Discussion
Talksteer said:
How many goes did Bradley Wiggins have to win the Tour de France?
That's the most ridiculous argument i've seen so far. The GCSE is a measure of competence in a subject - not a sports race. You do not need to qualify for a GCSE qualification - any mong can participate.You take an exam, it gets graded, you get piece of paper. If you want to retake your GCSE 15 times then that is your choice. But a future employer or university will use it to distinguish between candidates, and favour those who do better. Life's tough isn't it?
catso said:
My Son is studying for 'A' levels, including Physics. Recently I found an old 'O' level old textbook of mine from the 70's and after reading through some of it he made the same comment...
But when I was doing A-levels in 1994 the text books were A-Level text books from the 1970s. Explain that;)Actually I can explain it, chiefly the number of chapters we had to cover was vastly reduced, same difficulty level covering a much narrower curriculum.
Ben
Having a single exam board can only be a good thing, schools opting for a different board on the basis that they may achieve better grades is ludicrous. It also makes it impossible to compare a student from one board to another.
I do somewhat agree on the whole coursework thing being done by people other than the students.
Coursework should be done whilst under school supervision only, much like exams. There shouldn't be external influences. However, implementing that would be very difficult.
I do somewhat agree on the whole coursework thing being done by people other than the students.
Coursework should be done whilst under school supervision only, much like exams. There shouldn't be external influences. However, implementing that would be very difficult.
dirty boy said:
Having a single exam board can only be a good thing, schools opting for a different board on the basis that they may achieve better grades is ludicrous. It also makes it impossible to compare a student from one board to another.
It's true, there's also another side to it. I left one parent and went to live with another four months before my GCSE's. I went from one exam board to another and the local schools refused to pay for the exam as they deemed it a guaranteed fail, which is probably fair. My old school removed the funding for my exams so I couldn't even go back to sit them, made possible by a recent change in the law. dirty boy said:
Coursework should be done whilst under school supervision only, much like exams. There shouldn't be external influences. However, implementing that would be very difficult.
We had to leave all books + materials in the classroom at the end of the lesson. Hardly practical if there was a substitute teacher not sure who was who and what was to be handed back. Edited by muffinmenace on Tuesday 18th September 11:58
muffinmenace said:
dirty boy said:
Coursework should be done whilst under school supervision only, much like exams. There shouldn't be external influences. However, implementing that would be very difficult.
We had to leave all books + materials in the classroom at the end of the lesson. Hardly practical if there was a substitute teacher not sure who was who and what was to be handed back. You have to draw a line somewhere, end of year exams are in the main, free from external interference and a fairer reflection of what a student should learn, if not necessarily what they are capable of.
Courswork is open to external influences, okay my parents never helped me, but I know for a fact some parents practically did the whole lot for their kids.
Ari said:
either kids are much cleverer and/or teaching methods much improved, or...
A difficult one this. Certainly in my experience teachers do teach more to the exam than I remember them doing. I for one am guilty of this, in that I fully explain the question styles that they can expect to face, etc. However I also ensure that this is accompanied by a well rounded curriculum as well to completement it.With regards to whether students are cleverer, I'm of the opinion that this varies from year to year. However every year I do add something to my knowledge and experience of how to tease the best results out of the students that I have.
nadger said:
Hackney said:
I read that 60% got A or A* which is clearly farcical.
Go, I wish that were the case! The history exam requires students to get 90% or higher to get an A*. I know that Art requires them to get 97%!
I'd love to know what subject only had to get 60%!
When I was at school, only those considered 'nerds' banged in A* and even though I felt I was reasonably smart, with all the effort in the world, I would not achieve what they were capable of in those particular subjects.
We need exams that really do distinguish the cream of the crop. I don't think that's happening right now.
I'm getting CVs littered with As these days, surely they're not all that smart? When you interview them you certainly don't get that impression.
nadger said:
Hackney said:
I read that 60% got A or A* which is clearly farcical.
Go, I wish that were the case! The history exam requires students to get 90% or higher to get an A*. I know that Art requires them to get 97%!
I'd love to know what subject only had to get 60%!
TheHeretic said:
Because retained knowledge is surely the only way to measure intelligence... Isn't it?
