Happy Holidays!
The holiday season is about giving, about family, about relaxing, about peace on earth and peace to mankind....
Practice what you preach by enjoying the holiday season, whatever you celebrate. Take a well earned break, back to education in 2 weeks! =)
Happy Holidays!
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Key Cases - Mens Rea Theft
Here are the Key Cases you need to know for the Mens Rea of Theft.
(Quick Key - D = Defendant, V = Victim, MR = Mens Rea, CoA = Court of Appeal, HoL = House of Lords, ‼ = Comments)
R v Turner (no 2.) (1971)
D left his car at a garage for repairs, agreeing that he would pay for the repairs when he collected the car. The garage left the car outside their premises and D used a spare key to take the car without consent.D convicted.
CoA held that the garage were in possession or control of the car at the time, so D could be guilty of stealing his own car.
‼ When does someone become in possession or control? When does that possession control end? Wouldn't it be theft of the fees owned to the garage, not theft of the car?
R v Ghosh (1982)
D was a doctor who claimed fees for operations he hadn't carried out.
D convicted despite arguing that he wasn't being dishonest as he was owed the same amount for consulation fees. The trial judge directed the jury that they must apply their own standards to decide if what he did was dishonest.
‼ The CoA decided that the test for dishonesty has both an objective and subjective element to it.
Obj: Was what was done dishonest according to ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people?
Subj: Did the defendant realise that what he was doing was dishonest by those standards?
R v Velumyl (1989)
D took £1,050 from the office safe. He said he was owed the money by a friend and he was going to replace the moeny when that friend repaid him.
CoA upheld his conviction for theft as he had the intention to permanently depriving the company of the banknotes he had taken.
‼ Even though he was planning to return the same value of money, so there was no intention to permanently deprive the office of the sum of money, there was intention to permanently deprive the office of the exact banknotes he took.
DPP v Lavender (1994)
D took doors from a council property which was being repaird and used them to replace damaged doors in his girlfriends council flat. The doors were still in possession of the council but had been transferred without permission from one council property to another.
Divisional Court held that the question was whether he intended to treat the doors as his own, regardless of the rights of the council. The answer was yes, so D was guilty of theft.
‼ Would he still have been guilty of theft if he never touched, saw, used the doors ever again? What if he replaced the doors?
R v Marshall (1998)
D obtained underground tickets from travellers who had passed through the barriers and resold them.
D was convicted and the conviction was upheld.
‼ It was treated as theft as the tickets had been treated as his own. But they remained property of the train company. Would it have made a difference if he had given the money to the train company? Or whoever bought the tickets didn't use them?
R v Fernandez (1996)
D was a solicitor who wiothdrew money from a clients acount following a court order, but he then invested this money in a loan shark.
This was held to be theft as he had treated the money as his own.
‼ Would this have been any different if he had spent the money? Given it back to the client? Given it to his bosses?
R v Lloyd (1985)
D borrowed films from a friend of his who was a cinema projectionist. D made pirate copies and then returned the films in time for the next showing.
D was convicted of theft, but had his conviction quashed, as he did not intend to permanently deprive the cinema of the films - he returned them in their original state.
‼ If he had scratched the disks, would that have been considered 'altered'? Or if he had drawn on them, or otherwised altered them?
R v Easom (1971)
D picked up a handbag in a cinema, looked through it and put it back on the floor.
D was convicted of theft, but CoA quashed her conviction as they could not prove the intention to permanently deprive.
‼ If she had taken the bag home, he would have been convicted. What if she had stolen something inside the bag, or had taken it home, used it, then returned it to the cinema, where it was then lost? Would she be convicted of theft, as she risked its lost?
Theft Act 1968
Different Acts with the sections and sub-sections can all get very confusing. So, here is a one-post guide to the Theft Act 1968.
s1 - 'A person is guilty of theft is he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.'
Don't worry, this section is very simple once you break it down, and actually has no substance other than pulling the various sections together in a rag-tag definition of theft. All that is really saying is theft has 5 sections, which a person has to satisfy for he/she to be guilty of theft. These sections are described below.
s2 - Dishonesty (part of the mens rea)
(No statutory definition)
3 Areas which the Theft Act does not consider dishonest:
• D has belief he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person,
• D knew he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it,
• the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
Cases to illustrate this: R v Turner (no. 2) (1971), R v Small (1987), R v Ghosh (1982)
s3 - Appropriation (part of the actus reas)
'Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of the right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.'
Cases to illustrate this: R v Lawrence (1971), R v Morris (1983), R v Gomez (1991), R v Hinks (2001)
s4 - Property (part of the actus reas)
'"Property" includes moeny and all other property real or personal, includuing things in action and other intangiable property.'
Cases to illustrate this: Oxford v Moss (1979)
s5 - Belonging to Another (part of the actus reas)
'Property shall be regarded as belonging to any other person having possession or control of it, or having in it any propreitary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest.'
Cases to illustrate this: R v Turner (no. 2) (1971), R v Hall (1972), Davidge v Bunnett (1984), R v Wain (1995), Attorney-General Reference (no. 1 of 1983), R v Gilks (1972)
s6 - Intention to Permanently Deprive (part of the mens rea)
s6 (1) - 'D intends to treat the thing as his own regardless of the others rights' 'Borrowing an item until all the goodness has gone out of it is equivalent to an outright taking'
s6 (2) - 'Dealing with anothers property in such a manner that he knows he is risking its loss'
Cases to illustrate this: R v Velumyl (1989), R v Cahill (1993), DPP v Lavender (1994), R v Marshall (1998), Fernandez (1996), R v Lloyd (1985), R v Easom (1971)
Links to posts with full cases:
http://you-learn-something-new.blogspot.com/2008/12/key-cases-actus-reas-theft.html - Key Cases - Actus Reas Theft
s1 - 'A person is guilty of theft is he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.'
Don't worry, this section is very simple once you break it down, and actually has no substance other than pulling the various sections together in a rag-tag definition of theft. All that is really saying is theft has 5 sections, which a person has to satisfy for he/she to be guilty of theft. These sections are described below.
s2 - Dishonesty (part of the mens rea)
(No statutory definition)
3 Areas which the Theft Act does not consider dishonest:
• D has belief he has in law the right to deprive the other of it, on behalf of himself or of a third person,
• D knew he would have the other's consent if the other knew of the appropriation and the circumstances of it,
• the person to whom the property belongs cannot be discovered by taking reasonable steps.
