Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Schols Schols Schols, information and venting thread.
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
If they made a mistake and you appeal you still get your Trinity Monday experience, just a year later. While Trinity Monday is great fun, the best things about schols are the incredibly generous entitlements.
For that reason I'd have a look at the papers. However, as you pointed out, it's not very likely they made a mistake.
Agreed it is for most of us who take it, mostly about the generous entitlements.
And
Agreed I intend to look through papers (I'd do this anyway in prep for upcoming exams) once I gather myself enough to venture into the department.
0 -
-
-
-
Thought I'd wait a day before posting this:
It's a very primitive spreadsheet of Schols success by course. Owing to incomplete data and the questionable-worth of ranking based on a single TSM subject, most TSM courses weren't included.
Disappointingly, there don't appear to be any unexpected trends. What I was hoping to identify was a bias towards Science/Maths. While it exists (Medicine averages ten percent; BESS averages two) that can likely be explained by higher-calibre students.
However, there are some questions - for example: in the last five years (admittedly, I have been selective in choosing that period) more Nurses have "been elected" than BESS-ers; Engineers seem to do appallingly; TPs outperform Maths-ers.
I'm sure this is a question that has been considered by the College, but what is Schols trying to identify? We all know loads who are seemingly academically amazing but who didn't go for it because of having to work, not being willing to put in work, etc. Should scholars be chosen on the basis purely of intelligence? That raises the question, "What is intelligence?", "What types of intelligence?", etc. Academic success is based on more than intelligence. That a large part of Schols is recognising hard work would seem to recognise that. Should it be on how successful one is at their subject? But, are all subjects equal? TPs would perform better on Science exams than scientists on TP exams. I know TPs have to sit the Pure Maths papers for Schols, but are the Physics exams they have to sit of equal difficulty to the ones Maths-ers have to? Another question: is it fair to base it on one set of examinations? It certainly can't be said to be the most effective way of identifying the most talented. A Philosophy Dept prize for Hegel's philosophy is awarded on the basis of an exam and an 8,000 word essay. Could an essay form part of Schols? One of its criteria could be showing originality, etc - something which exams don't exactly encourage. In Oxford (and, I'm sure, Cambridge) Scholars are selected on the basis of Prelims results (usually first year exams, I think), with everyone getting a First being selected. The benefits are significantly less impressive - a "salary" similar to Trinity's, sometimes a free gown, first choice of college rooms, etc. They are explicitly to recognise those likely to get a First Class degree, and one can be demoted or promoted (though unusual) in following years. Is there any data that show the correlation between Scols success and degree classification? Is it right that a Schols First is seen as being better than a First in SF summer exams? Does it not undermine the college from within?
Slightly rambling post - I'm in a rush
Hopefully it can spark discussion. 0 -
Mr Pseudonym wrote: »Thought I'd wait a day before posting this:
It's a very primitive spreadsheet of Schols success by course. Owing to incomplete data and the questionable-worth of ranking based on a single TSM subject, most TSM courses weren't included.
Disappointingly, there don't appear to be any unexpected trends. What I was hoping to identify was a bias towards Science/Maths. While it exists (Medicine averages ten percent; BESS averages two) that can likely be explained by higher-calibre students.
However, there are some questions - for example: in the last five years (admittedly, I have been selective in choosing that period) more Nurses have "been elected" than BESS-ers; Engineers seem to do appallingly; TPs outperform Maths-ers.
I'm sure this is a question that has been considered by the College, but what is Schols trying to identify? We all know loads who are seemingly academically amazing but who didn't go for it because of having to work, not being willing to put in work, etc. Should scholars be chosen on the basis purely of intelligence? That raises the question, "What is intelligence?", "What types of intelligence?", etc. Academic success is based on more than intelligence. That a large part of Schols is recognising hard work would seem to recognise that. Should it be on how successful one is at their subject? But, are all subjects equal? TPs would perform better on Science exams than scientists on TP exams. I know TPs have to sit the Pure Maths papers for Schols, but are the Physics exams they have to sit of equal difficulty to the ones Maths-ers have to? Another question: is it fair to base it on one set of examinations? It certainly can't be said to be the most effective way of identifying the most talented. A Philosophy Dept prize for Hegel's philosophy is awarded on the basis of an exam and an 8,000 word essay. Could an essay form part of Schols? One of its criteria could be showing originality, etc - something which exams don't exactly encourage. In Oxford (and, I'm sure, Cambridge) Scholars are selected on the basis of Prelims results (usually first year exams, I think), with everyone getting a First being selected. The benefits are significantly less impressive - a "salary" similar to Trinity's, sometimes a free gown, first choice of college rooms, etc. They are explicitly to recognise those likely to get a First Class degree, and one can be demoted or promoted (though unusual) in following years. Is there any data that show the correlation between Scols success and degree classification? Is it right that a Schols First is seen as being better than a First in SF summer exams? Does it not undermine the college from within?
Slightly rambling post - I'm in a rush Hopefully it can spark discussion.
Are those places numbers accurate? I am almost sure there are more TPs than maths students. There are lots of maths TSMs, but if you'd included those then there'd be 6 maths schols this year.
As regards fairness etc, it's hard to say. I don't think all subjects are equal, but that's too lengthy a subject to go into really. I do think that the selection process is pretty good (with very few exceptions, all the schols I know are very brilliant people).
Is it fair to base it on the one set of optional exams? Yes. The purpose of it is not just to identify the brightest, but those who work the hardest and go beyond what their course requires, and the current system cannot be faulted on that front. I feel that schols aims to find those students most likely to go on to graduate study (and success at graduate level) in their fields, and support them. I think it does this very well.
However, there are major flaws: for example, until this year no TSMs had gotten it in maths since 2008 (in particular, since the system changed for semesterisation in 2010). This year, the exam system was changed to be fairer, and 3 got it. I think (having seen the old and new exams) that it's fair to say the maths TSMs of previous years were disadvantaged by the system.
As regards a schol first being better... Well, it is. So is a gold medal (in my course awarded for getting over 80%). That doesn't mean a first isn't great. It certainly doesn't detract from the meaning of a first, and I've no idea how you could say it undermines the college from within.0 -
Mr Pseudonym wrote: »Thought I'd wait a day before posting this:
It's a very primitive spreadsheet of Schols success by course. Owing to incomplete data and the questionable-worth of ranking based on a single TSM subject, most TSM courses weren't included.
Disappointingly, there don't appear to be any unexpected trends. What I was hoping to identify was a bias towards Science/Maths. While it exists (Medicine averages ten percent; BESS averages two) that can likely be explained by higher-calibre students.
However, there are some questions - for example: in the last five years (admittedly, I have been selective in choosing that period) more Nurses have "been elected" than BESS-ers; Engineers seem to do appallingly; TPs outperform Maths-ers.
I'm sure this is a question that has been considered by the College, but what is Schols trying to identify? We all know loads who are seemingly academically amazing but who didn't go for it because of having to work, not being willing to put in work, etc. Should scholars be chosen on the basis purely of intelligence? That raises the question, "What is intelligence?", "What types of intelligence?", etc. Academic success is based on more than intelligence. That a large part of Schols is recognising hard work would seem to recognise that. Should it be on how successful one is at their subject? But, are all subjects equal? TPs would perform better on Science exams than scientists on TP exams. I know TPs have to sit the Pure Maths papers for Schols, but are the Physics exams they have to sit of equal difficulty to the ones Maths-ers have to? Another question: is it fair to base it on one set of examinations? It certainly can't be said to be the most effective way of identifying the most talented. A Philosophy Dept prize for Hegel's philosophy is awarded on the basis of an exam and an 8,000 word essay. Could an essay form part of Schols? One of its criteria could be showing originality, etc - something which exams don't exactly encourage. In Oxford (and, I'm sure, Cambridge) Scholars are selected on the basis of Prelims results (usually first year exams, I think), with everyone getting a First being selected. The benefits are significantly less impressive - a "salary" similar to Trinity's, sometimes a free gown, first choice of college rooms, etc. They are explicitly to recognise those likely to get a First Class degree, and one can be demoted or promoted (though unusual) in following years. Is there any data that show the correlation between Scols success and degree classification? Is it right that a Schols First is seen as being better than a First in SF summer exams? Does it not undermine the college from within?
Slightly rambling post - I'm in a rush Hopefully it can spark discussion.
Re-check your figures for a start. There were only 5 pure law scholars this year, not 7 as indicated.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement