For the long-term health of VCE, the major bad news this year was the resignation of VCAA CEO, Kylie White. The major good news was that, after decades of awfulness and denial, the mathematics exams were significantly better. Of course the media was all over the bad news. There is seemingly not an education reporter in the state that gives a stuff about the good news.
This good news is also likely to get better, even if the resignation of White makes that “likely” less likely. The exams were significantly improved this year, even with only a press-ganged vetting, and with the idiotic Study Design and poisonous CAS of course still in place. In 2025, however, solid mathematicians will be in on the ground floor of the exam writing. Beyond that, Bennett is still in place: there is hope VCAA will now be less inbred and thus less perverted; it is possible that the Study Design and CAS will be shown the door.
Still, and without trying to provide any journalistic leech a cheap and misleading story, the 2024 exams had errors. Not anything like what occurred in 2023, not to mention 2022 and prior years, reaching roughly back to Moses. But, there were errors, as there always will be, and it’s part of the job of this blog to record the errors.
In past years, I worked pretty hard and pretty quickly to distil the blog comments on wonky questions, and I’d look at the exams with some decent concentration. This year, as a sign of the improvement, I haven’t felt much motivation to do so. Even if the exams weren’t great, there seemingly wasn’t much that was explicitly wrong. But, a job is a job.
So, what were the errors on the 2024 exams? There was the Hungarian nonsense, of course, on General Exam 1, and I’m aware of a couple other errors, but not much.
Let me know. Please indicate in the comments any questions that you regard to have errors. Of course the “errors” may be minor and/or debatable, but if you think something is plausibly an error then indicate so, and we can ponder and discuss. As they appear, I’ll update this post with the bona fide errors.
UPDATE (13/12/24)
GENERAL MATHEMATICS EXAM 1 (Here)
MCQ8-MCQ10 A rather peculiar use of the nth summer Olympic Games as a unit of time. The questions are workable as is, but a little odd given that the Games have not always been at 4-year intervals, and given VCAA’s previous insistence that “year” is a categorical variable. (Here)
MCQ39 A fatally ambiguous, and bad, Hungarian algorithm question, with VCAA’s the less reasonable interpretation. Plain nuts, and a very bad instance of (one hopes) old-style VCAA cluelessness and arrogance. (Here)
GENERAL MATHEMATICS EXAM 2 (Here)
Nothing of which I am aware.
MATHEMATICAL METHODS EXAM 1 (Here)
Q6 Weird mis-formatting of the “3” in the expression 
etc. Subsequently corrected in the published paper. (Here)
Q9(c) Q7(c) VCAA has to decide once and for all whether functions can have derivatives at endpoints. The graph in the marking guide does not make it clear what was expected, and whether or not either answer was permitted. (Here)
MATHEMATICAL METHODS EXAM 2 (Here)
MCQ5 The bad formatting of the brackets is sufficiently annoying to count as an error. (Here)
QB(2)(a) VCAA still has to decide once and for all whether functions can have derivatives at endpoints. (Here)
SPECIALIST MATHEMATICS EXAM 1 (Here)
Q5 For the hundredth time, rotating a curve does not give a solid. Why do you VCAA clowns keep pretending it does? (Here, and here and here and here and here)
Q10 The question is intrinsically OK, but VCAA must take responsibility for its idiotic Study Design and clarify that all point-line-plane distances are examinable. And define “skew”. And, if you’re going to have formula sheets, which you shouldn’t, but if you’re going to, then put the damn distance formulas on the damn sheets. Christ this is dumb. (Here)
SPECIALIST MATHEMATICS EXAM 2 (Here)
MCQ1 Quantified statements do not have contrapositives. VCAA, you have already been told this: you did not listen. Don’t make me get out the WitCH again. (Here)
QB(1)(b)(i) The line y = 1 is not used in bounding the region. It smells as if the examiners were trying to be nice, to flag the lower limit of integration, but, if so, it was a mistake to do so.
QB(3)(c)(ii) The form of the answer is not unique. (No one cares about this but me, but it is still wrong and I’m gonna keep saying it.)
QB(5)(b) The form of the answer is not unique. (I told you I was gonna keep saying it.)
QB(5)(d)(ii) The form of the answer is not unique. (Not stopping.)
FOUNDATION MATHEMATICS (Here)
MCQ10 There are two possibly correct answers, depending upon rounding. A silly own goal, since there is no need for the answer to be this borderline. (Here)
MCQ20 An improperly defined, and bad, hexagon tiling question. Just a mess. Essentially the same as we hammered as a sample question. (Here)
Methods Paper 1, Question 2. Where the question had “Real” it should have been “unique” or similar.
I suspect most students would not have been phased by this as the type of question is very common in these papers, but I still think this is an error.
Hi RF. I agree that the wording is clunky, since the solution being “real” is neither here nor there. I don’t think it’s an error.
I don’t think “no unique” works, or at least it would change the question, since it would permit also the infinite solutions answer.
I find the lack of responses to this question telling. Especially when compared to 2022, 2023 etc.
As you have said in other posts, it is a shame that this lack of errors/improvement in papers overall was either missed or ignored by the popular press.
