|
turbobloke
55,495 posts
129 months
|
cymtriks said: scenario8 said: I do get bored with the all too common putting down of young people on these fora. It's not the kids, it's the way they are being cynically treated and charged for the privilege of being cynically treated. The kids are as clever as kids have always been Precisely, pupils are victims in this. It's a common misconception that comments are somehow putting down young people. Nothing could be further from the truth, pupils and teachers have been let down badly by exam boards and the last government in cahoots to pretend that standards were rising via grade inflation.
|
|
|
Use Psychology
9,799 posts
61 months
|
it all boils down to: be careful what you measure.
|
|
|
elster
16,648 posts
79 months
|
cuneus said: Evolution speeds up:  Where abouts did you get that image from if you don't mind me asking?
|
|
|
cuneus
5,449 posts
111 months
|
elster said: cuneus said: Evolution speeds up: Where abouts did you get that image from if you don't mind me asking? Not at all I got the raw exam results and plotted them in an Excel spreadsheet
|
|
|
elster
16,648 posts
79 months
|
cuneus said: elster said: cuneus said: Evolution speeds up: Where abouts did you get that image from if you don't mind me asking? Not at all I got the raw exam results and plotted them in an Excel spreadsheet Ah ok, do you mind if I use it?
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
cuneus
5,449 posts
111 months
|
elster said: Ah ok, do you mind if I use it? Sure I don't mind - if you mail me I can send you the sheet if you wish.
|
|
|
HundredthIdiot
4,353 posts
153 months
|
Kids are working harder, according to the experienced teachers I've spoken to.
I think it's reasonable to assume that teachers themselves are no worse in terms of their raw capabilities than they used to be.
So putting aside the results themselves, which are really just a means for students to differentiate themselves from each other (zero sum game) if employers are reporting that fresh employees are stupider than they used to be, what is the reason and what is the solution?
I don't see it.
|
|
|
elster
16,648 posts
79 months
|
HundredthIdiot said: Kids are working harder, according to the experienced teachers I've spoken to.
I think it's reasonable to assume that teachers themselves are no worse in terms of their raw capabilities than they used to be.
So putting aside the results themselves, which are really just a means for students to differentiate themselves from each other (zero sum game) if employers are reporting that fresh employees are stupider than they used to be, what is the reason and what is the solution?
I don't see it. Maybe the problem is the exam focus of the kids studies have not led to a good general overall education. Most students I spend time with seem to be obsessed with learning past papers and go over and over them, when I studied we were only given a couple of past papers to show us and the rest was just a general overview of the subjects. I see there is too much focus on past papers, answering the questions and not being educated on the subject. The problem with education is it is slow to find out the results of any changes made to the system, so any changes made realistically to check properly you need to be looking 10 years ahead.
|
|
|
AstonZagato
3,231 posts
79 months
|
cuneus said: Evolution speeds up: One of the reasons I am delighted my eldest chose to do the IB.
|
|
|
Mr GrimNasty
2,470 posts
39 months
|
HundredthIdiot said: Kids are working harder, according to the experienced teachers I've spoken to. You can work hard filling exercise books with 2+2=4 for 12 hours a day. It doesn't make you intelligent or educated.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,495 posts
129 months
|
HundredthIdiot said: Kids are working harder, according to the experienced teachers I've spoken to.
I think it's reasonable to assume that teachers themselves are no worse in terms of their raw capabilities than they used to be.
So putting aside the results themselves, which are really just a means for students to differentiate themselves from each other (zero sum game) if employers are reporting that fresh employees are stupider than they used to be, what is the reason and what is the solution?
I don't see it. The problem is that that results obtained by students in terms of grades no longer match capability. This is not a criticism of students or teachers, but of the last government and the degree to which exam boards rolled over. The solution is to re-establish norm-referenced grades and accept that not all can have academic prizes.
|
|
|
HundredthIdiot
4,353 posts
153 months
|
turbobloke said: The problem is that that results obtained by students in terms of grades no longer match capability. This is not a criticism of students or teachers, but of the last government and the degree to which exam boards rolled over.
The solution is to re-establish norm-referenced grades and accept that not all can have academic prizes. Normalizing grades won't make the kids any smarter, it'll just make the idiots easier to spot. I don't think spotting idiots is the problem for employers, or if it is they're doing it wrong.
|
|
|
AstonZagato
3,231 posts
79 months
|
HundredthIdiot said: turbobloke said: The problem is that that results obtained by students in terms of grades no longer match capability. This is not a criticism of students or teachers, but of the last government and the degree to which exam boards rolled over.
