Jonathan's Blog: One geek's way in the universe

AS module results from May/June exams:

• Philosophy Unit 2: 80/100 – A;
• Maths: Core 2: 100/100 – A;
• Maths: Core 3: 100/100 – A*;
• Maths: Mechanics 2: 93/100 – A (Includes ~5% special consideration for getting a migraine — I think);
• Maths: Decision 2: 90/100 – A, despite giving up half-way through with the afore-mentioned migraine (back-to-back exams FTL) — I think they must have more-or-less doubled my raw mark because of that.
• Physics Unit 2: 120/120 – A;
• Physics ISA: 54/60 – A;
• Chemistry Unit 2: 140/140 – A;
• Chemistry ISA: 56/60 – A;

Overall AS results including January modules and D1:

• Philosophy: 180/200 – A;
• Physics: 294/300 – A;
• Chemistry: 293/300 – A;
• Maths: Slightly complicated as which modules go into Maths and which into Further Maths all depends, but:
  • Total of all modules taken: 760/800;
  • I will get an A in maths even if I get 0/100 in C4;
  • If I get ≥ 80/100 in C4 I will get A* in maths.

I’ll do a proper post soon, I promise…

Anyway, AS module results from January exams (subjects listed in descending order of purity/awesome):

• Philosophy Unit 1: 100/100 – A (duh): Woo-hoo!
• Maths: Core 1: 97/100 – A;
• Maths: Mechanics 1: 86/100 – A: slightly fail, but probably only one question messed up, not worth resitting unless I desperately need marks next year. I think I was a bit slapdash (read: cocky) in preparing for Maths, to be honest.
• Maths: Statistics 1: 94/100 – A;
• Physics Unit 1: 120/120 – A: Woo-hoo again;
• Chemistry Unit 1: 97/100 – A.

I’ve also got 100/100 in Decision Maths 1 from last January. Pretty happy with those results, but I need to revise harder (read: at all outside lessons) for Maths in June.

Results first, then my predictions from before exams for comparison. Mainly as a matter of record given just how long it’s taken for me to get these up.

• Maths: A*, predicted A*;
• Statistics: A*, predicted A*;
• English Language: A*, predicted A*/maybe A;
• English Literature: A, A*/maybe A;
• Core Science: sat last year: A*;
• Additional Science: A*, predicted A*;
• History: A*, predicted A*;
• French: A*, predicted A*;
• German: A*, predicted A*;
• Food Tech: B (1 mark off A), predicted A*/A;
• RE: A*, predicted A*.

Overall I’m fairly happy with my results, and my predictions were somewhat optimistic, but the B in Food Tech is a bit disappointing.

It’s a little late, given I had my first exam yesterday, but here they are:

• Maths: A*;
• Statistics: A*;
• English Language: A*/maybe A;
• English Literature: A*/maybe A;
• Core Science:  sat last year: A*;
• Additional Science: A*;
• History: A*;
• French: A*;
• German: A*;
• Food Tech: A*/A;
• RE: half sat last year, A*, would have predicted A* overall, fairly confident about A* having sat it yesterday.

“Chemical” does not mean additive. It does not mean an artificially synthesised substance. It does not mean something with the potential to harm. It does not mean toxin.

It means a pure substance comprised of atoms or molecules. It is not a perjorative. Use “synthetic chemical”, “harmful chemical”, “dangerous chemical”, “carcinogenic chemical” (although the “-ic chemical” is redundant). Not just “chemical”. Water is a chemical*. Air is a mixture of chemicals. “Chemical” is not shorthand for “nasty industrial solvent”. Learn that.

*Dihydrogen monoxide is a good example of how easy it is to  scare people by using “chemicalish” names. Use the term “amino acid” in a non-scientific context and you’d probably have to explain they’re not like sulphuric acid. I won’t continue this rant onto standards of scientific education, but I could. So easily.

 [Note: this was sparked by a Food Tech mark scheme which allowed "don't use chemicals" (meaning artificial additives) as an answer. All food contains chemicals. All food is organic (contains carbon).]