Rogue HSC marker falsely deducts 3 marks out of 5 (2024 HSC Physics) (1 Viewer)

[alphxreturns]

like 3 people have asked u what ur physics teacher thought and u haven't acknowledged it at all man

 

[RZ1234]

did u talk to ur physics teacher? what was their insight into the whole thing?

ask the physics teacher at ur school what they think about ur response

this question is so simple that it doesnt require that

 

[alphxreturns]

View attachment 47107
seems like these geniuses don't understand people can mark wrongly. they can't justify me losing 2 out of 3 marks...

seems like u answered your own question in 2c

 

[jane1820]

can u explain how my response would be completely wrong, to the point they only gave 1 mark for each question as if i wrote a bunch of bs?
Also I don't fall in to gas lighting so don't try. I am very confident my response is 100% correct

Compare my responses to the sample answer (which should be full mark responses)
View attachment 47106

my physics teacher said that in the fine print of the sample answers they ALWAYS acknowledge that their sample answers are not 100% correct (in fact it might be only 10% correct) it is a sample for a reason

so u cant compare ur answer to that

u refusing to ask your physics teacher about the answer is ur problem so idk suck it up ig

regardless u still have other subjects to lock in for and did u not band 6 physics?

 

[RZ1234]

my physics teacher said that in the fine print of the sample answers they ALWAYS acknowledge that their sample answers are not 100% correct (in fact it might be only 10% correct) it is a sample for a reason

so u cant compare ur answer to that

u refusing to ask your physics teacher about the answer is ur problem so idk suck it up ig

regardless u still have other subjects to lock in for and did u not band 6 physics?

if i did get band 6 it then i wouldnt care about getting 3 extra marks, and i already emailed my teacher

 

[Eagle Mum]

As a separate and parallel approach, since you are still doing the HSC this year, have you considered re-sitting the physics exam? The rule is that the marks from the most recent attempt(s) at any subject are counted toward the ATAR, so you have to be sure you know the content well enough that you are likely to score better, not worse.

 

[RZ1234]

As a separate and parallel approach, since you are still doing the HSC this year, have you considered re-sitting the physics exam? The rule is that the marks from the most recent attempt(s) at any subject are counted toward the ATAR, so you have to be sure you know the content well enough that you are likely to score better, not worse.

lol i definitely would resit it if i could... except you have to redo the course again. I wish I could just sit the test

 

[RZ1234]

bump, markers need to be held accountable. They literally get paid thousands to mark yet as evident by this post are still low quality.

 

[cheesynooby]

bump, markers need to be held accountable. They literally get paid thousands to mark yet as evident by this post are still low quality.

i havent done mod 7 (edit: nvm its mod8 im so dumb its literally has atom in its name) yet but i think there is some reasoning behind their marking which i shall guess:
i) you make a lot of statements without backup or links e.g. "protons have a positive charge" ..and? "This translated the undetectable neutrons to protons" how does protons having a positive charge do that? if neutrons are undetectable why are they literally being "detected" using paraffin (i get what u mean but its an inaccuracy and markers cant imply what u mean in a response)
ii) the response doesn't say much - i would expect a lot more content/detail for 3 marks.
your response seems to state what changes occured to the model, rather than how; it seems to be responding more to a 1-2 mark identify or describe question.
> also, neutrons are a "nucleon with approximately the same mass" is very unclear - you aren't comparing it to anything.
> "neutrons as well as protons" is vague - don't just imply the previous model only had protons, state it!
> similarly "models" is vague - it should be "the model of the atom".
> I believe "a neutron" is also inaccurate - atoms may have multiple neutrons and I doubt Chadwick deduced that all atoms only have a single neutron.

 

[RZ1234]

i havent done mod 7 (edit: nvm its mod8 im so dumb its literally has atom in its name) yet but i think there is some reasoning behind their marking which i shall guess:
i) you make a lot of statements without backup or links e.g. "protons have a positive charge" ..and? "This translated the undetectable neutrons to protons" how does protons having a positive charge do that? if neutrons are undetectable why are they literally being "detected" using paraffin (i get what u mean but its an inaccuracy and markers cant imply what u mean in a response)
ii) the response doesn't say much - i would expect a lot more content/detail for 3 marks.
your response seems to state what changes occured to the model, rather than how; it seems to be responding more to a 1-2 mark identify or describe question.
> also, neutrons are a "nucleon with approximately the same mass" is very unclear - you aren't comparing it to anything.
> "neutrons as well as protons" is vague - don't just imply the previous model only had protons, state it!
> similarly "models" is vague - it should be "the model of the atom".
> I believe "a neutron" is also inaccurate - atoms may have multiple neutrons and I doubt Chadwick deduced that all atoms only have a single neutron.

this is marking based on grammar and punctuation...

 

[RZ1234]

i havent done mod 7 (edit: nvm its mod8 im so dumb its literally has atom in its name) yet but i think there is some reasoning behind their marking which i shall guess:
i) you make a lot of statements without backup or links e.g. "protons have a positive charge" ..and? "This translated the undetectable neutrons to protons" how does protons having a positive charge do that? if neutrons are undetectable why are they literally being "detected" using paraffin (i get what u mean but its an inaccuracy and markers cant imply what u mean in a response)
ii) the response doesn't say much - i would expect a lot more content/detail for 3 marks.
your response seems to state what changes occured to the model, rather than how; it seems to be responding more to a 1-2 mark identify or describe question.
> also, neutrons are a "nucleon with approximately the same mass" is very unclear - you aren't comparing it to anything.
> "neutrons as well as protons" is vague - don't just imply the previous model only had protons, state it!
> similarly "models" is vague - it should be "the model of the atom".
> I believe "a neutron" is also inaccurate - atoms may have multiple neutrons and I doubt Chadwick deduced that all atoms only have a single neutron.

also this implies stating that we needed to state there is an equal number of protons and neutrons, something which is not present in the sample answer.

 

[cheesynooby]

this is marking based on grammar and punctuation...

also this implies stating that we needed to state there is an equal number of protons and neutrons, something which is not present in the sample answer.

to a certain extent yes it is marking based on grammar and punctuation but it's probably justified considering it changes the meaning of your response. "a neutron" is just a glaring inaccuracy, just like "a beaker of water contains a water molecule" would be inaccurate.
also, I believe the sample answers are by no means perfect and may not even get full marks or might be a bare minimum (see the sample answers on English paper 1, they are pitiful), so it would always be good to write more detail that whatever the sample answers provide.

 

[RZ1234]

to a certain extent yes it is marking based on grammar and punctuation but it's probably justified considering it changes the meaning of your response. "a neutron" is just a glaring inaccuracy, just like "a beaker of water contains a water molecule" would be inaccurate.
also, I believe the sample answers are by no means perfect and may not even get full marks or might be a bare minimum (see the sample answers on English paper 1, they are pitiful), so it would always be good to write more detail that whatever the sample answers provide.

The calculation question sample answers are always objectively correct (correct final answer), hence all the sample answers should be full marks then

 

[idkkdi]

bump, markers need to be held accountable. They literally get paid thousands to mark yet as evident by this post are still low quality.

well theyre high school teachers and not physicists. uni gives a lot more marks for being right (and a lot less for rambling). for reference, i think hsc marking is not the best and sometimes you just have to ramble so the marker realises uve covered what's required

View attachment 47099View attachment 47100
What the hell can I do about this?

i didnt figure out anything to do, so probably nothing. i remember thinking my physics paper deserved an extra 5 marks lol tho i didnt look at it too closely

all they do is re-count the numbers and check if the marks add up iirc lmao

 

[RZ1234]

well theyre high school teachers and not physicists. uni gives a lot more marks for being right (and a lot less for rambling). for reference, i think hsc marking is not the best and sometimes you just have to ramble so the marker realises uve covered what's required

i didnt figure out anything to do, so probably nothing. i remember thinking my physics paper deserved an extra 5 marks lol

all they do is recount the numbers and check if the marks add up iirc lmao

most of the hsc physics paper was yapping and writing paragraphs and reciting stuff we read from the textbook. If you look at western australia waec (their version of hsc) physics paper you can see how much more rigorous other states are

 

[v.tex]

most of the hsc physics paper was yapping and writing paragraphs and reciting stuff we read from the textbook. If you look at western australia waec (their version of hsc) physics paper you can see how much more rigorous other states are

I agree, they need to focus on the math part of Physics more, however having a holistic understanding of physics allows you to know the concepts well, how they work, how they are derived and not just the formulas that are in play.

I reckon they could have like a Physics extension or something for capable math students.

 

[quokka]

bro why r u so cut over two marks its over and done with + idk why u think u shouldnt have proper grammar in a short answer for the hsc dingus

 

[RZ1234]

I agree, they need to focus on the math part of Physics more, however having a holistic understanding of physics allows you to know the concepts well, how they work, how they are derived and not just the formulas that are in play.

I reckon they could have like a Physics extension or something for capable math students.

all the content in the wace and vce papers are also in the nsw hsc and prelim physics syllabus, they just need to completely overhaul the exam

 

[RZ1234]

genuinely how? it's like they don't even know physics terminology

 

[RZ1234]