Schols Schols Schols, information and venting thread.

Mr Pseudonym

EuropeanSon wrote: »

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.

Sorry - I didn't see your post till now, hence why I responded to 234 before you.

I can't be certain that they are entirely accurate. But, I'm quite certain.

Your point about graduate study is a good one, and supported by the length of the Schols benefits.

I'm not really sure what my point about undermining was either. I didn't sit Schols, but everyone tells me that it is marked differently and that a lot more is required for a First. I was basically questioning a system that saw fit to award a First to a standard-of-answer in summer exams that wouldn't have achieved one in Schols.

Anita Blow

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

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.

As stated by the college, Schols is a searching exam in an attempt to identify their brightest students. You can certainly argue the definition of 'bright' but in the college's eyes academic intelligence is the ability to perform exceptionally well in an exam based on material far beyond what would be expected of their year, requiring not just an excellent understanding of the course but critical analysis and endurance also. I'd argue that one of the things which makes Schols so difficult to do well in is the endurance aspect, and you'll hear so many people drop out due to burning out as you have to make it through a huge volume of material and analyse it yourself in a relatively short space of time. The ability to do that and succeed, in terms of 'academic intelligence' is an admirable trait. To introduce an essay component, outside of the exams, would diminish that I'd find.
On the aspect of 'originality', I can only speak for my own course where 2/3 papers are research papers requiring your own analysis of material you find on the relevant subject and synthesising that into your own individual answer. The entire basis of this is originality and giving your own take on it.

It is a completely voluntary exam, and while bright students will slip through the cracks due to not being able to sit them as a result of other commitments, the college can't cater for every single student that wishes to sit them but can't/won't in its current format. The exam is fit for purpose for the most part.

A Schols First is seen as a greater achievement due to the higher standard of answer and critical analysis required, greater volume of course material to cover, and endurance & ability to perform under pressure needed to get that result.

Mr Pseudonym

Anita Blow wrote: »

As stated by the college, Schols is a searching exam in an attempt to identify their brightest students. You can certainly argue the definition of 'bright' but in the college's eyes academic intelligence is the ability to perform exceptionally well in an exam based on material far beyond what would be expected of their year, requiring not just an excellent understanding of the course but critical analysis and endurance also. I'd argue that one of the things which makes Schols so difficult to do well in is the endurance aspect, and you'll hear so many people drop out due to burning out as you have to make it through a huge volume of material and analyse it yourself in a relatively short space of time. The ability to do that and succeed, in terms of 'academic intelligence' is an admirable trait. To introduce an essay component, outside of the exams, would diminish that I'd find.
On the aspect of 'originality', I can only speak for my own course where 2/3 papers are research papers requiring your own analysis of material you find on the relevant subject and synthesising that into your own individual answer. The entire basis of this is originality and giving your own take on it.

It is a completely voluntary exam, and while bright students will slip through the cracks due to not being able to sit them as a result of other commitments, the college can't cater for every single student that wishes to sit them but can't/won't in its current format. The exam is fit for purpose for the most part.

A Schols First is seen as a greater achievement due to the higher standard of answer and critical analysis required, greater volume of course material to cover, and endurance & ability to perform under pressure needed to get that result.

First, thanks for your opinion.

Let's take the definition of "bright" as being the ability to perform well in an academic context.

I'll respond to your post in detail later. This report may interest some - it is a review of Schols written in 2006. I'll identify things from it I found relevant, in my later response.

EuropeanSon

Mr Pseudonym wrote: »

Sorry - I didn't see your post till now, hence why I responded to 234 before you.

I can't be certain that they are entirely accurate. But, I'm quite certain.

Your point about graduate study is a good one, and supported by the length of the Schols benefits.

I'm not really sure what my point about undermining was either. I didn't sit Schols, but everyone tells me that it is marked differently and that a lot more is required for a First. I was basically questioning a system that saw fit to award a First to a standard-of-answer in summer exams that wouldn't have achieved one in Schols.

Certainly in my year there were at most 30 maths students starting out. 28 sat the summer exams in first year. They may have upped that, however.

In maths, it isn't marked differently. The questions are just more difficult. For example, I scraped 70% in schols, but have never gotten below 80% in the annual exams, despite never working as hard for annual exams as I did for schols.

Mr Pseudonym

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Certainly in my year there were at most 30 maths students starting out. 28 sat the summer exams in first year. They may have upped that, however.

In maths, it isn't marked differently. The questions are just more difficult. For example, I scraped 70% in schols, but have never gotten below 80% in the annual exams, despite never working as hard for annual exams as I did for schols.

