top of page

A Qualifications Scotland spokesperson has defended a controversial Higher Maths paper after pupils said that it was "unrecognisable" from the paper they had prepared for in class. The pupils said that the wording of the questions was so confusing that they did not know what was being asked.


Sir Humphrey responded: " A constriction of the channels of communication, that culminated in a condition of organisational atrophy and administrative paralysis may have lead to the mix-up.  Whilst we accept that there is a real dilemma here, in that, while it has been exam board policy to regard the responsibility of teachers and adjudicators as a responsibility of the Exam board, the question of questions policy can cause confusion between the policy of questions and the question of policy, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of questions conflicts, or overlaps with, responsibility for the question of the administration of questions. I hope that clears things up".


He added. "Please put you pens down and turn over your papers. Application forms for jobs at McDonalds are available as you leave".



Image credit: Wix AI (edited)

May 31, 2025


'If those goddamn interfering Euroland bureaucrat busybodies can change the inch to 25.4mm exactly, just to make their sums a bit easier, then we in the free world - i.e., not in the republic of Eurolandshire - can do the same.


'As from tomorrow, Pi in America will be 3.142 - precisely.  No ifs, no buts.  No more of this never-ending number of decimal places or 'irrational number' bollosck.  Irrational numbers are just that - irrational. Which means 'lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence' and 'not endowed with reason or understanding'.  We're going to fix that.


'The next thing we'll sort out is Plank's constant.  At 6.62607015 × 10-34 m2 kg / s, it's so small, it's not worth bothering with, and anyway it's metric, so it's got to be rubbish.  So we'll just abolish it, and save a ton of money.  No, not a tonne, just a good, straight ton.  Of US dollars, obviously.


'But e is a bit bigger - a more sensible size.  It just needs tidying up a bit.  2.718 should work just fine.  (Who the Hell is Euler?  Another goddamn foreigner from Europland?  You might want e to have a different value, but that's just Europinion.  We in America believe in democracy, i.e., doing whatever democratically-elected I - decide.)


'But the biggest and greatest, of course, will be the Golden Ratio, which I have decided will bea nice, round 1.6180 exactly.  Well, until I change my mind again.



Picture credit: Wix AI



A group of mathematics students trying to organise a game of 5-a-side have resolved the equation of player distribution into eleven against minus one, despite the solution being in the name of the game.


Second-year student Oliver Jaunt, commented: “Putting five players on each team logically cancelled each other out, effectively leaving the product of players as zero. This didn’t match the empirical evidence of there being ten of us waiting to play. Plus, it was getting cold, sugar levels were dropping, and four players needed a wee.


“We experimented by having the players line-up with legs astride the halfway line, wherein everyone could play quantumly for both teams at the same time, as long as they weren’t observed out of position.


“This worked as elegant mathematical symmetry. But, because nobody moved they were both onside and offside simultaneously, incurring yellow cards and subsequently getting sent off, which upset some players.


“To resolve the problem we borrowed a negative player for one side and added an imaginary player to the other which served as a functioning solution to how we could have a multi-player kickabout without reducing numbers to zero, and sobbing.


“Once the proof was submitted for review, we had run out of time on the pitch. So we had snacks, juice and another wee, then designed a computer program to simulate the match.



“It was thrilling, the game finished y+(x/x2) to minus nil. We’re playing Rugby 7s tomorrow”


First published 3 April 2023




If you enjoyed this archive item, why not buy thousands of archive stories found in our eBooks, paperbacks and hardbacks?















bottom of page