Do HSC markers scrutinize your working? (1 Viewer)

[~ ReNcH ~]

Do you think HSC markers carefully scrutinize your working, given the conditions under which they are working? I remember in last year's Ext 1 paper, I put a -1 in the wrong place, but still ended up with the right answer.
Would markers just look at the working and if they see the right answer, give it full marks? Or would they really look at the working and make sure the answer had been attained properly?

(Note: this determines whether I could get away with some fudging in the Ext 2 exam...where it might be needed )

 

[:: ck ::]

haha im sure they are trained to tell whther or not you are fudging... that's how they give part marks (eg : 2/4)... but i guess if you're lucky and they have had a long night, you could get away with it

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

Well, hopefully the marker missed my subtle error in last year's paper.
I think it was for a related rates question:
I wrote something like: dx/dt=-4t, dv/dx=8t^2, x=1 when the answer was actually dx/dt=4t, dv/dx=8t^2, x=-1.

Actually, speaking of fudging...I fudged 1 mark in Q7 last year...I was quite proud of it actually

 

[aim54x]

i was told they look 2 givce u marks, it could b a double edged sword though.

 

[dawso]

it depends on if its a proof or if u are tryin 2 find a value etc

if u hav 2 prove then they look at it all, but if u hav 2 find an answer, im sure they look at the answer, if its rite, u get the marks, if not, they look at workin and try 2 giv u some marks....

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

it depends on if its a proof or if u are tryin 2 find a value etc

if u hav 2 prove then they look at it all, but if u hav 2 find an answer, im sure they look at the answer, if its rite, u get the marks, if not, they look at workin and try 2 giv u some marks....

Yea, that's what I was thinking (or at least hoping)...I was under the impression that markers don't really have the time to carefully scrutinize the working.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

You're both wrong.

They do carefully scrutinise it. I went to the HSC feedback day at Macquarie uni the other day to listen to markers describe how they marked the papers. I can guarantee that they scrutinise it. They even gave examples of students trying to fudge it, and showed how carefully they scrutinise and not give full marks for such rubbish. If you don't do it properly, don't expect full marks. Don't waste time trying clever ways to fudge. It's better just to do it properly.

But in the case that you don't know how to do it properly, giving it a go is always the best option...even if it involves some fudging - it's better than nothing.
Although in my case I made a subtle error - there was definitely no fudging involved.

 

[~ ReNcH ~]

I found the relevant portion of the 2004 marking guidelines pertaining to my question, but I'm slightly confused by the wording:

Candidates who correctly stated a chain rule in terms of h, x and t usually proceeded to a correct solution. Candidates who demonstrated knowledge of the rate of change method frequently made errors in differentiation or substitution. The implications of negative values of dh/dx and dt/dh were usually ignored. Some candidates successfully used implicit differentiation methods.

In reference to the bold part (which is directly associated to my question), does this mean that markers generally ignored errors concerning the use of negative and positive values. Or does it mean that the students themselves often neglected to acknowledge the use of positive and negative figures in their answers?

If the former is true, then I think I would have got 3/3