It’s time for you guys to do some work.
I have decided that I am going to make my very best effort to kill VCAA’s error bar idiocy, as part of a general campaign to lessen VCAA’s grading idiocies. To this end, my first step is to present VCAA with a list of “You Are Out of Your Minds” 2025 grading idiocies, with the SM2 error bars idiocy top of the list. What I want from you guys is help in compiling this list.
The exam reports are now out (see below), so it as good a time as ever to compile the list. From the reports and the assessment guides and the discussion posts and the rumours, I now have a tentative list of YAOoYM idiocies. One has to look closely, and evaluate carefully, however, and I simply don’t have the time, and much less the desire, to fine-tooth every exam and report.
A couple points of clarification. First, I am not looking for garden variety assholeness. Some of the lunatic grading is less independent, gratuitous idiocy than it is the predictable byproduct of the lunatic micro-marking schemes and VCAA’s CAS fetish; the latter also must end, obviously, but they are largely separate battles. Secondly, it is not always clear how VCAA would have marked borderline answers; the assessment guides cannot cover every contingency, and the reports can contain suggestions/guidance for future years without necessarily implying that the given (purported) transgression was penalised in 2025. One has to make some guesses (and then some enquiries, which I will do). In sum, there are guesses and judgment calls in all this, which is why it is good to triangulate thoughtful consideration.
Here are the links. (08/02/26 VCAA seems to keep changing the links. Let me know if I have to update.) Get to work, and thank you.
What were the errors on the 2025 Mathematics Exams?
General Mathematics 1: exam, assessment guide (W,I), report (W,I), discussion post
General Mathematics 2: exam, assessment guide (W,I), report (W,I), discussion post
Mathematical Methods 1: exam, assessment guide (W,I), report (W,I), discussion post
Mathematical Methods 2: exam, assessment guide (W,I), report (W,I), discussion post
Specialist Mathematics 1: exam, assessment guide (W,I), report (W,I), discussion post
Specialist Mathematics 2: exam, assessment guide (W,I), report (W,I), discussion post
Foundation Mathematics 1: exam, assessment guide (W,I), report (W,I), discussion post
I do not know the situation down under. Do teachers follow this grading scheme? Are there sanctions if they don’t? Over here the teacher decides how many of the points of a problem he is willing to give. A second teacher (anonymous) grades it again, if there’s a difference of 3 points or more in the final grade (3 out of 15), a third one goes over it. Sorry for being off topic.
Thanks, Franz. Hardly off topic.
Others will be more up on and more accurate on the details but, in brief, the exams are centrally marked, with (I think) two graders (teachers who sign up to do it) for each exam. Then, as long as any discrepancy on a question is not too large, the average is given.
The “chief assessors” oversee the grading, according to the assessment guide (I think the work of the writers and the assessors, but with the writers not overseeing), which is what is attached here. Teacher/graders can ask for clarification on anything. Teacher/graders can also object to anything in the assessment guide, at which point they are routinely told to fuck off.
SM1 Q7 – I really want to be able to ask examiners a few questions here (as I suspect some of it is subjective as anything…)
i) “must see use of assumption” – can this be implied by the working out or does “must see” mean that a particular phrase needs to be used?
ii) “working required” – OK, how much? One line?
iii) “by the principle of…” – does this need to be explicitly stated, or can it be implied?
Thanks, RF. This is exactly the kind of querying I’m requesting.
With this one, I suspect that it was graded ok, and that your suspicions of nitpicking may be unwarranted. Induction and that kind of careful logical wording is not a regular part of SM, as evidenced by VCAA’s idiotic sample videos, and I doubt they will be too regimented. Plus, the problem they picked is moronic, messy for no testing gain, and that would have made the answers worse.
But, as you note, the report and the guide are far from clear. I’ve added it to the list to ponder.
For the same reason as you give (new material, want to avoid looking too bad) I suspect this was graded fairly liberally (which I’m ok with at this level and given the guidance in the sample(s) provided).
That said, previous VCAA pedantry has made me suspicious that specific items need to be seen to get the full marks.
Yes, I agree. It is to be investigated and watched. And the SM reports are generally bad, terse and unclear. These people should go.
SM1 Q9c – I have two, somewhat related queries about the “shape”.
i) Are you serious that “shape” and BOTH x-intercepts are required for 1 mark
and ii) the “hole” is not part of the “shape” and therefore is a mark on its own?
This seems like two opportunities to punish a student who has both axial intercepts correct but otherwise draws an unacceptable graph (and I believe from previous VCAA sessions that this is a high bar).
Thanks again, RF. This one looks bad, pointlessly anal grading. I’ve added it to the list.
SM paper 2 Q1d iii.
Marking guide says
(CAS). How do they know a student used the CAS? Does working that clearly did not use CAS therefore get 0 marks? (Some may argue I’m being picky here, but why did the marking guide need to specify CAS???)
SM Paper 2 Q4d – there is a lot of “working” between the final answer mark and the “answer given” (hence no marks for stating) line.
So, do students who omit this use of the trig identities score full marks? Based on a very pedantic reading of this marking guide, I would suggest they do.
Thanks, RF. Yes, I noticed that one as well. It smells as if smart students, who saw the
coming, were screwed. I will enquire.
Hi Marty, Small thing, can you correct the URLs for:
– the SM2 Report to https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/sites/default/files/2026-02/2025-SpecialistMaths2-report.docx
– the GM1 Report to https://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/sites/default/files/2026-02/2025-GeneralMaths1-report.docx
Some urls are organised by what they are (eg- but these reports are automatically put in by YYYY-MM. Not sure if this a change in the CMS (Aquia) they use, or if it’s just they don’t always add the classifying details. The GM1 report says it was updated, explaining the URL change – but the SM2 report does mention anything, it just changes the date… I wonder if anything was changed
Dammit. Thanks very much, Simon. Hopefully all fixed now.
Two questions from General Mathematics paper 2.
Q4d: The requirement that students explicitly mention the explanatory variable range seems overly pedantic.
Q7c: I recall this being brought up on the exam discussion post. VCAA’s decision, and their reasoning, is laughable.
Thanks, James.
4(d) is on my list right now, but I probably won’t make a federal case of it. (You can convince me otherwise.) It certainly seems like silly nitpicking to me, but I’ve been discussing it with GM people offline, and it seems there is some argument for the kind of extra half-sentence that VCAA expected, and that this expectation was not seemingly out of synch with previous years. The issue seems more the triviality of the question.
7(c), I remember people discussing and am determined to never look at the details. My understanding is that there were two reasonable interpretations of the question, and that VCAA accepted either interpretation. That is obviously an issue with the question, particularly if VCAA had prior awareness of the ambiguity. But is there also an issue with the grading? Are you arguing that one interpretation should not have been accepted?
4d: It’d take a lot to convince me that it’s not pedantic and unfair but I won’t argue it.
7c: The exam report and marking guide appear to indicate that only one answer was accepted. Both certainly should have been.
Thanks again, James. But I got confused and am confused.
I can see 7(c) being discussed for the formatting, but not for multiple answers. What is the issue with the question?
I think the issue is with the instruction “using the values in the table”. Which values, and why are some uses of these values appropriate but not others?
I think VCAA expected students to calculate 0.35% of 824443.59 for the interest, then subtract that from the payment for the principal reduction, then use that principal reduction for the balance.
But you can also “use the values in the table” (ie. the initial balance, the payment amount) to fill out a TVM solver on CAS and find the balance after 3 payments. This gives an answer 1 cent different from the first method, after rounding. It’s unclear to me why this method is “inappropriate”, as is mentioned in the examiners report.
God I hate GM. Thank you, both. I accept that there is something here that at least requires VCAA to explain their position, and I’ve added it to the list.