Cut-off (2 Viewers)

[flyin']

Difficult doesn't imply few. It's like a marathon is difficult, but many will finish even by walking... Whereas Everest.

 

[bong]

well.... if u want to be THAT picky with descriptives

 

[flyin']

After many years, it's always attention to detail... it's like I don't want to get anything wrong ^0)

 

[bong]

attention to english... so thats what ive been doing wrong!

is this what one year of acst does to u?

 

[flyin']

No, no... after one year, you try to make the course sound alot harder than it is to compensate for the time spent and marks earnt.

 

[bong]

sounds like my high school years...

 

[flyin']

hehehe...well, I didn't sound like that back then. What will you sound like in a year time then

 

[bong]

it was a convenient excuse to parents who sometimes expect just a bit too much, or when u know u simply fcuked up even though u studied hard for it, mind u it only happened once... *phew*

what i sound like will depend completely on how i go, i hope to sound like u, with my D's and talking of horrid yrs to come

 

[flyin']

Neh, I had a Cr (but that's because I got a little too arrogant in thinkin' I could get a D with no study). As for the rest, it turned out alright. Nothing to really celebrate, especially when you have peers on straight HDs... of course, then there are people who failed 211.

I actually hope to sound like the guy who said he was disappointed with 80 for ACST243 - the hardest Actuarial unit avaliable (however, my year is the final year it's offered; maybe under a different name for you people).

 

[bong]

omg, that sounds exactly like my school,

person a: what u get??
person b: ohh i fucked up, only got 90-sumthin-percent!! -_-

lesson: *good marks* is relative

acst243 will go by a different name for me... i just cant find the matching unit ... and im nearly positive it didnt turn into 2nd yr acst255 (contingent payments 1)... but its too early for me to think about that..

 

[flyin']

I had a look at the *new* ACST syllabus, and 255 isn't anything like 243. I'll do some more investigating later.

Well, let's just say I'd be well over the moon if I got 75 for ACST243... in fact, anything over 65 and I'd happy. Just as I'd say anything over 65 for 211 would've made me happy.

omg, that sounds exactly like my school,

person a: what u get??
person b: ohh i fucked up, only got 90-sumthin-percent!! -_-

I remember sayin' that myself... ah, I did alright - only 96%. That was probably due to the ten or more people who beat me in that test though, and it was very easy.

 

[bong]

spose i'll find out sooner or later, new basis hasnt been approved after all

yea, i said that to myself as well, many time, but for the 10 that beat u, there's over a hundred that didnt... just that u never notice them cos they're not competition... lol

 

[flyin']

lol, that's true!

I'll actually do some reading because they seemed to have split some one unit and a half, and made it two.

 

[bong]

*no idea*

hehe, post when u get some idea of what they did

 

[flyin']

I'll probably post something about it in a few days time. I'm going to sleep earlier...

 

[flyin']

http://www.cal.mq.edu.au/unitcodeprefix.php?unitCodePrefix=ACST

Besides the code names for the new units, I can't find any introductory comments. Odd.

 

[bong]

cos its not offered yet?

 

[flyin']

lol, the Handbook is meant to help people decide what units they want to do. Not show units which will soon be unavailable. But then it's Macq =p

btw, last post of the day! =D

 

[bong]

from the recommended program sheet

"These units have not been officially approved yet and are subject to change"

that is: acst255/354/355/356/357

which will replace: acst243/344/345/399

 

[flyin']

4 subjects ---> 5 subjects... and the mythical ACST243 isn't even resembled in any of the units on inspection of unit names.