Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarathustra)
    Enjoying your subject isn't sufficient - you have to also be a productive, hard-working person. I resent the implication that lazy people don't actually enjoy their subjects :hmmm:
    Hear hear.

    W.r.t the topic: Personally this year I've found it seems like less work than A level (which btw I found less work than GCSE) though I think this is largely down to the reduced number of timetabled hours.

    Edit: just discovered this was originally about the IB... which I know nothing about... ho hum.

    (Original post by Craghyrax)
    One has to avoid extrapolating one's own experiences and using them as a tool against which to measure others...
    Heh. Surely everybody does this all the time.

    I wouldn't be suprised if there wasn't some correlation between 'how hard' people 'had' to work at A-level and some measure of 'how difficult' they might find a Cambridge degree but please nobody let that put you off applying! Thinking about it, I was almost put off applying by the opposite idea. That if you don't know how to work hard Oxbridge isn't for you. Which brings me to:

    (Original post by thefish_uk)
    One of my sixth form friends - brilliant at Physics, sits on his arse for his A-levels but still does well. Somehow the attitude comes out and Cambridge rejects him.
    Just wanted to say I know a few of examples of hard working people not getting in where similarly achieving 'not so hard working' people did.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrCube)
    Heh. Surely everybody does this all the time.
    To a certain extent..but by the same token you should argue that nobody can every be fully objective so why even bother trying to be scientific as we're doomed to be subjective about everything.

    Just because it comes naturally to do it doesn't mean we shouldn't be mindful of when its a negative thing.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    when it was coming up to exams i was in the library 9am-11pm everyday leaving only for meals and for rowing...but that's extreme working. You don't have to work continuously like that for the rest of the time, or even for that length of time at all if that doesn't suit you.
    It will vary with subject though. Arts subjects such as land economy are traditionally taken by serious rowers because they apparently requires less study than natsci or medicine.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, I expect I was doing about 60 hours a week in exam term. Yuck.

    MB
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Enjoying your subject isn't sufficient - you have to also be a productive, hard-working person. I resent the implication that lazy people don't actually enjoy their subjects
    Hehe, sorry Zara! I didn't quite mean to imply that...and of course it isn't true anyway. I won't point to you as a case in point, because I refuse to believe you are 'lazy'!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I found the 2 weeks before exams quite fun :/

    Although not that many of my mates really did as much work as most others seem to do in exam term. But I guess that's because I was a fresher.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, a simple numerical figure would have answered my question, so thanks to all for the extra information!!
    Offline

    13
    Craghyrax, You've summed me up just there.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laus)
    Craghyrax, You've summed me up just there.
    :cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A level is f- all work.

    Cambridge is Work.
    Offline

    13
    Oh. I can't say I agree with you there. Are A levels 'f-all work' in comparison to Cambridge or just in general?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Speaking entirely for myself - generally. I turned up to the lessons, and did the homework we were set, and apart from that... looked at some past paper questions in the few days before each exam. A complete lack of intellectual challenge by our education system all the way up to A level means I struggled in my first terms when suddenly for the first time in my life I had to try and invent a work ethic for myself.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Meh, I found that Cambridge (or perhaps one of my Norvicensian housemates) somewhat sapped me of the work ethic I'd managed to develop whilst working on a gap year. Strangely though, I didn't find it to be as hard as parts of A-level because of the way that the different parts of phys natsci tie in together. Supervisions are also really helpful...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How do you know the word 'norvicensian', I can't even spell it :/

    I have a great work ethic, and you know it.

    Supervisions rock.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randomlaughter)
    A level is f- all work.

    Cambridge is Work.
    This.

    It would be lovely to think that those who struggled with A-levels blah blah but are better suited to Cambridge blah still get on fine. But I don't really believe it. Everyone I know thinks A-levels were pathetically lightweight. Because they are.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Well you'd better believe it, because it's true. I was a handful of marks away from missing my AAA offer, got 482/600 in music and about 487/600 in RS. Somehow I managed to get a 2.i+ this year without doing nearly as much work (in terms of hours) as I did for A-levels. Go figure.

    NB that I spend less time working than most =/= I work less. I work quite efficiently when I want to.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randomlaughter)
    Speaking entirely for myself - generally. I turned up to the lessons, and did the homework we were set, and apart from that... looked at some past paper questions in the few days before each exam. A complete lack of intellectual challenge by our education system all the way up to A level means I struggled in my first terms when suddenly for the first time in my life I had to try and invent a work ethic for myself.
    This.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coldfish)
    Well you'd better believe it, because it's true. I was a handful of marks away from missing my AAA offer, got 482/600 in music and about 487/600 in RS. Somehow I managed to get a 2.i+ this year without doing nearly as much work (in terms of hours) as I did for A-levels. Go figure.

    NB that I spend less time working than most =/= I work less. I work quite efficiently when I want to.
    *shrug* Was thinking more about science subjects, I don't know much about artsy A-levels (other than that at times the marking seems extremely random). I consider myself duly *****-slapped.

    However, not doing brilliantly in a subject at A-level is not the same as struggling, and certainly not the same as considering it 'heavyweight'. In first year NatSci my best mark was for Chemistry but I only got a B (nearly a C) in it for A-level. Why? Because I flunked a load of coursework. Because I thought it was b*llocks. Because it was.

    And then Physics was just piss if you were studying Maths, and Maths was piss if you were studying Further Maths. Its like getting 3 A-levels for the price of one. Oh, and if you balls them up you can always retake them, again and again...

    So, yeah, some (most? all?) A-levels are pathetically lightweight.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I took all 4 of my A levels in one year without a teacher and had time for other stuff. You can pass English Lit with an A without reading the books (I got full marks on 2 exams without having read the books) As long as you know how to structure one history essay you can do the lot - it's just learning facts and putting them into a formula. I wasn't challenged at all in my A levels. I wasn't even that proud of achieving them because they're so easy to get. Might have been different if I'd been doing maths and science though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyle_S-C)
    I agree. Apparently A levels aren't even a good indication of how well you will do at your degree, GCSEs are better for some reason. I found A levels moderately difficult and got about 85% average, whereas most people at Oxbridge seem to be aiming for 90+%. Comparatively I find Oxbridge better because of the whole style of teaching and the fact that it's challenging and relatively interesting, so you're inclined to work harder.

    I still think that the most important skill, however, is not time management, but being able to compensate for extremely poor time management.
    I hear module marks are a good indication, though the A-level grades themselves may not be. There is no perfect correlation, instead I feel that if you found A-levels difficult chances are you may find Oxbridge difficult too. Equally if you breezed through but lack the work ethic, you may struggle. But you might just cram it all in at the end and do OK.

    I don't really feel like I work hard enough. I always get distracted, because even though I find the concepts in my subject interesting, there are times when I really don't want to answer another weird question about Biochemistry practicals.
 
 
 
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.