Go to first unread
Back
to top
Easy A - Levels
WatchThis discussion is closed.
Report
#381
(Original post by winorloose)
Its not a joke. Just because someone can't read fast, spell well or are just messy (my handwriting is appalling) doesn't mean they're a muppet. It all evens out in the long run, but people who take the piss are essentially narrow minded. Dyslexics aren't stupid.
Its not a joke. Just because someone can't read fast, spell well or are just messy (my handwriting is appalling) doesn't mean they're a muppet. It all evens out in the long run, but people who take the piss are essentially narrow minded. Dyslexics aren't stupid.
J.
0
Report
#382
(Original post by hornblower)
Yes, but unfortunately there are some dyslexics that always use dyslexia as an excuse for poor effort. Those are the real muppets.
J.
Yes, but unfortunately there are some dyslexics that always use dyslexia as an excuse for poor effort. Those are the real muppets.
J.
0
Report
#383
(Original post by fishpaste)
You're deluded about how hard maths is.
You're deluded about how hard maths is.
0
Report
#384
(Original post by winorloose)
Strictly speaking Psychology is not a true science because it does not have the same empirical structure as a 'hard science' such as chemistry or physics. Psychology (as far as i can see it) is based around postulates which cannot quite be proven experimentally (because everyone is different), unlike physics, where there certain laws (like gravity) which are hard and fast, and can be and have been proven using different experiments.
Strictly speaking Psychology is not a true science because it does not have the same empirical structure as a 'hard science' such as chemistry or physics. Psychology (as far as i can see it) is based around postulates which cannot quite be proven experimentally (because everyone is different), unlike physics, where there certain laws (like gravity) which are hard and fast, and can be and have been proven using different experiments.
Admittedly they are theoretical approaches based only on psychological studies (apart from the biological approach), but the sheer number of studies conducted in those areas can lend a lot of weight to the theories. It's a bit like evolution by natural selection - it's difficult to prove but it's not disprovable either, and it is right now the best theory out there for explaining the diversity of species. In the same way, Freud's psychodynamic theory is only supported by Freud's own research and little of others, but it holds a great deal of weight still today because it is a very viable, plausible theory that is very tricky to disprove.
A lot of the studies are affected by individual differences (e.g. attachment) but there are a number of so-called 'invisible' aspects of humanity e.g. the function of memory and face recognition which are extremely difficult to explain due to the lack of empirical evidence - and this is where the theories and studies of Psychology come in. It is difficult to explain memory using biology due to its intangible nature, and as long as there are phenomena such as this Psychological theories will continue to be held in scientific regard, simply because they are the most plausible theories (with evidence to support them taken from studies) available for those areas.
Sorry if that's a bit jumbled - I'm a bit sleepy!
0
Report
#385
(Original post by dforster)
William Foster is by no means anybody's favourite person here...certainly not mine...but as far as I, and the majority of the population are concerned there is simply no way that Media can be construed as being a harder subject then Maths, and to that degree we must grant him that he is right (as hard as it is to do). If we all asked ourselves which exam you would prefer to go in to without any teaching or preperation- Maths or Media...I would find it hard to believe that most people wouldn't opt for media....
William Foster is by no means anybody's favourite person here...certainly not mine...but as far as I, and the majority of the population are concerned there is simply no way that Media can be construed as being a harder subject then Maths, and to that degree we must grant him that he is right (as hard as it is to do). If we all asked ourselves which exam you would prefer to go in to without any teaching or preperation- Maths or Media...I would find it hard to believe that most people wouldn't opt for media....
...is he your evil twin?
0
Report
#386
(Original post by dforster)
William Foster is by no means anybody's favourite person here...certainly not mine...but as far as I, and the majority of the population are concerned there is simply no way that Media can be construed as being a harder subject then Maths, and to that degree we must grant him that he is right (as hard as it is to do). If we all asked ourselves which exam you would prefer to go in to without any teaching or preperation- Maths or Media...I would find it hard to believe that most people wouldn't opt for media....
William Foster is by no means anybody's favourite person here...certainly not mine...but as far as I, and the majority of the population are concerned there is simply no way that Media can be construed as being a harder subject then Maths, and to that degree we must grant him that he is right (as hard as it is to do). If we all asked ourselves which exam you would prefer to go in to without any teaching or preperation- Maths or Media...I would find it hard to believe that most people wouldn't opt for media....
0
Report
#387
(Original post by madmazda86)
That is a very good point - as Psychology originates from the philosophy of Empiricism. But there are a number of core psychological approaches that are applied to most areas of study - the behavioural, psychodynamic, social learning, biological and cognitive approaches.
Admittedly they are theoretical approaches based only on psychological studies (apart from the biological approach), but the sheer number of studies conducted in those areas can lend a lot of weight to the theories. It's a bit like evolution by natural selection - it's difficult to prove but it's not disprovable either, and it is right now the best theory out there for explaining the diversity of species. In the same way, Freud's psychodynamic theory is only supported by Freud's own research and little of others, but it holds a great deal of weight still today because it is a very viable, plausible theory that is very tricky to disprove.
