Am I the only one who considers some questions in exams worthy the phrase ‘to kill for’?? You know those questions you can actually answer!! Why is it that they only appear in past exams, and usually last year’s as well so that there is absolutely no chance of them appearing this year??
Why is it that the only topics I consider not worthwhile to revise, because they have never appeared in the past, always show up in the compulsory part of the exam?? Using this logic I’d say that the topics that will turn up in my exam tomorrow will be on auditing, cash flow statements and probably activity based costing. There won’t be anything on absorption costing or ratio analysis now that I have learnt all the 17 equations by heart and know how to apply them.
On a good note though, I have realised that the maths and stats department have a sort of reward scheme. Meaning if you overload on your CATS, which I have done, you can in theory get a 2 (1) without actually performing to a 2 (1) standard. So you see for me to get a 2 (1), as an example, I only in fact need to get an average of 57.3% in my exams. Similarly for me to get a first I only need 66.8%. So it really pays off to do fuck–loads (obviously up to a point) and overload your CATS. It makes me happy, although it was pointed out to me that I should always aim to get a 100%, which I’d say is relatively impossible but none the less I get the point.
So yes, this little 'reward scheme' is why people in the past have got more than 100% as calculated using the Seymour Formula in their exams, sadly not me though.
Anyway, enough of geekyness. Exam tomorrow (eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!!!!!!!!), have to continue with my revision. (And yes I know that one can say that blogging is not geeky whereas revision isÖ)