Hi guys! After all this time, I finally am posting after a year! I'm bringing to you my personal opinion of this year's GP paper.
I retook GP this year. Having experienced GP in both 2017 and 2018, I bring some insights into the paper this year.
Paper 1
This year's presented 12 questions that covered a wide range of topics. However, those students that focussed on Science and Environment were stunned over the mixing of these well-loved topics with other unconventional topics like one career and our work-life balance.
This year's MOST popular question was Question 2, which discussed economic growth and its impact on the lives of us. As a student that loved Econs, I would have died to do this topic if it came out for H2 Economics. BUT, I avoided this question at all cost for this paper. I will discuss why...
This question was an obvious TRAP for students. I would not be surprised if students who attempted this question scored mediocrely for GP this year. Why?
1. Cambridge is cognisant of the fact that many students would fall back to what they know most of to attempt their paper. Of course, Econs students (which are the many of us) would love to do this as we have A LOT of examples of this. But remember, General Paper tests your argumentative skills, not your skills to show off your knowledge. You use your knowledge to create your arguments. The knowledge should not be the main attraction of your GP essay. Those students who fell into this trap have forgotten the true purpose of GP.
2. Even if you avoid falling into the trap, you will fall into the trap eventually. That's because your mind has always been programmed to think economically when you see the keywords of Econs. General Paper heavily emphasises you to write in laymen terms. Jargons are frowned upon by the GP markers. It is inevitable that you fall back to using 'demand', 'supply', 'standard of living' when constructing your essay here if you learn Econs.
3. The more preferred way of answering this question is to link it to the concept of 'consumerism' and 'politics and governance', not really economics to avoid you from falling into their trap. Surprise surprise, these topics are not really studied intensively by the majority of students in GP. That's another trap.
Personally, I attempted Question 1 'How far is failure an essential part of success?' This is so cliche, but it would one of those questions that create the most impact if you develop the more mature responses. It should be important that a 'setback' is very different from a 'failure'. Do not fall into this trap. For example, Nick Vujicic's lack of limb can be considered a setback as it is a disadvantage given to him. However, it cannot be considered as nothing has been specified of him not being to do. However, Lego's decline in the sale the past can be considered as a setback as they have been disadvantaged in the process (such as their reputation). Its decline in sale can also be considered a failure as they have been unsuccessful in achieving their goal of profits. Failures are a subset of setback. Failure can be caused by setbacks. A person that has been through a setback may not necessarily fail if he/she has bounced back from it.
Another important note is the term 'part of' in the question. This implies that success is a journey that has many things intermediate to its attainment.
Other questions that I felt that many candidates would find popular:
Question 12: Work-life balance (Our personal well-being in the modern milieu)
Question 11: Foreign Intervention (Should foreign nations help other nations?)
Question 7: Young People (Are we really the 'Strawberry Generation'?)
Question 6: Culture (The worth of tradition and its product today)
All in all, GP Paper 1 requires arguments. Show that you fighting for your stand and answer your question fully. If you achieve that, you are on the right track!
Paper 2
This one was on political apathy. Perhaps candidates don't really follow the political scene in Singapore. That's why so many in Reddit and other social media platforms all lament on the difficulty of the paper. I, for one, think that this paper discriminated students very effectively based on their broadness of understanding world issues.
What discriminated students the most this Paper 2 was the Application Question (AQ). Cambridge quoted a portion of Paragraph 3 and asked candidates whether they agreed with it with reference to Singapore and themselves. Many candidates were confused over they should quote from the passage, as that was the requirement of AQ from past years.
My stand is: YES.
The quote was the actual stand of the author! The first two paragraphs were just giving examples of how young people are actually more interested than they are credited for. The credit was based on their 'voting' habit. So it's basically asking you whether you agree with the author stand. The way you will answer this question was examined in many years of GP, such as 2008, 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2015. So many students overthought the question and did not quote. There is always the same standard way to answer the AQ. Just stick to it and answer it based on the topic that the AQ gives you and you can score.
The SAQs were generally do-able and similar to the standards of the past few years. The summary was generally do-able too. It's just that some of the points were hidden in the examples in all three of the paragraphs.
All in all, don't fret too much over GP! This subject is not as important as the other content subjects in determining your placing in a university in Singapore! Even if you fail GP, you can enter university if all your other content subjects can help to pull up your rank points. Come on, last national exam! Finish with a bang!
Saturday, 10 November 2018
Wednesday, 31 January 2018
Cut off Points for JC for JAE 2018
JC
|
Science
|
Arts
|
ASJC
|
12
|
12
|
MTJC
|
14
|
13
|
YIJC
|
20
|
20
|
PJJC
|
14
|
17
|
RI
|
5
|
5
|
HCI
|
5
|
5
|
NJC
|
8
|
9
|
NYJC
|
7
|
8
|
VJC
|
6
|
8
|
CJC
|
15
|
14
|
SAJC
|
11
|
12
|
ACJC
|
9
|
10
|
EJC
|
10
|
11
|
TJC
|
10
|
11
|
Monday, 8 January 2018
Review of H2 Biology (9744) 2017
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)