How do you Revise?

[Tomkat]

Originally Posted by NEWSBOT3

holy shit your supposed to revise ?

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

And your grammar lolzers

[NEWSBOT3]

me fail english ?

thats unpossible!

[Jennifer]

Sod off. I've been working since something stupid o'clock this morning, I don't think it's unreasable for me to take time off. I sent off letters and grant applications this afternoon, fyi.

And I think I made a fair point. You simply aren't doing yourself justice if you aren't at an institution where the teaching* is matched to your capabilities. Why don't you answer the point I make, rather than just throwing insults around? The only valid point you made is that maybe the better institutions don't offer exactly the course you want. However, it might still be more valuable for you to do a course that challenges you, even if it is just doing one topic or the other. If you study two things as a uni that isn't as good as one you could get into, surely the less intense course is going to be more watered down anyway? You know more about your course than I do, though, so I'll defer to your judgement on which institution you should be at. But don't claim it's because you're too intelligent. It's just because you've chosen, for whatever reason, not to challenge yourself.

*edit: I don't mean standard of teaching, though that may factor in somewhere, I mean intensity of studying, how much you're taught, how much detail you're expected to learn, etc.

[SYMM]

I got to the Library at 8:50 this morning. Noone else seemed to be there, probably due to there not being a bus until 10. I spent about 15 minutes looking for books (on 3 floors, in 4 sections...damn science intertwining with business and social sciences) and then read and made notes on Charles Babbage for nearly 3 hours.
Then I went and had lunch, and met some chums and we sat outside in the sun together.
Then back to the library at about 1:15, spent about 3 hours revising Robotics (Robot Arm kinematics) and then just under 2 hours reading about the history of IBM (in particular Hollerith and the 1890 (US) Census, and the System/360). I had a quick flick through a chapter on the SABRE (airline-reservation) system, but I will read that properly tomorrow.
When I got home today, I read another article on the System/360, and re-read my notes to add a couple of points that weren't covered by the other things I read.
Tomorrow, I will read about early real-time computers (SABRE and SAGE), and then do some more Information Systems revision, probably on the CRM/ERP-type stuff, as there's lots of definitions I need to learn.

It's all very exciting!

[pig]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Sod off. I've been working since something stupid o'clock this morning, I don't think it's unreasable for me to take time off. I sent off letters and grant applications this afternoon, fyi.

And I think I made a fair point. You simply aren't doing yourself justice if you aren't at an institution where the teaching* is matched to your capabilities. Why don't you answer the point I make, rather than just throwing insults around? The only valid point you made is that maybe the better institutions don't offer exactly the course you want. However, it might still be more valuable for you to do a course that challenges you, even if it is just doing one topic or the other. If you study two things as a uni that isn't as good as one you could get into, surely the less intense course is going to be more watered down anyway? You know more about your course than I do, though, so I'll defer to your judgement on which institution you should be at. But don't claim it's because you're too intelligent. It's just because you've chosen, for whatever reason, not to challenge yourself.

*edit: I don't mean standard of teaching, though that may factor in somewhere, I mean intensity of studying, how much you're taught, how much detail you're expected to learn, etc.

I do all the law courses to gain an LLB and be qualified I suggest you have a look at this page here University of Kent, is recognised as a "Critical Law School" As well as that I think I can safely say I do my fair amount of work. I have on average 8 lectures, and 8 seminars are week, thats 16 hours a week, more than most courses. I also study in the library. However I am also not in a position to be able to survive without a job. So i work nights.

University isnt be all and end all. What do you achieve at the end of the day? Same as everyone else. Most go to uni, to get a job, then to earn money and then to retire, then die. I could study at x place and still get the same job as someone who studied at x place. University prestige is overated imo, fair enough people turn heads when you mention Oxbridge, rightly so tbh, but my parents didnt go to oxbridge and im sure have career wise exceeded many Oxbridge graduates.

The law department isnt bad at kent either Academic rating

* Research assessment (2001): 5
* Teaching quality assessment (2002): Excellent

Which I believe mean its good. Anyway gl with oxbridge.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by pig

I do all the law courses to gain an LLB and be qualified I suggest you have a look at this page here University of Kent, is recognised as a "Critical Law School"

The Kent Law School (KLS) is widely recognised as one of the leading Law Schools in the United Kingdom with students from over 75 countries on its programmes.

D'oh!

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Sod off. I've been working since something stupid o'clock this morning, I don't think it's unreasable for me to take time off. I sent off letters and grant applications this afternoon, fyi.

And I think I made a fair point. You simply aren't doing yourself justice if you aren't at an institution where the teaching* is matched to your capabilities. Why don't you answer the point I make, rather than just throwing insults around? The only valid point you made is that maybe the better institutions don't offer exactly the course you want. However, it might still be more valuable for you to do a course that challenges you, even if it is just doing one topic or the other. If you study two things as a uni that isn't as good as one you could get into, surely the less intense course is going to be more watered down anyway? You know more about your course than I do, though, so I'll defer to your judgement on which institution you should be at. But don't claim it's because you're too intelligent. It's just because you've chosen, for whatever reason, not to challenge yourself.

*edit: I don't mean standard of teaching, though that may factor in somewhere, I mean intensity of studying, how much you're taught, how much detail you're expected to learn, etc.

I disagree - it has nothing to do with the intensity of the course, it's about the exams. You said yourself that exams "test a completely useless and irrelevant skill set", so I'm not sure why you equate harder exams with challenging yourself. Indeed, I suspect that I would learn a lot more, and indeed 'challenge' myself more, if I were at a university where it was significantly easier to do well in exams.

