PDA

View Full Version : Exam results


GROUNDHOG
25th Aug 2011, 18:07
So for the umpteenth year in a row GCE results are better than ever with higher passes. Just saw a young lady asked about her A pass in English Language reply "Yeah I done better than I fought I would, I'm really pleased". Bet she couldn't tell you the square root of nine either.....

Are exams just easier now, does today's pupil just get trained to answer the known questions or is marking just more generous. What is happening.....

BigEndBob
25th Aug 2011, 18:20
Just had a lad on a trial lesson, was told he just received seven A*, plus half a dozen other grades.
In my day be lucky if half a dozen students got even a single A, and they were hoping to go on to Oxford or Cambridge.

Me thinks it just makes the qualifications less worthy.

G-CPTN
25th Aug 2011, 18:30
does today's pupil just get trained to answer the known questions
I think you'll find that much of the work is 'course work' which is reviewed during progress, rather than in exam conditions.

M.Mouse
25th Aug 2011, 19:05
With such superb qualifications they will all be well qualified to do Meeja Studies at a polytechnic, I mean university.

Checkboard
25th Aug 2011, 19:17
The whole point of examinations is to place you in regard to your peers for either job or Uni placement - which is why exam results should be standardised (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_score).

If you are REALLY fluffy, then give both results: ie. Maths: A*/B

(Absolute and standardised result in the exam)

flying lid
25th Aug 2011, 19:19
My son today got 3 A*'s, 2 A's & 5 B's. He has enough points to proceed to his choice of college.

He wishes to study Maths, Physics, Chemistry & Biology. I must say I am pleased with HIS choice of college subjects.

Best wishes to all with children recieving results today.

These kids are our future.

Lid

Checkboard
25th Aug 2011, 19:19
He wishes to study Maths, Physics, Chemistry & Biology.

.. nice to see his guidance councillor has given him a definitive direction in life towards a productive career. :rolleyes:

vulcanised
25th Aug 2011, 19:59
recieving results


Where's that smiley?

G-CPTN
25th Aug 2011, 20:07
Time to call for a return to the 'School Leaving Certificate' which required a general standard of educational achievement across a raft of subjects.

GROUNDHOG
25th Aug 2011, 20:08
And congrats to your son Flying Lid, so many students deserve the results they get, I too am proud of my children's achievements. I just cannot equate in general with the fact results seem to be getting ever better yet in nearly all walks of life the youngsters of today seem to be less capable. Maybe as I am getting older I am getting less tolerant.

M.Mouse
25th Aug 2011, 20:09
I agree the present generation of children are the future. I have no doubt the majority of them worked hard for the passes they have achieved. What is in question is the way the top passes appear to be achieved by so many. The significance of an 'A' has been degraded because it appears easier to obtain than previously. Either that or the present generation have become much cleverer than their predecessors.

At the other extreme I have recently found my late father's 1913 school report from Emanuel School in Wandsworth. He averaged around 65% in his end of school year exams at age 13. He came 1st out of 18 pupils. Emanuel was and still is a fine school and my father was far from stupid. Something has changed!

seacue
25th Aug 2011, 20:19
American comic Garrison Keillor says that in his home town everyone is above average.

Parapunter
25th Aug 2011, 21:00
I agree the present generation of children are the future.Hard not to, really.

Tankertrashnav
25th Aug 2011, 21:41
I'm sure the BBC has been using the same clip of shrieking girls hugging each other for the last 15 years. How about a few chaps giving each other a manly pat on the back and a firm handshake instead?

ChristiaanJ
25th Aug 2011, 21:48
My son wishes to study Maths, Physics, Chemistry & Biology.Sad to see he doesn't even yet seem to understand the difference between those subjects..... You study one of those, not all of them (except at secondary school). It says a lot about his education.
These kids are our future.Gives you a lot of hope about the future, doesn't it?

CJ (aka Ancient Grumpy)

charliegolf
25th Aug 2011, 21:49
The pupils do what's asked of them. My experience is that they work very hard in the main. The whole 'decline' thing is not of their making.

Government wants everyone to be a winner, and for the results graph to keep going upward. Yes, GCSE is not like 'O' Level. But that's Keith Joseph's fault, and again, not the pupils'.

Someone, someday, will come to the ground breaking opinion that we need:

Exams with a pass mark
Exams that examine the pupil's understanding of the course
A gold standard, we'll call it an A Level
No course work shite.
No 'ology' subjects other than Biology and geology.

CG

Heliport
25th Aug 2011, 22:38
ChristianJ Sad to see he doesn't even yet seem to understand the difference between those subjects..... You study one of those, not all of them (except at secondary school). It says a lot about his education.

