The Student Room Group

motivation for a levels

please give me motivation to revise!! i've left it way too late, i take 3 essay subjects (rs, history and politics) and theres so much that i don't know. i haven't even started looking at rs and politics and the first exam is in 5 weeks for politics and i'm so scared of not doing well. i need an A* in politics or rs since i'm not sure if i can get one in history, i'm aiming for an A in history but i rushed my coursework so i don't know how well i'll do in that.

any advice would be much appreciated as i really need these grades but just lack the work ethic to study for them
Original post by stacey12809
please give me motivation to revise!! i've left it way too late, i take 3 essay subjects (rs, history and politics) and theres so much that i don't know. i haven't even started looking at rs and politics and the first exam is in 5 weeks for politics and i'm so scared of not doing well. i need an A* in politics or rs since i'm not sure if i can get one in history, i'm aiming for an A in history but i rushed my coursework so i don't know how well i'll do in that.

any advice would be much appreciated as i really need these grades but just lack the work ethic to study for them

I hate to correct you, but you're not "so scared of not doing well". Fear is a tremendous motivator. That you are not motivated suggests that you are not scared of your exams going poorly. In the back of your mind, you think you'll somehow manage to scrape through. And that (false) expectation is what's stopping you from studying. (Perhaps you managed to get decent GCSE grades without doing as much revision as you really should have, and that learned experience is holding you back?)

What grades does you insurance uni need? Do you know where your course was in Clearing in prior years? Which of those unis do you think you might apply to (via Clearing) on results day?

Spoiler

Original post by DataVenia
I hate to correct you, but you're not "so scared of not doing well". Fear is a tremendous motivator. That you are not motivated suggests that you are not scared of your exams going poorly. In the back of your mind, you think you'll somehow manage to scrape through. And that (false) expectation is what's stopping you from studying. (Perhaps you managed to get decent GCSE grades without doing as much revision as you really should have, and that learned experience is holding you back?)
What grades does you insurance uni need? Do you know where your course was in Clearing in prior years? Which of those unis do you think you might apply to (via Clearing) on results day?

Spoiler


thank you this did help! and yeah i managed to get pretty decent grades in my gcses with only revising the night before and i fear that that mindset has stayed with me up until my a levels, so now i don't actually know how to revise without cramming in a short period of time. i need A*AA and my insurance is AAA😭 (i thought my insurance would be AAB but i only found out after i got that offer that the AAB only applies if i firm it which i did not do). i'm going back to school tomorrow so i'll try and stick to a good schedule and hopefully i can get all my revision done in time
Original post by stacey12809
please give me motivation to revise!! i've left it way too late, i take 3 essay subjects (rs, history and politics) and theres so much that i don't know. i haven't even started looking at rs and politics and the first exam is in 5 weeks for politics and i'm so scared of not doing well. i need an A* in politics or rs since i'm not sure if i can get one in history, i'm aiming for an A in history but i rushed my coursework so i don't know how well i'll do in that.
any advice would be much appreciated as i really need these grades but just lack the work ethic to study for them

I got an A ( couple marks off an A*) in rs
(edited 1 month ago)
Reply 4
Original post by simrankc26
I got an A ( couple marks off an A*) in rs

Stop trying to get girls to email you.Reported.
(edited 1 month ago)
Reply 5
Original post by stacey12809
please give me motivation to revise!! i've left it way too late, i take 3 essay subjects (rs, history and politics) and theres so much that i don't know. i haven't even started looking at rs and politics and the first exam is in 5 weeks for politics and i'm so scared of not doing well. i need an A* in politics or rs since i'm not sure if i can get one in history, i'm aiming for an A in history but i rushed my coursework so i don't know how well i'll do in that.
any advice would be much appreciated as i really need these grades but just lack the work ethic to study for them

Talk to your friends about what techniques they are using I used to rewrite summaries of my notes and use flash cards but there are many techniques.Short term pain for long term gain also helped me get stuck in.
Reply 6
Original post by DataVenia
I hate to correct you, but you're not "so scared of not doing well". Fear is a tremendous motivator. That you are not motivated suggests that you are not scared of your exams going poorly. In the back of your mind, you think you'll somehow manage to scrape through. And that (false) expectation is what's stopping you from studying. (Perhaps you managed to get decent GCSE grades without doing as much revision as you really should have, and that learned experience is holding you back?)
What grades does you insurance uni need? Do you know where your course was in Clearing in prior years? Which of those unis do you think you might apply to (via Clearing) on results day?

Spoiler


That really just set me up for a reality check lol...:groovy:
Original post by Scotney
Stop trying to get girls to email you.Reported.

