General Thoughts: Biology (1 Viewer)

[Riproot]

I thought it was basically straightforward.
Althought that stupid vein artery multiple choice was lame as. Shittest diagrams wasnt easy to interpret. Def got that one wrong. and likewise the etcotherm in the cage. Since when were we meant to data anaylsis equipment.. jerks

The diagrams were pretty standard imo. The data logger is in the skills section, whether you used it or not, it's there.

i walked out thinking it was easy. But then looking at everyone's multiple choice i lost confidence.
Probably raw mark 80-85. My bio teacher said it was the hardest paper he'd seen so far.
Not much on content but solely on thinking and analytical skills, which made feel a bit better.
Hopefully i'll get a band 6, depends on how everyone else went

I walked out sort of, meh.
Now looking back I'll probably get 80-84.
I am disappoint.

 

[asdf2112]

So they will accept both cytotoxic and killer, if their "investigation" shows they are both correct.

First of all, trust was placed on the board to produce an accurate and achievable (by some at least) exam, if they have to have "an investigation" into a question then how can they expect students to answer in less than 2 minutes.

Secondly, this trust was detrimental to many students who knew their content, in that they knew that fundamentally, Killer and Cytotoxic cells were the same. With this knowledge, along with the trust in the board's accuracy, students, including myself, discounted the answers as they were the same, having to make an educated guess of the remaining two.

Not only will this cost them a mark, but it was disheartening to those who really knew their content and to stumble on a question that made them question their knowledge, could have greatly affected their subsequent performance. (If two answers mean the same thing, then, knowing how multiple choice works, neither would be the best answer to a multiple choice).

In all fairness, I believe the Board should:
1) Apologise
2) Remove the question entirely, making the exam out of 99.

 

[Riproot]

In all fairness, I believe the Board should:
1) Apologise
2) Remove the question entirely, making the exam out of 99.

If you truly knew your content you would've known they were both right and picked one of them like everyone else did.
Don't give me this folly.
It was your guestimation in multiple choice that cost you the mark and nothing else, and MC isn't there for guessing, it's there like the rest of the test, to test your knowledge, just in a different format.

 

[-Jonny]

I'm going to be rather pissed if they award these extra marks and this raises the cut-off for the bands.

Seriously people if you haven't come across the word Cytotoxic T-cell, you're doing it wrong...

Also, there are no such thing as 'Killer T-Cells', sure, there are NATURAL KILLER T-CELLS, but they can't possibly award that.

Complete agreement here.

 

[cssftw]

Re: 2011 HSC Biology Paper

I did a really quick scan...

Riproot brah - Q4 multiple choice was C, not A

Think about it, why would they use the word "ALL" -- why bother making emphasis on this?
Remember, a chromosome is DNA wrapped around histone proteins, hence the answer is C not A.

19/20 for u lol thats pretty beast

I'm confident that I got 20/20 for multiple choice. BUt every single mother fucking question after that I fucked up..... predicting low 80's aligned HSC mark for me -- shoulda done past papers rather than notes.... =(

 

[brachester]

So they will accept both cytotoxic and killer, if their "investigation" shows they are both correct.

First of all, trust was placed on the board to produce an accurate and achievable (by some at least) exam, if they have to have "an investigation" into a question then how can they expect students to answer in less than 2 minutes.

Secondly, this trust was detrimental to many students who knew their content, in that they knew that fundamentally, Killer and Cytotoxic cells were the same. With this knowledge, along with the trust in the board's accuracy, students, including myself, discounted the answers as they were the same, having to make an educated guess of the remaining two.

Not only will this cost them a mark, but it was disheartening to those who really knew their content and to stumble on a question that made them question their knowledge, could have greatly affected their subsequent performance. (If two answers mean the same thing, then, knowing how multiple choice works, neither would be the best answer to a multiple choice).

In all fairness, I believe the Board should:
1) Apologise
2) Remove the question entirely, making the exam out of 99.

Well, it depends, for those who really know their stuff, they should know that it can only be either killer T-cell or Cytotoxic and the other two answers are def wrong. They're not testing your trap detecting skills (however in reality yes), they're testing your understanding. But i do think there's a difference between Cytotoxic and killer T-cell, but i don't know what it is.

 

[Huang-Paradigm]

Hey please dont flame me guys, but i asked a friend who did biology course at university. He said there IS a dfference between cytotoxic and Killer t cells. Please correct him if he's wrong.

"Killer T cells (also called cytotoxic t cells) are NOT the same as Natural Killer cells (NK cells)

NK cells are a TYPE of cytotoxic lymphocyte and they're involved in tissue rejection

they're called Natural Killers because they do not look for antigens or pathogen infection at all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_killer_cell "They do not express T-cell antigen receptors"
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about21437.html this might help, read the second post on the page"

So going by that, the answer is cytotoxic. However, maybe the board will be lenient and give people the mark for Killer because i know alot of teachers, including mine, teach it as the same thing. I'm lucky though, cause i picked cytotoxic.

