This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- What is the latest time I can make a change to my OCR Computer Science Coursework
- Sample of work
- Any Courtauld MA History of Art students with Social Sciences undergraduate degrees
- Help! What are CamSIS Data!?
- BCL Written work sample
- asking for a review of result
- Including Coursework in Portfolio
- english literature coursework
- btec business
- How to register for EPQ
- AI/Plagiarism in Coursework for BTEC IT
- Applying to Masters at Oxford without having attained 70%
- Secondary data or literature review?
- acknowledgement emails from unis
- Westminister Film BA or MetFilm School
- AI Detection on Personal Statement
- EPQ Plagiarism and AI Detection (ChatGPT)
- Applying for MPhil in Modern British History next academic year
- Imperial Aero invitation to take admissions test
- BCL essay submission
Samples of Submitted Work
Scroll to see replies
deianra
1. Do I send in the original or a photocopy of my essays?
2. Do I send them by recorded post?
1. Do I send in the original or a photocopy of my essays?
2. Do I send them by recorded post?
I sent in a photocopy - as long as it's clear, it doesn't matter if it's the photocopy or the original. They won't be giving it back, so you may as well hold on to the original =)
Recorded post - that's up to you. If you want peace of mind, it's probably worth it. If you're the sort of person who won't worry about once you've dropped it in the post box anyway, I wouldn't bother
I have sent an essay on 'Doctor Faustus' and one on 'Othello' for English. One has lime green quotations in it and the other has pink quotations... they're pretty 
deianra
The first page of one of my essays has a diagram that has been drawn in green, bright blue, orange and purple ink. If Oxford wants to know what I'm like, I actually think this diagram is a brilliant representation of me. 
Why is it a brilliant representation of you? Are you colourful, original, interesting and vibrant? I assumed you were just another irritatingly hard working mediocrity?
-----------------------------------
Can you write like Oscar Wilde, Dostoyevsky or Shakespeare? Are you as gifted a mathematician as Witten, Newton or Einstein? If the answer is no to both of these questions, just think about what that means!
timelesspler
Why is it a brilliant representation of you? Are you colourful, original, interesting and vibrant? I assumed you were just another irritatingly hard working mediocrity?
Wow, nice analysis of a person you've never met, seen a few posts by, and suddenly thought you could represent. I'd have given you more credit than that.
From what I know of Meg, which while is not a lot, is far more than you do, she's far closer to an colourful, original, interesting, vibrant person than someone who purely works hard.
timelesspler
Can you write like Oscar Wilde, Dostoyevsky or Shakespeare? Are you as gifted a mathematician as Witten, Newton or Einstein? If the answer is no to both of these questions, just think about what that means!
How do you know? How would you measure ability? Nobody can write "like" Wilde, Dostoyevsky or Shakespeare, but then Shakespeare couldn't write like Wilde. How is Einstein better than someone who solved a less applicable, but equally hard, problem?
If the answer is no, it means you're not the greatest mind in the world. However I'm not sure anyone can answer that question - no-on knows their true ability.
Drogue
Wow, nice analysis of a person you've never met, seen a few posts by, and suddenly thought you could represent. I'd have given you more credit than that.
From what I know of Meg, which while is not a lot, is far more than you do, she's far closer to an colourful, original, interesting, vibrant person than someone who purely works hard.
How do you know? How would you measure ability? Nobody can write "like" Wilde, Dostoyevsky or Shakespeare, but then Shakespeare couldn't write like Wilde. How is Einstein better than someone who solved a less applicable, but equally hard, problem?
If the answer is no, it means you're not the greatest mind in the world. However I'm not sure anyone can answer that question - no-on knows their true ability.
From what I know of Meg, which while is not a lot, is far more than you do, she's far closer to an colourful, original, interesting, vibrant person than someone who purely works hard.
How do you know? How would you measure ability? Nobody can write "like" Wilde, Dostoyevsky or Shakespeare, but then Shakespeare couldn't write like Wilde. How is Einstein better than someone who solved a less applicable, but equally hard, problem?
