Grumps

I've gotten a lot of conflicting reports on this, but here's what I've been able to gather. The content in AP classes are basically the same as IB classes. However IB classes are done over two years whereas AP classes are done over one. As a result, you get a lot more homework in AP classes. However, in terms of rigor, the IB is said to be harder, because of all the extra struff that we have to do.

Also, it's worth mentioning that it is generally much easier to get college credit for AP classes in the US than IB classes.

I've changed it to 15 every 24 hours.

Hi all, thought I would just upload the IB Psychology HL revision guide I made for my CAS Major.

This guide isn't perfect but from the feedback I got from my teacher and people that are using it I feel that it is a very solid revision guide. There is generally evaluation for most of research and I have lots of supporting and counter research provided.

I hope this helps you guys revise because I know Psychology is a pain in the ass to revise for. Please don't take this work and say its your own, I spent a lot of time on it.

By the way, in case your interested the major sources I used are the Pearson Baccalaureate Psychology textbook, the IB course companion and the oxford a level psychology revision guide and some class notes.

P.S. I may upload the health one in a few days if you guys want it.

EDIT: You can download it from this link too. http://www.ibsurviva...ion-guide-2011/

EDIT EDIT: I've added the Health one too.

Please do not reupload this onto any other site, these three documents were reuploaded onto scribd without my permission. I don't mind if you reupload but please ask me before you do so.

Grumps, on Mar 31, 2011 - 03:52, said:

I can see why you think the test is weird cause it replaces the real data with ranked data.  This happens because you use the Mann-Whitney test for ordinal data and the best measure of central tendency for ordinal data is the median.  So what the Mann-Whitney test is doing is turning all of the real data into medians (the ranks) and comparing the medians of the two groups.

I would definitely use the site Sandwich recommended instead of doing it by hand.

When you are done make sure you report the statistics properly with all the relevant information like:
'A Mann-Whitney test indicated that self-rated attractiveness was greater for women
who were not using oral contraceptives (Mdn = 5) than for women who were using oral
contraceptives (Mdn = 4), U = 67.5, p = .034, r = .38.'
taken from here.

Conclusion and Evaluation

Hello,

I would just like to reinforce Drake's point that it doesn't matter what results you get as long as you answer the question set (another one of my stupid rhymes).  I have just organised your data pretty quickly using excel and have come to this result. You should first present the table you have got, then transform it into something like this:



There is no such thing as a hypothesis when doing the data processing or CE part of an IA. You have answered the question set. All that is left of the data processing is the random uncertainties. You should then be povided with a literature value which you then can start your CE on.

Higher concentration=more mass per volume. So to get the same amount of mass needed to break the cohesion in the drops you would need less volume in the drop, make sense?
If the mass needed for a drop to...drop...is about constant then as molarity increases then you're volume would decrease according to c=n/v (n is basically mass in this sense). Basically meaning the drop would be smaller because there's more stuff in it

Yea, you're data is not supporting your hypothesis by the way
I don't see a need for doctoring honestly. I'm assuming the numbers in the actual data are volume and so you have 750 drops=33.56mL for 0M (errrr? water?) and more volume would mean "bigger" drops if they are the same amount of drops.

But the added molarity also means more mass which means more weight. If more weight is in the drop (so to speak, go with it ) then a smaller drop would be enough mass to break the h-bonds going on in the water (cohesion and all that good stuff). There's also the possibility of your molarities not being big enough to bring good data. Like going up by 1M might not be enough to record a change in the volume, make sense?

Not sure this is helpful, but here's what I found.

Relationship between dream and long term memory
Paper

Incorruptible, on Jan 29, 2011 - 18:26, said:

So, what you're saying is that we need to turn back the clock, then stagnate in our grandparent's lives for all of eternity. Pleasant. You go ahead, and the rest of the world can dig you up in a couple million years or so.

There is no such thing as a turn for the worst, because worst is subjective. It's such a dismal outlook on the world if you think that the best is in the past, and anything in the future is just one slow descend to- what? The sound of sticks on rocks? Where does your argument end?

Interestingly enough, Hitler made the same argument that you did. Just as you think 50s and 60s music were the epitome of what is "great", Hitler thought Classical/Romantic pieces were the high point of culture, and that jazz was "degenerate." And you simply cannot stagnate culture like that.

Stating 50s and 60s music were the best is just an opinion. I can equally say that I think Baroque was the best, and be just as justified as you are, because we are both entitled to our beliefs. We can debate the merits of both styles, but it's pointless in the end. That's probably the kind of arguments that you've had with your friends, and that's why you're bored with it. It's unimaginative. It's a dead end. You can't ever win, and you can't ever lose.

What you need to see is the bigger picture. That "good" and "bad" are subjective as a quality, and can be applied to pieces of music in any time period by different individuals. But the one thing that never changes in music - and all art forms - is the point of art itself. Art reflects universal human emotions/feelings, but the form and structure that it takes changes as society progresses. You, as a person, identify most strongly with the forms and structures present in the 50s, for whatever reason. That's fine. That's logical. Where your argument falls down is when you move away from a personal preference ("80s - my personal favourite era") to the assertion that all future music needs to be based on said personal preference ("music from today really needs to take a page from that of past decades.") Now, what you're saying is that the forms and structures of Art needs to stay the same, even as society progresses. At this point, you're arguing one of two things: either that Art structures should not be reflective of society, or that society shouldn't progress at all. Both are untenable positions. The forms and structures of Art must change with society, or else you would see all modern bands still composing for Harpsichords. And society must progress, because every time society has tried to resist it's been put out of its misery.

So you're welcome to try and make the argument. You just have to ignore history, reality and common sense to do it.

The bird is the word.

I think homeschooling for the entire duration of a child's educational years irrevocably and frankly, irresponsibly damages the psychology of a child. You can't teach social interaction, playground dynamics, or puberty.

That said, I would not argue against homeschooling (or un-schooling, w/e) for a child that has grown tired of the educational system. In fact, I agree wholeheartedly with the benefits of the system. I consider myself lucky that I happen to like the vast majority of units that I'm currently studying. Yet, there's still plenty other interests that I'm not developing. Therefore, I don't have a problem with homeschooling in theory, but I could never condone shutting off a child from the social environment of a school for the first quarter of their life.

Proletariat, on Jan 29, 2011 - 00:01, said:

Agreed with this, people who get homeschooled and therefore avoid bullying, cliques, peer pressure, herd mentality and all those mostly negative things are going to be worse equipped to cope when suddenly they come off the other end and get stuck with an overwhelmingly schooled majority. Petty little things that people have learnt to deal with at school are going to be new, strange and potentially upsetting.

Any form of social underexposure can make 'normal' seem quite frightening when you get to it -- be it homeschooling, single sex education, boarding or whatever. Most people are day pupils in mixed classes going to schools, so their experiences are 'normal' in the sense of majority-rule, and you're at a disadvantage for dealing with them if you've not had them too. You might have similar experiences which allow you to interpret them and then cope fine, but equally likely you're going to be thrown by behaviours other people have learned to thrive with.

Grumps, on Jan 23, 2011 - 04:30, said:

I absolutely agree with you. In fact, there is a swear filter on but it's entirely possible that it's missing some words. I certainly feel we need a bit more moderation in the debate forum. It's a place for debate, not for profanity and yelling. We need to encourage users to report posts that break the rules, and perhaps add a moderator or two.

What do you suggest?

Can we - should we - must we - discriminate against specific groups of people if it is expedient and rational?

For example, if we know that the propensity to be a terrorist is definitely highest among people of Arab descent, is it ethical to develop a "random testing" preference for people who appear to show pertinent physical characteristics?

Ryan Bingham: [on getting through airport security] Never get behind old people. Their bodies are littered with hidden metal and they never seem to appreciate how little time they have left. Bingo, Asians. They pack light, travel efficiently, and they have a thing for slip on shoes. Gotta love 'em.
Natalie Keener: That's racist.
Ryan Bingham: I'm like my mother, I stereotype. It's faster.
(this is from Up in the Air.. Ryan Bingham is George Clooney)