* Biology Higher level 2011 * (one thread please)

Phareon

Don't mean to intrude, but aren't there other threads for posting when you're finished?!
I've got Phys, Chem, and ApM left!!

So that I'm not totally off-topic; I was really happy with my Biology exam, and am confident of a good result! Can't wait for August!

B_Fanatic

Phareon wrote: »

Don't mean to intrude, but aren't there other threads for posting when you're finished?!
I've got Phys, Chem, and ApM left!!

So that I'm not totally off-topic; I was really happy with my Biology exam, and am confident of a good result! Can't wait for August!

Me neither. I'm glad I have a massive ego! It means I enjoy tests of my ability! Unfortunately I'll also turn into a big sulky mess if I screw this up... Meh!

Geog ariphic

partyatmygaff wrote: »

1:1:1:1 with each combination of the two traits being present.

With no red flowers - white short, w Tall, pink s, p T

Geog ariphic

Phareon wrote: »

Also, before I forget, what did all you guys say for the scientist responsible for the Theory of Evolution? I thought I'd be a rebel, and said Alfred Wallace, since most people would say Darwin!!!

I went for the nerdiest answer of all: I said Darwin BUT, wrote a note after explaining why Wallace cannot legitimately claim any credit or 'responsibility' for the Theory (he just thought of over a few days, revolving arounding survival of fittest, no research or evidence, whereas Darwin did years of research and gathered as much evidence as he possibly could). His book would've been a whole lot more complete if he didn't have to rush it cos Wallace was 'inspired' and started talking about it.

PJelly

Geog ariphic wrote: »

I went for the nerdiest answer of all: I said Darwin BUT, wrote a note after explaining why Wallace cannot legitimately claim any credit or 'responsibility' for the Theory (he just thought of over a few days, revolving arounding survival of fittest, no research or evidence, whereas Darwin did years of research and gathered as much evidence as he possibly could). His book would've been a whole lot more complete if he didn't have to rush it cos Wallace was 'inspired' and started talking about it.

You really earned them 2/3 marks

Joseph...

Biology the old unpredictable just forget bout how ye did guys and concentrate on next exam!

Alibear

Geog ariphic wrote: »

With no red flowers - white short, w Tall, pink s, p T

No marks for "Red OR White, long stem" etc.?

YodaBoy

I'm sickened with that exam! :mad: biology has always been my best subject and I needed an A1 for points....then they threw in that stupid ecology question! My dad could answer it as well as I could cos it's only common sense, no study needed so the wasters who did nothing for the exam could just as easily get it right!! Me, I got scared of it cos I thought the marking scheme would be exact and would require a factual answer which I could never be sure of so I did a different question (badly). Turns out everyone thinks they'll give the marks for good attempts so I could have answered it well! now I think iv missed out on the grade and it could cost me my place! Why can't they just reward those people who worked by asking questions on the course we have studied and not throw marks at those who just chanced it!??

partyatmygaff

Alibear wrote: »

No marks for "Red OR White, long stem" etc.?

Definitely not. Where there is incomplete dominance and one parent is homozygous white and the other heterozygous pink there is no chance of a red flower.

YodaBoy wrote: »

I'm sickened with that exam! :mad: biology has always been my best subject and I needed an A1 for points....then they threw in that stupid ecology question! My dad could answer it as well as I could cos it's only common sense, no study needed so the wasters who did nothing for the exam could just as easily get it right!! Me, I got scared of it cos I thought the marking scheme would be exact and would require a factual answer which I could never be sure of so I did a different question (badly). Turns out everyone thinks they'll give the marks for good attempts so I could have answered it well! now I think iv missed out on the grade and it could cost me my place! Why can't they just reward those people who worked by asking questions on the course we have studied and not throw marks at those who just chanced it!??

Biology shouldn't be just "Read the book, memorise it word for word and regurgitate". It's a science and you need to be able to apply the knowledge you know and not just regurgitate the knowledge you know. I highly doubt anyone who just "chanced it" would have been able to answer that question. I'd say the question was deceptively easy. They asked for deductions and seeing as it's an ecology question i'd say that even one logical fallacy in your deductions would cause you to lose marks.

Platinum2010

YodaBoy wrote: »

the wasters who did nothing for the exam could just as easily get it right!!

Totally Agree , people in my year who dossed and failed their tests all year were the only people happy with that test

YodaBoy wrote: »

now I think iv missed out on the grade and it could cost me my place! Why can't they just reward those people who worked by asking questions on the course we have studied and not throw marks at those who just chanced it!??

