Why is it.....?
Discussion
All I'm hearing recently is people banging on about how exams are easier these days and anyone can now go to university. It was supposedly nigh on impossible 'back when I was a lad/lass' to go to University and it was only for the elite/gifted/rich.
Do they forget that the party they vote for (assuming Labour/Lib/Tory) all bang on about policies to improve education, all of which are prepared to spend BILLIONS on it?
So when the party DOES improve education (schooling, teachers, online resources, additional funding (laptops for example)), it's a case of the exam boards dumbing down the papers, and it's all f
king lies I tell you! Confkingspiracy!
Why can't people just accept that as a human race, we will indefinitely become more intelligent through our generations of research. We will learn new and more efficient techniques for teaching, for example.
And yes, it pisses me off sometimes if I can't answer a question my nephew asks me.
/mini rant.
Do they forget that the party they vote for (assuming Labour/Lib/Tory) all bang on about policies to improve education, all of which are prepared to spend BILLIONS on it?
So when the party DOES improve education (schooling, teachers, online resources, additional funding (laptops for example)), it's a case of the exam boards dumbing down the papers, and it's all f
king lies I tell you! Confkingspiracy!Why can't people just accept that as a human race, we will indefinitely become more intelligent through our generations of research. We will learn new and more efficient techniques for teaching, for example.
And yes, it pisses me off sometimes if I can't answer a question my nephew asks me.
/mini rant.
Because year on year improvements are statistically improbable and evolutionarily impossible. There is a dichotomy betwixt the apparant "improved grades" and the pathetic examples of individuals, most willing to exemplify their academic shortcomings, on the incidious and prevalent social media e.g. facebook, twitter et. al.
So? No, if anything the human race is intellectually heading in the other direction - the inability to formulate coherent arguments, acceptence of "appeal to authority" reasoning, popularity of generic unoriginal television and popularisation of subachivement all point to a flattening and degrading of widespread intellect.
So? No, if anything the human race is intellectually heading in the other direction - the inability to formulate coherent arguments, acceptence of "appeal to authority" reasoning, popularity of generic unoriginal television and popularisation of subachivement all point to a flattening and degrading of widespread intellect.
poo at Paul's said:
Just because you're thick as fk, don't tar us all with the same brush........
fk, don't tar us all with the same brush........k.Jinx said:
Because year on year improvements are statistically improbable and evolutionarily impossible. There is a dichotomy betwixt the apparant "improved grades" and the pathetic examples of individuals, most willing to exemplify their academic shortcomings, on the incidious and prevalent social media e.g. facebook, twitter et. al.
So? No, if anything the human race is intellectually heading in the other direction - the inability to formulate coherent arguments, acceptence of "appeal to authority" reasoning, popularity of generic unoriginal television and popularisation of subachivement all point to a flattening and degrading of widespread intellect.
I don't believe this really has anything to do with evolution, as such. So? No, if anything the human race is intellectually heading in the other direction - the inability to formulate coherent arguments, acceptence of "appeal to authority" reasoning, popularity of generic unoriginal television and popularisation of subachivement all point to a flattening and degrading of widespread intellect.
My comment regarding the human race is more to do with the psychological element of our race, how we form groups dedicated to improving teaching and learning techniques. Personally, I'm unaware of other species which do this. I can't understand what it is you base your assumption on with regards to "Because year on year improvements are statistically improbable and evolutionarily impossible"?
If 150 years ago you had said, "we will live on average 25 years longer. Ignore the fact that historically it's taken us over 2000+ years to increase our average life span by 25 years" - You'd probably have been accused for witchcraft. A very very small amount of 'evolution' has taken place in the last 150 years, yet we're living longer.
The psychology behind teaching and learning is a rather large black hole which I won't spend the best part of my day getting into. Every year the education board are putting forward new suggestions & teaching techniques. Most of these are based from studies which have proven results. Billions of pounds are poured into this research across the world every year.
To become a teacher these days, you'll probably need a degree and a PGCE.
These 'numpties' you speak of, who are often within our media, who's education goes as far as how to wipe their own arse, would not have been seen nor heard 'back in the day'. They were still around. You never heard of them due to the lack of interest the rest of the world had in hearing these sad excuses of life.
These days there is (sadly) a market for hearing these stories, mostly because it either winds people up, or makes people feel a little more content with their own achievement.
- In before the 'Psychology is an excuse for science' parade.
Its all cause when I were a lad and we had outside toilets at school, they taught us the subject and the background behind it with a passion that meant you learned it cause you enjoyed it.
Now a days its all about the results, so they teach you how to pass the exam and only parts of the subject that are in the exam.
