Schols Schols Schols, information and venting thread.

gimpdoctor · 01-11-2014 3:37pm

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Zaitsev loves his branches.

His explanations of things are actually pretty good, despite how rambling some of his lectures can become. I don't think you'd need much for a Zaitsev exam besides attending his lectures and listening to him and jotting down interesting things he says. The basics are covered in any complex book you could grab from the library, it's the details he explains that are the valuable bits from his lectures. Just don't try to write everything he says, as he goes in circles sometimes.

I don't know where he gets his questions from, I don't remember his schols papers being notably hard though.

As for having a new mechanics guy, that's tough luck from a schols perspective. No matter how good a teacher he is, I'd bet heavily that his exam will be tougher than the predictability of Frolov.

well whatever about the predictability of the exam, Bulava is certainly focusing more on getting a deep understanding of how mechanics works. After looking at the schols paper for mechanics I'll probably know whether I'll actually be able to do the question or not at first glance.

Raspberry Fileds · 01-11-2014 6:25pm

I don't think any mention has been made of the seemingly all-but-certain introduction of a "general paper" alongside specific subject papers for Schols in 2015/2016. All prospective scholars would take the general paper (regardless of discipline), which would have abstract abstract questions such as "Should intellectuals tweet?"

Any thoughts? The obvious question is whether those doing, say, philosophy will have an advantage on those studying, say, engineering. Also, how can consistancy of marking be guaranteed - will there be a rigid marking scheme or will individual correctors get discretion?

Anita Blow · 01-11-2014 6:54pm

'All-but-certain'? I haven't heard any mention of this.
With all Schols papers now standardised at 3 exams per course, I think it's unlikely they'll add a 4th paper- not least one which has little-to-no relation to the person's course. It's already a monumental feat having to contend with material not on the course in the current format, let alone a general paper.

Raspberry Fileds · 01-11-2014 7:18pm

"The Senior Lecturer advised the Board that following the decision that a general paper is set for each course in Scholarship for the academic year 2014-2015, concerns had been raised regarding the feasibility of this, particularly in relation to updating Calendar entries and for multi-disciplinary courses. She informed the Board that it was now proposed to defer the implementation of this decision until the academic year 2015/16 which would allow time for any issues to be addressed. The importance of the need for this decision to remain unchanged and for there to be the shortest possible delay in implementation was noted."

College Board minutes: https://www.tcd.ie/committeepapers/board/download/UniversityBoard_minutes_20140917.pdf

The standardisation made it nine hours of examinations - four papers for most courses. The general paper is expected to be three hours long.

Undeadfred · 01-11-2014 7:54pm

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

"The Senior Lecturer advised the Board that following the decision that a general paper is set for each course in Scholarship for the academic year 2014-2015, concerns had been raised regarding the feasibility of this, particularly in relation to updating Calendar entries and for multi-disciplinary courses. She informed the Board that it was now proposed to defer the implementation of this decision until the academic year 2015/16 which would allow time for any issues to be addressed. The importance of the need for this decision to remain unchanged and for there to be the shortest possible delay in implementation was noted."

College Board minutes: https://www.tcd.ie/committeepapers/board/download/UniversityBoard_minutes_20140917.pdf

The standardisation made it nine hours of examinations - four papers for most courses. The general paper is expected to be three hours long.

My ex-girlfriend's mother, who was the Dean of Students last year, told me about this but she said it was unlikely that it would happen

01-11-2014 8:05pm

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

I don't think any mention has been made of the seemingly all-but-certain introduction of a "general paper" alongside specific subject papers for Schols in 2015/2016. All prospective scholars would take the general paper (regardless of discipline), which would have abstract abstract questions such as "Should intellectuals tweet?"

Any thoughts? The obvious question is whether those doing, say, philosophy will have an advantage on those studying, say, engineering. Also, how can consistancy of marking be guaranteed - will there be a rigid marking scheme or will individual correctors get discretion?

TBH, looking at the analytical philosophy that dominates the curricula of most western universities, a philosopher is no more well equipped to answer this question than an engineer. What a question like that requires is critical thinking abilities, which has always been the key thing that schols seeks to identify in students. A general paper would eliminate the possibility that in some courses students might get the required grade just through constant practise of past papers rather than having innate intellectual ability.

I'm sure that the questions on the general paper would be designed so that no particular discipline would have any unfair advantage. And anyway, there is clearly no "right" answer. These questions are far more about examining your thought process rather than saying "Well X school of thought, exemplified by the works of Y and Z, would say that there is a moral duty for intellectuals to tweet." Examiners would be far more interested in the manner in which you reason your way to the conclusions you adopt, how you support them and deal with any potential difficulties/weaknesses. This is critical thinking at its best and should definitely be tested if we want to maintain the integrity and status of schols.

