Talking of Examinations, I saw an article on the BBC website about a recent Higher Maths paper in Scotland which has generated complaints and a petition because it was allegedly unfair. The introduction to the petition states:
This is not a complaint that the paper was too hard. Students expect to be challenged. The problem is that the 2026 Higher Maths Paper 1 used language and phrasing that was confusing, ambiguous, and inconsistent with every past paper students had revised from. Questions were not simply difficult — they were worded in ways that made it genuinely unclear what was being asked.
Past SQA Higher Maths papers have followed a recognisable style: clear command words, standard notation, and questions that test understanding rather than the ability to decode unusual phrasing. The 2026 Paper 1 departed from this in ways that penalised well-prepared students simply because the wording did not match the conventions they had been taught to expect.
Numerous other news outlets have covered the story too. It is frustrating that most of the pieces focus on what people said about the paper but don’t actually include a link to the paper itself, making it impossible to make your own mind up.
So you can make your own mind up here is a scan of the actual paper (obtained from here):
Bear in mind that the Scottish examination system is not the same as in England & Wales – the “Highers” are not as advanced as A-levels and are more similar to the Irish Leaving Certificate.
My opinion, for what it’s worth having neither taught nor studied in the Scottish system, is that there is nothing out of the ordinary with this paper. There is a lot to do in just 75 minutes – for 12 questions that’s just over 6 minutes a question. I don’t like examinations that are speed tests.
That said, the questions look well structured and the “command words” are without exception on the list here. Some questions are easy and others harder: I think Question 12 is the most difficult, but I think that’s intentional – to stretch the stronger students. The only thing I would quibble with is the wording of 11(a) (ii):
The second sentence is redundant. How can one possibly “explain why” without giving “a reason”? The reason is basically that the quadratic remaining after you have taken out the factor (x+2) does not factorize.
I looked at the 2025 Paper 1 and it seems a similar level, though the questions are phrased in a terser fashion. Here it is for reference:
This morning I did my last teaching session of the Academic Year 2025-6, an informal revision lecture/tutorial on Computational Physics. It was optional, for the students, as this is officially a study break, and was at 9am, and only a handful of students showed up, but I hope those that did found it useful. As is often the case with optional sessions, I think the students who came were the keenest and probably therefore those who least needed last-minute tips for the examination, but that’s always the way.
In the past such revision classes have been routine, at least for me, but for some reason the University has taken to locking most of the teaching rooms during the study break. This causes huge problems finding a space to do revision sessions. I really don’t understand this. There are constant complaints from students about the lack of study space, and the response from the University is that right before the examinations they lock dozens of empty rooms.
Anyway, the Examination Period starts tomorrow morning, Friday15th, but most of the students who turned up this morning have their first examination on Tuesday 19th May (which happens to be Computational Physics).
take the opportunity to wish all students the best for their examinations:
You shouldn’t really be relying on luck of course, so here are some tips (especially for physics students, but applicable elsewhere).
Try to get a good night’s sleep before the examination and arrive in plenty of time before the start. Spending all night cramming is unlikely to help you do well.
Prepare well in advance so you’re relaxed when the time comes.
Read the entire paper before starting to answer any questions. In particular, make sure you are aware of any supplementary information, formulae, etc, given in the rubric or at the end. You can always ask for log tables if there’s something you can’t remember.
Start off by tackling the question you are most confident about answering, even if it’s not Question 1. This will help settle any nerves. You’re under no obligation to answer the questions in the order they are asked.
Don’t rush! Students often lose marks by making careless errors. In particular, check all your working out, including numerical results obtained your calculator, at least twice
Please remember the UNITS!
Don’t panic! You’re not expected to answer everything perfectly. A first-class mark is anything over 70%, so don’t worry if there are bits you can’t do. If you get stuck on a part of a question, don’t waste too much time on it (especially if it’s just a few marks). Just leave it and move on. You can always come back to it later.