Cases to illustrate this: R v Turner (no. 2) (1971), R v Small (1987), R v Ghosh (1982)
s3 - Appropriation (part of the actus reas)
'Any assumption by a person of the rights of an owner amounts to an appropriation, and this includes, where he has come by the property (innocently or not) without stealing it, any later assumption of the right to it by keeping or dealing with it as owner.'
Cases to illustrate this: R v Lawrence (1971), R v Morris (1983), R v Gomez (1991), R v Hinks (2001)
s4 - Property (part of the actus reas)
'"Property" includes moeny and all other property real or personal, includuing things in action and other intangiable property.'
Cases to illustrate this: Oxford v Moss (1979)
s5 - Belonging to Another (part of the actus reas)
'Property shall be regarded as belonging to any other person having possession or control of it, or having in it any propreitary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest.'
Cases to illustrate this: R v Turner (no. 2) (1971), R v Hall (1972), Davidge v Bunnett (1984), R v Wain (1995), Attorney-General Reference (no. 1 of 1983), R v Gilks (1972)
s6 - Intention to Permanently Deprive (part of the mens rea)
s6 (1) - 'D intends to treat the thing as his own regardless of the others rights' 'Borrowing an item until all the goodness has gone out of it is equivalent to an outright taking'
s6 (2) - 'Dealing with anothers property in such a manner that he knows he is risking its loss'
Cases to illustrate this: R v Velumyl (1989), R v Cahill (1993), DPP v Lavender (1994), R v Marshall (1998), Fernandez (1996), R v Lloyd (1985), R v Easom (1971)
Links to posts with full cases:
http://you-learn-something-new.blogspot.com/2008/12/key-cases-actus-reas-theft.html - Key Cases - Actus Reas Theft
Key Cases - Actus Reas Theft
These are the Key Cases that you need to know for the actus reas (AR) of Theft.
(Quick Key - AR = Actus Reas, D = Defendant, V = Victim, ‼ = Comments, HoL = House of Lords, CoA = Court of Appeal)
R v Lawrence (1971)
V got into a taxi, and took a journey which should have cost 50p. V gave £1, and D said it wans't enough. V offerred his wallet, and D took £7.
D was convicted, although he argued that it wasn't theft as V had offerred his wallet.
‼ Appropriation can occur with consent
R v Morris (1983)
D went into a supermarket and switch 2 price labels to show lower prices.
D cpnvicted of theft. D argued he hadn't assumed all the rights of the owner, just 1. The HoL said that only 1 right need be assumed, not all.
‼ Appropriation requires adverse interference with owners rights. Appropriation cannot occur with consent.
R v Gomez (1991)
Fradulent cheques were used to buy goods, which the manager knew about, although he still accepted them as payment.
D charged with theft, although he had consent. D convicted.
‼ Solves conflict. Following Lawrence principle - Yes an appropriation occured, even though consent was given. Following Morris - No appropriation occured as the goods had been taken with consent. Morris overruled.
R v Hinks (2001)
D befriended a naive man who had a low IQ. Over a period of about 8 months D accompanied the man on numerous occasions to his bank, where he withdrew money and deposited it into Ds account.
D convicted, as it was held that although the man was mentally capable of understanding ownership and making a vlid gift, D had used him and taken advantage of him.
‼ This principle could change every case - who's to say when a legitimate gift has taken place, and when someone has used someone else?
Oxford v Moss (1979)
Student stole a test paper and copied down the answers, before returning the paper.
Wasn't charged with theft as he gave the paper back, so no intention to permanantly deprive.
‼ Answers are counted as information, so cannot be stolen.
R v Turner (no. 2) (1971)
D left his car at a garage for repairs, agreeing that he would pay for the repairs when he collected the car. The garage left the car outside their premises and D used a spare key to take the car without consent.
D convicted. CoA held that the garage were in possession or control of the car at the time, so D could be guilty of stealing his own car.
‼ When does someone become in possession or control? When does that possession control end? Wouldn't it be theft of the fees owned to the garage, not theft of the car?
R v Hall (1972)
D was a travel agent who recieved deposits from cleints for airtrips to the US. D paid deposits into the firms general account, but never organised any tickets, and was unable to return the money.
D convicted of theft, but on appeal this was quashed as when D recieved the deposits he was under no obligation to deal with it in a particular way.
‼ CoA stressed each case depends on facts. Why wouldn't D be under obligation to do something with the money? It was for tickets, not to be deposited into the general account.
Davidge v Bunnet (1984)
Flatmates paide money to one of the flat members for bills. D spent it on himself instead.
D convicted - money was given for a specific purpose.
‼ Surely, if D in this case was under obligation, D in above case would also be under obligation?
R v Wain (1995)
£3k was raised for charity, and D was permitted to transfer the money to his own account and pay for it in. D used money for his own purposes.
D under obligation to retain the 'at least the proceeds of the sums collected' - Convicted of theft.
‼ Again, wouldn't Hall be under obligation if this D was?
Attorney General Reference (no. 1 of 1983)
Ds salary was paid into her account by transfer, except on one occasion she was overpaid.
D was acquitted, and the prosecution appealed asking the CoA to rule that a person in this situation who dishonestly decided not to repay the money would be guilty.
‼ D was under obligation to repay te moeny, so she had to repay them. But, asking to rule that if she had spent the money she would be guilty, so she should be guilty now is harsh and unfair. What if we said that I was going to kill my boyfriend, but didn't, so I should be found guilty of murder?
R v Gilks (1972)
D placed a bet on a horse ('Fighting Scot') and the race was won by a different horse ('Fighting Taffy'). Manager mistakenly paid the winnings to D.
D acquitted - s5(4) = 'property acquired by mistake needs to be returned but obligation to return must be a legal one' (contract)
‼ In gambling there is no contract formed, so there is no theft.
(Quick Key - AR = Actus Reas, D = Defendant, V = Victim, ‼ = Comments, HoL = House of Lords, CoA = Court of Appeal)
R v Lawrence (1971)
V got into a taxi, and took a journey which should have cost 50p. V gave £1, and D said it wans't enough. V offerred his wallet, and D took £7.
D was convicted, although he argued that it wasn't theft as V had offerred his wallet.
‼ Appropriation can occur with consent
R v Morris (1983)
D went into a supermarket and switch 2 price labels to show lower prices.
D cpnvicted of theft. D argued he hadn't assumed all the rights of the owner, just 1. The HoL said that only 1 right need be assumed, not all.
‼ Appropriation requires adverse interference with owners rights. Appropriation cannot occur with consent.
R v Gomez (1991)
Fradulent cheques were used to buy goods, which the manager knew about, although he still accepted them as payment.
D charged with theft, although he had consent. D convicted.
‼ Solves conflict. Following Lawrence principle - Yes an appropriation occured, even though consent was given. Following Morris - No appropriation occured as the goods had been taken with consent. Morris overruled.
R v Hinks (2001)
D befriended a naive man who had a low IQ. Over a period of about 8 months D accompanied the man on numerous occasions to his bank, where he withdrew money and deposited it into Ds account.
D convicted, as it was held that although the man was mentally capable of understanding ownership and making a vlid gift, D had used him and taken advantage of him.
‼ This principle could change every case - who's to say when a legitimate gift has taken place, and when someone has used someone else?
Oxford v Moss (1979)
Student stole a test paper and copied down the answers, before returning the paper.
Wasn't charged with theft as he gave the paper back, so no intention to permanantly deprive.
‼ Answers are counted as information, so cannot be stolen.
R v Turner (no. 2) (1971)
D left his car at a garage for repairs, agreeing that he would pay for the repairs when he collected the car. The garage left the car outside their premises and D used a spare key to take the car without consent.
D convicted. CoA held that the garage were in possession or control of the car at the time, so D could be guilty of stealing his own car.
‼ When does someone become in possession or control? When does that possession control end? Wouldn't it be theft of the fees owned to the garage, not theft of the car?
R v Hall (1972)
D was a travel agent who recieved deposits from cleints for airtrips to the US. D paid deposits into the firms general account, but never organised any tickets, and was unable to return the money.
D convicted of theft, but on appeal this was quashed as when D recieved the deposits he was under no obligation to deal with it in a particular way.
‼ CoA stressed each case depends on facts. Why wouldn't D be under obligation to do something with the money? It was for tickets, not to be deposited into the general account.
Davidge v Bunnet (1984)
Flatmates paide money to one of the flat members for bills. D spent it on himself instead.
D convicted - money was given for a specific purpose.
‼ Surely, if D in this case was under obligation, D in above case would also be under obligation?
R v Wain (1995)
£3k was raised for charity, and D was permitted to transfer the money to his own account and pay for it in. D used money for his own purposes.
D under obligation to retain the 'at least the proceeds of the sums collected' - Convicted of theft.
‼ Again, wouldn't Hall be under obligation if this D was?
Attorney General Reference (no. 1 of 1983)
Ds salary was paid into her account by transfer, except on one occasion she was overpaid.
D was acquitted, and the prosecution appealed asking the CoA to rule that a person in this situation who dishonestly decided not to repay the money would be guilty.
‼ D was under obligation to repay te moeny, so she had to repay them. But, asking to rule that if she had spent the money she would be guilty, so she should be guilty now is harsh and unfair. What if we said that I was going to kill my boyfriend, but didn't, so I should be found guilty of murder?
R v Gilks (1972)
D placed a bet on a horse ('Fighting Scot') and the race was won by a different horse ('Fighting Taffy'). Manager mistakenly paid the winnings to D.
D acquitted - s5(4) = 'property acquired by mistake needs to be returned but obligation to return must be a legal one' (contract)
‼ In gambling there is no contract formed, so there is no theft.
Claims
Arguments consist of a sequence of claims. A claim is an assertion, and usually takes the form of a statment. Claims may be divided roughly into those that state facts and those that express opinions.
Allegation - A claim made without complete proof thats often blaming or accusing.
Example
Tom broke the window.
Causal Explanation - A claim about why something happened.
Example
Dinasaurs became extinct because of a natural disaster.
Definition - A claim about the meaning of a word or phrase.
Example
Hypothesis is a well considered theory which needs some testing.
Hypothesis - A well considered theory which needs some testing.
Example
In a memory test between girls and boys, boys will remember less.
Prediction - A claim that something will happen in the future.
Example
It will rain tomorrow.
Recommendation - A claim about something which should be done.
Example
Smoking should be banned.
Statement of Principle - A general claim expressing a basic rule, a truth or a guideline.
Example
No one should take the law into their own hands.
Value Judgement - A claim about something being good or bad, right or wrong, desirable or indesirable.
Example
Smoking is a disgusting habit.
Allegation - A claim made without complete proof thats often blaming or accusing.
Example
Tom broke the window.
Causal Explanation - A claim about why something happened.
Example
Dinasaurs became extinct because of a natural disaster.
Definition - A claim about the meaning of a word or phrase.
Example
Hypothesis is a well considered theory which needs some testing.
Hypothesis - A well considered theory which needs some testing.
Example
In a memory test between girls and boys, boys will remember less.
Prediction - A claim that something will happen in the future.
Example
It will rain tomorrow.
Recommendation - A claim about something which should be done.
Example
Smoking should be banned.
Statement of Principle - A general claim expressing a basic rule, a truth or a guideline.
Example
No one should take the law into their own hands.
Value Judgement - A claim about something being good or bad, right or wrong, desirable or indesirable.
Example
Smoking is a disgusting habit.
Exam Papers
I've always found that past papers are the best things to use when revising. There's no point going through mountains of notes and files if you won't need half that stuff in the exams. So, here's some links to past papers:
http://www.aqa.org.uk/admin/qp-ms_library.php - AQAs' Past Papers, Mark Schemes and Examiner Reports Section
http://www.ocr.org.uk/pastpapermaterials/ - OCRs' Past Papers, Mark Schemes and Examiner Reports Section
https://shop.edexcel.org.uk/ - Edexcels' Past Papers Section (Have to pay to download)
http://www.freeexampapers.com/ - Good site for free download of past papers on a variety of exam boards
http://www.aqa.org.uk/admin/qp-ms_library.php - AQAs' Past Papers, Mark Schemes and Examiner Reports Section
http://www.ocr.org.uk/pastpapermaterials/ - OCRs' Past Papers, Mark Schemes and Examiner Reports Section
https://shop.edexcel.org.uk/ - Edexcels' Past Papers Section (Have to pay to download)
http://www.freeexampapers.com/ - Good site for free download of past papers on a variety of exam boards
Glossary
Critical Thinking Critical Terms!
A
Argument - an opinion backed up by at least one good reason
Asserting a claim - stating a point of view that may not necessarily be backed up/agreed with
C
Conclusion - opinion drawn from the reason(s)
Counter argument - offer an alternative opinion with good reason and grounds
D
Dialogue - a discussion/discourse between 2 or more people
Dispute - disagreement
E
Explanation - telling you what the case is, not trying to convince you of the cause
I
Inference - describes how conclusions are drawn from the premises
P
Premise - a reason, the grounds of an argument
R
Reasoning indicators - linking words/phrases
Example
Therefore, so and because
Refutaion - rejection of an argument
S
Synonym - different words with the same meaning
Example
premise and reason
A
Argument - an opinion backed up by at least one good reason
Asserting a claim - stating a point of view that may not necessarily be backed up/agreed with
C
Conclusion - opinion drawn from the reason(s)
Counter argument - offer an alternative opinion with good reason and grounds
D
Dialogue - a discussion/discourse between 2 or more people
Dispute - disagreement
E
Explanation - telling you what the case is, not trying to convince you of the cause
I
Inference - describes how conclusions are drawn from the premises
P
Premise - a reason, the grounds of an argument
R
Reasoning indicators - linking words/phrases
Example
Therefore, so and because
Refutaion - rejection of an argument
S
Synonym - different words with the same meaning
Example
premise and reason
Is Your Mind On Vacation?
Is Your Mind On Vacation?
This was just a fun, sometimes irratating quiz we did at the beginning of th year to get us acustomed to irratating pieces of text.
1) There is four errers in this centence. Can you count them?
2) Advertising slogan on toothbrush: 'The toothbrush that lceans'. Buy this toothbrush?
3) 'Iraq has the fourth biggest army in the world.' A reason for war?
4) 'It must be true, I checked and it's in all the papers.' A reason to believe something?
5) 'Paris in the the spring.' So good it was worth identifying twice?
6) Coke is the real thing?
7) Would you trust this man?
'He is an admitted sexagenarian, regularly reads phonographic material, he has pedagogic inclinations and once tried to interest a thirteen year old girl in philately, he has advocated social intercourse in mixed company, and has been known to engage in incense with his family.'
8) Read the following sentence:
'Final Folios seem to result from years of dutiful study of texts along with years of scientific experience.'
Now count how many F's there are, reading only once more through the sentence.
9) War with Iraq is inevitable, after Spetember 11th we can't do nothing.
10) There is no such thing as truth - it's all a matter of opinion.
True or false?
Answers are in the 'Comments' section
This was just a fun, sometimes irratating quiz we did at the beginning of th year to get us acustomed to irratating pieces of text.
1) There is four errers in this centence. Can you count them?
2) Advertising slogan on toothbrush: 'The toothbrush that lceans'. Buy this toothbrush?
3) 'Iraq has the fourth biggest army in the world.' A reason for war?
4) 'It must be true, I checked and it's in all the papers.' A reason to believe something?
5) 'Paris in the the spring.' So good it was worth identifying twice?
6) Coke is the real thing?
7) Would you trust this man?
'He is an admitted sexagenarian, regularly reads phonographic material, he has pedagogic inclinations and once tried to interest a thirteen year old girl in philately, he has advocated social intercourse in mixed company, and has been known to engage in incense with his family.'
8) Read the following sentence:
'Final Folios seem to result from years of dutiful study of texts along with years of scientific experience.'
Now count how many F's there are, reading only once more through the sentence.
9) War with Iraq is inevitable, after Spetember 11th we can't do nothing.
10) There is no such thing as truth - it's all a matter of opinion.
True or false?
Answers are in the 'Comments' section
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Books
This is always the most stressful time of a new year, in my opinion. You're starting school/college, and you have to buy new books - nightmare! So here is a list of the best books to buy.
Books for GCSE
CGP Revision Books - best books by far, with tons of helpful, 1 page summays, exercises and it's easy to digest.
Books for College
AS
Look out for exam boards who frequently write up books - they will have the most up-to-date information, as well as tayloring everything for the exams.
Heinemann Psychology AS For OCR - Fiona Lintern, Lynne Williams, Alan Hill
Really easy to understand book, with clearly set out sections for background, the study and evaluation
The English Legal System - Jacqueline Martin
Written by the women who used to be chief examiner, she knows whats she talking about, and it has everything you need to pass
Essential AS Chemistry For OCR - Ted Lister, Janet Renshaw
Really clear book, with clearly set out specification sections, and the bare bones of what you need to know
Critical Thinking For AS Level - Roy van den Brink-Budgen
This is a really simple book, that has progress activities and easy to digest information
A2
Again, always look out for books written by the exam boards - they are definetly the best for getting to the bare bones
Heinemann Psychology A2 for OCR-Sally Gadson, Phillippe Harari, Karen Legge, Linda Sherry
Same as the AS version, this is a really good book, but be warned - it has all the sections of A2 psychology - you may only be looking at 2 of them
Psychology and Crime - David Putwain and Aidan Sammons
A great book for the crime section of A2 psychology, it has extensive chapters on all the things you need to know, and it is a handy A5 size too!
Psychology and Education - Susan Bentham
Like the book above, it has extensive chapters on everything, and is that same handy size
Criminal Law For A2 - Jacqueline Martin
Another good book by Martin, although it is the bare bones of what you need to know, and sometimes doesn't have all the cases you need, but great for first time reading
A2 Law For AQA - Sally Russell
Great back-up book for further reading on-top of the Martin book above
Obviously, those books are based around the subjects I take/took, as I know those books best. But take a look at places like amazon and ebay for cheap books for your subjects. Also, talk to your tutors as they will have knowledge on the best books to buy.
Books for GCSE
CGP Revision Books - best books by far, with tons of helpful, 1 page summays, exercises and it's easy to digest.
Books for College
AS
Look out for exam boards who frequently write up books - they will have the most up-to-date information, as well as tayloring everything for the exams.
Heinemann Psychology AS For OCR - Fiona Lintern, Lynne Williams, Alan Hill
Really easy to understand book, with clearly set out sections for background, the study and evaluation
The English Legal System - Jacqueline Martin
Written by the women who used to be chief examiner, she knows whats she talking about, and it has everything you need to pass
Essential AS Chemistry For OCR - Ted Lister, Janet Renshaw
Really clear book, with clearly set out specification sections, and the bare bones of what you need to know
Critical Thinking For AS Level - Roy van den Brink-Budgen
This is a really simple book, that has progress activities and easy to digest information
A2
Again, always look out for books written by the exam boards - they are definetly the best for getting to the bare bones
Heinemann Psychology A2 for OCR-Sally Gadson, Phillippe Harari, Karen Legge, Linda Sherry
Same as the AS version, this is a really good book, but be warned - it has all the sections of A2 psychology - you may only be looking at 2 of them
Psychology and Crime - David Putwain and Aidan Sammons
A great book for the crime section of A2 psychology, it has extensive chapters on all the things you need to know, and it is a handy A5 size too!
Psychology and Education - Susan Bentham
Like the book above, it has extensive chapters on everything, and is that same handy size
Criminal Law For A2 - Jacqueline Martin
Another good book by Martin, although it is the bare bones of what you need to know, and sometimes doesn't have all the cases you need, but great for first time reading
A2 Law For AQA - Sally Russell
Great back-up book for further reading on-top of the Martin book above
Obviously, those books are based around the subjects I take/took, as I know those books best. But take a look at places like amazon and ebay for cheap books for your subjects. Also, talk to your tutors as they will have knowledge on the best books to buy.
Section B Motivation Essay Question
If you're anything like me, you should find this helpful. I really like past papers, especially past essays. They're good practice, the help you see how you should be writing, and are a great revision sheet once you've got it top-notch. So heres one from a recent Psychology and Education paper.
Section B Essay on Motivation
January 2007
(a) Describe what psychologists have learned about motivation and educational performance [10]
This is nice and simple - remember the 3 expansion points you get for motivation? All you have to do is describe a Key Study/Theory for each of them. Simple!
So the first expansion point is:
•definitions, types and theories of motivation
So use either:
•Yerkes-Dodson (preferred),
•Bandura,
•Maslow
And describe the:
•Key Terms,
•Theory
•Results
Second expansion point is:
•improving motivation
So use:
•Rosenthal and Jacobson
And describe the:
•Key Terms,
•Aims,
•Methodlogy,
•Procedure,
•Results
Third expansion point is:
•motivation issues: attribution theory and learned helplessness
So use either:
•Dweck (preferred),
•Seligman
And describe the:
•Key Terms,
•Aims,
•Methodology,
•Procedure,
•Results
(b) Evaluate what psychologists have learned about motivation and educational performance [16]
Not quite as easy as the first, but still reasonable simply. Take 4 evaluation issues - any four - and compare/contrast the studies with each point i.e. each evaluation issue will have 2 studies attached to it.
For example, you could use:
Reliability
•Define
•Link to 2 studies
Rosenthal and Jacobson & Dweck (just examples, you don't have to use them, but you do have to use the 3 studies you picked above.)
Validity
•Define
•Link to 2 studies
Yerkes-Dodson & Dweck
Ethnocentric
•Define
•Link to at least 2 studies
Rosenthal and Jacobson & Dweck
Protection of Participants
•Define
•Link to at least 2 studies
Rosenthal and Jacobson & Dweck
(c) A primary school teacher has noticed that some of the children are showing signs of learned helplessness. Using your psychological knowledge suggest one stratgey to prevent children giving up too easily. Give reasons for you answer [8]
•Accentuate the positive - use student strengths, restore confidence, praise
•Eliminate the negative - don't show off weaknesses, do not push failure onto students, deal tactifully with weaknesses
•Go from familiar to new - use organizers, guided discovery, familiarise students with new concepts/skills/ideas, link lessons to own experiences/student experiences
•Create challenges - students creat problems and solve them
Section B Essay on Motivation
January 2007
(a) Describe what psychologists have learned about motivation and educational performance [10]
This is nice and simple - remember the 3 expansion points you get for motivation? All you have to do is describe a Key Study/Theory for each of them. Simple!
So the first expansion point is:
•definitions, types and theories of motivation
So use either:
•Yerkes-Dodson (preferred),
•Bandura,
•Maslow
And describe the:
•Key Terms,
•Theory
•Results
Second expansion point is:
•improving motivation
So use:
•Rosenthal and Jacobson
And describe the:
•Key Terms,
•Aims,
•Methodlogy,
•Procedure,
•Results
Third expansion point is:
•motivation issues: attribution theory and learned helplessness
So use either:
•Dweck (preferred),
•Seligman
And describe the:
•Key Terms,
•Aims,
•Methodology,
•Procedure,
•Results
(b) Evaluate what psychologists have learned about motivation and educational performance [16]
Not quite as easy as the first, but still reasonable simply. Take 4 evaluation issues - any four - and compare/contrast the studies with each point i.e. each evaluation issue will have 2 studies attached to it.
For example, you could use:
Reliability
•Define
•Link to 2 studies
Rosenthal and Jacobson & Dweck (just examples, you don't have to use them, but you do have to use the 3 studies you picked above.)
Validity
•Define
•Link to 2 studies
Yerkes-Dodson & Dweck
Ethnocentric
•Define
•Link to at least 2 studies
Rosenthal and Jacobson & Dweck
Protection of Participants
•Define
•Link to at least 2 studies
Rosenthal and Jacobson & Dweck
(c) A primary school teacher has noticed that some of the children are showing signs of learned helplessness. Using your psychological knowledge suggest one stratgey to prevent children giving up too easily. Give reasons for you answer [8]
•Accentuate the positive - use student strengths, restore confidence, praise
•Eliminate the negative - don't show off weaknesses, do not push failure onto students, deal tactifully with weaknesses
•Go from familiar to new - use organizers, guided discovery, familiarise students with new concepts/skills/ideas, link lessons to own experiences/student experiences
•Create challenges - students creat problems and solve them
Glossary - Part A, B & C
Need the meaning of a particular word or phrase, yet can't seem to find it anywhere? Well, we have your very own glossary right here! Of course, a glossary is much to long to post all at once, so here is your As, Bs and Cs of Psychology for Crime words. You can download the entire glossary file from here.
A
Adversarial System - A trail procedure in which prosecution and defence teams compete to establish the truth of their version of events.
Age Regression - A hypnotic technique in which the witness is 'taken back' to the age at which they witnessed a crime in order to 'relive it'.
Amygdala - A brain structure, part of the limbic system, which is involved in empathic responses to others. The functioning of the amygdala is thought to be impaired in psychopaths.
Anger Management - An attempt to reduce aggressive behaviour by helping violent offenders to deal with inappropriate feelings of anger.
Attributions - The reasons assigned by an individual to explain why something has occurred. Attributions may have little to do with the real reason why something happened.
Attribution Theory - A branch of psychology that aims to explain how people arrive at attributions.
B
Behavioural Evidence - Evidence from the disposition of clues at the crime scene that indicates how the crime was committed.
British Crime Survey (BCS) - A victimisation survey carried out periodically by the Home Office in an attempt to discover the true incidence of crim ein the UK
C
Cognitive-behavioural Therapy - A form of psychological therapy that aims to alter maladaptive thinking strategies through behavioural techniques
Cognitive Interview - An interview procedure based on the principles of cue-dependent forgetting. It is claimed to enhance recall and produce fewer erros than the standard interview procedure
Commuter - An offender who travels some distance to offend
Conspecifics - Members of the same species
Copycat Crime - A crime which is purportedly carried out in the style of another crime, real or fictional
Crime Rate - The incidence of crime for a given geographical area, usually expressed as the number of crimes per head of population per year
Crime Scene Analysis - The offender profiling approach developed in the Us by the FBI. Offenders are assigned to categories based on their behaviour at a crime scene
Criminal Consistency Hypothesis - The view that the behaviour of an offender during the committing of a crime will reflect their behaviour in everyday life
Criminological Psychology - The application of psychological research to criminal behaviour
Criminology - The study of criminal behaviour. It encompasses a variety of disciplines including psychology, sociology and law
Helpful book: 'Psychology and Crime' - David Putwain and Aidan Sammons
ISBN: 0-415-25300-4
A
Adversarial System - A trail procedure in which prosecution and defence teams compete to establish the truth of their version of events.
Age Regression - A hypnotic technique in which the witness is 'taken back' to the age at which they witnessed a crime in order to 'relive it'.
Amygdala - A brain structure, part of the limbic system, which is involved in empathic responses to others. The functioning of the amygdala is thought to be impaired in psychopaths.
Anger Management - An attempt to reduce aggressive behaviour by helping violent offenders to deal with inappropriate feelings of anger.
Attributions - The reasons assigned by an individual to explain why something has occurred. Attributions may have little to do with the real reason why something happened.
Attribution Theory - A branch of psychology that aims to explain how people arrive at attributions.
B
Behavioural Evidence - Evidence from the disposition of clues at the crime scene that indicates how the crime was committed.
British Crime Survey (BCS) - A victimisation survey carried out periodically by the Home Office in an attempt to discover the true incidence of crim ein the UK
C
Cognitive-behavioural Therapy - A form of psychological therapy that aims to alter maladaptive thinking strategies through behavioural techniques
Cognitive Interview - An interview procedure based on the principles of cue-dependent forgetting. It is claimed to enhance recall and produce fewer erros than the standard interview procedure
Commuter - An offender who travels some distance to offend
Conspecifics - Members of the same species
Copycat Crime - A crime which is purportedly carried out in the style of another crime, real or fictional
Crime Rate - The incidence of crime for a given geographical area, usually expressed as the number of crimes per head of population per year
Crime Scene Analysis - The offender profiling approach developed in the Us by the FBI. Offenders are assigned to categories based on their behaviour at a crime scene
Criminal Consistency Hypothesis - The view that the behaviour of an offender during the committing of a crime will reflect their behaviour in everyday life
Criminological Psychology - The application of psychological research to criminal behaviour
Criminology - The study of criminal behaviour. It encompasses a variety of disciplines including psychology, sociology and law
Helpful book: 'Psychology and Crime' - David Putwain and Aidan Sammons
ISBN: 0-415-25300-4
Key Cases - Causation
There always seem to be hundreds of 'need to know' cases in Law that you rush to try and memorise, and then normally end up getting wrong anyway. Well, here are 11 of the main cases you need to know for Causation:
(Quick Key - D = Defendant, V=Victim, ‼=Comments, CoA=Court of Appeal, HoL=House of Lords)
R v White (1910)
D tried to poison his mother to gain her will. He laced her night-time drink with cyanide. Later, V was found dead, but she hadn't drunk a lethal does of her drink, but had died of a heart attack.
D acquitted of murder, but convicted of attempted murder.
‼ Causation was not established - mother died of a heart attack, not poisoning.
R v Pagett (1983)
D armed himself with a shotgun and used his girlfriend as a human shield as he fired at police. The police returned fire, and killed the girl.
Conviction held-CoA said it was reasonably foreeseeable that the police would return fire, either in self-defence or in duty.
‼ Technically the police killed the girl.
Reckless and over-action by the police
Parents successfully sued the police
R v Smith (1959)
D and V were soldiers involved in a barrack room brawl. D stabbed V twice, piercing his lung. V died after receiving poor treatment (dropped on way into medical room, had to wait while the doctors were busy, was given the wrong treatment).
Conviction held - CoA found that the wounds were still operating and substantial at time of death.
‼ Principle - if orginal wounds are still operating and substantial at time of death, D can be found liable.
R v Cheshire (1991)
V developed complications after he had surgery on gunshot wounds inflicted by D. The wounds had nearly healed, but D was convicted.
Conviction held - CoA said that the prosecution had only to prove that Ds acts contributed to the death. Ds act need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of death, provided that his acts contributed significantly to the death.
‼ If principle in Smith was followed, D would have escaped liabilty.
R v Jordan (1956)
D stabbed V and V was taken to hospital and treated for his wounds. They were healing, but V was given a drug he was allergic to. On doctor stopped the use of the drug, but another doctor gave him a large does and V died.
Conviction dismissed - Treatment described a palpably wrong
‼ Case never followed - Courts reluctant to let D escape liabilty.
R v Malcherek and Steel (1981)
D stabbed his wife in the stomach and she was put on a life support machine. A number of tests showed she was brain dead, and the machine was switched off.
Conviction held-trial judge refused to allow the issue of causation to go to a jury.
‼ If it were not but for Ds actions, V wouldn't have been in that position.
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)
V was a young man crushed in a crowd panic, which stopped oxygen getting to his brian, leaving him in a persistant vegitative state (PVS). 3 years later tests declared him brain dead, and his doctors asked to stop feeding him, knowing it would kill him.
Appeal granted-switching off the machines was held to be in Vs best interests.
‼ HoL said switching off the life machine was an omission to act, not an act, so it was allowed.
R v Roberts (1971)
D was convicted of assualt occaisioning actual bodily harm after V jumped out of his car after D allegedly tried to remove her coat. She thought he was going to rape her.
Conviction held-D set off chain of events, and the reaction was reasonable and foreseeable.
‼ D set off chain of events, so as long as the reaction was foreseeable and expected there is no chain of causation.
R v Dear (1996)
D slashed V with a stanley knife, severing an artery. V died from blood loss 2 das later. D pleaded provocation as a defence, and another defence was that V had committed suicide, either by reopening the wounds or not seeking help.
Conviction held-the wounds were still operating and substantial at the time of death.
‼ Courts didn't apply Roberts principle, but the Smith principle as V letting himself die was daft and unexpected.
R v Blaue (1975)
D stabbed V, piercing her lung, and causing her to loose a large amount of blood. She refused to have a life saving transfusion as she was a Jehovah's Witness, and she died the next day.
Conviction held-Although D appealed on a question of causation, the courts followed the thin skull rule
‼ Should the thin skull rule cover medical beliefs? Consider other things - phobias, medical beliefs, parental status etc
R v Hayward (1908)
D was in a condition of violent excitment. He chased his wife and threatened her. She ran from the house, into the road, and collapsed, dying instantly.
Convictions held-convicted of mansluaghter. V had a heart condition, so any combination of a strong emotion and physical exertion could have produced the same results.
‼ Unlike the other cases there was no physical act by D, but the thin skull rule still applies.
(Quick Key - D = Defendant, V=Victim, ‼=Comments, CoA=Court of Appeal, HoL=House of Lords)
R v White (1910)
D tried to poison his mother to gain her will. He laced her night-time drink with cyanide. Later, V was found dead, but she hadn't drunk a lethal does of her drink, but had died of a heart attack.
D acquitted of murder, but convicted of attempted murder.
‼ Causation was not established - mother died of a heart attack, not poisoning.
R v Pagett (1983)
D armed himself with a shotgun and used his girlfriend as a human shield as he fired at police. The police returned fire, and killed the girl.
Conviction held-CoA said it was reasonably foreeseeable that the police would return fire, either in self-defence or in duty.
‼ Technically the police killed the girl.
Reckless and over-action by the police
Parents successfully sued the police
R v Smith (1959)
D and V were soldiers involved in a barrack room brawl. D stabbed V twice, piercing his lung. V died after receiving poor treatment (dropped on way into medical room, had to wait while the doctors were busy, was given the wrong treatment).
Conviction held - CoA found that the wounds were still operating and substantial at time of death.
‼ Principle - if orginal wounds are still operating and substantial at time of death, D can be found liable.
R v Cheshire (1991)
V developed complications after he had surgery on gunshot wounds inflicted by D. The wounds had nearly healed, but D was convicted.
Conviction held - CoA said that the prosecution had only to prove that Ds acts contributed to the death. Ds act need not be the sole cause or even the main cause of death, provided that his acts contributed significantly to the death.
‼ If principle in Smith was followed, D would have escaped liabilty.
R v Jordan (1956)
D stabbed V and V was taken to hospital and treated for his wounds. They were healing, but V was given a drug he was allergic to. On doctor stopped the use of the drug, but another doctor gave him a large does and V died.
Conviction dismissed - Treatment described a palpably wrong
‼ Case never followed - Courts reluctant to let D escape liabilty.
R v Malcherek and Steel (1981)
D stabbed his wife in the stomach and she was put on a life support machine. A number of tests showed she was brain dead, and the machine was switched off.
Conviction held-trial judge refused to allow the issue of causation to go to a jury.
‼ If it were not but for Ds actions, V wouldn't have been in that position.
Airedale NHS Trust v Bland (1993)
V was a young man crushed in a crowd panic, which stopped oxygen getting to his brian, leaving him in a persistant vegitative state (PVS). 3 years later tests declared him brain dead, and his doctors asked to stop feeding him, knowing it would kill him.
Appeal granted-switching off the machines was held to be in Vs best interests.
‼ HoL said switching off the life machine was an omission to act, not an act, so it was allowed.
R v Roberts (1971)
D was convicted of assualt occaisioning actual bodily harm after V jumped out of his car after D allegedly tried to remove her coat. She thought he was going to rape her.
Conviction held-D set off chain of events, and the reaction was reasonable and foreseeable.
‼ D set off chain of events, so as long as the reaction was foreseeable and expected there is no chain of causation.
R v Dear (1996)
D slashed V with a stanley knife, severing an artery. V died from blood loss 2 das later. D pleaded provocation as a defence, and another defence was that V had committed suicide, either by reopening the wounds or not seeking help.
Conviction held-the wounds were still operating and substantial at the time of death.
‼ Courts didn't apply Roberts principle, but the Smith principle as V letting himself die was daft and unexpected.
R v Blaue (1975)
D stabbed V, piercing her lung, and causing her to loose a large amount of blood. She refused to have a life saving transfusion as she was a Jehovah's Witness, and she died the next day.
Conviction held-Although D appealed on a question of causation, the courts followed the thin skull rule
‼ Should the thin skull rule cover medical beliefs? Consider other things - phobias, medical beliefs, parental status etc
R v Hayward (1908)
D was in a condition of violent excitment. He chased his wife and threatened her. She ran from the house, into the road, and collapsed, dying instantly.
Convictions held-convicted of mansluaghter. V had a heart condition, so any combination of a strong emotion and physical exertion could have produced the same results.
‼ Unlike the other cases there was no physical act by D, but the thin skull rule still applies.
Award!
Guess what? I've gotten an award! Apparently the lovely pspscrapper thinks I have potential!
So a big thank you to pspscrapper!
So, heres the award:
And as soon as I'm up on my feet and know a few more sites, I shall forward on to 5 people, as per the rules!
1) Haven Layouts
2) Kayla Bear
3)
4)
5)
Now the above site isn't a scrapper site, but while looking for some information
for my daughter I came across this young girl who has set, or is in the process
of setting up a site that has information for students. Its always great to have
a site with lots of information on it for our students. Good Luck to you Smexie.
