Jump to content


VIP Subscriber
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


azara last won the day on February 18 2017

azara had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

57 Amazing


Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Exams
    Nov 2016
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

4,573 profile views
  1. 1. Yes, I think so. Its education is quite university-style and self-driven, so by the time you get to college, you will be well-prepared. That does mean you suffer more now, though. 2. Depends on whether the colleges you want to apply to will value the IB more than the alternative. I don't know what the consensus is in the US, but in Australia, doing the IB is a massive advantage. Lots of unis offer early-entry schemes and the scaling to an ATAR is very favourable. 3. Not directly, but it might help you get into a better college or course (and get better marks in said college or course), which might help you to get a secure job. 4. Honestly, once you get to uni, being an all-arounder doesn't matter at all, because you'll instantly specialise in something. I went to uni, took politics and languages, and haven't touched maths or chemistry since the November 2016 exams. In high school you will learn to be an all-arounder, but at uni it doesn't matter at all! It's worth at least giving the IB a go. I very much enjoyed its focus on independence, engagement with content, and research into personal interests for the IAs. Sure, it's hard, but all college prep programmes are hard!
  2. I'd get together beforehand and make an agreement that you'll all look bright-eyed and fascinated by each other's presentations. Seems like a weird method of marking. In terms of making an actually interesting presentation: Look up and around. Not just at the teacher, but expand your gaze. Glancing up for a moment and then continuing to read isn't very genuine, so try your best to really look around and find eye contact with the audience. Vary your tone. Nobody is interested in hearing a robot reading words off a notecard. Imagine that you're explaining your points, as if you were explaining them to somebody on the street. You can practice by standing in the mirror, and explaining it to yourself. Don't be afraid to pause. Take breaths after important phrases, and at the ends of sentences. For my IOP, I went through my cards and marked places to stop. This is very helpful, because it keeps you calm, as well as making what you're saying sound much more impressive. Take a strong stance. Don't hide behind a lecturn or a table, unless you have to. Stand upright, slightly forwards from anything you could shrink into, and raise your chin. Try not to be too stiff, but also don't slouch. Not only will this give you a stronger presence, it will help you to feel more confident. If you tend to sway from side to side when you're speaking, place one foot slightly in front of the other. This will stop you from doing that If you can, use a stopwatch so you can see how much time is left. Lots of people rush through speeches because they're worried they'll run out of time. Subsequently, the speech is boring, and it just seems like the speaker can't wait to get to the end. A good speaker makes you believe they want to be there, in the moment. Know approximately where you should be up to in your speech at various times, so you don't fall into the time-poor trap. No death by PowerPoint, please. One picture or some keywords per slide. One slide per minute, max. Too many words may make the audience look at the screen, but they definitely won't be interested in you. PowerPoints are great, but keep the focus on what you're saying. This means the audience will be forced to watch and respond to you = they appear more interested. One thing I found was a real problem when I was giving presentations whilst nervous, was that I would royally screw up my breathing and basically run out of air. I still don't know why this happened, but I'm sure I'm not the only one. If you find yourself in trouble, don't push to keep going. Finish your sentence, take a breath, and collect yourself. It might seem like an eternity to you, but honestly, the audience probably won't even notice. Good luck
  3. It's often good to link back the topics you discussed to the context of the novel, because I think that's the specific question (at least, it was at our school. I don't know if that's the case everywhere?). So you say "our class brought up this topic, which I noticed in the text here, here, and here, and which links back to this aspect of the author's society and helped me to understand this particular aspect about that society." Repeat x2 or x3, until 300 words is achieved. Make sure it's concise, doesn't have too much analysis (but certainly has a little), and touches on several of the main themes of discussion.