Perhaps those are the subjects he'll study at A level?
6th Form is now often called 'College',
just as school-pupils are now called 'students'
and any educational establishment other than a school/6th Form College is now called a 'university'. :rolleyes:

charliegolf Exams with a pass mark
That would mean some would Fail.
We can't have that. :eek:

muppetofthenorth
25th Aug 2011, 22:40
Have you heard yourselves?


And you wonder why the youth don't think the older generation understands or respects them...

The kids do badly or misbehave: it's because they're thick and will amount to nothing.
The kids do well and pass their exams: further proof they're stupid.
:ugh:

ChrisVJ
25th Aug 2011, 22:46
For many Canadian university courses students are required to study a wide range of subjects, eg. Maths, statistics and calculus are required in Aviation Business as well as History, History of Aviation, Commerce, Economics, Marketing etc. I would not be at all surprised if all those subjects were part of a degree in say, medicine or 'Science.'

muppetofthenorth
25th Aug 2011, 22:47
So what's new?
Young people have always thought that.

And so have older people always moaned about the "yoof", but yet we still have doctors, we still have Pilots, we still have teachers and professors and politicians. Are things really declining? We're still able to produce what we used to...


So you might not like the sound of "Film Studies". Great. Other people don't like the sound of English Literature. Media Studies is irrelevant? Try doing anything in business without some understanding of how to best publicise your work to those who would benefit.

Not understanding what goes on now is not the same thing as valuing them all was worthless. By jumping in to judge, you're only making yourselves look like fools.

Heliport
25th Aug 2011, 22:48
muppet

And you wonder why the youth don't think the older generation understands or respects them...

So what's new?
Young people have always thought that.
It's part of being young and knowing everything.

ChristiaanJ
25th Aug 2011, 22:55
Have you heard yourselves?Yes, and I know I sound like an ancient.
But I compare the education I got, the one my kids got, and what is being "taught" today...
The kids do badly or misbehave: it's because they're thick and will amount to nothing.I don't think the kids today are any 'thcker' than we were sixty years ago... I just have my doubts about the way they are being taught today.

CJ

Krystal n chips
26th Aug 2011, 03:38
" I'm sure the BBC has been using the same clip of shrieking girls hugging each other for the last 15 years. "

Now a standard meeja inspired response....see also, any tragedy / " the community" etc....plus camera crew of course.

Seemingly, one well known girls school sent out a press release promoting the, er, capability of little Tamsin and Samantha to perform in this manner...source if this info was the Grudiad's Diary column btw....:ok:

More wonderful results....more processed pupils ( sorry, that should have read high educational attainment pupils ) and thus yet more who have the bits of paper, but who, sadly for them, remain poorly educated, not only in the area of overall knowledge across a range of subjects, but to the core element of learning how to learn and retain the information.....for which we can thank Govt's various over the years and the aptly named " dumbing down" of subjects by education "experts"....for those all important league tables....:rolleyes:

GroundedSLF
26th Aug 2011, 09:13
Went to the first home game at Reading FC, and the tills packed up in the food/drinks outlets before the game.

Only 1 establishment continued to serve anything, and this was because the "supervisor" was an older chap (about 40) who used "a bit of common" and had the staff write down everything they sold on paper, with a view to "ringing it up" when the till were working again.

Obviously there were rather large queues, this being the only establishment selling any type of refreshments, however, when it was my turn to be served, I ordered a coffee (driving) and a coke (other soft drinks brands are available) and then stood for 2 minutes while 2 members of staff tried to figure out the combined cost...

The price list was 1.50 for coffee, and 1.20 for the coke...

Despite my repeated attempts to assist by saying 2.70....2.70, they seemed unwilling to take my word for it.

They eventually decided to accept that 2.70 seemed about right, so I handed over 10 to pay, and again tried to be helpful by saying 7.30 change (ok I was a bit worried the coffe was getting cold, and that I might also still be standing there waiting for change at half time!).

The look of horror was astonishing - and they had to go to the supervisor to work out how much change to hand back!!

My son (who has just had his GCSE results) was more scathing than me in his opinions on the mathamatical performance of his peers.

MagnusP
26th Aug 2011, 09:15
GroundedSLF: that's a fine example of why I think Carol Vorderman is right in seeking separation of arithmetic and mathematics as examinable subjects (as was the case in the 1960s in Scotland when I was at school). It is far more likely that, in day-to-day life, one will need some arithmetical skill and less so that mathematical skills will be needed. Kids who are put off the maths side don't get the arithmetical skills.

I'm just surprised they didn't whip out their smartphones to work out what a tenner minus 2.70 came to.

handsfree
26th Aug 2011, 10:05
Think that might explain all the A** results then.

Not exactly doing our kids a favour or for that matter the country any good are we ?

