The Student Room Group
University College London, University of London
University College London
London

Scroll to see replies

Angel Interceptor
Perhaps so, but I would still rather study it than so a vocational degree like you my good man. Tsk, multiple choice exam questions - now that's difficult! Or not. :rolleyes: :p:

:rolleyes: it sounds as if 'vocational degrees' are crap.:frown:

Well you are doing Maths, which is a much more rigorous subject than economics, which involves applying maths to a sociology context. This is like applying statistical mechanics to sports studies.

MCQs? Depends, some are stupid and some are quite difficult. They try to confuse you.... but still, it's better than blagging about social dynamics and the transition from a chaotic system to an orderly one, again in complex sociological systems.
University College London, University of London
University College London
London
Reply 41
darkenergy
:rolleyes: it sounds as if 'vocational degrees' are crap.:frown:

Well you are doing Maths, which is a much more rigorous subject than economics, which involves applying maths to a sociology context. This is like applying statistical mechanics to sports studies.

MCQs? Depends, some are stupid and some are quite difficult. They try to confuse you.... but still, it's better than blagging about social dynamics and the transition from a chaotic system to an orderly one, again in complex sociological systems.


Have you studied Economics at uni?
No, my post is clearly taking the piss.
No, he hasn't. He's a first year medic. Still, I still think it's wrong to simply dismiss a subject as 'boring' full stop without having enough of a grasp or knowledge about advanced economics to be able to make any sort of valid judgement. Also, at least economics students get a chance to do some individual and original work, medicine is about rote learning and memorisation - you don't need any intelligence pers se, but simply the need to sit down and memorise. One could complete a medical degree without much comprehension. And then on exam day you will simply regurgitate your knowledge via the odd tick in a box and belive that you have a true and original grasp of the discipline. :rolleyes:
darkenergy
No, my post is clearly taking the piss.

Dude, you really need to work on your internet humour. :wink: Sarcasm is not well translated over the 'net.
Angel Interceptor
No, he hasn't. He's a first year medic. Still, I still think it's wrong to simply dismiss a subject as 'boring' full stop without having enough of a grasp or knowledge about advanced economics to be able to make any sort of valid judgement. Also, at least economics students get a chance to do some individual and original work, medicine is about rote learning and memorisation - you don't need any intelligence pers se, but simply the need to sit down and memorise. One could complete a medical degree without much comprehension. And then on exam day you will simply regurgitate your knowledge via the odd tick in a box and belive that you have a true and original grasp of the discipline. :rolleyes:

True. Although if you look at 'hysteresis', it's a biological and physical phenomonon. Economists use them to describe their own things.:mad:

It's true that medicine is about 'rote-learning'. Although I can say to a limited extent, that we are actually just doing pure sciences at the moment except for anatomy. So 'brains' are still necessary!:frown: :hmmm: Physiology on the other hand, requires a lot of thinking, just like any biological sciences!!!

Our brains are limited in terms of 'creativity' I think. I don't know enough about this but there is a theory that good artists are actually good at 'mimicking'.
Angel Interceptor
Dude, you really need to work on your internet humour. :wink: Sarcasm is not well translated over the 'net.

Apologies for my lack of ability to use 'emoticons'.:p:
Maybe I am fed up of not being able to put my opinions down in my medical sociology exam as all content needs to be 'politically correct'. A constraint that limits creativity.
Perhaps the fact that you have no open avenue for original research or thought in a medical degree is because you require labs, patients and so many other things to devise, carry out and test/improve a hypothesis, whilst I need nothing more than a pad and a pencil if I want to try out something new - that was what appealed about mathematics to me. Just wondering, do you have an intercalated BSc at Cambridge like we do on the UCL medical course? I don't know too much about the Cambridge medical course, apart from the fact that you have very little patient contact in the opening years of the course.
Reply 49
But medicine is more than just rote learning. Dont you have practical exams etc.? Someone who just learns his textbook off by heart wont make a very good doctor.
Angel Interceptor
Perhaps the fact that you have no open avenue for original research or thought in a medical degree is because you require labs, patients and so many other things to devise, carry out and test/improve a hypothesis, whilst I need nothing more than a pad and a pencil if I want to try out something new - that was what appealed about mathematics to me. Just wondering, do you have an intercalated BSc at Cambridge like we do on the UCL medical course? I don't know too much about the Cambridge medical course, apart from the fact that you have very little patient contact in the opening years of the course.

Yeah, original research is really only possible in the third year, or after your medical degree.

What you said about maths appealed to me as well! After speaking to a maths person in college he really has shown me how rigorous maths is in constructing logical arguments. He was talking about a set that includes all the subsets and is a paradox or something. Cant remember the details now, do you know what I am on about?

Yeah we get an intercalated degree too - we can choose anything in the third year.

Our supervisor has taken us to his unit to have extra patient contact. Little contact is probably good thing, if we have lots we would just be stuck - 'whats wrong with this person?'. You can come up with about 100 conditions...:frown:
ba_ba1
But medicine is more than just rote learning. Dont you have practical exams etc.? Someone who just learns his textbook off by heart wont make a very good doctor.

Agreed. Anatomy does require thinking to an extent - you can think about why things they are in the way they are, from an embryological /functional point of view.
Reply 52
I think we should just accept that everyone's subject has worth for them.
Reply 53
Does the set of all sets, that are not members of themselves, contain itself? :smile:

It's called Russell's paradox.

Think about it.

If it does contain itself, it's a member of itself, and thus not part of itself.

If it does not contain itself, it's not a member of itself, and thus part of itself.

Kinda like politics. Or TSR-discussions on which subject is the better.
lol i don't really understand what you are saying...mind to simplify it?
Reply 55
I got rejected by Exeter for Law. I think that I was drawn into the whole prestige and enigma of Oxford and would have chosen to go there purely based on the reputation. From the start UCL was the place that I really wanted to go (location, overall atmosphere, reputation) and my interview merely reinforced the image in my mind that Oxford is stuffy, backwards and cliquey. I'm not bothered at all that I got rejected from there.
TommehR
I got rejected by Exeter for Law. I think that I was drawn into the whole prestige and enigma of Oxford and would have chosen to go there purely based on the reputation. From the start UCL was the place that I really wanted to go (location, overall atmosphere, reputation) and my interview merely reinforced the image in my mind that Oxford is stuffy, backwards and cliquey. I'm not bothered at all that I got rejected from there.


Same thing. I was in fact aiming for LSE. And actually I think the reason most of the candidates who apply to Oxbridge is because they are damn prestigious.
darkenergy
hysteresis


Is a mathematically defined effect in a variable. You can apply it in a lot of things... :rolleyes:

F-ing medics... :wink:
jb_sweden
Does the set of all sets, that are not members of themselves, contain itself? :smile:

It's called Russell's paradox.

Think about it.

If it does contain itself, it's a member of itself, and thus not part of itself.

If it does not contain itself, it's not a member of itself, and thus part of itself.

Kinda like politics. Or TSR-discussions on which subject is the better.


This sounds interesting. Simplify it word yo.

"and thus part ofitself" I dont get those conclusions.
Reply 59
A set either contains itself, or it doesn't.

Russell's paradox defines a set as: the set of all sets that are not members of themselves.

If that set contains itself, it cannot be that set we are looking for (the set we are looking for contains only sets that are not members of themselves).

If that set does not contain itself, the set does not contain all sets that does not contain themselves - since it does not contain itself.

hmmm... :smile: I hope that makes it clearer.

Otherwise, we can do it with mathematical symbols:

Let S be the set that contains all sets that are not members of themselves.

S={x : x does not belong to x}, is to be understood as "S is the set of all x, such that x does not belong to x).

if S belongs to S, then by definition S does not belong to S. If S does not belong to S, then S must belong to S. Contradiction.


---

This makes it perhaps most clear: "If a barber shaves all those who do not themselves shave, does he shave himself?"

---

If I'm still not clear enough, I bet you can find loads of better descriptions of the net - google.

Latest

Trending

Trending