What have you achieved today?

[Steven]

That's bollocks and complete no win situation. If the pass rate drops teachers are blamed, if the pass rate rises the exams are too easy. One of the questions on the year 9 SAT English paper this year was a slightly reworded question from last years English GCSE paper, and as a result a lot of students found it too hard, as you would expect. The constant claims that exams are getting easier not only devalues what the students have spent the last 2 years working their arse off for (in most cases) but it also gives a false sense of security to those who don't want to try as hard.

Then explain to me why the Universities (more than in my day) are openly talking about or using their own exam criteria not necessarily based on Public examinations?

 

[Siouxsie]

Then explain to me why the Universities (more than in my day) are openly talking about or using their own exam criteria not necessarily based on Public examinations?

In my day (yes I'm old!) getting an "A" at A level was unusual (ie only 2 out of 25 of us who took french and both of those subsequently read languages at Oxbridge) whereas they said something like a 1/3 got "A"s this year in some subjects.

I really don't believe that kids have got cleverer or that they are working that much harder. I do have an idea, given that my daughter has just taken her ASs and I she seems to socialise as much as I did!

The fact that you can re-sit modules to improve your grade must play a part.

 

[Hazzman]

Then explain to me why the Universities (more than in my day) are openly talking about or using their own exam criteria not necessarily based on Public examinations?

More to do with the UCAS point scoring system IMO.

Teachers teach the defined syllabus, kids are more acute to gaining marks. Hard to point to the finger really.

 

[Matt_B]

Then explain to me why the Universities (more than in my day) are openly talking about or using their own exam criteria not necessarily based on Public examinations?

More to do with the UCAS point scoring system IMO.

Teachers teach the defined syllabus, kids are more acute to gaining marks. Hard to point to the finger really.

Universities are complaining because of the effects of the points system. Whilst you still submit the actual grades universities used to go on the points system (last 5-10 years). But if I do 4 a levels and get 4 c's I can end up with as many points as someone who got an A and 2 b's, which isn't really fair and makes it harder for universities to differenciate (it doesn't help that GCSE grades are somehow taken into account).

Also yes, more people are getting higher grades, hence the need for the new A* grade.

There seems to be a lot more intelligent positioning of students and papers nowadays aswell, with teachers putting students into "safe" ranges, so they can easily get a higher mark on a lower paper, giving them a C, than risk failing at the higher paper and getting a U, so the overall number of people getting pass marks is higher.

 

[Dour]

Higher. I do not agree that almost anyone can go to Uni even in these days, plus the fact the drop out rate is so high.

In the old days everyone took the 11 Plus or similar (until Shirl the Pearl stepped in) and this determined your school etc. Now you have to wait until you are 18 to get this chance and not everyone can wait that long. That plus the cost means that some pupils are being excluded. As the standard of exams goes down more Unis are starting their own entrance requirements and this is bound to make getting into a good Uni even more difficult.

Furthermore quite needlessly nowadays employers demand a degree for a job without using any of the skills the graduate may have learned.

Love the idea that we should go back to the time that an exam at the age of 11 should, in most cases, define the rest of your life. Any more stupid ****ing Toryboy nonsense you want to share with us?

 

[Steven]

All I was saying was, now that grammar schools have basically been wiped out, the level of social mobility in this country has declined. It's essentially back to how it was in the 1930s.

Nowadays we're less likely to see a Prime Minister who comes from a normal background than we were in the 1970s. That's the point I was trying to make. Grammar schools used to offer people a route out of poverty, and allowed people to have a good education based on intellect, rather than the size of their parents' wallets.

Another view on social mobility.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/19/labour

In education, two-thirds of the 1958ers left school at 16: the lifelong financial disadvantage is visible, along with encouraging news that many gained qualifications later on. Changes in family life were first monitored here, looking at the effect of single parenthood on children. Is childhood really getting worse? Find out here what life for 10-year-olds was like then, compared with now. Imagine if we had these surveys from previous centuries.

Social mobility is one great question raised in these studies. Why were the 1958 children more likely to move upwards than those born just 12 years later, in 1970? The right claimed it was the demise of grammar schools, while the left blamed it on 1970 children entering secondary school during Thatcher cuts and unemployment. Research said it was neither: there was a one-off sudden demand for more white-collar workers, pulling up the 1958ers regardless of education. It was these studies that found expanding higher education mainly benefited the middle class, drawing in few extra working-class children.

 

[Steven]

Love the idea that we should go back to the time that an exam at the age of 11 should, in most cases, define the rest of your life. Any more stupid ****ing Toryboy nonsense you want to share with us?

I am a Liberal. I have never voted Tory or Labour.

In fairness to myself and the rest of the family (all of us being Grammar school oiks) we did/do very well out of the system.

