2017 was the first examination year of the new H2 Science curriculum. The science, which had the most drastic change, was evidently Biology. Having a fall in the percentage of marks for regurgitation from 44% to 32% and a rise in the percentage of marks for application from 36% to 48%, many Biology students (and even teachers) expected the hardest of all Biology papers to be in 2017. However, this was quite the contrary for the 2017 examination.
Look at this calculation:
Firstly, Paper 2 has the removal of the 20m FRQ (Essay Question) and was replaced by investigation questions in Infectious Diseases, Climate Change and every other question. This already contributed to 6% of the fall in marks for regurgitation.
Secondly, Paper 1 was made harder by Cambridge through classifying ALL questions as that of application. That already contributed to the other 6% fall in marks for regurgitation.
ALL IN ALL
Observations from the 2017 Papers
Paper 1 has now become a pure Application Paper. Challenging, but manageable.
Paper 2 and 3 remain the same as that from the previous syllabus (9648), excluding the removal of the FRQ in Paper 2.
Review of Papers
Paper 1
Most striking of all papers. By convention, 6-7 questions will be recycled from the past 10 years of examination papers. However, no questions were recycled for the 2017 examinations. ALL questions required a form of application or comprehension of data, which explains the fall in the percentage of marks for regurgitation to 32% to 44%.
Paper 2
Many excepted Paper 2 to be challenged and to incorporate many Application Questions. However, the standards and style of questioning were similar to that of the previous syllabus. This paper should be easily aced by the students who can give the model explanations as per given by the Lecture Notes in their schools. You should be scoring more than 85 marks out of 100 for this paper if you want to secure an A for Biology. Questions such as the role of islands in enhancing natural selection, the interrelationship between structure and functions of the various biomolecules and the role of the variable region in the IgG molecule should be awarded full credit as this is foundational biological knowledge for the A Level Biology student.
Paper 3
The standard and difficulty of the questions in Paper 3 were similar to that of the previous syllabus. However, one was definitely striking was the pilot use of the stereotypically 'Core' topics (Cell Organelles, Genetics and Inheritance, Physiology and Evolution) into Paper 3 Application Questions. Paper 3 also had Application for Climate Change. The self-definition of terms, such as genetic disease in the first question was striking, but doable, given the diverse explanation that CIE would accept. The FRQ were broad and compromising, with many candidates exceeding the set number of printed foolscap on the Question Paper and answering in additional Answer Paper during the Actual Examinations.
This was a stereotypical Paper 3, which was striking to the extent that it incorporated the stereotypical 'Core' topics.
You should be scoring more than 60 marks out of 75 for this paper to secure an A for Biology.
Paper 4
There is nothing to compare this year's Practical with, as there is no past year Practical to compare upon. It is to note, however, that majority of candidates managed to finish the paper.
Notes to 2018 Candidates
Based on Past Syllabi Changes in both O and A Level, the first year of examination would be the norm and the second year would be the harder standard of the revised syllabus. Expect the unexpected for this year of Biology, but the standards and strictness of marking would still remain the same.
You MUST be able to regurgitate all your facts well for Paper 2, 3 and 4, and score full credit for all questions of pure regurgitation. The key to scoring A for Biology is inevitably your ability to show biological knowledge.
Monday, 8 January 2018
Tuesday, 19 December 2017
The UNofficial Grade Threshold for 2017 Singapore-Cambridge GCE A Level Examinations
Grade Threshold for GCE A Level
Examination 2017
Many
have requested for my predictions on the minimum marks to be awarded for each
grade for each subject. Through collaboration with others, I have calculated
the marks that are needed to guarantee that grade for that subject.
This
is for the Examination Year 2017 and not indicative of other Examination
Years.
These
are not endorsed by the Ministry of Education, Singapore, Singapore Examinations
and Assessment Board or the University of Cambridge Local Examinations
Syndicate. This is based on my independent studies and is not definite.
Do
also note that UCLES marking is much more lenient than Singaporean teachers.
You may be understating your actual grade if you were to apply the
marking of Singaporean teachers to your A Level responses.
If
you require the grade threshold of any subject not listed below, do contact me
via my email littlebunniehellokitty@gmail.com.
|
Subject/Subject
Code
|
A
|
B
|
C
|
D
|
E
|
S
|
Ungraded
|
|
General
Paper/ 8807
|
68
|
59
|
53
|
49
|
44
|
38
|
N.A.
|
|
Chemistry/9729
|
72
|
64
|
57
|
51
|
46
|
43
|
N.A.
|
|
Biology/9744
|
73
|
62
|
56
|
51
|
46
|
43
|
N.A.
|
|
Physics/9749
|
75
|
61
|
57
|
50
|
46
|
40
|
N.A.
|
|
Economics/9757
|
76
|
68
|
58
|
54
|
49
|
44
|
N.A.
|
|
Mathematics/9758
|
81
|
70
|
64
|
58
|
47
|
41
|
N.A.
|
Review of 2017 A Level H2 Economics Paper
This year's H2 Economics Paper was somewhat the norm of today's Economics. Through touching on contemporary issues, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the weakening of once powerful economies, this year's papers are an epitome of the assessment objectives of syllabus 9757. Albeit some questions seemed quite confusing, the questions were relatively manageable and similar to that of previous year's questions.
Paper 1
This year's case studies were contemporary and hot off the press. Through analysis of several economic issues including the TPP and the growing Chinese economy, it proved that 9757 is a syllabus used to test 21st competencies to A Level students.
The first question was a pre-dominantly microeconomic question on the Beef industry in Japan. Through analysis of the beef industry in Japan and its rivals, it proved to be an effective case study to test demand/supply, market structure and market failure. Strikingly, this year's case study seemed to have little mention of market structure (though short analysis of market structure could be embedded in the 10 mark sub-question).
Major downfalls that candidates could have done is through the confusion between 'quantity demanded' and 'demand' for the question that requires students to calculate and explain the result of Cross Elasticity of Demand on revenue, price and quantity. Cross Elasticity of Demand involves shifts in the demand curve but is calculated using quantity and price. Candidates could perhaps be confused and use the wrong 'quantity demanded' term for the analysis instead of 'demand'.
Secondly, it could also be noted that the lack of analytic rigour could be ubiquitous among the various JCs/CI in Singapore for H2 Economics students. Perhaps from how the 2016 paper was set, this year's students may fail to render effective economic framework for the questions requiring a discussion and evaluation, worth 18 marks altogether. However, if a student were to abide by the analytical framework given by their tutors and their lecture notes, these concerns should be in nought.
The second question discussed the growing strength of the Chinese economy. Again, contemporary. A student that has kept himself up to date on contemporary economics should have an edge in this issue.
Predominantly macroeconomic, this case study discussed the growing Chinese superpower through the standard of living, macroeconomic indicators, macroeconomic policies and touched a bit on globalisation. It was a balanced analysis of the macroeconomic, which touched a bit of the microeconomy in China and other countries.
The main issue with macroeconomy is the possible lack of contextualisation. Evidently, macroeconomics is more rigid and standard in analysis and rigour. However, students may get carried away with these formulae that were prudently done beforehand and lack context in accordance with the question. The best students are through that would use the context in their favour and use it as a beginning or ending as a form of evaluation within the main content paragraph and not just use this at the conclusion for evaluation.
Overall, this question was a typical macroeconomic question, much to the contrary to the 2016 Paper.
Paper 2
Paper 2 was an interesting paper for this year. It proved to be 'psychic', as mentioned by some candidates. As the papers were actually set two years in advance, some said that Cambridge had telepathy to set some of the questions!
This year's questions all required the evaluation of economic policies, which was quite striking to some students, given it has never occurred for many years of A Level H2 Economics examinations.
All of the questions were set reasonably, with Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q6 being the more popular questions. Most of the three questions done by questions permutated among these three questions, with Q1 and Q5 seeing a lower percentage of candidates attempting them.
Though Q1 seems to be tough, it is inevitable the first chapter of our new syllabus, 'The Central Problem of Economics'. If a candidate were to regurgitate the entire framework with correct flow and coherence, they would be awarded full credit for sub-question (a). Sub-question (b) seems daunting, but it is actually one of the easiest questions to answer. Merely evaluating the pros and cons of any microeconomic or macroeconomic policies from Market Failure or Macroeconomic Policies respectively with proper context would award a candidate full credit for this question. A possible conclusion/evaluation for this sub-question could be the comparison between policies of microeconomic and macroeconomic scale and weighing which is more effective policy to do so. That could award a candidate a full 5 marks for Evaluation.
Q2 may award a candidate a full 10m for sub-question (a) if they used the proper analytical rigour that has been emphasised by past year demand and supply question. The 'inflation' in Q2 could seem daunting initially but is basically the price in our microeconomic analysis. Using policies such as quota, subsidies and taxes would be sufficient to score for this question, along with proper evaluation with economic analysis.
Q3 was the question that struck candidates the most, with it being the question with the most number of the candidate attempting. MRT is a merit good to the government. The possible hazard that a candidate can gain from attempting this question would be to classify MRT as a good with negative externalities, in light of the Joo Koon Train Collision and Flooding Incident. These hazards would be more appropriately listed as the Private Marginal Cost, though.
Q4 is the easiest question to answer, by far. The three main types of unemployment are demand deficient (cyclical) unemployment, structural unemployment and frictional unemployment. Just by analysing the various causes of unemployment with proper economic analysis, candidates may already pass the question. Evaluate three different policies and you could score full marks for the 20 marks content. Evaluate with great depth at the end over which economic policies are the best and when they are the best.
Q5 was seen as the second hardest question to do, given the heavy contextualisation to Singapore. However, it is actually a very easy question to do. For this question, just by writing three paragraph on how the standard of living, cost of living and macroeconomic performance through permutation and combination would give a candidate 10 marks easily. The policies that could have been used are the commonplace macroeconomic policies, and also trade policies. Contextualisation with respect to Singapore would secure high marks for this question. Evaluate properly and 5 marks will be yours for evaluation.
Q6 is on basic macroeconomic policies and globalisation. The challenges of this question are similar to that of Q5. It is a manageable question.
Paper 1
This year's case studies were contemporary and hot off the press. Through analysis of several economic issues including the TPP and the growing Chinese economy, it proved that 9757 is a syllabus used to test 21st competencies to A Level students.
The first question was a pre-dominantly microeconomic question on the Beef industry in Japan. Through analysis of the beef industry in Japan and its rivals, it proved to be an effective case study to test demand/supply, market structure and market failure. Strikingly, this year's case study seemed to have little mention of market structure (though short analysis of market structure could be embedded in the 10 mark sub-question).
Major downfalls that candidates could have done is through the confusion between 'quantity demanded' and 'demand' for the question that requires students to calculate and explain the result of Cross Elasticity of Demand on revenue, price and quantity. Cross Elasticity of Demand involves shifts in the demand curve but is calculated using quantity and price. Candidates could perhaps be confused and use the wrong 'quantity demanded' term for the analysis instead of 'demand'.
Secondly, it could also be noted that the lack of analytic rigour could be ubiquitous among the various JCs/CI in Singapore for H2 Economics students. Perhaps from how the 2016 paper was set, this year's students may fail to render effective economic framework for the questions requiring a discussion and evaluation, worth 18 marks altogether. However, if a student were to abide by the analytical framework given by their tutors and their lecture notes, these concerns should be in nought.
The second question discussed the growing strength of the Chinese economy. Again, contemporary. A student that has kept himself up to date on contemporary economics should have an edge in this issue.
Predominantly macroeconomic, this case study discussed the growing Chinese superpower through the standard of living, macroeconomic indicators, macroeconomic policies and touched a bit on globalisation. It was a balanced analysis of the macroeconomic, which touched a bit of the microeconomy in China and other countries.
The main issue with macroeconomy is the possible lack of contextualisation. Evidently, macroeconomics is more rigid and standard in analysis and rigour. However, students may get carried away with these formulae that were prudently done beforehand and lack context in accordance with the question. The best students are through that would use the context in their favour and use it as a beginning or ending as a form of evaluation within the main content paragraph and not just use this at the conclusion for evaluation.
Overall, this question was a typical macroeconomic question, much to the contrary to the 2016 Paper.
Paper 2
Paper 2 was an interesting paper for this year. It proved to be 'psychic', as mentioned by some candidates. As the papers were actually set two years in advance, some said that Cambridge had telepathy to set some of the questions!
This year's questions all required the evaluation of economic policies, which was quite striking to some students, given it has never occurred for many years of A Level H2 Economics examinations.
All of the questions were set reasonably, with Q2, Q3, Q4 and Q6 being the more popular questions. Most of the three questions done by questions permutated among these three questions, with Q1 and Q5 seeing a lower percentage of candidates attempting them.
Though Q1 seems to be tough, it is inevitable the first chapter of our new syllabus, 'The Central Problem of Economics'. If a candidate were to regurgitate the entire framework with correct flow and coherence, they would be awarded full credit for sub-question (a). Sub-question (b) seems daunting, but it is actually one of the easiest questions to answer. Merely evaluating the pros and cons of any microeconomic or macroeconomic policies from Market Failure or Macroeconomic Policies respectively with proper context would award a candidate full credit for this question. A possible conclusion/evaluation for this sub-question could be the comparison between policies of microeconomic and macroeconomic scale and weighing which is more effective policy to do so. That could award a candidate a full 5 marks for Evaluation.
Q2 may award a candidate a full 10m for sub-question (a) if they used the proper analytical rigour that has been emphasised by past year demand and supply question. The 'inflation' in Q2 could seem daunting initially but is basically the price in our microeconomic analysis. Using policies such as quota, subsidies and taxes would be sufficient to score for this question, along with proper evaluation with economic analysis.
Q3 was the question that struck candidates the most, with it being the question with the most number of the candidate attempting. MRT is a merit good to the government. The possible hazard that a candidate can gain from attempting this question would be to classify MRT as a good with negative externalities, in light of the Joo Koon Train Collision and Flooding Incident. These hazards would be more appropriately listed as the Private Marginal Cost, though.
Q4 is the easiest question to answer, by far. The three main types of unemployment are demand deficient (cyclical) unemployment, structural unemployment and frictional unemployment. Just by analysing the various causes of unemployment with proper economic analysis, candidates may already pass the question. Evaluate three different policies and you could score full marks for the 20 marks content. Evaluate with great depth at the end over which economic policies are the best and when they are the best.
Q5 was seen as the second hardest question to do, given the heavy contextualisation to Singapore. However, it is actually a very easy question to do. For this question, just by writing three paragraph on how the standard of living, cost of living and macroeconomic performance through permutation and combination would give a candidate 10 marks easily. The policies that could have been used are the commonplace macroeconomic policies, and also trade policies. Contextualisation with respect to Singapore would secure high marks for this question. Evaluate properly and 5 marks will be yours for evaluation.
Q6 is on basic macroeconomic policies and globalisation. The challenges of this question are similar to that of Q5. It is a manageable question.
Thursday, 30 November 2017
Review of H1 General Paper (8807) 2017
Hi guys, General Paper was done way a long time ago. But, GP is still one of the most important subjects in our A Level curriculum. By now, the Cambridge markers would have marked finished all of the GP scripts and are now processing our scores and grades for next year.
Review
Paper 1
Paper 1 has always been both a blessing and curse for many. Write an insightful and impactful essay, and you would have pretty much secured an A for GP. Hijack or write out of point, and you would fall in the D/E/S/Ungraded range for GP.
For this year of examination, there are 12 questions. However, the most popular question from crowdsourcing was
Q11: Assess the view that attempts to control climate change can never be truly effective.
A valid and simple question which a person may easily underestimate. The underlying arguments that a candidate must encapsulate within their discussion to score well for this question are so profound. To score well, a student cannot rely entirely on the 'politically correct' reasons. He/She must offer their personal voice and question from the perspective of a GP student to gain the insight needed to score A.
It would be expected that this question would be responded about half of the candidature. If everyone were to attempt the questions and use the same reasons to tackle this question, it may become ad nauseam to the Cambridge Markers and they may not award students a score worthy of an A or even B.
As such, if one candidate were to want to score well easily, they should attempt other questions that 'speaks' to them AND those that they would not use robotic methods to attempt. Doing otherwise makes up increasingly susceptible to the utterly egregious act of 'hijacking' the question.
Personally, I feel that these questions would be the ones that are both simple and easy to use to impress the marker:
Q4. ‘Rehabilitation, not punishment, should be the purpose of the justice system.’ Discuss.
Q6: Do events, rather than politicians, shape the future?
Q7: How far is science fiction becoming fact?
Q8: Examine the role of music in establishing a national identity in your society.
Q9: To what extent are people judged more by their physical appearance than by their abilities?
Q12: The quality of written language is being destroyed by social media.’ What is your view?
Nonetheless, to score A for a GP Essay, well-substantiated arguments with good examples are the key to scoring an A for GP.
Paper 2
Paper 2 was a straightforward paper, but with some surprises, just as for any other year of GP comprehension.
The text was regarding Personal Data, which was quite anticipated considering the upsurge of the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) in 2014/15 time (considering Cambridge scripts are set two years in advance).
Given this year of examination, it would seem that Cambridge is moving towards testing students on their ability to comprehend the impact of the happenings of today's world towards themselves as A Level students, even if they do not belong to that category of society.
Monday, 7 August 2017
Evaluation of Print/Non-Print Material (EOM) being rejected? Here's how to solve!
Hi, guys, particularly current J1s!!! With the Written Report (WR) ongoing and the submission of the PI, generation of ideas become harder, right? Common questions I heard:
"How to do PW EOM?"
"EOM rejected again!(sigh)"
"I want to give up on EOM..."
For all of my GPF documents (PI, EOM and I&R), I had received great feedback from both my teachers last year. So I would like to share how to make sure that your EOM submits innovative ideas in the next draft, and hopefully before the deadline!
The EoM is the most important document determining your A&E score for GPF. The bulk of the consideration of A&E is dependent on the evaluation of usefulness in the EoM. Once this aspect is done properly, you could easily pave the way for an A for PW!!!
So, the main focus of EoM is:
1. A good Evaluation of Usefulness
2. A good Idea to solve the problem
3. Analysis of the effectiveness of the problem
1. Document
PLEASE!!! Pick a relevant document. The document should exemplify one of the following:
2. Application Area
With reference to the Research Article, give an idea that is inspired by the research article.
Go straight to the point! Do not use too many words linking the Research Article to the GI. Each of the 600 words is precious and may determine your credit for the EoM.
The idea must be INSIGHTFUL and/or INNOVATIVE. The definition of these two terms differs from teacher to teacher. Therefore, you must find out from your PW tutor of their stand of these two terms, as they WILL be the ones marking the GPF (PI, EoM, I&R).
Generally, the criterion is as follow:
INSIGHTFUL: An idea that shows an alternative perception towards the problem faced OR idea is specially catered to people of that particular society.
INNOVATIVE: An idea that has never been seen before OR implemented before.
To aid in the crafting of GI, check if your GI meets these criteria to be INSIGHTFUL AND INNOVATIVE:
1. Has your GI been implemented before in other societies?
2. Given the situation of society based on the problem, can your idea still be implemented? (Feasibility)
3. In the environment that the idea is been implemented in, are there enough equipment and personnel available to ensure that the events go smoothly? (Manageability)
4. Does the idea match the current trend (e.g. habits and living hood) of the society? (Insightful)
5. Does the idea show your knowledge of the society and information that is striking and commonly not emphasised in the society? (Insightful)
If your idea passes in all these questions, then you have an Exceeding Expectation (EE) GI!
NOTE: Do remember about the need to evaluate your idea at the end to show it effectiveness. Use factors such as feasibility and manageability to boost the A&E marks to EE!)
Analysis and Evaluation (A&E)
This is very important for EoM. A single fallacious reasoning in the evaluation of the Research Article could ruin your EoM credit for the entire GPF. Spend about 150-250 words for this. Please maximise your word count and aim for the EE band. You could consider analysing the effectiveness of the document by considering the following:
1. Cross Referencing with other research articles
2. Objectiveness (Scope and Depth of analysis by the article writer(s))
3. Detection of biasedness
4. Modernity (Is it recent or old? The more recent, the more useful)
Extra Notes:
1.You can "work backwards". You can come out with a smashing GI first and then use the topic discussed in the Application Area to find a suitable Case Study.
2. If you need any more help regarding EoM, or just need more information on how to score for PW, just contact me. I can also help to look through your EoM to see where it stands (as I have done PW before). The conversations are private and none of your PW material will be leaked out to others, as asked by some people who contacted me!
All the best for PW! Keep on pushing and preserve. Do not stop until you submit the I&R (this one is for a later date 🌝)
"How to do PW EOM?"
"EOM rejected again!(sigh)"
"I want to give up on EOM..."
For all of my GPF documents (PI, EOM and I&R), I had received great feedback from both my teachers last year. So I would like to share how to make sure that your EOM submits innovative ideas in the next draft, and hopefully before the deadline!
The EoM is the most important document determining your A&E score for GPF. The bulk of the consideration of A&E is dependent on the evaluation of usefulness in the EoM. Once this aspect is done properly, you could easily pave the way for an A for PW!!!
So, the main focus of EoM is:
1. A good Evaluation of Usefulness
2. A good Idea to solve the problem
3. Analysis of the effectiveness of the problem
1. Document
PLEASE!!! Pick a relevant document. The document should exemplify one of the following:
- Related to the problem described by the WR
- Resolution used a method similar to your GI (in this case, you are 'working backwards'.
- A concept that inspires you to generate an idea.
2. Application Area
With reference to the Research Article, give an idea that is inspired by the research article.
Go straight to the point! Do not use too many words linking the Research Article to the GI. Each of the 600 words is precious and may determine your credit for the EoM.
The idea must be INSIGHTFUL and/or INNOVATIVE. The definition of these two terms differs from teacher to teacher. Therefore, you must find out from your PW tutor of their stand of these two terms, as they WILL be the ones marking the GPF (PI, EoM, I&R).
Generally, the criterion is as follow:
INSIGHTFUL: An idea that shows an alternative perception towards the problem faced OR idea is specially catered to people of that particular society.
INNOVATIVE: An idea that has never been seen before OR implemented before.
To aid in the crafting of GI, check if your GI meets these criteria to be INSIGHTFUL AND INNOVATIVE:
1. Has your GI been implemented before in other societies?
2. Given the situation of society based on the problem, can your idea still be implemented? (Feasibility)
3. In the environment that the idea is been implemented in, are there enough equipment and personnel available to ensure that the events go smoothly? (Manageability)
4. Does the idea match the current trend (e.g. habits and living hood) of the society? (Insightful)
5. Does the idea show your knowledge of the society and information that is striking and commonly not emphasised in the society? (Insightful)
If your idea passes in all these questions, then you have an Exceeding Expectation (EE) GI!
NOTE: Do remember about the need to evaluate your idea at the end to show it effectiveness. Use factors such as feasibility and manageability to boost the A&E marks to EE!)
Analysis and Evaluation (A&E)
This is very important for EoM. A single fallacious reasoning in the evaluation of the Research Article could ruin your EoM credit for the entire GPF. Spend about 150-250 words for this. Please maximise your word count and aim for the EE band. You could consider analysing the effectiveness of the document by considering the following:
1. Cross Referencing with other research articles
2. Objectiveness (Scope and Depth of analysis by the article writer(s))
3. Detection of biasedness
4. Modernity (Is it recent or old? The more recent, the more useful)
Extra Notes:
1.You can "work backwards". You can come out with a smashing GI first and then use the topic discussed in the Application Area to find a suitable Case Study.
2. If you need any more help regarding EoM, or just need more information on how to score for PW, just contact me. I can also help to look through your EoM to see where it stands (as I have done PW before). The conversations are private and none of your PW material will be leaked out to others, as asked by some people who contacted me!
All the best for PW! Keep on pushing and preserve. Do not stop until you submit the I&R (this one is for a later date 🌝)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)