(Either that or people are too busy to comment right now)
Both, I think. People have nothing new to add, and see no point in repeating the old (even though that is exactly what I asked people to do). And, people are tired/busy.
But, yes, the media on VCE this year has pissed me off no end. Especially, but not just, Susie “just doing the job” O’Brien. Their arrogant and obtuse and misdirected self-righteousness has been appalling.
I’ve never had a high opinion of education reporters, with the single exception of Rebecca Urban, but it has never been lower than it is now.
OK, I’ve gone through and added all the errors of which I am aware. I did not go through the exams in any proper sense, since, remarkably, it did not seem worth it, and since I am very tired.
There were a few very irritating recurrences of nonsense: non-contrapositives; magical curves sweeping out solids; distance confusion. And there was the Hungarian crap, which, for the life of me, I cannot understand why VCAA chose to do the mule thing over.
But, all in all, it is absolutely remarkable how relatively clear the exams were of error, and, since we’re here, of idiotic wording. There is still plenty wrong with the exams, most of which cannot be properly addressed without burning the current execrable Study Design, and without smashing every CAS machine in the state. But the change from previous years is very very not-trivial.
It’s just a shame that no reporter gives a shit.
“Victorian Mathematics exams pronounced error-free” could be a headline for The Onion…
You’re not quoting, I hope.
Suggesting, not quoting.
OK sure. It is essentially a quote from the 2010 VCE Audit. But I think VCAA is well aware that there is too much scrutiny these days to get away with such nonsense.
A bit late but a couple of minor things regarding the Foundation exam.
Question 6aii asks to calculate the percentage difference but what they want (and what is the answer provided in the marking guide) is the percentage change.
Question 3b probably could’ve been clearer that they wanted the cost of the ingredients used per tart.
Hi “Anonymous”, being late is fine but please don’t comment as “Anonymous”.
I’m not quite sure of your objection to 6(a)(ii). I agree that “percentage difference” is the preferred term, but isn’t “percentage change” just a (somewhat obscure) synonym?
I agree on 3(b). The “12 tarts” and “per tart” are there, but are both very easily overlooked. Poorly executed question.
I don’t see either as errors but both are sub-optimal.
Forgot to enter my name. My apologies.
Regarding 6aii. My understanding is that “percentage difference” and “percentage change” are not strictly synonymous. Percentage change refers to the increase/decrease and uses the initial value as the baseline whereas percentage difference uses the average as the baseline and doesn’t care about direction (I very much doubt anyone would’ve actually done this and it wouldn’t do this in this context). The problem is highly unlikely to lead to any confusion in this particular case given both the context of the question and what students would have learned. But I think it would’ve been much better had they simply asked for the percentage increase. As written I think both answers of the price was X% greater in 2024 or Y% less in 2023 should be acceptable.
Regarding 3b. My problem is that I don’t think the question makes it as clear as it should that the prices need to be adjusted only to take into account the ingredients used, i.e. they bought 1 kg of flour but only used 250 g. A problem that would be easily solved by changing the last sentence to “ingredients used per tart”. Would be a much bigger problem if the scenario for the question were one where leftover material commonly goes to waste.
Both only minor problems (if you even consider them problems) but ones I felt worth mentioning.
Thanks again, James.
I think we’re agreeing on 3(b). It’s just a question of whether one wishes to characterise it as an error or poor wording. I think the question as written makes sense – so no error – but that the question as written really sucks.
Regarding 6(a)(ii), I got myself confused in my previous comment: I meant to say that “percentage change” was the common/preferred term.
I did a bit of hunting, and you seem to be (basically) correct. There seems to be no consistent meaning for “percentage difference”. I saw the average thing you mentioned but a couple of other interpretations as well.
In the context of VCE, I guess we can accept PD as a synonym for PC, but it is the kind of sloppiness VCAA could well do without.
Possible wording issue with Methods QB(3)(b)(i). Open endpoints are sometimes graphed with an open circle (e.g. 2020 Exam 1, Q8 preamble and 2010 Exam 1, Q9(a)), and if students follow this, they wouldn’t be able to “complete the graph” as instructed. Interestingly, this was the only exam where I found that an open endpoint (at t = 0) wasn’t marked with an open circle. Maybe students were expected to see this and apply the same rule to t = 24?
Christ. Who writes these butt ugly questions? What is the point of any of it? And again with the insane error boxes. These people are cretins.
Thank you, Sonya, and sorry to be slow to respond. It is a little difficult to isolate your concern. I don’t think there is an error as such, more than simply the entire question is madness (and ugly as sin).
I can kind of see the point of the vagueness of the graphing, with the lack of dots. Since t =24 is “closed” for the original graph and then “open” for the added bit, it’s maybe less confusing to include no endpoint dots. But it is all crazy, and no one should have to be concerned with such pedantic twaddle. Why should anyone have to care?
On this point, one would hope that the dot at t = 24 didn’t have to be included (and it would be hypocritical if it were), but of course no one can trust these nitwits to exhibit any common sense or empathy. So, who knows?
While we’re at it, why the hell does the original graph have domain (0,24]? Why not [0,24] or [1,24]?
I really really really hate MM. A godforsaken subject managed by godforsaken people.