Scores

[bonghead]

I always thought he was a man. Some chick on the Tasmania Jones thread (this conversation should probably be moved lol) was adament that Tasmania Jones could be a woman. I personally disagree as well. Anyway im pretty sure Tasmania Jones has hurt me more than anyone else but the man still deserves respect. If i put m=0 how many consequential marks do you think i lost? (At least 1 for the graph, working out how long he is alive for ect) if you can remember back that far?

[kingmar]

You'd lose no consequential marks, because those marks are consequential.

You lose one mark, and then as long as all your other answers are "correct" based on that incorrect answer then you'll get full method marks for those.

Answer marks I'm not so sure. You should get them though.

[bonghead]

I know you dont get penalised at all in chemistry but im sure in methods you definately lose the answer mark. Sometimes i think you may even lose the working marks. Eg putting m=0 means that my working (not to mention my graph) will differ immensly therefore my method will be incorrect. Do you disagree?

[kingmar]

I concur.

Then, you'd lose answer marks as well as the original mark.

I would expect you to get the method marks though.

For example, the second question after the graph was like:
"When is the conc. of killer insects under 1250?"
Your answer is clearly wrong, BUT as you based your answer on the graph, which was wrong, but your method is right, you in theory SHOULD get the mark.

[bonghead]

I concur.

Then, you'd lose answer marks as well as the original mark.

I would expect you to get the method marks though.

For example, the second question after the graph was like:
"When is the conc. of killer insects under 1250?"
Your answer is clearly wrong, BUT as you based your answer on the graph, which was wrong, but your method is right, you in theory SHOULD get the mark.

I would love to believe you cos i made a similar mistake for spec aswell you have to remember that vcaa are bastards and they have no mercy. Im positive they dont give you any consequential marks because my teachers have told me that. And sometimes putting in the wrong answer would make the consequential working a hell of a lot easier, thus being unfair

[kingmar]

So what does that make of the theory that if you don't know the answer, just randomly assume a value to continue the question?

i.e. dunno x, so I assume it's 2 and then move on.

[bonghead]

that makes that theory completely useless. It would work for chem. Regardless i live in hope and i still did something like that on the methods exam.  to find the y value of the Turning point i did something like this:
p(x value found)=4(xvalue found)^6+54 ect lol i think i wasted my time

[Nick]

Hmmm...so methods is rather..cool..

[kingmar]

Hmmm...so methods is rather..cool..

Methods = Cool Sh*t.
Exams= Bullsh*t.
Tasmania Jones = HOLY SH*T!

Normally, I would bag VCAA. But after visiting the place, I can safely appreciate the enormous amount of work that they do. You may not like the VCAA, or the exams/examiners, but one thing is for sure - you can't fault their work ethic.

[kido_1]

I have to agree. VCAA work their ass off, even if it is to produce questions with Tassy Jones in them.

Yeh, the graph also took ages to draw.

[bonghead]

Obviously vcaa have an excellent work ethic seeing as they introduced the mythical Tasmania Jones in the first place. The character is a fine product of the excellent work vcaa have done