How do you Revise?

[ceres]

It might make logistical sense but it certainly isnt the best way for the student.
________
RUBBI

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by ceres

It might make logistical sense but it certainly isnt the best way for the student.

It's the fairest of the suggested methods, as success and failure rests solely with the student. Coursework has too much cheating, and purely going by the judgement of the supervisors can, as I said above, create problems.

[LHC]

shit it is my exam day and i have diarrhea shit shit shit oh i've failed

[Cannon_Fodder]

Just had a test this morning, woke up late, arrived 20 mins late into and hour exam, thought it was okay considering everyone else thought it was hard. More impressive considering I hadnt done any revision for it at all and was drinking, watching the football the night before...

[Androme]

This book has really helped me - well worth its price imo.

Has so much in it. Ranging from the most effective revision techniques - eg: ACTIVE revision (mindmaps, index cards, annotations of old notes, talking out loud) instead of passive (highlighting, underlining, reading, copying out, why you should steer well clear of junk food and caffeine as well as stress (and ways to combat stress), and to teach you that although grades are important and you should try your best under the circumstances, ultimately, attitude is MORE important than grades (John Major goverened the country on 3 O Levels and many entrepeneurs & rich people aren't qualified etc.) etc etc.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by LHC

shit it is my exam day and i have diarrhea shit shit shit oh i've failed

That's why there are

a. more than one set of exams.
b. the ability to be excused from exams with doctor's permission

There are also resits. You can't resit 3 years of interaction if it goes badly the first time.

[LHC]

It can't "go badly the first time" if it happens over a three year period.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

It is, however, impractical, as it requires complete disinterest on behalf of the supervisor. Whilst it does remove some of the problems ("performance on the day"), those are things that tend to be isolated to individual exams. What if your supervisor dislikes you? That's three years ballsed up. Furthermore, different supervisors will look for different things, when you're dealing with hundreds or thousands of people it makes much more sense to have some sort of standardised test.

no it just requires them to be professional.

that's like saying 'judges are impractical because they may not like you'.

[Ste]

exams don't really test knowledge. More like memory, short term memory at that.

Oh and in Nottingham the police carry guns. And London is nothing like the rest of Britain.


To revise for exams I try and start a week before, do a few tutorial sheets, make a page or two of notes that I think are important, then do a load of past papers.
I have 4 exams in a few weeks...

[vampire_lestat]

Revision cards for knowlage based subjects, lots of practice papers for mathsy (read real) subjects.

[Helveticus]

I revised by forgetting about the exam and having to be dragged out of a class to go and sit it.

[Phil^]

obligitory "mind melding with the teacher" comment

I tend to write out all my notes again by hand. Helps it stay in my mind.

[LHC]

Maths: Past papers repeatedly until i can force the methods into my head

I don't bother revising my other subjects

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

no it just requires them to be professional.

What if you don't like your supervisor? That makes it much more difficult than someone who does, and is a totally random thing.

Originally Posted by LHC

It can't "go badly the first time" if it happens over a three year period.

Are you arguing that it "can't go badly" or "first time"?

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

What if you don't like your supervisor? That makes it much more difficult than someone who does, and is a totally random thing.

if the student doesn't like their academic assesment tutor then how is that different from a student not liking exams?

its in the student's hands.

I am saying that the academic assesment tutor would be too professional to let personal feelings get in the way.

the same way all lawyers and judges and doctors do.

[LHC]

Well it can go badly over a period of time if you are shit, and even if you are good it can go badly on occasion (including the first time I suppose). I am however working on the assumption that they will be professional enough to not hold a grudge, and that your supervisor guy will judge you on overall ability over the course, and if you are good enough vaguely consistently you will be graded higher than those:
a) consistently poor
b) rarely good

[zakoff]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

that's like saying 'judges are impractical because they may not like you'.

surely its a bit different.

Its impossible for an academic to be wholly objective. If they have to know you, there is always a chance of them being overly harsh or apply a little favouritism. This is why Essays and Exams are anonymous and counter marked.

It is possible to have the marking of the academic counter marked by another academic, but the other academic may not have enough experience of the work etcetcetc.

