No it really isn't
Original post by Mo_Jo.
Is it possible to get 7A*'s with no revision????
Depending on your quick witted mindset and confidence with your subjects, really- I'm not sure how you mean. Do you feel like you could? Why aren't you revising, out of interest?
Unless you're Him, then I doubt it.
How about you try it Mo? Experiment it and let us know how it goes <3
How about you try it Mo? Experiment it and let us know how it goes <3
Original post by Jalal Uddin
Unless you're Him, then I doubt it.
How about you try it Mo? Experiment it and let us know how it goes <3
How about you try it Mo? Experiment it and let us know how it goes <3
Ah yes Jalal
Tis all general knowledge
Original post by Mo_Jo.
Ah yes Jalal
Tis all general knowledge
Tis all general knowledge
Standard mate
i lol'd at this, obv not an a* you could get a c if you're lucky, just kidding, it's not set in stone, everyone has different abilities, if you're able to retain information that you learn in class for the next few months, then, well you're lucky, if not, you'll probably get a C or a D, unless you're super smart.
With very little, yes, of course. It just depends on how naturally intelligent you are.
Yep. I know a few people that did so for their mocks. I did too and got that.
However, for that to work, you have to have worked properly for the last 2 years of school. So that means revising for every end of topic test, doing all your homework, listening and learning in class, and making notes. It won't be possible if you haven't.
If you've done all that and you're confident you know the syllabus like the back of your hand, go for it.
It should be noted that this isn't really feasible in subjects like history.
However, for that to work, you have to have worked properly for the last 2 years of school. So that means revising for every end of topic test, doing all your homework, listening and learning in class, and making notes. It won't be possible if you haven't.
If you've done all that and you're confident you know the syllabus like the back of your hand, go for it.
It should be noted that this isn't really feasible in subjects like history.
It's possible to get this in English Language, Maths and French but for most other subjects there is lots of stuff you just need to remind yourself of or otherwise you won't be able to get higher than B unless you're really intelligent. I am not revising for Maths and French except for the day before the exam.
Original post by WanderingWorrier
Yep. I know a few people that did so for their mocks. I did too and got that.
However, for that to work, you have to have worked properly for the last 2 years of school. So that means revising for every end of topic test, doing all your homework, listening and learning in class, and making notes. It won't be possible if you haven't.
If you've done all that and you're confident you know the syllabus like the back of your hand, go for it.
It should be noted that this isn't really feasible in subjects like history.
However, for that to work, you have to have worked properly for the last 2 years of school. So that means revising for every end of topic test, doing all your homework, listening and learning in class, and making notes. It won't be possible if you haven't.
If you've done all that and you're confident you know the syllabus like the back of your hand, go for it.
It should be noted that this isn't really feasible in subjects like history.
Pretty much this. Most people's idea of 'revision' is essentially going back and learning/relearning stuff they didn't do thoroughly enough the first time around in class. If you make sure to absolutely nail everything in class when you first cover it then you may be able to get away with little to no revision.
Far better, though, to be on the safe side and do some anyway so you're doubly covered. And to be honest, in my experience the people that wonder whether they can get away with doing no revision are often the ones that didn't do much work in class either, so are probably the least likely to actually pull it off.
Yep, but not everyone can do it.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by AlphaNick
did you just say 'intelligent'??!
there is no such thing as intelligence, we are all humans and we all have the same-size brains.
what makes us appear intelligent is: efficiency, dedication and memory - all of which can be earned/augmented through hard work.
it isn't as if a select group of 10% of humans are naturally better - they just have had more coverage within those three categories.
there is no such thing as intelligence, we are all humans and we all have the same-size brains.
what makes us appear intelligent is: efficiency, dedication and memory - all of which can be earned/augmented through hard work.
it isn't as if a select group of 10% of humans are naturally better - they just have had more coverage within those three categories.
Please, make me laugh some more.
Original post by AlphaNick
did you just say 'intelligent'??!
there is no such thing as intelligence, we are all humans and we all have the same-size brains.
what makes us appear intelligent is: efficiency, dedication and memory - all of which can be earned/augmented through hard work.
it isn't as if a select group of 10% of humans are naturally better - they just have had more coverage within those three categories.
there is no such thing as intelligence, we are all humans and we all have the same-size brains.
what makes us appear intelligent is: efficiency, dedication and memory - all of which can be earned/augmented through hard work.
it isn't as if a select group of 10% of humans are naturally better - they just have had more coverage within those three categories.
You must be joking, are you honestly saying that with hard work, everyone can achieve the same grades? It's just a fact that some have the natural ability to understand and cope with subjects far better than others. It's the way we are - for example someone can put minimal 'hard work' in and achieve 9 or 10 A*s because they have the natural intelligence to do this, whereas someone else can work as hard as they want, and get C's and D's.
I'm an intelligent person - intelligent enough that I'll be starting at LSE this September. (Not cocky, relevant)
I thought I could wing it - I ended up with 2A*, 1B, and 1C. That's it. I was predicted 11 A/A*.
So no. Don't wing it.
I thought I could wing it - I ended up with 2A*, 1B, and 1C. That's it. I was predicted 11 A/A*.
So no. Don't wing it.
I agree with what you have said for the most part Alpha, as at some points I have took that view, yet looking at some people, there does seem to be a fair intelligence factor in subjects such as Science (although this could be memorised, especially in things such as chemistry, where repeated content comes up alot through past papers).
People find their nichés in things, and thus it's not just about memory.
I see people who struggle to understand scientific principles, and takes them longer to learn things, and thus struggle more, and some who seem to take well to scientific principles, and learn easily.
The same applies to maths, some may understand and learn quickly, thus getting a good grade with ease (with some sort of influence playing a role, whether that be in upbringing or heretic), but some may not - but like you say - with enough work they may be capable to achieve an A*- (i.e. I don't need to know what Sin, Cos and Tan mean to do secondary school trig, I don't need to know that they are trigonometric rations to plug them into equations if, I memorise the rules - thus you could still end up with a good grade with hard work).
BUT- even though both are capable of an A* grade, the student who learns and understands quickly is more likely to, with little work.
It's unfair to say both were in the same boat to achieve their grades.
My point is, learning isn't a linear thing, it's dependent upon the person. Sure, you can memorise GCSE chemistry, but people who are naturally inclined are going to have an easier time getting an A*. It's not a case of "everyone puts extra commitment, everyone gets an A*", at least in my opinion.
EDIT: You say there is no such thing as intelligence, but wouldn't you agree people's performance can be influenced by (even if you disagree with heretic/natural influences) upbringing and experience. If my parents were scientists (they're far from) and I was brought up in that environment, and I was good at science, people may assume that was something to to with it.
Intelligence is made evident by performance, so my hypothetical good performance in science must mean that I am more intelligent in science, and thus intelligence exists.
People find their nichés in things, and thus it's not just about memory.
I see people who struggle to understand scientific principles, and takes them longer to learn things, and thus struggle more, and some who seem to take well to scientific principles, and learn easily.
The same applies to maths, some may understand and learn quickly, thus getting a good grade with ease (with some sort of influence playing a role, whether that be in upbringing or heretic), but some may not - but like you say - with enough work they may be capable to achieve an A*- (i.e. I don't need to know what Sin, Cos and Tan mean to do secondary school trig, I don't need to know that they are trigonometric rations to plug them into equations if, I memorise the rules - thus you could still end up with a good grade with hard work).
BUT- even though both are capable of an A* grade, the student who learns and understands quickly is more likely to, with little work.
It's unfair to say both were in the same boat to achieve their grades.
My point is, learning isn't a linear thing, it's dependent upon the person. Sure, you can memorise GCSE chemistry, but people who are naturally inclined are going to have an easier time getting an A*. It's not a case of "everyone puts extra commitment, everyone gets an A*", at least in my opinion.
EDIT: You say there is no such thing as intelligence, but wouldn't you agree people's performance can be influenced by (even if you disagree with heretic/natural influences) upbringing and experience. If my parents were scientists (they're far from) and I was brought up in that environment, and I was good at science, people may assume that was something to to with it.
Intelligence is made evident by performance, so my hypothetical good performance in science must mean that I am more intelligent in science, and thus intelligence exists.
(edited 10 years ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Module 6 question biology
- Working Class / Left wing football clubs?
- Bones Vs Boneless Wings
- St Marys Durham Boughton Wing?
- Heard a noise driving passing cars?
- Realism 30 marker Help - sociology ALEVEL
- Lee Anderson defects to reform
- Wadham College Reputation
- A level physics
- Is this a appropriate EPQ?
- Tenancy take over in Cardiff
- University of Sheffield - Right-Wing Students 🇬🇧
- CFD results, can somebody help
- Cardiff accomodation
- Germany: Marches against the far right draw over 200,000
- Force Diagram (A2 Edexcel)
- feedback on my poem?
- Law with french law interview at oxford
- Work Experience With F1 teams
- What's the vibe like at Bristol or Birmingham
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
went from 3s to 9s with (literally) night before revision - ask me anythingGCSEs
59
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
went from 3s to 9s with (literally) night before revision - ask me anythingGCSEs
59