 

[brachester]

dude, bio was easy dude, i dont know what you are talking bout. did you study at all?

i wasn't complaining about its difficulty, i was complaining about they screwing up the questions and confuse the hell out of everyone

 

[cssftw]

i walked out thinking it was easy. But then looking at everyone's multiple choice i lost confidence.
Probably raw mark 80-85. My bio teacher said it was the hardest paper he'd seen so far.
Not much on content but solely on thinking and analytical skills, which made feel a bit better.
Hopefully i'll get a band 6, depends on how everyone else went

FUUUCKKKKK this is what fucked me over

 

[1981Grant]

So they will accept both cytotoxic and killer, if their "investigation" shows they are both correct.

First of all, trust was placed on the board to produce an accurate and achievable (by some at least) exam, if they have to have "an investigation" into a question then how can they expect students to answer in less than 2 minutes.

Secondly, this trust was detrimental to many students who knew their content, in that they knew that fundamentally, Killer and Cytotoxic cells were the same. With this knowledge, along with the trust in the board's accuracy, students, including myself, discounted the answers as they were the same, having to make an educated guess of the remaining two.

Not only will this cost them a mark, but it was disheartening to those who really knew their content and to stumble on a question that made them question their knowledge, could have greatly affected their subsequent performance. (If two answers mean the same thing, then, knowing how multiple choice works, neither would be the best answer to a multiple choice).

In all fairness, I believe the Board should:
1) Apologise
2) Remove the question entirely, making the exam out of 99.

If you were smart enough to know the content, I believe you are probably smart enough to put down one of the correct two and come back to it later in the paper, not wasting time.

 

[cssftw]

Hey please dont flame me guys, but i asked a friend who did biology course at university. He said there IS a dfference between cytotoxic and Killer t cells. Please correct him if he's wrong.

"Killer T cells (also called cytotoxic t cells) are NOT the same as Natural Killer cells (NK cells)

NK cells are a TYPE of cytotoxic lymphocyte and they're involved in tissue rejection

they're called Natural Killers because they do not look for antigens or pathogen infection at all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_killer_cell "They do not express T-cell antigen receptors"
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about21437.html this might help, read the second post on the page"

So going by that, the answer is cytotoxic. However, maybe the board will be lenient and give people the mark for Killer because i know alot of teachers, including mine, teach it as the same thing. I'm lucky though, cause i picked cytotoxic.

yeah i picked cytotoxic as well -- only because it sounded fancier than killer, and there could be ambiguity with "killer" cells. Shame with this exam. Studied my stane-rank worthy notes so fuckin hard - learnt about 80% of the dot points while the other 20%, just skimmed over and learnt in the morning.

Problem was, more than half the paper was on the 20% I didn't look at --> epidemiology, artificial blood

 

[jordiviv]

Textbook I've used throughout the year says that the reason punctuated equilibrium was suggested was because of the gaps. Fossils were formed mainly during the equilibium periods, as there was little change and lasted for longs periods of time which resulted in higher chance of fossils being formed. And the gaps are when rapid change occured, where there wasn't much chance for fossils to be made.

LOL - i only remember punctuated equilibrium because it's like my study habits - nothing for a longgggg period of time and then short, rapid changes

 

[UnrealAnchovies]

Imo the cytotoxic cell/ killer cell question was far less ambiguous than the two most likely options in question 20

I've read text books which *explicitly* say that cytotoxic cells engulf material made viral by the antigen

 

[cssftw]

So they will accept both cytotoxic and killer, if their "investigation" shows they are both correct.

First of all, trust was placed on the board to produce an accurate and achievable (by some at least) exam, if they have to have "an investigation" into a question then how can they expect students to answer in less than 2 minutes.

Secondly, this trust was detrimental to many students who knew their content, in that they knew that fundamentally, Killer and Cytotoxic cells were the same. With this knowledge, along with the trust in the board's accuracy, students, including myself, discounted the answers as they were the same, having to make an educated guess of the remaining two.

Not only will this cost them a mark, but it was disheartening to those who really knew their content and to stumble on a question that made them question their knowledge, could have greatly affected their subsequent performance. (If two answers mean the same thing, then, knowing how multiple choice works, neither would be the best answer to a multiple choice).

In all fairness, I believe the Board should:
1) Apologise
2) Remove the question entirely, making the exam out of 99.

man the fuck up buddy, it's one mark

 

[Midnight_Lotus]

same as you except cytotoxic for 8
and my 20 I put C.
Can you justify your answer.. Looking at my textbook (Biology in Focus) this is what it said:

"Gould and Eldridge also use fossil evidence to support their theory. Many fossilised remains show millions of years going by without any noticeable evolutionary change to most species. For example, soft-bodied organisms dominated the seas for hundreds of millions of years and then, in a period of a few million years (SHORT BURST), they disappeared and were replaced by organisms with shells and skeletons........ Because the fossil record is INCOMPLETE, it is difficult to come to an agreement on the rate of evolutionary change."

From Biology in focus, it tends to lean towards C rather than A.

The rise to the the idea of punctuated equilibrium is because of the incomplete transitional fossils; ie there aren't really any fossils that show a "transitional" state. (Even the archaeopteryx was shown not to be a transitional fossil just recently).

Now the question "How does the fossil record provide evidence?", it provides evidences through contradiction, so due to the lack of fossils that show transitioning between to species (what we would expect in Darwinian theory) we can conclude that punctuated equilibrium is more likely.

Have a look at this:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml
"No preservation: No fossils representing transitional forms are preserved because of their relatively small population size, the rapid pace of change, and their isolated location"

This is saying that no transitional fossils would have been preserved so therefore "The fossil record shows that there are short periods of rapid change in fossil forms" is incorrect as there is no transitional fossils to show rapid change. The fossil record only proves that there are long periods of "stasis" (no transitioning).

If the multiple choice had said ""The fossil record shows that there are long periods of stasis in fossil forms" then this would be correct.
Therefore this leaves A to be most correct, it shows evidence for punctuated equilibrium by having the fossil record incomplete. (incomplete meaning there is a lack of transitional fossils)

The whole idea of punctuated equilibrium was an attempted excuse to explain the lack of transitional fossils, not because there was several fossils found within a short time that showed rapid change from one species to another (and as explained above if this did occur we wouldn't have been able to discover them).

If i need to explain further just ask

 

[Midnight_Lotus]

Re: 2011 HSC Biology Paper

C is most correct. the fossil record being incomplete wouldn't support the theory as much as leave the theory open to develop.

I explained it here:
http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=269604&p=5556204&viewfull=1#post5556204

 

[asdf2112]

Riproot, you just contradicted yourself, you GUESSED one of two. Also, i don't think i'm smarter than the exam writers and thus trusted in that they wouldn't put two answers that are right. I knew it was cytotoxic cells (which for purposes of the hsc, are the same as killer), but i also believed the board wouldn't give two right answers. It was my choice to trust the board more than myself, and if it was an extended response, only the absolutely mad would disagree with given information.

 

[cssftw]

The rise to the the idea of punctuated equilibrium is because of the incomplete transitional fossils; ie there aren't really any fossils that show a "transitional" state. (Even the archaeopteryx was shown not to be a transitional fossil just recently).

Now the question "How does the fossil record provide evidence?", it provides evidences through contradiction, so due to the lack of fossils that show transitioning between to species (what we would expect in Darwinian theory) we can conclude that punctuated equilibrium is more likely.

Have a look at this:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml
"No preservation: No fossils representing transitional forms are preserved because of their relatively small population size, the rapid pace of change, and their isolated location"

This is saying that no transitional fossils would have been preserved so therefore "The fossil record shows that there are short periods of rapid change in fossil forms" is incorrect as there is no transitional fossils to show rapid change. The fossil record only proves that there are long periods of "stasis" (no transitioning).

If the multiple choice had said ""The fossil record shows that there are long periods of stasis in fossil forms" then this would be correct.
Therefore this leaves A to be most correct, it shows evidence for punctuated equilibrium by having the fossil record incomplete. (incomplete meaning there is a lack of transitional fossils)

The whole idea of punctuated equilibrium was an attempted excuse to explain the lack of transitional fossils, not because there was several fossils found within a short time that showed rapid change from one species to another (and as explained above if this did occur we wouldn't have been able to discover them).

If i need to explain further just ask

daaang.... I see where u r coming from... cmon srsly I spent less than 10 seconds on that question, all i saw was "rapid periods of change" and I selected it LOL

 

[Midnight_Lotus]

Riproot, you just contradicted yourself, you GUESSED one of two. Also, i don't think i'm smarter than the exam writers and thus trusted in that they wouldn't put two answers that are right. I knew it was cytotoxic cells (which for purposes of the hsc, are the same as killer), but i also believed the board wouldn't give two right answers. It was my choice to trust the board more than myself, and if it was an extended response, only the absolutely mad would disagree with given information.

I can understand peoples choice of cytotoxic t cells as it seems like a more specific form of killer t cells (therefore is most correct rather then a contradiction as you put it). I myself thought there was some subtle difference between the two and decided to stick with killer t cells as that's what I was taught in class
Also in the back of my mind i was wondering if it was a mistake on their part as it has happened numerous times before..

 

[-Jonny]

i walked out thinking it was easy. But then looking at everyone's multiple choice i lost confidence.
Probably raw mark 80-85. My bio teacher said it was the hardest paper he'd seen so far.
Not much on content but solely on thinking and analytical skills, which made feel a bit better.
Hopefully i'll get a band 6, depends on how everyone else went

I picked up on a trend about 2 weeks ago for this. Learnt skills and whatnot as much as I could, and went into class and stuff to get a further understanding of most of it. So glad I did. I just had a feeling the majority of the paper would focus on it.