wat do rekkon u got raw mark in the exam??? (1 Viewer)

[random-1005]

Oh alrite. Someone told me they got ~85 last year and that aligned to 95. I thought that 08 was pretty similar to 09.



If you've done questions before which were similar to the ones in the 09 exam. Then, you'd be sure that you've covered most of the criterion for the question.

last yrs paper was fukin easy, we got all the reject shit, all the questions had tricks in them, all worded to fuk over people, there was like 30 marks on calculations which was shit, that 7 marker on the bread one really pissed me off (if you dnt know the reaction of ammonia and hcl you are stopped from getting the other 5 marks which is bullshit) there was fuk all on production of materials, no advantages/disadvantages of ethanol, biomass, no radioisotopes, biopolyers, compare lead acid cell, natural indictors, no acid theory, dodgy vague titration graph question ("similar acid" suck my dick) no haber process, no water purification (one multi choice!!! shit as), no eutrophication, fukin one mark on "why should we monitor phosphorus" should have been 5 marks, that fukin callibration curve, spent forever fukin with that because it didnt have a small enough scale on it. There was no graphing in chem or physics, there was nothing on reliability, validity or accuracy. no impact of named ion on environemnt, no ozone, a fukin dodgy galvanic cell question, no practicals (except esterification) and a whole one mark on risk assessment. FUCK THAT

that whole test needed to be flipped on its head, everything worth one mark should have been 6, and everything worth 6 should have been 1.

i want to kill whoever made that!

 

[AJ92]

last yrs paper was fukin easy, we got all the reject shit, all the questions had tricks in them, all worded to fuk over people, there was like 30 marks on calculations which was shit, that 7 marker on the bread one really pissed me off (if you dnt know the reaction of ammonia and hcl you are stopped from getting the other 5 marks which is bullshit) there was fuk all on production of materials, no advantages/disadvantages of ethanol, biomass, no radioisotopes, biopolyers, compare lead acid cell, natural indictors, no acid theory, dodgy vague titration graph question ("similar acid" suck my dick) no haber process, no water purification (one multi choice!!! shit as), no eutrophication, fukin one mark on "why should we monitor phosphorus" should have been 5 marks, that fukin callibration curve, spent forever fukin with that because it didnt have a small enough scale on it. There was no graphing in chem or physics, there was nothing on reliability, validity or accuracy. no impact of named ion on environemnt, no ozone, a fukin dodgy galvanic cell question, no practicals (except esterification) and a whole one mark on risk assessment. FUCK THAT

that whole test needed to be flipped on its head, everything worth one mark should have been 6, and everything worth 6 should have been 1.

i want to kill whoever made that!

well arent we a little angry - as for your complains. the 7 marker was designed that way for follow through marks. as long as you put an equation down, it is likely that the marking criteria will give you the other marks based on whether they are corrent according to YOUR equation.
there was a sizeable amount of production of materials, including the 6 marker which allowed for: biomass, ethanol, polymerisation, and uses of ethene compounds.
i agree that the acids were a little under-represented, however; the question with the titrations was actually quite detailed as it questioned understanding of strong vs weak and concentrated vs dilute, which is one of the harder concepts to grasp in module 2.
the haver process was vaguely present in the aforementioned 7 marker, as it was part of the final step (it told you to begin with that "nitrogen was converted to ammonia")
the irony of your placing "no eutrophication" and "the phosphorus question" is incredible - it was 2 marks, and the whole answer depended on eutrophication.
the calibration curve was simple, you could very easily find a mathematical relationship using ONLY the last point.
the galvanic cell question was important as it required understanding of the conept and ability to use the standard reduction potentials, both of which fall under chemistry skills.
and finally, there is almost ALWAYS a question on risk assessment, you should have been ready for it.

I thought overall it was a good test, which required some level of actual chemistry skill (given the syllabus, this was amazing!), and precluded the use of only memorised answers, testing the ability to use prelearned information and apply it to the questions.

 

[random-1005]

well arent we a little angry - as for your complains. the 7 marker was designed that way for follow through marks. as long as you put an equation down, it is likely that the marking criteria will give you the other marks based on whether they are corrent according to YOUR equation.
there was a sizeable amount of production of materials, including the 6 marker which allowed for: biomass, ethanol, polymerisation, and uses of ethene compounds.
i agree that the acids were a little under-represented, however; the question with the titrations was actually quite detailed as it questioned understanding of strong vs weak and concentrated vs dilute, which is one of the harder concepts to grasp in module 2.
the haver process was vaguely present in the aforementioned 7 marker, as it was part of the final step (it told you to begin with that "nitrogen was converted to ammonia")
the irony of your placing "no eutrophication" and "the phosphorus question" is incredible - it was 2 marks, and the whole answer depended on eutrophication.
the calibration curve was simple, you could very easily find a mathematical relationship using ONLY the last point.
the galvanic cell question was important as it required understanding of the conept and ability to use the standard reduction potentials, both of which fall under chemistry skills.
and finally, there is almost ALWAYS a question on risk assessment, you should have been ready for it.

I thought overall it was a good test, which required some level of actual chemistry skill (given the syllabus, this was amazing!), and precluded the use of only memorised answers, testing the ability to use prelearned information and apply it to the questions.

2 marks

pretty sure it was one mark

galvanic cell question

it was worded dodgy, a mixture of fe2+ and fe3+, thats bullshit

ALWAYS a question on risk assessment, you should have been ready for it.

i was ready for it, couldnt you detect the sarcasm, i wanted 3 marks on risk assessment!, not bloody one

 

[boxhunter91]

nah it was two.
to get two marks.
Say its eutrophication define it and its effect on environment if we dont monitor phosphate..