Raspberry Fileds · 01-11-2014 8:34pm

234 wrote: »

TBH, looking at the analytical philosophy that dominates the curricula of most western universities, a philosopher is no more well equipped to answer this question than an engineer. What a question like that requires is critical thinking abilities, which has always been the key thing that schols seeks to identify in students. A general paper would eliminate the possibility that in some courses students might get the required grade just through constant practise of past papers rather than having innate intellectual ability.

I'm sure that the questions on the general paper would be designed so that no particular discipline would have any unfair advantage. And anyway, there is clearly no "right" answer. These questions are far more about examining your thought process rather than saying "Well X school of thought, exemplified by the works of Y and Z, would say that there is a moral duty for intellectuals to tweet." Examiners would be far more interested in the manner in which you reason your way to the conclusions you adopt, how you support them and deal with any potential difficulties/weaknesses. This is critical thinking at its best and should definitely be tested if we want to maintain the integrity and status of schols.

l

Your assessment may be correct but it neglects that essay-writing is a skill in itself. Personally, I think the issue of consistent marking will be difficult to solve.

01-11-2014 8:57pm

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

l

Your assessment may be correct but it neglects that essay-writing is a skill in itself. Personally, I think the issue of consistent marking will be difficult to solve.

Agree re marking, it would need to be reviewed for a few years to ensure fairness.

However, essay writing is indeed a skill in and of itself; but it is one which everybody should have and which everybody practises throughout their entire primary and secondary education. Considering that schols takes place 18 months after secondary education ends, I don't think that there is that big of an arts/sciences divide. Also, if you simply read the papers, etc. and are an intelligent individual then you will have the necessary abilities to translate your thoughts to prose. And finally, the art of essay writing which is required in more "artsy" courses is highly specialised and often not what a general paper would require. My own background is in law, and a legal essay style would be completely inappropriate to a general paper of the nature described above. I would think that the type of essay required would be more along the lines of the kind of speeches you get in debating in terms of style.

Raspberry Fileds · 01-11-2014 9:38pm

I don't think it's correct that students would, or ought to, have well-developed essay-writing abilities, especially not as a result of the LC. It seems beyond dispute to me that those whose course is examined through essays would, if nothing else, be more efficient at writing.

What you say about there being a particular style that's required contradicts (IMO) what you said about there being no right answer; I would venture that a variety in styles would be welcomed. And, anyway, I imagine you could alter your style far more proficiently than an engineer.

If all the paper is to test is critical thinking skills, would an essay littered with grammatical mistakes and misspellings be judged purely on the merits of the arguments?

01-11-2014 10:00pm

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

I don't think it's correct that students would, or ought to, have well-developed essay-writing abilities, especially not as a result of the LC. It seems beyond dispute to me that those whose course is examined through essays would, if nothing else, be more efficient at writing.

What you say about there being a particular style that's required contradicts (IMO) what you said about there being no right answer; I would venture that a variety in styles would be welcomed. And, anyway, I imagine you could alter your style far more proficiently than an engineer.

If all the paper is to test is critical thinking skills, would an essay littered with grammatical mistakes and misspellings be judged purely on the merits of the arguments?

First, whether well-developed or not, the majority of essay-writing on the LC is learned in English which everybody does, so everybody would be largely equally advantaged or disadvantaged.

Secondly, style is separate from substance; the manner in which somebody thinks is different from the particular prose style in which they express those thoughts. If I have not been clear that those are distinct then I apologise. However, as a lawyer I am no more able to switch between writing styles that anybody else. The only essays that I have written since I was doing the LC are law essays. They involve a very particular style which works for law but it completely inappropriate for any other area. I would experience the same difficulties as an engineer if, for instance, I had to write a journalistic piece.

Also, lets move beyond this engineer v lawyer division. Exactly what courses do you think have an innate facility with writing in different styles or in a style that might be applicable to a general paper? The social sciences such as business and law would never qualify. Having been in a relationship with an English lit student their essays are of a very particular style and don't deal with questions of the nature proposed. Philosophy is actually far less "lets argue about this" than people think; it involved much more formal logic and application of complex intellectual formulae that you would imagine. History equips you to research and evaluate sources. I could go on.

While some courses write more essays, due to their particular subject matter and/or style, they aren't trained to be able to switch between different kinds of essays, etc. I would also imagine that some diversity of styles would be expected on the general paper. It's about expressing your thought process rather than verbose prose.

Thirdly, that's something you would have to ask the examiners. I don't see how spelling or grammar are relevant to critical thinking but you could be fairly penalised for poor spelling and grammar since (again) no course has a particular advantage in those areas.

Raspberry Fileds · 02-11-2014 4:05pm

234 wrote: »

First, whether well-developed or not, the majority of essay-writing on the LC is learned in English which everybody does, so everybody would be largely equally advantaged or disadvantaged.