Judges are different because, i believe (although you would have to confirm), they are not allowed to Judge a case in which they personally know the defendent.

However, i do agree you idea of a system is better than exams, which are only good for people who have a good memory or are good under pressure.

I think it also depends on the subject. I think its important in some subjects, especially Maths and some Science type subjects, to posess a good memory of the topic itself. This is required for pratical work in the topics too. In Arts subjects i think its silly to have exams. English you can't even take the texts you are studying into the exam - so how is it showing your ability to analyse texts? In History, your ability to research and analyse information should be tested, not you ability to remember quotes from sources etc. I believe coursework is the best way for Arts students to be assessed, because it shows their ability to do the subject. Coursework is not marked on the amount of work you do, its about how good the material you write is.

[Yahwe]

your experience of examination systems is limited.

[zakoff]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

your experience of examination systems is limited.

Thats far from the truth.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by zakoff

Thats far from the truth.

no its not kid.

don't get all defensive.

its true and you can see its true by the things you say and before you get offended, its ok, it doesn't matter, but your experience is limited.

you've experienced only the system you are still in not 'systems'. see?

when you say:

"English you can't even take the texts you are studying into the exam"
"In History, your ability to research and analyse information should be tested, not you ability to remember quotes from sources etc"

you say them as though they are universally true.

they aren't. its just you've only experienced a system where that is true.

when you say:

"the other academic may not have enough experience of the work etcetcetc."

that's just silly.

"This is why Essays and Exams are anonymous and counter marked. "

this is not always true and certainly not as robust a system as you think.

now i don't want you to get angry because when you do you get silly. all i am saying is that you have limited experience of examination systems.

this is why you say things which are wrong. no one is blamming you. its not personal.

its just true.

[zakoff]

when i talk of the English and History Exams, I am talking about the same level of exams as pig. The standard and difficulty of exams at university is checked by a central board. Its called the The Credit and Qualifications Framework and is controlled by the Further and Higher Education board. In Wales thats ELWa. I don't know what the English equivelent is exactly. Its basically just a government body that makes sure that Degrees are a similar standard across universities. So the Exams are, on the whole, of a similar difficulty and similar in type.

"the other academic may not have enough experience of the work etcetcetc."

I was talking about the ability for someone to check an academics assessment in the way you suggest. It is difficult to have one academic carefully assess each students work and their ability and thinking over a long time. It would be even harder to have TWO people do it. If you have a second person check, they perhaps wouldn't have the experience of the individuals concerned to assess them in the same way.

It is the right of any student in the UK to challenge the marks they get in Exams or Essays and have the reassessed by a third academic. In all institutions major exams and essays are marked by two people. I remember once, a while ago one of my friends had actually had his dissertation comments marked for grammar by the person who was counter marking.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by zakoff

when i talk of the English and History Exams, I am talking about the same level of exams as pig. The standard and difficulty of exams at university is checked by a central board. Its called the The Credit and Qualifications Framework and is controlled by the Further and Higher Education board. In Wales thats ELWa. I don't know what the English equivelent is exactly. Its basically just a government body that makes sure that Degrees are a similar standard across universities. So the Exams are, on the whole, of a similar difficulty and similar in type.

and how does this affect what i said?

Originally Posted by zakoff

"the other academic may not have enough experience of the work etcetcetc."

I was talking about the ability for someone to check an academics assessment in the way you suggest. It is difficult to have one academic carefully assess each students work and their ability and thinking over a long time. It would be even harder to have TWO people do it. If you have a second person check, they perhaps wouldn't have the experience of the individuals concerned to assess them in the same way.

why would a second academic be needed?
If a second academic was needed, why not have 2 academics from the start?

Originally Posted by zakoff

It is the right of any student in the UK to challenge the marks they get in Exams or Essays and have the reassessed by a third academic. In all institutions major exams and essays are marked by two people. I remember once, a while ago one of my friends had actually had his dissertation comments marked for grammar by the person who was counter marking.

errrrr...

why did you write this?

why don't you look again at what I said. I phrased it with particular caution knowing you have a tendancy to over react.

but honestly. this isn't a reply. this is you putting down everything you think you know about exams.

[zakoff]

The first point - There aren't really different systems, they are generally all the same. Its called stadardisation. I know quite a lot about the system of exam creation in universities because i had to do a course on it. Its part of a government initiative to make sure that students are fairly assessed accross all institutions and make university exams similar to School exams. What it means is that they may not be universally true, but accross England and Wales it is.

The second point - I am talking about the system you said was the best. You cannot just have one person do it obviously. Most things, in any institution, have to be checked. To check something under you idea would require two people to have the same experience of a student. Which is pratically impossible.

The third point - I was talking about the robust system of marking. Everything is counter-marked and that if you are not satisfied you can get it marked again on top of that.

Yahwe, you have NO experience of exams I'm sure, other than maybe doing them as a kid and at university. I have to learn about exams and how to write them, its part of what i'm expected to know. You probably know nothing pratical about exams at the moment either, because there have been changes in the systems since the Labour government came into power.

But whatever you want Yahwe, I really don't care what you say.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by zakoff

The first point - There aren't really different systems, they are generally all the same. Its called stadardisation. I know quite a lot about the system of exam creation in universities because i had to do a course on it. Its part of a government initiative to make sure that students are fairly assessed accross all institutions and make university exams similar to School exams. What it means is that they may not be universally true, but accross England and Wales it is.

even standardised systems have variants.

be specific to your first comments

Originally Posted by zakoff

The second point - I am talking about the system you said was the best. You cannot just have one person do it obviously. Most things, in any institution, have to be checked. To check something under you idea would require two people to have the same experience of a student. Which is pratically impossible.

yes
i said it was the best system, it still is.
i fail to see why 2 academics is practically impossible.

i'm suggesting a better way of doing things.

Originally Posted by zakoff

The third point - I was talking about the robust system of marking. Everything is counter-marked and that if you are not satisfied you can get it marked again on top of that.

your original point was anonymity.
i don't see why counter marking is relevant at all (but see below)

Originally Posted by zakoff

Yahwe, you have NO experience of exams I'm sure, other than maybe doing them as a kid and at university. I have to learn about exams and how to write them, its part of what i'm expected to know. You probably know nothing pratical about exams at the moment either, because there have been changes in the systems since the Labour government came into power.

why do you always do this??????
why do you personalise eveything

you are a very proud kid and we know pride comes before a fall.

I wanted to talk objectively but if we must compare e penises all the damn time then

1) my father is a senior academic, i grew up with different way to examine
2) I myself am an external examiner for a major british university
3) i knew how universities were administered before i knew how to dance.

they make you do a course in it do they? goodness
what a waste of your time
and what nonsense can you possibly learn?

Originally Posted by zakoff

But whatever you want Yahwe, I really don't care what you say.

well i care what you say.

i care what you all say and how and what you think

that's why i'm here.

[zakoff]

You know best Yahwe. Clearly. I'm defensive Yahwe because what you said was untrue. If you are what you say, then you should know what you said is completely untrue. You also understand why having 2 academics do what you proposed would be extremely difficult, having one would be.

You obviously know everything, I apologise for even trying to challenge your mass of knowledge. I'm sorry for trying to make opinions too, its obviously wrong to come onto the General discussions and try to DISCUSS opinons.[sarcasm]. Get a life Yahwe, please.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by zakoff

You know best Yahwe. Clearly. I'm defensive Yahwe because what you said was untrue. If you are what you say, then you should know what you said is completely untrue. You also understand why having 2 academics do what you proposed would be extremely difficult, having one would be.

You obviously know everything, I apologise for even trying to challenge your mass of knowledge. I'm sorry for trying to make opinions too, its obviously wrong to come onto the General discussions and try to DISCUSS opinons.[sarcasm]. Get a life Yahwe, please.

why do you do this?

what goes through your head when you type such nonesense?

old i may be. but good lord. you make me feel older still

(and is not a burden i want)

you've not responded to my posts. you've lashed out.

when will you understand? there is no audience.
you make mistakes. boo bloody hoo. i make mistakes all the time.

stop being so personal about everything.