See although I'm against cheating this type of thing would make you give up on morals totally .
To be fair there was a HUGE gap between Ordinary and Higher level this year

partyatmygaff

Platinum2010 wrote: »

Totally Agree , people in my year who dossed and failed their tests all year were the only people happy with that test

What?

The people who dossed all year more than likely would have followed the usual predictions of "human reproduction, ecology, genetics, photosynthesis and respiration" and would have suffered accordingly. The exam needed a wide range of knowledge from all of the previously less examined areas of the course.

See although I'm against cheating this type of thing would make you give up on morals totally .

An exam where you're being asked to do just a tad more than regurgitate reams of facts makes cheating OK? Eh, no.

flyaway.

I was happy with the exam and I worked like crazy for Biology for the last two years. I'm not good at Bio though... I simply can't learn all that stuff. I've spent countless hours studying it, doing exam papers, testing myself, getting others to test me, going over it again and again but it's just not something I find easy to remember. I liked the fact that it let me take my basic knowledge of the subject and apply it to situations rather than just being expected to put back down stuff I'd learned straight from a book. It felt like it was testing knowledge and understanding, rather than testing your ability to memorize a few hundred pages of stuff. I think that was the way a lot of the exams seemed to be going this year.

Geog ariphic

PJelly wrote: »

You really earned them 2/3 marks

You saying I lost a mark for nit-picking? I'm gonna kill you esse. GRRRRRR:mad:

Platinum2010

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What?

The people who dossed all year more than likely would have followed the usual predictions of "human reproduction, ecology, genetics, photosynthesis and respiration" and would have suffered accordingly. The exam needed a wide range of knowledge from all of the previously less examined areas of the course.

Biology is not like English or religion where you BS your way through so long as you know a few facts
A girl who got A1 in every single test for the last 2 years came out crying her eyes out compared to the girl in our class who hardly ever turned up

PJelly

Platinum2010 wrote: »

Biology is not like English or religion where you BS your way through so long as you know a few facts
A girl who got A1 in every single test for the last 2 years came out crying her eyes out compared to the girl in our class who hardly ever turned up

I suppose it almost highlighted the difference difference between book smart and intuition smart in that sense.
Some people who know the course inside out may struggle when asked to apply his/her biology knowledge to an abstract topic. While others who don't know the course quite as well, may easily be able to use what they do know to tackle non-course topic kinda stuff.
Example: THE DUCKS :eek:

Platinum2010

PJelly wrote: »

I suppose it almost highlighted the difference difference between book smart and intuition smart in that sense.

Example: THE DUCKS :eek:

Those Ducks lol I'm surprised there's not a facebook group about them tbh haha

As for The difference between book smart and intuitive smarts
You're right it shows the difference but isn't that what an IQ test is for ?

Geog ariphic

From the biology syllabus:

The aims of the syllabus are:
• to contribute to students' general education
through their involvement in the process of
scientific investigation and the acquisition of
biological knowledge and understanding
• to encourage in students an attitude of scientific
enquiry, of curiosity and self-discovery through
(i) individual study and personal initiative
(ii) team work
(iii) class-directed work
• to develop an understanding of biological facts
and principles
• to enhance an interest in and develop an
appreciation of the nature and diversity of
organisms
• to create an awareness of the application of
biological knowledge to modern society in
personal, social, economic, environmental,
industrial, agricultural, medical, waste
management and other technological contexts
• to develop in students an ability to make
informed evaluations about contemporary
biological issues.

So they were within their rights to that with ecology, and other parts.

(Unlike maths p1... *dark mutterings*)

Platinum2010

Fair enough they are within their rights! but common sense is not that common.

If you have someone who's not great with their common sense but is book smart and knows the whole book inside out ,then its hardly justifiable that you get a lower grade than someone who has more common knowledge

YodaBoy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Biology shouldn't be just "Read the book, memorise it word for word and regurgitate". It's a science and you need to be able to apply the knowledge you know and not just regurgitate the knowledge you know.

I get that. But i still think they needed to make it clearer that there was no right and wrong. I read through them and came to logical conclusions (except for with the ducks) but I thought that a marking scheme would only allow certain conclusions. I wasnt prepared to leave my marks to chance.

And as for applying knowledge, anybody who had never studied Ecology before could have made the same general knowledge conclusions as a student who knew their stuff. Note that its not the first Expt that im complaining about although it wasnt on the course per se. I thought that was a fair test of scientific method knowledge and could be taken as an application of knowledge as per the syllabus.

partyatmygaff

Platinum2010 wrote: »

Fair enough they are within their rights! but common sense is not that common.