Storminnorm
26th Aug 2011, 10:22
Carol Vorderman? Mathematical expert?

She only got a 2 - 2 didn't she?

But she is right about seperating the Maths and Arithmetic.

Having read through the modern exam paper, (Thanks!), I
think I might have done a BIT better than I actually did when
I did my 'O' levels many years ago.

muppetofthenorth
26th Aug 2011, 10:39
Here's a GCSE mathematics paper from last year.

See if it's as taxing as you remember 'O' levels to be...If you're going to be picky and try to have a go at the kids doing the exams, then be a little more diligent in your research.
That's a Foundation level exam paper. A 100% pass in that will give you a C grade. In order to get the A* you need to be on the Higher tier.

So, is it the kid's fault if you don't understand the way the exams work?



All of you in the old and crusty/Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells Brigade: Blame the system and the exams [that your generation introduced], don't blame the kids who have absolutely no choice or say in it.

charliegolf
26th Aug 2011, 10:43
Here's a GCSE mathematics paper from last year.

See if it's as taxing as you remember 'O' levels to be...

http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp...W-QP-JUN10.PDF

This is the dimmies' paper. So,

Think that might explain all the A** results then.



It doesen't, since if the pupil got 100% they would only get a C or B.

The real scam is perpetrated on the kids who get say 50% in this paper- they get a 'pass' at grade F or G (thereabouts).

Oops, too slow for MOTN!

GROUNDHOG
26th Aug 2011, 10:47
Went in to the local DIY store and bought 44 boxes of floor tiles at 4.95 each plus a few bits.At the checkout the girl said that is 22 please. I pointed out that could not possibly be right look I have two huge trolley loads of tiles and 44 x 5 was 220 not 22 - wasn't it obvious. She checked again and said no it is 22, that is what the till says as well so I paid and left..... unbelievable!!

handsfree
26th Aug 2011, 11:01
Sorry but I assumed that it was a 'standard' GCSE paper but even so

if the pupil got 100% they would only get a C or Bstill doesn't say a lot about the value of the exam does it ?

40 years or so of evolution is hardly going to make a generation of children either more or less intelligent, so the increasingly higher and higher achievements must be down to either easier exams or laxer marking. It could of course be down to better teaching but I have my doubts about that.

Yes, the kids have worked hard to get their results. Yes, they are as bright as their peer group of 40 years ago. BUT there is no point in kidding them that they are all bordering on genius.
All that happens is that when they eventually enter the world of work it is like walking into a brick wall for the poor souls who have been sadly deluded by the system.

There is no point whatsoever in having 50% of your young having a degree if that degree reflects a politician's imaginary world. There is a whole world out there striving to take trade away from us.
Our young need to be educated to a level where they can hold their own in the world otherwise there isn't much of a future for them within it.

That Physics paper is pretty bad as well. :(
Not too sure where physics enters into some of the questions.

vulcanised
26th Aug 2011, 11:51
My 11+ exam was harder than that!

Mind you, it was over 50 years ago.

Andy_S
26th Aug 2011, 12:08
All of you in the old and crusty/Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells Brigade: Blame the system and the exams [that your generation introduced], don't blame the kids who have absolutely no choice or say in it.

I think that's exactly what we are doing.

I certainly don't blame the kids. I just think they're being cynically betrayed.

The really capable amongst them aren't being challenged, and with the proliferation of A and A* grades are increasingly difficult to distinguish from their peers.

Those of more moderate ability on the other hand are leaving school with a distorted view of their capabilities and a feeling of entitlement. The system isn't doing them any favours either.

muppetbum
26th Aug 2011, 12:12
I taught Physics in the UK for ten years.
No question at all the exams are much easier than they were when I took my A levels.
I kept all my A level books. I couldn't use a single one of them as a teaching resource as they were far too complex.

I once worked out that it was possible to get over 60% on a GCSE Science paper ( so called physics module) without any physics knowledge whatsoever.

Questions such as " Why must we use more renewable energy resources?" are more political than scientific. Others merely required reading comprehension.

I now work in a school in Canada ( not as a teacher) from what I have seen of the International Baccalaureate that we teach here , the HL Physics papers seem to have a bit of rigour behind them.

moosp
26th Aug 2011, 13:58
And here in Asia, although we still teach to attain entry levels to Western universities, the extra courses ensure that the educational standards are very high.

I asked a friend why he sent his daughter to Abacus classes in the evenings. After some thought he replied, "Perhaps it is the same reason that your best scholars learn Latin. It creates a structured mind."

A recent entry examination to a good Kindergarten here (yes, they have stringent educational requirements for four year olds) asked "What are the names of the three bridges that you cross when travelling from Hong Kong island to the airport?

