The Cambridge Chat Thread

OP

fumblewomble

I'm tired.

Ditto. And I've spent most of my day getting books out of libraries instead of reading them. And a crowd of people in togas came roaring past my window and the staircase mates are having another party in their room :banghead:

Reply 6482

Craghyrax

Yeh I don't really get this 'school' business. We're talking about sixth form schools right? I'm sure they must change the nature of how things work quite a bit. When I moved to England I went to the local, poor performing 6th form college, and you signed up for your courses and then went to the lectures for each paper and that was it! If you only did three subjects, like me, then that wasn't very much. Five hours of teaching for each. I think the extra annoying hour was something stupid like Key Skills :grumble:

Goodness knows what they find to fill up the time at schools. General Studies I suppose...? And four or five A levels? But then again, surely you'd be down to three again by A2?

I went to school in 6th year(but I was in Scotland, so it's slightly different).
Did 4 advanced highers, 5 periods a week for maths, 5 for mechanics, 7 for chemistry and physics, a few study periods. There's not all that much time.
And, loads of people do more than 3 a levels at A2, surely? From what I've seen of them, 5 seems fairly do-able, and it doesn't surprise me that some people do more, so it's easy to fill up the time.

Reply 6483

Scipio90

Slumpy

Presumably you mean F at the end there.
And ok, if you use or like that, clearly the and is redundant, but 'or' can mean one or the other, excluding the possibility of both.

Yeah,. have edited now.

I guess in everyday speech, "or" does often mean xor, but it's not as if "You need the permission of A or B" could possibly be interpreted as "if A and B both give permission, you cannot do it".

Reply 6484

OP

Slumpy

I went to school in 6th year(but I was in Scotland, so it's slightly different).
Did 4 advanced highers, 5 periods a week for maths, 5 for mechanics, 7 for chemistry and physics, a few study periods. There's not all that much time.
And, loads of people do more than 3 a levels at A2, surely? From what I've seen of them, 5 seems fairly do-able, and it doesn't surprise me that some people do more, so it's easy to fill up the time.

People at high performing schools often start with five and slim down to four, but I think that average places do four and then three.

And we never had 'study periods' which possibly explains things.

Reply 6485

Scipio90

Yeah,. have edited now.

I guess in everyday speech, "or" does often mean xor, but it's not as if "You need the permission of A or B" could possibly be interpreted as "if A and B both give permission, you cannot do it".

Yeah, but often it could be said something like: 'You can have chips, or mash', where clearly the implicit meaning is that you can't have both.

Craghyrax

People at high performing schools often start with five and slim down to four, but I think that average places do four and then three.

And we never had 'study periods' which possibly explains things.

Never understood that. Standard here is 5 highers, then varies a lot in 6th year, and highers are supposed to be harder than AS levels. I was under the impression a lot of schools do 5 AS levels now, but I don't really know.

Reply 6486

Slumpy

I went to school in 6th year(but I was in Scotland, so it's slightly different).
Did 4 advanced highers, 5 periods a week for maths, 5 for mechanics, 7 for chemistry and physics, a few study periods. There's not all that much time.
And, loads of people do more than 3 a levels at A2, surely? From what I've seen of them, 5 seems fairly do-able, and it doesn't surprise me that some people do more, so it's easy to fill up the time.

Depends on the subjects. I did four and worked incredibly hard, and definitely wouldn't have had time for a fifth. It was English Lit and History that took up all my time, Spanish and Maths were a bit of a doss :p:

Reply 6487

Zoedotdot

Depends on the subjects. I did four and worked incredibly hard, and definitely wouldn't have had time for a fifth. It was English Lit and History that took up all my time, Spanish and Maths were a bit of a doss :p:

Ah yes, sorry, I'm going from the sciences perspective, where I did 4, and really, hardly any work was required. Given what I'm told the comparative difficulties of A levels and Advanced highers are, this slightly worries me, but hey :p:

Reply 6488

OP

Zoedotdot

Depends on the subjects. I did four and worked incredibly hard, and definitely wouldn't have had time for a fifth. It was English Lit and History that took up all my time, Spanish and Maths were a bit of a doss :p:

Serious? I didn't do a scrap of work for English Literature. There wasn't anything to do! I just turnedup to lectures, read the four set texts (once) and wrote the 1500 word coursework essay. That was it. And I had 100% for two of my exams. Seriously I tried revising for them and I couldn't think of anything to do!

