Schols Schols Schols, information and venting thread.

Scrappychimow

gutenberg wrote: »

What do people think of the eleven recommendations regarding the changing of Schol? I agree with double marking and with anonymity, definitely, although I don't think it should be restricted to just second years...

Any opinions?

What do you mean? Third year students can't sit Schols this year?

gutenberg

Scrappychimow wrote: »

What do you mean? Third year students can't sit Schols this year?

No it's not being introduced this year, but the proposal is that from the 2013/2014 academic year the exams will be limited to just Senior Freshmen.

CJC86

gutenberg wrote: »

What do people think of the eleven recommendations regarding the changing of Schol? I agree with double marking and with anonymity, definitely, although I don't think it should be restricted to just second years...

Any opinions?

With the old system of exams 8 weeks before your end of year exams I would have disagreed with restricting it to Senior Freshman, however there has been a massive increase in Junior Sophister scholars since the change of date of the exams.

In some subjects a JS has a huge advantage over any SF, simply by the nature of the subject, and hence some above average JS students are driving out some of the more talented SF students. I was ok with JS students getting schols before because it could have a big impact on their degree grade, so they were taking a calculated risk. Now there is next to no risk, and there has been a big increase in JS students sitting the exams and capitalising on this.

I don't know if restricting the exams to SF is the correct move, but it is leveling the playing field.

CJC86

CJC86 wrote: »

some above average JS students are driving out some of the more talented SF students. I was ok with JS students getting schols before because it could have a big impact on their degree grade, so they were taking a calculated risk. Now there is next to no risk, and there has been a big increase in JS students sitting the exams and capitalising on this.

But if those SF students are so talented surely it's a good thing that they can retry next year? And if the JS students do better than them, why shouldn't they get schols?

The way I see it, the only thing they're capitalising on is their intelligence and hard work. The benefit of having an extra year on the SF students doesn't make it unfair because the SF students will also get their second chance.

CJC86

true-or-false wrote: »

But if those SF students are so talented surely it's a good thing that they can retry next year? And if the JS students do better than them, why shouldn't they get schols?

The way I see it, the only thing they're capitalising on is their intelligence and hard work. The benefit of having an extra year on the SF students doesn't make it unfair because the SF students will also get their second chance.

I know that my opinion isn't a popular one, but the point is that there has been a not-insignificant increase in the number of scholars. Since college is cash-strapped as it is, there is a need to keep the numbers under control.

As I said, I was always a fan of people who got 68-69% retrying in 3rd year, and unfortunately those people won't get an opportunity to do so under this new system. However, it is an elitist award in the first place, so why do people get up in arms when it's made a little more elitist?

Hollzy

Wait, I thought that there was no limit to the number of scholars per year. Anyone who gets their overall first gets schols. So if that's true, how would it give SF students a better chance if JS weren't allowed sit the exams?

ride-the-spiral

I haven't seen that they were thinking of changing anything, is there a link to the proposed changes?

Kwekubo

There's an article about it on page two of this week's Trinity News: http://issuu.com/trinitynews/docs/issue2forissuu

Lisandro

Quite a naive decision if you ask me, if they were concerned about third years sitting on second year material, then they should have just set a third year paper. What's more, there's a value in having third year scholars as they are often hard workers who are not deterred by failure or the workload of third year and who often have that extra level of academic maturity that is frequently not quite present halfway through second year. I don't have statistics on hand, but I'd wager that they're more likely to stay with Trinity as postgraduates as there's not much point in becoming a scholar for one year, whereas second year scholars sometimes feel like they've got as much as they can get out of it after two years.

More broadly speaking, I think this does go against the spirit of the examinations. Your potential value as a student really shouldn't depend on what year you're in. Genuine talent is rarely fully refined by second year and margins in examinations are frequently very marginal (and in essay-based subjects very subjective). If someone wants to try again, I think they should certainly have that opportunity. The present move is very exclusionary and is more likely to benefit tactical students who use conservative, marks-based approaches rather than more creative and ambitious students who are not afraid to try something original but harder.

I know there are financial concerns here, but is the system really served better by excluding third year scholars to allow more second year scholars?

EuropeanSon

Lisandro wrote: »

Quite a naive decision if you ask me, if they were concerned about third years sitting on second year material, then they should have just set a third year paper. What's more, there's a value in having third year scholars as they are often hard workers who are not deterred by failure or the workload of third year and who often have that extra level of academic maturity that is frequently not quite present halfway through second year. I don't have statistics on hand, but I'd wager that they're more likely to stay with Trinity as postgraduates as there's not much point in becoming a scholar for one year, whereas second year scholars sometimes feel like they've got as much as they can get out of it after two years.

More broadly speaking, I think this does go against the spirit of the examinations. Your potential value as a student really shouldn't depend on what year you're in. Genuine talent is rarely fully refined by second year and margins in examinations are frequently very marginal (and in essay-based subjects very subjective). If someone wants to try again, I think they should certainly have that opportunity. The present move is very exclusionary and is more likely to benefit tactical students who use conservative, marks-based approaches rather than more creative and ambitious students who are not afraid to try something original but harder.

I know there are financial concerns here, but is the system really served better by excluding third year scholars to allow more second year scholars?

They aren't doing that. Tony (the Scholars' Secretary) was pretty clear that his impression was that they just wanted to save money and have fewer Schols in general. Having said that, I agree with the change in principle, although it is harsh, as I feel it levels the playing field, and helps guarantee standards (as the other changes also do).

That isn't to say I think there are third year schols who aren't "up to standard", as such, but looking at it in a more objective and detached way, the arguments make sense to me.

Lawliet

I was under the impression that not many third years actually get schols, I heard there was only three last year

gutenberg

Lisandro wrote: »

Quite a naive decision if you ask me, if they were concerned about third years sitting on second year material, then they should have just set a third year paper. What's more, there's a value in having third year scholars as they are often hard workers who are not deterred by failure or the workload of third year and who often have that extra level of academic maturity that is frequently not quite present halfway through second year. I don't have statistics on hand, but I'd wager that they're more likely to stay with Trinity as postgraduates as there's not much point in becoming a scholar for one year, whereas second year scholars sometimes feel like they've got as much as they can get out of it after two years.

More broadly speaking, I think this does go against the spirit of the examinations. Your potential value as a student really shouldn't depend on what year you're in. Genuine talent is rarely fully refined by second year and margins in examinations are frequently very marginal (and in essay-based subjects very subjective). If someone wants to try again, I think they should certainly have that opportunity. The present move is very exclusionary and is more likely to benefit tactical students who use conservative, marks-based approaches rather than more creative and ambitious students who are not afraid to try something original but harder.

I know there are financial concerns here, but is the system really served better by excluding third year scholars to allow more second year scholars?

From personal experience: on a course related to mine, there were three scholars, two who got it in second year and one in third. The person who got it in JS finished top of the year at the end of fourth year, while one of the second year scholars got a 2.1, which they were gutted about (I would imagine a lot of scholars would be). So I agree with you that people mature at different rates and just because you didn't quite make it in second year doesn't mean that you're not 'scholar' material. From my (admittedly limited) knowledge of the three of them, the one who ended up with the 2.1 was definitely of the 'conservative, marks-based' approach.

I also think that the nature of your course is at issue as well. I can see how, for instance, a science student might have an advantage as a JS because their course is more cumulative in nature, versus arts-type subjects where more knowledge won't necessarily benefit you, but the added maturity probably will in constructing more nuanced arguments. But of course it would be very difficult to have course-specific regulations, and a lot of rules are by nature blunt instruments. It's a tough one.

