Things have improved, and continue to improve. The exams are still shallow and aimless and boring and bitsy and CAS-poisoned, and they are assessed by nasty pedants who would not appreciate sensible mathematical argument if it bit them. The exams are asymptoting to 3s rather than 10s. But, at least the exams are semi-strictly increasing, asymptoting to something above a 1.
In particular, the number of exam errors has declined, and the “you are nuts” errors have almost (but not entirely) disappeared. It is nothing now like it was in past years, and in past decades. But, there were errors in 2025, as there always will be, and it is our job, yours and mine, to figure out what happened and to sum up.
So, please get to work. 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.
ps Yes, Foundation Mathematics is still to come. I haven’t forgotten you guys, so please don’t yell at me.
*********************************************************
UPDATE (20/11/25)
I’ve listed the errors of which I am aware. Genuinely not much, although a couple very bad SM ones. But, the marking guides are still to come and it is a fair bet that they will contain some horrors.
*********************************************************
UPDATE (18/11/25)
The exam links are below. I’ll add in the flagged errors soon.
GENERAL MATHEMATICS EXAM 1 (Here, marking guide here (W,I) and discussed here)
GENERAL MATHEMATICS EXAM 2 (Here, marking guide here (W,I) and discussed here)
Q6(b) (discussed beginning here) The question apparently has two reasonable interpretations. In a comment, Alex has informed us that VCAA will accept both interpretations. Yeah, ok, sort of; genuine ambiguities will arise, and when they arise then they should be handled honestly and decently, which VCAA has done here. Except, Alex notes,
[VCAA] have said that they were aware of both approaches when the question was set and both will be accepted as they are both valid ways to calculate a seasonal index over multiple years of data.
That sounds pretty crazy. This is not my turf and, unless somewhat insists, I am going to stay off this turf, but what is the possible argument or excuse for knowingly setting an ambiguous question?
MATHEMATICAL METHODS EXAM 1 (Here, marking guide here (W,I) and discussed here)
MATHEMATICAL METHODS EXAM 2 (Here, marking guide here (W,I) and discussed here)
QB4(f)(ii) (14/12/2025) The question asks for the minimum and maximum possible values for the y-intercept. The y-intercept, however, is a point, not a coordinate of that point.
QB4(g) The question provides the derivatives of the two functions at the endpoints. Fine, except, once and for all, VCAA must tell people that functions will always be permitted to have derivatives at the endpoints. Just get off your fat asses and do a bulletin or something.
SPECIALIST MATHEMATICS EXAM 1 (Here, marking guide here (W,I) and discussed here)
Q5(b) (Discussed here) There are very few errors these days, and fewer bad errors, but this is a very bad one. One cannot blithely have the velocities “at right angles” when one of the velocities is zero. Yes, the clearly preferable definition is to have the zero vector be at “right angles” to all vectors, but one cannot do this when the useless Study Design is uselessly silent, and when every single textbook stuffs it up. And, if you’re gonna have a zero vector be at “right angles”, at least use less geometric and more vector-like language: have the velocities be perpendicular (or orthogonal).
Q6 The required form of the answer is not unique. If you’re gonna phrase the question in this infantile “Give your answer in the form” form, at least choose a properly defined form. As John Kermond noted, it is just not that hard to ask for integers to be relatively prime or whatever. And, yes, I understand there are much bigger fish to fry, but it is clumsy and classless. And I’m gonna keep hammering it.
SPECIALIST MATHEMATICS EXAM 2 (Here, marking guide here (W,I) and discussed here)
MCQ12 Another very bad one. The intended answer is D but, as noted by commenter those who know, the velocity may be the negative of the square root thing given.
MCQ14 Intrinsically a nice question but why should one assume that the magnitude of the cross product is examinable? Again, VCAA has to tell people these things. Idiots.
