Points Race 2011

166man

Having read many of the posts relating to the aftermath of the exams it would appear that with the exams appearing to be easier (except maths paper 1 HL) this year than past papers, will this mean that points could go on the rise this year?

I say this because having compared many of my papers to past papers they have been easier in general.

Hmm...:(

partyatmygaff

Where did you get the idea that the exams are getting easier?

sparagon

If anything I thought most exams were a little harder.

DM360

These easy exams are news to me. As far I've done, bear in mind I have 3 left, my past 8 have been average, if not more difficult in a few cases, in comparison to other years

Fbjm

I'm gonna win, my points are way fast.

But seriously, apart from geography (which very nearly gave me nightmares), every paper has been far easier than the pastpapers in my opinion.

partyatmygaff

I dunno... The exams don't really seem to be getting "harder" as such (With the obvious exception of Maths). They just seem to be changing the style of the questions being asked.

Farmer poet

Business was the only one I thought was easier... French / English /Maths OL I felt were the usual difficulty

166man

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that the exams are getting easier?

I just got that feeling looking at the papers compared to other past papers

Irish HL:
Paper 1 was quite simple really except no aiste on the economy or drugs.

Paper 2 was much easier than previous years with the poets, the stair and the An Triail question being very simple and straightforward


English HL:
Paper 1 was simple enough with the essay titles and got a good general reaction afterwards.

Paper 2 The poets that came up were mostly predicted except Wordsworth and the Hamlet question was very simple too. CC was predicted and came up too.


Maths OL:
Paper 1 was tougher than some years But Paper 2 was fairly simple enough and q11 was great.


French
A very simple aural compared to other years and the reading comphrehensions were fine too. The selection for the written was great too.

Geography
Firstly two biome questions came up and the short questions were very simple
The rest was fairly standard except the regional question.

Business
Was a great paper with an excellent ABQ and short questions too
Longer questions were good too except time was an issue, break even was great too.

Economics
Still waiting on that until wednesday!


I have based all this having done the exams myself and from reading peoples reactions to them after.

I heard Biology and Physics were both overall simple enough too.

B_Fanatic

English - About the same. I found it easy because everything I studied came up, but I'd say it was pretty average to other years

Irish(o) - Easy! Then again it's pass Irish : 3

French - About average. I found the aural quite hard but the written was easier.

Maths - : / Hell no. That was about 20% harder than other years.

Biology - Average! Didn't thoroughly examine the exam papers, but it seemed standard enough without the strange section Bs.

Physics - Slightly harder than usual. Possibly because of the new log books.

red_red_wine

It will make very little difference at all to the 'points race' if this year's exams were, as you perceive them to be, easier.

We've heard so much about the 'bell curve' in relation to Maths I, but it does seem to be adhered to by the SEC.

Take last year's Maths paper, which was apparently easier than usual. According to one of my teachers, who is high up in the examining commission, when they corrected the first sample of papers, about three or four times as many people as usual were getting A grades. Thus, the marking scheme was revised and (from what I'm aware, I could be wrong), last year's results loosely fitted into that 'bell curve' model.

Regardless of the relative difficulty of a year's exams, it should not affect the average level of points.

It's my understanding that the only thing which has an impact on the fluctuation of a course's points from year to year is a rise/fall in demand for that course.

paulmclaughlin

I don't think they were easier...

Digits

Every year people are gonna' say that some exams are easier and some are harder, thats always the way. For example Maths paper 1 was very tough and paper two was on par with other years IMO whereas I thought that Physics today was very managable, slightly easier than other years.

Basically every year your going to have some easier and some harder papers, IMO they all balance each other out in the end.

SDTimeout

History this year was easier, it helped the student adverse to spurting out A1 essays that were learned off.

Business was easier, as was pass French. I thought pass Maths was easier in a sense too, appealed to logical thinking in say Arithmetic and Trig questions specifically.

Music and Economics still to go!

Salty

I dunno, I don't think they're easier tbh! I wouldn't think about it too much either, you'll freak yourself out, and freak others out with threads like this.

Just finish the exams, enjoy your summer, and take whatever's coming. I highly doubt there'll be much change in the points.

Iceuil

Agree with majority- some exams are harder and some are easier.

I found biology, geography and maths to be difficult this year, whereas english and business were VERY easily. I hope the marking schemes for those subjects are not gonna be too tough

HxGH

My whole LC experience has been scarred with the whole HL Maths PI thing.

Also:
Physics Section B [Today] was tough going.
Also Biology didn't have regular Part C topics.

I found everything else pretty fair. (Still not enjoyable) :P

LittleMissLost

I think overall the exams have been marginally easier than previous years but again I think this "bell curve" thing they do will even things out.

I did Maths (O), English, Irish, French, Geography, Biology, Home Economics (all H).

I think that the exams in general catered more for the student who doesn't rote learn essays etc, but really tries to understand the concept.

Geography and Biology were two examples where you couldn't just have essays/definitions learned, plonked them down and get your A1 as it has been in previous years. You needed to have a broader understanding of the whole course. English paper 1 essay titles also would have been sticky enough trying to fit in a learned off essay into section 2.

As I said previously, the results have to be consistent and they can't randomly have 40% getting A's/D's or whatever the case may be. Yes the A/D grades will fluctuate slightly but not drastically.

When I read the title of this post I immediately thought "rás na bpointí" in a real West of Ireland Irish accent for some strange reason... :rolleyes:

Aoifums

I don't think they've been easier. Maybe a repeat could tell me otherwise, but stuff clicked together in my head as I sat down. If you had asked me yesterday some of the stuff I answered in Physics today, I don't think I could have answered. It's like I'm information vomiting since it's the last time I'll ever need most of this again.

LilMissCiara

Aoifums wrote: »

I don't think they've been easier. Maybe a repeat could tell me otherwise, but stuff clicked together in my head as I sat down. If you had asked me yesterday some of the stuff I answered in Physics today, I don't think I could have answered. It's like I'm information vomiting since it's the last time I'll ever need most of this again.

It's so true. Like it's amazing how it all comes to you when you need it! I didn't do much study for the mocks or for this (though I obviously did do some work for this) but I felt more confident coming out of these than I did in the Mocks!

Aoifums

It remind me of my life flashing before my eyes (not that that's ever happened :P). I'm stressed so all my knowledge of Biology comes rushing back to me in order to save my life :P

jumpguy

I really think most exams this year have been pretty well thought-out and of good quality. They're really starting to move away from the regurgitate-culture the LC got a bad name for.

Out of the exams I've done so far (only one more left!), only HL German was uncharacteristically easy (I thought), however that will be surely compensated with a harsh marking scheme. Biology, physics, maths and English all were challenging but fair papers (well, that's my opinion on maths).

OL Irish was quite easy, but it was as easy as it has been all along tbh.

Salty

Aoifums wrote: »

I don't think they've been easier. Maybe a repeat could tell me otherwise, but stuff clicked together in my head as I sat down. If you had asked me yesterday some of the stuff I answered in Physics today, I don't think I could have answered. It's like I'm information vomiting since it's the last time I'll ever need most of this again.

This is so true! There's such a difference between practising past papers and doing the real thing. There's more at stake, and if you've done any work at all, a lot will come back to you, which is probably what's leading people to thinking this years exams were easier. In the real thing, you have adrenalin, and a different mindset...it can be misleading in terms of thinking your own exams were easier!

howlermonkey

I really don't think they're getting easier... I feel like I haven't been doing that great in most of my exams because the questions asked have been so hard

galwayman17..

i see no point to this thread. all it is doing is making you play the same thoughts about exams over and over in your head and it is just gonna stress you out.

CokeyBear

How "easy" or "hard" they are is irrelevant, they'll make a final marking scheme which will keep the number of grades roughly inline with previous years.

red_red_wine

jumpguy wrote: »

I really think most exams this year have been pretty well thought-out and of good quality. They're really starting to move away from the regurgitate-culture the LC got a bad name .

I agree completely, in fact, as an exam system I'd say that the LC, while flawed, has its merits. Perhaps this applies only to my choice of subjects, but I would say that the person entirely dependent on rote learning would find it very difficult to get a top grade in many of this year's papers.