No way, problem solving and capacity for insight is where it is at.Exams aren't good at measuring that though.
Hence the need for some coursework (perhaps done at school and not at home)
It's about time the G.C.S.E was put out to grass. It's become a joke. I've long been a fan of the far more rigorous European Baccalaureate that some independent schools / private / public schools have started to adopt over recent years. It's a joke, when a candidate fails a 'module',and all they have to do is try again. That isn't how the real world works. I think there should be some sort of project type component to the new Baccalaureate qualification, that would be fairly representative of a 'real world' situation for the candidates, but I think that the majority of the marks should come from a power of recall type examination. You get one shot, and some pressure. If you screw it up, sorry diddums, but that's that.
Mr Snap said:
Are you seriously saying that schools should stifle creativity?
No, obviously not, if you re-read the post there is no sign of me typing the words 'schools should stifle creativity'. Strawman (again).
Mr Snap said:
Would you seek out a school for your children that boasted how it weeded out signs of creativity?
Strawman part 2.Mr Snap said:
Or are you saying that a bit of creativity - as advertised by public school near you - is ok for the alphas, but not required for the rest?
Strawman part 3.Mr Snap said:
What's needed is an examination system that values and encourages both rigour and creativity.
Obviously, but there is no current shortage of creative subjects in school curricula.Mr Snap said:
It's another ploy designed overlook the real problem and to help the middle classes to pull the ladder up behind themselves. I thought you were against social engineering?
This isn't social engineering. As I already posted there should be courses and assessments for non-academic pupils, not a single qualification stretched beyond breaking point due to egalitarian delusion over the 'all must have prizes' nonsense.nadger said:
Go, I wish that were the case!
The history exam requires students to get 90% or higher to get an A*. I know that Art requires them to get 97%!
I'd love to know what subject only had to get 60%!
"Edexcel awarded C grades in a paper for one of its new science courses to pupils scoring only 20%"The history exam requires students to get 90% or higher to get an A*. I know that Art requires them to get 97%!
I'd love to know what subject only had to get 60%!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/oct/24/sc...
- Grade boundaries - 64% A, 45%B, 26%C or 70% in the lower paper
http://www.edexcel.com/iwantto/I%20want%20to%20%20...
http://store.aqa.org.uk/over/stat_pdf/AQA-GCSE-GDE...
I sat 'O' levels and CSEs and in my opinion the 'O' levels are not a test of memory but a test of understanding. I've always been good at exams but only in subjects where I have an understanding of the subject and my 'O' levels reflect this - for instance I only got a grade E in History despite knowing the dates of most of the questions asked of me. I had major problems in how situation x related to situation y etc and they were the major scoring elements of the exam. This translates directly to the working environment too, you need to be able to remember key points and have an understanding of the subject to be able to work any problems - you won't always have ready access to the internet or reference material.
The ONLY important factor in all of this however is how employers see exam results, and the simple fact is that they don't trust GCSEs. They've been fiddled with so many times and the only result is that more people have got higher grades whilst we still slip down the world educational tables.
The ONLY important factor in all of this however is how employers see exam results, and the simple fact is that they don't trust GCSEs. They've been fiddled with so many times and the only result is that more people have got higher grades whilst we still slip down the world educational tables.
GCSEs are not ending!
Initially the EBac will be in the 3 core subjects, English, Maths and Science. This will be later extended to Languages, History and Georgraphy.
My argument is that it cannot be fair to have one end of course exam for practical subjects such as Design Tech, Music, Drama, Art, etc as it defeats the nature of the subject. You cannot design and make a project, produce a piece of drama, music or art in an exam. This does not happen at tertiary level in these subject areas so why do it at secondary?
At present all coursework is completed at school and is not allowed to be done outside a supervised classroom. This means that projects completed by parents are a thing of the past.
Initially the EBac will be in the 3 core subjects, English, Maths and Science. This will be later extended to Languages, History and Georgraphy.
My argument is that it cannot be fair to have one end of course exam for practical subjects such as Design Tech, Music, Drama, Art, etc as it defeats the nature of the subject. You cannot design and make a project, produce a piece of drama, music or art in an exam. This does not happen at tertiary level in these subject areas so why do it at secondary?
