CSSA 2013 MX2 Trial Discussion (3 Viewers)

[SpiralFlex]

What did they put for mechanics

 

[Sy123]

What did they put for mechanics

The only true mechanics was a numerical circular motion connected to 2 fixed points thing.

The other 'mechanics' was finding properties of the differential equation, where f was x(t) and there were actual numbers there rather than k and m

The circle geo was literally a 3U level one

The mathematical induction was direct, since they did some hand holding in a previous part which in my opinion should of been combined with the induction (the induction was also the inequality)

Nothing of real interest in the exam anywhere else, it honestly felt like I was doing some crappy selective school trial

 

[Carrotsticks]

I am lead to believe that many people from the Catholic Association body view BoS regularly for student opinions. They could be viewing you guys now

Good, then I hope they get the message that their questions should be better researched.

 

[iBibah]

Good, then I hope they get the message that their questions should be better researched.

Who knows maybe they'll copy paste some bos trial questions next year.

 

[braintic]

Nothing of real interest in the exam anywhere else, it honestly felt like I was doing some crappy selective school trial

So selective school trials are worse than non-selective school trials?

 

[Sy123]

So selective school trials are worse than non-selective school trials?

No idea, I didn't mean to imply that, rather that the trials from most selective schools whose trials are available on Bos are nearly all of low quality with a select few being ok.

 

[asianese]

This is a bit sad...

 

[Killerb47]

Though it was pretty good tbh. We had a few questions taken out and replaced since we hadn't done the topics so not sure about the entire paper. Circles question was the best hahahaha

 

[Currybear]

Though it was pretty good tbh. We had a few questions taken out and replaced since we hadn't done the topics so not sure about the entire paper. Circles question was the best hahahaha

I saw that question and freaked out, then i read the question and it was all g

 

[Currybear]

What do you guys think you got im guestimating qt 65 to 80 out of 100

 

[Makematics]

my school's 4U trial this year was good Sy!

 

[Web Addict]

No idea, I didn't mean to imply that, rather that the trials from most selective schools whose trials are available on Bos are nearly all of low quality with a select few being ok.

Which ones would you classify as good?

 

[Killerb47]

What do you guys think you got im guestimating qt 65 to 80 out of 100

Hopefully 80-85 but who knows how many stupid mistakes I've made, they will deadset be the death of my atar.

 

[Sy123]

Which ones would you classify as good?

Only one I've seen is Sydney Grammar (though the 2012 one is pretty bad)
Oh and Moriah but I've only seen their 2001 paper which was great (or was that the 2003 one im not sure), I haven't seen their later papers though

 

[iBibah]

Only one I've seen is Sydney Grammar (though the 2012 one is pretty bad)
Oh and Moriah but I've only seen their 2001 paper which was great (or was that the 2003 one im not sure), I haven't seen their later papers though

I've heard things about the 2001 too so I think that's what you're talking about.

 

[Web Addict]

Only one I've seen is Sydney Grammar (though the 2012 one is pretty bad)
Oh and Moriah but I've only seen their 2001 paper which was great (or was that the 2003 one im not sure), I haven't seen their later papers though

Interesting. What about the James Ruse papers and other top selective schools? Aren't they supposed to be the better ones?

 

[Sy123]

Interesting. What about the James Ruse papers and other top selective schools? Aren't they supposed to be the better ones?

Even James Ruse, they may have the odd good question, but overall they aren't very good

(which is why schools buy trial papers, but CSSA didn't do as well with the trials this year)

 

[braintic]

I think some people don't realise the time needed to set an Ext 2 trial. First there is selecting questions that kids haven't seen before, making sure there is good coverage of the syllabus, a good spread of difficulty, trying out ideas of your own and discarding most of them, and especially trying to fit the questions into 6 groups of 15 marks. Then when you present your draft to the other teachers there are always issues raised, which again cause you to spend hours getting everything to fit into 15 mark groupings. This doesn't include the actual typing, typesetting, and especially drawing diagram. And finally typing up a good set of solutions. When I have set an Ext 2 trial in the past, I reckon I have spent 40-50 hours in total getting it right (and this is all done by one person). And its not like teachers have a whole lot of spare time at their disposal.

Compare this to the setting HSC exam where they can draw on the time of countless individuals. I'm not sure what is meant by saying that these exams are of low quality. If you are setting the HSC exam itself as the standard, then what do you expect?

 

[Sy123]

I think some people don't realise the time needed to set an Ext 2 trial. First there is selecting questions that kids haven't seen before, making sure there is good coverage of the syllabus, a good spread of difficulty, trying out ideas of your own and discarding most of them, and especially trying to fit the questions into 6 groups of 15 marks. Then when you present your draft to the other teachers there are always issues raised, which again cause you to spend hours getting everything to fit into 15 mark groupings. This doesn't include the actual typing, typesetting, and especially drawing diagram. And finally typing up a good set of solutions. When I have set an Ext 2 trial in the past, I reckon I have spent 40-50 hours in total getting it right (and this is all done by one person). And its not like teachers have a whole lot of spare time at their disposal.

Compare this to the setting HSC exam where they can draw on the time of countless individuals. I'm not sure what is meant by saying that these exams are of low quality. If you are setting the HSC exam itself as the standard, then what do you expect?

That is true, I hope my comments have not come off as insensitive, I really do appreciate the work that teachers put in.

However compared to other commercial trials and previous CSSA papers, this year's paper simply does not cut it. And I do concede that perhaps its a little unfair to compare school trials to commercial ones. But my comment still stands as that this year's CSSA paper felt like a school trial.

 

[iBibah]

I think some people don't realise the time needed to set an Ext 2 trial. First there is selecting questions that kids haven't seen before, making sure there is good coverage of the syllabus, a good spread of difficulty, trying out ideas of your own and discarding most of them, and especially trying to fit the questions into 6 groups of 15 marks. Then when you present your draft to the other teachers there are always issues raised, which again cause you to spend hours getting everything to fit into 15 mark groupings. This doesn't include the actual typing, typesetting, and especially drawing diagram. And finally typing up a good set of solutions. When I have set an Ext 2 trial in the past, I reckon I have spent 40-50 hours in total getting it right (and this is all done by one person). And its not like teachers have a whole lot of spare time at their disposal.

Compare this to the setting HSC exam where they can draw on the time of countless individuals. I'm not sure what is meant by saying that these exams are of low quality. If you are setting the HSC exam itself as the standard, then what do you expect?

Teachers have a job to do. Teach and assess students. Don't get me wrong, teachers who do what you have described above should be commended, but those teachers are not the problem.

Lets not pretend for a second all teachers are like that. You sound very dedicated yourself, but there's not doubt hardly half of teachers are that dedicated.

The reason students are annoyed by poorly written tests is because it can be a massive deal for them. A bad examination results in rankings that shouldn't be the case. Should a student be coming first out of luck that he did the questions the were copied in the exam? While it is technically fair that he is first, it is the examiners fault for not placing him in the rank he deserves.

A student on here recently had a mx1 trial where by the top 10 students were separated by 1-2 marks because previous assessments were poorly set. The trial itself was also poor and failed to separate the students, hence first was determined by silly mistakes not aptitude and skills. The fact that 10 people will probably get full marks is an absolute joke because it gives them a false sense of hope, and gives the student coming 3rd or 4th, who may be state rank potential, a disadvantage coming into the hsc exams.

If you've seen the bos trials for maths, you'll see that not many marks are attained by luck of doing the question before, but rather purely skill and understanding in that topic area. Sure it took the writer a while, but he achieved the goal of a good examination.

So really, students have the right to be annoyed at CSSA or school trials if they don't do their job properly. If someone thinks another schools trial is bad, but it suited the cohort there, that's a different story. But every person here has the right to criticise CSSA, because they were paid to produce a product which had a purpose, and that purpose wasn't fulfilled for some schools.

When a plumper makes a mistake in a building, he can't say "you don't know how hard this is". It doesn't matter how hard it is, they were trained to do it, and are being payed to do it. Do right or don't do it at all and get someone else to do it.