If the answer is no, it means you're not the greatest mind in the world. However I'm not sure anyone can answer that question - no-on knows their true ability.
Out of interest, if I had said good things, would you have mentioned any problem in me making a comment on her character? Think about that one..
Anyway, it was simply an assumption and i could be completely wrong, but when I see her fussing about how she wrote her initials on a form, dropping hints about her grades all around the place, it just gives me a general impression of someone far, far too focused on study.
Oh, and I'm not sure how you could measure ability, certainly there's no perfect way of doing it. But, as I have said before, I suspect no one here is as inherently talented in maths as Einstein or Newton, and no one as outstandingly creative and gifted with writing prose as Shakespeare or Conrad, but it's just another assumption on my part.
timelesspler
Out of interest, if I had said good things, would you have mentioned any problem in me making a comment on her character? Think about that one..
There would be no need to mention it were you being nice. However I would still believe it to be unwise to make comments on the character of someone you don't know, whether they are good or bad, though I would not complain were they good, there's simply not the need.
timelesspler
Anyway, it was simply an assumption and i could be completely wrong, but when I see her fussing about how she wrote her initials on a form, dropping hints about her grades all around the place, it just gives me a general impression of someone far, far too focused on study.
As all the famous minds you've written were. Focused on study does not mean "irritatingly hard working mediocrity", unless Einstein falls into that catagory too? Please think about what you say, as were you former comment to be your opinion, that doesn't "just" mean someone is far too focused on study, whether or not that is true.
I would consider it unwise to make nasty comments about someone based on your own assumptions. While it would be unwise to do the same with nice comments, there isn't the same unpleasantness involved in that.
timelesspler
Oh, and I'm not sure how you could measure ability, certainly there's no perfect way of doing it. But, as I have said before, I suspect no one here is as inherently talented in maths as Einstein or Newton, and no one as outstandingly creative and gifted with writing prose as Shakespeare or Conrad, but it's just another assumption on my part.
Exactly, I just believe that assumption to be unfounded. It may or may not be true, but more importantly, since it is immeasurable in any accurate way, it will never be known. Thus the whole argument is somewhat mute, as we cannot acertain whether Newton or Shakespeare were brilliant minds, as opposed to good minds who were also lucky, let alone whether anyone here has a brilliant mind in comparison. Yes, in order to write his plays, or for Newton to come up with his theories, they'd have to be clever, but the popularity of Shakespeare's plays is down to their fame and how they were received, far better works may be lost because they were not as popular at the time. At the same time, Newton's discoveries proved incredibly useful, were they to not have, he would not be regarded as such a great mind, though to come up with them he must have been good. Thus we are comparing someone with at least a good mind, with this forum, which has many people who are at least good minds. Whether or not they discover anything that changes the world, we will never know whether they are brighter than the famous minds you've mentioned.
Drogue
There would be no need to mention it were you being nice. However I would still believe it to be unwise to make comments on the character of someone you don't know, whether they are good or bad, though I would not complain were they good, there's simply not the need
Why is there suddenly no need to say anything if I'm nice? I think there'd simple be no desire to say anything, since there was no 'need' in the first place.
Drogue
As all the famous minds you've written were. Focused on study does not mean "irritatingly hard working mediocrity", unless Einstein falls into that catagory too? Please think about what you say, as were you former comment to be your opinion, that doesn't "just" mean someone is far too focused on study, whether or not that is true.
I didn't say being focused on study makes you an irritatingly hard working mediocrity, nor did I say my assumption was necessarily correct. Here's the distinction between Meg and Newton. One's focus on academic study involves brilliant discoveries, one's involves such incessant obsession they write 10 posts on how to write their name on a form, hence one is irritating and one is not. One discovers gravity, one doesn't.. Anyway, that's not the point: it was a very general assumption and I accept that it could well not be true, it's just what my instinct told me.
Drogue
Exactly, I just believe that assumption to be unfounded. It may or may not be true, but more importantly, since it is immeasurable in any accurate way, it will never be known. Thus the whole argument is somewhat mute, as we cannot acertain whether Newton or Shakespeare were brilliant minds, as opposed to good minds who were also lucky, let alone whether anyone here has a brilliant mind in comparison. Yes, in order to write his plays, or for Newton to come up with his theories, they'd have to be clever, but the popularity of Shakespeare's plays is down to their fame and how they were received, far better works may be lost because they were not as popular at the time. At the same time, Newton's discoveries proved incredibly useful, were they to not have, he would not be regarded as such a great mind, though to come up with them he must have been good. Thus we are comparing someone with at least a good mind, with this forum, which has many people who are at least good minds. Whether or not they discover anything that changes the world, we will never know whether they are brighter than the famous minds you've mentioned.
Uhm, almost everything is based on assumption, so by your logic everything would be 'mute' because we don't know anything. I'll make sure to never argue that Einstein is cleverer than someone who got a U in GCSE maths, since this can't be known. In reality, we avoid all these annoying uncertainties.. Oh, and I think you're seriously underestimating the achievements of Shakespeare and Newton, attributing their success to the 'popularity' or 'usefulness' of their work, and not focusing enough on their very rare genius.
timelesspler
Why is there suddenly no need to say anything if I'm nice? I think there'd simple be no desire to say anything, since there was no 'need' in the first place.
Well, then call it desire, as there's no 'need' to do anything whatsoever. There's no need to eat, simply the consequence of dying if you don't. Similarly, there's no need to say anything, but the consequence of letting a frivolous insult go unmentioned if you don't. The consequence of letting a frivolous compliment go unmentioned is generally a lot less hurtful, IMHO.
timelesspler
I didn't say being focused on study makes you an irritatingly hard working mediocrity, nor did I say my assumption was necessarily correct. Here's the distinction between Meg and Newton. One's focus on academic study involves brilliant discoveries, one's involves such incessant obsession they write 10 posts on how to write their name on a form, hence one is irritating and one is not. One discovers gravity, one doesn't.. Anyway, that's not the point: it was a very general assumption and I accept that it could well not be true, it's just what my instinct told me.
Therefore explaining your earlier insult as "it just gives me a general impression of someone far, far too focused on study" was incorrect, since that wasn't why you made that insult, which, as you no say, was made because you thought it was an incessant obsession. I have 2 points, one that it was unwise and generally pretty nasty to made a "very general assumption" and then use it to insult someone, and two, that the explaination you provided for that insult, as mentioned above, was not the reason why you said it, as a general impression of being too focused on study does not equal the insult you used.
timelesspler
Uhm, almost everything is based on assumption, so by your logic everything would be 'mute' because we don't know anything. I'll make sure to never argue that Einstein is cleverer than someone who got a U in GCSE maths, since this can't be known. In reality, we avoid all these annoying uncertainties.. Oh, and I think you're seriously underestimating the achievements of Shakespeare and Newton, attributing their success to the 'popularity' or 'usefulness' of their work, and not focusing enough on their very rare genius.
No, that would not be my logic. I never said Einstein was not cleverer than someone with a U, I said the difference between a very 'good' mind, and a 'brilliant' mind, is the fame of the discovery. There could be a far greater mind who solved a problem that is not applicable to anything much, and thus is not viewed as the level of Einstein. How do you measure the success of a play if not in popularity? Shaklespeare was great because he was popular. If he was not, we would not now know of him, since he wouldn't have had the funding for his later works. There may be better playwrites who do not specialise in that, or rather, people who are innately better, but have chosen to do something different. In order for someone to be brilliant, I'd generally assume they must be better than most people, if not virtually everyone. Since we cannot know the abilites of most people, we don't know how rare that genius is.
Similarly, if Newton's laws of gravity had not been useful, we would not know of him now. There are *many* great thinkers throughout time who have been forgotten as their work fell out of use. The difference is the usefulness of their discovery, not the ability they had in order to make it. Yes, he must have been very clever to come up with it, but there are many very clever people. It is impossible to say he is more intelligent than almost everyone else, as we can't measure that to any accurate degree. Notice the any accurate degree, since we can say that no-one who was not clever could make his discoveries, but we could not say they could only be made by a brilliant mind, since many people today understand them and could make that discovery. That discovery being useful, and him being the first to make it, are why he's known, and do not depend on how hard it was to discover it. Thus, to say no-one here, a forum with some very clever people on it, will ever be as good as Newton seems to be too much to me. If you mean no-one here will ever contribute as much, then you my be right, as we can measure that, and it is likely. However to say that means no-one here is as innately intelligent is immeasurable and impossible for you to know, thus is purely wild speculation on your part.
When you use that wild speculation in a personal way, as before with Baz and to some extent recently with Meg, then I take issue with it, because it's hurtful for no reason. That is why I spoke up, not purely because your speculation was based on unfounded assumptions, but because you used it in a nasty way. I can tolerate wild, unfounded speculation when it doesn't hurt anyone, though it has little worth, but when it does it's a different matter.
Anyway what is it with timlesspler's canonical mentality about great minds? This is the second or third thread I've read where (s)he needlessly compares us all with the great minds of people (s)he has never met...
Why do you need to scrutinize every opinion and implicitly place yourself in a godlike possition? An overdose of historical academia perhaps? As I said in another thread you seem to be inebriated by the grandeur -and inaccessibility- of the past
Why do you need to scrutinize every opinion and implicitly place yourself in a godlike possition? An overdose of historical academia perhaps? As I said in another thread you seem to be inebriated by the grandeur -and inaccessibility- of the past
Well, then call it desire, as there's no 'need' to do anything whatsoever. There's no need to eat, simply the consequence of dying if you don't. Similarly, there's no need to say anything, but the consequence of letting a frivolous insult go unmentioned if you don't. The consequence of letting a frivolous compliment go unmentioned is generally a lot less hurtful, IMHO.
Ok, I'm glad you've conceded that it came down to your desires opposed to necessity.
Therefore explaining your earlier insult as "it just gives me a general impression of someone far, far too focused on study" was incorrect, since that wasn't why you made that insult, which, as you no say, was made because you thought it was an incessant obsession. I have 2 points, one that it was unwise and generally pretty nasty to made a "very general assumption" and then use it to insult someone, and two, that the explaination you provided for that insult, as mentioned above, was not the reason why you said it, as a general impression of being too focused on study does not equal the insult you used.
On your 2 points. 1. Yes it was a 'pretty nasty' thing to say.
2. Not sure why you're bothered to go over the motivations of my insult, but that's your call. What you're saying doesn't really make any sense. If you'll read carefully i said her huge focus on study involves an incessant obsession, not that it was an incessant obsession (though even this could be seen as pretty similar to the idea of a huge focus on something), so where's the problem? When I said 'incessant obsession' I was referring to Meg talking about how she wrote her name on a form, and I mentioned, previously, how that incident was a factor in me getting a 'general impression' that she was far, far too focused on study. All I'd done in the next post was made a further description of how I viewed it, and perhaps what it entailed, without contradicting anything.
No, that would not be my logic. I never said Einstein was not cleverer than someone with a U, I said the difference between a very 'good' mind, and a 'brilliant' mind, is the fame of the discovery.
I'm not sure that's what you did say, since you were questioning the whole measurability of talent, but let's just say you did. I would completely disagree, are you saying that a mathematical/scientific mind can only be classed as brilliant if a famous discovery is made? Take that indian mathematician in the 20s (forgotten his name), he died at a young age and didn't make any discoveries, but he was a human calculator and had an intuitive understanding of maths that surpassed anyone alive. Despite discovering nothing new, his mind was and is classed by all mathematicians as 'brilliant'
There could be a far greater mind who solved a problem that is not applicable to anything much, and thus is not viewed as the level of Einstein. How do you measure the success of a play if not in popularity? Shaklespeare was great because he was popular.
We're not talking about success, we're talking about inherent talent, and popularity isn't what matters. What matters is the use of language, the understanding of the human condition, etc. I'm sure if you ask any English student, not one will agree with you saying that 'Shakespeare was great because he was popular', if they were asked why they rate him, it would be because his plays, language, insight were absolutely outstanding. If, as you seem to say, people are great because they are popular, why is Britney Spears not a critically acclaimed singer, or Jeffrey Archer a critically acclaimed novelist?
However to say that means no-one here is as innately intelligent is immeasurable and impossible for you to know, thus is purely wild speculation on your part.
In this thread all I did was pose the questions, I didn't make any indication as to my own personal beliefs. I don't claim to know the inherent intelligence of various people on this forum, but yes I do speculate from time to time, though I'd hardly call it 'wild' to call Newton/Einstein inherently smarter than Meg, and I'm sure she'd agree. It's just an assumption and a belief that can't be certain, the kind you make when you think the sun will come up tomorrow morning. But really, I don't think you needed to comb over what I said so forensically, it was just an off the cuff comment, it wasn't an absolute truth and I didn't present it as such, twas merely an expression of disapproval.
If you want to continue this then private message me, I think we've taken over the thread enough? Hence, I won't make another post here regarding this.
Ok, I'm glad you've conceded that it came down to your desires opposed to necessity.
Therefore explaining your earlier insult as "it just gives me a general impression of someone far, far too focused on study" was incorrect, since that wasn't why you made that insult, which, as you no say, was made because you thought it was an incessant obsession. I have 2 points, one that it was unwise and generally pretty nasty to made a "very general assumption" and then use it to insult someone, and two, that the explaination you provided for that insult, as mentioned above, was not the reason why you said it, as a general impression of being too focused on study does not equal the insult you used.
On your 2 points. 1. Yes it was a 'pretty nasty' thing to say.
2. Not sure why you're bothered to go over the motivations of my insult, but that's your call. What you're saying doesn't really make any sense. If you'll read carefully i said her huge focus on study involves an incessant obsession, not that it was an incessant obsession (though even this could be seen as pretty similar to the idea of a huge focus on something), so where's the problem? When I said 'incessant obsession' I was referring to Meg talking about how she wrote her name on a form, and I mentioned, previously, how that incident was a factor in me getting a 'general impression' that she was far, far too focused on study. All I'd done in the next post was made a further description of how I viewed it, and perhaps what it entailed, without contradicting anything.
No, that would not be my logic. I never said Einstein was not cleverer than someone with a U, I said the difference between a very 'good' mind, and a 'brilliant' mind, is the fame of the discovery.
I'm not sure that's what you did say, since you were questioning the whole measurability of talent, but let's just say you did. I would completely disagree, are you saying that a mathematical/scientific mind can only be classed as brilliant if a famous discovery is made? Take that indian mathematician in the 20s (forgotten his name), he died at a young age and didn't make any discoveries, but he was a human calculator and had an intuitive understanding of maths that surpassed anyone alive. Despite discovering nothing new, his mind was and is classed by all mathematicians as 'brilliant'
There could be a far greater mind who solved a problem that is not applicable to anything much, and thus is not viewed as the level of Einstein. How do you measure the success of a play if not in popularity? Shaklespeare was great because he was popular.
We're not talking about success, we're talking about inherent talent, and popularity isn't what matters. What matters is the use of language, the understanding of the human condition, etc. I'm sure if you ask any English student, not one will agree with you saying that 'Shakespeare was great because he was popular', if they were asked why they rate him, it would be because his plays, language, insight were absolutely outstanding. If, as you seem to say, people are great because they are popular, why is Britney Spears not a critically acclaimed singer, or Jeffrey Archer a critically acclaimed novelist?
However to say that means no-one here is as innately intelligent is immeasurable and impossible for you to know, thus is purely wild speculation on your part.
In this thread all I did was pose the questions, I didn't make any indication as to my own personal beliefs. I don't claim to know the inherent intelligence of various people on this forum, but yes I do speculate from time to time, though I'd hardly call it 'wild' to call Newton/Einstein inherently smarter than Meg, and I'm sure she'd agree. It's just an assumption and a belief that can't be certain, the kind you make when you think the sun will come up tomorrow morning. But really, I don't think you needed to comb over what I said so forensically, it was just an off the cuff comment, it wasn't an absolute truth and I didn't present it as such, twas merely an expression of disapproval.
If you want to continue this then private message me, I think we've taken over the thread enough? Hence, I won't make another post here regarding this.
Fark me, serious sense of humour failure on the parts of many here.
Firstly, Will, the guy was being a bit of a prat, but lots of people are, you could easily have let him be. Certainly didn't need many novellas. And Timeless, you were called for for being insulting so why not just leave it there? You didn't really have any foundation for your arguments, and even if you did, it's Oxbridge, let the poor girl get excited over it. Why the hell shouldn't she?
And whoever neg-repped me for calling Meg disgraceful...you must have had a serious, serious irony failure. Was that part of your brain surgically removed? Deary me...
Wouldn't've happened in my day, would not have happened.
Firstly, Will, the guy was being a bit of a prat, but lots of people are, you could easily have let him be. Certainly didn't need many novellas. And Timeless, you were called for for being insulting so why not just leave it there? You didn't really have any foundation for your arguments, and even if you did, it's Oxbridge, let the poor girl get excited over it. Why the hell shouldn't she?
And whoever neg-repped me for calling Meg disgraceful...you must have had a serious, serious irony failure. Was that part of your brain surgically removed? Deary me...
Wouldn't've happened in my day, would not have happened.
Drogue
Wow, nice analysis of a person you've never met, seen a few posts by, and suddenly thought you could represent. I'd have given you more credit than that.
From what I know of Meg, which while is not a lot, is far more than you do, she's far closer to an colourful, original, interesting, vibrant person than someone who purely works hard.
From what I know of Meg, which while is not a lot, is far more than you do, she's far closer to an colourful, original, interesting, vibrant person than someone who purely works hard.
To say the truth, from what i read of her on the forum and som personal contacts, I can say she is one of the most work obsessed persons ive ever met. I don't mean that being work obsessed is so bad, but either way, to be obsessed with how a name is written on a form, which in all proberbility (soz cant spell) will have no bearing to her application is a bit over the top.
I don't like saying it, but its just true, although I wouldnt go as far as "irritatingly hard working mediocrity". Although the impression one gains from a forum could well be biased, it could at the same time be a much more accurate representation of a person compared to real life, as one would be more prone to revealing tier true feelings on a forum where most people dont know them personally.
deianra
"Legible photocopies are acceptable" - tone seems to indicate they prefer originals?
~haha, i was stressing bout this until i read the letter again, carefully this time
It says: "It will not be possible to return your work, so you should submit legible photocopies."ps i italisised it
Surely the idea of written work is to impress the Oxford dons? I can't follow your logic.
Related discussions
- What is the latest time I can make a change to my OCR Computer Science Coursework
- Sample of work
- Any Courtauld MA History of Art students with Social Sciences undergraduate degrees
- Help! What are CamSIS Data!?
- BCL Written work sample
- asking for a review of result
- Including Coursework in Portfolio
- english literature coursework
- btec business
- How to register for EPQ
- AI/Plagiarism in Coursework for BTEC IT
- Applying to Masters at Oxford without having attained 70%
- Secondary data or literature review?
- acknowledgement emails from unis
- Westminister Film BA or MetFilm School
- AI Detection on Personal Statement
- EPQ Plagiarism and AI Detection (ChatGPT)
- Applying for MPhil in Modern British History next academic year
- Imperial Aero invitation to take admissions test
- BCL essay submission
Latest
Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 17 hours ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?Trending
Last reply 14 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 17 hours ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?
