Who thought the paper was easy? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter kyu_chan
- Start date
Trippendicular
Member
I thought the middle section of the paper was harder than it normally is but the end was easier
mg_syd
New Member
Yeah true call there, middle was harder, end was easier. But it was a hard test, no matter what the arrogant people say on this forum. Like what happened to the "easier" coordinate geometry section? Also where was the usual e(-kt) type questions? A hard but do-able test.
i know man! i love those questions, i always get full marks on them... i would have felt more confident on this test if that was in there somewhere, o well i rekon i got 110+ / 120mg_syd said:
hehe"A hard but do-able test"
*agrees* word...
sweetsensations
Member
im not gonna say it was an extraordinarily hard paper, but the last questions were definately difficult.
As for the first half.... i think it was easier than most of the past hsc papers so i think thats wot will help pull people up.
and as for those arrogant people who keep bragging about it.... go fuck urselves- i dont care if u think it was easy but theres no need to rub it in everybody elses faces!
As for the first half.... i think it was easier than most of the past hsc papers so i think thats wot will help pull people up.
and as for those arrogant people who keep bragging about it.... go fuck urselves- i dont care if u think it was easy but theres no need to rub it in everybody elses faces!
everything was ok uptill question 6. then i found it a bit dodgy. question 10 was pretty bad. well, its just how i went, im not as smart as i wish i was i guess, congrats to those people who earned themselves above 90 and did really well, you deserve if for the hours you put in. even though i did put in the hours and managed to work my way up, it was still not satisfactory..
holla back girl
Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2005
- Messages
- 299
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- N/A
what971 said:
you have the right to say that when you get the results bacj with >98%
but in the mean time just say that you did well...and stop rubbing it in like the other treads
'what971' did a good job in her paper as she says, and anyone who did as well as she says she did would feel ecstatic, i don't blame her. if i was in her position, i would be as happy and id be thinking positive. she did well, others did crap. you describe how you did, that's all there is to it. don't blame others for making you feel crap, that's just your own fault.
websta91
Member
agreed. The general consensus is that the paper was harder than previous hsc's have been.... so maybe you guys should've been doing 4U or something... i dunno.sweetsensations said:
I thought the paper wasn't particularly difficult. Most of it was very straightforward. All you had to do was calm down and take a few minutes to read through the harder questions. That's not to say that I did well. My exam techniques were terrible. I didn't managed my time well and thus not only did I not get to finish the last question, I didn't get time to check over my answers. I was going through the first questions way too slow. Now I believe that I've made quite a few stupid errors.
At least, now I'll know to rush 3U from the beginning of the exam.
At least, now I'll know to rush 3U from the beginning of the exam.
Last edited:
seremify007
Junior Member
Slow & Steady wins the race.
I didn't get time to check my answers- but in maths, I never check my answers. Not the best technique, but then, I tend not to write down an answer until i'm 100% sure of it- otherwise I'll keep redoing it.
I didn't get time to check my answers- but in maths, I never check my answers. Not the best technique, but then, I tend not to write down an answer until i'm 100% sure of it- otherwise I'll keep redoing it.
... it really was straight- forward. Definitely not as hard as 2003... they even told you in question five to use the change of base formula... for log3 7.
... but i probably made way too many stupid mistakes that brought my mark down to 70/ 120 or something. Like being unable to see that BE extended to BC in question 3c!!!
... but i probably made way too many stupid mistakes that brought my mark down to 70/ 120 or something. Like being unable to see that BE extended to BC in question 3c!!!
Last edited:
cimbom said:... it really was straight- forward. Definitely not as hard as 2003... they even told you in question five to use the change of base formula... for log3 7.
... but i probably made way too many stupid mistakes that brought my mark down to 70/ 120 or something. Like being unable to see that BE extended to BC in question 3c!!!
agreed. the change of base thing was good, coz i revised over the change of base formula 2 minutes before going into the exam room, so it felt good!
it was an ok paper, i wouldn't say it was easy. everything upto question 6 was fine, 7 and 8 were a little whoa...and 9 and 10...well dodgy describes it. i got part a od q 9, didn't have time to do part b properly, quickly just did what i thought...obviously its probably wrong..