Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Hi all,
    Just an idea I had for everyone preparing for the BMAT..practising sections 1 and 2 is something I believe is easier than practising section 3, simply because you just look at the answers to mark your work. Reviewing and grading the section 3 essay is something not so straightforward because there is no definitive 'answer' as it were. So I set up this thread with the hope that everyone can post their section 3 essays for the rest of TSR to comment on and grade. It would be a triple whammy - the writers would get feedback, the markers would improve their own writing skills, and it would get us all thinking about information (e.g. ethics) that we might need for this section.

    I know it's slightly early days as far as the BMAT is concerned but if anyone wants to kick this thread off with an essay, I know I would love to have a look.

    Thanks all,
    AJ
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hmmm.... Quite possibly the best idea ever.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Well if anyone wants to start it off..?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Well if no one wants to give it a shot, I'll start it off. Bare in mind that the marking criteria can be found at:

    http://www.admissionstests.cambridge...ria_2010v2.pdf

    Here goes:


    “Doctors should always maintain patient confidentiality and act with probity.”
    Explain what is meant by the above statement. Why might probity be important in a good doctor? Under what circumstances might an honest doctor be justified in revealing patient details in the course of their professional practice?


    The statement in question that doctors “should always maintain patient confidentiality and act with probity” is representative of a professional duty under the GMC. It means the doctor has no right to disclose their patient’s personal or medical information to any other party without the patient’s permission. It also implies the doctor should act with integrity and honesty, avoiding lying to the patient or being dishonest about their condition or any treatment.

    Probity is a very important quality of any good doctor. Being honest is morally, ethically and professionally right. A dishonest doctor could, for instance, succeed in steering a patient towards a particular treatment simply through his words. This situation goes against patient autonomy – a key pillar of ethics. This is not good practice and not the best course of action for the patient. Furthermore, a lock of probity could result in a treatment the patient does not want or that isn’t most effective. A good doctor would always be honest as being dishonest in this way has legal implications, and if the patient is unwillingly treated, then the doctor is liable to face charges of battery. Thirdly, acting honestly at all times improves the doctor’s relationship with his patient. In this way a good, honest doctor could improve treatment, as the patient would be more willing to disclose personal information that could be key for treatment. For example, a nervous teenager might be unwilling to reveal a drug or alcohol history to a doctor who appears untrustworthy. Not having such information would no doubt vastly alter the doctor’s diagnosis in this instance. In addition, a lack of honesty and mistrust may well lead patients to look elsewhere for treatment or, indeed, abandon their treatment altogether. This situation would greatly disadvantage the patient, who would continue to live without treatment and potentially face complications as a result.

    A good, honest doctor should breach patient confidentiality in some situations. Primarily this is because the doctor believes the lives of others are in danger. If the patient leads the doctor to believe the patient is a member of a terrorist cell, then disclosing this to the police would be generally acceptable. In addition, if the doctor suspects the lives of the patient’s family or friends are in threat of harm, then altering the police would also be allowable. A third example, similar the previous two, is if the patient is diagnosed with a contagious and dangerous disease that could easily have affected those around the patient before hospital admission. In this case, the relevant authorities would have to be told so they can inform potential infectees and further action can be taken to both treat them and prevent pathogen spread. Admittedly, there are only a few, rare situations when an honest doctor should breach patient confidentiality, but it is necessary sometimes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have an essay, and I would greatly appreciate it if I got some criticism :

    Progress must always be welcomed.

    Write a unified essay in which you address the following:

    Define 'progress' in an objective way. Explain why it could be argued that progress, as you have defined it, might not always be welcomed. Discuss, giving examples, the circumstances that influence whether or not progress should be welcomed.


