* Biology Higher level 2011 * (one thread please)

Platinum2010

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

Predictability in the Leaving Cert exams does not prepare a student for college, which is what they're attempting to change.

I totally agree with that .
Predictability doesn't prepare you for life either . However I find it completely unfair how big the jump was between Higher and Ordinary level was this year

Platinum2010

Cydoniac wrote: »

If you think doctors just 'learn off' stuff then you're wrong.

Given that my dad is a consultant Surgeon I know Doctors don't just learn off stuff

partyatmygaff

Platinum2010 wrote: »

Given that my dad is a consultant Surgeon I know Doctors don't just learn off stuff

Then why did you even bring up the point? You seemed to be using the "Doctors learn stuff off too" argument to backup your opinion that the exam didn't cater for "Booksmart" people.

Well if you ask me, it did. The vast majority of questions on that paper required no actual application of knowledge, all it required was that you recite the knowledge. There were even certain questions that catered ONLY to booksmart people. Like that question on who developed the cohesion-tension model for the flow of water through xylem.

Platinum2010

I agree with you on predictability. It shouldn't be predictable !
I like that it wasn't ,I just think the change was a bit sudden to be honest.
Our teacher told us throughout the year that there was no big gap between Higher and Ordinary level but the papers this year had a world of difference IMO .

I thought I personally applied what I felt was relevant to the situations its just the uncertainty of whether I had failed bugs me .
In french , if your good at french you can go out confident you put down the right answer for comprehensions . I like that ,I don't like the fact I left that exam thinking WTF? and the uncertainty of how bad I may or may not have screwed up will stay with me till August

QueenOfLeon

Platinum2010 wrote: »

I agree with you on predictability. It shouldn't be predictable !
I like that it wasn't ,I just think the change was a bit sudden to be honest.
Our teacher told us throughout the year that there was no big gap between Higher and Ordinary level but the papers this year had a world of difference IMO

Did you sit the HL or OL? Do you think that the gap is because the HL was harder or the OL was easier? Tbh, I've seen the paper, and I don't think it was that much more difficult than other years. Sure, there were a few random odd bits thrown in but you'll have that in every year!

Ecology can tend to be a bit strange at times, the year I did it I remember there being a question on why using wheelie bins can reduce the fox population. Seems really obvious, but it threw a lot of people, because where does it mention a fox in the biology book? Ecology in the book is so theory based, with not too much actual understanding required, so it needs to mix it up a bit for the exam (which has been evident in the last few years).

Platinum2010

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

Did you sit the HL or OL? Do you think that the gap is because the HL was harder or the OL was easier?

I sat HL for the actual paper and totally F***** up !.....I think
Then came home and thought I'd try the OL just out of curiosity and flew through it , then corrected it and discovered I would have gotten an A2 in it at least .

B_Fanatic

Platinum2010 wrote: »

I sat HL for the actual paper and totally F***** up !.....I think
Then came home and thought I'd try the OL just out of curiosity and flew through it , then corrected it and discovered I would have gotten an A2 in it at least .

Unlucky. It sucks that these are the risks people are willing to take (By people, I mean myself too. If I do well in any subject it's due to me leaving out large sections of the course and fortunately, guessing right)

KoolAidRelic

I think the Ecology question was good because it forced the students to think: it differentiated the able students from those who were merely relying on rote memorisation. A person who knew and understood the course wouldn't have been fazed by the question (maybe a bit bewildered at seeing it on the paper, but definitely able to answer it all without a problem [except the ducks]).

A person who had been getting A1s or A2s by learning their notes off and spitting them down onto the paper would have been fazed because it didn't fit with what they learned off. It tested raw ability, rather than rote knowledge, which is what's really important in the sciences. It doesn't matter if you can recite off all the flora and fauna in whereever you did your ecology study if you can't make an educated guess as to why herbaceous plants happen to be abundant where rabbits live.

But le sens commun est fort rare

Geog ariphic

KoolAidRelic wrote: »

I think the Ecology question was good because it forced the students to think[.....] But le sens commun est fort rare

i didn't do French, but I'd say that meant 'common sense is very/extremely rare'? Got that by thinking, using my common sense, rather than having learned anything about it
(fort being akin to strong, so if u said 'strongly rare' I'd assume you meant 'very rare').

partyatmygaff

I prefer le sens commun n'est pas si commun. I actually used that in my French essay now that I remember it.

KoolAidRelic

Geog ariphic wrote: »

i didn't do French, but I'd say that meant 'common sense is very/extremely rare'? Got that by thinking, using my common sense, rather than having learned anything about it
(fort being akin to strong, so if u said 'strongly rare' I'd assume you meant 'very rare').

I like the way you think

KoolAidRelic

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I prefer le sens commun n'est pas si commun. I actually used that in my French essay now that I remember it.

I prefer using the correct version (I used it in my mocks, and a different Voltaire one in my LC French essay!)