I find in science courses being in JS is actually a disadvantage as most of the time science schols are based on SF material which you do not revisit in JS, meaning whilst you may have a bit more knowledge/experience you're still forced to study SF material while also trying to stay on top of new JS material. Just my experience anyway, I'm personally against restricting it to SF. Seems to me if there was a review of the schols exams on a course by course basis you could just change the papers where it is deemed JS students may have a significant advantage, and ensure the exams are 'searching' enough. It really isn't that complicated...

antiselfdual

Lawliet wrote: »

I was under the impression that not many third years actually get schols, I heard there was only three last year

According to the email sent by the Scholars' Committee on this there were 3 in 2008, 1 in 2009, 6 in 2010, 17 in 2011, 25 in 2012.

Aoibheann

Sure there was five third years in TP alone that got Schols!

I'm not sure I agree with the regulations. A couple of my friends were agonisingly close the first time around, and maybe with another paper it might have been different. Add that to the fact that they all managed to organise themselves well enough to study for schols in third year, then actually got schols and all went on to give a pretty great account of themselves in the end of year exams. Now that's dedication!

At the same time, I understand that it's largely a financial issue and given the insane number of scholars elected this year, I can see where they're coming from.

dabh

I have to admit that I cannot see the rationale for a separate Scholarship examination.

I was elected a Senior Scholar of a College older than TCD (founded not by Queen Elizabeth I, but by her father) with a Body Corporate consisting of Master, Fellows and Scholars. We were admitted to Scholarship by the Master on arrival back at College in Michaelmas Term. The election was made on the basis of performance in the second year examinations of the University.

In the TCD context, it seems to me that Scholarship could be awarded on the basis of performance at the Senior Freshman examination - either though achieving a first class result, or through achievement of a higher threshold analogous to the thresholds for award of Gold Medals.

If it is necessary under the statutes to hold an election in Trinity Term, the election could take place in the final week (or fortnight) of statutory term, when Courts of Appeal are convened. At that time the SF examination results should be known. The Accommodation Office could presumably reserve a block of rooms in Goldsmith Hall sufficient for at least the expected number of scholars. If not all rooms are taken up by scholars, they could then be made available to other students on an appropriate waiting list. And a celebratory day and dinner for new scholars and their predecessors could be held at the beginning of Michaelmas Term.

Lisandro

EuropeanSon wrote: »

They aren't doing that. Tony (the Scholars' Secretary) was pretty clear that his impression was that they just wanted to save money and have fewer Schols in general. Having said that, I agree with the change in principle, although it is harsh, as I feel it levels the playing field, and helps guarantee standards (as the other changes also do).

That isn't to say I think there are third year schols who aren't "up to standard", as such, but looking at it in a more objective and detached way, the arguments make sense to me.

Well, in the sense that x 2nd year scholars and y 3rd year scholars is more than x+(y/2), say, 2nd year scholars and 0 3rd year scholars. Cutbacks are understandable, but I think they would be managed better through adjusted measures, such as setting harder papers/marking the scripts more harshly. What's more, the current problem is glaring, and that's that 3rd years sit 2nd year material. If they had to sit it on 3rd year material, the amount of 3rd year scholars would plummet. The ones who would pass through this filter are the kind that are going to be cut out when the new policy begins.

gutenberg

Lisandro wrote: »

Well, in the sense that x 2nd year scholars and y 3rd year scholars is less than (x+y/2), say, 2nd year scholars and 0 3rd year scholars. Cutbacks are understandable, but I think they would be managed better through adjusted measures, such as setting harder papers/marking the scripts more harshly. What's more, the current problem is glaring, and that's that 3rd years sit 2nd year material. If they had to sit it on 3rd year material, the amount of 3rd year scholars would plummet. The ones who would pass through this filter are the kind that are going to be cut out when this new policy begins.

While this is technically true, I do think it very much depends on the course. With some courses the difference between second and third year material is miniscule, it is rather the level of detail & focus that changes. I'm thinking particularly of arts & humanities-type courses here, where the levels of knowledge of a second and third year may not be all that different, except in one or two specialised areas where the third year has taken some modules as part of JS. That kind of knowledge is not really going to be all that helpful to a JS sitting schols. I'm rambling a bit, but you sort of see the point?

Lisandro

gutenberg wrote: »

While this is technically true, I do think it very much depends on the course. With some courses the difference between second and third year material is miniscule, it is rather the level of detail & focus that changes. I'm thinking particularly of arts & humanities-type courses here, where the levels of knowledge of a second and third year may not be all that different, except in one or two specialised areas where the third year has taken some modules as part of JS. That kind of knowledge is not really going to be all that helpful to a JS sitting schols. I'm rambling a bit, but you sort of see the point?

Yes, that is true, but a substantial end of the increase in third year scholars is in science-based subjects. Sitting on second year material is less of an advantage in humanities subjects because of the inherently more subjective nature of essays. Up until semesterisation, third year scholars weren't really much of an issue, most people were content to let committed individuals work hard for it, but now the increased accessibility of the exam for third years in empirical subjects has led to such an increase in third year scholars that now future third years are going to be excluded almost completely. I do agree that third year is not always an advantage, but it has unfortunately been made a scapegoat in this situation.

gutenberg

Lisandro wrote: »

Yes, that is true, but a substantial end of the increase in third year scholars is in science-based subjects. Sitting on second year material is less of an advantage in humanities subjects because of the inherently more subjective nature of essays. Up until semesterisation, third year scholars weren't really much of an issue, most people were content to let committed individuals work hard for it, but now the increased accessibility of the exam for third years in empirical subjects has led to such an increase in third year scholars that now future third years are going to be excluded almost completely. I do agree that third year is not always an advantage, but it has unfortunately been made a scapegoat in this situation.

I suppose the ideal would be to have course-specific guidelines, rather than a one-size-fits-all rule. But I can't see that happening.

Hollzy

So have people going for Schols this year been doing much work for it so far? I really need to start spending more time in the library!

ride-the-spiral

I've just been trying to keep up with the work really but haven't really felt like I've started studying as much as I should. Although I did come into the library on a saturday for the first time ever last week which is a start.

Hollzy

I'm in the library at the moment and determined to stay until it closes but doing that and staying focused is starting to look less likely...

ride-the-spiral

I can only manage to stay until closing if I head home first and get food. I don't mind staying late, but I just hope I'll never feel the need to use the 24 hr.

Hollzy

Yeah, I've never been inside the 24 hour library and I'm pretty sure I don't want to experience it....

Bottleopener

Hollzy wrote: »

So have people going for Schols this year been doing much work for it so far? I really need to start spending more time in the library!

I plan to begin properly asap, the talk from the econ department last night was really encouraging. Not as much faith in getting it on the maths side though, no TSM maths scholars since 2008 is seriously disheartening, and almost makes me feel any attempt would be futile.

CJC86

Bottleopener wrote: »

I plan to begin properly asap, the talk from the econ department last night was really encouraging. Not as much faith in getting it on the maths side though, no TSM maths scholars since 2008 is seriously disheartening, and almost makes me feel any attempt would be futile.

There were three Maths and Economics scholars in my year, so it really depends on the year. People talk themselves out of schols every single year by saying "no-one in my course has got it in x years". Be confident, and work your butt off and you always have a shot.

ride-the-spiral

Or, nobody has gotten in years so someone must get it this year!

...Good thing I don't take probability.

Kez1

Any medicine students here that got/attempted schols? I'm definitely going for them this year and would love any advice or suggestions you can give...

One thing I'm unsure of is how many hours per week to allocate to schols. Currently in second year, and it's fine but I just don't want to run the risk of failing any exams for the sake of possibly getting schols. (Yes I know the benefits are great but I don't want to study over the summer).

Thanks!

gutenberg

Favourite schols story of the 'no one has got it in x years' variety is the (definitely inaccurate!) story that no one had got schols in TSM Italian since Samuel Beckett... :P