This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Oxbridge Myths and Legends

Reply 40

the_alba

12

Hmm, well mine does. Good old Teddy Hall! It's fun in every way.

Reply 41

epitome

11

I was asked who originally created the periodic table (I still don't know- think it was a russian beginning with M)

Look it up. :wink:

(Mendeleev)

Reply 42

$Avatar for sTe\/o$

sTe\/o

16

epitome

Look it up. :wink:

(Mendeleev)

Yeah, I remember learning that at school. How exciting.

Reply 43

Childermass

epitome

Look it up. :wink:

(Mendeleev)

I could, but I've never found history of science particularly interesting beyond some of the more ingenius technological solutions present before we developed electricity and long range communications. Actually learning the science seems far more useful in the long term.

Reply 44

epitome

11

Oh, I completely agree that the science is more practically useful than the history of it. But still, to be asked something in interview and not know is one thing (fine); to confess to still not knowing such a straightforwardly find-outable fact several months later is another. Forgive me - I'm a pedant. :wink:

Reply 45

$Avatar for sTe\/o$

sTe\/o

16

epitome

Oh, I completely agree that the science is more practically useful than the history of it. But still, to be asked something in interview and not know is one thing (fine); to confess to still not knowing such a straightforwardly find-outable fact several months later is another. Forgive me - I'm a pedant. :wink:

'Find-outable' is not a real word. Forgive my pedantry. :biggrin:

Reply 46

Childermass

epitome

Oh, I completely agree that the science is more practically useful than the history of it. But still, to be asked something in interview and not know is one thing (fine); to confess to still not knowing such a straightforwardly find-outable fact several months later is another. Forgive me - I'm a pedant. :wink:

Why? It's not something I'm ever going to need to know and I'm not interested in the subject. Surely finding out and remembering such a fact would be a waste of time and memory space.

Reply 47

parkerpen

Childermass

Why? It's not something I'm ever going to need to know and I'm not interested in the subject. Surely finding out and remembering such a fact would be a waste of time and memory space.

Welcome to your degree...

Reply 48

parkerpen

Just to add to that, you will spend at least three (hopefully!) four, five, six who knows how many years here

The chances are you will never need to know anything in your degree. A lot of the stuff you learn in your degree will be bloody boring.

Therefore you will spend a considerable amount of your time here learning stuff you are never going to need to know (except for an hour or two each June) and stuff you find really boring.
However apparently these facts are not a waste of time or memory space beucase its get you a 2i...

Reply 49

Supergrunch

10

Childermass

I could, but I've never found history of science particularly interesting beyond some of the more ingenius technological solutions present before we developed electricity and long range communications. Actually learning the science seems far more useful in the long term.

Just remember this simple poem, courtesy of "Chemistry for You":

The periodic table was a scientific breakthough,
For science made sense, it was easier too.
Dmitri Mendeleev was the first to spot the pattern,
But some elements were wrong in the spaces they sat in.
"I know," thought Dmitri, "I'll just leave some gaps."
And a great work of genius had just come to pass.
A few years later when Germanium was found,
Scientists agreed his ideas were sound.
Even now we use the table, on which we never dine,
Based on that discovery, in 1869.

;dry;

Reply 50

Childermass

parkerpen

Just to add to that, you will spend at least three (hopefully!) four, five, six who knows how many years here

The chances are you will never need to know anything in your degree. A lot of the stuff you learn in your degree will be bloody boring.

Therefore you will spend a considerable amount of your time here learning stuff you are never going to need to know (except for an hour or two each June) and stuff you find really boring.
However apparently these facts are not a waste of time or memory space beucase its get you a 2i...

Actually, most of what I'm learning at the moment is pretty bloody interesting. The only thing I really dislike is schroedinger and heisenberg.

Reply 51

Anonystude

And, to be fair, the underlying principle behind organising elements by their properties and discovering the structures therein was a pretty damn fundamental revelation in Chemistry at the time...!