Neatly this pre-selected against the other side of the tracks students from Kowloon, who might not have crossed the third bridge, and from the hoi poloi who travelled in a train, my dear.

But really, should we be putting four year olds through cram schools to pass such tests? In China the resounding answer is yes.

ChristiaanJ
26th Aug 2011, 14:45
Simple question from a furriner..... those GCSE exams quoted would be taken after how many school years (nominally)?

Are they the kind of exam taken at the end of secondary school (like the "bac" in France)?

I've always been totally baffled by those 'O' levels and 'A' levels.....

CJ

L337
26th Aug 2011, 15:19
So ChristaanJ you readily admit to not understanding the UK exam system but are still happy to pass an acid ignorant comment like this

Sad to see he doesn't even yet seem to understand the difference between those subjects..... You study one of those, not all of them (except at secondary school). It says a lot about his education.

.. I think your post tells me allot about your education.

Storminnorm
26th Aug 2011, 15:23
"O" = Ordinary level. Most people pass quite a lot. Taken in year 11?

"A" = Advanced level. Still most people pass a lot. Taken in year 12 or 13.(?).

Does that help Christiaan?

ChristiaanJ
26th Aug 2011, 16:57
So ChristaanJ you readily admit to not understanding the UK exam system but are still happy to pass an acid ignorant comment like this
.. I think your post tells me a lot about your education.You clearly missed my point....
You don't study "Maths & Physics & Chemistry & Biology", even if each field requires some 'input' from other fields (no Physics without Maths, no Biology without Chemistry).
The same applies in my 'field'.... you don't study "Engineering". Even if Civil Engineering and Aeronautical Engineering share a fair amount of math and mechanical and structural engineering, the end result is totally different.

This applies just about everywhere... once you get to university level, you have to choose a 'field', if you want to get anywhere. That has nothing to do with the exact exam system.... be it the UK one, the French "bac" or the Dutch "eindexamen" (IIRC it's still called "Habitur" in Germany).

Let's admit it, at that age the choice is still difficult, since at that age you have no clear idea yet of what each of the 'fields' you still can choose from really mean.
At that point in my life, I was trying to choose between journalism, archaeology, astronomy, or mechanical, electrical or aeronautical engineering.
So I had to sift.
I had no illusions my writing was that good, so journalism was out.
Archeaology and astronomy sounded nice (we had an astronomer in the family) but they didn't sound as if they would pay the bills.
My father was an electrical engineer, hence my interest in electrical engineering and physics from an early age. My physics teacher was an "ancient", even then, but he managed to make the subject interesting and comprehensible.

So.... engineering?
Aeronautical engineering seemed the best bet, since it integrated so many other aspects.... aerodynamics (i.e. physics), electronics, mechanics, hydraulics, etc. etc. Maybe even astronomy, via the space programme? Chemistry and metallurgy also showed up.... and of course a lot of maths....

I've never regretted my choice.... it took me into the Concorde programme, one of the two 'sexy' programmes at the time, the other being Apollo.

L337, I think my remark was mostly provoked by the notion of somebody wanting to study "Maths, Physics, Chemistry & Biology".
Never mind the country.... to me it was a symptom of
- a total lack of individual orientation by the 'councelors',
- a failure of the teachers (educational system?) to evoke 'potentialities' in the kids?

I forgot to mention our history teacher (another 'ancient' even then) who started my interest in ancient history and archaeology. It never became more than a 'hobby', but I now live in a village that can date its history back to about 110 BC, and I've ended up as the president of the local archaeological
'association'...

Maybe that says something about my education?

I would say mine 'challenged' me enough... and 'got' me where I'm now.

CJ

muppetofthenorth
26th Aug 2011, 17:49
You don't study "Maths & Physics & Chemistry & Biology", even if each field requires some 'input' from other fields (no Physics without Maths, no Biology without Chemistry).
The same applies in my 'field'.... you don't study "Engineering". Even if Civil Engineering and Aeronautical Engineering share a fair amount of math and mechanical and structural engineering, the end result is totally different.

That, frankly, is semantics and pointless to the discussion. I will quite happily continue saying I studied Maths and Physics and all the other things I did, including engineering.

Simple question from a furriner..... those GCSE exams quoted would be taken after how many school years (nominally)?

Are they the kind of exam taken at the end of secondary school (like the "bac" in France)?

I've always been totally baffled by those 'O' levels and 'A' levels.....

GCSEs are taken at the age of 15/16, schooling years 10 and 11, or KeyStage4. Some are modular, taken over those 2 years, some are final exams taken at the very end of that process.
These replaced O levels.

A Levels are split. In yr 12 of school [aka Lower 6th] you take AS levels, these, when complete, are worth half an A level.
In yr 13 [upper 6th] you complete these A levels by carrying on to the A2 level.

