• Philosophy Unit 2: 80/100 – A;
• Maths: Core 2: 100/100 – A;
• Maths: Core 3: 100/100 – A*;
• Maths: Mechanics 2: 93/100 – A (Includes ~5% special consideration for getting a migraine — I think);
• Maths: Decision 2: 90/100 – A, despite giving up half-way through with the afore-mentioned migraine (back-to-back exams FTL) — I think they must have more-or-less doubled my raw mark because of that.
• Physics Unit 2: 120/120 – A;
• Physics ISA: 54/60 – A;
• Chemistry Unit 2: 140/140 – A;
• Chemistry ISA: 56/60 – A;

Overall AS results including January modules and D1:

• Philosophy: 180/200 – A;
• Physics: 294/300 – A;
• Chemistry: 293/300 – A;
• Maths: Slightly complicated as which modules go into Maths and which into Further Maths all depends, but:
  • Total of all modules taken: 760/800;
  • I will get an A in maths even if I get 0/100 in C4;
  • If I get ≥ 80/100 in C4 I will get A* in maths.

Anyway, AS module results from January exams (subjects listed in descending order of purity/awesome):

• Philosophy Unit 1: 100/100 – A (duh): Woo-hoo!
• Maths: Core 1: 97/100 – A;
• Maths: Mechanics 1: 86/100 – A: slightly fail, but probably only one question messed up, not worth resitting unless I desperately need marks next year. I think I was a bit slapdash (read: cocky) in preparing for Maths, to be honest.
• Maths: Statistics 1: 94/100 – A;
• Physics Unit 1: 120/120 – A: Woo-hoo again;
• Chemistry Unit 1: 97/100 – A.

I’ve also got 100/100 in Decision Maths 1 from last January. Pretty happy with those results, but I need to revise harder (read: at all outside lessons) for Maths in June.

• Maths: A*, predicted A*;
• Statistics: A*, predicted A*;
• English Language: A*, predicted A*/maybe A;
• English Literature: A, A*/maybe A;
• Core Science: sat last year: A*;
• Additional Science: A*, predicted A*;
• History: A*, predicted A*;
• French: A*, predicted A*;
• German: A*, predicted A*;
• Food Tech: B (1 mark off A), predicted A*/A;
• RE: A*, predicted A*.

Overall I’m fairly happy with my results, and my predictions were somewhat optimistic, but the B in Food Tech is a bit disappointing.

• Maths: A*;
• Statistics: A*;
• English Language: A*/maybe A;
• English Literature: A*/maybe A;
• Core Science:  sat last year: A*;
• Additional Science: A*;
• History: A*;
• French: A*;
• German: A*;
• Food Tech: A*/A;
• RE: half sat last year, A*, would have predicted A* overall, fairly confident about A* having sat it yesterday.

It means a pure substance comprised of atoms or molecules. It is not a perjorative. Use “synthetic chemical”, “harmful chemical”, “dangerous chemical”, “carcinogenic chemical” (although the “-ic chemical” is redundant). Not just “chemical”. Water is a chemical*. Air is a mixture of chemicals. “Chemical” is not shorthand for “nasty industrial solvent”. Learn that.

*Dihydrogen monoxide is a good example of how easy it is to  scare people by using “chemicalish” names. Use the term “amino acid” in a non-scientific context and you’d probably have to explain they’re not like sulphuric acid. I won’t continue this rant onto standards of scientific education, but I could. So easily.

 [Note: this was sparked by a Food Tech mark scheme which allowed "don't use chemicals" (meaning artificial additives) as an answer. All food contains chemicals. All food is organic (contains carbon).]

The adversarial debating format is a great way to test who’s the better orator. Done well, it’s great theatre. But it isn’t efficient at producing original thought and ideas. Yes, some occasionally come out (by original I here mean points we as a group haven’t thought of yet, but the argument applies to true originality too), but I daresay they’d come out more often if we didn’t devote so much time to the lower-level points required of debating. Pragmatic points can be important in , say, parliamentary debate; but as a society which aspires to higher-level, philosophical thinking, why don’t we cut to the chase?

Another issue is that, while the large majority of us share essentially the same views, the format forces us to take opposite sides. Devil’s advocacy itself isn’t a problem, but combined with the requirement for stubborn tenacity and refusal to concede anything, it leads to dull, unoriginal ping-pong on points that would long ago have been conceded in an informal discussion.

Adversarial debate is bad enough in philosophical discussion, but in court it endangers justice. All too often, especially in jury trials, rather than those before harder-to-influence judges or magistrates, quality of advocacy takes importance which should be given solely to evidence. Top barristers don’t win more cases just because they know the law better – their success is due at least in part to the fact that they are better orators. I’m undecided on the French investigative magistrate system, but in this respect it has advantages – a judge is less swayed by oratory than a jury, and anyway more importance is given to the evidence than its presentation.

Adversarial debate has its purporses — in Parliament it is useful for bringing up the pragmatic points that need to be considered in lawmaking, and I have intentionally gone too far in my condemnation of the adversarial format in order to provoke discussion (I almost said debate). So comment, and tell me why I’m wrong, but do so constructively.

1. Keep a diary in my Moleskine
Moleskines are beautiful. I probably won’t live up to that with my scribblings, but they’ll be valuable to me in years to come. I look back on the half-dozen diary entries I have left from previous years and regret not having written more. I aim to write something for every day, written on that day if possible, the next if not.  A few more notes about my Moleskine seem to fit here nicely – I’ve followed the advice of a commenter on this wonderful page about moleskines and scribbled on the first page to prevent myself getting hung up on mistakes within – I’ve had it since a little before Christmas and not written in it before now (this blog post is a slightly modified version of my scribblings in it, as all will be in future – but more of that later.)

2. Blog more
I haven’t posted since August, and I want to change that, so I’m setting myself a target of one written-for-blog post a week. I’ll probably also post diary excerpts and maybe a few other things not written specifically for this here, but I want to have a proper post once a week. This one may fall by the wayside, but it’s worth a try, and unlike Sean I think my moleskine will help, not hinder, as I’m using it for drafting these and the joy of writing in a moleskine is a big temptation to do so.

3. Keep up with homework
I fell behind last year. I don’t want to go into details, but I got myself into a mess. I don’t want to repeat it, so this is pretty common-sense. It shouldn’t be hard, and hopefully setting it as a resolution will help me resist the temptation to procrastinate.

4. Walk more
I don’t walk as much as I’d like to, or as I used to (largely due to family not forcing me out on walks at weekends), so I’m setting myself a target of at least 1 one-hour walk per week. Even if it’s just into town (with a detour around the botanical gardens) it’ll do me some good and get me in the habit.

5. Get more involved with Amnesty
I’ve become almost apathetic when it comes to actually getting anything to do with Amnesty International done at school. I’ve accepted responsibility for organising our campaigns, and hopefully this will spur me on rather than giving me more wok to ignore.

6. Be productive with free lessons
I have five free lessons a fortnight, which all too often i use to catch up with feeds on Google Reader and check emails. I want to do something more. Whether it’s reading a book, writing or typing up a blog post, doing homework or working on D2, Google Reader can wait ’til after school.

There are probably others I haven’t thought of – I have the amazing ability to fail to remember even the most important moments of my day when I sit down to record them – but I’ll add them when i think of them. Resolutions don’t just have to be for new year.