If I were interviewing you for Chemistry (or rather, Natural Sciences and you were talking about doing Chemistry IA) and you didn't know that I'd at least raise an eyebrow or two. But call me old fashioned if you like, expecting A-Level candidates to actually bother learning things, especially if they're just for their own interest ... :wink:

Reply 52

epitome

11

'Find-outable' is not a real word. Forgive my pedantry.

*grins* But doesn't the phrase "straightforwardly find-outable" just sound brilliantly ridiculous? :wink:

Am glad to see my point about Mendeleev (or, more specifically, what that fact represents) had some support...thought I might get flamed for that! Am glad to see the light-hearted intent was continued., too! :smile:

(Supergrunch - that poem is great!)

Reply 53

tinypony

I was asked who originally created the periodic table (I still don't know- think it was a russian beginning with M), how I'd set out the periodic table if I didn't know atomic numbers and how the reactivity of hydrogen halides changes down the group.

Then we talked about sweden and spitzberg for ages.

In my second interview, we talked about possible sources of renewable energy, I'd recently read about using the oxidation of fine iron particles as a possible source of power for cars and the possibility of massive solar cell banks in the desert.

I also asked if there was anywhere showing rocky horror.

That is strange. Why so many theoretical questions? They are indeed easy if you know your chemistry well, but I don't think that it is an appropriate measure of intelligence.

Reply 54

visesh

17

Childermass

I was asked who originally created the periodic table (I still don't know- think it was a russian beginning with M)

That's almost like a biology/medicine applicant not knowing about Crick and Watson (and how they ripped off Franklin etc. etc. etc.) :eek:

Totally useless information, and it does nothing to help one understand the structure of DNA or how its replicated or w/e, but important because they went to the pub just off King's Parade to celebrate, and "discovered" the structure pretty close to where most of the 1A medics and natscis have their lectures. (By close I mean ~20 yards.)

Reply 55

crazy_muse

'Death of a Joyce scholar'

There's always the myths flying around about candidates being offered brandy, port etc by interviewers; shame it isn't true, really - I could have done with something to steady my nerves.

My latin teacher got offered sherry and she refused and she got rejected. This is a true story but i doubt that there is any correlation between the sherry and the rejection!

Reply 56

Childermass

Anonystude

If I were interviewing you for Chemistry (or rather, Natural Sciences and you were talking about doing Chemistry IA) and you didn't know that I'd at least raise an eyebrow or two. But call me old fashioned if you like, expecting A-Level candidates to actually bother learning things, especially if they're just for their own interest ... :wink:

Good thing for me you weren't my interviewer then.

Nice insinuation btw, but I do read around my subject, I just prefer learning about what people are doing now rather than a couple of hundred years or so ago.

visesh

That's almost like a biology/medicine applicant not knowing about Crick and Watson (and how they ripped off Franklin etc. etc. etc.) :eek:

Totally useless information, and it does nothing to help one understand the structure of DNA or how its replicated or w/e, but important because they went to the pub just off King's Parade to celebrate, and "discovered" the structure pretty close to where most of the 1A medics and natscis have their lectures. (By close I mean ~20 yards.)

Yeah I know, and there's the place where they discovered the neutron just down the road etc.

It's pretty much exactly like a bio/med applicant not knowing about crick and watson, but I don't see how they're a worse bio/med applicant for not knowing it. Being able to regurgitate historical facts is not a measure of competance in the sciences, being able to interpret data correctly and run meaningful experiments is.

chrisjorg

That is strange. Why so many theoretical questions? They are indeed easy if you know your chemistry well, but I don't think that it is an appropriate measure of intelligence.

I'm fairly sure that finding sources of renewable energy has some practical applications....

Reply 57

Posh Portia Kabine

OP

This thread has descended into science-y discussion! What about the myths 'n legends people :biggrin:

Reply 58

Consie

15

The one kind of semi-unsual thing in my interview was that the interviewer's big fluffy cat was stretched out on the floor infront of me, which was a bit off putting at first because it kept stretching.

Reply 59

hungry_hog

9

Dude in our school applied for Medicine at Brasenose - we was asked "if you could change history what would you do?"

His response? "I'd have killed the Pope [John Paul II]"

He didn't get in..

Oxbridge Myths and Legends

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you