This paper is quite challenging, the level of difficulty is
almost on par with some of the Prelim Schools exam papers.
I would say Ultimaonline gauge of difficulty would not be
accurate. Every single year after taking the A level H2 Chem paper,
he would say the paper is pretty standard. He is a private tutor,
who is also an Ex-MOE teacher, with a Bachelor Degree in Science.
Of course, to him , he would find the paper simple.
But to us, A level students, our maximum knowledge for Chemistry
is merely just from the lecture notes and lessons from lecturers,
which only sufficiently prepare us for the papers. But he has more
than knowledge in chemistry as he pursued a degree in chemistry, of
course, he has a unfair advantage over this.
So, in conclusion, the best estimate of how hard or how easy the
paper is, is we students. The 2016 cohort, who are taking the paper
to rate what is the difficulty of paper, by comparing with out
peers in our JC. Ultimately, we are competing with the cohort in
the different JC and not a tuition teacher.
The benchmark of the A grade should not be determined by Pte
tuition teachers, (I'm fine with school teacher, they know how
their students fare in A levels). As he himself is doing the paper
as a pte candidate, then he would find it easy, like a stroll in a
park, and he will set the same benchmark every year.
Of course, you could ask him questions about the paper , as it
serves as a platform for learning, but never ask him about the A
grade of the paper, he would not know? These are moderations made
by the examiners, performance of entire JC cohort (30000 students),
just merely few students of him is highly inaccurate...
By the way, you just put the words right out of my mouth. You
can tell me that the 'A' rate dangles around 70%, give and take
1-3%, but you can't give me a definite value. Unless Cambridge
releases an official statement in any form, or there are insiders
revealing any of these sensitive information, I doubt we would
actually know. We can estimate ten marks gone for a paper but
instead lose fifteen due to careless mistakes. We can estimate
fifteen marks gone but end up only losing ten marks due to
over-estimation. Students can report back to their tutors that they
scored around 74% but didn't get an A when they prolly did slightly
worse due to miscalculations. It's just as simple as that. I do
feel a little (...) when I see statements like that right after a
paper: "The A rate is now around 75% because the paper was of
a rather decent standard, and this is solely based on paper two
alone" and right after paper three, "the A rate has officially
risen up to 77% because of the easy standard of paper three!" It
just doesn't seem right or accurate at all. I would still choose to
think that if you manage to score a 70 and the paper was of a
decent/average standard, you still stand your chance of scoring an
A. As simple as that.