The mass hysteria with the Maths paper demonstrated that the problem lies not with the curricula of the subjects, or the exam itself, but with the quality of teaching. The Maths paper seemed to me pretty fair, nothing there was entirely beyond the scope of our course and for there to have been such a degree of upset about it surely speaks of the fact that either teachers were not teaching concepts properly, or that students were not taking the time to understand it.

In the case of the latter, I think that this year's exams will surely attest to the fact that a proper understanding of the subject is far more important than an ability to recall facts.

I definitely wouldn't say that this year's exams (in my subjects at least!) were unusually easy, nor were they extremely difficult - they did however sometimes seem a bit 'odd', for lack of a better word, it seems as if there's been a certain movement away from case where a person could get an A1 simply by knowing the marking schemes of the past years by heart.

Now to go off Boards and try to start understanding some chemistry for tomorrow :P

Aoifums

jumpguy wrote: »

I really think most exams this year have been pretty well thought-out and of good quality. They're really starting to move away from the regurgitate-culture the LC got a bad name for.

I'm just finding that hard because I was taught since third year specifically to answer exam style questions. I know I went to a grinds school this year, but this is an issue streching back to my old school too and no school that I know of has the time or the resources to teach us how to apply the course to real life situations. My old school finished the Biology course on the final day of term and they barely made it. God knows how they fared with the ecology question.

Even thinking of the books, they're written in preperation of the Leaving Cert. I like the application of real world to some subjects but I would have liked some prior warning.

I also think the mixing of topics that happened quite a lot this year is unfair. It's obvious that not everyone can handle the entire course. There will always be one or two topics that students just can't get their heads around. Which is understandabe, in my opinion. Mixing up topics can mix up the pieces someone is excellent at with the bits they are terrible at. I'm sure an A student would be fine, but that's just cruel to a slightly weaker student.

PJelly

With they exception of HL Maths Paper 1. They're not becoming more difficult. They're becoming "different".

Salty

PJelly wrote: »

With they exception of HL Maths Paper 1. They're not becoming more difficult. They're becoming "different".

Yeah they were definitely odd...bizarre even...which threw a lot of people because they weren't completely in line with previous years.

randylonghorn

galwayman17.. wrote: »

i see no point to this thread. all it is doing is making you play the same thoughts about exams over and over in your head and it is just gonna stress you out.

CokeyBear wrote: »

How "easy" or "hard" they are is irrelevant, they'll make a final marking scheme which will keep the number of grades roughly inline with previous years.

.

randylonghorn

_meehan_ wrote: »

Yeah they were definitely odd...bizarre even...which threw a lot of people because they weren't completely in line with previous years.

I didn't see much "bizarre" about them.

And when did they ever promise that they would be completely in line with other years?

In fact, there have been hints for a few years that they wanted to gradually get away from the predictability which seemed to have overtaken certain papers, and the tendency of students to cut back courses to the barest of bare bones as a result. There has also been hints of a move towards questions which encourage students to actually think and apply their knowledge, rather than simply parrot off memorised reams from the books.

I've mentioned those hints in this forum on umpteen occasions.

In fact, we're seeing very little evidence *as yet* of this change in approach: I would expect to see a lot more of it in years to come.

Salty

randylonghorn wrote: »

I didn't see much "bizarre" about them.

And when did they ever promise that they would be completely in line with other years?

In fact, there have been hints for a few years that they wanted to gradually get away from the predictability which seemed to have overtaken certain papers, and the tendency of students to cut back courses to the barest of bare bones as a result. There has also been hints of a move towards questions which encourage students to actually think and apply their knowledge, rather than simply parrot off memorised reams from the books.

I've mentioned those hints in this forum on umpteen occasions.

In fact, we're seeing very little evidence *as yet* of this change in approach: I would expect to see a lot more of it in years to come.

OL maths was a little weird. English paper 1 with the essay titles was odd too, and that biology paper as a whole was weird. I've heard of them wanting to move away from the predictability alright, and I think it was evident that they're at the beginning of this change this year.

I never said that there was some sort of promise to be completely in line with previous years, but the fact that they moved slightly away from what is considered "normal" in some subjects did catch people. Personally, I had my work done, and I have my head screwed on so I've no problem thinking about questions, but for students who rely solely on rote learning, that era is coming to an end.

