Why are vcaa making the methods exams harder each year?

[Freddie Hg]

Agreed. Expecting that VCAA will regurgitate same questions year after year is silly. What's the point of having a new exam then LOL. Might as well hand the same exam to students at the start of every year and give the same one at the end :')

i agree. subjects like further maths and physics do this regularly. methods is expected to scale up by 4 or sometimes 5. however, i do agree the exam was a tad more difficult then expected, me personally i underperformed on the exam due to poor time management under pressure . looking back at the exam i feel like i should of lost only max 4 marks, but that wasn't the case.  i attribute my underperformance to myself if vcaa made a hard exam, and im expecting to get a high score i should beat the rest of the state irregardless of how hard that exam is compared to previous years. at the end of the day there task is more difficult than mine, to successfully measure a states methods ability in an hour, id rather take question 9.

[integrationbyrecognition]

No you can't.
Only the literal marks for each question given by both markers.

Can we see a scanned version of our exam?

[DoingExamsATM]

It isn't a bad thing, especially if it's universally agreed that the exam was much more difficult than usual (which seems to be the case in this thread, and I agree also). If anything the study score may scale up a point or two more than usual.

I have no idea why they'd make the exams harder each year, but I reckon it's to maintain a spread. For example, most people in 2017 will prepare for something like 2016; if the 2017 exam was a lot like 2016, the subject wouldn't scale as much since people prepared for it well.

[integrationbyrecognition]

It isn't a bad thing, especially if it's universally agreed that the exam was much more difficult than usual (which seems to be the case in this thread, and I agree also). If anything the study score may scale up a point or two more than usual.

I have no idea why they'd make the exams harder each year, but I reckon it's to maintain a spread. For example, most people in 2017 will prepare for something like 2016; if the 2017 exam was a lot like 2016, the subject wouldn't scale as much since people prepared for it well.

I don't know if it's just me, but lasts year's methods exam 1 was so easy compared to yesterday's exam 1. The last question about tangents, and the trig question, which were both done quite poorly, were actually pretty easy imo

I really hope that the cutoffs are lowered, but it probably won't be the case, since there will still have been geniusus who got 40/40 on yesterday's exam and will get 80/80 today.

MOD EDIT: merged double post. Please use the "modify" button on your post in the future to avoid double posting.

[DoingExamsATM]

I don't know if it's just me, but lasts year's methods exam 1 was so easy compared to yesterday's exam 1. The last question about tangents, and the trig question, which were both done quite poorly, were actually pretty easy imo

I agree completely. I have no idea why last year's last couple questions stumped everybody, it was an area and tangents of a slightly inaccurate diagram (in which the start of the exam always says diagrams aren't to scale anyway).

I don't know if it's just me, but lasts year's methods exam 1 was so easy compared to yesterday's exam 1. The last question about tangents, and the trig question, which were both done quite poorly, were actually pretty easy imo

I really hope that the cutoffs are lowered, but it probably won't be the case, since there will still have been geniusus who got 40/40 on yesterday's exam and will get 80/80 today.

MOD EDIT: merged double post. Please use the "modify" button on your post in the future to avoid double posting.

Whether people still get 40/40 doesn't really affect the cutoffs, rather it's how many people do. I highly doubt as many people will get above 35, get 40 etc, therefore the cutoffs will redistribute a bit.

MOD EDIT: merged double post - use the "modify"button to edit posts

[integrationbyrecognition]

I agree completely. I have no idea why last year's last couple questions stumped everybody, it was an area and tangents of a slightly inaccurate diagram (in which the start of the exam always says diagrams aren't to scale anyway).

I think many people would have initially had the correct answer for the tangent question, and then second guessed their answer since the diagram was completely off scale, as for the trig question, it seemed like a pretty standard question, although since it asked for "all possible vales of tan(theta), it probably wasn't worded very well, since you had to link sin and cos to get tan. Apparently even the chief assessor gave the wrong answer for the trig question. But definitely not as brutal as yesterday's exam.

[exit]

First of all, I disagree too many people take Methods. More people should take Methods considering 3-4x more people do Further which is considered a ‘bludge’ maths - making Methods argubably more useful.

