Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

DCG discussion thread

Options
123468

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    decster
    Closed Accounts Posts: 160 ✭✭decster


    meh. should pass the paper, the project will mean ive done ok.


  • Options
    #153
    GaryB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 30 ✭GaryB


    given that DCG was sent by the devil to torture leaving cert students, I think it went Ok..but only taking that into account :P

    But now Leaving cert = OVER :D:D:D:D

    sweet....


  • Options
    #154
    mikeyb09
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭mikeyb09


    It went ok! Wat questions did every1 do?

    I did the oblique planes & the necklace stand in section 2 but im regretting not doing the interpenetration!

    Roads was easy except for the last part and i messed up a bit on the surface geometry with the development!


  • Options
    #155
    Des23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭Des23


    Thought it was a pretty reasonable paper. Surprisingly time wasn't an issue.
    The compass fell off my table and the led broke, just after I did the short questions, I thought I was done for because I forgot spares. Luckily one of the lads allow me borrow his when needed.

    I did both part B questions twice because I got them wrong the first time.

    The geologic geometry and structural forms questions were both of an easier standard that the sample papers I thought.


  • Options
    #156
    timmywex
    Registered Users Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭timmywex


    Thought it was ok!

    Got all 4 questions in section a done, did planes and interpenetration. Spent the last hour on interpenetration and think i got the whole thing out!

    Did the roads one and hyberbolic also.

    One small mistake on plane director is all, possibly something wrong with interpenetration. So ill be hoping for an a1, fingers crossed anyway!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Zonda999
    Registered Users Posts: 5,532 ✭✭✭Zonda999


    Taught it was awful. Mainly because i and the rest of my class were fooked for part B. We had only done conics, laminas, and solids & contact. Could only do the lamina one and make a crap attempt at the perspective Q. Our teacher ssured us that we would be able to do 2 of them if not 3! FFS!

    Disappointed with part C too. Hadn't gone over the dip & strike thing that way because i was expecting skew boreholes!:(


  • Options
    #158
    Ricky91t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,281 ✭✭✭Ricky91t


    Well what did you all think of it?
    I didn't think it was too bad...


  • Options
    #159
    Comer1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭Comer1


    On the HL paper, what came up on Sections A and B?


  • Options
    #160
    timmywex
    Registered Users Posts: 2,626 ✭✭✭timmywex


    Comer1 wrote: »
    On the HL paper, what came up on Sections A and B?

    On examinations.ie now


  • Options
    #161
    corkkerry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭corkkerry


    it was a disgraceful paper...fierce dissapointed..i put so much work in and now they come along and give a paper like that...that was supposed to be similar to sample?....another mess up by the SEC....notice to next years students....drop out as fast as ye can...why should we suffer the mistakes and bad curricular planning of this subject...a disgrace


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    whadabouchasir
    Registered Users Posts: 942 ✭✭✭whadabouchasir


    Ricky91t wrote: »
    Well what did you all think of it?
    I didn't think it was too bad...
    The mining was a bit weird but other than that it was ok.


  • Options
    #163
    WolfForager
    Registered Users Posts: 4,532 ✭✭✭WolfForager


    Didn't even touch section A and i still ran out of time. *sigh*


  • Options
    #164
    Des23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭Des23


    whadabouchasir wrote: »
    The mining was a bit weird but other than that it was ok.

    The roads section was very easy so I'd say they kinda expected to make up a bit of time there. Although if you had seen a mining question like that before it could have been done in 5 mins.


  • Options
    #165
    Isaac702
    Registered Users Posts: 230 ✭✭Isaac702


    It was an ok paper however it didn't really suit my strengths so I havent done as well as I could have.

    Section A: 2,3,4
    I think I have answered 2 fully correct, 3 almost correct and then 4 is purely attempt marks.
    Section B: 2,3
    I think I got most of this correct except 2(d) which I have got completely wrong. I might get some points because part of the answer for this was necessary for the previous parts.
    Section B: 1,2
    Great Geologic Geometry question. I could have done it in my sleep. Part (a) on Structural Forms was ok however part (b) was impossible to do as I never really understood traces.

    Overall though I think it was ok.


  • Options
    #166
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm pretty gutted: I doubt I got the A1 that I needed. I got at least a B1, but that isn't good enough. I thought the part (d) in planes and traces was horribly vague. The helix question was tricky to get started, and the assembly was a bit too long winded.

    I got all of interpenetration, planes and traces and the assembly out, and most of dynamic mechanisms out. But, I'm disgusted: I only did two short questions; I decided to move on to save time and come back to them, but I didn't get time.

    I got on ok (I'm repeating so I know the old course) but the majority of my year were disgusted.


  • Options
    #167
    Craigsy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭Craigsy


    corkkerry wrote: »
    it was a disgraceful paper...fierce dissapointed..i put so much work in and now they come along and give a paper like that...that was supposed to be similar to sample?....another mess up by the SEC....notice to next years students....drop out as fast as ye can...why should we suffer the mistakes and bad curricular planning of this subject...a disgrace

    The paper today was similar to the sample paper. I don't think you should be discourageing people from taking the subject because of how your exam went, as it is a very interesting subject and as with all subjects if you put the work in its easy enough.

    I sat the paper today, thought it was grand, section c a bit tricky though


  • Options
    #168
    Comer1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,038 ✭✭✭Comer1


    timmywex wrote: »
    On examinations.ie now

    Not sure if it's up yet?


  • Options
    #169
    Damien671
    Closed Accounts Posts: 33 ✭Damien671


    I thought it wasnt too bad overall.
    Short questions did three fully and Im sure their right.
    The planes was easy but messed up the interpenetration
    The geologic geometry question part B wasnt on any sample paper
    The structural forms was ok also, but not sure about the pland director.


  • Options
    #170
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Comer1 wrote: »
    Not sure if it's up yet?

    http://www.examinations.ie/archive/exampapers/2009/LC562ALP014EV.pdf

    http://www.examinations.ie/archive/exampapers/2009/LC562ALP000EV.pdf


  • Options
    #171
    Isaac702
    Registered Users Posts: 230 ✭✭Isaac702


    Craigsy wrote: »
    The paper today was similar to the sample paper.
    I cant really agree with that. Although the layout of the paper was pretty much the same. The style of it was completely different.
    The questions in the sample were mostly straight forward and stuck to the topic that was asked.
    Today's paper however in the later parts of questions asked questions that were more abstract and in some cases unrelated to the topic in that particular question.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Des23
    Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭Des23


    How were the ammebly, surface geometry and mechanism questions in terms of difficulty?


  • Options
    #173
    Craigsy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 611 ✭✭✭Craigsy


    Isaac702 wrote: »
    I cant really agree with that. Although the layout of the paper was pretty much the same. The style of it was completely different.
    The questions in the sample were mostly straight forward and stuck to the topic that was asked.
    Today's paper however in the later parts of questions asked questions that were more abstract and in some cases unrelated to the topic in that particular question.

    Well look at it this way, sample paper short ques- axonometric, perspective, cones/circles in contact, real paper short questions- perspective, axo circles/cones in contact. Section B both had planes in space and interpen, section c was a bit different

    At the end of the day, you should know all the stuff anyway. The test is about how well you learn and know the stuuf, not how well you predict it


  • Options
    #174
    errlloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 12,604 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    Dynamic mechanisms were piss but a little time consuming.

    I'm not happy with that paper, got at least 60% on it, but still not happy.


  • Options
    #175
    errlloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 12,604 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    Hmm if I had actually just put more time in the sample I think I would have done real well. IMO the planes and interpenetration were quite easy.


  • Options
    #176
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 4,630 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Des23 wrote: »
    How were the ammebly, surface geometry and mechanism questions in terms of difficulty?

    Easy enough. The assembly was a bit tedious, though. Mechanisms was very doable.


  • Options
    #177
    whadabouchasir
    Registered Users Posts: 942 ✭✭✭whadabouchasir


    The only complaint i have is the mining geometry,other than that it was O.K.Another 20 minutes would have benn nice as well.


  • Options
    #178
    whadabouchasir
    Registered Users Posts: 942 ✭✭✭whadabouchasir


    Des23 wrote: »
    . Although if you had seen a mining question like that before it could have been done in 5 mins.
    I know,but I don't think it was very fair to give an abstract one like this on the first year.None of the exam papers or books had anything about a stratum with one borehole where you are asked to find the thickness.


  • Options
    #179
    corkkerry
    Closed Accounts Posts: 15 ✭corkkerry


    exactly what i thought....if the kept to sampe style and standard it would have been a nice paper...well i got all short questions. full interpenetration, struggeled with the planes..i mean come on...what a stupid way of displaying the planes with a weird little trophy!!! I usually fly trough dynamic mechanisms but the imagwe of the heart and that **** just through me..not joking!! Thats why i think the paper was bad...too many parts to assembly to do it properly...i dont no..i was going for an A and had the work done but the retarded style of the paper took that away..and it through me off as i was going through the paper...its disheartning when u have images of having to repeat half way through the paper...ill say it again the planes question was just retarded


  • Options
    #180
    galway.gaa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 145 ✭✭galway.gaa


    i thought it was okish. the short questions werent nice. section B was grand and so was the assembly(long though). i thought the 1st part of the dynamic mechinisms was worded very badly. i didnt really know what they were askin for. i think itll cost me my A1:(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    papu
    Registered Users Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭papu


    Found it pretty handy =]


Advertisement