Update
I took maths at A levels so that I would have a cushion to fall back on in the event any 1 of my humanities fail to perform to standard, since it's significantly harder to score for econs, history and lit. I now find myself in a situation where I would need one of my humanities to cover up for my maths. Things dont look rosy consequently.
GP was fine, but it couldve been better for sure. Questions were generally strange if you ask me, but there was one that stood out immediately-- the one on the pace of life. It's the kind of essay which, by virtue of the nature of its topic, cannot fail to sound sophisticated, philosophical even. Which makes me feel bad, really, because I was hardly in the state of mind to do it-- had slept late the night before, mind kept drawing up blanks throughout the course of writing. I normally get very passionate when it comes to issues of this sort but not so this time round, and all's the pity.
History was really rubbish, in part because I couldnt think clearly (im totally serious about the blank state of mind I was in throughout the 2 papers). But it isnt a significant factor to consider because Ive managed to hit bull's eye at point blank range times before in the past. The questions were rubbish. The rigours Ive been through 2 years of education trained me to be tough against tough questions, not tough against questions which were not, by default, argumentative in nature. Of the 3 essays I attempted 2 were "account for" type questions, and any hopes raised initially by the accessible content the questions seemingly required was soon sentenced to death near the end of my first essay: I realised then that I couldnt deliver the 2-paragraph killer blow that has been so integral in my writings for history, and to a much smaller extent, lit and gp essays. (Incidentally, Im rather proud of it because it's something that differentiates my style from any others) I couldnt find the crucial match winner for those 2 essays simply because I couldnt find anything in the questions to agree/disagree with, and I had to resort to rank-all-factors conclusions reminiscent of O level standards in the end.
Personally if you ask me, I would say most of the questions, and my essays along with them, are that kind which is designed for students to hit a C with considerable ease, and nothing much beyond that. To make no mention of the fact that the bar would now be higher since anyone who has studied adequately for the paper would easily score Cs too. One of the conditions for an A grade essay is originality, and I definitely cant find any of that in my run-of-the-mill answers. It's pretty much a paradox I guess, that I personally need tough questions with a focal point of argument to score well, not the straightforward kinds which require a different orientation of myself to give it a complex twist. Dont get me wrong though, answers to the latter can get very sophiscated--after all, they are the stuff which historians have been debating for centuries many times over. I just wasnt prepared. It all boils down to that I guess.
Anyway, dont worry, I'll be fine. I am always fine. In fact I will always be fine only.
GP was fine, but it couldve been better for sure. Questions were generally strange if you ask me, but there was one that stood out immediately-- the one on the pace of life. It's the kind of essay which, by virtue of the nature of its topic, cannot fail to sound sophisticated, philosophical even. Which makes me feel bad, really, because I was hardly in the state of mind to do it-- had slept late the night before, mind kept drawing up blanks throughout the course of writing. I normally get very passionate when it comes to issues of this sort but not so this time round, and all's the pity.
History was really rubbish, in part because I couldnt think clearly (im totally serious about the blank state of mind I was in throughout the 2 papers). But it isnt a significant factor to consider because Ive managed to hit bull's eye at point blank range times before in the past. The questions were rubbish. The rigours Ive been through 2 years of education trained me to be tough against tough questions, not tough against questions which were not, by default, argumentative in nature. Of the 3 essays I attempted 2 were "account for" type questions, and any hopes raised initially by the accessible content the questions seemingly required was soon sentenced to death near the end of my first essay: I realised then that I couldnt deliver the 2-paragraph killer blow that has been so integral in my writings for history, and to a much smaller extent, lit and gp essays. (Incidentally, Im rather proud of it because it's something that differentiates my style from any others) I couldnt find the crucial match winner for those 2 essays simply because I couldnt find anything in the questions to agree/disagree with, and I had to resort to rank-all-factors conclusions reminiscent of O level standards in the end.
Personally if you ask me, I would say most of the questions, and my essays along with them, are that kind which is designed for students to hit a C with considerable ease, and nothing much beyond that. To make no mention of the fact that the bar would now be higher since anyone who has studied adequately for the paper would easily score Cs too. One of the conditions for an A grade essay is originality, and I definitely cant find any of that in my run-of-the-mill answers. It's pretty much a paradox I guess, that I personally need tough questions with a focal point of argument to score well, not the straightforward kinds which require a different orientation of myself to give it a complex twist. Dont get me wrong though, answers to the latter can get very sophiscated--after all, they are the stuff which historians have been debating for centuries many times over. I just wasnt prepared. It all boils down to that I guess.
Anyway, dont worry, I'll be fine. I am always fine. In fact I will always be fine only.
2 Comments:
I hate spams. Anyway NUS reckons. Hope we get in.
Hey kc, all is not rosy for me too. All the best for the rest of your papers.
Post a Comment
<< Home