Failure, sums it up (calculus)
This time, I have not dehydration nor sleep deprivation to blame, and am forced to blame a mixture of incompetence and stupidity for my failure to even complete this examination.
Scholarship examinations were, I guess, meant to be hard; but I don’t mind saying I found last year’s mathematics with calculus paper (which I did for practice for this exam) much easier. I was able to start most of those questions.
This year, the introduction of numeric marking, as well as some rather difficult questions, meant that I had no idea what I was doing.
It is not wise, for instance, to attempt all the hard questions and skip all the easy ones — which, apparently (I have yet to check this), is what I did. Question six, I am told, even if it has the most text, is in fact a very easy question and furthermore, it is worth more marks than any other question in the paper. I did myself no service by not attempting it.
I had no idea how on earth I was meant to integrate the function in question two (b). In fact, finding the limits of integration was troublesome enough, let alone that actual integrating. Maybe I had the wrong approach. Maybe I’m just hopeless.
It is also troubling when, asked to prove something, you prove something else (question three (ii)). At least I managed to work out how to get rid of that logarithm of a negative number. Logs of positive numbers are much nicer.
I figure, and I don’t know how the marking schedule works because no exemplars were ever released in this marking system, but I figure I reaped between 25 and 30 marks, out of a possible 120.
And I figure I could’ve increased that by attempting question six rather than spending ages blank about question two.
And I figure the pass mark will be around 40 to 50.
And that 30 is less than 40.
Well at least I figured that one out. Maybe next year I’ll do a bit better.