logiadoevus (Offline)  

Well, I'd disagree slightly - I don't think either a 6 or a 7 requires anything magically special - just training one's brain a bit. I also found that past papers/mark schemes are overrated somewhat - people kept telling us that to get a 6/7 you need to do loads of past papers but I did like on, just to see what it's like. Found it not that enlightening. Dunno.

I do hope you get your 6! Econ's a good course, wouldn't've minded to do that in uni.

I'm currently working at a big four firm on my second gap year, but starting Oxford University in October! Gonna be studying Philosophy and Celtic

ok, i see, i finished paper 3 today, i think i will get around 65% which is what i need for my current offer from ucl, for econ (actually i was surprised, because in the prospectus it said 7 in maths hl, but gave me a offer,6). I did stats as my option and it was actually pretty hard compared to past papers. For ia i got around 36 ish out of 40 and for p1 and p2 i think ill get around 70 ish.

i actually wanted to get a 7 but it looks like thats not gonna happen, yes i agree with you, but to get a 7 you need something else than just working hard and knowing the concepts. by knowing the syllabus u would get a 5, my being able to think critically and deduce logically under pressure is what makes maths hl difficult as for both p1 and p2 it is 120 marks in 120 minutes. Also, applying concepts is a must but i think maths hl questions are so original that the text books are not really useful after u finish the syllabus, its really the past papers and the mark scheme that helps u...... i really admire people who gets a 7 in maths hl...... their either mathematically astute or have dedication, but ib has 6 subjects, focusing on only one subject is not helpful, and balancing between social life and work is important...

btw.... which school or uni do you attend now? studying what?

hello! wow, u need 5HL subjects? just wow, i heard u got a 6 in maths hl, what percentage is needed to get this, and if this doesnt bother u, how much percentage did you get?

Hey, just wanted to say congrats on your Oxford offer! And wow can't believe you did 5 HL subjects, you must be like the god of cleverness :P haha

Hey did the IB Board really let you do 5 HLs?

yep, tbh what Ayer basically said is that analytic=a priori and synthetic=a posteriori, so it's more or less the same - it was Kant who (foolishly! ) argued there can be synthetic a priori statements. hope your teacher gives good feedback, let me know if I can help any further

hello! thank you very much for the help and for checking on me. at the end I googled it and read some publications on it... and I decided to go with a priori and a posteriori knowledge (instead of analytic and synthetic as you said). I think the idea is pretty similar but a priori/a posteriori is kinda more comprehensive to me :P thanks a lot for the idea! if it wasn't for you i might not have come across a priori and a posteriori knowledge. and i think my essay was okay (not too bad) but i have yet to see my teacher's comment on it. thanks!

thank you so much for the help! I'll just finish my english essay and then I'll research on that person talking about the two types of knowledge (so I can cite it properly) and will get back to you on that. in the mean time I'd just like to express my gratitude (so you're not wondering :P). thank you so much!!

sorry, agree/disagree to what?
I'm chilled. was quite annoyed at first, but didn't take any offence.

my essay title is "Knowledge can be generated through the interaction of critical and creative thinking. Evaluate this statement in two areas of knowledge."
I've written a draft (or, a lot of drafts actually) on this but have only got a low B or a high C. I wish to get a safe B because I want at least 2 extra points. now my problem is that I confused myself and can't decide what to say. it looks like knowledge is generated through the interaction of both types of thinking, but it can still be generated through only one although the result is not a good knowledge. I'm also confused with the definition of knowledge. if I had to follow Plato's definition (true, justified belief) then is it possible to generate a true information? how do we even know whether an information is true? in science, doing hundreds of different experiment on something and getting the same result doesn't make it true, does it? in literature, there is no true information. can I just say that knowledge is simply an information? it'll make things a lot easier.
thanks in advance!

can you assist me with TOK, if you think you are so intelligent?