Believe it or not, I have been trying to get along with Boss Smith. I really have. I am still open-minded to, albeit skeptical of, the possibility that Boss Smith may instigate some proper and desperately needed reform. The CAS programming thing was a positive step; even if it was obvious and way late and way too little, it was a positive step, and a step that was inconceivable just a few years ago. But it is really hard to get along with the Boss, it is really difficult to remain open-minded, when the cretins involved within and/or involved with VCAA, the cretins for whom Smith is ultimately responsible, keep doing the same cretinous things.
Above is from the assessment guide (W,I) for NHT 2026 SM Exam 2. It is for QB1(e), a SKETCH question, and, yes, those are the same moronic error boxes.
There are no words to describe the idiocy of this grading. There are no words to describe the idiocy of the people who cannot see the idiocy of this grading. It is impossible that these people have any proper sense of presenting mathematical thought or how to assess it and they should not be permitted anywhere near the assessing of high stakes exams.
Boss Smith has been told this, repeatedly. Not just by me, not just on this blog. The natural conclusion is either: that Boss Smith does not recognise sane advice when he is provided it; or he does not care about the cretins for whom he is responsible; or VCAA is currently such a fires-everywhere basket case that he is effectively incapable of managing his cretins.
Whichever it is, and I am honestly not sure which, it must change. I really don’t want another war. I really want to get along. But Boss Smith has to get off his ass and prove that he is worth the respect.
Are you commenting on the overly fussy graph requirements, or on the error in the coords. of the bottom right turning point, or both?
Just noticed the work SKETCH! So maybe the first.
The former, for which “overly fussy” is the understatement of the year.
Requiring some who-the-hell-cares surd thing to be within a given box is utterly insane. They are doing not one ounce more than checking whether kids are accurately transcribing from the idiot machine to the paper. Anybody who thinks that’s a reasonable thing to test on a high-stakes exam, which is largely a speed test, is completely insane.
But, while we’re here, your second point, too. Given the VCAA assholes with their “positive grading” screwed over the 2025 students because VCAA didn’t know that an “intercept” is a point, and then blamed the students for not deciphering VCAA’s garbage wording, yes, writing the x-intercept here as a number is pretty damn rich.
That’s hilarious.
While the error boxes are obviously insane garbage (that I still don’t fully understand), I do find the error box around x-intercept particularly confusing – they want the student to label the x-intercept, but are perfectly happy for the point to be labelled slightly above or below the x-intercept?
If so, why not put one around the y-intercept, where it is at least somewhat sensical to penalise a student for not drawing the graph horizontal there?
That’s very funny, Fox.
Has anyone at VCAA offered any sort of an explanation? Obviously it won’t be satisfactory, but it’d be good to know the exact nature of the idiocy.
Are they literally unaware of the distinction between a careful plot and a sketch? Is it some farcical attempt to drive subjectivism out of the marking? Is there an obscure reason they label the axis scales first, and then in for a penny in for a pound?
At least its a stationary point this time, I suppose. From memory it was just some arbitrary test point last time.
Very good question, Alex.
The only response I’ve seen from VCAA on this grading idiocy was vacuous insanity. Indeed, I cannot recall any sane and substantive response from VCAA on any grading issue, ever. VCAA is absolutely Trumpian in its unwillingness to ever admit fault.
As for Boss Smith, I honestly do not know what he thinks. I have little doubt that some people at VCAA read this blog, if not necessarily the people who need to read it. And I am sure there are at least some people at VCAA who have learned, if only the hard way, that if I say something is crap then there is a very solid chance that it is crap.
I really am trying to tone down my language, but it is hard. If VCAA wants to stop being referred to as dicks, they have to stop acting like dicks.
With regards to cretins, maybe some are seen as genius gurus within the VCAA. Perhaps that’s the problem(s).
I very much doubt that.
How is it decided which points or which part(s) of the graph undergo error box test?
Very good question. There is obviously some naturalness to the turning point and the x-intercept, since these are at least points of interest. So, in this sense, the NHT question here is not 100% insane like the previous ones: let’s make it 96%.
I assume the y-intercept didn’t have a box since the coordinates were exact integers. But there is obviously something pretty nutty about the x-intercept having both values and a box.
While we’re here, there is something very clunky about having exact surdy values for the turning points, and then a decimal thing for the x-intercept. Throughout, there is no coherence to what they are asking, or any clear and proper motivation for asking it. Even without the error boxes, a CAS-perverted question like this is just pointless garbage.
I just provide empty space on the page where I want a sketch. I also spell out the key features to be shown on the sketch. Not hard to fix this VCAA.
it’s hard to fix if you’re too stupid to realise there’s something to be fixed.
The x axis is apparently negative each way according to the turning points.
We need a bigger box!
You’re right, both turning points use an x-coord of -2sqrt(3)… Good grief. So much asinine focus on where the points should go they forgot to actually label them correctly…