Answers too specific!

Seloth

My bio teacher told me that saying organisms instead of plants and animals for questions like on the eco system would be corrected as wrong,despite the fact is says organisms in the book and the rev books.Even though its technically right it would be makred wrong as the marking scheme changes every year so pretty much our books are wrong.She said in the paper the year before last it would have been accepted but then this year it wouldnt have.

Its tottaly ridiculouse,why dont they just set out a standerd book instead of have a million with diffrent awnsers.

trad

Good luck with English as well.

Seloth

sigh to the grammer Nazi

I wonder why people never assume Dyslexia or one of its many brothers these days.

Or if it wanst ment in a hurtfelt stabbing way then that is an exception as English isnt as straightly laid out as biology should be.

Lawliet

Its similar in chemistry for the colour change in titration's, some years they'll except orange to red (which is what it says in the textbook) other years it only accepts yellow to pink (which is what it says in the revision book). I don't know how they expect us to know the answer when they keep changing it.

trad

Seloth wrote: »

sigh to the grammer Nazi

I wonder why people never assume Dyslexia or one of its many brothers these days.

Or if it wanst ment in a hurtfelt stabbing way then that is an exception as English isnt as straightly laid out as biology should be.

I just despair at the lack of grammar, ability to spell and lack of punctuation of the younger generation. If they can't master their everyday language or use it with no attention to detail how can they ever expect to master complex subjects. Yes I'm old and a fuddy duddy but I was taught proper.

Seloth

Anyway...

Hopfully they will come to realised this this year.Multiple awsners sould be in place as come on,how are we ment to study when someone says one tihng and another says...well another.

Bigdeadlydave

What I usually do is write both. Say organisms(plants and animals) blah blah blah....
Simple
I do it all the time in history and when I use Latin in my English tests.

Seloth

Yeah but history is more open then bio.Any historical information added will give you a mark,even if not mentioned on the course.

Bigdeadlydave

I suppose, but when in doubt, write both.

SligoBrewer

Seloth wrote: »

sigh to the grammer Nazi

jumpguy

Anyway, on my sheet the teacher gave out she used "plants and animals" all the time. I wasn't sure why but I guess this explains it. I'd say use plants and animals, surely there'd be no confusion then.

randylonghorn

trad wrote: »

Good luck with English as well.

Leave it out, please ...

trad wrote: »

I just despair at the lack of grammar, ability to spell and lack of punctuation of the younger generation. If they can't master their everyday language or use it with no any attention to detail, how can they ever expect to master complex subjects? Yes, I'm old and a fuddy duddy but I was taught properly.

... no-one likes having their grammar corrected by others in an informal milieu.

It's one thing if the post is incomprehensible or packed with txtspit, but once the poster is easily understood it's hardly the end of the world.

Fire_with_fire

But in regards to the actual concerns, I get ya! I'm in the same scenario! The rule of thumb for me is to just do what most people were saying and give the most comprehensive answer possible - Especially in chemistry with things like colour-changes in volumetric analysis or even when dealing with the 4th year/ early 5th year stuff with the IMFs, bonding, history of chemistry, trends, periodic tables and such. They tend to be selectively picky from year to year on them!

I guess with your biology situation it's similar, organisms is a broad term, animals and plants is a slightly more detailed term - give the most comprehensive answer possible, don't hide knowledge in the exam!

Piste

trad wrote: »

I just despair at the lack of grammar, ability to spell and lack of punctuation of the younger generation. If they can't master their everyday language or use it with no attention to detail how can they ever expect to master complex subjects. Yes I'm old and a fuddy duddy but I was taught proper.

Get a blog.


Ooooh the OP left out a apostrophe! build a bridge ffs. Don't de-rail the thread with you're whinging.

Seriously, I'll infract anyone who keeps on with the grammer and Spelling nazi-ism.

spurious

The syllabus is the only indicator as to the course to be followed for the examination. Do not trust any textbook as having accurate or even relevant material (though most have).

EL_Loco

I'd just like to point out, that when I was doing my leaving cert our history teacher told us that the arguement arose when another teacher produced a badly written answer, as in, the handwriting, grammar and spelling, as to whether it was a good "history" answer or not.

on one side, it's a history exam, not english, but on the other it gave off a poor impression of the candidate.

to sum up, grammar and spelling shouldn't matter but it can't but impact on the person correcting your paper. So, it does matter. Maybe not here on the internet forums but for your leaving cert exam.

Fire_with_fire

That's true! The textbooks only expand on the syllabus really... Like stating the definitions that the syllabus requires etc.

clartharlear

Seloth wrote: »

My bio teacher told me that saying organisms instead of plants and animals

But organisms is LESS specific than plants and animals.

Lawliet wrote: »

Its similar in chemistry for the colour change in titration's, some years they'll except orange to red (which is what it says in the textbook) other years it only accepts yellow to pink (which is what it says in the revision book). I don't know how they expect us to know the answer when they keep changing it.

From the marking schemes:
The detail required in any answer is determined by the context and manner in whic h the question is asked and also by the number of marks assigned to the answer in the examination paper. Therefore, in any instance, it may vary from year to year.

Bigdeadlydave wrote: »

What I usually do is write both.

Unless otherwise indicated in the scheme, accept the best of two or more attempts – even when attempts have been cancelled.

Lawliet

clartharlear wrote: »

From the marking schemes:
The detail required in any answer is determined by the context and manner in whic h the question is asked and also by the number of marks assigned to the answer in the examination paper. Therefore, in any instance, it may vary from year to year.

In chemistry the questions and answers are very specific, for the titration question (which is what I'm talking about) they're nearly always phrased in the exact same way and they only want a two word answer. It not that the level of detail they expect has changed, it's that they seem to change the actual answer every so often.
For instance in the OL 09 paper the colour change was: orange (yellow) to red, they wouldn't have accepted pink as an answer here, but in 2007 you would have gotten full marks for saying pink.
Same question, slightly different answers.

clartharlear

2009: methyl orange. orange (yellow) to red (accept peach)

2007: Methyl orange. Yellow to orange (peach or pink or red)

That's bizarre alright. Thank goodness I don't do chemistry!


They do say though that "The descriptions, methods and definitions in the scheme are not exhaustive and alternative valid
answers are acceptable." If I was looking for peach, and I saw pink, unless I had a dulux colour chart with me, I'd probably accept it.

Claypigeon

Seloth wrote: »

sigh to the grammer Nazi

I wonder why people never assume Dyslexia or one of its many brothers these days.

Or if it wanst ment in a hurtfelt stabbing way then that is an exception as English isnt as straightly laid out as biology should be.

Because the rates of dyslexia and assorted disorders aren't quite as high as the rates of lazy people who were never encouraged to learn English properly, one would assume