I saw this picture on a LinkedIn post from a former member of staff in Physics at Nottingham University:
It shows a notieboard in the foyer of the Physics Building, which houses the School of Physics & Astronomy. Earlier this week members of staff received letters informing them that their jobs are “at risk of redundancy”. As an act of solidarity the staff members concerned showed posted their letters publicly. I don’t know the names of the people who have received these letters – and if I did I wouldn’t share them here – but there are 17 letters.
UPDATE: I have since heard that all academic staff in the School – over 50 people – have received these letters. The University wants to reduce the staff numbers by about a third.
I also know that the undergraduate course in Mathematical Physics, taught jointly with the School of Mathematics, has been suspended and will not admit any students. I taught on this course for many years when I was at Nottingham University (from 1999 to 2007).
The threat of redundancy is not specific to Physics. It seems almost 2,700 individuals across the University have received such notices and the University is attempting to cut 600 positions. Not all those in receipt of an “at risk” letter will actually be made redundant, but the intention is clearly to scare people into leaving in order to save on redundancy payments.
There is a petition against these job cuts here which I encourage you to sign.
The background to this disaster is explained here. In summary, the University’s current financial meltdown is caused by the actions of the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Nottingham, Prof. Shearer West,, who presided over the hare-brained decision to purchase a large new campus. None of the “at risk” staff is at fault., but they will have to bear the burden of management ineptitude. You would think that the people responsible for this fiasco would be held to account and pay at least some of the price for their incompetence. But no. Prof. Shearer West left her post in 2024 to take up the position of Vice-Chancelor at the University of Leeds on a salary of more than £330K, leaving others to clean up the mess.
I fear more such news is coming. The UK Higher Education sector is shrinking rapidly. Nottingham University won’t be the last, and I doubt the contagion will be restricted to the UK either…
This tune popped into my head when I was walking home this evening so after dinner I listened to my CD of the terrific 1954 album Clifford Brown & Max Roach, on which it first appeared. Trumpeter Clifford Brown wrote the tune Joy Spring when he was just 23 for his wife Larue and it became a jazz standard. This first version features a quintet jointly led by Brown and Max Roach on drums, together with hugely underrated tenor saxophonist Harold Land, Richie Powell on piano (younger brother of Bud Powell, whose influence you can hear in his playing) and George Morrow on bass. The whole album is great, but I think the standout tracks are this version of Joy Spring and their version of Duke Jordan’s tune Jordu. Brown’s solo on Joy Spring demonstrates his beautifully crisp articulation and his superb capacity for sustained melodic invention, moving into and out of double-time. He only plays two choruses, but packs so much into them. Enjoy!
Despite it’s happy feel, this track will always be tinged with tragedy. Less than two years after this session both Clifford Brown and Richie Powell were killed in a car crash: Brown was 25 and Powell 24.
I thought young Séamus (aka Maynooth University Library Cat) was fast asleep when I saw him under a tree, but I think he was just pretending as he had his beady eye on something…
Cats (Rayist percep. in rose, black, and yellow) by Natalia Goncharova (1913, Oil on Canvas, 85.1 x 85.7 cm, Guggenheim Museum, New York).
This is a Rayist (or Rayonist) composition in which the artist tries to capture rays of light reflected off objects in the material world. Dynamic lines are added to suggest crystalline forms and the movement of light and energy. The style was influenced by scientific discoveries on the discovery of X-rays and radioactivity suggesting a reality beyond the direct perception of the naked eye.
The Journal of Open Source Software – known to its friends as JOSS – is is a developer friendly, diamond open access journal for research software packages which has been running since 2016 and is enormously successful, publishing Open Source software across many fields of science. Its UR, joss.theoj.org, is a giveaway that it is a stablemate of astro.theoj.org, aka the Open Journal of Astrophysics.
The driving force behind JOSS, responsible for getting it off the ground at the very beginning, is Arfon Smith whom I’ve known since Nottingham days and it iis fair to say that without his considerable help, OJAp would never have started. Both journals started off as speculative ventures, and OJAp has taken a considerable time to establish itself, but JOSS took off very quickly indeed and has now published over 3,500 papers. There are numerous differences between the two journals but, like OJAp, all publications in JOSS are free to authors and readers.