Both the AS and the A2 are made up of modular exams throughout the schoolyear, but most normally January and June/July.

What it means is that from the age of 13 to the age of 18 [if the student remains in fulltime education] the student will do 'important' external exams every 3 months. How teachers are supposed to do anything but teach people how to pass exams is beyond me.

hellsbrink
26th Aug 2011, 18:40
If you're going to be picky and try to have a go at the kids doing the exams, then be a little more diligent in your research.
That's a Foundation level exam paper. A 100% pass in that will give you a C grade. In order to get the A* you need to be on the Higher tier.

So, is it the kid's fault if you don't understand the way the exams work?



All of you in the old and crusty/Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells Brigade: Blame the system and the exams [that your generation introduced], don't blame the kids who have absolutely no choice or say in it.

Muppet, you don't get it at all.

Back in Jockistan in the 70's I could have gotten at LEAST 90% on that paper when I was 7. The PYT (aged 25) says the same, it's the things that should be taught and tested in PRIMARY SCHOOL, when you are between 5 and 12, and not any sort of exam for a 16 year old. These are VERY basic things we are talking about here, and if you can get a "C" grade for that sort of exam then it shows how low things have gone.

I mean, just look at question 1!

hellsbrink
26th Aug 2011, 18:42
I think your post tells me allot about your education.

And I think the above speaks volumes for yours.............

flying lid
26th Aug 2011, 18:52
A Levels are split. In yr 12 of school [aka Lower 6th] you take AS levels, these, when complete, are worth half an A level.
In yr 13 [upper 6th] you complete these A levels by carrying on to the A2 level.

Both the AS and the A2 are made up of modular exams throughout the schoolyear, but most normally January and June/July.



Correct. The subject is a little confusing, especially to folks from abroad with different systems.

To put the point straight, yesterdays UK results were for GCSE's, taken in year 11 at secondary schools, 16/17 year old children. Those staying on for further education at A level, as outlined above by muppetofthenorth pick four subjects, bright ones may take more. The student picks his subjects based on his strenghts / preferences, and future university course / job aspirations etc.

My son wishes to study engineering, hence his maths / science choices.
(i.e. To become a teacher, English is an essential, etc). He had his college interview this morning, position and subjects confirmed, and starts in 2 weeks. Lots of hard work ahead for this young man.

If he is successful with his studies, he may go on to University to study a single subject, Mechanical eng, Civil eng, (or one subject similar / related to his current studies).

This brings in the subject of fees. None (yet) at A level. Certainly huge fees ahead at English uni's. A whole new subject and perhaps not for this thread.

I must admit the whole process of college entrance, for my son at least, has been very professionally organised and carried out.

Lid

charliegolf
26th Aug 2011, 19:23
Hellsbrink

I've been a teacher/head forthe last 26 years. I have seen and guided many gifted children during that time. I have never seen one who could get 90% on that paper aged 7- the teaching involved would have been wholly inappropriate as much as anything else. So well done you!

11 year olds- ok, it can be done, still only for the brighter ones, and not necessarily gifted. When I have done it in the past, the comp passes it over as a dog-and-pony show, not proper maths. Can't win.

CG

hellsbrink
26th Aug 2011, 19:27
To put the point straight, yesterdays UK results were for GCSE's, taken in year 11 at secondary schools, 16/17 year old children. Those staying on for further education at A level, as outlined above by muppetofthenorth pick four subjects, bright ones may take more. The student picks his subjects based on his strenghts / preferences, and future university course / job aspirations etc.

My son wishes to study engineering, hence his maths / science choices.
(i.e. To become a teacher, English is an essential, etc). He had his college interview this morning, position and subjects confirmed, and starts in 2 weeks. Lots of hard work ahead for this young man.

If he is successful with his studies, he may go on to University to study a single subject, Mechanical eng, Civil eng, (or one subject similar / related to his current studies).

This brings in the subject of fees. None (yet) at A level. Certainly huge fees ahead at English uni's. A whole new subject and perhaps not for this thread.

I must admit the whole process of college entrance, for my son at least, has been very professionally organised and carried out.


Not too much different from my experiences in Jockistan, to go on to what we called "5th year" (Higher Grade) we had to pick 5 subjects, no deviation. I went for Inglush, Maths, Physics and Biology at "H" level and Tech Drawing at "O Grade". The reasons were simple, Inglush and Maths were a must IF you wanted to do Further Education and Physics/Biology were very strong subjects for me (ok, I ain't no thicko. I scored 7 "A" grades and 1 "B" in my O-grades. 6 from the 7 were band 1 and that meant 90% or higher. I got school prizes for being top of the year for every year at that school. My Highers were 3 "A" and 2 "B", which wasn't bad considering I got an "A" for Tech drawing despite doing a 2 year course in 1 year and I missed over a month at the start of the year due to circumstances beyond my control. Inglush was always my weakest subject, I don't know why, and Biology was always my strongest. I could have walked into Uni but decided I wanted to work for a living instead, so only did 4 weeks of 6th year).