Q1(a) (added 18/02/25) (Discussed here) The same as Q1 on 2024 SM1, so my comment is verbatim: VCAA’s assholes are not permitted to make up random and pointless crap for students to include in a sketch, and they’re certainly not permitted to do this without telling anyone. Utter lunatics.
QB2(e) Come on, guys. Give your answer in the form cπ + d, with c and d real? Are you really that lethargically stupid? (And, why am I asking?)
QB3(a) (01/12/25 – discussed here) The question asks whether the quantity of salt “increases with time”. The question of increasing for all time is too difficult and requires the DE, which only appears in part (b). So, either the question is nuts or, more likely, the wording is atrocious. Secondly, the question asks for information about the “quantity” by “considering the concentration”, but this can only be done easily if one recognises the volume of water is constant. That is fine, but will the assessors, who have a history of being assholes, demand explicit mention of the constant volume for this one mark question? We shall see.
FOUNDATION MATHEMATICS (Here, marking guide here (W,I) – discussed here)
MCQ12 (30/11/25 – discussed here) The question is ambiguous, and gratuitously so. Encountering heavy traffic “while traveling on both roads” is intended to mean both roads have heavy traffic.
QB9(b) (30/11/25 – discussed here) The cost of a quantity of milk being in direct variation to its volume bears no given relation to the percentage of the coffee cost being due to the milk. There is probably only one way to answer the question but the question appears to be plain nuts.
I’ll kick things off. Methods Exam 2 Q4g.i.
VCAA allowing the derivative at an endpoint (again…)
Thanks, Ariel. Obviously there is an issue here, but, and without necessarily disagreeing, why do you regard this as an error?
While the question still works as intended, VCE students are taught that functions are not differentiable at endpoints, and considering one-sided limits is probably beyond the scope of the course.
My main concern is that VCAA still haven’t made it clear whether functions can have derivatives at endpoints. I can imagine many students would have been thrown off by this, which is definitely an issue.
Thanks, Ariel. i guess my question is *why* VCE students are taught to exclude the endpoints. (I’d be fine either way.) But you’ve largely answered with the exam references in your comment below.
And of course the main point is the one you’ve mae above: why the hell doesn’t VCAA just say once and for all what they want? Utterly insane.
To clarify my question, when has VCAA explicitly disallowed a derivative at an endpoint?
One that comes to mind is 2019 Exam 2 Q2b, which asks about when the gradient function is strictly decreasing. VCAA gives (0,20], which I assume is because the domain of the gradient function is (0,30).
Another example is 2017 Exam 1 Q9b, where they explicitly specify the interval (0,1). It’s a bit ironic though, because students are required to accept x = 1 as a valid solution to f’(x) = -1 in the very next part….
Thank you for the reminder, Ariel. Both are listed in the Methods Error List, and see this post on the 2017 crap.
Specialist Mathematics Exam 2
Section B
Question 3 (c):
Q has been defined as the amount of salt in the tank after t minutes in part (b) and is implicitly exact. It is an error to say in part (c) that Q(30) is the approximate amount of salt after 30 minutes.
Thanks, John. Yep, in ways just really clumsy, but clumsy enough to make it as an error.
SM Exam 2
MCQ12:
The question should’ve asked for ‘the speed’ rather than ‘the velocity’.
MCQ17:
The velocity function v(t) has no ’tilda’ underneath.
ERQ3c
Should’ve asked for ‘Using Euler’s method …., *estimate* Q(30)’, as pointed out by John in another post.
Side note (not error though, just a few thoughts)
ERQ3d was stipulating ‘using calculus to solve the differential equation…’
Don’t think any VCE students would’ve ever thought about these options, but one may wonder whether the following approaches would be eligible methods addressing the command term ‘using calculus’:
1. Rearrange to get dQ/dt + Q/150 = 2 as a linear ODE, then find the integrating factor…
2. Use the general solution directly without even inverting the DE or separating the dQ, dt chunks…
3. Apply Laplace transform to dQ/dt + Q/150 = 2 and use the properties, such as L{Q'(t)} = s*Q(s) – Q(0), and L{k} = k/s, get Q(s) = fraction in terms of s, separate into partial fractions, and then apply inverse Laplace transform to get Q(t) = 300 – 295exp(-t/150).
Thank you, Legionnaire, and very funny. The “Use X” instruction invariably makes my skin crawl.
4. Treat it as a first order inhomogeneous DE with constant coefficients:
.
As long as
is explicitly substituted to get the characteristic equation when finding the homogeneous solution, calculus has obviously been used. And one could easily argue that getting a particular solution will – trivially – also use calculus. (I don’t see the point of commanding that calculus be used to solve the DE in the first place).
(Some students doing UMEP Mathematics may well solve it this way).
I think the intent, which undoubtedly could’ve been made clearer, was try and force students to demonstrate how they used calculus rather than just CAS-bashing where you could put an equation in and get an answer out.
Yes, of course the intent is clear. And of course the primary message, is “put down your fucking CAS and do some actual thinking”, but VCAA can’t say that (and only grudgingly concedes that).
Quite possibly, as a consequence of CAS, the “Use X” framing is required. But that doesn’t change the fact the this framing is gauche and childish and, all in all, nuts. If CAS requires such framing it is, more than anything else, an argument to get rid of these awful machines.
Yes, I agree that’s the intent. However, the question is worth 3 marks and a global instruction at the start of section B is
“In questions where more than 1 mark is available, appropriate working must be shown.”
I do not understand why students have to essentially be told that appropriate working includes the use of calculus. I would have thought getting an answer via appropriate working would be impossible without using calculus. And I would have thought that correct answers unsupported by appropriate working would automatically get zero.
This over-prescriptive idiocy is easily avoided if either there is no CAS (very unlikely to happen) or the exam with the CAS is shortened to 1 hour and the non-CAS exam lengthened to 2 hours (a battle that I think can be won if enough teachers decided to fight it).
Is there anything in the current Study Design that mandates 2 hours of CAS and 1 hour of non-CAS?
Yes. See page 57. Alternatively, below are relevant excerpts of what is said:
Examination 1
Conditions
The examination will be completed under the following conditions:
• Duration: 1 hour.
• No technology (calculators or software) or notes of any kind are permitted. A sheet of formulas will be provided with the examination.
Examination 2
This examination comprises multiple-choice questions and extended-answer questions ….
Conditions
The examination will be completed under the following conditions:
• Duration: 2 hours.
• Student access to an approved technology with numerical, graphical, symbolic and statistical functionality will be assumed.
• One bound reference text (which may be annotated) or lecture pad may be brought into the examination.
Thanks, John. Idiots.
All 2025 exams have been uploaded to the VCAA Exam website (in pdf format):
https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/assessment/vce/examination-specifications-past-examinations-and-examination-reports/specialist-mathematics
https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/assessment/vce/examination-specifications-past-examinations-and-examination-reports/mathematical-methods
Thanks, John. Unless I screwed up, I’ve already updated the exam posts (except this one.)
SM E2
Section B Q1bi and ii
VCAA writes this type of question without fail every year. What is the point in splitting up this question into two one markers? If you get i right how do you possibly get ii wrong? And if you get i wrong how do you possibly get ii right?
Wording for i is also questionable. If the answer to ii was pi units^3 for example, would the integral from 0 to pi of 1 dx be accepted as a possible integral that when evaluated will give the volume of the solid of revolution? VCAA assessment guides seem not to think so
Not an error, but worth flagging. Interesting point about (i), although I’m not that concerned.
Hi Yaniv. Re: Your first paragraph questions.
I agree that it’s totally ridiculous. My THEORY for why VCAA does this is that:
(i) tests the maths and (ii) tests accurate button pushing. And testing accurate button pushing be be justified by arguing that it’s a CAS-based exam and therefore accurate use of the CAS is examinable. And it will be argued that this is fairer than simply asking for the answer and making it worth 2 marks.
I totally disagree with the above, but it’s my theory for why they do it. And as you’ve implied, there’s probably also an element of legacy thinking in splitting the question up. Legacy thinking is at the root of a lot of VCAA stupidity.
Re: Your second paragraph. You have exposed the stupidity behind any argument for splitting the question into two parts, as well as exposed broader systemic problems.
I would imagine that it’s easy for a teacher to define a function for CAS – and then share it with their students – which only requires a user to input the function, the interval, and the axis of rotation, and returns the volume of the solid of revolution – no need to type in a definite integral.
We’re in GilliamLand. Given an insane state of affairs, insane reasons will be forwarded to justify insane decisions.
So you ask for the volume and make it worth two marks. Then working is required. You can’t just press some buttons. No working, no marks even if a correct answer is given. What’s so hard about doing this?
Well, one element of hardness is when the CAS program spits out the “working”.
Fair point.
Surely a tipping point has been reached with CAS usage in exams …? I cannot believe the people in the VCAA whose job it is to know of these things are ignorant of (or apathetic towards) this element …
Of course VCAA is not ignorant of the UDF problem. They’ve known for years. But they’re so perverted by techno-fetishism, they tried as hard as possible to pretend it was no biggie. But, i think that’s likely done.
VCAA is currently too ideologically perverted, and too plain stupid, to get rid of CAS entirely. But, I think they may well impose clearing or something for 2026. Politically, they really have no choice.
I’ve updated the post. If I’ve missed anything, yell at me.
Just wanting to check:
Re: Specialist Maths Exam 2 Q5(b).
The error is that the question is badly/incorrectly worded, and this wording is induced by a defective Study Design and implicitly supported by the textbooks.
John, do you mean SM1? What is your point beyond what i’ve already written in the update.
Sorry, yes SM1. I just wanted to be crystal clear on this.
As an aside, this clearly means we should all be explicitly teaching that the zero vector is perpendicular to all other vectors.
I wonder (rhetorically) how much other ‘hidden content’ the syllabus has … Perhaps a separate blog could be created such as “Secret Mathematics Study Design Business”. I think this could be an extremely useful resource. It would save teachers, particularly teachers new to the subject, from having to scow through decades of exams and reports to join the almost invisible dots on what is examinable.
As three other asides, the textbook publishers should correct their atrocious textbooks, and VCAA’s idiots should get off their lazy asses and clarify their atrocious curriculum, and then stay off their lazy asses and begin the consultation for a non-atrocious curriculum.
Assessment guides for all exams has been released
Thanks, Yaniv. I’ll update shortly.
I’ve updated the post (and error posts) with links to the marking guides. I haven’t looked yet …
Your link to the marking guide for SM2 leads to the marking guide for SM1
Whoops. Thanks very much, FYI. Fixed now.
The biggest issue with this years exams were that they were far too easy.
For spesh, 37.5/40 and 75.5/80 was required to get an A+ (top 10% of the cohort). A raw 50 required a 119/120 this year. Each mark lost on top of that is equivalent to one study score lost.
Ridiculous that the supposed ‘hardest’ mathematical subject is based purely upon not making a single error and interpreting everything as VCAA intended.
As a point of comparison, General Maths 97/100 is a raw 50 and for English, 54/60 is a raw 50.
There should be no reason that year in year out VCAA recycles the same question formats with no originality or creativity whatsoever and no opportunity for the top students who engage more deeply with the content to display their mathematical ability.
I’m not sure it’s the biggest issue, but it’s also not an issue just this year. NONE of the exams should be like Olympics rifle-shooting, where getting a speck in your eye on one dumb question is the difference between a gold medal and tenth place.
I’ve added links to the exam reports on the four error list posts. If anybody notices any oddities, please flag them. I won’t be going that carefully through the reports, but I’ll look at the questions flagged above, and on the secret discussion posts.