Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Unknown

Profile Information

  • Exams
    May 2012
  • Country
  1. Thanks! But wow, those are some seriously high grade boundaries for Math HL. I wish now that I had put some effort into my studies – not for my own sake, but because we have such a devoted math teacher who I'm afraid will be forever depressed about our results. Anyway, I suppose there's no point in getting any of my papers remarked then. I'm several points below the boundaries in both Physics and Math, and in Biology there is just too much risk given that I might get the necessary points from re-moderation. I'm still not sure how I did so badly in Biology, but I guess I'll just have to live with that.
  2. Yes, she of course has them, but I did not realise to ask for them back when I mailed her to get my component grades. And seriously, I don't want to bother her any further. For my own sake. I am aware that in some subjects your exam marks can change a lot in remarking, but is that really the case with subjects like Physics or Math as well? Unless there actually is something very wrong with the marking, I mean. Because I find it hard to believe that in those subjects the markschemes would be ambiguous enough to allow such variation? It would be interesting to hear experiences on those two subjects specifically.
  3. I don't know how I forgot to mention this, but I am be interested in finding out the TZ2 boundaries specifically, and the option Series & Differential Equations in Math HL. As to ibgrades.com, I think that having the correct grade boundaries is crucial for the decision on whether to remark or not. After all they vary so much from year to year, and I'm guessing it's not probably worth remarking in these subjects unless you are just one or perhaps two points away from the higher grade. It'd be interesting to hear experiences on this though – has anyone ever got higher scores after having their G4 or Math papers remarked? And if so, how much?
  4. I'm one mark away from a 7 in HL Bio myself and I'm also wondering about remarking. I haven't personally seen my grade breakdown, only discussed my overall grade with my coordinator over the phone, so I'm not sure of where I'm missing the mark but I wasn't aware that you could submit IAs for re-moderation? I feel like it's doubtful I'd pick up the extra mark from my papers given the black and white nature of the markscheme. Can someone explain the IA re-moderation to me, please? There is no possibility for an individual candidate to have their IAs re-moderated – after all, the moderation is done based on a sample that you might not have been even included in. However, if the scores have drastically been changed in moderation (I do not know where they draw the line on this), there is a possibility for the school to request for the IA sample to be re-moderated. I recall our IB coordinator mentioning that this is "a new kind of enquiry", so I take it this has not been possible in the previous years.
  5. I've been battling with the same question. I'm one mark away from a 6 in HL Biology, a subject where getting a 5 was really a surprise and a disappointment for me. However, as I mentioned in the results thread, our IAs where moderated down a lot (mine 15 points since the higher grades went down the most) and I believe our IB coordinator is now attempting to submit our IA samples for re-moderation. The moderation clearly was too harsh, and I think there should be a fair chance that our IA marks could go up at least a bit when re-moderated. I would only need two more IA points to get that missing mark, and so I am wondering whether my best option is to just take my chances with the IA re-moderation. Because if my submit my papers for remarking, there is always the chance that I will actually lose some marks and, in the worst case, subsequently counteract any possible improvement in the internal assessment. Secondly, anyone know the grade boundaries for a 7 in HL Physics (73 I heard?) or a 6 in HL Math? Or have any experience with having these subjects remarked? I believe I am very close to getting higher grades in those subjects as well, but I daren't bother my IB coordinator any further. I don't really need my grades for anything, but frankly I've felt the past three years to be such a waste of time that even one more point would make it seem a lot more meaningful. Because although I did ok and certainly better than I had any reason to expect, getting 655 from my HL subjects is still way below my normal performance.
