Exam handicap system - DO WHAT?
Discussion
Someone's going to have to fill in the fine detail here but basically, I caught the tail end of a discussion on R4 in the car the other day, concerning some form of weighting or golfing style 'handicap' system that can now be applied in the cases of those students undergoing examinations following a bereavement or other trauma.
Now, to some extent I can see the validity in the case of human passings (although I'd have thought an individual postponement made more sense anyway) but the scope of these 'excuse parameters' covers everything from 'disadvantaged upbringings' and - get this - pet death.
One of the radio commentators was wrestling with the vexatious issue of whether a hamster was a morally more bereaveable rodent than say, a Siberian hamster, much less a redoubtable canine or fluffy feline.
I was moved to consider, not for the first time this last week or so, the comments of the CBI's Digby Jones when he recently called into question the wisdom of entirely insulating our young 'uns from the realities of cause, effect & risk.
In the real world, do clients or other customers care whether Harvey the White is now a dearly departed, very ex, white haired-long ear?
What on earth are we doing with these hurculean acts of wimpish, mollycoddling, behavioural overproscrption?
Thoughts, y'all?
P.S. Somebody please confirm that this system does not exist.
Now, to some extent I can see the validity in the case of human passings (although I'd have thought an individual postponement made more sense anyway) but the scope of these 'excuse parameters' covers everything from 'disadvantaged upbringings' and - get this - pet death.
One of the radio commentators was wrestling with the vexatious issue of whether a hamster was a morally more bereaveable rodent than say, a Siberian hamster, much less a redoubtable canine or fluffy feline.
I was moved to consider, not for the first time this last week or so, the comments of the CBI's Digby Jones when he recently called into question the wisdom of entirely insulating our young 'uns from the realities of cause, effect & risk.
In the real world, do clients or other customers care whether Harvey the White is now a dearly departed, very ex, white haired-long ear?
What on earth are we doing with these hurculean acts of wimpish, mollycoddling, behavioural overproscrption?
Thoughts, y'all?
P.S. Somebody please confirm that this system does not exist.
Guidelines set out by JCQ... %age points to be added in the event of...
Recent death of parent or close relative - 5%
Recent death of distant family member - 4%
Witness to distressing event on day of exam - 3%
Hay fever - 2%
Death of family pet on day of exam - 2%
Pet dies day before exam - 1%
Headache - 1%
>> Edited by bigandclever on Thursday 12th May 13:00
Recent death of parent or close relative - 5%
Recent death of distant family member - 4%
Witness to distressing event on day of exam - 3%
Hay fever - 2%
Death of family pet on day of exam - 2%
Pet dies day before exam - 1%
Headache - 1%
>> Edited by bigandclever on Thursday 12th May 13:00
Do what sunshine?
Absolutely astonishing.
So, lets get this straight.
The education system looks bad so the government make the exams easier to make the education system look better but at the same time eradicating the ability to seperate the good from the very good to the truly outstanding. The latter of which of course the UK seems to specialise in, they have now been lost in order to appease the god of equality.
Not content with cutting off our noses we then make allowances to little darlings who have had some sort of emotional upset on a scale from valid (dealt with by postponment) to bloody preposterous.
Why?
In order to appease the ever growing number of social scientists clammering to change the world by skewing facts. It has been stated that 'failing' causes life long emotional trauma, so what, we shouldnt fail people?
So in order to include the thick/mad/bone idle we exclude the people who can make a difference by dumbing down their abilities to some inclusive level where there are no losers?
The world is a big, horrible, nasty place that is just waiting to bite you on the arse. If we as a nation are guilty of anything its attempting to protect people who dont deserve protection for a natural order that up until now has worked pretty bloody well.
Evolution is designed like that for a reason.
I am really starting to
hate all this country stands for.
Absolutely astonishing.
So, lets get this straight.
The education system looks bad so the government make the exams easier to make the education system look better but at the same time eradicating the ability to seperate the good from the very good to the truly outstanding. The latter of which of course the UK seems to specialise in, they have now been lost in order to appease the god of equality.
Not content with cutting off our noses we then make allowances to little darlings who have had some sort of emotional upset on a scale from valid (dealt with by postponment) to bloody preposterous.
Why?
In order to appease the ever growing number of social scientists clammering to change the world by skewing facts. It has been stated that 'failing' causes life long emotional trauma, so what, we shouldnt fail people?
So in order to include the thick/mad/bone idle we exclude the people who can make a difference by dumbing down their abilities to some inclusive level where there are no losers?
The world is a big, horrible, nasty place that is just waiting to bite you on the arse. If we as a nation are guilty of anything its attempting to protect people who dont deserve protection for a natural order that up until now has worked pretty bloody well.
Evolution is designed like that for a reason.