It's not a bad thing, however. We need to be forced to think more, not just regurgitate information.

randylonghorn

_meehan_ wrote: »

We need to be forced to think more, not just regurgitate information.

A+

DaveMur1

Thinkings overrated, it's much nicer going into an exam knowing your guaranteed an A1 because you've learned the whole book
Haven't seen much either in this year's exams to contradict this, it's much better to be a 600 point parrot, than a 350 thinker;)

aranciata

DaveMur1 wrote: »

Thinkings overrated, it's much nicer going into an exam knowing your guaranteed an A1 because you've learned the whole book
Haven't seen much either in this year's exams to contradict this, it's much better to be a 600 point parrot, than a 350 thinker

That's debatable. I'd rather not be a slave tbh.

Salty

DaveMur1 wrote: »

Thinkings overrated, it's much nicer going into an exam knowing your guaranteed an A1 because you've learned the whole book
Haven't seen much either in this year's exams to contradict this, it's much better to be a 600 point parrot, than a 350 thinker

The thinker might excel more in college than the parrot though...so it's hard to tell really.

DaveMur1

_meehan_ wrote: »

The thinker might excel more in college than the parrot though...so it's hard to tell really.

Good luck to the thinker repeating,;)
Chance's are,if you don't act like a parrot you'll struggle to get your college course.

electrictrad

DaveMur1 wrote: »

it's much better to be a 600 point parrot, than a 350 thinker;)

Have you seen either Physics or Accounting papers today. . .the parrots are squaking in disgust. . .you had to think on your feet in both exams. . .

DaveMur1

electrictrad wrote: »

Have you seen either Physics or Accounting papers today. . .the parrots are squaking in disgust. . .you had to think on your feet in both exams. . .

I did accounting earlier.
Clubs , Tabs , ratio's, budgeting......... To be honest once you put the time into learning these there very easy.
Admittedly Q1 was a bit strange with the manufacturing, other than that nice paper.
Some of the theory aswell was very basic I thought to be honest.
No idea about physics, I don't do any science related subjects.

Salty

DaveMur1 wrote: »

Good luck to the thinker repeating,;)
Chance's are,if you don't act like a parrot you'll struggle to get your college course.

Not necessarily. You have to strike a balance between the two to succeed beyond the lc. But thinkers fare better in college than parrots.

DaveMur1

_meehan_ wrote: »

Not necessarily. You have to strike a balance between the two to succeed beyond the lc. But thinkers fare better in college than parrots.

Yeah, your probably right for college & life in general it's better to have a mind of your own, rather than being able to say off the top of your head what page a definitions on, but your not there yet & there's a lot of evidence to suggest reproducing streams of notes will get you your grades.

seanh12

DaveMur1 wrote: »

Thinkings overrated, it's much nicer going into an exam knowing your guaranteed an A1 because you've learned the whole book
Haven't seen much either in this year's exams to contradict this, it's much better to be a 600 point parrot, than a 350 thinker;)

Id sooner be a 350 thinker that has a social life than a 600 point parrot :P

SDTimeout

seanh12 wrote: »

Id sooner be a 350 thinker that has a social life than a 600 point parrot :P

Social Life has nothing to do with how you are able to get 600 points or not. Don't get into tarring people with the same stereotypical brush.

UrbanSea

sparagon wrote: »

If anything I thought most exams were a little harder.

I think you must be off your rocker. Up until this year it was true. I'm repeating this year and any repeat I've talked to all agree that this year's tests are far easier than last year and that's not just talking because we are better prepared.
Far handier papers.

seanh12

SDTimeout wrote: »

Social Life has nothing to do with how you are able to get 600 points or not. Don't get into tarring people with the same stereotypical brush.

Well if your going to do as he suggested and learn off all the textbooks completely the I'm afraid it will impair your social life!

EuropeanSon

DaveMur1 wrote: »

Thinkings overrated, it's much nicer going into an exam knowing your guaranteed an A1 because you've learned the whole book
Haven't seen much either in this year's exams to contradict this, it's much better to be a 600 point parrot, than a 350 thinker;)

It's kind of sad that you are so lacking in confidence that you don't trust yourself to do well by thinking for yourself.