[zakoff]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

why do you do this?

what goes through your head when you type such nonesense?

old i may be. but good lord. you make me feel older still

(and is not a burden i want)

you've not responded to my posts. you've lashed out.

when will you understand? there is no audience.
you make mistakes. boo bloody hoo. i make mistakes all the time.

stop being so personal about everything.

no comment.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Yahwe

if the student doesn't like their academic assesment tutor then how is that different from a student not liking exams?

I am lacking comprehension of how you can think the term "doesn't like" is in any way comparable.

Originally Posted by LHC

Well it can go badly over a period of time if you are shit, and even if you are good it can go badly on occasion (including the first time I suppose). I am however working on the assumption that they will be professional enough to not hold a grudge, and that your supervisor guy will judge you on overall ability over the course, and if you are good enough vaguely consistently you will be graded higher than those:
a) consistently poor
b) rarely good

You appear to have misunderstood, or at least underestimated the number of ways things can "go badly". I'm not suggesting, by any means, that the sole reason you can give a poor account of yourself is one of academic misfortune and bad performance on the day, continually. Of course that means that the example candidate shouldn't be ranked highly, as it is highly unlikely, from the point of view of the supervisor, that an immense series of "off days" would happen.

However, university fairly obviously isn't just about the work. Most of the students are away from home for the first time. Have a timetable based around self-organisation for the first time. Sexuality issues (either with the same, or opposite sex, or both), possible first experimentation with various drugs, money problems, homesickness, unbalanced diet, illness, depression.... a lot can happen to students outside the confines of "work" proper. All of these things, and this is not an exhaustive list, can affect the performance of a student, and, whilst there's also a probability of these affecting the exams, if any of these occur there is a certainty that they will affect the 3 year plan, and as I said, exams can be resit.

Furthermore, you should never design a system based upon the discrimination of the lower ability levels. "Good from bad" is a trivial determination. "Very good from good" or "Excellent from very good" and much, much harder and it is they that the system should be grounded upon.

Say we have a student of English Literature. Say the student is a post modernist, and the supervisor has a more classical bent. Or some other traditional schism in the field of literature. The supervisor will be unable to be able to determine the quality of the student's arguments (remember, this is about discriminating between the best) as well as with one of his own bent. What if the supervisor doesn't like the student? Be professional, yes, don't have a conscious bias against them, but surely the supervisor is less likely to go the extra hog when trying to find a grounding for a specific piece of work if they dislike the student than if they like them?

What if, at the end of the course, this student loses out on a first because of a lower grade from said supervisor, and there is a knowledge of disagreement between them? How does the university prove a lack of bias? Sure, you can dig out the written work, but that's losing the point of the supervisions; the disemination is also based upon the student's ability in discussion, not just on a series of coursework. What if the student had exemplary written work and was terrible in discussion? How would the supervisor be able to prove that?

That's obviously rather exaggerated, at least from an individual's perspective, but then it would only take one incident like this, over the whole of the student body, which would be tens of thousands of people, for confidence to be lost, and attempts to gain advantage be made, and that's ignoring all other problems. Exams have a certain degree of transparency; when you're dealing with decisions which will shape a person's future, you must have all the stages of decision visable so there are no problems with accountability, and confidence from the students that it is their work, not some random outside force, which ultimately matters.

Don't imagine that the margins aren't small. I share a house with 6 other people, and two of them have missed the top grade in their chosen subject by a single mark, which has had enormous possible ramifications.

Finally, Yahwe, I find it odd that you are proposing a system that would actively punish hedonistic tendencies, pushing the average work ethic to one where work is more consistent from the off; where's the place for the laizzes faire genius, the drunkard?

[edit]

Reading the above argument between you and zakoff, I hereby let it be known my objection is one of bias and accountability, not something imagined

English you can't even take the texts you are studying into the exam - so how is it showing your ability to analyse texts? In History, your ability to research and analyse information should be tested, not you ability to remember quotes from sources etc.

???

[Tomkat]

I should really post in this thread, as there is a lot of misguided and simply false information.