The solution is to re-establish norm-referenced grades and accept that not all can have academic prizes. Normalizing grades won't make the kids any smarter, it'll just make the idiots easier to spot. I don't think spotting idiots is the problem for employers, or if it is they're doing it wrong. But finding the clever ones is more difficult. Hence the need to introduce an A* grade. Oxbridge are already at straight A*s in some subjects, I believe, but they are talking about reintroducing entrance exams so they actually have an idea of the student's capabilities. Grades and interviews is not quite enough.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,495 posts
129 months
|
HundredthIdiot said: turbobloke said: The problem is that that results obtained by students in terms of grades no longer match capability. This is not a criticism of students or teachers, but of the last government and the degree to which exam boards rolled over.
The solution is to re-establish norm-referenced grades and accept that not all can have academic prizes. Normalizing grades won't make the kids any smarter, it'll just make the idiots easier to spot. And high performers too, which is precisely the point. The aim is not to make kids smarter but to provide an accurate viewpoint on their academic achievement. HundredthIdiot said: I don't think spotting idiots is the problem for employers, or if it is they're doing it wrong. Which is also not the point, and while some will be 'doing it wrong' by no means all will. An applicant can be appointed quite reasonably on the basis of information received in conjunction with other recruitment evidence gathering, but in order not to have to go back to square one and carry out testing on e.g. literacy and numeracy on every single applicant, employers have taken qualifications particularly grades to signify something meaningful. That ceased to be the case years ago, and as such any testing (formal or informal) and subsequent training is what the report indicates as part of the additional cost to businesses of not having maintained a norm-referenced approach to exam grades. If a Grade A at GCSE always referred to the top 5% of the school population in any subject, it would be a clearer indicator of achievement and potential. Not foolproof but better and certainly more reliable. As things stand, the move to criterion-referenced grading and not having 'fail' grades - though these are known to be D and below - plus syllabus abuse has been part of the delusional all-must-have-prizes mentality pursued by the last government. Grade inflation was an inevitable consequence of this.
|
|
|
XCP
10,501 posts
97 months
|
AstonZagato said: But finding the clever ones is more difficult. Hence the need to introduce an A* grade. Oxbridge are already at straight A*s in some subjects, I believe, but they are talking about reintroducing entrance exams so they actually have an idea of the student's capabilities. Grades and interviews is not quite enough. I never went to university, but I can clearly remember some of my contemporaries sitting Oxbridge entrance exams, on top of 3 very good A levels. This was in the late 70's. I never realised that these exams had been done away with.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,495 posts
129 months
|
XCP said: AstonZagato said: But finding the clever ones is more difficult. Hence the need to introduce an A* grade. Oxbridge are already at straight A*s in some subjects, I believe, but they are talking about reintroducing entrance exams so they actually have an idea of the student's capabilities. Grades and interviews is not quite enough. I never went to university, but I can clearly remember some of my contemporaries sitting Oxbridge entrance exams, on top of 3 very good A levels. This was in the late 70's. I never realised that these exams had been done away with. Social engineering - the independent schools prepared pupils better, including seventh term antics. So they had to go. As a result of every other student having a fistsful of A* grades (sad, as some will be worthy and others worthless) they are needed again. There is nothing quite so unequal as the equal treatment of unequals.
|
|
|
HundredthIdiot
4,353 posts
153 months
|
turbobloke said: Which is also not the point, and while some will be 'doing it wrong' by no means all will. An applicant can be appointed quite reasonably on the basis of information received in conjunction with other recruitment evidence gathering, but in order not to have to go back to square one and carry out testing on e.g. literacy and numeracy on every single applicant, employers have taken qualifications particularly grades to signify something meaningful. That ceased to be the case years ago, and as such any testing (formal or informal) and subsequent training is what the report indicates as part of the additional cost to businesses of not having maintained a norm-referenced approach to exam grades.
If a Grade A at GCSE always referred to the top 5% of the school population in any subject, it would be a clearer indicator of achievement and potential. Not foolproof but better and certainly more reliable. As things stand, the move to criterion-referenced grading and not having 'fail' grades - though these are known to be D and below - plus syllabus abuse has been part of the delusional all-must-have-prizes mentality pursued by the last government. Grade inflation was an inevitable consequence of this. At the coal face (of teaching), what you call the "all-must-have-prizes mentality" allows teachers to motivate weak students to persist rather than chucking it in to become a jobless welfare state dependent. In the context of a story about basic literacy and numeracy I don't see the problem for employers. Anything below a C grade means "probably innumerate". As for not testing every candidate, good luck with that. If I was employing people who needed to write, I'd get them to write something at some point in the recruitment process. That's pretty obvious, is it not?
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,495 posts
129 months
|
HundredthIdiot said: turbobloke said: Which is also not the point, and while some will be 'doing it wrong' by no means all will. An applicant can be appointed quite reasonably on the basis of information received in conjunction with other recruitment evidence gathering, but in order not to have to go back to square one and carry out testing on e.g. literacy and numeracy on every single applicant, employers have taken qualifications particularly grades to signify something meaningful. That ceased to be the case years ago, and as such any testing (formal or informal) and subsequent training is what the report indicates as part of the additional cost to businesses of not having maintained a norm-referenced approach to exam grades.
If a Grade A at GCSE always referred to the top 5% of the school population in any subject, it would be a clearer indicator of achievement and potential. Not foolproof but better and certainly more reliable. As things stand, the move to criterion-referenced grading and not having 'fail' grades - though these are known to be D and below - plus syllabus abuse has been part of the delusional all-must-have-prizes mentality pursued by the last government. Grade inflation was an inevitable consequence of this. At the coal face (of teaching), what you call the "all-must-have-prizes mentality" allows teachers to motivate weak students to persist rather than chucking it in to become a jobless welfare state dependent. Why not 'chuck in' what they're not good at rather than pretend they are, and find something they are good at which is of wider use than as a time filler? HundredthIdiot said: In the context of a story about basic literacy and numeracy I don't see the problem for employers. Anything below a C grade means "probably innumerate". Yet the same problem at a variably different level is also present with A-levels and university leavers. HundredthIdiot said: As for not testing every candidate, good luck with that. If I was employing people who needed to write, I'd get them to write something at some point in the recruitment process. That's pretty obvious, is it not? Yes very obvious but you seem to imply that employers either do or should see and test every applicant - some will have been shortlisted (in or out) beforehand on the basis of qualifications including grades as part of the selection criteria. Due to the increasingly meaningless nature of grades there will be a weak correlation between paper sift outcomes and actual capability. As I read it from reviews of the report, the CBI commentary takes into account the entire applicant pool in order to comment on the school leaver jobseeking population as a whole, in which there is a picture of underperformance which includes the higher grades as well. This is hardly surprising given that similar findings occur up the food chain where unis have been forced to convert three year science degrees into four year courses to allow them to rectify failings in terms of A-level outputs. Then on to graduates. There is also the matter of personal organisation. Doesn't the equality of access mantra mean that pupils are millycoddled no matter how many times they forget the equipment and materials they need? Attendance and punctuality will also inevitably vary between school and work for some school leavers given the kid glove treatment pupils get at school compared to the average workplace setting, so a pupil's record may or may not give any meaningful indication in that regard. Actually being required to turn up on time looking the part with everything needed to do a job including the right skills and attitude is expecting too much, and the opposite occurs far too often according to the CBI-Pearson report. How is that the fault of employers? Job descriptions inevitably include something apart from checking and updating Facebook status and communicating beyond grunts, txt spk and obscenities.
|
|
|
Murph7355
9,416 posts
125 months
|
HundredthIdiot said: At the coal face (of teaching), what you call the "all-must-have-prizes mentality" allows teachers to motivate weak students to persist rather than chucking it in to become a jobless welfare state dependent.
In the context of a story about basic literacy and numeracy I don't see the problem for employers. Anything below a C grade means "probably innumerate".
As for not testing every candidate, good luck with that. If I was employing people who needed to write, I'd get them to write something at some point in the recruitment process. That's pretty obvious, is it not? It is pretty obvious. And pretty lazy of employers not to - they get what they deserve. On your first point though, maybe we need to reintroduce avenues for the less academically endowed to shine? In the same way that not everyone is good at football, carpentry, drawing etc, not everyone is good at the more "academic" subjects. Trying to make everyone equal in these subjects is as ridiculous as trying to make me play football like Lionel Messi (rather than Lionel Blair)! Successive governments (I don't think it's *all* Labours fault - scrapping O-Levels for GCSEs seemed to be where it started, and that was 1987 or so?) have focussed totally on trying to make everyone equal, rather than try and focus on identifying everyone's strengths equally and creating structures that allow these strengths to be played to. As a result we've also encouraged people not to want to go into these non-academic fields, de-valuing them. And that's why we end up with people on benefits - they are no good at the academic side of life, but didn't get chance to find what they are good at (or couldn't be bothered finding out) so they end up with nothing except the prospect of a decent income on welfare (further disincentive to do anything about their lot).
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,495 posts
129 months
|
Murph7355 said: they are no good at the academic side of life, but didn't get chance to find what they are good at(...)so they end up with nothing except the prospect of a decent income on welfare A succinct account of the failure of our state education system. Pretending pupils are good at something via the lies of grade inflation helps nobody least of all pupils. Aren't teachers frowned upon for using red pen and correcting mistakes these days? FFS. http://now.msn.com/living/0510-teachers-told-not-t...
|
|
