Exam 2 = RAPE

[appianway]

@ Chavi, glancing through and doing it under exam conditions are two very different things. I try to stay away from sensationalism, but it was by far the hardest methods paper (methods usually isn't a very hard subject), and the style of the last two questions (and a bit of question 2) threw a lot of people who weren't used to problem solving. And then there were the calculator problems...no one I knew at school answered every question using reason, and the stress of the exam meant that very few people proofread their work.

[stonecold]

@ Chavi, glancing through and doing it under exam conditions are two very different things. I try to stay away from sensationalism, but it was by far the hardest methods paper (methods usually isn't a very hard subject), and the style of the last two questions (and a bit of question 2) threw a lot of people who weren't used to problem solving. And then there were the calculator problems...no one I knew at school answered every question using reason, and the stress of the exam meant that very few people proofread their work.

Finally, some sense has been brought to the table.

For maths lovers, then yeah, this was a good paper, as it did test mathematical ability.

For your ordinary methods student who wants a good score for their enter, who are familiar with only what is on the course and your average textbook and past exam/prac exam questions, this paper was terrible...

I consider myself as one of the latter.

[Chavi]

@ Chavi, glancing through and doing it under exam conditions are two very different things. I try to stay away from sensationalism, but it was by far the hardest methods paper (methods usually isn't a very hard subject), and the style of the last two questions (and a bit of question 2) threw a lot of people who weren't used to problem solving. And then there were the calculator problems...no one I knew at school answered every question using reason, and the stress of the exam meant that very few people proofread their work.

I understand that the factors of stress and clarity of mind on the day need to be taken into account, but those at the top end of the state will generally perform at a similar standard regardless of difficulty. Whilst these exams are not *impossible* (like Neap/Kilbaha standard), they do separate the top end of the cohort on something other than silly mistakes. I would've preferred this exam last year to the one we sat, so that silly mistakes don't weigh you down at the end of the day.

But saying that this exam was "ZOMG harder than SPEC!!! pr0x" is simply untrue. . .

[TrueTears]

A good paper overall, yes certainly did test you guys out a bit, definitely harder than last years. Definitely not like TSFX/Kilbaha style where some of the questions are ambiguous as hell.

[D27RII]

This exam was most certainly harder than spesh, at MHS a lot of spesh students got lower marks in this exam (by far) than in their spesh exam. plenty of ppl agree that teh difficulty of maths is greater with this methods exam than the spesh 2 exam.

[CharlieW]

the person who started the guy is mocking you guys. he aced exam 2 lol (thats right shane anthony)

[kyzoo]

@ Chavi, glancing through and doing it under exam conditions are two very different things. I try to stay away from sensationalism, but it was by far the hardest methods paper (methods usually isn't a very hard subject), and the style of the last two questions (and a bit of question 2) threw a lot of people who weren't used to problem solving. And then there were the calculator problems...no one I knew at school answered every question using reason, and the stress of the exam meant that very few people proofread their work.

I understand that the factors of stress and clarity of mind on the day need to be taken into account, but those at the top end of the state will generally perform at a similar standard regardless of difficulty. Whilst these exams are not *impossible* (like Neap/Kilbaha standard), they do separate the top end of the cohort on something other than silly mistakes. I would've preferred this exam last year to the one we sat, so that silly mistakes don't weigh you down at the end of the day.

But saying that this exam was "ZOMG harder than SPEC!!! pr0x" is simply untrue. . .

>.< I'll do it tomorrow under timed conditions, then I'll see if it's harder than Spesh lol

@ Chavi, glancing through and doing it under exam conditions are two very different things.

That's true, I thought Spesh Exam 1 was going to be really easy when I glanced at it in reading time, and it ended up being a lot harder than I thought =X

[lawrencep93]

hmmm FAIL!!!!!!!!!!

[kyzoo]

Tell us how you go

...Ok I did it. It's very hard for Methods standards, VCAA 2007 is a breeze compared to this. But you can't really say this is harder than Spesh =/ I would say this approaches Spesh difficulty, it's about on par with some of the easier Spesh trial exams (Heffernan-ish).

[sajib_mostofa]

Tell us how you go

...Ok I did it. It's very hard for Methods standards, VCAA 2007 is a breeze compared to this. But you can't really say this is harder than Spesh =/ I would say this approaches Spesh difficulty, it's about on par with some of the easier Spesh trial exams (Heffernan-ish).

The messiah has spoken!

[3Xamz]

Really? I struggled in this exam whereas spesh was relatively a breeze. Finished with time to spare and cross-checking some of the solutions provided; I would've lost ~4-6marks max =)

As opposed to the methods exam; I'm looking at 8 minimum without including the MCQ that I guessed + silly mistakes.

[Linkage1992]

I'm the opposite! I got completely owned by spesh number 2 whereas I found this one generally more accessible.

[berryy]

Im with 3Xamz - spesh two was fine whereas methods 2 was horrible!

[kyzoo]

Mmm IMO the mental effort and creativity required for VCAA 2010 Methods paper is about standard for Spesh papers.

[loveflag]

I am terrible at spesh but even I walked out of that exam feeling alright about it..