So a big thank you to pspscrapper!
So, heres the award:
And as soon as I'm up on my feet and know a few more sites, I shall forward on to 5 people, as per the rules!
1) Haven Layouts
2) Kayla Bear
3)
4)
5)
Fallicies - Part A
A fallacy is a mistake, and in terms of Critical Thinking (or other argumentative subjects) a logical fallacy is a mistake in reasoning. There are many different types of fallacies, and we come across and use them all the time. As there are so many fallacies, I've decided to post them in stages. So today - Part A! Also included at the bottom of the list are useful links.
A
Ad Hominem Attack - Where a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim of the argument./Claiming that supposed inadequacies of a person are good grounds for rejecting their point of view.
Example
A: I believe abortion is morally wrong
B: You're a Christian, you have to think that!
(Just because A is a Christian, does not mean her argument should be discredited.)
Dr M opposed the 24 hour opening for pubs because it would encourage drunkenness, but he is a binge drinker, which discredits his argument.
(Just because Dr M is a binge drinker, this does not discredit his argument - it may discredit him, but not his argument.)
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque - When it is concluded that a person's claim is false because of prior things said or done by that person.
Example
A: I think that, based on the arguments I have presented, it is morally wrong to use animals for clothing.
B: But you are wearing a leather jacket - how can you say that it is wrong to use animals for clothing?
(Yes, while A is being hypocritical, they may not be any less right about using animals for clothing - think about whether or not you believe in testing on animals, and try to think of an argument against it. If you don't, then take a look at the medical drugs you have taken in your life, or the make-up you wear. Most, if not all, drugs are tested on animals, and a vast majority of make-up is too. Think your argument should be discredited?)
Affirming the Consequent - Thinking that because of one event, that the second even is caused.
Example
If it is raining, the streets will be wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore it is raining
(There may be various reasons why the streets are wet. And while yes, 99.9 times out of 100 if it's raining, the streets will be wet. But what if someone was washing their car? Streets would be wet then. Is it raining?)
Appeal to Ignorance - An argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it.
Example
There is no evidence that Mrs Smith crashed her car on purpose. Therefore, it was an accident.
Appeal to the Mob - Someone claims a statement should be believed because many people accept the truth of it.
Example
Most motorists claim they would rather have cars than cheap buses. Therefore the government should start to limit the amount of buses on our roads.
(Just because an argument has 'most motorists' in it, doesn't mean that there are only 1 or 2 people using buses.)
All women use Hairclean shampoo everyday!
(This is probably not going to be true. But it makes you think that perhaps Hairclean is the best shampoo around, and therefore want to buy it - clever advertising!)
A
Ad Hominem Attack - Where a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim of the argument./Claiming that supposed inadequacies of a person are good grounds for rejecting their point of view.
Example
A: I believe abortion is morally wrong
B: You're a Christian, you have to think that!
(Just because A is a Christian, does not mean her argument should be discredited.)
Dr M opposed the 24 hour opening for pubs because it would encourage drunkenness, but he is a binge drinker, which discredits his argument.
(Just because Dr M is a binge drinker, this does not discredit his argument - it may discredit him, but not his argument.)
Ad Hominem Tu Quoque - When it is concluded that a person's claim is false because of prior things said or done by that person.
Example
A: I think that, based on the arguments I have presented, it is morally wrong to use animals for clothing.
B: But you are wearing a leather jacket - how can you say that it is wrong to use animals for clothing?
(Yes, while A is being hypocritical, they may not be any less right about using animals for clothing - think about whether or not you believe in testing on animals, and try to think of an argument against it. If you don't, then take a look at the medical drugs you have taken in your life, or the make-up you wear. Most, if not all, drugs are tested on animals, and a vast majority of make-up is too. Think your argument should be discredited?)
Affirming the Consequent - Thinking that because of one event, that the second even is caused.
Example
If it is raining, the streets will be wet.
The streets are wet.
Therefore it is raining
(There may be various reasons why the streets are wet. And while yes, 99.9 times out of 100 if it's raining, the streets will be wet. But what if someone was washing their car? Streets would be wet then. Is it raining?)
Appeal to Ignorance - An argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it.
Example
There is no evidence that Mrs Smith crashed her car on purpose. Therefore, it was an accident.
Appeal to the Mob - Someone claims a statement should be believed because many people accept the truth of it.
Example
Most motorists claim they would rather have cars than cheap buses. Therefore the government should start to limit the amount of buses on our roads.
(Just because an argument has 'most motorists' in it, doesn't mean that there are only 1 or 2 people using buses.)
All women use Hairclean shampoo everyday!
(This is probably not going to be true. But it makes you think that perhaps Hairclean is the best shampoo around, and therefore want to buy it - clever advertising!)
Useful links:-
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ - This is a complete website, full of in-depth information and working examples.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index - A simpler site, with less information than the one above, but it has easy to read definitions and examples.
Welcome!
Welcome to 'You Learn Something New...'! This site, as you can see from the information box on the left -> is something that came to me during another one of those long and annoying project searches that never seem to give you what you need, or seem to go on and on, with no sign of stopping.
The Internet is a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong. But when you need something specific, and you only have a short amount of time before the homework/project is due in, or you have countless other things you need to do, it can get tiresome/annoying/frustrating in a matter of seconds.
So this site is for students, by a student. Hopefully it will be a comprehensive, helpful site for anyone stuck on anything. Obviously it will cover Law, Photography, Critical Thinking and Psychology in more depth than, say, Mathematics. But I will include other subjects! AS Level, GCSE Level, SATs level - whatever you need, I will find it and I will put it up here. With the help of this site, I aim to pull the Internet in, and make searching for projects quick, easy, and relatively pain free.
The Internet is a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong. But when you need something specific, and you only have a short amount of time before the homework/project is due in, or you have countless other things you need to do, it can get tiresome/annoying/frustrating in a matter of seconds.
So this site is for students, by a student. Hopefully it will be a comprehensive, helpful site for anyone stuck on anything. Obviously it will cover Law, Photography, Critical Thinking and Psychology in more depth than, say, Mathematics. But I will include other subjects! AS Level, GCSE Level, SATs level - whatever you need, I will find it and I will put it up here. With the help of this site, I aim to pull the Internet in, and make searching for projects quick, easy, and relatively pain free.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
