The Student Room Group
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>
Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Who has more work to do?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20
Avatar for visesh
visesh
17
timelesspler
In my humble opinion, mathematics and english are more challenging disciplines than economics. Or, at least, to be a genius in these fields requires a rarer and more esoteric ability.

Moreover, I would say they excel in their areas of expertise more than you do/will.

I know that this is none of my business, but why are you having a go at Baz? I can't see any evidence of provocation his part...
visesh
I know that this is none of my business, but why are you having a go at Baz? I can't see any evidence of provocation his part...


I'm not, at all! This is hardly me 'having a go', by any means. Baz is, undoubtedly, a highly intelligent and learned individual. I'm simply pointing out what I consider to be elementary. That he (who probably has the highest qualifications on this board), and anyone else using thestudentroom is not/will never be a patch on such greats as Einstein, Kant, Plato, Shakespeare or Mill et al.
timelesspler
In my humble opinion, mathematics and english are more challenging disciplines than economics. Or, at least, to be a genius in these fields requires a rarer and more esoteric ability.

Moreover, I would say they excel in their areas of expertise more than you do/will.

I couldn't care less which is harder, I do one, they did the other. When it comes to measuring light Newton is better than me, but when it comes to Philips Curve, I have a greater understanding than Newton - and the latter is A-Level whereas the former is GCSE. Either way, it's a stupid comparison, and one which can never be commented on with any accuracy. In terms of natural ability, Newton is one of the greatest mind ever; in terms of knowledge, he would have little more than an A-Level physicist.

As for how good an Economist I will be, ask me in 60 years time when I'm on my death bed, then I may be able to answer your question.
Reply 23
Avatar for visesh
visesh
17
timelesspler
I'm not, at all! This is hardly me 'having a go', by any means. Baz is, undoubtedly, a highly intelligent and learned individual. I'm simply pointing out what I consider to be elementary. That he (who probably has the highest qualifications on this board), and anyone else using thestudentroom is not/will never be a patch on such greats as Einstein, Kant, Plato, Shakespeare or Mill et al.

Oh sorry :redface: it just seemed that way to me! Well I don't think I totally agree with you there. This forum represents a group with a higher than average intellect, and there are definitely people here that could possibly go on to achieve great things. No one can be 100% sure about what will actually happen however, but dismissing the possibility altogether seems quite wrong to me.
BazTheMoney
I couldn't care less which is harder, I do one, they did the other. When it comes to measuring light Newton is better than me, but when it comes to Philips Curve, I have a greater understanding than Newton - and the latter is A-Level whereas the former is GCSE. Either way, it's a stupid comparison, and one which can never be commented on with any accuracy. In terms of natural ability, Newton is one of the greatest mind ever; in terms of knowledge, he would have little more than an A-Level physicist.

As for how good an Economist I will be, ask me in 60 years time when I'm on my death bed, then I may be able to answer your question.


I hope the light/phillips curve comparison was in jest. Unless, of course, you believe the study of light and optics is comprehensively covered in the GCSE triple award syllabus! The Phillips Curve is, incidentally, a piss easy bit of theory.

Natural, inherent, innate (insert similar adjective here) ability is what I am referring to. Could anyone here really have written Hamlet or formulated E=MC"2?
visesh
Oh sorry :redface: it just seemed that way to me! Well I don't think I totally agree with you there. This forum represents a group with a higher than average intellect, and there are definitely people here that could possibly go on to achieve great things. No one can be 100% sure about what will actually happen however, but dismissing the possibility altogether seems quite wrong to me.


Much higher than average intellect, i would argue. Indeed, many here have the potential to do 'great' things, but there is a wide chasm between what is great and what is genial, wouldn't you agree?

Obviously, we cannot know who will/could achieve what. But, as with everything else in life, we forfeit veracity to make informed guesses and estimations.
timelesspler
I hope the light/phillips curve comparison was in jest. Unless, of course, you believe the study of light and optics is comprehensively covered in the GCSE triple award syllabus! The Phillips Curve is, incidentally, a piss easy bit of theory.

Natural, inherent, innate (insert similar adjective here) ability is what I am referring to. Could anyone here really have written Hamlet or formulated E=MC"2?

Naturally. The point is, is that in there day both were at the cutting edge of their field, now they have been downgraded as more advanced theories have rubbised them. From what I understand of Optics (Having not picked up a Physics book for 3 years), most of it has been proven to been incorrect by modern physicists, so if Newton was to answer an A-Level Physics paper with the knowledge he had, he wouldn't do well.

And, as far as I'm aware, you have only done A-Levels, considering undergraduate Economics is vastly different to A-Level Economics, you will find that beyond the watered down tosh given to 16/17 years old, Philips Curve is actually quite complexs.
Invisible
What's so hard about that?


A Physicist is unlikely to understand :wink:
BazTheMoney
Naturally. The point is, is that in there day both were at the cutting edge of their field, not they have been downgraded as more advanced theories have rubbised them. From what I understand of Optics (Having not picked up a Physics book for 3 years), most of it has been proven to been incorrect by modern physicists, so if Newton was to answer an A-Level Physics paper with the knowledge he had, he wouldn't do well.


Natural/Inherent/Innate are interchangeable terms in this context. The Newton exam example is true, but does this dispute his inherent genius and intellectual superiority and muscle!? I doubt it. In the end, his natural mathematical and scientific ability is unmatchable by anyone on this board.

