These are my barely-edited, initial thoughts on today’s controversial EdExcel Core 3 paper. Nothing is meant as an attack on anyone – except, of course, for Mr Gove, who must be used to it by now.
UPDATED June 14: The legendary Arsey at TSR has worked solutions for the paper here. There were a few unusual questions, and I rate it as a tough paper that required some thought beyond mechanically applying formulas – which is one of the things C3 is meant to test. At the same time, there were several questions that should have been almost automatic for a candidate with a realistic hope of doing well in the exam.
Assuming the grade boundaries are adjusted, I don’t think there’s much hope for the free-resit brigade. (Update ends)
UPDATED again, June 14, evening: I’ve now seen the original, compromised paper. Mark for mark, there’s no contest; the original paper was far, far less demanding than the replacement paper. However, mark-for-mark isn’t the right comparison: the right comparison is how hard it is to achieve each grade.
The grade boundaries for the original paper would have been much higher than they will be for the replacement paper. It could well turn out to have been ‘easier’ to get an A on the replacement paper than the original – until the grade boundaries are decided, it’s impossible to say. (Update ends)
I’ve not yet seen the full C3 paper, but I’ve seen some of the questions, including the “why can’t Kate get a zoom lens?” one. I have some thoughts:
- Some students seem to be genuinely devastated by this paper. I suspect there’s also a bandwagon effect; for many people, this was an extremely high-stakes exam with the potential to change their future. I feel sorry for students who feel like the system has screwed them over, and wish it hadn’t happened.
- The questions I’ve seen were, in my opinion, tough. Not impossible, not unfair, but tough. I’d be very interested to see the full paper to form a proper judgement on the balance and style of the exam.
- The lost papers debacle: careless, very careless. For all EdExcel’s protests, I find it a bit unlikely that the substitute paper was subject to the same level of scrutiny as the original. Around 60 students sat the ‘wrong’ exam, out of around 35,000; I find it hard to believe that there was cheating involved.
- Speaking to some of my students, I gather some of the questions were asked oddly. This will have disadvantaged students who relied on rote learning rather than reading and understanding. Mr Gove will be LIVID.
- The final question did involve — for three marks — knowing that distance = speed $\times$ time. Technically, that’s not in the specification. Neither is knowing there are 60 minutes in an hour; it’s not unreasonable to expect an A-level maths student to know either of those facts.
- The grade boundaries have historically changed from one exam to the next to reflect the difficulty of exams. If, as seems likely, scores on this paper are lower than expected, the UMS conversion will be adjusted to account for that. That said, it’s a source of doubt — and a blow to the confidence — that will make for a very uncomfortable summer for many students.
- I’ve seen some amusing memes, and I’ve seen a lot of what can only be called entitled whining. I’ve seen someone claim a 14-mark question cost them the chance of getting more than 20/75. Frankly, I think trigonometry is the least of their problems.
- One last criticism about balance, based on what I’ve seen so far: the two trigonometry questions were both from what I’d consider the hard end of the spectrum. That would appear to be poor practice, although I can’t say it would make for an unfair paper on its own.
- Students who have done poorly in this exam will not currently be able to resit until next summer. This is a ludicrous state of affairs, and there’s a petition to resurrect the January exam diet here.
Overall, my suspicion is that there’s an element of EdExcel cock-up, an element of teenage melodrama, and an element of high-stakes exams being a sodding ridiculous way to assess whether someone’s a good mathematician. I hope it all comes out in the wash.