I am really starting to
hate all this country stands for.
bigandclever said:
Recent death of parent or close relative - 5%
Recent death of distant family member - 4%
Witness to distressing event on day of exam - 3%
Hay fever - 2%
Death of family pet on day of exam - 2%
Pet dies day before exam - 1%
Headache - 1%
totals 18%, what exactly is the pass mark these days?
how long has this been in action?
because i did my GCSE's 3 years ago now at a time when my back was giving me some major hassles. in one exam the pain i was experiencing got so bad that i told the examiners that i felt i was not able to concentrate at all because of it.
i was taken to our school nurses station and given 2 pain killers then put in isolation for a few hours to allow my pain to subside. i was then given my paper back and told that they would be back to collect it when the rest of my exam time was up.
the whole fiasco didnt really help my ability to perform in the exam, and if i had known that a headache could get me 1% extra (then i am assuming similar chronic pain could do something similar) then i would have just carried on with teh exam.
chris
because i did my GCSE's 3 years ago now at a time when my back was giving me some major hassles. in one exam the pain i was experiencing got so bad that i told the examiners that i felt i was not able to concentrate at all because of it.
i was taken to our school nurses station and given 2 pain killers then put in isolation for a few hours to allow my pain to subside. i was then given my paper back and told that they would be back to collect it when the rest of my exam time was up.
the whole fiasco didnt really help my ability to perform in the exam, and if i had known that a headache could get me 1% extra (then i am assuming similar chronic pain could do something similar) then i would have just carried on with teh exam.
chris
on the contrary, i dont think this scheme goes far enough. i think we should give extra marks for neatness, being on time and general freshness of smell.
oooo ooo, i know, this is genius. write this down everyone, you heard it here first: why dont we give extra marks for being rubbish at a subject? that way we'd all be A grade students in no time. in fact the worse you are, the better marks you get. everyones a winner.
except, you know, those students that actually work hard or try and do as well as they can, regardless of general malaise, sniffles, ingrowing toenails, or a bad hair day
oooo ooo, i know, this is genius. write this down everyone, you heard it here first: why dont we give extra marks for being rubbish at a subject? that way we'd all be A grade students in no time. in fact the worse you are, the better marks you get. everyones a winner.
except, you know, those students that actually work hard or try and do as well as they can, regardless of general malaise, sniffles, ingrowing toenails, or a bad hair day
Plotloss said:
Do what sunshine?
Absolutely astonishing.
So, lets get this straight.
The education system looks bad so the government make the exams easier to make the education system look better but at the same time eradicating the ability to seperate the good from the very good to the truly outstanding. The latter of which of course the UK seems to specialise in, they have now been lost in order to appease the god of equality.
Not content with cutting off our noses we then make allowances to little darlings who have had some sort of emotional upset on a scale from valid (dealt with by postponment) to bloody preposterous.
Why?
In order to appease the ever growing number of social scientists clammering to change the world by skewing facts. It has been stated that 'failing' causes life long emotional trauma, so what, we shouldnt fail people?
So in order to include the thick/mad/bone idle we exclude the people who can make a difference by dumbing down their abilities to some inclusive level where there are no losers?
The world is a big, horrible, nasty place that is just waiting to bite you on the arse. If we as a nation are guilty of anything its attempting to protect people who dont deserve protection for a natural order that up until now has worked pretty bloody well.
Evolution is designed like that for a reason.
I am really starting to
Oustanding post, Matt, top notch. I share your growing distaste for what amounts to the prideless politics of default appeasement: witness the depressingly realistic acknowledgement by the Tories that in order to get elected, they've basically got to sell out and become a rump of trots.
This kind of still-steaming horse turd thinking, like the whole WTD fiasco, is steadily unravelling Albion into some headless, piss poor, third world wannabe state.
Dire, dire, DIRE!!!
Wasn'rt it bLIAR who said that all should have a university education....including people with an IQ of under 100?
Where the is Britain going apart from down the sewer????
The average uni-leaver is already almost illiterate and thinks that employers are there to milk for whatever they can squeeze, never mind getting their noses to the grindstone and EARNING their salary........FFS!!!
Thsi is now getting me seriously peed off!!!!
Where the
is Britain going apart from down the sewer???? The average uni-leaver is already almost illiterate and thinks that employers are there to milk for whatever they can squeeze, never mind getting their noses to the grindstone and EARNING their salary........FFS!!!
Thsi is now getting me seriously peed off!!!!
There has always been provision for this kind of stuff in the current system.
My parents marriage very quickly disintegrated during my A-Level exams & the school said that if I wanted, this would be passed onto the Uni I was applying to.
It so happened I got enough to get in (and wouldn't have wanted them to if I had failed) & apparently this approach is very common. This disgressional system seems to work at the moment so why change it.
My parents marriage very quickly disintegrated during my A-Level exams & the school said that if I wanted, this would be passed onto the Uni I was applying to.
It so happened I got enough to get in (and wouldn't have wanted them to if I had failed) & apparently this approach is very common. This disgressional system seems to work at the moment so why change it.
If you can't pass the exam, you can't pass the ing exam! If evolution has been unkind to you then tough on you.
I have had to revise my pants off for every exam I have ever taken and I never had any allowance for my toast being burned or my dog having a headache. Survival of the fittest, otherwise everyone will survive and the lunatics will take over the asylum and we are all screwed!
ing exam! If evolution has been unkind to you then tough on you. I have had to revise my pants off for every exam I have ever taken and I never had any allowance for my toast being burned or my dog having a headache. Survival of the fittest, otherwise everyone will survive and the lunatics will take over the asylum and we are all screwed!
jmgs4 said:
Thsi is now getting me seriously peed off!!!!
Listen, you're pissed off?! its my bloody job to inspire these little darlings to achieve and aspire to greater things! why on earth would they bother now if they know that all they need do is get themselves a headache by massacring their pet and ingesting as much pet fur as they can whilst in the process to induce hayfever?
plus, now the 'secret' is out, does it actually offer any actual advantage? aren't they all gonna do less work proportionally cos theres no need, whilst synchronously all claiming headaches, pet trauma, hayfever and parental bereavement, thus rendering any BonusPoints useless?
i HATE this fecking country. i know this makes me sound like my dad, but sometimes i don't know why i bother. :rant:
>> Edited by nervous on Thursday 12th May 13:40
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff