‘Difficult’ matric maths paper to be investigated

[The_Right_Honourable_Brit]

A few extracts from the review of the paper.

As it should.
That's why it's called an exam - it's supposed to examine the mathematical skills/abilities of someone.


Who knew.


So raising the standards is good, but also bad?

It's really difficult to set a fair Mathematics paper given the inequality that exists between schools in SA. Private and former Model C schools have a huge leg up over township schools, for example. I wouldn't like to be an examiner for final matric exams...it's a tougher job than it sounds.

 

[TheChamp]

not according to my parents, to them below 60% was a fail

Okay, what about you? Was a below 50% a fail when you did yours?

 

[Binary_Bark]

Okay, what about you? Was a below 50% a fail when you did yours?

No, It was 40%

 

[supersunbird]

No, but it seems maths is too difficult for these students

So the paper was indeed flawless? The incompetence cannot reach a paper?

 

[RedViking]

It's really difficult to set a fair Mathematics paper given the inequality that exists between schools in SA. Private and former Model C schools have a huge leg up over township schools, for example. I wouldn't like to be an examiner for final matric exams...it's a tougher job than it sounds.

The privileged won't understand though. There should be a different curriculum for disadvantaged areas but it will have to be implemented from an early grade so the time they done with matric they are on the same standard as your developed kids. Unfortunately the system is such a mess, mixed with politics, and it is probably too late anyways.

 

[Supervan II]

So 1+X=5 is too Difficult wow.

It is all Greek to me ...

 

[Ponderer]

It's really difficult to set a fair Mathematics paper given the inequality that exists between schools in SA. Private and former Model C schools have a huge leg up over township schools, for example. I wouldn't like to be an examiner for final matric exams...it's a tougher job than it sounds.

The point is that low examination standards does not do anybody any favours.
It cuts the very purpose of a qualification off at the knees.

 

[Kosmik]

That's why there were two levels to the old papers, HG and SG. One would apply to those with a prevalence to mathematical parlance and complexity whereas the other would be slightly simpler but still proper mathematics. I'm NOT talking about maths lit, that's just a another subject and although I never wrote SG papers, I've heard from those who did, that Maths Lit is ridiculous in comparison.

 

[Knyro]

A few extracts from the review of the paper.

As it should.
That's why it's called an exam - it's supposed to examine the mathematical skills/abilities of someone.

Exactly. Which is why any exam that would wash anybody that isn't a wiz-kid is a bad paper.

This exam is supposed to show where on the spectrum of mathematical ability everybody is. That means that by definition a good proportion of the paper is supposed to be easy, to see exactly where the dumbasses are, and even to discriminate among the dumbasses with reasonable granularity. 3.3% instead of the recommended 30% is a joke.

This is also particularly worrying:

A creative, but difficult, paper where the approach to questions was frequently unusual. This tests understanding quite deeply and favours the mathematically able learner. This breakdown excludes access to the middle to low ability learner. There was a shortage of basic questions with uncomplicated access

Bad enough the paper was hard but questions that require you to realise that there some kind of non-intutitive solution turns it from a test of mathematical ability to some kind of random event to see if you can spot the trick before you run out of time, introducing an element of luck. One or two of these are OK but "frequently" is ridiculous.

 

[lumeer]

Part of the problem is that maths gets misused as a pre-requisite for tertiary subjects that don't require it, thereby resulting in learners being forced to do it for the wrong reasons.

Imagine if "matric rugby" say, were a pre-requisite for everything from sports science to auditing. Rugby coaches would be complaining the same.

 

[Procrast1]

easier to just complain incessantly, then to actually pass the paper fair and square.

am actually surprised they didn't blame Apartheid or Jan or White people.

Whoosh! Irony flyby.

 

[konfab]

Exactly. Which is why any exam that would wash anybody that isn't a wiz-kid is a bad paper.

This exam is supposed to show where on the spectrum of mathematical ability everybody is. That means that by definition a good proportion of the paper is supposed to be easy, to see exactly where the dumbasses are, and even to discriminate among the dumbasses with reasonable granularity. 3.3% instead of the recommended 30% is a joke.

This is also particularly worrying:



Bad enough the paper was hard but questions that require you to realise that there some kind of non-intutitive solution turns it from a test of mathematical ability to some kind of random event to see if you can spot the trick before you run out of time, introducing an element of luck. One or two of these are OK but "frequently" is ridiculous.

It isn't luck. It is pattern recognition and how much you have practised solving difficult problems.

It isn't "luck" when a good structural engineer notices a defect in a structure.

You can even see this in non-academic pursuits .
If you watch the Great British Baking Show (which I highly recommend to everyone) , the people who do well in the technical challenges are the people who have the ability and experience to think about what they are doing. Luck has nothing to do with it.

 

[ArtyLoop]

Fark, in my day you wrote the damn paper and kept your mouth shut hoping to god that you got at least 50% to pass

In my day, the Physical Science examination, in 1993, let's just say that we all got moved down a grade to get a pass mark.
Why? Because what was taught in school, was not the same curriculum as the paper. Not by a long shot. Stuff in the exam paper was stuff we'd never seen before.
In short, the school was more worried about ruckby and the 1st team than the actual syllabus. I checked it out because it bugged me, and I found the syllabus changed somewhere in 1991 but the school had its head so far up the rugby and sports butthole they didn't know or care.

IDGAF at the time because I knew I was going to college, but yes, this stuff happened a long time ago, too. Except back then we just STFU and move on.
Also by the time school came to an end I was half f0kken dead anyway... brain was numb to all that shyte and all the crap I had to deal with in that shyte place.

 

[konfab]

Part of the problem is that maths gets misused as a pre-requisite for tertiary subjects that don't require it, thereby resulting in learners being forced to do it for the wrong reasons.

Imagine if "matric rugby" say, were a pre-requisite for everything from sports science to auditing. Rugby coaches would be complaining the same.

School math is the closest thing that society has to a general IQ test. University subjects, even ones that don't explicitly require math are still reasonably complex such that they still need those abilities.

 

[Knyro]

It isn't luck. It is pattern recognition and how much you have practised solving difficult problems.

It isn't "luck" when a good structural engineer notices a defect in a structure.

You can even see this in non-academic pursuits .
If you watch the Great British Baking Show (which I highly recommend to everyone) , the people who do well in the technical challenges are the people who have the ability and experience to think about what they are doing. Luck has nothing to do with it.

/yawn

Read what I said. "non-intuitive", "before you run out of time".

If something is "non-intutitive" it means that you almost certainly will not spot the answer immediately. Even smart people will spend some time thinking about a trick question. In an exam you might spot the trick after 10 seconds, whereas on another day it may take you 5 minutes.

Solving a Rubik's cube is a skill, but realising I've swapped two of the stickers to make it unsolvable, and you have to first swap them back is non-intuitive and even very skilled cubers will probably take a while to realise it.

 

[zulucat]

What makes these kids special. We wrote difficult exams in early 2000s at high school... We never complained. We prepared, and if we failed, we blamed it on ourselves...

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

Wait a sec, they received a complaint from ONE person and are investigating ....... wut

 

[TheChamp]

Wait a sec, they received a complaint from ONE person and are investigating ....... wut

Does a complaint only become valid if it's the masses complaing?

 

[Mephisto_Helix]

Does a complaint only become valid if it's the masses complaing?

It should in this situation, yes ...... I was a dumfark at maths, doesn't mean I must complain because I'm a dumfark. Nope sorry, a class or entire grade complaining, then there's validity but one, that's just another dumbo

 

[surface]

Maybe the math wizards here can back out a bit? Till they investigate further I mean.

The chairperson of the Foundation for English; Mathematics; Sciences; Sports and Innovation of South Africa and a former matric examiner, Vishnu Naidoo, said he found problems with maths paper 1.

“This is the most poorly constructed paper in the history of maths. The paper clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of mathematical concepts.”