about results

see, i've never been someone to beat myself up over my results. it's partly because i've seldom done badly enough to warrant being upset over how i've scored, but mostly because i've always found a good reason to explain why i did so poorly. like when i got an f, and the subsequent fail marks for maths were all brushed aside, i didn't care, to be honest, cuz i felt at least there was progress.

now i realise it's not improvement that i seek. some part in me had always been confident that eventually, i will nail it, it just takes time. some cocky part of me has always imagined that i'd figure it out somehow, with little effort on my part. abiel thought my poor showing this time round was due to cockiness, no, abiel, and that is the scary part for me. i wasn't cocky. i studied hard, as best i could, wrote what i thought were brilliant, yes brilliant answers to the questions, and what did i get in the end? i barely scraped a 2.1. my essays throughout term were fine, good even, my politics tutor told me he was actually disappointed with my collections results (when i did better than my current paper) because he expected so much more from me.

it's not exam technique. i did time myself stringently, unlike during collections. was it that i chose questions i could not do? maybe, but i doubt that'd have played such an important role anyway. is it that i didn't do enough work? perhaps, but i did what i could with what little time i had, and throughout the term i did consciously work hard. and anyway at this point it's hard to reconcile with the fact or appearance that some people are able to do so little work during term time and still get their firsts.

so what is it?

if it's not exam technique, not amount of work put in, and seeing that it is the same paper that everyone sat for - well then, by elimination, it must be me, isn't it? the one thing i've been most proud of myself wasn't really my running or anything, it's been my brain all this while. i pride myself on being able to think on my feet, being quick on the uptake, and oxford's honed that and i'd like to think that my tutors have taught me more. (at this point, i'm reminded of sheryl's comment that i have, in her opinion, the 2 best politics and philosophy tutors in the university.) i'm starting to think, to seriously doubt, am i not good enough for oxford? sure i passed, but that has never been and will never be my aim.

they say that confidence is half the battle won. let's see how much worse i can do, now that i've lost half the battle.