Arfon has held the role of Editor-in-Chief at JOSS since 2016 but in a recent blog post he explains that he is stepping down from his role as Editor-in-Chief, although he will remain at JOSS. The call for a replacement is here. It’s an opportunity that will appeal to anyone interested in open-source research software and open-access publishing so if that’s you then please consider applying. It will be a substantial investment of time, probably about a day a week. I quote:
Candidates should have the capacity to commit the time this role requires. For those in institutional positions, we ask for a brief letter or statement from your employer or supervisor confirming support for this commitment. Independent researchers, consultants, or others without a traditional institutional affiliation should include a brief statement describing how they plan to allocate the time.
Still, still my eye will gaze long fixed on thee, Till I forget that I am called a man, And at thy side fast-rooted seem to be, And the breeze comes my cheek with thine to fan. Upon this craggy hill our life shall pass, A life of summer days and summer joys, Nodding our honey-bells mid pliant grass In which the bee half hid his time employs; And here we'll drink with thirsty pores the rain, And turn dew-sprinkled to the rising sun, And look when in the flaming west again His orb across the heaven its path has run; Here left in darkness on the rocky steep, My weary eyes shall close like folding flowers in sleep.
P.S. In the picture (from my garden), the colour of the flowers looks a bit strange – probably because it was very sunny. In reality they look more purple.
It’s Saturday once again, so time for another update of activity at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. Since the last update we have published a further five papers, bringing the number in Volume 9 (2026) to 99 and the total so far published by OJAp up to 547. We didn’t quite make it to a hundred for the year last week, but will do so with the next paper.
I will continue to include the posts made on our Mastodon account (on Fediscience) to encourage you to visit it. Mastodon is a really excellent service, and a more than adequate replacement for X/Twitter (which nobody should be using); these announcements also show the DOI for each paper.
The first paper to report this week is “Formation of Close Binaries through Massive Black Hole Perturbations and Chaotic Tides” by Howard Hao-Tse Huang and Wenbin Lu (University of California at Berkeley, USA). This one was published on Wednesday 6th May 2026 in the folder Astrophysics of Galaxies. The paper presents a model of massive black hole-binary systems, showing that repeated tidal interactions can lead to the creation of hyper-velocity stars and other nuclear transients.
The overlay for this paper is here
You can find the officially accepted version on arXiv here and the announcement on Fediverse here:
New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "Formation of Close Binaries through Massive Black Hole Perturbations and Chaotic Tides" by Howard Hao-Tse Huang & Wenbin Lu (U. California Berkeley, USA)
The second paper for this week, also Wednesday 6th May, but in the folder Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics is “Detection of supernova magnitude fluctuations induced by large-scale structure” by Andrew Nguyen (Swinburne Institute of Technology, Australia) and 58 others based all around the world. This study uses supernovae and galaxy velocities to measure the universe’s structure growth rate, confirming the Planck LambdaCDM model prediction. The methodology is validated and shows potential for future research.
The overlay for this one is here:
The official version of the paper can be found on arXiv here and the Fediverse announcement here:
New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "Detection of supernova magnitude fluctuations induced by large-scale structure" by Andrew Nguyen (Swinburne Institute of Technology, Australia) and 58 others based all around the world.
Next one up, the third paper of the week, also published on Wednesday 6th May in the folder Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics is “Comparing cosmic shear nulling methods for Stage-IV surveys” by Naomi Clare Robertson and Alex Hall (University of Edinburgh, UK). This study compares three strategies for reducing baryon feedback impact on cosmic shear measurements. All methods effectively mitigate bias, with varying degrees of efficiency and information preservation.
The overlay for this one is here:
The final, accepted version can be found on arXiv here and the Mastodon announcement is here:
New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "Comparing cosmic shear nulling methods for Stage-IV surveys" by Naomi Clare Robertson & Alex Hall (U. Edinburgh, UK)
The fourth paper this week, published on Thursday May 7th, is “Egent: An Autonomous Agent for Equivalent Width Measurement” by Yuan-Sen Ting & Serat Mahmud Saad (Ohio State University, USA), Fan Liu (National Astronomical Observatories, Beijing, China), and Yuting Shen (Georgia Institute of Technology, USA). Egent is an autonomous agent that combines multi-Voigt profile fitting with large language model visual inspection for efficient, automated analysis of raw flux spectra, validated against expert measurements. This one is in the folder Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics. The associated software can be found here.
The overlay is here:
The officially accepted version can be found on arXiv here and here is the Mastodon announcement:
New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "Egent: An Autonomous Agent for Equivalent Width Measurement" by Yuan-Sen Ting & Serat Mahmud Saad (Ohio State U., USA), Fan Liu (National Astronomical Observatories, China) and Yuting Shen (Georgia Institute of Technology, USA)
The fifth and final article of this week was published on Friday 8th May in the folder Astrophysics of Galaxies. The title is “DiffstarPop: A generative physical model of galaxy star formation history” and it is by Alex Alarcon (Institute of Space Sciences, Barcelona, Spain), Andrew P. Hearin , Matthew R. Becker & Gillian Beltz-Mohrmann (Argonne National Laborarory, USA), and Andrew Benson & Sachi Weerasooriya (Carnegie Observatories, USA). DiffstarPop is a model that accurately and rapidly reproduces statistical distributions of galaxy star formation histories (SFH), using parameters related to galaxy formation physics.
The overlay is here:
You can find the authorized version of this paper on arXiv here and the Fediverse announcement is here:
New Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics: "DiffstarPop: A generative physical model of galaxy star formation history" by Alex Alarcon (Institute of Space Sciences, Barcelona, Spain), Andrew P. Hearin , Matthew R. Becker & Gillian Beltz-Mohrmann (Argonne National Laborarory, USA), and Andrew Benson & Sachi Weerasooriya (Carnegie Observatories, USA)
At last we’ve made it to the end of term. This morning I delivered my last particle physics lecture. Given that it is the last day of the semester I was half-expecting no students would turn up, but in the end I had about 60% attendance. At the end of my lecture there was even a smattering of applause, which I interpreted as meaning that the students were happy that I’d finished.
I thought I would end this module with some topics that I didn’t have time to cover in any detail, but thought the students should know at least something about. These loose ends included:
Renormalization
Grand Unified Theories (GUTS)
Supersymmetry (SUSY)
Particle candidates for Dark Matter
Baryogenesis
I only had time for a superficial treatment of these topics, but felt the class should at least hear the words. There are some very good unanswered research questions under those headings, which I think is an appropriate way to end a final-year module, given that at least some of the class are intending to carry on to further study in physics.
This afternoon we had a colloquium by our PhD student John Ibrahim on the subject of the “Quark‑Gluon Vertex and Confinement of Quarks”. It was a nice talk but it struck me how big the gap was between what I’d been teaching at undergraduate level and the standard that a PhD student has to reach.
Today was also the deadline for Computational Physics projects. I’ll be grading them next week. Even then the term won’t quite be over – there is the small matter of exam marking to be done – but at least I’ve got no more formal teaching to do until September.
Last night on the way home I decided to buy a nice bottle of white wine and put it in the fridge so I could drink it in celebration of the end of term when I get home, with a nice fish supper.
The views presented here are personal and not necessarily those of my employer (or anyone else for that matter).
Feel free to comment on any of the posts on this blog but comments may be moderated; anonymous comments and any considered by me to be vexatious and/or abusive and/or defamatory will not be accepted. I do not necessarily endorse, support, sanction, encourage, verify or agree with the opinions or statements of any information or other content in the comments on this site and do not in any way guarantee their accuracy or reliability.
In the Dark 