A lot of the studies are affected by individual differences (e.g. attachment) but there are a number of so-called 'invisible' aspects of humanity e.g. the function of memory and face recognition which are extremely difficult to explain due to the lack of empirical evidence - and this is where the theories and studies of Psychology come in. It is difficult to explain memory using biology due to its intangible nature, and as long as there are phenomena such as this Psychological theories will continue to be held in scientific regard, simply because they are the most plausible theories (with evidence to support them taken from studies) available for those areas.
Sorry if that's a bit jumbled - I'm a bit sleepy!
That is a very good point - as Psychology originates from the philosophy of Empiricism. But there are a number of core psychological approaches that are applied to most areas of study - the behavioural, psychodynamic, social learning, biological and cognitive approaches.
Admittedly they are theoretical approaches based only on psychological studies (apart from the biological approach), but the sheer number of studies conducted in those areas can lend a lot of weight to the theories. It's a bit like evolution by natural selection - it's difficult to prove but it's not disprovable either, and it is right now the best theory out there for explaining the diversity of species. In the same way, Freud's psychodynamic theory is only supported by Freud's own research and little of others, but it holds a great deal of weight still today because it is a very viable, plausible theory that is very tricky to disprove.
A lot of the studies are affected by individual differences (e.g. attachment) but there are a number of so-called 'invisible' aspects of humanity e.g. the function of memory and face recognition which are extremely difficult to explain due to the lack of empirical evidence - and this is where the theories and studies of Psychology come in. It is difficult to explain memory using biology due to its intangible nature, and as long as there are phenomena such as this Psychological theories will continue to be held in scientific regard, simply because they are the most plausible theories (with evidence to support them taken from studies) available for those areas.
Sorry if that's a bit jumbled - I'm a bit sleepy!
). I regret I'm not up to spped on the technical terms you're using (not studying psychology myself.) I agree there is a large gray area over memory in biology, and then there is the century old problem of soul, spirit and conciousness, but certainly not at this time of day!
0
Report
#388
(Original post by J.S.)
...is he your evil twin?
...is he your evil twin?
0
Report
#389
(Original post by fishpaste)
This I don't deny. I just think it's deluded to talk as if getting a top grade in AS Maths is nobel prize stuff, because it's pretty straight forward, and as somebody mentioned, thousands of people get an A in AS maths every year, lots and lots of people get 100%.
This I don't deny. I just think it's deluded to talk as if getting a top grade in AS Maths is nobel prize stuff, because it's pretty straight forward, and as somebody mentioned, thousands of people get an A in AS maths every year, lots and lots of people get 100%.
0
Report
#390
(Original post by dforster)
also v.truei do agree with the 100% thing as well...it sucks that anybody should get 100% in any exam...imagine how bad you must feel if you fail while sombody else got every single question right! being a non-mathmatician i think we should actively encourage the impossible questions that were set a few years back by EXECEL...that would be a lot more fun.
also v.truei do agree with the 100% thing as well...it sucks that anybody should get 100% in any exam...imagine how bad you must feel if you fail while sombody else got every single question right! being a non-mathmatician i think we should actively encourage the impossible questions that were set a few years back by EXECEL...that would be a lot more fun.
Mind you I shouldn't really complain
0
Report
#391
(Original post by dforster)
also v.truei do agree with the 100% thing as well...it sucks that anybody should get 100% in any exam...imagine how bad you must feel if you fail while sombody else got every single question right! being a non-mathmatician i think we should actively encourage the impossible questions that were set a few years back by EXECEL...that would be a lot more fun.
also v.truei do agree with the 100% thing as well...it sucks that anybody should get 100% in any exam...imagine how bad you must feel if you fail while sombody else got every single question right! being a non-mathmatician i think we should actively encourage the impossible questions that were set a few years back by EXECEL...that would be a lot more fun.
Also, because of the nature of maths, people can resit earlier maths modules once they've completed later maths modules. So right now I'm doing pure 5, which includes things like non homogeneous 4th order differential equations. It probably isn't ridiculous to say that if I resat the first module, I'd get 100%, and I'd probably finish in about 25 mins, because the same techniques are used in the later modules, only it's assumed you can do them in your head without hesitation.
0
Report
#392
(Original post by winorloose)
I agree. Last year in AS I (somehow) got 100% on an english module (shakespeare). It shouldn't happen in an essay subject - the perfect essay doesn't exist!!!
Mind you I shouldn't really complain
I agree. Last year in AS I (somehow) got 100% on an english module (shakespeare). It shouldn't happen in an essay subject - the perfect essay doesn't exist!!!
Mind you I shouldn't really complain
For AS Economics (Edexcel
) I got 300/300 . This was my UMS my raw score wasn't 100% though, I'd just got way over the point you needed for full marks after they scale it and weight it and all.So even if you get 100%, you may not have had a raw score which was full marks which means there is always room for improvement
0
Report
#393
(Original post by BossLady)
Was this your raw score or the UMS one?
For AS Economics (Edexcel
) I got 300/300 . This was my UMS my raw score wasn't 100% though, I'd just got way over the point you needed for full marks after they scale it and weight it and all.
