Schols Schols Schols, information and venting thread.

ride-the-spiral

EuropeanSon wrote: »

If you are a TP, I wouldn't say there is much you could do over the summer. Your exams will be on 1) Simms' course and complex analysis, 2) Mechanics and Equations of maths physics, and 3) physics. Only the 3rd paper includes JF stuff, so I suppose you could make sure you know your JF physics well. I don't think there is much you could do for 1 and 2. It doesn't ever require more than a basic working knowledge of Linear Algebra (in mechanics, and Simms), nothing particularly fancy. Knowing how to change coord systems for matrices is as tough as it gets.

Thanks for the info. I suppose it's good to hear that I won't be losing out on anything by doing nothing for the next 4 months. Just wondering, is Simm's current course the same as when it was called geometry or was there a change in syllabus along with the name? Also out of the TP maths courses that you did, which were the hardest for schols?

EuropeanSon

ride-the-spiral wrote: »

EuropeanSon wrote: »

If you are a TP, I wouldn't say there is much you could do over the summer. Your exams will be on 1) Simms' course and complex analysis, 2) Mechanics and Equations of maths physics, and 3) physics. Only the 3rd paper includes JF stuff, so I suppose you could make sure you know your JF physics well. I don't think there is much you could do for 1 and 2. It doesn't ever require more than a basic working knowledge of Linear Algebra (in mechanics, and Simms), nothing particularly fancy. Knowing how to change coord systems for matrices is as tough as it gets.

Thanks for the info. I suppose it's good to hear that I won't be losing out on anything by doing nothing for the next 4 months. Just wondering, is Simm's current course the same as when it was called geometry or was there a change in syllabus along with the name? Also out of the TP maths courses that you did, which were the hardest for schols?

Simms is the first half of the geometry course, which excludes most references to manifolds, tensors and so on. The exam on schols is the easiest by far, you can literally learn it off if you want.

The tp courses in general were comparitively easy (vs the single honour maths paper). The only tough bits are complex (especially if you have Kitson, who is a nice guy, but an evil examiner), and if Frolov throws a nasty question at you in Mechanics. Complex is definitely the hardest.

EuropeanSon

Not to say any of It was easy. All uses of the word easy and synonyms thereof should be considered prefaced by an implicit "comparitively". Some bits are just easier than others, none are actually easy, except bits of Equations of Maths Physics which are just differentiation or fiddling around with expressions and integrals. Simms is very difficult to understand, but once you do that, learning the questions off is easy.

ride-the-spiral

That's good to hear that Simm's isn't too bad. Although I'm a bit surprised that complex is the hardest for some reason. I dunno it's not like I expected it to be easy or anything but I'd mainly heard that methods and mechanics would be the hardest. Anyway I don't plan on worrying too much about it until september, but I thought I should know what I should focus on and be prepared for.

Now to hope that the physics side isn't too hard :pac:

Lisandro

"The tp courses in general were comparitively easy (vs the single honour maths paper)"

Really? But the only difference between the two is physics/maths paper three, and the physics paper presents a pretty strong challenge. The other two maths papers are very challenging and they're taken by TPs.

The geometry and mechanics are too predictable for my liking. It's as if Frolov and Simms decided to set really hard questions, saw that it's pretty much impossible to get them to work out if you're not expecting them and instead make them predictable. What happens then is that it's possible to learn off answers, which I don't think is the point of a scholarship exam (it's definitely not the point of maths and TP).

Within that, given that you can only answer the questions that do come up, I would practice the questions until you are comfortable with them. It's not ideal, but the questions being predictable doesn't mean you can't understand them in depth.

Complex analysis isn't like the homework questions and some of the questions you don't know quite what Kittens is looking for. Equations of mathematical physics is reasonably challenging, but I think it should be harder, otherwise it makes it very easy to penalise things like arithmetic slips harshly.

The physics paper is generally underestimated because the mathematics isn't that hard. Your ability to explain your understanding is tested, so be wary that you know why certain results hold.

EuropeanSon

Lisandro wrote: »

"The tp courses in general were comparitively easy (vs the single honour maths paper)"

Really? But the only difference between the two is physics/maths paper three, and the physics paper presents a pretty strong challenge. The other two maths papers are very challenging and they're taken by TPs.

The third paper is considerably harder than the first two. You can't learn things off for it in the way you can for the first two, and of all those who sat it this year, only one got a first, nobody managed a 2:1, and there were only two 2:2's. Everyone else failed or got a 3. It's got some very awkward, tricky questions.
Most of the TPs though this years Physics paper was quite nice, by contrast.

Note: By the TP courses, I meant the shared TP/Maths courses, as opposed to the single honour Maths/TSM Maths courses, in case there was any misunderstanding.

Lisandro

Well, is it harder in so far as the material is more challenging or is it harder because you can't learn things off for it? If it's the latter, I wouldn't consider it harder, just more unpredictable. I had a look at it and it looks challenging, but not substantially harder than the other two. Then again, I haven't sat the paper or all the modules on it, so I might well be wrong on that.

The physics paper wasn't mathematically demanding, but required a certain care of explanation. That said, I think it should have been a bit harder.

EuropeanSon

Lisandro wrote: »

Well, is it harder in so far as the material is more challenging or is it harder because you can't learn things off for it? If it's the latter, I wouldn't consider it harder, just more unpredictable. I had a look at it and it looks challenging, but not substantially harder than the other two. Then again, I haven't sat the paper or all the modules on it, so I might well be wrong on that.

The physics paper wasn't mathematically demanding, but required a certain care of explanation. That said, I think it should have been a bit harder.

It is harder in that it is considerably more difficult to do well in. In that respect it is vastly more difficult than the other two. I prefer the subjects on it, and am generally better at them, yet did considerably worse on it.

airurando

A friend of mine who's a convenor with the SU told me that they're considering stopping 3rd years from sitting schols in the future. Seemingly too many got it this year, and it could become a funding issue.

Thoughts?

Sir Ophiuchus

airurando wrote: »

A friend of mine who's a convenor with the SU told me that they're considering stopping 3rd years from sitting schols in the future. Seemingly too many got it this year, and it could become a funding issue.

Thoughts?

I would personally be opposed to such a change. I would be very surprised if such a change was supported by many existing or previous Scholars. I personally feel it goes against the ideals behind Scholarship.

I very much doubt it will happen.

Lisandro

airurando wrote: »

A friend of mine who's a convenor with the SU told me that they're considering stopping 3rd years from sitting schols in the future. Seemingly too many got it this year, and it could become a funding issue.

Thoughts?

I think it's a bit implausible, it would very much go against the spirit of the exams. People aren't always experienced enough to exploit their talents in second year or to really digest the material that's examined so soon after it's learned. I think there is a value to having third years become scholars because often they're the kind of people who slipped through the cracks in second year due to lack of exam technique, inexperience or whatever.

It would be much more reasonable to have a separate exam for third years or set higher standards to achieve rather than just cutting them off outright. And you know that if someone makes the grade in third year after having missed out the previous year, they mean business and will probably make a pretty good scholar.

blubloblu

Probably costs less to give it to third years too, if they don't do a postgrad here.

theowen

airurando wrote: »

A friend of mine who's a convenor with the SU told me that they're considering stopping 3rd years from sitting schols in the future. Seemingly too many gothttp://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=78489079 it this year, and it could become a funding issue.

Thoughts?

They'll also going to discuss why so few TSM people get Schols. Could lead to it being easier for them, maybe? It is silly. 17 people got Schols in Med, that's a 30% success rate or so, compared to 9 in TSM, which must be a ridiculously low number.

Sir Ophiuchus

Some departments hot-house their Schol. candidates, and some do not.

SueGrabbit

There is also the reality as to where the funding comes from - it's known as the Front Square Black Hole Fund - that's the "source" that fund scholars every year and throughout their postgraduate degrees. It is well known that since the mid nineties there has been direct funding by bodies ~(people, organisations, alumni) that fund specifically for medical scholarships.

A source of mine has said the medical department are somewhat "inventive" with their scholarships, tailoring it every year as they see fit. Not saying it's fair or unfair - they certainly must be capable and get 70+ but the difference is astounding.

Many fellows and lecturers feel that third years are more appropriate scholars, as they are more mature, understand the curriculum as a whole and generally show more determination for an exam.

I actually would say a third year is more likely to use their scholarship years well to avail of postgraduate courses, considering that otherwise they are only getting the scholarship to use for their fourth year, and then still have 4 years remaining following graduation. If - and not all 3rd year schols are more mature etc. - but if they are, are they not more likely to be the sort of student, postgraduate that the college is looking to invest in?

Meller

Sorry to be a pest if this has been asked before (can't find it anywhere though!) but is there any reason that you wouldn't be allowed to go for Schols? (e.g. failing your exams!)

EuropeanSon

Meller wrote: »

Sorry to be a pest if this has been asked before (can't find it anywhere though!) but is there any reason that you wouldn't be allowed to go for Schols? (e.g. failing your exams!)

No. Any undergraduate can go for schols. Obviously, if you fail, you have to pass your supplementals/super-supps to proceed to the following year. .

Sir Ophiuchus

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Obviously, if you fail, you have to pass your supplementals/super-supps to proceed to the following year. .

To clarify, that's "if you fail your end-of-year exams", not "if you fail your Schol. exams".

theowen

Does anyone have an opinion on the proposed change in Friday commons? I'm against it, seeing as I'd never be able to get it being on placement and James' for lectures. Would like to know what campus based students think of it.

PurpleFistMixer

Doesn't personally affect me since I'll be gone next year, but I'm somewhat in two minds about it. On one hand, lots of scholars probably won't be able to go because they'll have lectures at that time (or as mentioned, not be on campus). On the other hand, it's something the fellows are seemingly requesting in order to get more younger fellows to go to commons, which I can't really argue against. In addition, attendance on Fridays is kinda low for scholars anyway, presumably due to people leaving for the weekend, so perhaps having it at lunch time would suit those people better.

user1

Ive started studying for the psychiatric nursing schols next year, has anyone any advice?

EuropeanSon

I'm not against it. I think that the Fellows' argument is reasonable, and not as many schols seem to attend on Fridays anyway, so the minimum amount of inconvenience is caused.

LoganV

I've committed to going for this in the coming year. Feeling excited and daunted in roughly equal measure.

Does anyone know when the papers from the 2011/2012 year become available on SIS?

Scrappychimow

I suppose I'll go for it in JS year, i planned on doing some study during summer but didn't do a bit :cool:

runswithascript

Scrappychimow wrote: »

I suppose I'll go for it in JS year, i planned on doing some study during summer but didn't do a bit :cool:

I don't think anyone is surprised bro.

Scrappychimow

dusf wrote: »

I don't think anyone is surprised bro.

Kiss my hole you troll!

TemptationWaits

Does anyone go for schols in their first year?

gutenberg

TemptationWaits wrote: »

Does anyone go for schols in their first year?

I know of one person who sat it in first year in TSM a few years back, French and another subject I think it was. I have never heard of anyone getting it in first year though.

Second year is when most people have a crack at it; increasingly though, a large proportion of scholars (especially in the arts/humanities) tend to be third years, as people have matured a little more, which is reflected in their academic work. There's no reason you can't try for it in JF, but I wouldn't expect to get it: the degree of knowledge and mastery over your subject that is required for Schols is not to be underestimated!

NeuroCat

TemptationWaits wrote: »

Does anyone go for schols in their first year?

One of the Trinity olympic torch carriers got schols in Psychology in first year, but from the bio posted about her she seems like a complete genius.

gutenberg

NeuroCat wrote: »

One of the Trinity olympic torch carriers got schols in Psychology in first year, but from the bio posted about her she seems like a complete genius.

I think I know who you're talking about, and no she didn't get it in her first year, she was in second year. I know on the bio thing they posted it said first year, but she started the same year as me and got it in 2009, which would make her a second year; on the Scholars' website it's listed as 2009.

By all means, first years can be elected scholars, there's no bar on it; it's just very difficult.