  6. Now I should probably start off by saying that I am, at least I was, very happy with my score. Apart from Math, I barely studied for any of the subjects and yet ended up with a 38. Even with Math it was about desperately cramming the half of the syllabus I had never been bothered to study. And that was enough for a 5. So perhaps I shouldn't complain. But. 5 Biology HL 6 Physics HL 5 Mathematics HL 7 Chemistry SL 7 Finnish A1 SL 7 English A2 SL D – EE in Physics B – TOK Yes, I was quite worried about my handwriting in the Biology, and perhaps also about not answering the long questions in enough detail. But I seriously thought it could never worse than a 6, almost expecting a 7. Well, it did not quite go that way. In all the other subjects I did better than what I had predicted, and yet in Biology I got a 5. So when our IB coordinator got access to our component grades today, I sent her an e-mail and asked for mine. Out of mere curiosity, at that point I was fine with a lower mark. Turns out I did not perform all that well in the exams – 6, 5, 6. Overall, one point away from getting a 6. Disappointing, but if it was just due to my exam scores (that is, fully down to my own performance) I could live with that. But it isn't. Our IAs were marked down in a completely ridiculous fashion. I lost 15 points, meaning that according to the moderator my 5.2 average labs were in fact worth just 2.7 points each. Now we have competent teachers, but perhaps in Biology ours was a bit too lenient and I would have easily understood a 5-6 point reduction. Even a bit more from a very strict moderator. But there's just no way our labs are that bad, and our teachers so much off with their marking. The same actually happened to the SL group too, with another teacher who equally much has experience with the IB. And for the sake of comparison, in Physics I got 40 points (marked down by 3 points) for my IA, in Chemistry that was 37 points (marked down 0 points). And those labs were horrible compared to the ones I did in Bio. Where I apparently got 28 points. I understand there's no way this kind of a system can be completely fair to everyone, there's bound to be quite a lot of variation in the marking. But this is just utterly ridiculous. I believe our IB coordinator is requesting for our IA samples to be remarked because it is such a drastic and unexpected result, and so there is some hope I could still get the 2 IA marks I need. Well, I hope the rest of you had better luck with grade boundaries... Because although I don't know about the grade boundaries for the rest, based on previous years it would seem I am missing a 6 in Math and a 7 in Physics by just a few marks as well.
  7. But wasn't the difference between the drugs what we were supposed to analyse in that question as well?
  8. That was tricky question.. if you continued reading the sentence in choice 'C' it says it promotes flowering in long-day plants during LONG NIGHT.. you cannot have both a long day and a long night which makes option 'C' wrong.. the same thing did apply for option 'A' (short-day + short night) .. WRT option D & B I don't really remember which one was right.. the answer was it promotes flowering in long-day plant during short nights.. Oh right, so I just misread it then. Or It could be that I remember the letters wrong. I just recall reading the question and options over and over (very weird that I missed something so obvious), being very confused and thinking that either of two choices should be correct. I think in the end I picked the one where it was said to inhibit flowering in short-day plants... I'm now really hoping it actually said during long nights. EDIT: That I'm actually not so sure about, now that I think about it. I considered it as well (that monocyte production would mean more macrophages), but then there was something (probably the results of the placebo group) that clearly did not make sense in that interpretation to me. It was more like I was I wondering why monocyte production could be thought to stay constant.But I mean there shouldn't be anything in antipyretic drugs that promotes immune response?
  9. P1 was easy I think, although I already know that I made the wrong choice in several of them – which is never a good sign. The question about phytochrome, to me, seemed to have two correct answers. c) I think claimed that pfr promotes flowering in long-day plants and d) that pfr inhibits flowering in short-day plants. Both are correct, no? Or did I just misread either the question or the choices? P2's first question was indeed weird – in the sense that they would choose data like that for analysis. I don't think I ended up having any problems with it, but there was this constant doubt that am I now really doing this correctly since they normally have much more... normal data. And overall a really weird paper as well, for the reasons already mentioned. I suppose it was fine (although I'm wondering if I said enough for the 8-mark questions in Section B) – we had people leaving really early, but I on the other had found out that checking your answers might be worthwhile. In the X Y Z plant leaf diagram I had written palisade mesophyll and xylem the other way around... Because anti-inflammatory drugs reduce the natural immune response, just like in all the other parts of that question. I do feel though that the purpose of the placebo group was pretty unconventional – clearly there should have also been a group who took no drugs for the placebo to actually account for something. Maybe it was just excluded from the data.