Another apology! I misunderstood what you said about "place numbers". Those numbers (the limitations of which I had meant to mention) are what are given in the 2014 prospectus as being the number of places for incoming students in 2013. In hindsight, the number of those sitting SF summer exams in each subject could be established by looking at the results.

Ofc, what I said about marking differently really only applies to essay subjects.

bayareayogi

Anita Blow wrote: »

A Schols First is seen as a greater achievement due to the higher standard of answer and critical analysis required, greater volume of course material to cover, and endurance & ability to perform under pressure needed to get that result.

I got a Schols first and all I got was this cumby forum

a first in Schols and Schols are not the same thing. They are not mutually inclusive.

And from experience I can tell you that Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing to be gained from getting a first in those exams UNLESS you get Schols - so if anyone is reading this, know that.

Also In my course they were topics outside the curriculum so the crazy studying will not even stand to me in annual exams. It's incredibly hard work .... For potentially no payback.

And I would have said this a week ago before I got my result - Schols are not about uncovering a well-rounded student, and they are not about post graduate applicants , they are not about how smart the person is , they are not about outstanding students - they are like ALL exams, a measure of how the person performs at that exact time. And some of that is preparation, and some of that is intelligence and some of that is just luck.

EuropeanSon

bayareayogi wrote: »

I got a Schols first and all I got was this cumby forum

a first in Schols and Schols are not the same thing. They are not mutually inclusive.

And from experience I can tell you that Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing to be gained from getting a first in those exams UNLESS you get Schols - so if anyone is reading this, know that.

Also In my course they were topics outside the curriculum so the crazy studying will not even stand to me in annual exams. It's incredibly hard work .... For potentially no payback.

And I would have said this a week ago before I got my result - Schols are not about uncovering a well-rounded student, and they are not about post graduate applicants , they are not about how smart the person is , they are not about outstanding students - they are like ALL exams, a measure of how the person performs at that exact time. And some of that is preparation, and some of that is intelligence and some of that is just luck.

Of course, what you're missing here is that all the things you listed are not mutually exclusive.

"How a person performs at that exact time" is very highly correlated with the other things you listed. The exam is geared towards ensuring that correlation is high, and it does a good job.

Besides the well rounded student bit, obviously. That's a buzzword (buzzphrase?), and little more.

Mr Pseudonym

bayareayogi wrote: »

It's incredibly hard work .... For potentially no payback.

Surely it's of indirect benefit?

And I would have said this a week ago before I got my result - Schols are not about uncovering a well-rounded student, and they are not about post graduate applicants , they are not about how smart the person is , they are not about outstanding students - they are like ALL exams, a measure of how the person performs at that exact time. And some of that is preparation, and some of that is intelligence and some of that is just luck.

Repeating, in less abstract terms, what European Son said: exams are a measure of how a person performs at an exact time. But, those who perform exceptionally come from a group comprising the brightest and the ones who applied themselves the most. The previous clunky sentence ("...come from a group...") was to allow for the fact that many very bright people who applied themselves may not have been successful, for a variety of reasons.

Edit: to clarify, those in the "group" possess both of the qualities I mentioned

countbezukov

EuropeanSon wrote: »

Certainly in my year there were at most 30 maths students starting out. 28 sat the summer exams in first year. They may have upped that, however.

In maths, it isn't marked differently. The questions are just more difficult. For example, I scraped 70% in schols, but have never gotten below 80% in the annual exams, despite never working as hard for annual exams as I did for schols.

There were 40 in first year maths last year. Between drop outs and people repeating its only still about 40 in second year. I know they have increased the intake for current first years alright.

Athos902

I thought I might chime in with my 2 cents on whether schol's is worth doing or not.

I felt after my taking the exams I hadn't done well enough to get a schols, so I didn't even bother showing up at front squat on Trinity Monday. In turns out that I did substantially better than expected and although I wasn't as close as some people here who got 69% after looking over my exam scripts yesterday I have to say I was excruciatingly close. The "all-or-nothing" aspect is also horrible, I feel like a team who played very well in a Champion's league final but still lost the game and will be forgotten by history.

These past few days have been painful. I have barely put an hours work into my study for the end of year exams as I just can't stop thinking about schols and what I could/should have done to get them. All those hours in late December I procrastinated away rather than putting my head down and the silly mistakes I made in the exams due to the extreme stress and sleep deprivation; I feel like they'll haunt me for the rest of my life. I still feel physically sick when I look at the pictures of the successful Scholars celebrating in their cloaks and I'm very thankful lectures are over as I don't think I'd be able to muster up the strength to smile and congratulate my Scholar classmates. Petty, I know.

In spite of all this, I have to say without a shadow of a doubt the Scholarship exam is a worthwhile endeavor for any student who thinks they have the ability. I'm fortunate enough to be one of those "naturally smart" students who never seems to work particularly hard but always does very well. I don't know how to say this without coming off as an arrogant asshole, but I've never really felt challenged academically. Schols was one heck of a challenge and I'm really proud of myself for taking it on. I've learnt a lot about hard work and dealing with failure and although I still feel heartbroken I honestly believe I will move on from this a better person.

Sorry if this was a bit corny, it turned into more of a personal message for myself than I had planned it to be.

Oh well, enough procrastination for one day, back to the books.

stealinhorses

It's definitely not the end of the world if you don't get it, but it does kinda haunt you, especially in terms of being burned out for end of year exams.

The new rules that came in regarding Science schols this year mean that I would have gotten it had they been in place a year earlier (I had a 70% average after two exams). Kinda annoying, but what are you gonna do?

It's certainly worth going for it if you got a strong first in JF, but you really need to plan it well and look out for hints from lecturers (misinterpreting this fu*ked me over for a few questions). The exams themselves are not unbelievably difficult, you just need to have studied way more than ever before to do well in them, that's the only real problem with schols.

Tweej

Not gonna lie, so unwilling to study for Summer exams atm.

Undeadfred

The only reason i want to do well in summer exams right now is cause of schols. Want to test myself see if I'm good enough for schols

chymes

Hi,

I was just wondering if you do get Schols, are the benefits for the year after only or from Year 3, 4 and 5 or does it include the years gone past? As it says tenable for a period of 5 years?

234

chymes wrote: »

Hi,

I was just wondering if you do get Schols, are the benefits for the year after only or from Year 3, 4 and 5 or does it include the years gone past? As it says tenable for a period of 5 years?

It takes effect from JS and runs for 5 years subject to being intermitted.

chymes

234 wrote: »

It takes effect from JS and runs for 5 years subject to being intermitted.

So its from Year 3 onwards? Pardon me as I'm not a local. Isn't it then pretty much only applicable for 1 or 2 years for most degree's then? Just wondering what's the point of running it for 5 ...Unless it lapses into post graduate studies. Thanks tho

partyatmygaff

chymes wrote: »

So its from Year 3 onwards? Pardon me as I'm not a local. Isn't it then pretty much only applicable for 1 or 2 years for most degree's then? Just wondering what's the point of running it for 5 ...Unless it lapses into post graduate studies. Thanks tho

It does continue for postgrads.

chymes

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It does continue for postgrads.

Oh...And is the fee's for international students reduce to EU students levels or reduced BY EU School fee's?

IE,

EU students pay 9,000
Int'l Students pay 20,000

After Schols, Int'l students pay 9,000 or do they pay 11,000?

Sorry because the website on TCD and the TCDLife website seem to put different things...

One says Int'l students pay EU fee's while the other says its reduced by.

Just doing some financial calculation which makes an impact on whether or not i should consider buying a house in ireland!

Anita Blow

It reduces international fees by the EU fee amount, so would reduce them to €11,000 in your example.

bayareayogi

Athos902 wrote: »

I thought I might chime in with my 2 cents on whether schol's is worth doing or not.

I felt after my taking the exams I hadn't done well enough to get a schols, so I didn't even bother showing up at front squat on Trinity Monday. In turns out that I did substantially better than expected and although I wasn't as close as some people here who got 69% after looking over my exam scripts yesterday I have to say I was excruciatingly close. The "all-or-nothing" aspect is also horrible, I feel like a team who played very well in a Champion's league final but still lost the game and will be forgotten by history.

These past few days have been painful. I have barely put an hours work into my study for the end of year exams as I just can't stop thinking about schols and what I could/should have done to get them. All those hours in late December I procrastinated away rather than putting my head down and the silly mistakes I made in the exams due to the extreme stress and sleep deprivation; I feel like they'll haunt me for the rest of my life. I still feel physically sick when I look at the pictures of the successful Scholars celebrating in their cloaks and I'm very thankful lectures are over as I don't think I'd be able to muster up the strength to smile and congratulate my Scholar classmates. Petty, I know.