GoldRush4821

The outrage over the ecology question is ridiculous though. I did fairly poor in it now that I think about it, due to not doing well with the quantatative survey questions, but its 1 question out of 6. I did all of them and those with "booksmarts" should have been able to as well. The ecology question really shouldn't have made all that much of a difference in the end if they had learned all the other stuff.

jumpguy

The ecology question wasn't out of line with previous years, only the part B required to think outside the box a bit, if you'd call that thinking outside the box (I'd call it common sense...)

There were another 5 questions in section C. Genetics was the easiest it's ever been imo, the nephron came up as expected, and the tension-cohesion model was also due.

I think it was a fair exam, but for the A1 you had to have a good knowledge of nearly all the course since they threw in bits and bobs everywhere. I also think they're making more of a move towards the "make you think" questions in recent years, as evidenced with this years ecology questions and the glucose/protein in urine question this year.

QueenOfLeon

jumpguy wrote: »

I think it was a fair exam, but for the A1 you had to have a good knowledge of nearly all the course since they threw in bits and bobs everywhere. I also think they're making more of a move towards the "make you think" questions in recent years, as evidenced with this years ecology questions and the glucose/protein in urine question this year.

It has also been evident in how they're approaching the experiment questions, throwing in small parts of a few experiments into each question (2010+2011) and also in some of the long questions the Q15(c) has been a range of unrelated statements from a few parts of the course (2009+2010). I think in general there are a lot of exams starting to cut out the predictability and the chancing.

jumpguy

QueenOfLeon wrote: »

It has also been evident in how they're approaching the experiment questions, throwing in small parts of a few experiments into each question (2010+2011) and also in some of the long questions the Q15(c) has been a range of unrelated statements from a few parts of the course (2009+2010). I think in general there are a lot of exams starting to cut out the predictability and the chancing.

Oh yeah, that's right, the scientific method question this year (Q6 I think) was very much off-the-cuff. How to sterilise compost like, had to use the ceann!

lidland

A PROTEIN IS A VERY LONG POLYPEPTIDE WITH AT LEAST 200 AMINO ACIDS.

there are 200 amino acids in a protein.

partyatmygaff

lidland wrote: »

A PROTEIN IS A VERY LONG POLYPEPTIDE WITH AT LEAST 200 AMINO ACIDS.

there are 200 amino acids in a protein.

Err... thank you for letting us all know?

PJelly

lidland wrote: »

A PROTEIN IS A VERY LONG POLYPEPTIDE WITH AT LEAST 200 AMINO ACIDS.

there are 200 amino acids in a protein.

But the questions was, how many ammino acids are there in general.
It was just worded badly.
So the answer is 20.

Patri

lidland wrote: »

A PROTEIN IS A VERY LONG POLYPEPTIDE WITH AT LEAST 200 AMINO ACIDS.

there are 200 amino acids in a protein.

Nope it was looking for the common 20. And you said it yourself at least 200 amino acids, not just 200!

cxh20y

The question was, how many common amino acids are there in a protein?

Is it fair to say that it depends on the protein?

That is technically right.

Geog ariphic

It does say in my book that nine amino acids are common, but that there are 20. I know that some ppl said 9 in my school. Think they'll get allowances?

Geog ariphic

"The 21 amino acids found in eukaryotes"....

"The 21 amino acids found in eukaryotes".... 8o

PJelly

Geog ariphic wrote: »

"The 21 amino acids found in eukaryotes"....

"The 21 amino acids found in eukaryotes".... 8o

Oh dear lord my panicked answer may get some marks after all.

Geog ariphic

PJelly wrote: »

Oh dear lord my panicked answer may get some marks after all.

Why what you say?

PJelly

Geog ariphic wrote: »

Why what you say?

I said 21.
I was nearly sure it was 21... But loads of my friends came out saying 20.

Geog ariphic

Another case of the course vs reality, methinks.
Seriously, it got so bad for the human body, Heart especially, that they were accepting on marking schemes "any correct medical reference"

LittleMissLost

Geog ariphic wrote: »

Another case of the course vs reality, methinks.
Seriously, it got so bad for the human body, Heart especially, that they were accepting on marking schemes "any correct medical reference"

That made absoloutly no sense

Geog ariphic

LittleMissLost wrote:

That made absoloutly no sense

EDIT: This is another case of the information on the leaving cert biology course vs. the reality of biological facts, I believe. (Methinks being a Middle English word, popularised today by Shakespearean, meaning 'It seems to me.' or similar.)
[tell me if i'm going too fast]
For questions pertaining to the human body, in particular to the organ of the heart, that it has been seen on marking schemes that they will now accept "any correct medical reference", as they acknowledge that people have actual medical information on this and other organs that may conflict with or be surplus to the requirements of the leaving cert biology course.



I don't like spelling out things that i have already said, so you'll have to excuse the slightly condescending tone of the above piece. It's nothing against you.

randylonghorn

Geog ariphic wrote: »

[tell me if i'm going too fast]

Take it easy, I had to read your original post twice myself to figure it out!