlooked by students revising. the platinum wire experiment was one and the benzaldehyde question was another. Actually I would go so far as to argue that the paper was heavily biased towards Chemistry Live as the diagrams are very similar and it could be a student who doesn't study from that book that is at a disadvantage

phasers

I had a book called "understanding chemistry"... Now that's an awful book. It over complicated everything imo

JSK 252

rainbowtrout wrote: »

Actually there is a photo and description of the Pt wire experiment in Chemisty Live in the Rates of Reaction chapter. It's on the page with the photo of the iodine snake, but this tends to grab most peoples attention. It's in the section on homegeneous/heterogenous/auto catalysis


What you need to consider is that the Dept of Education don't produce these books. They are produced by publishers who are out to make profit and enlist teachers and lecturers to write the books, hence the variety of books and the variance in quality. A book is an interpretation of the syllabus. It is NOT the syllabus. So a reaction of 'that's not fair, it's not in my book' is met with 'it's on the syllabus and that's what's being examined'

Personally I think Chemistry Live is quite a good book and aside from the discrepancy in the diagram for the Decomposition of hydrogen peroxide experiment I don't have any problems with it. I tell my students every year to alter that diagram myself. I have no idea what it looks like in the RR book, I've never used it.

Plenty of students have been getting A1s with that book since it came out so I don't think the book is largely to blame. If you have a look at this years paper you will see a couple of things that were put on it which could have been easily overlooked by students revising. the platinum wire experiment was one and the benzaldehyde question was another. Actually I would go so far as to argue that the paper was heavily biased towards Chemistry Live as the diagrams are very similar and it could be a student who doesn't study from that book that is at a disadvantage

Jaysus you got me there with the platinum wire! but in fairness the main example used of homogenous catalysis is the iodine snake as it is counterused as an example to show the intermediate compound theory of catalysis. My teacher ( who is on maternity leave atm) when we did that chapter never did that experiment with us and talking to friends of mine who whos teachers like mine would be competent with the subject would not have covered the experiment in class but I could also understand the counter claim that students might not have done the iodine snake and may have done methanol instead!

This is only a small part of the course and I know that no book is perfect and didnt affect me adversely as I didnt have to choose the question in the exam, Im just putting it to the attention to students to be extremely careful with the question as its answered extremely badly which can be seen from the recent chief examiners report on the rates question.

JSK 252

Another question how many marks would be rewarded in the heats of formation question for writing the heats of formation for water and carbon dioxide? Im presuming 3?

eoins2345

I presume 3 for playing with and balancing each equations.Then 3 for the final equation and then 3 delta H ting!come on -10!

ironclaw

Folks, its summer, its over. Stop discussing it. No amount of post mortem is going to change anything. Just leave it. Move on... :rolleyes:

mikeglee

yeah i thought it went well....:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

JSK 252

Thank god my **** up of the heats of formation question didnt screw me over in getting an A1.:pac:

mikeglee

JSK 252 wrote: »

Thank god my **** up of the heats of formation question didnt screw me over in getting an A1.:pac:

Congratulations......an A1 in chemistry for me would be like getting 600 points:D

JSK 252

mikeglee wrote: »

Congratulations......an A1 in chemistry for me would be like getting 600 points:D

Thanks! How did you get on yourself? I see you started this thread in the first place!

ohthebaby

I couldn't even look at this thread after the exam. I was so convinced i totally messed it up.


But I got my A1!

Mr.Helpful

Got an A1 in OL chem!!! Over the moon thought I'd just barely scrape an A2 so extremely happy!

mikeglee

JSK 252 wrote: »

Thanks! How did you get on yourself? I see you started this thread in the first place!

I switched to ordinary level at the last minute and got me an A2.....

Indeed I did start this thread.....I just thought I'd ressuredt it for old times sake

aine-maire

Wow,seeing this thread again brings back some memories...^^

Got my A1 anyway, thrilled!