  10. As I said, I used the wrong unit in the calculation.
  11. I did. It's just that I never studied it before the previous night, and I did not have time to look at general relativity at all. I was able to do surprisingly many of the calculations though, so it went pretty much according to the plan.Astrophysics was quite easy, but I'm seriously worried about my handwriting. And I think I used the wrong unit in the apparent magnitude calculation, so I got something around -35 as the result. That would be one bright star...
  12. Random thoughts: I somehow feel pretty confident about P1, but then again past experience (mocks...) has shown that those feelings may not always be entirely accurate. As to my P2, well, let's just say that it clearly was not the best of ideas to first not bother to do anything over the two years, and then only study for the finals the evening before P1 and P2... I guess I would have been fine had I just been able to sleep normally – but no, apparently this insomnia of mine just isn't going anywhere until the finals are over. I mean it was the basic mechanics questions in Section A that were the hardest for me, simply because my common sense was not working at all. I really don't think I'll even get that 6. But maybe then, hopefully, a strong 5 – at least the grade boundaries in Physics are ridiculously low. Disappointing, but not surprising given the (lack of) effort I put in. P1 speculation: For the phase difference question I got 3λ as well, by thinking that for each of the three dark fringes from the centre the OPDs must be 0.5λ, 1.5λ, 2.5λ, respectively. For the bright fringe after them it would then of course be 3λ – but I have very little clue about anything related to diffraction so I might be completely wrong with my thinking... Nonetheless, I guess this question could be interpreted to be more about the basic understanding of interference than double slits specifically? How about the two wind turbines? I think I got 4P, but there was something slightly messed up about my calculations. The definition of renewable energy sources also gave me a headache – which one is it that matters, the rate at which the source is consumed or the actual renewability of the source? I ended up going with the latter (seemed the obvious choice), but yet technically even fossil fuels will be renewable if just a sufficient time span is considered, no? P2: I chose B2 and B3 – I struggled with the first part about the intensity of solar radiation because I forgot the formula for the area of a sphere. So I did a reverse calculation of some sort, hoping for a lenient and careless examiner, and then managed most of the rest. About the Doppler effect question I can't remember a thing, but I have a vague memory about it being okay. But could someone tell me what the two other questions in B2&3 were about? I really can't remember – that I think tells something about the level of sleep deprivation in which I was doing the exam...
  13. Oh shoot, that should've been so obvious... I guess I just forgot to think what is actually happening to the ball and just considered the GP... Ouch.
  14. Yep I think I got the string length question - unless I made stupid mistakes there too. I had very little time too, but it was a surprisingly quick one to do – I first calculated the lenght of the string between the circles, and the same angle I believe could be used (indirectly) for calculating the parts around the two circles too... Unless I remember wrong.Anyone remember what they got for the bouncing ball GP question? The value of n & total distance travelled? I think I got 26 for n and then sum to infinity of around 80 metres... I used 3.8 as u1, I hope that was a valid way to do that. Now that I think about it I'm not entirely sure why I did that though.
  15. I thought P2 was quite easy as such, however I hadn't been able to sleep properly for three nights in a row and so I was completely unable to think straight. I mean it was all stuff I knew, yet I clearly made a lot of careless mistakes and kept getting extremely messed up results... So now I am really just counting on method points, and hoping that will be sufficient. It's quite ironic actually that after being so worried about Section B questions that might cover topics I wasn't very familiar with, what in fact turned out to be the real problem for me were the simplest intermediate steps involving simplifications, solving for variables and so on. For instance with the vector question in Section B, it took me ages to just complete the row reduction (I think I also got it wrong) – and then after the exam I heard from another student that it was possible to do very easily in just two steps. And seriously, the whole exam was like that for me. Do I recall correctly that the probability question you mention required integrating xf(x)? In that case substituting x^2=u gives 0.5*1/(1+u^2), which can then be integrated easily.

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.