A lot of you are talking such rubbish that I wouldn't know where to start though

University exams are inherently flawed.

The best I have heard is how Medicine (I'm not sure if this applies to all universities) works. When you answer a question in an exam, you can't simply waffle on, vaguely knowing the answer. You have to answer the essay style question, and then you have to give a level of 1-3 based on how sure you are that it's correct.

If you say "I'm really sure this is completely correct! Level 3!" then you have errors, you lose marks.
If you say "I'm not too sure about this... so I'll only put in Level 1" then the maximum marks you can earn for that question are halved, but you won't lose any.

This way, you are required to know the subject knowledge. It also reduces the chances of someone doing well who just crams the night before and doesn't really know anything about the topic, but happened to get lucky with a couple of questions.
I'm one of those people (a crammer), but I still think it's stupid. I don't deserve a degree, based on the amount of work I did. University is stupid now, and degrees are a dime a dozen.

[Stew]

I live with medics.
They have 2 exams a year.
One is multiple choice and then a few short answers, and the other is a 90 minute (I think) exam where they are physically shown something and have to answer on it.

They are then given a mark of level 1-5 with 5 being the best.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

This way, you are required to know the subject knowledge. It also reduces the chances of someone doing well who just crams the night before and doesn't really know anything about the topic, but happened to get lucky with a couple of questions.
I'm one of those people (a crammer), but I still think it's stupid. I don't deserve a degree, based on the amount of work I did. University is stupid now, and degrees are a dime a dozen.

I don't agree with that style of examination in general. Specifically in medicine, fine, as there's not exactly much margin for error in medical practice. However, that system penalises people who do the worst at exams anyway; those who get nervy, worry about whether their answers are correct, and so forth.

I also don't agree with your assertion that people have to put in a lot of work to "deserve" a degree. If the exam is properly structured, you would show the skills that the degree is supposedly aiming for, and any specifics really don't matter; everyone specialises after their degree anyway, so not knowing the Strong Force works doesn't really matter if you want to be a Fluid Dynamicist.

You also seem to be working off an incorrect assumption: that exams should test knowledge of facts, and little more. I'd say that's a badly designed exam. Exams shouldn't be passed by rote learning; compare A-Level maths papers (and the AEA maths paper) to STEP papers for a comparison of types.

Finally, yes "the degree" as an entity is now valued less than it was, but degrees from specific institutions are just as useful.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I am lacking comprehension of how you can think the term "doesn't like" is in any way comparable.

mark you're supposed to be arguing against my system.

I have proposed a system that does have one obvious flaw: it is very expensive.

If you're going to defend a system of written essay exams as an alternative to my system could you at least provide some argument for why a 3 hour written exam is better than a 8 week one on one assessment by a professional academic?

[Ste]

Because it isn't standardised - Every student would be being tested differently.
It depends on the academics subjectibility and personality.
Employers can't compare graduates easily unless there is a simple grading system.
Graduates would need the right to demand the reasons behind the grading they were given and the ability to challenge it.

You're right that it would test a student in a better way than exams but as we don't live in an ideal world where assessors are perfect.

As an example, for my 3rd year project I had a supervisor and a second marker. When I handed in my report after 6 months, my supervisor told me it was good, I had pretty much done what he'd wanted of me. My second marker was a lot more harsh and marked me quite a lot lower as what he'd expected of me was a lot more than i could have realistically achieved. A lot of people who had the second guy as their primary supervisor found the opposite - he marked them low while their second marker marked them higher.
Basically, this guy didn't understand our abilities and wanted us to be experts at the subject after 6 months. It would be extremely unfair on someone to get him as an assessor in your system as someone else could get someone extremely lenient and get a much higher grade despite not being any better at the subject.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Surely being "elitist" (as you put it) would mean that it is biased towards the best, in which case it does show a person's true knowledge of the subject.

Exams are the best way to test knowledge. It's as simple as that.

This is incorrect, unless you're using knowledge in the broadest possible sense of the word.