Reply 6489

OP

Slumpy

Never understood that. Standard here is 5 highers, then varies a lot in 6th year, and highers are supposed to be harder than AS levels. I was under the impression a lot of schools do 5 AS levels now, but I don't really know.

I'm sure you're right. Its just that the minimum requirement for University entrance and for jobs and things are three A levels. And at a low performing college like the one I went to, people will only do the minimum.

I had finished school in South Africa and was only taking A levels to kill the annoying three years I had to spend in order to gain residency to be a 'home student', so from my point of view, if Universities said three A levels were enough then I wasn't about to double up on what I did back in SA any more than I needed to! Also, if A levels had been my first and only higher education at that level and if I knew very well what I wanted to do at Uni, I wouldn't have seen any need for doing more than three. Less A leves means more time to do them well.

Reply 6490

jcb914

11

Craghyrax

Health advice based on calorie intake is another perspective that I'm sceptical of, so for me the negative effects to the body resulting from the battering it gets from a diet which produces frequent insulin spikes is far more problematic to the person's health than a few extra calories.

If you eat foods which the body is better equipped to metabolise, then excess calories are far less damaging to the body. Eating bad sorts of food both has the result of slowly destroying your bodies ability to regulate and deal with it properly, and also gives you cravings to eat more of it which causes you to eat too much. When you eat good foods you often feel satisfied on less and naturally stop eating as many as it is.

If the research that I've been shown is actually right (and hopefully it will gradually change the course of medical discourse and views on nutrition over time) then it certainly is disastrously unhealthy! I'm merely explaining that I happen to believe newer research on the matter more than I believe the old and very well established consensus which governs the policies of the regulatory bodies you speak of.

Zero evidence? :eyeball:

Did you miss the point where I explained that these views about health are based on the most recent scientific findings which are being published and released this very moment by scientists :lolwut:

I am not attacking other people by stating that I happen to believe that x, y or z is unhealthy. But I am being attacked because I believe it!

Yes. Obviously :rolleyes:

I was just giving an example of how some advice might remain popular or in use becauase its less likely to ruffle feathers and put people off making an effort than the actual scientific findings on what is healthy and what isn't actually says. The vast majority would prefer to stick to their comforts as long as it doesn't kill them, even if it means manageable unpleasant symptoms which reduce quality of life slightly.

Sorry, it certainly wasn't my intention to come across as "attacking" you.

You obviously have pretty strong views on this, but I still believe your assessment of sucralose being "disastrously unhealthy" is incorrect and not based on any scientific fact, simply speculation. Maybe you have read some special hidden research being published "this very moment" that agrees with you -- and it would be great if you could share that at some time. I form my opinions from objective information provided by publicly available research, and agency certified reports and studies.

The main point of my original post was regarding sucralose as a sugar substitute. I'm no expert on this matter, but from what I understand sucralose does not stimulate a significant insulin response except when consumed in large amounts. Certainly, it's fine in moderation. This benefit is in addition to the fact that sucralose is essentially a zero calorie product. At a time when a large proportion of the population are consuming excess calories this can only be a health benefit.

At the end of the day, sucralose would not be cleared for sale if it was "disastrously unhealthy". All major scientific studies report no health problems and speculating about the ultra long term is simply that - speculation - and could be applied to a whole host of other products, too.

Reply 6491

Craghyrax

Serious? I didn't do a scrap of work for English Literature. There wasn't anything to do! I just turnedup to lectures, read the four set texts (once) and wrote the 1500 word coursework essay. That was it. And I had 100% for two of my exams. Seriously I tried revising for them and I couldn't think of anything to do!

One of my teachers was very well-intentioned and thought it necessary to set us enormous amounts of work. In my A2 year we had a double lesson on Monday afternoon, at which she'd set us a full synoptic paper (so two essays based on an unseen text... or was it three? I don't remember). Anyway, that would be due for our single lesson first thing on Wednesday morning. And then for the next Monday we'd have an essay or a big pack of reading or a group presentation on a theme to do. It was a nightmare, and part of the reason that I hated my A levels - most people in the class didn't bother doing it but I'm not like that at all and tried to do everything to a ridiculous standard.

