EPQ

My college have the EPQ as compulsory, i've always wanted to write about a certain topic as it is one i strongly believe in and yet its kind of an elpahnt in the room.

However, i've been told that the EPQ is something that you can show to a uni that your are genuinely interested in your general course so it would be a good idea to do it based on that course.

As what i want to talk about is completely unrelated to my course, would it render the EPQ worthless in applying for Uni for my specific course?

The general advice is that you do something you're passionate about as well as something that's related to the course you're planning to study. Given that most people plan to study the subject they're passionate about, the two generally surmount to the same thing. I wouldn't say the EPQ is "worthless" if it's unrelated to the subject you're applying for, but it certainly wouldn't be anywhere near as useful as if it were relevant. For instance, in my case, it was pretty much at the heart of my personal statement and it was a point of discussion in most of my interviews.

Out of interest, what are you intending to do the EPQ on and what are you planning to study?

I want to do Computer Science but i wanted to write about the conspiracy theories of america (Central bank, Iraq, 9/11 etc.) I could write something about computer science but i am much more passionate to have my points read, being so vitally important imo

It depends on you, to be honest. If you really want to do an EPQ into conspiracy theories then fine, but you will have to accept that you are potentially wasting a useful opportunity. On the one hand, the EPQ does lend itself better to a more essay-focussed topic than computer science (I've got a friend who just did an EPQ on computer science and he struggled) but on the other hand, looking at conspiracy theories wouldn't really strike me as a particularly inspiring topic, it's been pretty overdone and I don't think there's a lot of scope for originality. I mean I totally understand the appeal of looking at conspiracy theories but you really have to question whether or not you want to turn this into an Extended Project. I don't really know what your attitude towards these conspiracies are but if you argue against them, you won't be doing anything new and if you argue for them, you'll probably look like a nutter. And of course, doing an EPQ on conspiracy theories isn't going to help you very much in your applications.

In the end, it's up to you but I would honestly advise against it. I was originally thinking about similarly unrelated questions (I thought it'd be cool to do an EPQ on the concept of total virtual reality) but ultimately common sense prevailed and that was a very, very good decision. You're going to spend the next 4 years studying Computer Science so you might as well get used to spending a lot of time independently researching stuff.

I would disagree with it being overdone. well atleast it is a popular belief, but overshadowed, although you're probably right in deciding on a more relevant topic.

Have you by any chance just watched a film like Zeitgeist? Because I remember going through a big conspiracy theory phase after watching some 'radical' films (by the way if you actually did watch Zeitgeist, please know that it's an absolute load of drivel).

I have watched Zeitgeist and by load of drive you are meaning that it is silly/wrong/etc.?

Most conspiracy theories are propagated because they're convenient versions of reality that suit people's political beliefs. For instance, lots of people are very strongly against the politics and power structure of the United States so it's no surprise that people are very willing to believe stories like 9/11 conspiracies. And I totally understand why people believe that - there were a lot of very convenient events and I actually do not think it's beyond the realms of possibility that the government would be capable of doing that. The problem is, simply, that there's no proof. Regardless of what conspirators say, the fact of the matter is that there isn't anything remotely close to conclusive evidence that it was an inside job. You can't base your beliefs on what are, basically, elaborate stories that you want to believe based on a few shreds of evidence. So I'm absolutely not going to say that nothing in that film could be correct, I'm simply saying that it jumps to conclusions when it has absolutely no right to do that. That's the lesser of the problems with Zeitgeist though, large chunks of it are just plain wrong. The whole idea of an ancient illuminati that has existed since the Egyptians is just silly.

Why not compromise, and talk about the way that the Internet generates these sorts of theories, or investigate the way the US uses technology to spy on people? How about the threat of hacking on government control?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Just realised that says drivel and not "drive!". I would disagree, sure it may not be necessarily correct but it does raise the issues. not just 9/11 but from the birth of america

I'm not quite sure where the illuminati is mentioned in Zeitgeist, i only watched parts 2 and 3 but you have to say it is pretty good evidence, or atleast disproves the 9/11 commission report.

I also think a lot of conspiracy theorists believe in those stories because they think they're being edgy and that they've got some kind of magical insight that nobody else does. It doesn't take a genius to realise that there's a lot of corruption in the world. Zeitgeist likes to paint this picture of this mysterious world that you, the privileged viewer, have uncovered: this idea of 'forbidden knowledge'. Fact of the matter is that most sane people in the world know about the problems that exist in the world, they just don't feel the need to make up stories about it.

No, I don't have to say that at all. I don't think it has anything close to "pretty good evidence". As I said, there are an absolute ton of factual errors in the films which you can find out about pretty easily if you google for them. I'm not saying the stories discussed are impossible, just that there's no reason to believe in them. There is nothing in Zeitgeist which I would say is persuasive to a discerning viewer. Thought-provoking perhaps, but not persuasive.

You think most people to do, then you must realise most of the world is ignorant and easily manipulated, not one American i've spoken doesnt think im crazy due to believing against 9/11 being a terrorist attack.

Probably because it is crazy? You shouldn't be 'believing' things in the first place, you should be basing your views on actual evidence. You could easily make a film about how the government version of events makes total sense but that wouldn't be much fun. Everyone loves criticising the system, nobody actually likes supporting it.

Well, there is sufficient factual evidence that disproves it though

There is evidence.

No, there isn't. You're accusing Americans of being ignorant and believing everything they're told but you're doing the exact same thing.