Well, obviously. One essay got a spanking 65% (not bad for zero effort) whilst one got a sort of 'Pretty terrible with sparks of brilliance' review of 49%. Both passes, which is good since I blagged them with little preparation. But points to consider:
- Firstly, I hate the stupid concept of, whilst being an academic, having to explain every little technical term. Wards around the country use the Early Warning Score. It's a piece of evidence based practice. So why should I have to explain what it is? If you end up explaining every little thing in an essay you won't get any debating done.
"Jane was a human being. A human being is a carbon-based lifeform from planet Earth. Earth is the third planet from the Sun. 'The Sun' is the term used by humans for the star their planet orbits. A star is..." etc. I jest, but there's a serious point in there. Where does this process start and stop? The answer is debatable, but one thing is clear. Some markets like everything explained, some are less draconian.
- Secondly, I was always taught that introductions were something to get out of the way, lest too much labour be spent. And yet in both of these essays I've been told mine are too short. So, it seems this University wants me to labour the point. Fine.
- Finally, I have no complaint that some of my references didn't match my bibliography perfectly. That's easily improved.
Anyway, I aim to be much more organised in the future. And I'm excessively good at learning from my mistakes, my next essay is going to blow some socks off. It's decided.
Test - Just a test.
4 days ago