Guest SNJERIN Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 Just now, Comrade said: I answered that as well because I figured that it would take less energy to break the bonds of ice that's already been roughed up. No idea if that's correct, however. Yeah Actually, as soon as I read the question I was reminded of chemistry topic kinetic. You know the rate of reaction increases with surface area and I thought maybe these are more or less the same thing Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SNJERIN Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 1 minute ago, Sandy said: which timezone did you have? I don't know, I don't think I was to much focused on what time zone I had during such a giant exam. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 Just now, Haitham Wahid said: I don't know, I don't think I was to much focused on what time zone I had during such a giant exam. we had different papers. I didn't have anything about crushing or melting ice. Maybe you had the easy one Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 3 minutes ago, Sandy said: which timezone did you have? Didn't everyone have TZ0, at least that's what I heard? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SNJERIN Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 1 minute ago, Comrade said: Didn't everyone have TZ0, at least that's what I heard? Yeah they mentioned something about that in my school. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 1 minute ago, Comrade said: Didn't everyone have TZ0, at least that's what I heard? I heard the same. I didn't notice the timezone either....but people here are talking about questions I didn't have so I'm guessing there were more than one zones Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SNJERIN Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Sandy said: I heard the same. I didn't notice the timezone either....but people here are talking about questions I didn't have so I'm guessing there were more than one zones Perhaps because you're SL ? Edited May 7, 2016 by Haitham Wahid Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevG Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 No there was a question about crushed ice, maybe you skipped it It was something about the time taken for the temperature to become 16 or something. I said it will be faster (time taken is lower) cause more of the ice's surface area is exposed Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 10 minutes ago, Haitham Wahid said: Perhaps because you're SL ? nope I have HL. Maybe I don't remember the question or didn't have it. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest iblearner Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 I think the best we can all do is stop complaining, and study for Paper 3. Give your best and leave the rest~ Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
you'llneverknow Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 27 minutes ago, iblearner said: I think the best we can all do is stop complaining, and study for Paper 3. Give your best and leave the rest~ I agree! Let's ace those P3s!!!!!!!! Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hassan76 Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 (edited) Guys for paper 3, just study every small piece of information, ur formulae, and expect anything to come. But it will be easy, but don't lose/miss easy marks. Be prepared. Edited May 7, 2016 by Hassan76 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bynary Posted May 7, 2016 Popular Post Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 *unpopular opinion coming up* I found that the paper was alright. It covered the core concepts such as mechanics and thermal (question 1 and 2) and made candidates think for themselves instead of just reciting laws. Heaven forbid a person were to have to think for themselves (!) Furthermore, it is not IB's job to publish the textbooks, in my textbook (David Homer and Michael Bowen-Jones, Oxford course companion) covered all the topics in varying detail so I went and researched all the topics until I felt like I had a firm grasp on every subject. People should start realising that textbooks are not to be read as gospel and take in other sources (I ended up using 6 different sources to take notes from). The difference between people like Feynman and others is that Feynman really tried to understand the underlying principle behind phenomena. The same could be applied here, if you just learnt a whole bunch of laws of by heart then granted it would be hard but if you went behind the laws, get an intuition as to why they worked, build physical models in your mind and push them to their limits then the paper could be done... This is just my 2 cents, agree or disagree the paper is done and the questions can't be changed now. 10 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SNJERIN Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 10 minutes ago, bynary said: *unpopular opinion coming up* I found that the paper was alright. It covered the core concepts such as mechanics and thermal (question 1 and 2) and made candidates think for themselves instead of just reciting laws. Heaven forbid a person were to have to think for themselves (!) Furthermore, it is not IB's job to publish the textbooks, in my textbook (David Homer and Michael Bowen-Jones, Oxford course companion) covered all the topics in varying detail so I went and researched all the topics until I felt like I had a firm grasp on every subject. People should start realising that textbooks are not to be read as gospel and take in other sources (I ended up using 6 different sources to take notes from). The difference between people like Feynman and others is that Feynman really tried to understand the underlying principle behind phenomena. The same could be applied here, if you just learnt a whole bunch of laws of by heart then granted it would be hard but if you went behind the laws, get an intuition as to why they worked, build physical models in your mind and push them to their limits then the paper could be done... This is just my 2 cents, agree or disagree the paper is done and the questions can't be changed now. Totally agree. People should really stop complaining and, most important, comparing science with other subjects. Science and, in particular, physics is not based on memorising stuff, like history or business for example. You may memorise every single word in all of IB physics textbooks or do all past exam papers but if you cannot solve unfamiliar questions than you have been doing nothing but wasting your time. Again I agree with bynary that the questions were alright and there was nothing that was beyond the scope of the syllabus. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecsstudent Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 I think it's getting to the point where the majority of people did how they usually did or did a bit worse because of stress and are just really worried about their grade which is natural for everyone and that's why everyone is signing the petition trying to get lower boundaries. Who wouldn't want low boundaries in any subject especially if they were worried? We just need to trust the system with that one and that the boundaries will be as low or as high as necessary depending on how everyone did. Also I understand that there were some people who really had a problem because they were taught the old syllabus or didn't have the resources and in these cases complaints are totally understandable but only to the IB, to the people who taught you as well. Almost all of us are worried about how we did but at this point there isn't much we can do. Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 (edited) 33 minutes ago, bynary said: *unpopular opinion coming up* I found that the paper was alright. It covered the core concepts such as mechanics and thermal (question 1 and 2) and made candidates think for themselves instead of just reciting laws. Heaven forbid a person were to have to think for themselves (!) Furthermore, it is not IB's job to publish the textbooks, in my textbook (David Homer and Michael Bowen-Jones, Oxford course companion) covered all the topics in varying detail so I went and researched all the topics until I felt like I had a firm grasp on every subject. People should start realising that textbooks are not to be read as gospel and take in other sources (I ended up using 6 different sources to take notes from). The difference between people like Feynman and others is that Feynman really tried to understand the underlying principle behind phenomena. The same could be applied here, if you just learnt a whole bunch of laws of by heart then granted it would be hard but if you went behind the laws, get an intuition as to why they worked, build physical models in your mind and push them to their limits then the paper could be done... This is just my 2 cents, agree or disagree the paper is done and the questions can't be changed now. It's a noble principle, but I still think that there's something wrong when you can easily get sevens in past and specimen papers and still do terribly in the real one. Making candidates 'think for themselves' is good and all but the syllabus change, combined with very limited preparation material and the removal of options (section B) really screwed many physics students over. When you add the fact that a lot of the questions were pretty hard in the first place, regardless of whether the student could think on his/her feet, it is a given that a lot of people would do badly. Of course this is not a problem for the truly excellent students, who shine in physics and really understand what's going on, but for those of us who should normally have been able to get a 6 at the very least and relied on that for their uni admissions, it's not much of a comfort. Quite frankly the exam was designed in such a way that many students' futures, including mine, were jeopardized. One could argue that if you can't do the kinds of questions that they give you then you don't really deserve the high grades, but it's nonetheless pretty disheartening. Edited May 7, 2016 by Comrade 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bynary Posted May 7, 2016 Report Share Posted May 7, 2016 4 minutes ago, Comrade said: It's a noble principle, but I still think that there's something wrong when you can easily get sevens in past and specimen papers and still do terribly in the real one. Making candidates 'think for themselves' is good and all but the syllabus change, combined with very limited preparation material and the removal of options (section B) really screwed many physics students over. When you add the fact that a lot of the questions were pretty hard in the first place, regardless of whether the student could think on his/her feet, it is a given that a lot of people would do badly. Of course this is not a problem for the truly excellent students, who shine in physics and really understand what's going on, but for those of us who should normally have been able to get a 6 at the very least and relied on that for their uni admissions, it's not much of a comfort. Quite frankly the exam designed in such a way that many students' futures, including mine, were jeopardized. One could argue that if you can't do the kinds of questions that they give you then you don't really deserve the high grades, but it's nonetheless pretty disheartening. Of course I appreciate that it was a hard paper and that the IB must recognise this when making the grade boundaries (it is to my understanding that they use some form of normal distribution?). I too felt like this paper was a punch to the gut and my uni entrance is riding on this paper (and others). My comment was geared more towards the people complaining that there were questions not on the syllabus and/or that they had to use multiple books to revise. I suppose that I am in a fortunate situation since I have had training for Olympiads which seems to have paid off. I really do hope that the IB takes into consideration the difficulty and hopefully the paper 3 is going to go better. Best of luck Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Lee Posted May 8, 2016 Report Share Posted May 8, 2016 These questions look pretty similar to what I saw on Friday lololol All rights go towards K.A Tsokos and Cambridge Press *Sorry for bad resolution. My phone is pretty **** Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thestruggleisreal28 Posted May 8, 2016 Report Share Posted May 8, 2016 Do any of you know whether apparent and absolute magnitude are out of the syllabus for SL Astrophysics (Paper 3)? Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bynary Posted May 8, 2016 Report Share Posted May 8, 2016 4 hours ago, David Lee said: These questions look pretty similar to what I saw on Friday lololol All rights go towards K.A Tsokos and Cambridge Press *Sorry for bad resolution. My phone is pretty **** can you calculate the resolvance of the camera? 1 Reply Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.