On top of that, History A level does have one of the biggest workloads of all A levels. The amount we covered was phenomenal and the scope for learning was unlimited, and because I absolutely adored it I ended up doing a lot of work on it.

Reply 6492

Tom

15

And I'm amazed a language A-level could be a "doss"! I thought they were the only fairly hard / not too badly dumbed down subjects left.

My 6th form timetabled things so I had either one or two free hours a day (out of the 5 total), with the rest being lessons I had to attend. So fitting a fourth A-level in would be quite possible, and a fifth too if I wanted to do a lot of work in my own time rather than being taught, but 8 would be impossible unless the courses were run with a LOT less teaching/contact time - and a lot of students wouldn't be able to cope with that, if the difficulty level was still about the same. I'm sure I couldn't have. Getting A grades wasn't THAT hard, but almost tripling my workload and the amount I needed to learn/know/write coursework for/etc would not have been feasible, that's for sure.

Reply 6493

Craghyrax

I'm sure you're right. Its just that the minimum requirement for University entrance and for jobs and things are three A levels. And at a low performing college like the one I went to, people will only do the minimum.

I had finished school in South Africa and was only taking A levels to kill the annoying three years I had to spend in order to gain residency to be a 'home student', so from my point of view, if Universities said three A levels were enough then I wasn't about to double up on what I did back in SA any more than I needed to! Also, if A levels had been my first and only higher education at that level and if I knew very well what I wanted to do at Uni, I wouldn't have seen any need for doing more than three. Less A leves means more time to do them well.

As far as it goes, universities say 3 AHs is enough(offer for me was ABB as far as it goes, that's the comparison), but I did 4 just because I liked them, and why not? So, I kinda, don't see that point. Especially given A levels are hardly done to a depth which means that doing more takes any real amount of time away, so I'm not convinced by the less a-levels=done more well argument.

Reply 6494

Scipio90

Tom

And I'm amazed a language A-level could be a "doss"! I thought they were the only fairly hard / not too badly dumbed down subjects left.

Yeah. While not being on the level of being able to study it at university, I was fairly good at languages, yet still did more work for french AS than I probably did for maths, further maths and physics full A-level combined.

Reply 6495

BigFudamental

13

Can anyone recommend a decent restaurant in Cambridge that isn't a national chain or Teri-Aki? The kind of thing you might go to if a parent or rich friend were coming to visit...

On the education issue, I did the IB outside the UK so can't really comment on how hard A-levels/sixth form are. I certainly did more work for the IB than subsequently at uni though (pre Cam). In had about 26 contact hours per calendar week, and several essays (2 @ 750-1500 words typically) and assigntments due each week.

Reply 6496

Tom

And I'm amazed a language A-level could be a "doss"! I thought they were the only fairly hard / not too badly dumbed down subjects left.

Bearing in mind I'm studying Spanish here so I am quite good at it :wink:

At that kind of level it's not a taxing language and the work wasn't difficult. I'd mastered much of the A level grammar before finishing my GCSEs and most of the vocab. Languages weren't a priority in my school and therefore it wasn't one of the subjects that was pushed to do well, so our teachers didn't really attempt to stretch us as hard as they did in other subjects. Plus, I enjoyed it, like with the History. It didn't feel like hard work :smile:

It's still certainly not been dumbed down though! I think with languages some people have a knack and some people don't... If you have a knack, I don't think that a language A level is difficult.

Reply 6497

Scipio90

BigFudamental

Can anyone recommend a decent restaurant in Cambridge that isn't a national chain or Teri-Aki? The kind of thing you might go to if a parent or rich friend were coming to visit...

People speak well of the Chop House, opposite the corpus clock, but I've never been. If you mean seriously rich, Midsummer House has 2 michelin stars., I think. The river bar/cafe is very good also.

Reply 6498

Scipio90

Yeah. While not being on the level of being able to study it at university, I was fairly good at languages, yet still did more work for french AS than I probably did for maths, further maths and physics full A-level combined.

But Maths, F Maths and Physics are your strengths, Spanish was mine. I always found that I could do the work pretty quickly and didn't find the exams hard.

Oh, this is turning into boasting :frown:

I'm just trying to say that in terms of quantity and difficulty of work, English Lit and History were way above Spanish for me.

Reply 6499