Schols Schols Schols, information and venting thread.

If my understanding is correct you can take either two different biology options at two papers each, or else one biology option and a chemistry option? It's four papers for science, right?

This scenario is specific to the people taking BY2201-4 & CH2201 of course.

I was originally thinking 4 biology papers because chemistry has such a reputation for being so tough. Then I thought, if I'm going to putting in a tonne of hard work either way to tackle schols I could probably take either/or, so I'd like to get an inclination of which is more doable.

stealinhorses wrote: »

Chemistry schols are more predictable, with certain professors giving massive clues.

Are these clues of the same magnitude as the almost famous clues first years tend to receive off certain professors? :P

So if it's fairly predictable that would imply if you study the material and can handle the past papers that you could go in semi-confident?

outnumbered wrote: »

Do you think it would be wise to perfect first year material in the last month before college begins?
I'm still a bit clueless on some concepts....

Brushing up on some stuff could never hurt, but if you're clueless about stuff then definitely do look over that.

yeah

Undeadfred wrote: »

Is it safe to assume that the format of the Physics Schols paper will be the same as last years? ie, the 3rd section of each paper will still consist of material from first year. I'm in Theoretical Physics btw.

It's more general physics problem solving rather than exclusively stuff from first year.

^Probably depends on the nature of your course. If there's a thread for your course in the TCD forum you might get a better answer there.

https://www.tcd.ie/academicregistry/exams/past-papers/scholarship/
E-mail your school for the 2014 Schols papers. They usually don't get updated for a while yet

Undeadfred wrote: »

Are there past papers going further back that 1998?

I'm planning on doing all of them come Christmas break, 1 a day, under exam conditions. Is this too late to leave them? Should I look at them at midterm as well?

Noble ambitions, but let's be realistic here, you will probably end up not following through with that. That being said, it's kind of pointless even to go anywhere near 1998 because the curriculum for the vast majority of papers out there has changed, and in some cases dramatically. It kind of depends on the lecturer too. Some like to include their own bits and pieces during the module and that reflects on the Schols paper. Some follow their own inhibitions. The best thing to do would be to concentrate by the papers in the last 5 years and set preferably by the same people.

Undeadfred wrote: »

Realistically, I will most likely follow through with it. I'm in TP, so the only way to really study effectively is by doing questions, and what better questions to do than the Schols past papers questions?

Yeah the different lecturer's is really my main concern since some of the past papers could be misleading in that it the past lecturer's questions could be entirely different to the questions this year's lecturers could ask.

You are wasting your time with a lot of those past questions - much of the material is no longer examinable.

Undeadfred wrote: »

How would you recommend I approach Schols study then? Ideally I'd want a load of schol-like questions to do, like a book with solutions in the back.

Do all the questions in the last 3-4 years, over and over until you are sick of them. And learn everything the lecturers say in lectures except Frolov and Simms (ain't nobody got time for that). That's all really.

Undeadfred wrote: »

When you say do them over and over, do you mean do them over and over in a different way each time? Otherwise you'll just be writing out the same answer again and again and you won't be thinking about the problem, you'll just be repeating what you did before

No, I don't mean in a different way each time. A vast amount of it is about pattern recognition, and by running through the solution you'll become better at the pattern.

And if you can't manage to keep thinking about the problem, that's unfortunate.

Maybe_Memories wrote: »

Frolov isn't teaching mechanics anymore. We have him for differential geometry actually.

Ouch. Then learn all the mechanics too, I guess.

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.

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 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 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.