So even if you get 100%, you may not have had a raw score which was full marks which means there is always room for improvement
Was this your raw score or the UMS one?
For AS Economics (Edexcel
) I got 300/300 . This was my UMS my raw score wasn't 100% though, I'd just got way over the point you needed for full marks after they scale it and weight it and all.So even if you get 100%, you may not have had a raw score which was full marks which means there is always room for improvement
. On my statement of results it says 90/90, but thats after moderating (cheating so everyone gets an acceptable mark ) Anyway 300/300 is pretty damn good!
Shame I didn't get it in anything...
0
Report
#394
(Original post by winorloose)
Dunno what a UMS score is. On my statement of results it says 90/90, but thats after moderating (cheating so everyone gets an acceptable mark )
Anyway 300/300 is pretty damn good! Shame I didn't get it in anything...
Dunno what a UMS score is
. On my statement of results it says 90/90, but thats after moderating (cheating so everyone gets an acceptable mark ) Anyway 300/300 is pretty damn good!
Shame I didn't get it in anything...
. It was kinda nice seeing that part of my statement of results (Unit1:90/90, Unit2:90/90. Unit3:120/120). But tbh I've known some "Stupid people" to get v high marks in some subjects, you know like 295/300 etc. So if you work hard, you can achieve. Mind you I hardly worked for econ(I just spend MUCH to much timE reading The Economist), whereas other subjects I did spend more time on and didn't get such pretty marks UMS:I think it's the whole after they have scaled it and weighted it and so on. Like apaprently last year you needed 50% to get an A on P3 maths. but an A comes out as 80/100, so basically if you got half the paper right u ended up with final score of 80/100 cuz they scaled it up ! I think the 80/100 is called the UMS? standing for.... (please insert here anyone who knows)
0
Report
#395
(Original post by BossLady)
I think the 80/100 is called the UMS? standing for.... (please insert here anyone who knows)
I think the 80/100 is called the UMS? standing for.... (please insert here anyone who knows)
And, PQ, it is very possible to get full marks (both UMS and raw) on essay subjects at A level.
0
Report
#396
The UMS is a uniform mark.
Well done on econ, i got 294/300. I also read the economist, i enjoy it but i find it doesn't really help with my a-level, i seem to find econ pretty straight forward.
By the way did anyone watch 'have i got news for you'. i damn well missed it, was in the pub (even though i rarely drink) and my group won the quiz..woohoo.
Well done on econ, i got 294/300. I also read the economist, i enjoy it but i find it doesn't really help with my a-level, i seem to find econ pretty straight forward.
By the way did anyone watch 'have i got news for you'. i damn well missed it, was in the pub (even though i rarely drink) and my group won the quiz..woohoo.
0
Report
#397
(Original post by WilliamFoster)
The UMS is a uniform mark.
Well done on econ, i got 294/300. I also read the economist, i enjoy it but i find it doesn't really help with my a-level, i seem to find econ pretty straight forward.
The UMS is a uniform mark.
Well done on econ, i got 294/300. I also read the economist, i enjoy it but i find it doesn't really help with my a-level, i seem to find econ pretty straight forward.
With the economist and other econ type mags/net sites (bbc is another one i like), I find that after havin' read them, when I get a question on a paper I am obv way more liekly to have lots of background knowledge on the article, which can turn out to be really useful. Plus when we learn theory, I can go through the economist later and apply the theory to the relevant articles, which is sooooo much more fun than revising! In that sense it certainly compliments the course, which I imagine is why our teacher gives us *loads* of articles lol.
0
Report
#398
(Original post by WilliamFoster)
It takes balls to do A-level maths and people who take media (in many cases) would never think of taking maths. The reason why the pass rate for media is lower is because many people walk into over confident because their dyslexic older brother managed to get an A, so they don't even try hence their low marks.
LOL, why the hell am i even waisting my time to compare maths and media, two extremes of academic rigour.
It takes balls to do A-level maths and people who take media (in many cases) would never think of taking maths. The reason why the pass rate for media is lower is because many people walk into over confident because their dyslexic older brother managed to get an A, so they don't even try hence their low marks.
LOL, why the hell am i even waisting my time to compare maths and media, two extremes of academic rigour.
0
Report
#399
(Original post by lilsunflower)
Why do people keep inflating the difficulty of A level maths? It is an extremely easy subject (F Maths is also a walkover) and I'm not saying this from only my perspective, but from the fact that my entire class has an average of 95% for AS Level Maths, though my history class for example has an average of 65%.
Why do people keep inflating the difficulty of A level maths? It is an extremely easy subject (F Maths is also a walkover) and I'm not saying this from only my perspective, but from the fact that my entire class has an average of 95% for AS Level Maths, though my history class for example has an average of 65%.
J.
0
Report
#400
(Original post by hornblower)
Maybe because the majority of people find it difficult. Your class doesn't represent the entire population.
J.
Maybe because the majority of people find it difficult. Your class doesn't represent the entire population.
J.
Maybe English Literature or History are really difficult subjects (for both subjects, I scored less than 100%) but Maths is just......... easy? I can't believe people don't consider it an easy A level.
0
X
new posts
