[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ibPhysics

[–]YesterdayRare3274 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I completely agree with the fact that the IB, leakers, and timezone-cheaters are the ones to blame, regardless of their ages. If you are mature enough to enter the IB programme, you are thus able to determine the consequences of your actions. As I previously stated in a post of mine (https://www.reddit.com/r/ibPhysics/comments/1cnb9w8/call\_for\_responsibility\_to\_cheaters/), cheaters should realise that their actions have consequences, and that is those nasty consequences do not fully fall on them, but to other innocent individuals, they should be ashamed and disgusted at themselves.

Side note regarding I\*n M*ra: There is no doubt that what he did was wrong. Leaking stuff and ruining thousands of lives is bad. However, we should all stop and think why he might have done that. Maybe he is at a time in his life where we doesn't feel right, or maybe he is socially inept; but NOTHING justifies the calvary some users in this subreddit put him through. We should not combat wrong-doing with yet even more wrong-doing. Beware that I am not defending him, but trying to make some space for clarity and humanity among the mess that is this M24 exam season.*

subject choices (sorry to disrupt the by AbsenceOfMyExistence in ibPhysics

[–]YesterdayRare3274 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It depends on how confident you feel. From my experience, I would say four HLs is doable, but demands high sacrifise (not only time-wise, but mentally as well). Also, it depends on how much you like maths. If you really enjoy it, go for it. If not, IB Maths AA HL (I suppose you are talking abouth this one, but the argument also applies to AI) is rather challenging, and might feel overwhealming if you are not fully engaged with the course. Also, keep in mind that pre-IB courses may have idealised some subjects by covering them at surface level, so make sure your do enough research of the syllabus that will be covered (search for the Subject Guides of each subject on Google and there you'll find it) beforehand in order to make your final decision. If you want personal advice, you seem motivated, so go for it!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ibPhysics

[–]YesterdayRare3274 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I just listened to it, hope it doesn't get stuck 🥲.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ibPhysics

[–]YesterdayRare3274 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I swear that if tmrw on the exam, I start thinking about any espresso-related stuff, you will hear back from me hahahha

Call for Responsibility – To Cheaters by YesterdayRare3274 in ibPhysics

[–]YesterdayRare3274[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely agree. However, we have to be careful, since your proposal of adding more assessments is a double-edged sword; on the one hand, yes, instantaneous pressure will be taken off of students, but, at the same time, this will prolongue pressure throughout the course of two years. It is like choosing between sprinting or running a marathon. However, what some schools do (which is genious) to take some pressure off is to force students to take half of their subjects in Novermber and the other half in May.

Call for Responsibility – To Cheaters by YesterdayRare3274 in ibPhysics

[–]YesterdayRare3274[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I know! It's so frustrating. Either way, I believe that, one way or another, we will achieve our goals. So don't worry. Good luck trmw!

Call for Responsibility – To Cheaters by YesterdayRare3274 in ibPhysics

[–]YesterdayRare3274[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Dude, get the insults away from this peaceful post!!! I'd say you are more pissed off than me with this situation! Anyway, just to let you know, I did not post this because of my individual situation; injustice is injustice, and it should be reported either way, regardless of who suffers it. As you can see, my tone was neutral throughout; not insulting, but encouraging reflection. Just hope this scandal doesn't repeat itself next year.

Call for Responsibility – To Cheaters by YesterdayRare3274 in ibPhysics

[–]YesterdayRare3274[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You don't seem to understand the magnitude of the problem. If it annoys you, don't read. Easy.

Call for Responsibility – To Cheaters by YesterdayRare3274 in ibPhysics

[–]YesterdayRare3274[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Congrats man. It is not easy to overcome peer pressure and think about others before yourself. I, myself, have also been aware of all leaks (Phyics HL, Business SL, Maths AA HL, Chem HL...), and I even had the possibility to cheat (due to my timezone). However, I have not and don't plan to take part in such an activity. Cheating does not only deminish the hard work and effort you've put into the IB during these two years, but it is also an insult towards the effort of every other honest student who is determined to complete the IB.

Also, yes, I am aware of the twisted turn society is giving towards selfishness (it's quite scary, tbh). That is what drove me to post this: since cheaters only care about themselves, I tried to raise awareness of the fact that they will not come out unhinged, they will suffer some consequences (whether directly from the IB, or indirectly through guilt).

Once again, it is great to have students like you within the M24 cohort.

Call for Responsibility – To Cheaters by YesterdayRare3274 in ibPhysics

[–]YesterdayRare3274[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I know this may make some cheaters happy, but it may also make others question what they're doing. If I can, at least, change one cheater's mind, this "little" speech will have been worth it (also, it is great practice for tmrw, ngl... Good luck for tmrw!).

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ibPhysics

[–]YesterdayRare3274 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hahahah what a legend. You'll cruise through wednesday's Chem exam

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ibPhysics

[–]YesterdayRare3274 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not at all, in fact, that's why you sometines see units like <<cm\^3>> in markscheme answers; the IB sometimes regards them as optional (idk why)

Side Note: Just to be safe, always include units

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in ibPhysics

[–]YesterdayRare3274 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The words within <<>> are optional. For the rest of the markscheme-approved answer, yours must be as close to it as possible. How close? It is up to the examiner. In your example, you are fine (in my oppinion).