Reply to: Impossible maths question

[centurian]

Don't schools do past papers and teach exam technique any more?

Yes, although I think that was part of the problem. Some of the whining I heard was along the lines of "but this question wasn't in the past papers".

Like a past paper is supposed to be like a cookie cutter...

[Platypus]

When doing GCSE past papers with my daughter, we identified the type of questions she found hard and strategised that she should simply skip them and score some marks in questions she could answer. If she had time left over, she could go back.

Don't schools do past papers and teach exam technique any more?

In all the the past papers we looked at, the questions got progressively harder, so pupils shouldn't have been surprised to find some towards the end that were quite challenging.

[BrilloPad]

I really don't see the fuss even if it could not be answered by most candidates.

When I was university one of our lecturers, I think it was for vector field theory or something like that, told me that he intentionally had questions in his papers that were not really covered by the course. It allowed him a way of identifying and rewarding exceptional students. I thought it made sense.

I agree. I understand meccano used to put deliberate errors in their instructions to make people think.

[TheFaQQer]

It's only one three mark question - get the others right and it makes no difference.

[MyUserName]

I really don't see the fuss even if it could not be answered by most candidates.

When I was university one of our lecturers, I think it was for vector field theory or something like that, told me that he intentionally had questions in his papers that were not really covered by the course. It allowed him a way of identifying and rewarding exceptional students. I thought it made sense.

[tractor]

...

Seems to me quite subtle for a GCSE question, as it was a kind of inverse of the usual type of probability question where one is given the item counts and asked to find the probability.

Maybe it was a deliberate bowl out of the blue, to identify potential Mathematical Olympiad candidates or future codebreakers etc.

The exam board has condensed the basic, intermediate and higher papers into two. They had to have some way of differentiating between A and A* so threw that in along with a red herring.

The kids complaining are unlikely to have ever been able to answer the question satisfactorily anyway. It is moot whether it should be there. From a candidates point of view, they are denied marks if you consider that all questions should have been manageable by candidates taking the exam. That is why they are annoyed.

The answer was easy, the jump from the problem description to the actual question is what undoubtedly screwed them up.

[NotAllThere]

The question isn't about solving the "mystery" it's not even about probability beyond some fairly basic concepts that are required to understand the question, it's about being able to prove that the equation that describes the problem is correct. That requires you to read the question, understand what is relevent and what is not and then follow through a sequence of logical steps to arrive at the proof.

I.e. it tests mathematical reasoning, not the ability to calculate or following simple algorithms.

[DaveB]

Maybe that's the normal phrasing of the question. Having done my A level maths a long time ago (not as long ago as many mind you) it didn't seem obvious to me that they wanted you to show that that equation modelled the sweets scenario.

I.e. it's not surprising that the general public find a simple question so hard (re the article) when it's not the difficulty of the question that is problematic so much as the discerning what the actual problem to solve is, based on the wording of the question (for people who haven't had to worry about that kind of wording since school and are now reading it out of context). It's not necessary to arrive at that equation in order to solve the mystery, so it doesn't seem intuitively obvious why you even have to care about it unless you happen to have been studying those exact same kinds of questions for the last few years :s

The question isn't about solving the "mystery" it's not even about probability beyond some fairly basic concepts that are required to understand the question, it's about being able to prove that the equation that describes the problem is correct. That requires you to read the question, understand what is relevent and what is not and then follow through a sequence of logical steps to arrive at the proof.

[TheFaQQer]

A what?

It's like a bolt out of the blue, but in a Devon accent

[Bunk]

bowl out of the blue

A what?

[OwlHoot]

GCSEs are at 16, aren't they? But the fact that some people find exam pressure hard to deal with has no bearing on whether the question is difficult or not. Trouble is, I've a maths degree so it's a piece of cake ... but I also don't recall proofs at even that basic level at O level. Additional maths and A level, yes.

Seems to me quite subtle for a GCSE question, as it was a kind of inverse of the usual type of probability question where one is given the item counts and asked to find the probability.

Maybe it was a deliberate bowl out of the blue, to identify potential Mathematical Olympiad candidates or future codebreakers etc.

[SpontaneousOrder]

The question isn't What's n? It's to show the proof that the equation is correct. I don't remember doing any proof type stuff at O level, but it was a few years ago.

Maybe that's the normal phrasing of the question. Having done my A level maths a long time ago (not as long ago as many mind you) it didn't seem obvious to me that they wanted you to show that that equation modelled the sweets scenario.

I.e. it's not surprising that the general public find a simple question so hard (re the article) when it's not the difficulty of the question that is problematic so much as the discerning what the actual problem to solve is, based on the wording of the question (for people who haven't had to worry about that kind of wording since school and are now reading it out of context). It's not necessary to arrive at that equation in order to solve the mystery, so it doesn't seem intuitively obvious why you even have to care about it unless you happen to have been studying those exact same kinds of questions for the last few years :s

[BrilloPad]

I like to eat my fruit gums black, red, green, orange, yellow.

If MF has left any...

[NotAllThere]

... and yes my O level maths had plenty of this type of stuff: basic probability.

Definitely basic. I just didn't recall... it was a long time ago!

[Platypus]

but I also don't recall proofs at even that basic level at O level

It's not really a "proof" (in the general sense) it's more of a "show" (in this case) and yes my O level maths had plenty of this type of stuff: basic probability.

I thought the question was hard when I misread it and thought she'd taken 3 sweets and had to calculate the probability that two of the 3 were orange, so I was trying to remember how to combine nCr with probability if indeed that would have been right approach. When I re-read it, I realised it was much easier then that. But still an important lesson remembered: read the question and read it again, several times if necessary, so you don't end up trying to solve a different problem (such as, find the value of 'n').