Friday, October 07, 2005

it says ham and yam. you know taro means yam right? haha. so hamtaro is hamyam. hamandyam! ugh. I don't really like ham or yam. let's anagram these words! (www.wordsmith.org)

A MAD MYNAH (TWEETTWEETSQUAWKRULETHEWORLD!HEIL,MYNAH!)
A DNA HAMMY (a genetically-modified rodent)
DAMN AH MAY!(haha. damn june july august and september as well.)
DAMN AH AMY! (hahahah. lim-wong)
DAY HAM MAN (read: man who eats ham exclusively in daytime.)
MADMAN YAH (YAH.)

ummm. ok today was maths. okay, but should have had time to check... was way better than I'd expected actually! am in comp lab 1 now... waiting for Lily jj to knock off at 2 so I can hitch a ride home (((:
ok! now let us reveal some very coveted insider information on the very "BO STANDARD" history paper yesterday. with all due respect to ms. koh, there were many things wrong with it, so much so that a former MOE employee (who hates the MOE) went into fits and almost choked on her grape.

this (former) employee - whose name I shall not reveal for security reasons - visited my house yesterday (6/10/05) and managed to review the 2005 secondary 2 history examination paper. the employee promptly erupted into fits of hysteria after viewing the paper, and we had to calm her down with durian ice cream.

Shall now proceed to list out the faults in the paper in chronological order:

1. Short-answer questions? are you kidding me? first off, marks awarded for the too demanding short-answer questions (considering time constraint) were way too little and the questions required too much information for short-answer. also, the questions were comparable to STRUCTURED ESSAY type. given time limit, and only FOUR effing marks, students should not be expected to answer this type of question in the first section. no way.

2. Comprehending Sources. now, I shall ask: Do you comprehend the word "comprehend"? This part was an INFERENCE question for ***** sake. comprehending a source is understanding the content of the source IMMEDIATELY without having to draw inference from the source provided, use of contextual knowledge should be MINIMAL. the stupid "pulau blakang mati" cartoon is obviously not a clear-cut source of information inference - and I quote - "Is not having the information clear to you at once, and you have to dig it out from the source." Also, this is a completely new, unheard of section, and god knows why it was included, being essentially a source-based question under the guise of comprehension. the question required us to not only use most of our contextual knowledge but ALSO draw inference from the source. this is not comprehension dear. want comprehension? approach English Dept/Chinese Dept. 'nuff said.

3.Problem with sources and question. pictures from textbook included. this by right is not allowed by the MOE, according to insider information. all sources should be unseen. however, by left, it was included. one question asked, "Study all sources. How do these sources PROVE that the BMA did not contribute to the post-war problems in Singapore?" Proof questions can only be based on one, or two sources at the most, never four. It actually makes answering this question impossible, and furthermore, it would be a one-sided answer, because the sources did not PROVE that the BMA contributed anything to the post-war effort.

4. Time given not sufficient. now, if someone can write all the information required for all the questions, which included 5 structured-question-like short answer question, 3 "comprehending sources questions", 4 source-based questions and 2 structured essays (22 marks each, 3 parts) in 2 hours, I'll eat my nametag. Even in the "O" levels, a paper like that would require at the LEAST 2 and a 1/2 hours.

haha, heard the sec 1s got an evaluation question.. good luck girls! pray that they moderate, that's all, cos in sec 1, you aren't required to have evaluation as a skill. that's sec4, at the most sec 3.

all in all, paper was not well set, but maybe the teachers will change the marking scheme. but hey, I still managed to write 7 pages worth of semi-legible answers. did not describe the source! jumped straight to inference! and referred and refuted hypotheses! ((: quite satisfied with the exam, even though it was substandard.

MONDAY IS SCIENCE!! AHHH!

anyway, today got back CA2 marks... averaged 69. ok, admittedly not the best of marks but considering I got a c5 for maths, that's pretty ok. it's just one mark off from a2, plus it's only 20% of total marks. haha. have still got hope to get into IP. think I can think I can think I can. PLEASE GOD, LET ME GET INTO IP. need just one more chance. ok I'm going to go blogsurfing! pity no one's really updating though...

- hamtaro? hamandyam.
by @ 2:09 PM