In spite of all this, I have to say without a shadow of a doubt the Scholarship exam is a worthwhile endeavor for any student who thinks they have the ability. I'm fortunate enough to be one of those "naturally smart" students who never seems to work particularly hard but always does very well. I don't know how to say this without coming off as an arrogant asshole, but I've never really felt challenged academically. Schols was one heck of a challenge and I'm really proud of myself for taking it on. I've learnt a lot about hard work and dealing with failure and although I still feel heartbroken I honestly believe I will move on from this a better person.

Sorry if this was a bit corny, it turned into more of a personal message for myself than I had planned it to be.

Oh well, enough procrastination for one day, back to the books.

Okay well if it's any consolation I imagine all of us that missed it feel the same way - I know I do. It does feel so strange to be getting commiserations after actually doing so very well?! I'm just not quite sure how I'm supposed to react and have no gone into hiding to avoid the 'pity looks' from peers and bumping into lecturers- imagine all that work and effort and a kick a** mark (one I would kill for in annual exams) and we get pitied.

To have missed it by so very little is excruciating (to say the least) - physically gut wrenching and a very heavy burden to carry especially so close to exams. And I've been trying very hard to put at least 6 hours a day into exam studies but I'm struggling to concentrate, and I am absolutely burnt out, and remembering nothing.

I think the fact that results come out so close to exams is very very demotivating for people. I know that's the way it has always been done - doesn't make it right though.

I also think the fact that all our work and sacrifice is completely overlooked by academic faculty and the college at large is cruel. A generic email to everyone to say 'well done/tried' from the school/department - would not go amiss in terms of manners and respect. I know a few years ago there were exemptions for students who took schols and got good results - I'm not even asking for something as remarkable as that.

I believe that Trinity are getting this all wrong. They keep talking about 'well-rounded' students and with campaigns like 'mental health week' and 'the science of happiness' week to spread positivity - they are missing out on the most basic opportunity to tap into self esteem of really dedicated students.

No-one should be overlooked in light of their efforts.

So to all the students who sat those exams and weren't successful I want to say - Well freaking done. You are awesome. We are awesome!!!!

Do not let one exam result define how successful you are at studies, college or life.

lerusester

Undeadfred wrote: »

The only reason i want to do well in summer exams right now is cause of schols. Want to test myself see if I'm good enough for schols

Why don't u test yourself on a phat piece of cake yo

Undeadfred

lerusester wrote: »

Why don't u test yourself on a phat piece of cake yo

m8 I'll test out your new car for yah

Undeadfred

Did anyone here have a bad day/bad exam on one of their Schols exams but still got it? Anyone didnt get it because if it?

When i say bad exam i mean noticably worse than the others

stealinhorses

yeah, I had it in the bag after maths and chemistry and then failed physics to bring my average down to 58%

EuropeanSon

Undeadfred wrote: »

Did anyone here have a bad day/bad exam on one of their Schols exams but still got it? Anyone didnt get it because if it?

When i say bad exam i mean noticably worse than the others

I got a 51 on my third paper, two 80s brought me up.

Mr Pseudonym

EuropeanSon wrote: »

I got a 51 on my third paper, two 80s brought me up.

:eek: You're Maths, right? What paper did you mess up?

outnumbered

How necessary is it to study for these over the summer? One girl who got it in my course told me that anyone she knows who got schols did no study over the summer. How true is this?
I was thinking of doing an hour a day for the summer. Maybe even perfecting the modules I did this year since they are being asked too.

maedhbh_mac

Undeadfred wrote: »

Did anyone here have a bad day/bad exam on one of their Schols exams but still got it? Anyone didnt get it because if it?

When i say bad exam i mean noticably worse than the others

One horrendous paper scuppered me - in humanities, because it's so difficult to get anywhere above 70, you can't really afford anything below a 65 on any one paper, unfortunately.

stealinhorses

outnumbered wrote: »

How necessary is it to study for these over the summer? One girl who got it in my course told me that anyone she knows who got schols did no study over the summer. How true is this?
I was thinking of doing an hour a day for the summer. Maybe even perfecting the modules I did this year since they are being asked too.

Definitely a bad idea. You don't understand how easy it is to burn out studying for schols until you sit them.

partyatmygaff

outnumbered wrote: »

How necessary is it to study for these over the summer? One girl who got it in my course told me that anyone she knows who got schols did no study over the summer. How true is this?
I was thinking of doing an hour a day for the summer. Maybe even perfecting the modules I did this year since they are being asked too.

No one I know who has schols did any serious study during the summer (then again, the main people I know with schols are from the Health Sciences).

It's too easy to burnout and you need to be at your peak in December/January.

Enjoy your summer, relax and hit the ground running come September/October (Or November/December... it's been done)