  4. I'm done with the IB, so I can say whatever I like about English now The above posters are right, there is no cut and dry formula for analysing a text. Sometimes, however, you're given an absolute shocker. In this case, it can be best to work through the text methodically, and then to condense and improve upon your observations. Here are some tips I used during the IB: Acronyms You can use these for all text types. There are two acronyms to follow: SPECS and SLIMS. SPECS are the aspects you bring up in your introduction, and continue throughout the essay. SLIMS are the methods authors use to convey their message. SPECS stands for Subject: what's it actually about? Purpose: what is the author trying to tell you? (often the last part that you work out) Emotion: what are the moods? Does it change as the text changes? Craftsmanship: this is where SLIMS comes in. See below. Summary: how has the poem had an effect on you as a whole? Does it achieve the purpose? SLIMS are the literary techniques you can draw on to answer those questions. It stands for Structure: conventional or unconventional? Often structures can convey chaos (if it's irregular, random, doesn't rhyme, different line lengths), change from one thing to another (if the structure itself changes), or other emotions. What lines/aspects are highlighted as a result of the structure? These lines tend to be the most important for the message and purpose of the text. Language: self-explanatory. What effect do certain words/lines have? Always a safe option in an essay, but can be simplistic, so try to extend beyond just language discussion. Imagery: nearly every text has some. This includes methaphors, personification, similes, anthropomorphism, etc. Movement: can be trickier. This refers to the rhythm of the poem. Is it quick or slow? Jarring or smooth? Sounds: rhyming, etc. How does it sound when you read it aloud? Pleasant and musical, or harsh? When analysing a text, start by reading it through once, just to get an idea. Then go back, and set up two tables. The first is SPECS, and the second SLIMS. Write down everything you can think of for both options, even if you think it's not very good. Highlight the lines in the text that resonate with you, or that you think are important to the central themes. Now, read through your SPECS list. Fine-tune it. Using your SLIMS list, and quotes from the text, you can flesh out the author's message more clearly. At this point, start grouping together quotes, themes, and ideas. These become the main themes of the text. Common themes If you're hit with a text and you have no idea what it's about, here are some common options that could be relevant: A comment on society. The author is almost always commenting on a certain aspect of society, usually critically. If you think this might be the case, go through the text using SPECS and SLIMS and try to answer: What aspect/s of society are mentioned? Why does the author think they're bad? In what ways is this reflected in the text? (use SLIMS!) Does the author propose a solution? How does s/he see the future? What will have to change? Is it even possible for there to be change, or is it a fundamental flaw with society? The text will always have a perspective, and if you can work out what it is, this will make your analysis more sophisticated. It could be unclear, or very original, so hard to decipher. However, often a text fits into a certain style category. Perhaps it's modernist, post-modernist, cubist, absurdist, etc. Maybe you a have a play informed by classical tragedy, romanticism, or naturalism. Research some different styles for your text type. If you find a likely candidate, look up its aspects in more detail, and see if they fit to your text. You can then discuss: Why the author chose to use that style, rather than another What the style generally evokes (e.g. romanticism has clear ideas about god/man/nature: if the author has written a romantic work, they probably share the same views) Where examples of that style can be found in the text. Very important! The author's own perspective. Do a bit of research on their background. Why would the author be compelled to write this text? When was it published, and what was society like at the time? What was the intended audience? This can help you to clarify the themes and messages. It's particularly helpful if it has no clear style. Hope this helps you
  5. I will definitely look into it! It's just I moved into uni on the weekend and have been flat out with O week since. It'll happen
  6. Nobody's really obligated to dedicate large amounts of their time to a thread on the internet. Perhaps instead of either of you posting videos, you just summarise what is in them, or move on to a different topic which doesn't require so much time investment? Not trying to moderate, but otherwise both of you will just claim the other wasn't paying attention
  7. Would you mind giving a summary of what's in the video? As you noted, it's almost four and a half hours long, so honestly I'm probably not going to watch all of it unless I know what's in the middle (or if you know of a shorter video that has similar discussion, I'd happily watch that) In the meantime, here's a question for everybody, religious or not: what are your thoughts on Richard Dawkins? Personally my feelings are mixed - I agree with his viewpoint (mostly), he has brilliant rhetoric and presentation, but I'm not sure his belligerence helps win over those on the fence. I'm interested to know what you guys think!
  8. No data is required, it's quite obvious. The only people who would dedicate so much time to studying the New Testament are those who believe it's worthwhile, ie. Christians. No other religious group would have any interest in it, it's not even like the Old Testament where the text is relevant to Judaism and to an extent Islam as well. The NT is exclusively Christian. Would you become a scholar of, say, the Koran? Of course not, the scholars of Islamic texts are exclusively Muslim. The expert consensus of only Christian scholars? Can you find me several examples of non-religious scholars who believe in the resurrection? I'm not saying my suggestion happened, though I will point out it's not as implausible as you think. The population of 2000 years ago was not a medically enlightened one. Jesus' chance of survival was obviously low, so if he had been nursed back to health, it would have seemed miraculous. Anyway, I don't actually believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or emerged in any sense, after his crucifixion, because there's no reason for me to believe so. As I'm sure you're aware, the gospels were only written down almost 100 years after Jesus died. And it took about 350 years before the "official" version was decided! That's plenty enough time to make revisions to the story - and indeed, the later gospels do make revisions: Imagine telling somebody about an event which occurred in 1917. The factual detail would be hazy, and your information would be based on hearsay. It's like Chinese Whispers - the more you pass the message around, the less accurate it becomes. For the early Christians to improve upon the life of their leader, it would be very easy for them to come to believe he was resurrected from the dead, before disappearing off to Heaven only a few hours later. Someone, probably high up as it made it into a couple of gospels, could have just suggested/claimed he rose from the dead, it was dutifully copied down by a couple of the writers, and those are the ones that made it into the "final version" of the Bible in AD347. And now, to practical issues: if Jesus had really risen from the dead, why didn't he stick around, show himself to the Romans who had doubted him, and generally made a bit more of a fanfare? It doesn't make spiritual sense that he only showed himself to a select group of people for a short amount of time, then disappeared forever. It's convenient to the story, because there's nobody around to dispute it, and of course it wasn't recorded elsewhere, because nobody other than the disciples saw him! The explanations are very convenient to the writers of the Bible... Anyhow, I'm not obligated to go through all the possible explanations. I've mostly just given you my own personal viewpoint here, that over the course of several hundred years the story was revised to inaccuracy for spiritual reasons. Until you can provide me with more evidence than "the Bible says so" (and "Christian scholars agree with the Bible"), I can't entertain the prospect of a resurrection.
  9. The claim made in the video is that "most New Testament scholars accept the empty tomb", which is unsurprising, because I'm pretty sure scholars of the New Testament are exclusively Christian. Of course they believe it happened! My question to you is, why do you accept the empty tomb? What other evidence do you have? One argument people make is that there are eyewitness accounts, set down in the Bible, that it happened. However, I'm going to give you another eyewitness account of a Viking raid on Lindisfarne in AD 793. This was in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, written by monks to document the year's events over the course of several hundred years: "This year came dreadful fore-warnings over the land of the Northumbrians, terrifying the people most woefully: these were immense sheets of light rushing through the air, and whirlwinds, and fiery, dragons flying across the firmament. These tremendous tokens were soon followed by a great famine: and not long after, on the sixth day before the ides of January in the same year, the harrowing inroads of heathen men made lamentable havoc in the church of God in Holy-island, by rapine and slaughter." In reality, dragons were probably not involved. Anyhow, my point is that eyewitnesses must be backed up with other, more reliable, evidence, before their claims can even be considered viable. Now, if we went over to Lindisfarne and discovered enormous dragon footprints on the beach, we might start taking the monks seriously. As there are none - and there is no other evidence for Jesus' resurrection - there is little reason to credit either claim. Setting aside the credibility issues, even if Jesus really had appeared to rise from the dead, there are plenty of more plausible explanations for why this could have been the case. Really, the most obvious is that Jesus was not actually dead when he was taken down from the cross (he had supporters who would definitely have tried to save him), so he was cared for in the cave. He made a couple of appearances to his closest followers, so they were suitably impressed, and lived out the rest of his life in seclusion, to avoid re-arrest by the Romans. I'm not saying that "my version" of the events actually happened, because I have no evidence for any of these claims whatsoever. But, my version of the story is just as good as yours: both fit the eyewitnesses' accounts. And mine is more plausible than arguing for a resurrection! It appears that your argument starts with the assumption Jesus rose from the dead, and then tries to fit the facts, which I don't consider very factual, around it. There is no logical path with which you can exclude all other possibilities, and prove Jesus was definitely (or even probably) resurrected.
  10. If Arabic is your sister's first language, the language B course is not designed for her. The group is called "language acquisition" - as in, you're supposed to be acquiring a foreign language, not just practising one you already know. I'm aware many people do language B courses in languages they're already fluent in, but to be honest, this is a bit unfair to people who are actually having to acquire a new language. As your sister has found out doing French, learning a completely foreign language is hard. The problem is that those who are fluent can answer the papers way better than those who are not native speakers, so the grade boundaries move up and standards get really high. That said, your sister would not be the first or the last person by any stretch to do this. I'm pretty sure the school could just refuse to support you doing self-taught, they're not obligated to help at all. However, if you were desperate you could probably force them to enrol you for it with the IBO.
  11. Pretty much. For the most part, they're not that useful. I'd say "no" to the year 12 question, as you're definitely completing year 12, but it's not Australian. To be honest, the specifics probably don't matter much and universities are probably used to a bit of variation. If you want to enter uni in semester 1, 2018, you'll have to wait until UAC opens for those applications, which is next year. Or are you entering semester 2, 2017? I just noticed it asked about Year 12 2016, which implies 2017 entry. I'm doing B International Relations, which I'm quite excited to start!
  12. Cool, I'm actually going to ANU in just over a week! ANU requires no extra tests for law, though the grades required are of course quite high. Sydney and UNSW have even higher boundaries, though... What exactly does the wording of the box say? If it says "Australian Year 12", hit no, but if it just says "year 12", I'd say yes. Unless, of course, you've already done your exams and completely left school, at which point it's a no. For ANU, bonus points do apply to IB students. Here you go: http://www.anu.edu.au/study/apply/bonus-points
  13. I'm glad to be of help, I've just applied through UAC so I know most of the ins and outs. It can be pretty complicated, especially if the school won't help you, which is pretty bad of them :/ Your chance of getting in is very dependent on the course you want to do. Google "IB to ATAR" to see the official conversion. Most university websites also list their guaranteed entry in IB marks, but if they don't, the conversion table should help you out. For the majority of courses, that entry grade will 100% secure you a place in the course. For medicine and law, you may have to do additional tests as they're very competitive. You need basically 42+ to get in. Also, research the UMAT and LNAT if you want to do medicine or law as you'll have to work out how to sit them. Be aware that many Australian unis will offer "bonus points", which are added to your ATAR. They're for things like music and doing well in certain subjects, as well as for disadvantaged students. Each uni does this differently, and some don't do it at all, so you'll have to look it up. What universities are you thinking of? I'm very familiar with Sydney Uni and ANU in Canberra, if you want more specific advice. Don't worry about the IB certificate, I don't think it means anything to UAC. Just the transcript should be fine.
  14. No problem You'll need to arrange for the IB to send a transcript of your results to UAC. The IBO will send your results free of charge to six tertiary institutions; your school probably have a specific six programmed in for all its students. To find out what they are, go to candidates.ibo.org website and select "transcripts". If UAC is not one of those six, you'll have to go to the coordinator and ask for one of the six to be swapped out for UAC. More information: http://www.ibo.org/en/programmes/diploma-programme/assessment-and-exams/requesting-transcripts/ Since I assume you'll already have your results by the time you apply, I'm not sure whether you can put the grades in yourself. I'm pretty sure the IB can just send them in July and UAC will hold on to them for you. Might be worth a phone call. Enter your IGCSEs as your secondary qualification. For this, you will probably need to provide documentation. A scan of the official results page should be fine, but check the guidelines, which will be available on the UAC website. UAC opens in September and closes in October. DO NOT wait until the last week or two, as the website is usually very slow by that time because everyone else has waited until the last minute, too.
  15. I see you're in Greece, so you're applying as a non-Australian citizen, I assume? When I applied this year, my Year 12 number was my IB session number, which is the one you write on top of all the exams. Either that, or it was the personal code (abc123 format), I don't remember, sorry. It's one of those two, anyway. Your UAC pin is just your birthday: ddmm. So if your birthday is 12 July, it'd be 1207. What will follow is a pretty linear form to fill out, with a lot of useless detail that I'm sure they don't need, but ask for anyway. It's mostly straightforward from there. When you're filling out the higher education system, I didn't add IB as a secondary qualification, instead made it my principal year 12 qualification. That worked fine for me. If you're also doing local exams in Greece, decide which one is your "principal" (I assume IB), and then add the other one as well as your "secondary". This makes more sense once you get to that section of the form! If you're not an Australian resident, you'll probably need to provide visa details of some description, so have your passport handy. Feel free to ask more questions
  • Create New...