I am a girl? I'm a uni student and I help tutor for Rs, french and Spanish? I'm not 'tryna get girls to email me' - I just make money off selling my old notes cuz I sat my A Levels in 2022? ur acc tapped
Original post by stacey12809
please give me motivation to revise!! i've left it way too late, i take 3 essay subjects (rs, history and politics) and theres so much that i don't know. i haven't even started looking at rs and politics and the first exam is in 5 weeks for politics and i'm so scared of not doing well. i need an A* in politics or rs since i'm not sure if i can get one in history, i'm aiming for an A in history but i rushed my coursework so i don't know how well i'll do in that.
any advice would be much appreciated as i really need these grades but just lack the work ethic to study for them
Hey there 😀

In my case, often, motivation weakens because I am unsure where to begin, how to start, what tasks to tackle, and how much time they will consume. Research indicates that a strong schedule is vital for achieving goals successfully.

Therefore, I have introduced a study and revision routine to my life. Creating a feasible schedule has been pivotal in my exam success, significantly reducing stress associated with the fear of failure and meeting deadlines. In my opinion, setting achievable goals is the key to avoiding overwhelming discouragement from overestimating one's capabilities.

So how do I do that? The first crucial step in my exam preparation involves crafting a schedule that keeps me on course and accommodates long enough breaks and unexpected delays. To start, I immerse myself in familiarising with the exam content. Once I have pinpointed the topics to cover, I organise them into manageable chunks, allocating weeks or days based on the exam's scope and my available time. It is essential to ensure your plan includes ample breaks and leisure time, so you do not feel overwhelmed.

If you are looking for an effective study technique, bear in mind that everyone has unique learning preferences. It is advantageous to explore different methods to discover what suits you best. I typically begin by generating notes from the textbook. The act of writing aids in solidifying my understanding as I rewrite and rephrase the material. Once I have created the notes, I review them to reinforce retention and highlight key concepts.

Moreover, I integrate active learning techniques like online quizzes, solving past papers, or interacting with mock exercises. Another successful tactic involves creating sets of questions derived from the notes and subsequently answering them. This holistic learning method greatly enhances my memory and promotes better information retention.

I hope it was helpful 💪 Feel free to reach out if you have any questions 😉 You can also chat with me or other students directly through The Ambassador Platform.

Best of luck with your exams,

Julia
Psychology student
De Montfort University
Original post by Scotney
Stop trying to get girls to email you.Reported.

bet u feel like an utter **** now after seeing my private message - I went to a girls only school for 12 years why would I get 'girls to email me' - Just cuz I did well in my A Levels and am happy to pass on advice as I am literally TRAINING TO BE A TEACHER - so dumb
Original post by stacey12809
please give me motivation to revise!! i've left it way too late, i take 3 essay subjects (rs, history and politics) and theres so much that i don't know. i haven't even started looking at rs and politics and the first exam is in 5 weeks for politics and i'm so scared of not doing well. i need an A* in politics or rs since i'm not sure if i can get one in history, i'm aiming for an A in history but i rushed my coursework so i don't know how well i'll do in that.
any advice would be much appreciated as i really need these grades but just lack the work ethic to study for them

Hi, this is an example of an essay I did which got full marks for RS (assuming you're taking the OCR exam) - my advice is to revise essay plans per topic and revise key scholars and A01 and then your A02 marks come from counter arguing these scholars. Theres 2 approaches you can take to the exam -1. learn many points per essay/topic with a few counter arguments from scholars/ ur own thoughts, or 2. learn fewer points but have very detailed counter arguments - the way I got the most A02 marks was by providing counters to the counter arguments as it shows in depth analysis and examples of extra reading! Good luck!

Critically compare the logical and evidential aspects of the problem of evil as challenges to belief.

The logical aspects of the problem of evil demonstrate a priori that the God of Classical Theism cannot exist, whereas the evidential aspects examine the evidence of suffering. Both aspects challenge belief, leading Hans Küng to refer to them as “the rock of atheism”. The logical problem of evil convincingly argues that the existence of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God is logically inconsistent with the existence of evil. Thus, presenting a powerful challenge to belief in the God described by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Although Rowe presents a coherent argument for the evidential aspect of the problem of evil as a challenge to belief, Augustine’s theodicy is flawed. Allowing us to maintain the view that when compared with the evidential aspects of the problem of evil, the logical aspects pose greater challenges to belief.

The logical problem of evil poses a greater challenge to belief than the evidential aspects because the inconsistent triad demonstrates a priori that the God of Classical Theism cannot exist and therefore it is unnecessary to examine evidence of suffering. The inconsistent triad presents three premises: God is omnipotent, God is omnibenevolent, evil exists. But only two of the three premises can be true, as Epicurus argued.

It can be argued that due to the existence of both moral and natural evil, God cannot be omnipotent and therefore the God of Classical Theism doesn’t exist. If God is omnipotent, he can do anything logically possible, meaning that he could’ve created a world free from evil. Somme may try arguing that God created everyone with the potential to be good but some abuse their free will, leading to moral evil. However, if God is omnipotent, why didn’t he create beings that don’t abuse their free will? It could be argued that the answer is that free will would no longer exist. Plantinga presented the coherent argument that God can give free will but not control it as it would no longer be free will; freedom consists of not being controlled. Thus, God has created an epistemic distance between us and him, allowing us to exercise our free will. However, if this is the case, why doesn’t God create a world with all the people who choose not to abuse their free will? One may argue that God isn’t able to guarantee the outcome he most desires, however, he can provide the circumstances for it to have the best outcome; omnipotent beings can’t do the logically impossible. However, there is an issue with defining omnipotence - our human finite minds cannot comprehend the meaning of omnipotent as we are not omnipotent ourselves, therefore its definition could be challenged. If the definition of omnipotent is a being that can do anything, we can therefore question whether God is omnipotent. By changing this definition, we can see that the logical problem of evil challenges belief in the God of Classical Theism as there is the possibility that he could’ve prevented evil.

Although it can be perceived that this challenge to belief is not strong enough because we humans cannot define omnipotence, the logical aspects of the problem of evil still pose a greater challenge to belief than the evidential aspects as it could still be argued that the God of Classical Theism cannot exist as he cannot be omnibenevolent. One could argue that God is not all-loving, as if he was, he would’ve loved and cared for his creation enough to want to prevent its suffering. The only way the God of Classical Theism could still exist whilst evil did, is if he had a valid reason. Irenaeus presented his ‘soul-making’ theodicy, which meant that God created imperfect humans, giving us the chance to develop and grow through a soul-making process into the children of God. Arguably, soul-making does not justify the amount of evil in the world as fewer evil things could’ve occurred. Mackie convincingly suggested that God could’ve limited the amount of evil that humans inflict, for example, hurting people but not organising genocide. Therefore, one may argue that if the God of Classical Theism allowed for this amount of evil to occur, he is not worthy of worship. Overall proving that the logical aspects of the problem of evil alone present a strong challenge to belief without the need for evidential aspects.

Some may attempt to argue that the evidential problem of evil poses the greatest challenge to belief, as both the extent of evil that exists and the existence of innocent suffering suggest that any God which permits this isn’t worthy of worship. William Rowe presented his coherent evidential argument for evil which provides reasons for atheism. His argument follows the premises: 1. Instances of intense suffering exist, which an omnipotent, omniscient being could have prevented without losing some greater good. 2. An omniscient, wholly good being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could, unless it could not do so without losing some greater good. 3. There does not exist an omnipotent, omniscient, wholly good being. Rowe convincingly believed that this argument is valid and therefore, if we have rational grounds for accepting its premises, we have rational grounds for accepting atheism.

To support his argument, Rowe used the example of a dying fawn in a forest fire. Such suffering seems preventable and pointless, suggesting premise 1 is true. This argument put forward by Rowe is well supported and plausible as the fawn’s death can be perceived as being both short-term and inconsequential. However, we do not know God as our human finite minds cannot comprehend him, thus we can never know if premise 1 is true, meaning that although we have rational grounds to accept that it is, this renders Rowe’s evidential argument as weak when challenging the belief in the God of Classical Theism. Rowe logically asked whether it was reasonable to believe that there exists a greater good so closely connected to that suffering, that even an omnipotent, omniscient being couldn’t have obtained that good without allowing that suffering; he believed this to be unreasonable.

One may argue that God created moral evil to allow for other greater things to take place. For example, Hick’s Irenean inspired theodicy argued that virtues such as courage and compassion cannot be ready-made, but they can be developed through choices made in instances of suffering. But we can only make these choices because of free will. Although this free will allows moral evil to occur as humans can abuse it, it also allows for humans to freely choose their love for God which is more valuable than if it was forced upon us. For example, Jesus, fully God and fully man, lived where evil existed, and yet loved God, proving that the evidential aspects of the problem of moral evil do not always succeed in challenging belief and are therefore less successful in challenging belief. Similarly, Hick’s argument proves that suffering is a necessary result of genuine freedom, deeming the evidential problem of evil as weaker than the logical one.

Augustine’s theodicy in response to the evidential aspects is even less convincing regarding natural evil. He blamed it on the Fall of the Angels, including Lucifer, which caused an imbalance in nature, leading to natural disasters, like tsunamis. This seems alien to modern thinking as we would blame tsunamis on the movement of tectonic plates, for example. Augustine’s theodicy is flawed for both moral and natural evil, allowing us to identify problems with the evidential aspects to the problem of evil. Therefore, the logical aspects of the problem of evil pose greater challenges to belief than the evidential problem of evil.

To conclude, the logical aspects of the problem of evil clearly pose greater challenges to belief than the evidential aspects. The inconsistent triad successfully demonstrates a priori that the God of Classical Theism cannot exist, making it unnecessary to examine evidence of suffering. Hick’s Irenean inspired theodicy is enough to prove that suffering is a necessary result of genuine freedom, therefore proving flaws in Rowe’s evidential argument. Furthermore, Augustine’s theodicy for the evidential aspects of evil is unsuccessful for natural evil.

Quick Reply

Latest