By the way, where do you stand when it comes to religion. Atheist, Theist or Agnostic?
timelesspler
Natural/Inherent/Innate are interchangeable terms in this context. The Newton exam example is true, but does this dispute his inherent genius and intellectual superiority and muscle!? I doubt it. In the end, his natural mathematical and scientific ability is unmatchable by anyone on this board.

By the way, where do you stand when it comes to religion. Atheist, Theist or Agnostic?

Of course not, Newton was gifted, we all know that, and it is extremly unlikely that anyone around here will ever reach the heights he did. But we'll never know until either a). we're all dead, or b). Elpaw comes up with the Fourth Law of Motion.

As for religion, I don't believe in God, but if someone was to prove "his" existence, I would have to reconsider my position. In that sense, I suppose I'm an athesist, with agnostic tendencies.
BazTheMoney
Of course not, Newton was gifted, we all know that, and it is extremly unlikely that anyone around here will ever reach the heights he did. But we'll never know until either a). we're all dead, or b). Elpaw comes up with the Fourth Law of Motion.

As for religion, I don't believe in God, but if someone was to prove "his" existence, I would have to reconsider my position. In that sense, I suppose I'm an athesist, with agnostic tendencies.


We'll never know that we have hands! Or, when the lantern turns to a greeny hue and a crisp, delicate sheet of snowflakes falls, maybe the moon's cheese is going off, and the sun is scorching the timbers! WE JUST DON'T KNOW! Baz, philosophical skepticism has ruined my life, what do I do? Mmm LSD.
Reply 31
Avatar for Willa
Willa
OP
11
Well it seems that things vary a lot more at oxford than they do at cambridge. All science students seem to have pretty much the same workload here. Whereas in Oxford, there is certainly much more variation (as from this thread). I guess my friends must be part of the lucky ones, because according to them they get only 1 tute a week, with one essay to write for it. On top of that they only have 10 hours of lectures a week...not on saturdays, and do one practical afternoon a week.
Reply 32
Avatar for Kalypso
Kalypso
1
Willa
Well it seems that things vary a lot more at oxford than they do at cambridge. All science students seem to have pretty much the same workload here. Whereas in Oxford, there is certainly much more variation (as from this thread). I guess my friends must be part of the lucky ones, because according to them they get only 1 tute a week, with one essay to write for it. On top of that they only have 10 hours of lectures a week...not on saturdays, and do one practical afternoon a week.


well lucky is debatable....everyone does the same exams, after all! The variation in how colleges teach always amazes me.
Reply 33
Avatar for RxB
RxB
1
BazTheMoney
Each essay plus the reading required to do it took 12 hours, though I had to do them in parts, which wasn't ideal. It's far easier to do it all in one go, so I could do one of them on Monday, but the others had to be split up, unfortunately .


Was this all year? The essays I've been getting so far haven't been meaty enough for 12 hours' work, but it's only economics essays so far (logic only in philosophy and we're not having tutes in politics till next term).
Reply 34
Avatar for shiny
shiny
12
:confused:
Willa
Well it seems that things vary a lot more at oxford than they do at cambridge. All science students seem to have pretty much the same workload here. Whereas in Oxford, there is certainly much more variation (as from this thread). I guess my friends must be part of the lucky ones, because according to them they get only 1 tute a week, with one essay to write for it. On top of that they only have 10 hours of lectures a week...not on saturdays, and do one practical afternoon a week.

That's becuase whereas Oxford is more college orientated, Cambridge, from what I have seen, is departmentally orientated. But I wouldn't call those who work less lucky, unless you consider not getting a First lucky.
RxB
Was this all year? The essays I've been getting so far haven't been meaty enough for 12 hours' work, but it's only economics essays so far (logic only in philosophy and we're not having tutes in politics till next term).

Well, essays could range from 8 hours to 16 hours, depending on how much reading was required. In my experience, each subject could give out really long essays or straightforward ones, so it isn't really linked to what subject you're doing at the time. In general, I would say Economics is the shortest because you can get a fair amount of information from 2 or 3 books with one being the core texts, with Philosophy and Politics I had to use individual commentaries; which would invariably take more time.
I have 4 lectures a week. and maybe an essay. I love my course :biggrin:

and what's with the pointless bitching? noone here said they were more intelligent than Newton etc., and as far as i'm aware noone here acts like they are, either. what is the point of randomly insulting the intelligence of internet messageboard users?
Reply 37
Avatar for d750
d750
8
Don't see the point of this discussion. No one is forced to do more or less work at one place than at the other. If you transplanted a student from Ox to Cam or from Cam to Ox he or she wouldn't feel compelled to do more or less than s/he was doing already.

BazTheMoney
I'm better at Economics than the both of them, and to me, that's all that matters.

In short, I couldn't care less.


:rolleyes:
Reply 38
Avatar for observer
observer
timelesspler
The Phillips Curve is, incidentally, a piss easy bit of theory.


Lol, you really have no clue about what you are talking about.
Reply 39
Avatar for Lentement
Lentement
timelesspler:
I can't help noticing your pedantic air of superiority. What are you trying to prove? It seems to me like you have been intoxicated by the scientific and literary canons, only to find yourself hammering your head against the past and its greatness.
An economist is as indispensable nowadays (perhaps more so) than a physicist, so why not acknowledge the merit and importance of a field to which you seem to be alien to?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you