Most exams are 40% about how good you are at remembering pointless details you'll have forgotten 6 months later with no loss, 30% how good you are at coping with the stress of strict time limits and an artificial environment, 15% how good you are at using and applying general and important principles, and then maybe 15% how 'clever' you are.

A proper exam would be entirely open book, allowing students access to all the relevant knowledge required to answer the questions, since in 'real life' you wouldnt need to remember details - you would just look them up. The exam would purely test how good they were at applying the concepts to new situations. Also having a time limit on an exam is completely absurd and again has no possible connection to any 'real life' scenario - you should be allowed to take as long as you want (within reason).

[ceres]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

This is incorrect, unless you're using knowledge in the broadest possible sense of the word.

Most exams are 40% about how good you are at remembering pointless details you'll have forgotten 6 months later with no loss, 30% how good you are at coping with the stress of strict time limits and an artificial environment, 15% how good you are at using and applying general and important principles, and then maybe 15% how 'clever' you are.

A proper exam would be entirely open book, allowing students access to all the relevant knowledge required to answer the questions, since in 'real life' you wouldnt need to remember details - you would just look them up. The exam would purely test how good they were at applying the concepts to new situations. Also having a time limit on an exam is completely absurd and again has no possible connection to any 'real life' scenario - you should be allowed to take as long as you want (within reason).

Quite right, exams should test understanding, not what you remember.
________
How to roll a joint

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Say we have a student of English Literature. Say the student is a post modernist, and the supervisor has a more classical bent. Or some other traditional schism in the field of literature. The supervisor will be unable to be able to determine the quality of the student's arguments (remember, this is about discriminating between the best) as well as with one of his own bent. What if the supervisor doesn't like the student? Be professional, yes, don't have a conscious bias against them, but surely the supervisor is less likely to go the extra hog when trying to find a grounding for a specific piece of work if they dislike the student than if they like them?

???

It isnt really possible to give objective grades in creative disciplines, and this is why the idea of giving people 'marks' and 'degree classes' in subjects that arent based around definitive right/wrong answers should be abandoned. How would you propose to 'fairly' mark the work that the post-modernist student writes in his end of term exams?

If you are doing a literature/arts course then you should mainly be interested in both the development of your ability, and the constructive criticism of people you respect. If your primary motivation is a numerical 'mark', you need to get the hell out of university.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If your primary motivation is a numerical 'mark', you need to get the hell out of university.

and nobody knows more about leaving universities than you

[Jennifer]

Just to drag this thread kicking and screaming back on topic:

First of all, if you don't need to revise, your exams are too easy, or you are in the wrong university and should have gone somewhere where you would find things a little more challenging.

Second, my revision techniques:

Due to GCSEs and A Levels being quite easy, I never had to do a lot of revision for them. I did revise anyway, but in my opinion, the revision was utterly pointless as when I came to use the same techniques to revise for harder exams, they didn't work.

I move into the library about 6 weeks before my exams. I work best when I know everyone else is still in bed being a lazy load of bastards, so I usually get to the library about 6:30. I stay there all day, with breaks to eat, sleep, go to jitsu, go to choir, and to bash my head against a wall where appropriate. I read throguh all the lecturer materials, notes I made myself in lectures, tutorial questions, answers and notes made in class. I make notes on the stuff I need to know, and on the stuff I don't understand (I work it out in my head so that I do understand it and then write down my reasoning for future reference). I don't usually use books to revise, except for when I don't understand something and need to do further reading. Last year all my notes were made on cards in pretty colours to take the pain out of non-stop studying. This year, I've started on paper but I tihnk I'm going to make cards of 'important' stuff. There aren't so many 'standard proofs' this time around, thank ****. As the exams get closer, I do practice papers.

