hmm this is weird.
like well I get disappointed with my results in the papers that I thought I did well in.
and I actually do better than expected for the papers that I screwed up ._.
says something about my expectations I guess. XD.
well anyway results:
eng: 34/45 for compre, 23/30 for essay
well this was ok - at least we avoided certain markers - but then again I kinda screwed up all the 1 mark questions ._. and 4/5 for vocab [yay!]. sadly 7/10 for AQ cos she struck out my entire first point. but then again things could have gone much worse.
23/30 for essay well... ok fine I rambled a bit too much.
overall 78 according to pat's marklist but not sure how the system will calculate it. and how much moderation we'll get.
chem: 77/80 - 29 in section A [thanks to a stupid mistake], 38+2 in section B [thanks to 2 stupid mistakes] and 8 for section C [thanks to a stupid marker ._.]
but then again 77 is very decent. and I still can't believe I was THAT careless. but section B could have been worse. and section C was crap ._. overall 92 [behind GXZ and welras. thanks to ISP XD]
geo: 13/13 [wth!] + 12/13 + 11.5/14 [._.]
did ok for the first question even though I spammed [which I think was the point really] and wrote crap for the FOURTH part question [i.e. mini-essay ._.]
second question was ok.
LORMS essay died cos my conclusion was invalid. so like 3 paragraphs wasted ._.
overall 89
phys: 67 which became 65 and then 66
so I screwed up the MCQs [got the FIRST question wrong AGAIN], most of the structured I was writing rubbish/blowing smoke. and during the checking I realised that CCK had marked a structured qn worth 2 marks wrongly. so 2 marks gone there. but then while showing it to him [cos he has some weird system - everyone who has to change marks places the script on his table opened to the page with the error and he'll call up one by one, so I happened to put the opposite side facing up, and well he was looking at it and realised I should have gotten another mark on the other page ._.] but then it was quite disappointing [but then I didn't UNDERSTAND the paper the first time I did it XD] so then I was wondering if I should take phys or bio ._. overall 89 [yay the second one]
math: 57.5/50
paper 1 was careless. I'm sure they deducted for leaving answer as 19 1/2 instead of simplifying by pulling out a 1/2 ._. argh.
paper 2 was ouch. especially the differentiation question. but shockingly my kinematics was actually CORRECT [except for the last part, cos I forgot that c was not 0], but I confused the marker by putting part 2 before part 1 XD. then this was epic:
2x = 240, 360, 600
x = 120, 240, 300
spotted the error?
haiz. and then SOMEHOW I managed to get full marks for the circ measure question even though I rushed it and finished it with like a few seconds to spare. =D. so overall was 94 and 89 [the third one]
so during recess I was suanning people by saying that my lowest 4.0 was an 89 XD.
but seriously then my overall scores were like
62 78 89 89 89 92 92 94
so by right if I had a 3.6 for either of the next 2 papers I'd end up with a 3.80 GPA [using new system]. and if I had a 3.6 for both it'd still be 3.80. and if I had 0.8 for both it would ALSO be 3.80. something's very rotten here.
so either I had to hope for 2 4.0s in BIO AND SS. both of which had many people dying tragic deaths. or just heck.
so bio: 18/21 for MCQ [which was actually better than the original 25/30 XD] and 44/59 for structured = 62/80
hmm so actually I died in quite a few structured questions for lack of key words. but got saved by 6/6 for essay. and the entire economic botany structured question XD. and for the muscle/bone question which I smoked through. but it was really better than I expected [but then again I put in a BIT of effort by reading bryan's notes and interrogating dewin on msn]. so overall 82.
then SS - 15/20 for globalisation [!] and 16/20 for venice [!!!]
cos globalisation well it was a GEOG topic and as a rule of thumb geog students were supposed to do better than history ones so like most people in our class had 16/17/18. but then I got stuck at L3 cos he struck out FOUR paragraphs of conclusion. T.T
and on the other hand venice from the way OWL made it out to be it seemed like everyone died. so I expected to screw this one up but I didn't. but the irony is that [according to her notation at least] I brought in SIX other factors apart from the given one. and thus spent too little time on the conclusion. so overall 82. phew.
so really for my humans papers actually I've been dying quite badly for LORMS [at least under OWL] cos either I write too much conclusion that doesn't get counted or I write too little which DOES get counted ><.
and well my results look quite nice now:
HCL 62
ENG 78
SS 82
BIO 82
PH 89
MA2 89
GEO 89
CH 92
GER 92
MA1 94
so although it wasn't as nice a pattern as last year's [90 89 88 87 86 84 83 80] the numbers are quite nice. cos so many end in 2 or 9. XD
so overall 3.84 using the OLD system. ha.
but then again I just realised that since noone got a perfect 4 i.e. the people with 9 subs in GPA i.e. 10-subject people [cos the school counts RE/philo as a subject] have at most 8 4.0s and 1 3.6 but if my english gets moderated up I'll get 9 4.0s and 1 2.8. which will be quite epic. especially since I'll be like one of the people with the most 4.0s and yet with a very low GPA [people with 6 4.0s can hit 3.90 using the NEW system ._.] and yet I'm capped at 3.88. stupid HCL. and even people with 5 4.0s and 3 3.6s can get 3.85.
._.
well at least I did better than I expected [especially with regard to bio/SS/geo/english. and I should count myself pretty lucky I guess]. and again there's not much difference between 3.80 or 3.84 or 3.85 or 3.88.
so school's ending.
T.T