If you have someone who's not great with their common sense but is book smart and knows the whole book inside out ,then its hardly justifiable that you get a lower grade than someone who has more common knowledge

What good is a "scientist" who recites from a book? That's not what science should be about. Even a top scientist may need to look up a certain detail in their work. It is not what they know that makes them top scientists, it's how they use what they know to learn more that makes them top scientists.

Bringing it back down to LC level, there's no point in having tonnes of knowledge committed to memory if you can't apply the knowledge to situations. I would take with a pinch of salt what people are saying about that ecology question. People waffling on using "common sense" and making errors in deduction are not going to be awarded marks. People who use their knowledge of ecology to make appropriate and sound deductions will get marks for that question.

Platinum2010

Not everyone wants to become a scientist though so The LC should have been based on book smart ability IMO .

Those who want to go on to study science in college should be able to apply their understand and knowledge of the subject , so why not just do some sort of entrance exam for them , something like the HPAT maybe .

It wasn't a fair test for the booksmart people who need a science subject to get on their course, and who got a slap in the face when they took the level which they had been practicing throughout 6th year

partyatmygaff

Platinum2010 wrote: »

Biology is not like English or religion where you BS your way through so long as you know a few facts
A girl who got A1 in every single test for the last 2 years came out crying her eyes out compared to the girl in our class who hardly ever turned up

That's because the girl who got A1s in every single test for the past two years cares a great deal more than the one who hardly ever turned up.

YodaBoy wrote: »

I get that. But i still think they needed to make it clearer that there was no right and wrong.

Why would they need to make that clear? It's quite obvious what they were looking for. It was an ecology question and they were asking you to make deductions based on observations. All you needed to do was read the observation and use your knowledge of ecology to make a logically sound deduction. There are many different deductions that can be made but not all of them are necessarily correct.

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

partyatmygaff

Platinum2010 wrote: »

Not everyone wants to become a scientist though so The LC should have been based on book smart ability IMO .

I was using science as an example. There are very few third level courses where simply memorising reams of facts and reciting it will be of use.

It wasn't a fair test for the booksmart people who need a science subject to get on their course, and who got a slap in the face when they took the level which they had been practicing throughout 6th year

How so? The exam covered a huge range of topics with hardly any "application of knowledge" questions. The vast majority of questions were simply tests of knowledge.

Platinum2010

I agree that Human Reproduction not coming up was a good thing because I agree with my biology teacher that Human reproduction should be taught in SPHE where it doesn't just cover the scientific end .

College courses do require you to learn off the stuff ,
Doctors cannot just "take a gamble" because their general knowledge of medicine

J_E

Platinum2010 wrote: »

College courses do require you to learn off the stuff ,
Doctors cannot just "take a gamble" because their general knowledge of medicine

If you think doctors just 'learn off' stuff then you're wrong. They don't just learn stuff, they need to understand various things, be able to apply them realistically, make their own minds on matters. Not just doctors, with most professions.

YodaBoy

partyatmygaff wrote: »

There are many different deductions that can be made but not all of them are necessarily correct.

I agree but that is what i wanted clarifying. The question does ask for logical deductions, yes, but even though you or I may know ourselves that we are right, that doesnt say that a marking scheme will have picked up on our deductions. With such questions they should make it clear that specifics are not required. If I was more sure of what they wanted, I reckon I could have answered it all correctly ( except those infernal DUCKS!)

LittleMissLost

I think the paper was fair and ecology & the experiments tested practical applications of Biology as taught in the book.

I did ecology as an extra question and for the DUCK question, my answer was exactly: Because male ducks prefer in a warmer climate lol.

Yeah I even put in the lol :cool: oh well!

I'm guessing that answer won't be accepted!

partyatmygaff

Platinum2010 wrote: »

College courses do require you to learn off the stuff ,
Doctors cannot just "take a gamble" because their general knowledge of medicine

They require you to memorise many things but they equally need you to use what you memorised in real life situations.

Memorising Netter's atlas of human anatomy and perhaps a biochemistry book alone won't make someone a doctor. Memorising formulas and solving methods for an Engineering maths exam alone won't make you an Engineer. Memorising reams and reams of definitions alone won't make you a marketing consultant. Memorising hundreds of poems alone won't make you an English graduate.

You need to both learn the information and be able to apply the information to real life situations.

QueenOfLeon

Platinum2010 wrote: »

It wasn't a fair test for the booksmart people who need a science subject to get on their course, and who got a slap in the face when they took the level which they had been practicing throughout 6th year

No matter what course you get into you'll have to be more than booksmart, you must be able to apply what you have been taught to different situations in a logical and well thought out manner. Predictability in the Leaving Cert exams does not prepare a student for college, which is what they're attempting to change.