The reason why exams are getting harder every year is because students are generally getting better. More and more resources are being available and students are generally getting more motivated to succeed. You have to remember that you are not marked based on your score but on where you stand amongst your peers. Even if 2% full mark exam 1, that is still ~200 people full marking the exam. That’s literally everyone getting 45+ if you correlate exam 1 to exam2 performance. And also ~300 getting 39/40. Exam 1 is generally not designed to separate students as much as exam 2, but you just can’t have hundreds of people getting close to full marks on exam 1 otherwise the rankings will be messed up. You could lose 3-4 marks on exam 1 and drop from high 40s to low 40s. This already happens (both exam1 and exam2 are on separate bell curves). So I don’t know why making exams easier will do anything if it will just F up the grade distribution.

Anyway, hard exams means that you’ll probably be pleasantly surprised at your student score. Good luck!

[Aaron]

I know i'm slightly derailing the thread here but important to get this out of the way:

people do Further which is considered a ‘bludge’ maths

I absolutely disagree with this part of your post and tbh find it a bit insulting, as i'm sure others who do Further would feel (who don't do methods/specialist). I would recommend you re-word this - as many students do Further for reasons other than it being a 'bludge'.

making Methods argubably more useful

Useful to who? I would argue that Further could be more useful to those that want an applied mathematics education, rather than a pure one.

That's all i'm going to comment re: that as I don't want to completely divert the thread.. but for anybody who classifies Further as a 'bludge' subject, I would strongly encourage you to rethink this, especially if you have not done the subject yourself or been in a circumstance where Further may be the best option for you.

[darkz]

At the end of the day, the difficulty of the exam doesn't necessarily affect your study score. I only say this, because your study score is determined based on how the state does and your mathematical ability in comparison with others. If its a hard exam, everyone will find it hard. If its an easy exam, everyone will find it easy.

For example, if it was a really easy exam and you manage to get 36/40 and 75/80, you might come away from the exam really pleased with yourself, thinking that you've done really well. Conversely, if it was a really hard exam and you get a 35/40 and a 68/80 you might be really disappointed that you've lost so many marks, but at the end of the day you would have received the same study score for either case.

[exit]

I know i'm slightly derailing the thread here but important to get this out of the way:
I absolutely disagree with this part of your post and tbh find it a bit insulting, as i'm sure others who do Further would feel (who don't do methods/specialist). I would recommend you re-word this - as many students do Further for reasons other than it being a 'bludge'.
Useful to who? I would argue that Further could be more useful to those that want an applied mathematics education, rather than a pure one.

That's all i'm going to comment re: that as I don't want to completely divert the thread.. but for anybody who classifies Further as a 'bludge' subject, I would strongly encourage you to rethink this, especially if you have not done the subject yourself or been in a circumstance where Further may be the best option for you.

I know Further may be a better pick than Methods by a large proportion of the state, but you can’t deny that tons (way too many) people pick Further simply because it’s an easy option. I have plenty of friends who were capable of doing Specialist but just picked Further for an easy 40 with minimal work. This just makes even a single maths subject inaccessible to a person who struggles with maths when everyone getting high scores are just capable students who want an easy ATAR boost in Further. No one I know who does both Methods (and is getting even alright results) and Further thinks Further is particularly challenging. If anything, people should be less scared of picking up Methods.

 By the way, Further isn’t a prerequisite for many university courses while Methods is a prerequisite to a lot of different university courses and even helpful to courses which don’t need it which is why IMO it’s more useful.

[lifeisgood]

I have no idea why they'd make the exams harder each year, but I reckon it's to maintain a spread. For example, most people in 2017 will prepare for something like 2016; if the 2017 exam was a lot like 2016, the subject wouldn't scale as much since people prepared for it well.

So your telling me like exams in the next few years will only be passable for the geniuses since they get harder every year.

[VeryJuicyLemon]

I know Further may be a better pick than Methods by a large proportion of the state, but you can’t deny that tons (way too many) people pick Further simply because it’s an easy option. I have plenty of friends who were capable of doing Specialist but just picked Further for an easy 40 with minimal work. This just makes even a single maths subject inaccessible to a person who struggles with maths when everyone getting high scores are just capable students who want an easy ATAR boost in Further. No one I know who does both Methods (and is getting even alright results) and Further thinks Further is particularly challenging. If anything, people should be less scared of picking up Methods.

 By the way, Further isn’t a prerequisite for many university courses while Methods is a prerequisite to a lot of different university courses and even helpful to courses which don’t need it which is why IMO it’s more useful.

Further imo is definitely requires more than minimal work to get a 40, Infact you may want higher than a 40 as that will scale down to high 30s. At this point, listing a subject under "bludge" is just pure delusive talk, an excuse. I never understood the agenda of choosing subjects because it's "easy", as this "easy" is often originated from purely content wise, not study score. Getting a good study score in further is not easy when considering its competitiveness and not so great scaling.
Additionally spesh student hardly will gain any advantage to further students who doesn't do spesh as further content is much more limited and its new contents has nothing to do with spesh. Therefore it isn't an excuse for them to expect a 40 with minimal work in further just because they are "capable of spesh". This is ignorance at its finest.

The only further students that will be struggling is those who belittle further and hardly putting any work.

So your telling me like exams in the next few years will only be passable for the geniuses since they get harder every year.

Don't worry about difficulty, worry about how well you do against the state. Infact I found the harder it is the better as long as the question asked resides within the study design, there is no problem. As this difficultly helps draw out the distance between strong method students than the weaker ones, thus alleviating mistakes that may cause distortion to such manner (where differences between 45-50ss in methods is purely luck)

MOD EDIT: merged double post

[exit]

Further imo is definitely requires more than minimal work to get a 40, Infact you may want higher than a 40 as that will scale down to high 30s. At this point, listing a subject under "bludge" is just pure delusive talk, an excuse. I never understood the agenda of choosing subjects because it's "easy", as this "easy" is often originated from purely content wise, not study score. Getting a good study score in further is not easy when considering its competitiveness and not so great scaling.
Additionally spesh student hardly will gain any advantage to further students who doesn't do spesh as further content is much more limited and its new contents has nothing to do with spesh. Therefore it isn't an excuse for them to expect a 40 with minimal work in further just because they are "capable of spesh". This is ignorance at its finest.

The only further students that will be struggling is those who belittle further and hardly putting any work.

I agree with what you are saying except this: 'The only further students that will be struggling is those who belittle further and hardly putting any work.' The stereotype of Further being an comparatively easy subject wouldn't exist if there was some truth to it. No, the students saying Further is easy and putting no work are not the ones getting 45+, but they are still getting higher scores than what they deserve. Why? Because they're abusing the fact that they have higher mathematical ability than the target demographic of the subject. And as such, a lot of Further concepts are very easy to grasp if you are good at math. Imagine literally deciding to do another module than what was taught by your teacher on the exam just because you liked it better. (my friend who did this ended up a 40)

Anyway, it's the thousands of VCE students that you'll have to convince of this, not me. Good luck

[vox nihili]

If you want to discuss methods vs further, use another thread.

This isn't about the Methods exam. Anymore discussion about Further vs Methods and we'll need to lock the thread and split off the posts

[S200]

a.) This thread is about Methods exams being harder than previous year's. Why are we discussing who should do further? Mod lock?

b.)Having said that...

A very off-topic answer directly contravening Vox's post but I had already typed it up so can I plz just post it?

I think Aaron has a good point - There are many reasons for taking Further over methods, besides it being a bludge subject.
Indeed, the better question is, why are people even taking methods? If Methods is not a pre-req for courses, are you just taking methods for the bragging rights? What would drive you to take a subject that even if it scales up, could still be detrimental to your Atar?

I agree with what you are saying except this: 'The only further students that will be struggling is those who belittle further and hardly putting any work.' The stereotype of Further being an comparatively easy subject wouldn't exist if there was some truth to it.

Assuming you meant wasn't some truth to it, but anyway...
I personally think that this statement is 98% correct...
The only further students that will be struggling are those who belittle further or those who hardly put in any work
I know at my school that people with the mathematical ability to Ace methods were low scoring in Further, just for want of effort. Then again, there were people that, whilst not having major levels of intellect, could have certainly 40'd the subject if they put the effort in. Basically, that holds true for every subject - you can learn anything with effort (even bloody sample proportions)

Anyway, it's the thousands of VCE students that you'll have to convince of this, not me. Good luck

We can only try one at a time