But that "paper" posted earlier? Hell, despite it being WAY over 20 years since I have done anything like that, it took me 10 mins to complete it, and have, easily, 90+%. We used to get Arithmetic papers that were not "multiple guess", no calculators allowed, and you had 30 mins to complete it. It was all "mental arithmetic", you had to be able to count, and quickly. That seems to be a problem in the exam paper posted where they were allowed 90 mins and is, obviously, a backwards step.


As far as the rest goes, it's good news as far as your son's further education goes. I hope he gains what he wants to. Costs? That's another issue but you'll figure it out so he can get the education he deserves. Here's hoping he can achieve his dreams. :ok:

hellsbrink
26th Aug 2011, 19:35
Hellsbrink

I've been a teacher/head forthe last 26 years. I have seen and guided many gifted children during that time. I have never seen one who could get 90% on that paper aged 7- the teaching involved would have been wholly inappropriate as much as anything else. So well done you!

11 year olds- ok, it can be done, still only for the brighter ones, and not necessarily gifted. When I have done it in the past, the comp passes it over as a dog-and-pony show, not proper maths. Can't win.

So you started teaching after I finished school. Standards have changed, and the small matter of me being Scottish under a Scottish education does make a difference because "Rithmetic" was kept separate from "Maffs". We were taught to count at an early age, we were taught basic Geometry at an early age, etc. Hell, some of us, the "gifted", were taught how to use a slide rule as well as "Napier's Logs" at the age of 11.

Some were not as "clever", but when they went to "the big school" they could still read, write, spell and count. And that was at the age of 12. Can the same be said for today's kids?

muppetbum
26th Aug 2011, 19:49
Sorry Hellsbrink , but just what don't I get?

Quote"Muppet, you don't get it at all."

hellsbrink
26th Aug 2011, 19:55
Try reading all of the post, especially the quote, and then you'll realise it was directed at the other "muppet" posting in this thread and not you......


(And you're someone who used to teach Physics but cannot actually read and comprehend things in front of your eyes? You didn't see that it wasn't your words quoted in my post, yet assumed it was directed at you? That's fricking scandalous, and, for someone who taught students for so long and is still involved in the education of children in some way, is inexcusable)

L337
26th Aug 2011, 20:59
You don't study "Maths & Physics & Chemistry & Biology"

Yes you do.

At "A" levels, you do. Each is a separate subject in the curriculum.

ChristiaanJ
26th Aug 2011, 21:09
Yes you do.
At "A" levels, you do. Each is a separate subject in the curriculum.Sorry, you obviously missed my point again.
I was talking about university levels, not secondary school.

CJ

Tankertrashnav
26th Aug 2011, 21:23
Carol Vorderman? Mathematical expert?

She only got a 2 - 2 didn't she?

But she is right about seperating the Maths and Arithmetic.




After all those years on Countdown I bet her spelling's good though, Norm ;)

muppetbum
26th Aug 2011, 21:46
Hellsbrink
Was that really necessary?

I' m going to save you the embarrassment now in case you want to make future comments like that ( I think I've mentioned this in previous posts, but I'll admit to getting confused about what I've posted where)

I am in fact partially sighted ( a present courtesy of the little darlings that I used to teach) and occasionally my text to speech software screws up , I usually manage reasonably well but apparently not in this case

Understand that even without the above I still consider your reply to be a complete over reaction to what I considered to be a fairly innocuous question.

Still it's good to know that things haven't changed much in the last five years and every ****wit out there thinks that they own the right to decide that one small mistake , be it grammatical , personal , whatever ; instantly renders you unfit to be a teacher

ChristiaanJ
26th Aug 2011, 22:13
Just looking through a 1957 O-level maths paper, which has a fascinating "essay" section on top of all the other "real" mathematics questions.Thanks for that one.....
I would have been totally baffled by the 'essay section'...
Whether any of that 'historical' info was really relevant in a math course/exam is of course another question.....

CJ

Parapunter
26th Aug 2011, 23:29
Muppets north & bum, take a tip: you're both wasting your breath. These people are beyond reason.

hellsbrink
27th Aug 2011, 04:44
Muppets north & bum, take a tip: you're both wasting your breath. These people are beyond reason.

The words "Pot", "Kettle" and "Black" are springing to mind.

Krystal n chips
27th Aug 2011, 05:08
Ahem, an interesting perspective offered below.....

BBC News - Google's Eric Schmidt criticises education in the UK (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14683133)

Am I alone however, in noting the passing reference to subjects related to a variety of occupations, but with the subsequent emphasis on media related occupations....and thus negating the initial ( ostensibly ) criticism.

There are, after all, plenty of other disciplines and careers that require a firm understand of basic educational principles before progression can be made to the more complex areas in peoples careers...

GROUNDHOG
27th Aug 2011, 06:49
You are not alone Krystal, with you on that.

T

Parapunter
27th Aug 2011, 08:23
The words "Pot", "Kettle" and "Black" are springing to mind.

Quod erat demonstrandum.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

stuckgear
27th Aug 2011, 08:51
There are, after all, plenty of other disciplines and careers that require a firm understand of basic educational principles before progression can be made to the more complex areas in peoples careers...


That's a perfectly acceptable premise KnC, however we have to bear in mind that education is preparing the students of today for the future.

Long term jobs and careers in modern day can and will most likely lead to international relocation or integration and that places the future workforce into a competitive environment. Not only that, competition from overseas workers places the future workforce into an internationally completive environment at home and while our precepts of 'everyone is a winner' may be all inclusive, the real world is not like that and society is doing harm to the future prospects of not only the students, but also to itself.

Without a shadow of doubt, exam testing has lowered its grading levels and no that is not the fault of the students at all and they are being short changed on their future by their education.

When these children arrive at university to pursue a career objective or to progress into more complex areas of learning, they will not and currently do not have the foundation knowledge to enable understanding of more complex areas of study, when they hit the job market they are at disadvantage in their knowledge and education levels, so the result is that in progressing into more complex areas of study the attrition rate is higher, or in order for universities to maintain their income source will have to lower its standards.

Back into the job market, the future workforce at all levels is at a disadvantage when competing for jobs and careers.

Krystal n chips
27th Aug 2011, 11:53
The full text can be found here...

Let the luvvie embrace the boffin in the digital future | Eric Schmidt | Comment is free | The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/26/luvvie-boffin-digital-computing-television)

Given the location, you could argue he was making an industry specfic address...unfortunately, the introduction implied criticism of the much broader issues of the UK's education system ( my thanks to KC for the example provided....the disturbing issue being that I assume it was not written in jest and that the writer truly believes this to be the case ) which subsequently was not the case. The speech seems, to me, to be more of a promotional event for the media as a whole, rather than any direct and valid criticism therefore.

If Google want to offer me a job, I can start in a couple of weeks...:p

SG....alas, yet again we agree it seems...pretty much anyway...:D..mind you, you are still very much a work in progress regarding your conversion to socialist principles....:cool:

stuckgear
27th Aug 2011, 13:24
KnC,

yep we do seem to agree on some things however, you really had to do it didn't you.. you had to yank my chain ! :ok:



mind you, you are still very much a work in progress regarding your conversion to socialist principles....


The thing is KnC, this is where our, and other, minds differ.. I see it as the socialist principle of 'all animals are equal and four legs good, two legs bad' that is problematic. This 'mindset' that we have dumbed everything down to the lowest common denominator so that all are equal and no one feels excluded.

The world and real life is not a Utopian socialist ideal, it is hard, it is bitter, there is often no happy 'Hollywood' ending. Everything achieved is a hard fight. A bitter slog. There will be winners and there will be losers. The problem our current 'generation x' has is a soon to be learnt hard reality and in the global working environment, this and previous generations have been let down. They are unprepared for the bitter world that exists and that every job is not only hard won, but hard kept and those that have been through an education that prepares them to not only attain jobs, but keep them as well to rise within a career are better placed than those who get a mark for writing their own name at the top of an exam paper (correctly earns bonus points).

Often there is this contention that if your not a socialist then you are a capitalist and that being a capitalist means exploiting the lower classes for personal furtherment, that capitalist and capitalism are dirty words and are derided by those who adorned their university digs with a Che Guevara poster.

But lets look at that. Because while university students expound socialist ideals, they are actually investing in their own intellectual capital to gain an advantage over their peers, with the ability to command a higher wage their peers.

Capitalism involves investing into your assets in order that your assets can generate a higher return from investment. Our generation x is no different they are and should be an asset to this country and to its future in order that they are better placed to go out into a competitive world and achieve higher salaries, create a develop business and commerce, rather than be left behind in a competitive environment where they face no hope and no future.

It's not about exploiting the lower classes, it's about giving all the ability to achieve the most they can in their lifetime. To build on their capabilities to grow and develop. That is what builds an economy. A working class man with a talent for plastering or bricklaying with a business mind will grow a company that employs others, creating jobs, where som in time may also do likewise. Keeping everyone 'down to the lowest common denominator and reliant on government support for existance is always doomed to failure. The working class man that has built up a garage, a building company a trucking company has been afforded the ability to grow economically and financially. That is what capitalism is about, and with that growth comes jobs and the ability for future generations to build and grow.

What we have done to our youth and their economic futures is shameful. And for what? Some false notion that everybody is a winner they are all equal and they have an education that will allow them to compete out there in the big bad world.

I don't for a second doubt that you would ever look at your socialist ideals with a critical eye KnC and see the naked truth, but then that is your prerogative and i don't think that you could ever be turned away from your socialist ideals and again that is your prerogative, but for me, i see too much hypocrisy and fallacy in those ideals for them ever to be considered workable other than in some idealistic Utopian fantasy.

Socialism and capitalism are nothing to do with class, but ideology and education is crucial to one of them.

:ok:

stuckgear
27th Aug 2011, 14:49
I doubt that I've EVER read such crap before.


Ok norm, lets take it sentence and paragraph at a time that you consider such crap..

The world and real life is not a Utopian socialist ideal, it is hard, it is bitter, there is often no happy 'Hollywood' ending. Everything achieved is a hard fight. A bitter slog. There will be winners and there will be losers. The problem our current 'generation x' has is a soon to be learnt hard reality and in the global working environment, this and previous generations have been let down. They are unprepared for the bitter world that exists and that every job is not only hard won, but hard kept and those that have been through an education that prepares them to not only attain jobs, but keep them as well to rise within a career are better placed than those who get a mark for writing their own name at the top of an exam paper (correctly earns bonus points).


So what you contend is that personal advancement is not hard fight, and there will be no winners and losers, that there is a true Hollywood ending and that our current generation are well placed to achieve greatness in the world with their high level of education despite the fact that government studies have shown a rising level of illiteracy in school leavers and certain studies have shown school leavers to be lacking in basic education skills.

By your basic argument, then you are saying the truth is that these people are well placed to compete in a commercially demanding environment. Funny, but the quote in this very thread by an ex teacher countermands your assertion of crap.


Often there is this contention that if your not a socialist then you are a capitalist and that being a capitalist means exploiting the lower classes for personal furtherment, that capitalist and capitalism are dirty words and are derided by those who adorned their university digs with a Che Guevara poster.

But lets look at that. Because while university students expound socialist ideals, they are actually investing in their own intellectual capital to gain an advantage over their peers, with the ability to command a higher wage their peers.

So, the 'socialist worker' selling, Che Geuvara poster worshipping university students are not investing in their own future and education by going to university ?

So what are they doing at university ? By extension of your own argument, they are exploting the educational system by denying places to those who desire to learn and further themselves, at the cost to the taxpayer, as they will only repay student loans when they earn a significant wage and as they have no desire to do so, by your own extension, they they are basically exploiting the educational system to the detriment of others because they, well frankly can't be arsed to wash their hair, get a low paid job (becuase they dont believe in personal furtherment) and drag their sorry asses out of bed in the pissing rain every morning and pay taxes to maintain their socialist ideals.

hmmmm..


It's not about exploiting the lower classes, it's about giving all the ability to achieve the most they can in their lifetime. To build on their capabilities to grow and develop. That is what builds an economy. A working class man with a talent for plastering or bricklaying with a business mind will grow a company that employs others, creating jobs, where som in time may also do likewise. Keeping everyone 'down to the lowest common denominator and reliant on government support for existance is always doomed to failure. The working class man that has built up a garage, a building company a trucking company has been afforded the ability to grow economically and financially. That is what capitalism is about, and with that growth comes jobs and the ability for future generations to build and grow.



so you contend that the working class man should remain a working class man should not have any potantial for personal furtherment.


What we have done to our youth and their economic futures is shameful. And for what? Some false notion that everybody is a winner they are all equal and they have an education that will allow them to compete out there in the big bad world.



So you are pround of the level of education school leavers have and feel they are well placed to go out and compete in the big bad world.

I don't for a second doubt that you would ever look at your socialist ideals with a critical eye KnC and see the naked truth, but then that is your prerogative and i don't think that you could ever be turned away from your socialist ideals and again that is your prerogative, but for me, i see too much hypocrisy and fallacy in those ideals for them ever to be considered workable other than in some idealistic Utopian fantasy.



so you content that neither KnC nor myself, different as they may be, are not entitled to our own views and opinions.


Socialism and capitalism are nothing to do with class, but ideology and education is crucial to one of them.



So you contend that socialism and capitalism are not ideologies, but class based and that education is not crucial to development. well, seeing as your contention is that the working class should not be allowed to advance, develop and attain personal capital you obviously consider that the working class should stay working class.

i would suggest the crap is emitted from your keyboard, but then again you do campaign for your local labour party, so what could one expect, other than, well, crap.

cheers.