That said I am not sure transferring the age to 18 and University serves any greater purpose as many who could have benefitted from University in terms of social mobility will have already dropped out by then.

 

[Chuck T Masala]

You had to wear glasses to go to Grammar School in my day. No Naggy Elders either.

 

[spionfox]

You had to make holes in your trouser pockets and do things behind the bike sheds to go to Grammar School in my day.

Those were the days.

 

[homer]

In fairness to myself and the rest of the family (all of us being Grammar school oiks) we did/do very well out of the system.

That said I am not sure transferring the age to 18 and University serves any greater purpose as many who could have benefitted from University in terms of social mobility will have already dropped out by then.

Those who did not do so well in the 11 plus were effectively shafted from that age forward and destined to leave school at 16, if not before

Nice world you support, there, Steven - social disadvantage imposed upon you at the age of 11

Lovely

 

[Steven]

Those who did not do so well in the 11 plus were effectively shafted from that age forward and destined to leave school at 16, if not before

Nice world you support, there, Steven - social disadvantage imposed upon you at the age of 11

Lovely

So the World is a better place because that happens at 18 now. It is clear that the education system is fooked as it supports those that can and will rather than striving to include those that cannot and do not know how to. :icon_conf

 

[Dour]

So the World is a better place because that happens at 18 now. It is clear that the education system is fooked as it supports those that can and will rather than striving to include those that cannot and do not know how to. :icon_conf

I reckon you should have a good look at what the Liberals and the Tories (particularly the reactionary old ****ers) say on education before voting again. 'It worked for me and the thick and feckless poor deserve what they get' should grease your way in nicely down the Conservative club.

 

[Steven]

I reckon you should have a good look at what the Liberals and the Tories (particularly the reactionary old ****ers) say on education before voting again. 'It worked for me and the thick and feckless poor deserve what they get' should grease your way in nicely down the Conservative club.

Try this and be pleasantly surprised. :icon_wink

I never drink in a Conservative Club though I will admit to having played snooker in one. :icon_redf

The only Club I would drink in/have drunk in is the Liberal Club. The atmosphere and the prices of the beer are better. :icon_wink

 

[Dour]

Didn't see anything about how good grammar schools were, to be honest, or how they want them back. Rather, stuff like:

Every child really must matter, even the ones who struggle the most, and we will expect schools to ensure that no child is left to fail.

More sensible in my view is to make it easier for new school providers to establish themselves as “Free Schools”, under strategic local authority guidance, and adhering to the existing fair admissions arrangements.

Seems exactly the opposite to what you want. Or mebbe that **** Clegg says somewhere he's a grammar school boy and proud of it.

 

[Steven]

Didn't see anything about how good grammar schools were, to be honest, or how they want them back. Rather, stuff like:





Seems exactly the opposite to what you want. Or mebbe that **** Clegg says somewhere he's a grammar school boy and proud of it.

All I said about Grammar Schools (or indeed scholarships) is that many in my family have benefited from them. As long as money is not a barrier then people like members of my family will always do relatively well.

That is not the point. Surely the point of education is to challenge every student to become more knowledgeable, more thorough in their thought processes, improve their communication skills, their confidence levels and to acquire an inquiring mind. None of these skills need a particular level of intelligence but they do require investment.

I want a system that supports that kind of thinking for all students but instead we have had successive Governments either not spending enough or overtesting children. :icon_conf

 

[Matt_B]

All I said about Grammar Schools (or indeed scholarships) is that many in my family have benefited from them. As long as money is not a barrier then people like members of my family will always do relatively well.

That is not the point. Surely the point of education is to challenge every student to become more knowledgeable, more thorough in their thought processes, improve their communication skills, their confidence levels and to acquire an inquiring mind. None of these skills need a particular level of intelligence but they do require investment.

I want a system that supports that kind of thinking for all students but instead we have had successive Governments either not spending enough or overtesting children. :icon_conf

I thought they were undertesting them currently, isn't that the whole point of this conversation?

 

[Durham Fox]

Developed an e-learning module on how to use a forum

 

[Macky]

I thought they were undertesting them currently, isn't that the whole point of this conversation?

I think Steven is referring to the raft of pointless tests given to school age children, not certified exams.

 

[Steven]

I think Steven is referring to the raft of pointless tests given to school age children, not certified exams.

..... and are they pointless. :icon_roll I did not understand the significance of exams I did until I was about 14. It is difficult to understand what a kid of 10, 11 or 12 say makes of the exams except for the stress they induce. :icon_conf

 

[homer]

..... and are they pointless. :icon_roll I did not understand the significance of exams I did until I was about 14. It is difficult to understand what a kid of 10, 11 or 12 say makes of the exams except for the stress they induce. :icon_conf

Says the man who supports the principle of the 11 plus