Hence the reason some of the people who are geniuses with 50 A* with merit, distinction and a gold star on top... dont know their own arse from their elbow and when asked anything that was not on the exam or specifically taught, they dont know and havent a clue and will sit their and say dont know as wasnt told it, rather than use their initiative/think outside the box and work with the knowledge they have.
Seen too many grads that are exactly like this... its funny at times
Now a days its all about the results, so they teach you how to pass the exam and only parts of the subject that are in the exam.
Hence the reason some of the people who are geniuses with 50 A* with merit, distinction and a gold star on top... dont know their own arse from their elbow and when asked anything that was not on the exam or specifically taught, they dont know and havent a clue and will sit their and say dont know as wasnt told it, rather than use their initiative/think outside the box and work with the knowledge they have.
Seen too many grads that are exactly like this... its funny at times
XJSJohn said:
Dupont666 said:
rather than use their initiative
Yup, that is what's not taught at school any more. When issues arise its all about the piece of paper and what was on it when asked why did you not look at it and see the typo... answer usually is that it was on the paper and so deemed correct and they didnt think to ask.
Those that do ask go far in the organisation.
Whenever I hear this argument, I remember what one of my Uni lectures said. Before Roger Banister first ran the 4 minute mile in 1954, people said that it would be impossible to achieve this sort of time. He managed to do it, and now you would not be taken seriously as an athlete if you couldn't beat that (the current record is 3:43). This doesn't mean that the mile has become easier to run, it just means that training has improved, dedication has increased, and people have pushed themselves further.
So why is it that when young people today achieve more than we did, we suddenly jump to the assumption that its easier today?
So why is it that when young people today achieve more than we did, we suddenly jump to the assumption that its easier today?
I'm not sure it is the exams getting easier as I was an A grade student and had a look at a couple exam papers from last year. I knew most of the stuff but struggled with some.
The marks you need to get to achieve a higher grade have fallen though. When I was doing my GCSE you had to get over 75% to get an A and over 80% for an A* I think.
Last years lot some of the exams you only had to get 45-50% for an A grade! So being right half the time is deemed very clever these days.
The marks you need to get to achieve a higher grade have fallen though. When I was doing my GCSE you had to get over 75% to get an A and over 80% for an A* I think.
Last years lot some of the exams you only had to get 45-50% for an A grade! So being right half the time is deemed very clever these days.
Jonathan27 said:
Whenever I hear this argument, I remember what one of my Uni lectures said. Before Roger Banister first ran the 4 minute mile in 1954, people said that it would be impossible to achieve this sort of time. He managed to do it, and now you would not be taken seriously as an athlete if you couldn't beat that (the current record is 3:43). This doesn't mean that the mile has become easier to run, it just means that training has improved, dedication has increased, and people have pushed themselves further.
So why is it that when young people today achieve more than we did, we suddenly jump to the assumption that its easier today?
Cause its all about the results now... the schools have been set targets/quotas and they all want to be number one in the area, so the training that has got "better" is simply just more intense on the areas of the exam and nothing else... So its no longer about teaching a subject, its now about teaching them to pass the exam.So why is it that when young people today achieve more than we did, we suddenly jump to the assumption that its easier today?
What you are talking about in your example is that the science of the human body has got to a stage that you can now focus training on the parts needed for the mile run, use of creatine, protein supplements and even the energy drinks.
Are you suggesting that science has advanced enough to give the kids now brain boosting drugs and foods, so that is how they are 'more' intelligent?
Are you seeing a flaw in your example?
I Love Lamp said:
So when the party DOES improve education (schooling, teachers, online resources, additional funding (laptops for example)), it's a case of the exam boards dumbing down the papers, and it's all fking lies I tell you! Confkingspiracy!/mini rant.
Because when you compare a 10 year old GCSE to a current A level the questions are of similar difficulty. king lies I tell you! Confkingspiracy!/mini rant.Being one of the young university brigade myself, I would just like to add that indeed whilst I have no knowledge of what schooling was like previously, school i.e 4-18 has become a bit of a joke. Anyone who has gone through the system in the last 10 years cannot deny that indeed the emphasis is completely on "exam technique." Much like a driving test these days, where an instructor teaches you how to pass a test, rather than how to actually drive. This means that anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence that gets their head into a book and listens precisely to what their teacher tells them to do can get a good grade in their GCSE's and A levels.
However, University I personally think is a completely different kettle of fish. Such is the vast difference in academic prowess from institution to institution that using the university grading system to evaluate graduates from different universities is completely pointless. Personally (without trying to sound snobbish here) I am a finalist in a very well respected red brick uni, ranked in the top 5 for the subject I do, and again, my personal opinion is that its bloody hard work! I don't think anything that I did in school prepared me for this at all, the process of learning is just so completely different. Free thinking and innovative solutions are encouraged to the point that the read and repeat brigade can get nowhere at all, its my personal view that it is a very dynamic learning environment whereby those who really do understand what they are learning and can apply and form arguments with it are those that will shine.
This is more that can be said than some other universities though, I have many friends in ex "poly" uni's and having seen the work that they do, it just looks like A-levels with a little bit extra added on. Multiple choice questions, no critical evaluation or extensive research required, it is beyond a joke that they can easily achieve the same grades as me with little to no effort.
Having said all that, whilst a think a good university IS a very good academic environment, that doesn't necessarily mean it translates to the world of work. A good academic thinker is completely different to someone that can DO in the real world. Real world requires quick decisions, reacting to the rapidly changing environment without you, no time to brood over journals for days on end formulating comprehensive arguments. So to those that say they get supposedly uber-bright grads that are completely useless in the workplace, then do you not understand that the demands are completely different, and as such it is the recruitment process that should be getting those with the skills that the workplace require, rather than looking at the impressive figures on a sheet of paper before them.
However, University I personally think is a completely different kettle of fish. Such is the vast difference in academic prowess from institution to institution that using the university grading system to evaluate graduates from different universities is completely pointless. Personally (without trying to sound snobbish here) I am a finalist in a very well respected red brick uni, ranked in the top 5 for the subject I do, and again, my personal opinion is that its bloody hard work! I don't think anything that I did in school prepared me for this at all, the process of learning is just so completely different. Free thinking and innovative solutions are encouraged to the point that the read and repeat brigade can get nowhere at all, its my personal view that it is a very dynamic learning environment whereby those who really do understand what they are learning and can apply and form arguments with it are those that will shine.
This is more that can be said than some other universities though, I have many friends in ex "poly" uni's and having seen the work that they do, it just looks like A-levels with a little bit extra added on. Multiple choice questions, no critical evaluation or extensive research required, it is beyond a joke that they can easily achieve the same grades as me with little to no effort.
Having said all that, whilst a think a good university IS a very good academic environment, that doesn't necessarily mean it translates to the world of work. A good academic thinker is completely different to someone that can DO in the real world. Real world requires quick decisions, reacting to the rapidly changing environment without you, no time to brood over journals for days on end formulating comprehensive arguments. So to those that say they get supposedly uber-bright grads that are completely useless in the workplace, then do you not understand that the demands are completely different, and as such it is the recruitment process that should be getting those with the skills that the workplace require, rather than looking at the impressive figures on a sheet of paper before them.
RB Will said:
The marks you need to get to achieve a higher grade have fallen though. When I was doing my GCSE you had to get over 75% to get an A and over 80% for an A* I think.
Last years lot some of the exams you only had to get 45-50% for an A grade! So being right half the time is deemed very clever these days.
I could well be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure historic exam papers used to be a contain a wide range of academic questions (of all levels). These days there are often foundation, medium and higher papers.Last years lot some of the exams you only had to get 45-50% for an A grade! So being right half the time is deemed very clever these days.
Higher papers need around 50% for an A (due to the entire exam being more difficult) but get below 30% and you'll get a 'U' as the only achievable grades are U C B A A*. A medium paper requires a much higher %, but the highest grade you can get is a B.
Dupont666 said:
Jonathan27 said:
Whenever I hear this argument, I remember what one of my Uni lectures said. Before Roger Banister first ran the 4 minute mile in 1954, people said that it would be impossible to achieve this sort of time. He managed to do it, and now you would not be taken seriously as an athlete if you couldn't beat that (the current record is 3:43). This doesn't mean that the mile has become easier to run, it just means that training has improved, dedication has increased, and people have pushed themselves further.
So why is it that when young people today achieve more than we did, we suddenly jump to the assumption that its easier today?
What you are talking about in your example is that the science of the human body has got to a stage that you can now focus training on the parts needed for the mile run, use of creatine, protein supplements and even the energy drinks.So why is it that when young people today achieve more than we did, we suddenly jump to the assumption that its easier today?
Are you suggesting that science has advanced enough to give the kids now brain boosting drugs and foods, so that is how they are 'more' intelligent?
Are you seeing a flaw in your example?
Athletes have a whole different lifestyle, nutrition, supplements and drugs are only the tip of the iceberg.
Eating routines, sleeping routines, training routines, the age the potential has been scouted are all factors. All of these I would put down to research, education and teaching methods.
do you honestly find it hard to apply the science to education and the human brain?
Nobody is talking about drugs here, although, that is a factor in a small number of cases. We eat healthier, we're more informed of world events, we have information at our fingertips 24/7, we have billions and billions of pounds every year pumped into learning techniques, we have studies which PROVE better teaching methods.
Even the simplest things like how important sleep and breakfast are for a child, the level of homework they receive, being more active, lessons being in smaller chunks, 'break times', parents being more involved (and encouraged to partake) in their kids education. All of these have undergone psychological experiments where findings prove this is beneficial.
Even toddlers television tends to have a whole world of 'learning' involved these days. Yes of course there are a number of TV shows which mean absolutely nothing and could be classed as 'dumbing down', I'm sure you'll use a few as an example, however, the kick start they get at a very early age is far more focused IN GENERAL than it was years ago, especially before the days of TV!
Education should be interesting and interactive.
There was a comment made earlier regarding the modern lack of common sense or initiative - this I absolutely 100% agree on.
Edited by I Love Lamp on Wednesday 13th October 11:15
I Love Lamp said:
No, but I see a huge flaw in yours.
Athletes have a whole different lifestyle, nutrition, supplements and drugs are only the tip of the iceberg.
Eating routines, sleeping routines, training routines, the age the potential has been scouted are all factors.
Can you honestly not apply the science to education also?
We eat healthier, we are more informed of world events, we have information at our fingertips 24/7, we have billions and billions of pounds ever year pumped into learning new techniques, we have studies which PROVE better teaching methods.
Even the simplest things like how important sleep and breakfast are for a child, the level of homework they achieve, lessons being in smaller chunks, parents being more involved (and encouraged to partake) in their kids education
You really think that the amount of sleep and breakfast has changed for the better in the last 2 decades.... Athletes have a whole different lifestyle, nutrition, supplements and drugs are only the tip of the iceberg.
Eating routines, sleeping routines, training routines, the age the potential has been scouted are all factors.
Can you honestly not apply the science to education also?
We eat healthier, we are more informed of world events, we have information at our fingertips 24/7, we have billions and billions of pounds ever year pumped into learning new techniques, we have studies which PROVE better teaching methods.
Even the simplest things like how important sleep and breakfast are for a child, the level of homework they achieve, lessons being in smaller chunks, parents being more involved (and encouraged to partake) in their kids education
Edited by I Love Lamp on Wednesday 13th October 11:08
I had porridge back then and 8 hours sleep... has science now a days started lacing porridge with pills now? What about sleep, has science improved 8 hours sleep to be better now?
Better informed over world events... yeah cause that helps learning pythagoras theorem...
Info at your finger tips... So you dont go to the library and read... Whats that word... READ the books and digest them, no its all about getting the certain bit that is needed and not learning now...
Look I could keep on going on and on about it, but Im not going to... pick up a exam from the 80s/90s and try it and then come back. I could do the same with this years exams, but I wont as I havent just had 2 years of teaching on the subject so I know I will get the lower mark as I havent used applied or pure maths in anger in over 10 years as Im only a lowly geek now. But thats not the point its for you to try an old exam with a new one and give the honest opinion.
I bet in maths you had one of the calculators with all the equations stored in them so you dont have to memorise them, same goes for physics and the 150 equations I learned and stored in my own memory, instead of a calculator.
I Love Lamp said:
RB Will said:
The marks you need to get to achieve a higher grade have fallen though. When I was doing my GCSE you had to get over 75% to get an A and over 80% for an A* I think.
Last years lot some of the exams you only had to get 45-50% for an A grade! So being right half the time is deemed very clever these days.
I could well be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure historic exam papers used to be a contain a wide range of academic questions (of all levels). These days there are often foundation, medium and higher papers.Last years lot some of the exams you only had to get 45-50% for an A grade! So being right half the time is deemed very clever these days.
Higher papers need around 50% for an A (due to the entire exam being more difficult) but get below 30% and you'll get a 'U' as the only achievable grades are U C B A A*. A medium paper requires a much higher %, but the highest grade you can get is a B.
Dupont666 said:
I Love Lamp said:
No, but I see a huge flaw in yours.
Athletes have a whole different lifestyle, nutrition, supplements and drugs are only the tip of the iceberg.
Eating routines, sleeping routines, training routines, the age the potential has been scouted are all factors.
Can you honestly not apply the science to education also?
We eat healthier, we are more informed of world events, we have information at our fingertips 24/7, we have billions and billions of pounds ever year pumped into learning new techniques, we have studies which PROVE better teaching methods.
