MATHEMATICS: Students gave the final Leaving Cert maths papers a muted send-off yesterday, with few candidates emerging from the exam hall with a smile on their face.
Mr Jim Healy, skoool.ie maths expert at Terenure College, said the higher-level paper was "quite tricky in lots of places" with unusual features in virtually all questions.
Meanwhile, reactions at Mount Temple school in Dublin varied from "brilliant" to "tricky" and "messy", according to teacher Mr John Evans. Several students and one teacher commented on the two-part structure of Question 3 and Question 6, which differed from the expected three-part structure, he said.
The Mount Temple candidates judged Question 1 to be straightforward, although they said part (b) of Question 2 was very difficult. Question 3 was liked by aficionados of transformational geometry, said Mr Evans.
"The trig questions (4 and 5) were popular, though some students ran away from Question 4 after a quick look at the diagram, which showed the intimate parts of a bicycle. There was some comment over a change in format of Question 6, with the unexpected addition of a question on infinite sums to the regular question on difference equations," said Mr Evans.
Question 7 concerned palindromic numbers. Mr Evans explained that a palindromic number is one that reads the same backwards as forwards, such as 727 or 38183. 2002 is obviously a palindromic number, and students were asked when the next palindromic year was. According to Mr Evans the answer was 2112.
Mr Healy said the paper might have been "a little long, but overall there was enough scope for most students to do well". Questions 1 and 4 in particular were described as "nice".
The term "palindromic number" has never been used before, and its appearance in Question 7 upset some candidates, he said.
Question 8 was predictable, Question 6 was "scary" and Question 5 was considered "long". "Most of the students declared themselves happy enough, but for some it's going to be a long summer. Thank goodness for the distraction of the World Cup," he added.
As for the ordinary-level paper, Mr Healy said students and his fellow teachers were unhappy in particular with Question 1. "Part (a) is causing a lot of anger. It is supposed to be about area/volume and not mention trigonometry. It should more correctly have been in Question 5. The result of this will be a lot of students unable to begin what is usually seen as a straightforward question," he said.
Mr Evans said the lower-level paper gave rise to more muted responses than the fiery remarks concerning Paper 1, although quite a few students found it more difficult.
"The novel approach to Simpson's rule in Question 1 may initially have disconcerted some students, but a good deal of the material seemed straightforward to one teacher of this level," he said.
On foundation maths, Mr Healy said: "This paper was more difficult than expected. It was a lot harder than Paper 1, but most students seemed to get through it OK".
Mr Evans's comment on the foundation paper was: "It was better received at Mount Temple than Paper 1 of last Thursday".
As for the Junior Cert maths papers, Mr Healy said the higher-level paper was regarded as "fair enough" by the majority of the students.
Unusually, some described it as easier than Paper 1. "Questions 2 and 6 seemed shorter and easier than normal. Question 5, part (v), caused some confusion, and many students did not like Pythagoras's theorem, but these were the only complaints". The lower-level paper was described as containing few surprises, and most students appeared happy with it.
