Just want to get something off my chest. My year 10 class are doing their GCSE Unit 1 paper in March so I've been looking at some recent past papers to help me gauge the style of questions they will face (it's my first group through under the new modular spec). This paper is largely statistics with a few random bits of number and algebra thrown in. Question 4 is a fairly typical "What's wrong with the questionnaire' type question - the usual no time frame in the question; overlapping response boxes (which are also non-exhaustive in that they exclude 0 and anything >20). Part (b) is to write an improved question (although it doesn't ask for response boxes these are required as part of the mark scheme). It's the mark scheme for these response boxes that has my blood boiling. I've just read the mark scheme along with the examiners report and I'm shocked by what I have read: "As commercial questionnaires do not contain inequalities, those that chose to use inequalities in the response boxes lost the mark for the 2nd aspect." and "There were still a number of overlapping response boxes but as long as these were exhaustive they gained a mark." So if you produced response boxes that were flawed (in the same manner that the initial question was flawed) you got full marks but if you did something that was mathematically correct you were denied the mark because that's not the way commercial questionnaires do it. As a matter of fact I have filled in a questionnaire before which had response boxes with inequalities. Just because some random principal examiner hasn't doesn't mean able students should suffer whilst less able students who make 'classic yet clear mistakes' get full credit despite those mistakes. It just seems shocking that students' futures are on the line and such random decisions in terms of marks schemes can get past the powers that be.