The problem with exams is that they are generally based on pitting you against other students, rather than against the subject itself - the amount of people who get each degree class is fairly static, so your final grade will depend on how your performance compares to that of others on your course. When I was doing comp sci, I got a first with no effort whatsoever, whereas now I find that I actually have to work relatively hard in order to get decent grades. I wouldnt say that this is because the course itself is intrinsically more difficult or challenging (I'm not convinced it is), but rather because the average student here works far harder than the average student at my last university, so I have to put more effort in if I want to 'beat' them.

However, the entire process seems pointless. I started revising around 2 months ago, and while I admit that revision has allowed me to gain a stronger grasp on the essence of each module (since going over everything from start to finish allows you to get a more holistic perspective on it than that which you get from doing it 'topic by topic' during term), I cant help but feel that it's largely been a waste of time when compared to all the other things I could have been doing instead. I mean 2 months is almost an entire term here, so we could have easily covered well over a quarter of the third year material instead of being made to waste time memorising worthless crap. Or even away from university, I have a shit load of books I'd like to get through, and reading them seems like a more productive way to spend my time than continually going over the same material again and again, purely in the hope of increasing a numerical mark by a couple of points. If someone chooses to go to an 'easier' university (whatever that means) which allows them to cover the exact same material, get the exact same degree class, but do less pointless work and spend their time more productively instead, I wouldnt say that this reflects badly on them.

Personally, I've decided that from now on I'm going to try and minimise the number of exams I sit, because I feel that my time is far better spent doing other things. For instance next year, I'm largely choosing modules that are assessed by projects rather than by examination. This is partly because spending time doing a good project seems lot more productive than spending the same time revising, but it's mainly because there are so many different modules that I'd like to attend and I find it difficult to narrow my choice down to the 8 which we are allowed to pick. If I were to choose 8 modules that were assessed by exams, I probably wouldnt have time to go to any 'extra' courses in addition to those 8. But by deliberately avoiding sitting exams, I'll probably be able to go along to 10-12 and will hence end up learning a lot more. If I was at an 'easier' university then I would probably be able to attend pretty much everything (including non-maths courses) and still get a good degree - this would be far more 'challenging' than taking a small number of modules and learning a fairly narrow amount of material inside out. Surely the entire point of your undergraduate years is to expose yourself to as wide a variety of material as possible, and the "hey spend 5 hours a day memorising proofs of laurent's theorem " approach seems to be in direct conflict with this.

I want to learn lots of things. However, spending hours memorising stuff which you'll forget within a few months, just so you can know it during an 'all-important' 2 hour period, does not constitute productive learning. I've tried to rationalise this to myself by saying that I'm somehow learning the (exact same) material in a 'deeper way' than others who dont bother doing this, but it most likely isnt true. I'm simply wasting a lot of time, and I'm fairly bitter about it.

[Knight Theamion]

SABRE is so easy and outdated ....

[pig]

excellent post nodrog

[zakoff]

Originally Posted by pig

excellent post nodrog

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

If I were to choose 8 modules that were assessed by exams, I probably wouldnt have time to go to any 'extra' courses in addition to those 8. But by deliberately avoiding sitting exams, I'll probably be able to go along to 10-12 and will hence end up learning a lot more. If I was at an 'easier' university then I would probably be able to attend pretty much everything (including non-maths courses) and still get a good degree

For god's sake nod make some friends

[Nodrog]

maths is my friend

[Jennifer]

Yes, but that assumes that in a university where you don't have to do any work to do well, you're taught exactly the same as you would in another university. I refuse to believe that is the case, because no university would offer a course year after year where none of its students actually learn the material on the course, and then award degrees year after year to people unable to demonstrate that they know anything about what they've been taught.

My response was mainly aimed at people who seem to have the attitude that they can do no revision and then do really well, as opposed to people who do no revision and then do badly, but better than other people. If the material goes in first time around, it is obviously easier material than the stuff I'm learning, hence if people can get top marks in their exams, they would learn more at a uni where the material covered is complex enough to warrant revision to make it stick. I suppose I mean that the the need for revision is just an indicator of how easy the material on the course is.

But in any case, I refuse to accept that every university that teaches physics teaches exactly what is on my syllabus, but then gives everyone really easy exams just because they know none of them will bother working.

[SYMM]

Originally Posted by Knight Theamion

SABRE is so easy and outdated ....

Hence it being part of a History module.


I was a bit slack today, only got to the library at 9:15 :|
Revised IS for about 3 hours, then had lunch, then read a new book on the S/360 stuff and made lots of notes for an hour before I had to go and photocopy an A-Z and buy some balloons. Then I got in a minibus and went volunteering for 6 hours, getting back home around 1hr ago.
My dedication is enormous.

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Jennifer

Yes, but that assumes that in a university where you don't have to do any work to do well, you're taught exactly the same as you would in another university. I refuse to believe that is the case, because no university would offer a course year after year where none of its students actually learn the material on the course, and then award degrees year after year to people unable to demonstrate that they know anything about what they've been taught.

Look at textbooks written by lecturers at other universities which they use on their course. Or even at online syllabuses. It all seems pretty much the same. It's not about 'learning the material', because exams dont just test how well you have learnt the material, unless by learning the material you mean something more like 'memorising all the pedantic details that you dont need to know outwith the context of an examination'.

[JonnyBGood]

outwith?

[Boogster]

Well, I've got too much to revise; mainly because I'm not actually revising, just learning for the first time.