This particular 580 point thinker feels terribly sorry for your obvious self-belief issues.

Parrots can only do well in certain subjects anyways

And @ the guy who said history was easier: I really cant see somebody getting an A1 in the subject learning off essays, such a stupid way to go about learning the subject.

Geog ariphic

red_red_wine wrote: »

I agree completely, in fact, as an exam system I'd say that the LC, while flawed, has its merits. Perhaps this applies only to my choice of subjects, but I would say that the person entirely dependent on rote learning would find it very difficult to get a top grade in many of this year's papers.

Are you implying th 'averaging out' of grades each year is a merit of the system? How so? If 50% of the country deserve to fail, they deserve to fail - they should not change things so that a good 30% of those will pass. Granted marking schemes can be 'off' to begin with, but there seems to be a certain unwillingness to deviate from the status quo they have invented, with regards to percentages per grade.

The mass hysteria with the Maths paper demonstrated that the problem lies not with the curricula of the subjects, or the exam itself, but with the quality of teaching. The Maths paper seemed to me pretty fair, nothing there was entirely beyond the scope of our course and for there to have been such a degree of upset about it surely speaks of the fact that either teachers were not teaching concepts properly, or that students were not taking the time to understand it.

Or, that the course is so long and/or borad as it is difficult to communicate all of it in the alloted time frame, even before you go ensuring students grasp the concepts. (I'm thinking maths here)

Little Miss Lost wrote:

Geography and Biology were two examples where you couldn't just have essays/definitions learned, plonked them down and get your A1 as it has been in previous years. You needed to have a broader understanding of the whole course.

Sorry, lost (i'm not picking on you, really!). I did Geography too and i didn't notice anything that required thinking. It was pretty much business as usual, with regards the options we chose at least (we did processes in the human environment, and biomes). I leaned off my answers and could do it all without any hassle.
There might be a case for the Dingle question...maybe.

Digits

Geog ariphic wrote: »

Are you implying th 'averaging out' of grades each year is a merit of the system? How so? If 50% of the country deserve to fail, they deserve to fail - they should not change things so that a good 30% of those will pass. Granted marking schemes can be 'off' to begin with, but there seems to be a certain unwillingness to deviate from the status quo they have invented, with regards to percentages per grade.

Yes in this point I do agree with you that people should be given what they deserve but if they fail half the contry that means there is half the people getting into college, therefore seriously affecting the skilled portion of the working population. In theory your method is perfect but in reality it would be a disaster.

Geog ariphic

Well, not to be aggresively argumentative, but in theory and in practice it breeds a population of kids that care only about being on a place on the 'curve', and not about performing to the best of theri abilities.

One or two years of large failures (and it doens't apply to EVERY subject, so many would still get to college) would'nt really affect the working base that much, but it would shake things up and help bring about a school system that helps students achieve their max potential rather than being okay with laziness that gets them a C, cos 'thats all they needed', even if they only got the C due to adjusted marking.

I sound like an angry/irrational and idealic revolutionary type, but really i'm an evolutionary type - make the going tough, the tough get going, and everyone gets tougher eventually.

LittleMissLost

Geog ariphic wrote: »

Sorry, lost (i'm not picking on you, really!). I did Geography too and i didn't notice anything that required thinking. It was pretty much business as usual, with regards the options we chose at least (we did processes in the human environment, and biomes). I leaned off my answers and could do it all without any hassle.
There might be a case for the Dingle question...maybe.

Lol I actually think you are

Well I get what you mean with regards to geog, so I partly recant my previous statement.

I can only speak from my chosen question.

I just think that for example in Physical, Question 2 human interaction with rocks and the economic impact it has did force you to think a bit. As well with economic benefits of volcanoes? We never prepared either of those.

Regional,
economic impact of EU expansion on Ireland?

well I dunno..

I guess what I'm trying to say is I think they're moving in the direction of "thinking" rather than "regurgitating" but just haven't quite got there yet..

I'm definitely a fan of understanding over learning off by the way!