Even the simplest things like how important sleep and breakfast are for a child, the level of homework they achieve, lessons being in smaller chunks, parents being more involved (and encouraged to partake) in their kids education
You really think that the amount of sleep and breakfast has changed for the better in the last 2 decades.... Athletes have a whole different lifestyle, nutrition, supplements and drugs are only the tip of the iceberg.
Eating routines, sleeping routines, training routines, the age the potential has been scouted are all factors.
Can you honestly not apply the science to education also?
We eat healthier, we are more informed of world events, we have information at our fingertips 24/7, we have billions and billions of pounds ever year pumped into learning new techniques, we have studies which PROVE better teaching methods.
Even the simplest things like how important sleep and breakfast are for a child, the level of homework they achieve, lessons being in smaller chunks, parents being more involved (and encouraged to partake) in their kids education
Edited by I Love Lamp on Wednesday 13th October 11:08
I had porridge back then and 8 hours sleep... has science now a days started lacing porridge with pills now? What about sleep, has science improved 8 hours sleep to be better now?
Better informed over world events... yeah cause that helps learning pythagoras theorem...
Info at your finger tips... So you dont go to the library and read... Whats that word... READ the books and digest them, no its all about getting the certain bit that is needed and not learning now...
Look I could keep on going on and on about it, but Im not going to... pick up a exam from the 80s/90s and try it and then come back. I could do the same with this years exams, but I wont as I havent just had 2 years of teaching on the subject so I know I will get the lower mark as I havent used applied or pure maths in anger in over 10 years as Im only a lowly geek now. But thats not the point its for you to try an old exam with a new one and give the honest opinion.
I bet in maths you had one of the calculators with all the equations stored in them so you dont have to memorise them, same goes for physics and the 150 equations I learned and stored in my own memory, instead of a calculator.
Let's break down your points a little.
I very much doubt sleep has improved over the last 20 years. Sleep is sleep, unless you use aids such as Night Nurse. What has improved, is how this has been put across to the public, and just how important sleep and breakfast are for attentive minds. Science is there to be challenged, yet I find a sever lack of modern science which disputes the benefits of sleep and food.
Please define education or intelligence if you believe world events, history and geography are not part of it? The recent mining disaster, for example, doesn't exactly educate the masses with 'OMG PEOPLE STUCK IN A HOLE', there is a goldmine (excuse the pun) information made available about Chile, mining & engineering. Maybe you don't read this?
Speaking of reading, since when has this been the sole purpose of education? Had you ever taken time to actually LEARN about teaching methods, you would understand that basic literature (books and libraries) are not the only form of education, and what is being proven more and more recently, it's not the most effective.
1) So, let's put you in a library for 3 hours. You read a book.
2) Let's now put you in a lecture for 3 hours, very boring mundane lecturer reading a power point slide show word for word.
3) Now, a lecture for 3 hours which is made to be very interesting, a few graphical illustrations, cue cards, 'golden nugget words'.
The 3 examples above have been proven time and time again. Hence why these days you see example 3 far more often. Again, I don't dispute the requirement for 'downtime', I'm merely stating that there is a healthier balance these days.
It's learning and memorising techniques. The order of the solar system - My Very Easy Method Just Speeds Up Names. I was also taught methods for remembering mathematical and scientific equations. Yes I do want a medal.
The age-old argument about the Maths calculator paper is rather boring, exam papers were changed to accommodate the extra advantage students had, hence why there are two exams, one of which is without one.
P.S. Can you please stop generalising the entire argument based on your past experience. You're clearly a clever chap, high five for that. I very much doubt we can base the entire history of education on your experience.
Edited by I Love Lamp on Wednesday 13th October 11:59
Edited by I Love Lamp on Wednesday 13th October 12:01
I Love Lamp said:
RB Will said:
The marks you need to get to achieve a higher grade have fallen though. When I was doing my GCSE you had to get over 75% to get an A and over 80% for an A* I think.
Last years lot some of the exams you only had to get 45-50% for an A grade! So being right half the time is deemed very clever these days.
I could well be wrong here, but I'm pretty sure historic exam papers used to be a contain a wide range of academic questions (of all levels). These days there are often foundation, medium and higher papers.Last years lot some of the exams you only had to get 45-50% for an A grade! So being right half the time is deemed very clever these days.
Higher papers need around 50% for an A (due to the entire exam being more difficult) but get below 30% and you'll get a 'U' as the only achievable grades are U C B A A*. A medium paper requires a much higher %, but the highest grade you can get is a B.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff