STUDENTS will be wishing no nasty physical ailments on the examiners following yesterday's set of biology papers.

While the exams perhaps did not leave candidates thanking cod for being alive, they would at least be able to smell the flowers upon leaving the hall without bagging on the scent.

There were some mixed feelings about the higher level paper, though the ordinary level paper was praised by all the teachers consulted.

Ms Paula Hewison, ASTI subject representative and a teacher in De La Salle College, Waterford, complimented the examiners on the papers and noted that at higher level, there were no distractions or diversions within questions on a "very precise paper". Students may have been disappointed that old favourites like respiration and photosynthesis did not appear, Ms Hewison said, but the questions that did appear were a" good and fair test of the syllabus.

"The questions were very straightforward and it was very easy to understand what was wanted from them," Mr Tom Acton, a teacher in Park College, Galway, said of the higher level paper. The short questions in particular were very straightforward, he said - "and they are the killers. Thankfully, we had no casualties.

Mr Tim O'Meara, TUI subject representative and a teacher at St Enda's Community school in Limerick city, felt that the higher level paper was "reasonably difficult", because the questions were uneven in their level of complexity. Question 8, for example, was straightforward, while question, 13, based around the release of untreated sewage into a river and the chemical changes and changes in some of the living organisms that resulted, required interpretation of data which students would find difficult under exam conditions.

Question 11, the traditionally, unpopular plant material question, was very straightforward this year, Mr Acton said.

Question 8 was on liver fluke, covering its life cycle, external structure, adaptations to the parasitic mode of life, as well ash methods of controlling it. It was an unexpected "gift of a question", Mr Acton said, describing it as "almost too easy". Question 12, on bacteria, was also extremely accessible, he said.

By contrast, question 9, on genetics, including DNA, the Law of Segregation and the Law of Independent Assortment, along, with distinguishing between the products of mitosis and meiosis was a little vague", Mr Acton commented. "It was very hard to know what was wanted, so students generally wouldn't have chosen it."

Mr O'Meara said it was an obscure genetics question as well as being vague. He also noted that there was no question on ecology, which again might limit students' choices.

Ms Hewison said that question 14, the practical question, was welcome, since biology was a practical subject and students who had done the experiments in class would have flown through it. Mr O'Meara said it would be interesting to see the level of take up on that question when the marks were published. It was a good idea, he said, that practical experiments should be examined on the paper.

Ms Hewison also noted question 12 as a nice question which was familiar from a past paper of a number of years ago, while the balance and type of questions in the multi option question 15 were also favourably commented upon. The use of the term "thoracic cavity" might have thrown some students in question 10, she noted.

The layout of the ordinary level paper was complimented by all three teachers. "The short questions, a vital section of the paper, had very clear accompanying diagrams for all questions except 1 and 2," Ms Hewison said. "It's easier for the students to recall points when they have good diagrams in front of them.

She also noted that there were only three pages of questions, so the amount of reading required of students was greatly reduced.

Mr O'Meara said that there was a good choice of questions ranging over the whole course on the ordinary level paper. While the questions looked long, the actual information being sought was not long. "It was appropriate to their level," he said. "There shouldn't have been very great difficulty."

"It looked very intimidating at first glance but that was just because the questions were broken up, which is a good thing," Mr Acton said.

Hewison said the internal divisions in the questions allowed "students to understand immediately what was being asked and meant that they didn't have to write long prose essays.

Students at ordinary level are sometimes put off when they forget small ideas, but in this case that was unlikely to happen, Mr Acton said, because the questions were of such a general nature.

Question 8(b), on the tooth, might not have been expected and could have thrown people but it wasn't hard. The genetics question at ordinary level was quite prepared to the response its higher level equivalent received, Mr Acton said.

This, however, was not the response from students in De La Salle, Waterford, where one student described it, with commendable brevity, as "brutal".

"It was not an easy paper by any means," Ms Hewison said.

Agricultural science

Agricultural science students received "a very nice paper" at higher level, according to Mr Tom Gilligan, ASTI subject representative and a teacher in Our Lady of Benada, Tourlestrane, Sligo, but there were some problems with the language used in the ordinary level paper.

"The higher level paper covered all aspects of the course and there was an excellent choice," he said. "Students with the work done would be happy with the paper and have no problems. It was one of the nicest papers for a number of years.

By contrast, he said, the ordinary level paper was "rather difficult", though the difficulties were posed not by the questions being asked but rather by the way in which they were asked.

"It was a good paper, but the problem here is that the phrasing of some of the questions might have produced difficulties for students at this level," Mr Gilligan said.

Question 1(a) used the phrase named parasitic organism" in place of the simpler and more obvious "parasite", while 1(d) used "symbiotic relationship" rather than "symbiosis".

The use of words such as "accruing" in question 2, the phrase "quality and yield" in question 6 and question 5's stipulation that students "compare and contrast the management methods used in any two systems of animal production with which you are familiar" appeared to add an element of unnecessary complexity to the paper which was not appropriate at this level, Mr Gilligan said.