A+ Cut Off Prediction

[34590]

Any idea?

I think around 88%  :angel:

[Laith]

they need to be marked first for anyone to make the judgment but iam thinking 85 %

[Bozo]

I'm thinking 93%. This exam was made far too easy.

[adelaide.emily10]

i'm thinking high to mid 80s. but i think the real seperator will be q4

[cltf]

85% PLEASE

[Dominator]

I'm predicting 90%+ since it was relatively easy.

[luken93]

Yep, 67/72 is my bet.

[vea]

It will depend on if and how they give consequential marks for Q4 to those who used 1:1 as a ratio. I don't really think they will give 3/4 if you did that and got 73% but it is possible they might give 2/4.

[jackson1234]

Yep, 67/72 is my bet.

It was harder than last year. So really?

( yeah it was easy)

[Jdog]

what was the answer to the IR MC question about what factoe caused a difference in wavenumber?

[Tashi]

what was the answer to the IR MC question about what factoe caused a difference in wavenumber?

Mass? I have in my notes "The energy needed to excite a molecule to a higher vibrational level is dependent on the strength of the bond and the mass of atoms attached by the bond"

[jackson1234]

what was the answer to the IR MC question about what factoe caused a difference in wavenumber?

Mass? I have in my notes "The energy needed to excite a molecule to a higher vibrational level is dependent on the strength of the bond and the mass of atoms attached by the bond"

with the strength of the bond, wouldnt Electronegatively be feasible as well then

[thatricksta]

what was the answer to the IR MC question about what factoe caused a difference in wavenumber?

Mass? I have in my notes "The energy needed to excite a molecule to a higher vibrational level is dependent on the strength of the bond and the mass of atoms attached by the bond"

with the strength of the bond, wouldnt Electronegatively be feasible as well then

mass was a heavier contributor considering that in C-O & C-H the difference in electro negativity was not great

[tiktokcheekaboom]

Even though this paper was relatively easy, I don't think the A+ cut-off would be as high as last year's. Last year's was just straightforward in every possible sense, but this year's paper had a couple of tricky questions (particularly in the MCQ), and with so many explanation questions, I think the examiners would really try and raise the marking standards. All the people I have spoken to have said that it was easy, but that they had already dropped quite a few marks, so in that sense, I think the cut-off would be lower than what many of you are predicting. I reckon a good cut-off would be 63-64, but if the examiners are extremely strict in their marking, then possibly a few marks lower.

[cltf]

Even though this paper was relatively easy, I don't think the A+ cut-off would be as high as last year's. Last year's was just straightforward in every possible sense, but this year's paper had a couple of tricky questions (particularly in the MCQ), and with so many explanation questions, I think the examiners would really try and raise the marking standards. All the people I have spoken to have said that it was easy, but that they had already dropped quite a few marks, so in that sense, I think the cut-off would be lower than what many of you are predicting. I reckon a good cut-off would be 63-64, but if the examiners are extremely strict in their marking, then possibly a few marks lower.

I agree too, the exam looked easy, but the a lot of the were tricky and easier exams mark for more careless mistakes