To those of you who wonder why I spend so much of my time revising, it's because I don't actually perform all that well in exams. I don't work well when I'm made to work under time contraints on the scale of a few hours. In the real world I'd need to put my work on the boss' desk at 9am Monday, so I could work at my own pace, knowing that if I had an absolute disaster, I could pull an all-nighter. I think exams test a completely useless and irrelevant skill set (the willpower you have to sit at a desk 6am-10pm everyday for 6 weeks, the ability to not flip out as 'the day' approaches, and your ability to remain calm for three hours, write legibly while your marks reflect how fast you can write, and your ability to not think 'oh shit this is a trick question aobut strong field Paschen-Back, and not Zeeman...line though work...scribble scribble... oh wait! it is Zeeman **** **** ****'). But just because I think the system makes me work unfairly hard and doesn't reflect what I know, it doesn't mean I won't do as much revision as is necessary to pull off a good grade. Life isn't fair, but that doesn't mean you can't win.

[pig]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

First of all, if you don't need to revise, your exams are too easy, or you are in the wrong university and should have gone somewhere where you would find things a little more challenging.
.

Or maybe you could be too intelligent for the system. Im not saying im great accademically, but the amount of work I put in, compared to others and I come out with a 2:1 it makes me wonder what I could achieve with starting essays a week in advance, or revising a couple of weeks early. My course is far from easy, Law is a subject you have to wade through shoulder deep and sometimes you can drown. Politics is once again far from easy with the theories and the detail needed to learn. However I go to my lectures and seminars, and generally take it in there and then.

When i think about it, I half know everything that is going on. But saying that I shall revise tonight and attempt to ace my exam on wednesday.

Good luck in your exams, im sure you will do well.

By the way I think exams are a good way to test people. Why? Because most of your life comes down to those few moments and decisions in a short space of time. Thats what exams are. They are a 3 hour time slot, to show what you know.

[Ste]

Posting to say I agree with Nodrog on the open book exams thing. However, in real life you have deadlines so their is no reason to have an open-ended exam. Every subject is different of course.

In history, english and other creative subjects your mark is based on how well you structure your argument, how well you research and how well you write essays. The content is almost irrelevent.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

First of all, if you don't need to revise, your exams are too easy, or you are in the wrong university and should have gone somewhere where you would find things a little more challenging.

Or, and this is perhaps more likely in some cases, you're not overly bothered about what mark you get at the end.

[Jennifer]

Originally Posted by pig

Or maybe you could be too intelligent for the system. Im not saying im great accademically, but the amount of work I put in, compared to others and I come out with a 2:1 it makes me wonder what I could achieve with starting essays a week in advance, or revising a couple of weeks early. My course is far from easy, Law is a subject you have to wade through shoulder deep and sometimes you can drown. Politics is once again far from easy with the theories and the detail needed to learn. However I go to my lectures and seminars, and generally take it in there and then.

What university are you at?

[pig]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

What university are you at?

University of Kent, Canterbury. I had offers from LSE, Kings, Newcastle, Sussex and Leeds. I chose Kent for two reasons. My sister studys at LSE, so I didnt want to be near her, and I wanted to live in the countryside. I had grades to get into everywhere else I applied too. But Kent appealed to me as a way of life. As well as that the course appealed to me, I couldnt do Law and Politics at most of the other unis, it was either Law or Politics.

As well as that ive met far more broad minded people at Kent, with it being such an international university, you can walk around and hear spanish, italian, chinese, arabic, french etc etc.

As well as that why is it even relevant what University I go to?

[pig]

just to add, ive lived in a city all my life, so clean air, fields and animals is a rather new experience to me and I like it.

[Jennifer]

Because if you're 'too intelligent for the system' at Kent, maybe you should have applied somewhere better.

[Tomkat]

What are you doing posting on these boards smartarse, shouldn't you be off finding money for your quantum physics stargate project

[pig]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Because if you're 'too intelligent for the system' at Kent, maybe you should have applied somewhere better.

Didnt you read my post?

And maybe you should get a job? Or are you too smart to for that?

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

What are you doing posting on these boards smartarse, shouldn't you be off finding money for your quantum physics stargate project

This board is full of smartarses who probably should be doing something more productive with their respective lives.

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by Stew

This board is full of smartarses who probably should be doing something more productive with their respective lives.

Respect on the internet is important dude, don't take the piss!

PS bought your train ticket to GD Meet yet?

[NEWSBOT3]

holy shit your supposed to revise ?

now i know why my a-level results weren't great.