    Essay:

    Progress can be defined as the ascension from a state of relative ignorance into one of higher awareness, as applied to a field of scientific, philosophical, technological or religious interest. However, in the broadest sense of the word, progress can be seen as anything's advancement in its path of development.
    Such as the physiological and pathological processes that play out in bringing about terminal cancer. It can be argued that this type of progress which would entail the sufferer's demise, would not be welcomed. Conversely, on the onset of the disease, if the patient's suffering had reached a point where toleration was futile, the progression of the disease to the patient's life may indeed be welcomed. So it is important to recognise the differing attitudes to certain types of progress over time.
    Had Einstein known that his huge scientific breakthrough of E = mc2, which outlines today, the fundamentals of the laws governing the way our universe functions, thus proving to be a valuable contribution to our knowledge, (?) had culminated in the production of the atom bomb, and the consequent devastation that ensued, history as we know it may have been written very differently indeed. Therefore, in essence, any progress that compromises the safety, health, or rights of any individual, should not be welcomed.
    As was the case of British biophysicist and X-ray crystallographer, Rosalind Franklin whose pioneering work on DNA, came at the cost of her developing ovarian cancer, and losing her life at the age of 37. The essential progress in an area of science and medicine that produced the completion of the Human Genome Project, had essentially also taken a life. What remains to be said is can human life ever be sacrificed in the name of science?

    I think it might be too short?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AJ2895)
    Well if no one wants to give it a shot, I'll start it off. Bare in mind that the marking criteria can be found at:

    http://www.admissionstests.cambridge...ria_2010v2.pdf

    Here goes:


    “Doctors should always maintain patient confidentiality and act with probity.”
    Explain what is meant by the above statement. Why might probity be important in a good doctor? Under what circumstances might an honest doctor be justified in revealing patient details in the course of their professional practice?


    The statement in question that doctors “should always maintain patient confidentiality and act with probity” is representative of a professional duty under the GMC. It means the doctor has no right to disclose their patient’s personal or medical information to any other party without the patient’s permission. It also implies the doctor should act with integrity and honesty, avoiding lying to the patient or being dishonest about their condition or any treatment.

    Probity is a very important quality of any good doctor. Being honest is morally, ethically and professionally right. A dishonest doctor could, for instance, succeed in steering a patient towards a particular treatment simply through his words. This situation goes against patient autonomy – a key pillar of ethics. This is not good practice and not the best course of action for the patient. Furthermore, a lock of probity could result in a treatment the patient does not want or that isn’t most effective. A good doctor would always be honest as being dishonest in this way has legal implications, and if the patient is unwillingly treated, then the doctor is liable to face charges of battery. Thirdly, acting honestly at all times improves the doctor’s relationship with his patient. In this way a good, honest doctor could improve treatment, as the patient would be more willing to disclose personal information that could be key for treatment. For example, a nervous teenager might be unwilling to reveal a drug or alcohol history to a doctor who appears untrustworthy. Not having such information would no doubt vastly alter the doctor’s diagnosis in this instance. In addition, a lack of honesty and mistrust may well lead patients to look elsewhere for treatment or, indeed, abandon their treatment altogether. This situation would greatly disadvantage the patient, who would continue to live without treatment and potentially face complications as a result.

    A good, honest doctor should breach patient confidentiality in some situations. Primarily this is because the doctor believes the lives of others are in danger. If the patient leads the doctor to believe the patient is a member of a terrorist cell, then disclosing this to the police would be generally acceptable. In addition, if the doctor suspects the lives of the patient’s family or friends are in threat of harm, then altering the police would also be allowable. A third example, similar the previous two, is if the patient is diagnosed with a contagious and dangerous disease that could easily have affected those around the patient before hospital admission. In this case, the relevant authorities would have to be told so they can inform potential infectees and further action can be taken to both treat them and prevent pathogen spread. Admittedly, there are only a few, rare situations when an honest doctor should breach patient confidentiality, but it is necessary sometimes.
    The marking criteria isn't available at this moment in time so I will wing it.

    My main criticism with this essay is that I don't feel you really presented an argument. It felt like you we're informing the reader on the topics. I also think you need a conclusion.

    On the grammar front I think I only spotted one mistake and that looked like a typo.

    So I would probably give you a score of : 3.5B

    Take what I say with a pinch of salt because it was only based on a quick read on my phone. I just thought you deserved an opinion.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by aristotleismydad)
    I have an essay, and I would greatly appreciate it if I got some criticism :

    Progress must always be welcomed.

    Write a unified essay in which you address the following:

    Define 'progress' in an objective way. Explain why it could be argued that progress, as you have defined it, might not always be welcomed. Discuss, giving examples, the circumstances that influence whether or not progress should be welcomed.


    Essay:

    Progress can be defined as the ascension from a state of relative ignorance into one of higher awareness, as applied to a field of scientific, philosophical, technological or religious interest. However, in the broadest sense of the word, progress can be seen as anything's advancement in its path of development.
    Such as the physiological and pathological processes that play out in bringing about terminal cancer. It can be argued that this type of progress which would entail the sufferer's demise, would not be welcomed. Conversely, on the onset of the disease, if the patient's suffering had reached a point where toleration was futile, the progression of the disease to the patient's life may indeed be welcomed. So it is important to recognise the differing attitudes to certain types of progress over time.
    Had Einstein known that his huge scientific breakthrough of E = mc2, which outlines today, the fundamentals of the laws governing the way our universe functions, thus proving to be a valuable contribution to our knowledge, (?) had culminated in the production of the atom bomb, and the consequent devastation that ensued, history as we know it may have been written very differently indeed. Therefore, in essence, any progress that compromises the safety, health, or rights of any individual, should not be welcomed.
    As was the case of British biophysicist and X-ray crystallographer, Rosalind Franklin whose pioneering work on DNA, came at the cost of her developing ovarian cancer, and losing her life at the age of 37. The essential progress in an area of science and medicine that produced the completion of the Human Genome Project, had essentially also taken a life. What remains to be said is can human life ever be sacrificed in the name of science?

    I think it might be too short?
    The arguments you are making are good. They feel a bit one sided though, so you could provide more arguments for the other side. I also feel a short conclusion would have added a bit more value to your essay.

    On the grammar front I think your vocabulary was very good as well as your spelling. I am not sure about your use of commas though.

    I think I would give a 4.0B


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi guys, would any of you be ever so kind as to take a read of this and mark it for me? Thanks in advance.

    A scientific man must have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone. -Charles Darwin


    Describe what this means. Argue for this and against


    Darwin is referring to the lack of emotion and the accurate nature of the scientific method. One does not need to have emotion or wishes as they will merely convolute or influence the accuracy and nature of a precise scientific experiment. Accuracy is what distinguishes science from philosophy, scientists employ the use of empirical evidence to support their findings. Wishes are unnecessary in science as the may obscure your rational view of an experiment or the results of one. Wishes and affections greatly influence a human's behaviour and hence, his or her rationality. A decrease in rationality flaws an experiment. Science is, and must be, rational, therefore, one must be completely rational while conducting an experiment or simply executing anything of a scientific nature. Commitment is also a prerequisite to be a successful scientist, emotions obscure ones view of commitment and cause one to become distracted from the task at present, thereby flawing the accuracy of the task.


    Conversely, one can argue that wishes and affections are a vital component of the scientific method. One requires a dedication, love for his/her chosen subject, the desire to see the necessary experiments through to completion, the desire to see your work published and recognized or, preferably, out of sheer love for your chosen science. The statement by Darwin is slightly oxymoronic, as if you are "a scientific man" you have a love, an affection for science, so in a sense, an affection and wish to conduct experiments and contribute to science is necessary to do science itself. Affections are powerful mechanisms that can enable one to spend many hours rationalizing that final equation or simply flawing ever step of an experiment.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi, this is my essay if anyone would care to have a look at it?
    Cheers!!

    3: “A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections – a mere heart of stone”

    Explain what this statement means. Argue that scientific enquiry benefits from personal wishes and affections. To what extent do you think a scientist should have “a mere heart of stone”?

    The statement implies that those studying science are emotionless with regards to their work and should in fact distance their wishes and affections from their study. It suggests that involving emotions with your work can be of detriment to those whose main is the pursuit of justification; it details that perhaps having these characteristics could impede the scientific they carry out.

    Some may believe that these characteristics could be barriers to a scientific man who aims to seek answers to scientific questions, as perhaps by having these qualities their judgement, which is integral to scientific study, could haze scientists’ judgements. However, without these very characteristics, surely science would not exist? Human nature clearly evokes the need to seek the reasons underpinning our existence and the world around us. Surely without our wishes and affections, there would be no driving force underpinning our desire to understand. Consequently, the study all things, not just science, would not exist as our notion to study is inextricably linked to our desire for knowledge. The quest for knowledge transcends from our humanistic wish to understand.

    In addition to this, it could be postulated that in fact affection is required by a scientific man as although their primary aim is to understand, our scientific advancement is constrained by our own ethical parameters. Alan Coleman, the prolific creator of the Dolly the Sheep has described his dilemma when creating her. Although, he knew that the work he was doing would perhaps help meet unmet medical needs he detailed that he is in fact against human cloning. This is a clear example of the dilemma and the acknowledgement required as a scientific man to understand the consequences of their work. Although we could say that scientific advancement may be hindered by our ethics, it is perhaps these very ethics which redirect us to the science we should pursue: science which can benefit humanity in a positive manner.

    However, admittedly within science there exists a facet which requires absolute removal of our wishes and affections which is in the context of experiments. Our wishes and affections could influence experiments and therefore could and render invalid the interpretations of these experiments, which would be detrimental in our aim to dispel our own ignorance. Science is wholly based on empirical science and the intermingling of our wishes and affections could be of detriment to our understanding. This would undermine a scientist’s role to discover answers and instead, delay our ascent to greater knowledge. The empirical nature which science is wholly base upon leaves no margin for errors which our wishes and affections could impinge on.

    In conclusion, affection and wishes are required in abundance as these are the very characteristics which initially fuel our desire inquire into the world around us, without this we would not possess the drive to dispel our ignorance and deepen our understanding. However, our wishes and affections should be controlled to a degree to prevent these negatively affecting our aim to understand. Instead, it needs to be constrained in certain environments in order for the science that a scientific man preaches, to be rendered valid.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lricketts)
    x
    That is a very long essay. Are you sure you can fit all of that in one side of A4?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KerryMan)
    Hi guys, would any of you be ever so kind as to take a read of this and mark it for me? Thanks in advance.

    A scientific man must have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone. -Charles Darwin


    Describe what this means. Argue for this and against


    Darwin is referring to the lack of emotion and the accurate nature of the scientific method. One does not need to have emotion or wishes as they will merely convolute or influence the accuracy and nature of a precise scientific experiment. Accuracy is what distinguishes science from philosophy, scientists employ the use of empirical evidence to support their findings. Wishes are unnecessary in science as the may obscure your rational view of an experiment or the results of one. Wishes and affections greatly influence a human's behaviour and hence, his or her rationality. A decrease in rationality flaws an experiment. Science is, and must be, rational, therefore, one must be completely rational while conducting an experiment or simply executing anything of a scientific nature. Commitment is also a prerequisite to be a successful scientist, emotions obscure ones view of commitment and cause one to become distracted from the task at present, thereby flawing the accuracy of the task.


    Conversely, one can argue that wishes and affections are a vital component of the scientific method. One requires a dedication, love for his/her chosen subject, the desire to see the necessary experiments through to completion, the desire to see your work published and recognized or, preferably, out of sheer love for your chosen science. The statement by Darwin is slightly oxymoronic, as if you are "a scientific man" you have a love, an affection for science, so in a sense, an affection and wish to conduct experiments and contribute to science is necessary to do science itself. Affections are powerful mechanisms that can enable one to spend many hours rationalizing that final equation or simply flawing ever step of an experiment.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    I'll be a moment, just having a look through it now, would be happy to help you with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ketchup'n'Mustard)
    That is a very long essay. Are you sure you can fit all of that in one side of A4?
    Yeah! I have smallish writing which is quite beneficial! Haha
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KerryMan)
    A scientific man must have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone. -Charles Darwin
    Describe what this means. Argue for this and against

    Darwin is referring to the lack of emotion and the accurate nature of the scientific method. One does not need to have emotion or wishes as they will merely convolute perhaps a different word would have worked here. Can you 'complicate' the accuracy, or the other meaning of convolute is to fold or coil intricately - that's more of a technical word. I get the impression you meant it can distort your results, influence is a good word to use though. or influence the accuracy and nature of a precise scientific experiment. Accuracy is what distinguishes science from philosophy, is it? you can have accurate philosophies? Not all scientific findings are 'accurate'. What you mean is that we need scientific methods to be reliable if we are to come to valid and accurate conclusions scientists employ the use of empirical evidence to support their findings. I agree with this though. Wishes are unnecessary in science as they may obscure your rational view of an experiment or the results of one. Wishes and affections greatly influence a human's behaviour and hence, his or her rationality. A decrease in rationality flaws an experiment. Science is, and must be, rational, therefore, one must be completely rational while conducting an experiment or simply executing anything of a scientific nature you repeat yourself. You'll find that there's simply no room on the essay to do this. Get to the point, then move on. Let it be succinct. Commitment is also a prerequisite to be a successful scientist, emotions obscure ones view of commitment and cause one to become distracted from the task at present, thereby flawing the accuracy of the task. Good point

    Conversely, one can argue that wishes and affections are a vital component of the scientific method. One requires a dedication, love for his/her chosen subject, the desire to see the necessary experiments through to completion, the desire to see your work published and recognized or, preferably, out of sheer love for your chosen science. I would have reworded this, it doesn't quite make sense. The statement by Darwin is slightly oxymoronic, as if you are "a scientific man" you have a love, an affection for science, so in a sense, an affection and wish to conduct experiments and contribute to science is necessary to do science itself. that's brilliant Affections are powerful mechanisms that can enable one to spend many hours rationalizing that final equation or simply flawing (what do you mean by flawing here?) every step of an experiment.
    I think you conclude on a very good point. You'll get into the higher scores with more unique arguments, so well done on that.

    I think that this essay would be better if there were a few more arguments. There seems to be one large general argument in the first paragraph, and a sentence long argument. A contrasting point in the second paragraph. And to conclude a qualified response. That's good. But I think you may have been able to fit more (different) ideas in this if you hadn't used so much space on the first paragraph.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KerryMan)
    Hi guys, would any of you be ever so kind as to take a read of this and mark it for me? Thanks in advance.

    A scientific man must have no wishes, no affections - a mere heart of stone. -Charles Darwin


    Describe what this means. Argue for this and against


    Darwin is referring to the lack of emotion and the accurate nature of the scientific method. One does not need to have emotion or wishes as they will merely convolute or influence the accuracy and nature of a precise scientific experiment. Accuracy is what distinguishes science from philosophy, scientists employ the use of empirical evidence to support their findings. Wishes are unnecessary in science as the may obscure your rational view of an experiment or the results of one. Wishes and affections greatly influence a human's behaviour and hence, his or her rationality. A decrease in rationality flaws an experiment. Science is, and must be, rational, therefore, one must be completely rational while conducting an experiment or simply executing anything of a scientific nature. Commitment is also a prerequisite to be a successful scientist, emotions obscure ones view of commitment and cause one to become distracted from the task at present, thereby flawing the accuracy of the task.


    Conversely, one can argue that wishes and affections are a vital component of the scientific method. One requires a dedication, love for his/her chosen subject, the desire to see the necessary experiments through to completion, the desire to see your work published and recognized or, preferably, out of sheer love for your chosen science. The statement by Darwin is slightly oxymoronic, as if you are "a scientific man" you have a love, an affection for science, so in a sense, an affection and wish to conduct experiments and contribute to science is necessary to do science itself. Affections are powerful mechanisms that can enable one to spend many hours rationalizing that final equation or simply flawing ever step of an experiment.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    I'd give your essay 3-3.5B/A. It is well-written, with some poor choice of words, hence the B/A. In your first paragraph, you discuss the importance of being rational and keeping emotions out of science. In the second paragraph, you discuss how emotions could be beneficial for scientific research. These are both strong and relevant.

    Nevertheless, I feel like your essay is lacking a discussion on how emotions could influence scientific research in a negative way as a form of arguing for the statement and here, you could have brought up an example or two to strengthen your ideas. There have been several cases of scientists manipulating their evidence to suit their hypothesis better - they are undoubtedly driven by emotion.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lricketts)
    Hi, this is my essay if anyone would care to have a look at it?
    Cheers!!
    ...
    I'll have a look through that too.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lricketts)
    Hi, this is my essay if anyone would care to have a look at it?
    Cheers!!

    3: “A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections – a mere heart of stone”

    Explain what this statement means. Argue that scientific enquiry benefits from personal wishes and affections. To what extent do you think a scientist should have “a mere heart of stone”?

    The statement implies that those studying science are emotionless with regards to their work and should in fact distance their wishes and affections from their study. It suggests that involving emotions with your work can be of detriment to those whose main did you miss a word out here? is the pursuit of justification; it details that perhaps having these characteristics could impede the scientific (scientific is an adjective) they carry out.

    Some may believe that these characteristics could be barriers to a scientific man who aims to seek answers to scientific questions, as perhaps by having these qualities their judgement, which is integral to scientific study, could haze scientists’ judgements. You repeated the word judgement, I would reword this so that it makes better sense However, without these very characteristics, surely science would not exist? Human nature clearly evokes the need to seek the reasons underpinning our existence and the world around us. Surely without our wishes and affections, there would be no driving force underpinning our desire to understand. Consequently, as a consequence of what exactly? the study [of] all things, not just science, would not exist as our notion to study is inextricably linked to our desire for knowledge. The quest for knowledge transcends from our humanistic wish to understand. you've waffled, but not concluded with a point that we can use to answer the question

    In addition to this, it could be postulated that in fact affection is required by a scientific man as although their primary aim is to understand, our scientific advancement is constrained by our own ethical parameters. Alan Coleman, the prolific creator of the Dolly the Sheep has described his dilemma when creating her. Although, he knew that the work he was doing would perhaps help meet unmet medical needs he detailed that he is in fact against human cloning. This is a clear example of the dilemma and the acknowledgement required as a scientific man to understand the consequences of their work. Although we could say that scientific advancement may be hindered by our ethics, it is perhaps these very ethics which redirect us to the science we should pursue: science which can benefit humanity in a positive manner. an interesting point, well done

    However, admittedly within science there exists a facet which requires absolute removal of our wishes and affections which is in the context of experiments. Our wishes and affections could influence experiments and therefore could and render invalid the interpretations of these experiments, which would be detrimental in our aim to dispel our own ignorance. Science is wholly based on empirical science and the intermingling of our wishes and affections could be of detriment to our understanding. This would undermine a scientist’s role to discover answers and instead, delay our ascent to greater knowledge. The empirical nature which science is wholly based upon leaves no margin for errors which our wishes and affections could impinge infringe on. this sentence is a repeat of another sentence. I know it's difficult to round off a paragraph sometimes. Try not to waffle, you won't have room.

    In conclusion, affection and wishes are required in abundance as these are the very characteristics which initially fuel our desire to inquire into the world around us,[.] [W]without this we would not possess the drive to dispel our ignorance and deepen our understanding. However, our wishes and affections should be controlled to a degree to prevent these negatively affecting our aim to understand. Instead, it needs to be constrained in certain environments in order for the science that a scientific man preaches, perhaps a different word would work better here to be rendered valid.
    wow, this is very long. It's impressive if you can fit that on the paper. But short can be of a high quality too, think about that.

    Yep. I would say this is generally a good essay, both sides are addressed. Your paragraph about Dolly the Sheep is the strongest part.

    The essay would be a little more sophisticated if you could avoid repeating yourself. Or even saying something with too many sentences. Keep to the point. Your essay wouldn't need to be this long if you got to the point. You might even have had space to talk about other things.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If I were to remove the waffle, grammatical mistakes and refine it slightly, what mark would I be looking at?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    pushing beyond 4A methinks. Well done
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    *watches thread*

    Cracking idea, will contribute soon. Although I usually practice using pen and paper as it gives a more realistic idea for timing, but I will type some just for everyone's feedback
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Hey Guys selling these 2003-2011 exam papers on eBay, VERY Rare! Listed on eBay for auction

    Listing if anyones interested:
    http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/2008350615...84.m1555.l2649
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 31, 2017

1,090

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

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.