Secondly, style is separate from substance; the manner in which somebody thinks is different from the particular prose style in which they express those thoughts. If I have not been clear that those are distinct then I apologise. However, as a lawyer I am no more able to switch between writing styles that anybody else. The only essays that I have written since I was doing the LC are law essays. They involve a very particular style which works for law but it completely inappropriate for any other area. I would experience the same difficulties as an engineer if, for instance, I had to write a journalistic piece.

Also, lets move beyond this engineer v lawyer division. Exactly what courses do you think have an innate facility with writing in different styles or in a style that might be applicable to a general paper? The social sciences such as business and law would never qualify. Having been in a relationship with an English lit student their essays are of a very particular style and don't deal with questions of the nature proposed. Philosophy is actually far less "lets argue about this" than people think; it involved much more formal logic and application of complex intellectual formulae that you would imagine. History equips you to research and evaluate sources. I could go on.

While some courses write more essays, due to their particular subject matter and/or style, they aren't trained to be able to switch between different kinds of essays, etc. I would also imagine that some diversity of styles would be expected on the general paper. It's about expressing your thought process rather than verbose prose.

Thirdly, that's something you would have to ask the examiners. I don't see how spelling or grammar are relevant to critical thinking but you could be fairly penalised for poor spelling and grammar since (again) no course has a particular advantage in those areas.

I think you are being naive. You say no course has an advantage in spelling/grammar but it's beyond question that those who write essays for their course will be better practised at those. For the same reason, everyone would not be equally advantaged/disadvantaged because of the LC.

When I refer to style, it's not to literary style either. I can't speak for law, but I'm certain that the style of a philosophy essay would be appropriate for such a general paper. The particular way of addressing a question in philosophy has to be developed, therefore style and substance are linked. The point about historians being required to evaluate evidence may seem compelling, but it's merely a distraction; fundamentally, all humanties courses are required to, with the prompt and constraint of an often one-sentence question, construct a multistranded argument. The idea that an engineer would be able to perform that as well as a lawyer would without practice is wrong; if you concede that, you agree with my argument which is that engineers, etc, will be required to obtain an additional skill which other types of students won't.

I'm a philosopher and am a little confused by your description of our curriculum! Formal Logic constitutes only half of one SF module.

EuropeanSon · 02-11-2014 8:09pm

The idea that essay writing is a skill which should be required for schols is completely absurd.

CJC86 · 02-11-2014 8:30pm

EuropeanSon wrote: »

The idea that essay writing is a skill which should be required for schols is completely absurd.

The idea that being able to form a logical coherent argument not being a skill required for schols is completely absurd.

02-11-2014 10:21pm

EuropeanSon wrote: »

The idea that essay writing is a skill which should be required for schols is completely absurd.

Why? At its core, an essay is an expression of a thought(s). Why should any aspiring scholar not be able to do this? Even in science courses, if they are going to be writing articles in the future, why should they not be able to write an essay on terms where no course has an inherent advantage?

Raspberry Fileds · 02-11-2014 10:49pm

CJC86 wrote: »

The idea that being able to form a logical coherent argument not being a skill required for schols is completely absurd.

Your argument is almost incoherent.

Edit: sorry, little bit harsh! "That" should be replaced with "of".

EuropeanSon · 03-11-2014 12:39am

CJC86 wrote: »

The idea that being able to form a logical coherent argument not being a skill required for schols is completely absurd.

Many people in my field (mathematics) can form a logical and coherent argument that few others can comprehend. That doesn't somehow make it less of one than an essay.

EuropeanSon · 03-11-2014 12:41am

234 wrote: »

Why? At its core, an essay is an expression of a thought(s). Why should any aspiring scholar not be able to do this? Even in science courses, if they are going to be writing articles in the future, why should they not be able to write an essay on terms where no course has an inherent advantage?

If I write a paper, nobody cares how I write it, really, once the maths makes sense, and is new/interesting.

Nobody critiqued Crick and Watson for their lines of argument. I doubt the pair won essay competitions as undergrads.

Yours is a very pitiful and narrow understanding of academia.

03-11-2014 7:50am

EuropeanSon wrote: »

If I write a paper, nobody cares how I write it, really, once the maths makes sense, and is new/interesting.

Nobody critiqued Crick and Watson for their lines of argument. I doubt the pair won essay competitions as undergrads.

Yours is a very pitiful and narrow understanding of academia.

I would disagree and say that it is in fact your understanding that is rather narrow.

Nobody is questioning the value of pure scientific work, but I think that some of the comments thus far have rather condescendingly assumed that this is all that some people are capable of or should be capable of.

Scholars should be intellectually well-rounded and be able to engage with arguments that are beyond the confines of their course.

There also seems to have been an assumption that a general paper would represent the arts forcing the sciences to engage purely on their terms. This is wrong for two reasons. First, the nature of the questions proposed is such that no "arts" student receives the kind of instruction or training relevant to it on their course. Secondly, it is incorrect to think that scientists are unable to make persuasive arguments that fall outside the methodology of their field (whether it be maths, physics, etc). Writing an essay is a basic skill that any person in higher education almost certainly has and certainly should have. If you were called on to write an article for a newspaper explaining the impact of your research would you decline, saying that you weren't capable?

One of the most enjoyable elements of commons was the chance to have some fascinating conversations with a variety of highly intelligent individuals. I never stopped to check what course they were on before I asked their opinion. People brought a diversity of perspectives and experiences but were nonetheless more than capable of engaging with issues outside of their particular field of research. This led to a richer debate.

To me, this is what the general paper is aiming at: a neutral way of assessing the non-course specific intellectual and critical-thinking abilities of candidates.

CJC86 · 03-11-2014 8:55am

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Many people in my field (mathematics) can form a logical and coherent argument that few others can comprehend. That doesn't somehow make it less of one than an essay.

I'm a Maths scholar myself. I think that Maths students should be able to express their arguments in an essay. It would certainly be a different style to the sort of essay a Law student or Philosophy student would write, but that doesn't mean that it would be less of an essay.

Raspberry Fileds · 03-11-2014 4:54pm

Why does being intellectually well-rounded require that mathematicians develop a skill beyond their course but not require philosophers do likewise? 234 is obstinately refusing to engage with the idea that essay-writing and the accompanying thought-process develop with practice.

03-11-2014 6:59pm

Raspberry Fileds wrote: »

Why does being intellectually well-rounded require that mathematicians develop a skill beyond their course but not require philosophers do likewise? 234 is obstinately refusing to engage with the idea that essay-writing and the accompanying thought-process develop with practice.

Because what is happening is that everybody is being asked to use a skill that they all have (or should have) to engage with a question that it outside their course. Where certain students/courses have this developed this skill further it is in a specialised and course-specific manner that won't be particularly helpful.

I have experienced this; where I have been asked to compose arguments on areas outside my field. The most difficult thing has been to move away from the habits that make a good law essay/argument but hinder a more general one. My essay writing and arguing abilities were certainly well-developed by my education, but not in a manner that it easily transferable to other, more general scenarios. Each course will be encumbered with their own particular predispositions, habits, etc. There is no course that would ideally set up a candidate to answer questions of the kind suggested (the only exception that I can think if would be an experienced debater).

TheTrueGamer · 20-11-2014 10:06am

Hey, I'm a SF science student and I've been lurking around this thread for a while. Just wondering if there are any successful scholars who sat the Biology 1 and Biology 2 papers in 2013/2014 who could possible offer me any advice? November's not even over and the panic's already starting to set in

Undeadfred · 09-12-2014 7:14pm

loving the extended borrowing privileges. Will definitely be taking out the full 8 books

Undeadfred · 17-12-2014 8:32pm

For the TPs and maths crew, are there any books that have lots of Fourier series/transform questions with answers in the back for Equations of Mathematical Physics? The past papers are good practice but without the answers to confirm you're right you could be doing the same type of question the wrong way over and over again.

Tears in Rain · 18-12-2014 3:14am

Undeadfred wrote: »

For the TPs and maths crew, are there any books that have lots of Fourier series/transform questions with answers in the back for Equations of Mathematical Physics? The past papers are good practice but without the answers to confirm you're right you could be doing the same type of question the wrong way over and over again.

Have you tried any of the Schaum's series? I haven't looked at it but I'd imagine Schaum's Theory and Problems of Fourier Analysis would have what you're looking for.

Undeadfred · 19-12-2014 4:00pm

Tears in Rain wrote: »

Have you tried any of the Schaum's series? I haven't looked at it but I'd imagine Schaum's Theory and Problems of Fourier Analysis would have what you're looking for.

I had a look at it in the library yesterday. The problems didn't seem difficult enough. I took out one of the engineering books since it was the one recommended by the lecturer. The problems are still easier than what I've seen on Schols papers but it'll have to do.

Defender OF Faith · 01-01-2015 1:48am

Would you get in trouble if you miss a paper or two in schols? or since you signed up your expected to attend all>?

Bears and Vodka · 01-01-2015 1:58am

Defender OF Faith wrote: »

Would you get in trouble if you miss a paper or two in schols? or since you signed up your expected to attend all>?

No, nobody is going to mind. You will be obviously forfeiting on your Schols though.

partyatmygaff · 04-01-2015 11:48pm

Best of luck to everyone tomorrow.

CJC86 · 05-01-2015 2:49pm

Everyone who has an exam on Wednesday should make sure that they're aiming to get in early. Apparently there are going to be protests slowing all transport everywhere. Hopefully the wasters protesting won't be up in time to stop people who have jobs or places to be.

Schols Schols Schols, information and venting thread.

Comments