At present all coursework is completed at school and is not allowed to be done outside a supervised classroom. This means that projects completed by parents are a thing of the past.
turbobloke said:
Mr Snap said:
Are you seriously saying that schools should stifle creativity?
No, obviously not, if you re-read the post there is no sign of me typing the words 'schools should stifle creativity'. Strawman (again).
Mr Snap said:
Would you seek out a school for your children that boasted how it weeded out signs of creativity?
Strawman part 2.Mr Snap said:
Or are you saying that a bit of creativity - as advertised by public school near you - is ok for the alphas, but not required for the rest?
Strawman part 3.Mr Snap said:
What's needed is an examination system that values and encourages both rigour and creativity.
Obviously, but there is no current shortage of creative subjects in school curricula.Mr Snap said:
It's another ploy designed overlook the real problem and to help the middle classes to pull the ladder up behind themselves. I thought you were against social engineering?
This isn't social engineering. As I already posted there should be courses and assessments for non-academic pupils, not a single qualification stretched beyond breaking point due to egalitarian delusion over the 'all must have prizes' nonsense.It's that thing about the stuff inside your head being at odds with the real world, yet again...
As for there being 'no current shortage of creative subjects in school curricula'. Do you ever think about what you say? Please explain which 'less creative' subjects, should be taught in our schools in order to correct this horrific imbalance?
And, if having different courses for 'non-academics' isn't social engineering, I don't know what is. It's just that it's right wing social engineering (Turbo say good) as opposed to left wing social engineering (Turbo say very, very, bad).
Oh, and before you start again it's a 'straw man' not a 'Strawman'.
But never mind the intellectual rigour, eh Turbo? If it was a GCSE, you'd still get an A* for creativity. Shame you didn't do it in different coloured pens, though...
Mr Snap said:
You said that schools have 'excessive creativity'. Excessive means too much and by using it you imply there should be less. So, are you saying "there's too much but we should keep it that way" or "there's too much, so there should be less"? It's you believing 'words mean what I say they mean' again.
You nearly got it right, this time after the strawman the new treat is selective quoting. What I said was "Schools have sufficient if not excessive creativity" and that sentiment was repeated only recently when I added that there is currently no shortage of creative subjects in school curricula. That's how it is and that's my position - very clear. All your rhetorical devices as used so far and any more to come won't make any difference. Mr Snap said:
It's that thing about the stuff inside your head being at odds with the real world, yet again...
It is?Mr Snap said:
As for there being 'no current shortage of creative subjects in school curricula'.
So you did spot it, well done!Mr Snap said:
Do you ever think about what you say? Please explain which 'less creative' subjects, should be taught in our schools in order to correct this horrific imbalance?
Strawman part 4. There is no imbalance. What I said was, there is no shortage. Also I made no comparison between any particular subjects. Mr Snap said:
And, if having different courses for 'non-academics' isn't social engineering, I don't know what is.
It's horses for courses, so now you do know. Just as it would be absurd to put a non-athletic individual through an elite sports development programme with associated fitness training, so it's absurd to expect non-academic students to cope with high level academic courses. Just as it's absurd to give academic pupils the lack of challenge in today's GCSE which still passes unfeasible numbers of students at A*.
Mr Snap said:
It's just that it's right wing social engineering...
Nonsense, it's nothing of the sort, nor is it social engineering to put elite athletes through a different training and fitness programme compared to average hobby sportspeople. The elite sports programmes are appropriate for elite athletes. We need somthing similar for the most academic pupils but it doesn't exist at the moment. Mr Snap said:
Oh, and before you start again it's a 'straw man' not a 'Strawman'.
It can be either.http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman
Mr Snap said:
But never mind the intellectual rigour, eh Turbo? If it was a GCSE, you'd still get an A* for creativity. Shame you didn't do it in different coloured pens, though...
Shame you didn't check the options before you went all smartass and ended up looking foolish. The above link shows that strawman and straw man both represent "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" something which I would accept you know a lot more about given that you use the device with monotonous regularity.Some corroboration: http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff