Rice seems the obvious candidate on merit but history suggests that merit has very, very little to do with VP choices. Palin and Agnew come immediately to mind but there are a lot of other non entities to choose from.
I've been in around 11 of them but some of the names are probably new iterations of old premises.
Bugger the Marine Hotel being on the list. That is where I stay when I am in Aberdeen. Really nice little hotel with an amazing fish restaurant.
Interesting that a lot of those are high end establishments. Also that the Spiders is included out at Dyce. That is the first port of call for everyone coming off the choppers from the North Sea. That will worry a few companies.
And RIce's foreign policy, national security and intelligence credentials far exceed those of the current president.
Never mind her intelligence credentials, her pure intelligence is a different league from either the current President or, indeed, her prospective boss. A very capable lady.
I've been in around 11 of them but some of the names are probably new iterations of old premises.
Bugger the Marine Hotel being on the list. That is where I stay when I am in Aberdeen. Really nice little hotel with an amazing fish restaurant.
Interesting that a lot of those are high end establishments. Also that the Spiders is included out at Dyce. That is the first port of call for everyone coming off the choppers from the North Sea. That will worry a few companies.
Do you mean the Mariner? I have stayed there. It was excellent.
I've been in around 11 of them but some of the names are probably new iterations of old premises.
Bugger the Marine Hotel being on the list. That is where I stay when I am in Aberdeen. Really nice little hotel with an amazing fish restaurant.
Interesting that a lot of those are high end establishments. Also that the Spiders is included out at Dyce. That is the first port of call for everyone coming off the choppers from the North Sea. That will worry a few companies.
Do you mean the Mariner? I have stayed there. It was excellent.
I think it's either a typo in the tweet or it's referring to an hotel in Stonehaven. If the latter, those pub crawlers were travelling..
I've been in around 11 of them but some of the names are probably new iterations of old premises.
Bugger the Marine Hotel being on the list. That is where I stay when I am in Aberdeen. Really nice little hotel with an amazing fish restaurant.
Interesting that a lot of those are high end establishments. Also that the Spiders is included out at Dyce. That is the first port of call for everyone coming off the choppers from the North Sea. That will worry a few companies.
Do you mean the Mariner? I have stayed there. It was excellent.
I've been in around 11 of them but some of the names are probably new iterations of old premises.
Bugger the Marine Hotel being on the list. That is where I stay when I am in Aberdeen. Really nice little hotel with an amazing fish restaurant.
Interesting that a lot of those are high end establishments. Also that the Spiders is included out at Dyce. That is the first port of call for everyone coming off the choppers from the North Sea. That will worry a few companies.
Do you mean the Mariner? I have stayed there. It was excellent.
I think it's either a typo in the tweet or it's referring to an hotel in Stonehaven. If the latter, those pub crawlers were travelling..
Yeah, that's a lot further than you ever have to go for a pint in Aberdeen.
I've been in around 11 of them but some of the names are probably new iterations of old premises.
Bugger the Marine Hotel being on the list. That is where I stay when I am in Aberdeen. Really nice little hotel with an amazing fish restaurant.
Interesting that a lot of those are high end establishments. Also that the Spiders is included out at Dyce. That is the first port of call for everyone coming off the choppers from the North Sea. That will worry a few companies.
Do you mean the Mariner? I have stayed there. It was excellent.
I think it's either a typo in the tweet or it's referring to an hotel in Stonehaven. If the latter, those pub crawlers were travelling..
Yep I think it must be a typo. The Mariner would fit in with all the others. There is a big cluster around the Middle/top end of Union Street/Justice Mill Lane and heading out along Queens Road.
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
I disagree.
The measure of a good leader is how they deal with a crisis/disaster. If Trump was any good he'd have benefitted from the pandemic.
It's certainly how you get remembered. Being PM or President in boring times where there isn't a crisis is an easy way to be forgotten, fast. I think that was a part of Blair's problem: he really wanted to make the mark in history he thought he deserved and it led him down some dark paths.
A crisis shows the mettle of a leader. In Trump's case that turns out to be tin.
I've been in around 11 of them but some of the names are probably new iterations of old premises.
Bugger the Marine Hotel being on the list. That is where I stay when I am in Aberdeen. Really nice little hotel with an amazing fish restaurant.
Interesting that a lot of those are high end establishments. Also that the Spiders is included out at Dyce. That is the first port of call for everyone coming off the choppers from the North Sea. That will worry a few companies.
I'm not surprised that high end establishments are particularly badly hit. Basically, smart people know that the individual risk of non-compliance is low. And they know they are highly unlikely to get CV19 from not wearing a face mask, or from going to a bar.
But, of course, lots of low risks equals quite a lot of infections.
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
I disagree.
The measure of a good leader is how they deal with a crisis/disaster. If Trump was any good he'd have benefitted from the pandemic.
It's certainly how you get remembered. Being PM or President in boring times where there isn't a crisis is an easy way to be forgotten, fast. I think that was a part of Blair's problem: he really wanted to make the mark in history he thought he deserved and it led him down some dark paths.
A crisis shows the mettle of a leader. In Trump's case that turns out to be tin.
Really? Seems rather unfair. Tin’s an important metal with many uses.
I’d compare him with mercury. Fun to look at, makes an entertaining display, but bugger all use to man nor beast because it’s highly toxic and freezes at stupid moments.
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
I disagree.
The measure of a good leader is how they deal with a crisis/disaster. If Trump was any good he'd have benefitted from the pandemic.
It's certainly how you get remembered. Being PM or President in boring times where there isn't a crisis is an easy way to be forgotten, fast. I think that was a part of Blair's problem: he really wanted to make the mark in history he thought he deserved and it led him down some dark paths.
A crisis shows the mettle of a leader. In Trump's case that turns out to be tin.
Really? Seems rather unfair. Tin’s an important metal with many uses.
I’d compare him with mercury. Fun to look at, makes an entertaining display, but bugger all use to man nor beast because it’s highly toxic and freezes at stupid moments.
I was thinking of the tin man with no heart but I would be happy with pretty much any base metal. I had far more fun playing with mercury at school than would ever be permitted these days. Pressure testing and electricity in particular as I recall. Hadn't read the origins of the phrase mad as a hatter in those days!
A rare amount of amusement in the grimness of Beirut, in a BBC report.
The explosion happened close to the scene of a huge car bombing which killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. A verdict is due in the trial of four men accused of orchestrating the attack on Mr Hariri at a special court in the Netherlands.
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
I disagree.
The measure of a good leader is how they deal with a crisis/disaster. If Trump was any good he'd have benefitted from the pandemic.
It's certainly how you get remembered. Being PM or President in boring times where there isn't a crisis is an easy way to be forgotten, fast. I think that was a part of Blair's problem: he really wanted to make the mark in history he thought he deserved and it led him down some dark paths.
A crisis shows the mettle of a leader. In Trump's case that turns out to be tin.
Really? Seems rather unfair. Tin’s an important metal with many uses.
I’d compare him with mercury. Fun to look at, makes an entertaining display, but bugger all use to man nor beast because it’s highly toxic and freezes at stupid moments.
I was thinking of the tin man with no heart but I would be happy with pretty much any base metal. I had far more fun playing with mercury at school than would ever be permitted these days. Pressure testing and electricity in particular as I recall. Hadn't read the origins of the phrase mad as a hatter in those days!
Ah, I didn’t think of the tin man.
But I still think mercury is a better parallel.
Think of Republican voters in 2016 as your younger selves. Naively playing with a highly toxic substance because it is great fun.
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
I disagree.
The measure of a good leader is how they deal with a crisis/disaster. If Trump was any good he'd have benefitted from the pandemic.
It's certainly how you get remembered. Being PM or President in boring times where there isn't a crisis is an easy way to be forgotten, fast. I think that was a part of Blair's problem: he really wanted to make the mark in history he thought he deserved and it led him down some dark paths.
A crisis shows the mettle of a leader. In Trump's case that turns out to be tin.
Really? Seems rather unfair. Tin’s an important metal with many uses.
I’d compare him with mercury. Fun to look at, makes an entertaining display, but bugger all use to man nor beast because it’s highly toxic and freezes at stupid moments.
I’d go with Hafnium. Pretty dense and not much use to anyone (unless you are making nuclear reactors).
My brother and sister-in-law and their five-month-old son are in Aberdeen, they are planning to come back to London within the next month or so. Hopefully the Lockdown won't mess up their plans.
I see Douglas Ross was elected un-opposed to the SCon leadership position.
I remember people on here saying his gypsy comment was taken out of context and he was aggressively 'clipped'
The full video is here
The extract you might have seen is the entirety of the comment, there is no out of context manipulation.
The mooth will be new Governor General as soon as she gets her gong. She will operate Douglas in the fight for takeover of Scotland as they try to rule the colony from ‘Queen Elizabeth House’
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
I disagree.
The measure of a good leader is how they deal with a crisis/disaster. If Trump was any good he'd have benefitted from the pandemic.
It's certainly how you get remembered. Being PM or President in boring times where there isn't a crisis is an easy way to be forgotten, fast. I think that was a part of Blair's problem: he really wanted to make the mark in history he thought he deserved and it led him down some dark paths.
A crisis shows the mettle of a leader. In Trump's case that turns out to be tin.
Really? Seems rather unfair. Tin’s an important metal with many uses.
I’d compare him with mercury. Fun to look at, makes an entertaining display, but bugger all use to man nor beast because it’s highly toxic and freezes at stupid moments.
I’d go with Hafnium. Pretty dense and not much use to anyone (unless you are making nuclear reactors).
Hafnium Diboride is awesome stuff. The potential for re-entry heat shields for spacecraft alone...
I think England might be better advised to announce Archer as the next bowler and get off the field for the night. Another dismal bowling performance after the ODI yesterday.
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
I disagree.
The measure of a good leader is how they deal with a crisis/disaster. If Trump was any good he'd have benefitted from the pandemic.
It's certainly how you get remembered. Being PM or President in boring times where there isn't a crisis is an easy way to be forgotten, fast. I think that was a part of Blair's problem: he really wanted to make the mark in history he thought he deserved and it led him down some dark paths.
A crisis shows the mettle of a leader. In Trump's case that turns out to be tin.
Really? Seems rather unfair. Tin’s an important metal with many uses.
I’d compare him with mercury. Fun to look at, makes an entertaining display, but bugger all use to man nor beast because it’s highly toxic and freezes at stupid moments.
I’d go with Hafnium. Pretty dense and not much use to anyone (unless you are making nuclear reactors).
Hafnium Diboride is awesome stuff. The potential for re-entry heat shields for spacecraft alone...
Let's face it guys, there is no metal as useless as Donald Trump.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
All seems totally above board and a complete success.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
That is a complicated route involving several unnecessary detours to get to a self evident conclusion. You may have missed your calling!
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
That is a complicated route involving several unnecessary detours to get to a self evident conclusion. You may have missed your calling!
A rare amount of amusement in the grimness of Beirut, in a BBC report.
The explosion happened close to the scene of a huge car bombing which killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. A verdict is due in the trial of four men accused of orchestrating the attack on Mr Hariri at a special court in the Netherlands.
My brother and sister-in-law and their five-month-old son are in Aberdeen, they are planning to come back to London within the next month or so. Hopefully the Lockdown won't mess up their plans.
Is the five-month-old much of a boozer? If not, they should be OK.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
That is a complicated route involving several unnecessary detours to get to a self evident conclusion. You may have missed your calling!
Are you suggesting I would make a good quangocrat, or was that a snide comment on some other profession?
Not sure if this has got air yet on PB. Molecular proof of cross-reactivity of memory T-cells from common cold coronaviruses to SARS-CoV-2, and not just to the spike protein.
This would go a long way to explaining the high incidence of asymptomatic and non-infections, why getting to herd immunity levels does not seem to be happening, and why the curves are flattening at below expected levels.
So the pretty girl who wants to be a medic will no doubt appeal successfully her 3 B grades to get her back on track. As she got As in her prelims it is pretty hard to see how she doesn't.
Which is nice for her and no doubt justified in that particular case but what we are going to have is tens of thousands of successful appeals based on this absurd system which already has grade inflation of 5% built in. How far will that extend by the time that the appeals are finished? We are going to end up with tarnished and frankly incredible results which are going to get dumped on the Universities to try and sort out who gets to come.
I had a teacher at school who claimed his method of marking was to throw the papers off the top of a set of stairs. The nearer to the top your paper landed the better mark you got. There was a scientific rigour to this approach that seems to be currently lacking.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
ydoethur: Do you find out the final moderated grades on the same day as your pupils, or earlier?
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
I disagree.
The measure of a good leader is how they deal with a crisis/disaster. If Trump was any good he'd have benefitted from the pandemic.
Absolutely - just look at how the other world leaders have benefitted. All he had to do was act in a moderately competent fashion, and a second term would have been a dead cert.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
ydoethur: Do you find out the final moderated grades on the same day as your pupils, or earlier?
Same day. They’re emailed to the relevant staff at 8am.
So the pretty girl who wants to be a medic will no doubt appeal successfully her 3 B grades to get her back on track. As she got As in her prelims it is pretty hard to see how she doesn't.
Which is nice for her and no doubt justified in that particular case but what we are going to have is tens of thousands of successful appeals based on this absurd system which already has grade inflation of 5% built in. How far will that extend by the time that the appeals are finished? We are going to end up with tarnished and frankly incredible results which are going to get dumped on the Universities to try and sort out who gets to come.
I had a teacher at school who claimed his method of marking was to throw the papers off the top of a set of stairs. The nearer to the top your paper landed the better mark you got. There was a scientific rigour to this approach that seems to be currently lacking.
That is very wrong. It should be the ones that go furthest that get the high marks as they have obviously done more work.
(Sorry: Physics joke...)
Edit: though you could say the ones on the higher steps have more potential I suppose.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
I hate Trump but he got incredibly unlucky to have a pandemic in his final year
I disagree.
The measure of a good leader is how they deal with a crisis/disaster. If Trump was any good he'd have benefitted from the pandemic.
Absolutely - just look at how the other world leaders have benefitted. All he had to do was act in a moderately competent fashion, and a second term would have been a dead cert.
It's a sad truth that he missed an outstanding opportunity. A crisis like this was perfect for his brand of populism. People would have followed his lead and loved him for imposing measures other leaders would have struggled to get away with - like a total and immediate lockdown. He'd have been guaranteed a second term, quite possibly with a landslide win.
So the pretty girl who wants to be a medic will no doubt appeal successfully her 3 B grades to get her back on track. As she got As in her prelims it is pretty hard to see how she doesn't.
Which is nice for her and no doubt justified in that particular case but what we are going to have is tens of thousands of successful appeals based on this absurd system which already has grade inflation of 5% built in. How far will that extend by the time that the appeals are finished? We are going to end up with tarnished and frankly incredible results which are going to get dumped on the Universities to try and sort out who gets to come.
I had a teacher at school who claimed his method of marking was to throw the papers off the top of a set of stairs. The nearer to the top your paper landed the better mark you got. There was a scientific rigour to this approach that seems to be currently lacking.
That is very wrong. It should be the ones that go furthest that get the high marks as they have obviously done more work.
(Sorry: Physics joke...)
Edit: though you could say the ones on the higher steps have pore potential I suppose.
Pore potential? Sudden switch there from physics to biology.
So the pretty girl who wants to be a medic will no doubt appeal successfully her 3 B grades to get her back on track. As she got As in her prelims it is pretty hard to see how she doesn't.
Which is nice for her and no doubt justified in that particular case but what we are going to have is tens of thousands of successful appeals based on this absurd system which already has grade inflation of 5% built in. How far will that extend by the time that the appeals are finished? We are going to end up with tarnished and frankly incredible results which are going to get dumped on the Universities to try and sort out who gets to come.
I had a teacher at school who claimed his method of marking was to throw the papers off the top of a set of stairs. The nearer to the top your paper landed the better mark you got. There was a scientific rigour to this approach that seems to be currently lacking.
That is very wrong. It should be the ones that go furthest that get the high marks as they have obviously done more work.
(Sorry: Physics joke...)
Edit: though you could say the ones on the higher steps have more potential I suppose.
So the existence of different SARS-CoV-2 strains - with different transmissibility properties - goes some way to explaining the difference in effectiveness of responses in different continents. It may not all be down to the governments, and the severity or promptness of their interventions:
So the pretty girl who wants to be a medic will no doubt appeal successfully her 3 B grades to get her back on track. As she got As in her prelims it is pretty hard to see how she doesn't.
Which is nice for her and no doubt justified in that particular case but what we are going to have is tens of thousands of successful appeals based on this absurd system which already has grade inflation of 5% built in. How far will that extend by the time that the appeals are finished? We are going to end up with tarnished and frankly incredible results which are going to get dumped on the Universities to try and sort out who gets to come.
I had a teacher at school who claimed his method of marking was to throw the papers off the top of a set of stairs. The nearer to the top your paper landed the better mark you got. There was a scientific rigour to this approach that seems to be currently lacking.
That is very wrong. It should be the ones that go furthest that get the high marks as they have obviously done more work.
(Sorry: Physics joke...)
Edit: though you could say the ones on the higher steps have pore potential I suppose.
Pore potential? Sudden switch there from physics to biology.
The old series was an ITV show but the current show is going to air on Britbox a venture part owned by the BBC, the new Spitting Image was commissioned by the BBC and ITV/
But days that Darren Grimes is right are about as rare as days as I willingly eat a pizza with pineapples on it.
So the pretty girl who wants to be a medic will no doubt appeal successfully her 3 B grades to get her back on track. As she got As in her prelims it is pretty hard to see how she doesn't.
Which is nice for her and no doubt justified in that particular case but what we are going to have is tens of thousands of successful appeals based on this absurd system which already has grade inflation of 5% built in. How far will that extend by the time that the appeals are finished? We are going to end up with tarnished and frankly incredible results which are going to get dumped on the Universities to try and sort out who gets to come.
I had a teacher at school who claimed his method of marking was to throw the papers off the top of a set of stairs. The nearer to the top your paper landed the better mark you got. There was a scientific rigour to this approach that seems to be currently lacking.
That is very wrong. It should be the ones that go furthest that get the high marks as they have obviously done more work.
(Sorry: Physics joke...)
Edit: though you could say the ones on the higher steps have more potential I suppose.
But haven't they all conserved energy equally?
Some have done something with the energy, while for some there is the potential to do more. Of course depending on how many sheets of paper they used each may have had a different potential to start with as well.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
I’m sure many parents, in England at least, haven’t yet realised that there will be no appeals against grades this summer in the same way that there usually is. The only grounds for appeal are that an error has been made in the processing of the individual pupil’s grade by the exam board - which seems most unlikely given that all pupils grades will be produced by the same number crunching. Alternatively, parents can make a complaint to the school that the grade and ranking submitted to the exam board was discriminatory in some way and, if dissatisfied with the response, make the complaint to the exam board. How the board then investigates the complaint, goodness only knows.
Schools have the option to inform pupils and parents what grade and ranking they submitted to the exam board(s). Will be interesting to see how many do so in order to get parents off their back.
So the pretty girl who wants to be a medic will no doubt appeal successfully her 3 B grades to get her back on track. As she got As in her prelims it is pretty hard to see how she doesn't.
Which is nice for her and no doubt justified in that particular case but what we are going to have is tens of thousands of successful appeals based on this absurd system which already has grade inflation of 5% built in. How far will that extend by the time that the appeals are finished? We are going to end up with tarnished and frankly incredible results which are going to get dumped on the Universities to try and sort out who gets to come.
I had a teacher at school who claimed his method of marking was to throw the papers off the top of a set of stairs. The nearer to the top your paper landed the better mark you got. There was a scientific rigour to this approach that seems to be currently lacking.
That is very wrong. It should be the ones that go furthest that get the high marks as they have obviously done more work.
(Sorry: Physics joke...)
Edit: though you could say the ones on the higher steps have more potential I suppose.
But haven't they all conserved energy equally?
Some have done something with the energy, while for some there is the potential to do more. Of course depending on how many sheets of paper they used each may have had a different potential to start with as well.
This is starting to sound like a metaphor.
So those that fell the furthest down the stairs burned up more of their potential in doing so ...
As the father of a middle class kid who has been done out of what he would have achieved with no recourse or appeal I am not really seeing that. The system was crap because it simply refused to look at evidence of what the kids had achieved either in their prelims (nearly all done pre lockdown), course work or tests. And then, unlike England, it shut the door on giving an alternative of actually sitting an exam to boot.
A bureaucratic solution that keeps the kids at the maximum possible distance. You can see the attraction.
Looking at the trouble brewing within the SNP itself over this, I am wondering if the solution will be that the government will back down and run resits in November.
It would not be easy, but it would be somewhat better for Holyrood than trying to explain this fiasco for the next nine months.
For your son's sake, I hope they do come to that conclusion.
I don't think that they will. My son's school, for example, moved onto their final year timetable for the last term of remote teaching and he has a pretty full timetable. He would not be able to sit a higher in computing in November even if he was given the option. He has too much else to do, not least the entrance exam for Oxford that month.
They should have offered that option but it would have had to have been in the next couple of weeks before term starts again.
Has he decided which college to apply to, yet?
I saw your message of a day or two ago about his higher band. I wouldn't be too concerned about it affecting his chances: a lot of allowances are going to be made this year.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
I’m sure many parents, in England at least, haven’t yet realised that there will be no appeals against grades this summer in the same way that there usually is. The only grounds for appeal are that an error has been made in the processing of the individual pupil’s grade by the exam board - which seems most unlikely given that all pupils grades will be produced by the same number crunching. Alternatively, parents can make a complaint to the school that the grade and ranking submitted to the exam board was discriminatory in some way and, if dissatisfied with the response, make the complaint to the exam board. How the board then investigates the complaint, goodness only knows.
Schools have the option to inform pupils and parents what grade and ranking they submitted to the exam board(s). Will be interesting to see how many do so in order to get parents off their back.
What there will be is the chance to sit an exam next term if they are not happy with the result. How many will take that option I don’t know, nor do I know how those exams will be organised.
So the pretty girl who wants to be a medic will no doubt appeal successfully her 3 B grades to get her back on track. As she got As in her prelims it is pretty hard to see how she doesn't.
Which is nice for her and no doubt justified in that particular case but what we are going to have is tens of thousands of successful appeals based on this absurd system which already has grade inflation of 5% built in. How far will that extend by the time that the appeals are finished? We are going to end up with tarnished and frankly incredible results which are going to get dumped on the Universities to try and sort out who gets to come.
I had a teacher at school who claimed his method of marking was to throw the papers off the top of a set of stairs. The nearer to the top your paper landed the better mark you got. There was a scientific rigour to this approach that seems to be currently lacking.
That is very wrong. It should be the ones that go furthest that get the high marks as they have obviously done more work.
(Sorry: Physics joke...)
Edit: though you could say the ones on the higher steps have more potential I suppose.
But haven't they all conserved energy equally?
Some have done something with the energy, while for some there is the potential to do more. Of course depending on how many sheets of paper they used each may have had a different potential to start with as well.
This is starting to sound like a metaphor.
So those that fell the furthest down the stairs burned up more of their potential in doing so ...
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
I’m sure many parents, in England at least, haven’t yet realised that there will be no appeals against grades this summer in the same way that there usually is. The only grounds for appeal are that an error has been made in the processing of the individual pupil’s grade by the exam board - which seems most unlikely given that all pupils grades will be produced by the same number crunching. Alternatively, parents can make a complaint to the school that the grade and ranking submitted to the exam board was discriminatory in some way and, if dissatisfied with the response, make the complaint to the exam board. How the board then investigates the complaint, goodness only knows.
Schools have the option to inform pupils and parents what grade and ranking they submitted to the exam board(s). Will be interesting to see how many do so in order to get parents off their back.
What there will be is the chance to sit an exam next term if they are not happy with the result. How many will take that option I don’t know, nor do I know how those exams will be organised.
My understanding is that every centre is obliged to offer the same qualification this autumn to any pupils who sat the summer exam at that centre and who wishes to retake. Schools to which a pupil has moved can agree to have them sit the retake there but are not obliged to do so, it is the original centre’s responsibility. No extra money for all this, of course.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
I’m sure many parents, in England at least, haven’t yet realised that there will be no appeals against grades this summer in the same way that there usually is. The only grounds for appeal are that an error has been made in the processing of the individual pupil’s grade by the exam board - which seems most unlikely given that all pupils grades will be produced by the same number crunching. Alternatively, parents can make a complaint to the school that the grade and ranking submitted to the exam board was discriminatory in some way and, if dissatisfied with the response, make the complaint to the exam board. How the board then investigates the complaint, goodness only knows.
Schools have the option to inform pupils and parents what grade and ranking they submitted to the exam board(s). Will be interesting to see how many do so in order to get parents off their back.
What there will be is the chance to sit an exam next term if they are not happy with the result. How many will take that option I don’t know, nor do I know how those exams will be organised.
The answer to your last question is ‘incompetently.’
AQA have a provisional exam timetable up, but OCR don’t (haven’t checked Edexcel). Exams will however begin on the 5th October.
Biden was asked about his cognitive abilities on a show this morning and his answer is doing the rounds...
Its actually quite a difficult watch, and very sad.
Whoever his VP pick is, that's one important appointment, and whoever it is will come under intense scrutiny. No wonder they are delaying until the last moment.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
Without milk or sugar.
Or tea.
Of course - no exams in Year 1 and no course work at all
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
Without milk or sugar.
Or tea.
Of course - no exams in Year 1 and no course work at all
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
How hard the subject is is only partially dependent on how it is examined. It is more about how wide a set of topics you need to know and how deeply you need to understand those topics. History has been described as a fractal subject in that no matter how short a timescale or area you are studying there is always enough going on to make it interesting (although this is not strictly true for times when there are few primary sources). As an example, you might study American history in the 19th century, or you might concentrate on the Civil War, or you might look at the Role of the Army of the Potomac, or concentrate on the Battle of Gettysburg. People will have got PhDs on the actions of the Twentieth Maine Regiment on one day in that battle.
Physics is much easier at school level, as there are depths that cannot be accessed without particular mathematical skills which are only encountered in A-level maths and beyond, and so cannot be expected from an A-level Physics student.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
How hard the subject is is only partially dependent on how it is examined. It is more about how wide a set of topics you need to know and how deeply you need to understand those topics. History has been described as a fractal subject in that no matter how short a timescale or area you are studying there is always enough going on to make it interesting (although this is not strictly true for times when there are few primary sources). As an example, you might study American history in the 19th century, or you might concentrate on the Civil War, or you might look at the Role of the Army of the Potomac, or concentrate on the Battle of Gettysburg. People will have got PhDs on the actions of the Twentieth Maine Regiment on one day in that battle.
Physics is much easier at school level, as there are depths that cannot be accessed without particular mathematical skills which are only encountered in A-level maths and beyond, and so cannot be expected from an A-level Physics student.
I felt very frustrated at being stuck with 'the Tudors and Stuarts' when I was really keen to study the period from the 18th century to the mid-20th century. Alas we were given no choice with the result that I was not very motivated.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
How hard the subject is is only partially dependent on how it is examined. It is more about how wide a set of topics you need to know and how deeply you need to understand those topics. History has been described as a fractal subject in that no matter how short a timescale or area you are studying there is always enough going on to make it interesting (although this is not strictly true for times when there are few primary sources). As an example, you might study American history in the 19th century, or you might concentrate on the Civil War, or you might look at the Role of the Army of the Potomac, or concentrate on the Battle of Gettysburg. People will have got PhDs on the actions of the Twentieth Maine Regiment on one day in that battle.
Physics is much easier at school level, as there are depths that cannot be accessed without particular mathematical skills which are only encountered in A-level maths and beyond, and so cannot be expected from an A-level Physics student.
I felt very frustrated at being stuck with 'the Tudors and Stuarts' when I was really keen to study the period from the 18th century to the mid-20th century. Alas we were given no choice with the result that I was not very motivated.
You should have had me as your teacher - French Revolution and World War II
Not sure if this has got air yet on PB. Molecular proof of cross-reactivity of memory T-cells from common cold coronaviruses to SARS-CoV-2, and not just to the spike protein.
This would go a long way to explaining the high incidence of asymptomatic and non-infections, why getting to herd immunity levels does not seem to be happening, and why the curves are flattening at below expected levels.
This result could mean that people can be vaccinated against COVID 19 using a coronavirus that causes the common cold. The common cold is not dangerous for most people, and presumably vaccine trials for a cold virus would not be required. Hopefully one of the vaccine trials will be successful however.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
How hard the subject is is only partially dependent on how it is examined. It is more about how wide a set of topics you need to know and how deeply you need to understand those topics. History has been described as a fractal subject in that no matter how short a timescale or area you are studying there is always enough going on to make it interesting (although this is not strictly true for times when there are few primary sources). As an example, you might study American history in the 19th century, or you might concentrate on the Civil War, or you might look at the Role of the Army of the Potomac, or concentrate on the Battle of Gettysburg. People will have got PhDs on the actions of the Twentieth Maine Regiment on one day in that battle.
Physics is much easier at school level, as there are depths that cannot be accessed without particular mathematical skills which are only encountered in A-level maths and beyond, and so cannot be expected from an A-level Physics student.
I felt very frustrated at being stuck with 'the Tudors and Stuarts' when I was really keen to study the period from the 18th century to the mid-20th century. Alas we were given no choice with the result that I was not very motivated.
You should have had me as your teacher - French Revolution and World War II
That would have suited me much better! We sat a paper covering 1485 - 1714 in England & Wales and a paper relating to European history for similar period that began with The Renaissance. I felt somewhat bitter at being denied the opportunity to study Chamberlain and the Munich Agreement etc - and the Return to the Gold Standard .The quality of teaching was pretty poor really in my traditiona Grammar School at that level for History. Apparently Geography was even worse.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
How hard the subject is is only partially dependent on how it is examined. It is more about how wide a set of topics you need to know and how deeply you need to understand those topics. History has been described as a fractal subject in that no matter how short a timescale or area you are studying there is always enough going on to make it interesting (although this is not strictly true for times when there are few primary sources). As an example, you might study American history in the 19th century, or you might concentrate on the Civil War, or you might look at the Role of the Army of the Potomac, or concentrate on the Battle of Gettysburg. People will have got PhDs on the actions of the Twentieth Maine Regiment on one day in that battle.
Physics is much easier at school level, as there are depths that cannot be accessed without particular mathematical skills which are only encountered in A-level maths and beyond, and so cannot be expected from an A-level Physics student.
I felt very frustrated at being stuck with 'the Tudors and Stuarts' when I was really keen to study the period from the 18th century to the mid-20th century. Alas we were given no choice with the result that I was not very motivated.
A Physics teacher can be reasonably expected to have a good understanding of the whole syllabus (specification these days), but an historian will have particular areas of expertise. “Not my period” used to be the excuse of my historian friends at university whenever I asked about anything, or so it seemed.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
How hard the subject is is only partially dependent on how it is examined. It is more about how wide a set of topics you need to know and how deeply you need to understand those topics. History has been described as a fractal subject in that no matter how short a timescale or area you are studying there is always enough going on to make it interesting (although this is not strictly true for times when there are few primary sources). As an example, you might study American history in the 19th century, or you might concentrate on the Civil War, or you might look at the Role of the Army of the Potomac, or concentrate on the Battle of Gettysburg. People will have got PhDs on the actions of the Twentieth Maine Regiment on one day in that battle.
Physics is much easier at school level, as there are depths that cannot be accessed without particular mathematical skills which are only encountered in A-level maths and beyond, and so cannot be expected from an A-level Physics student.
I felt very frustrated at being stuck with 'the Tudors and Stuarts' when I was really keen to study the period from the 18th century to the mid-20th century. Alas we were given no choice with the result that I was not very motivated.
You should have had me as your teacher - French Revolution and World War II
That would have suited me much better! We sat a paper covering 1485 - 1714 in England & Wales and a paper relating to European history for similar period that began with The Renaissance.
You would have had to do the Wars of the Roses as well, but they’re waaaay more fun than the Tudors.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
How hard the subject is is only partially dependent on how it is examined. It is more about how wide a set of topics you need to know and how deeply you need to understand those topics. History has been described as a fractal subject in that no matter how short a timescale or area you are studying there is always enough going on to make it interesting (although this is not strictly true for times when there are few primary sources). As an example, you might study American history in the 19th century, or you might concentrate on the Civil War, or you might look at the Role of the Army of the Potomac, or concentrate on the Battle of Gettysburg. People will have got PhDs on the actions of the Twentieth Maine Regiment on one day in that battle.
Physics is much easier at school level, as there are depths that cannot be accessed without particular mathematical skills which are only encountered in A-level maths and beyond, and so cannot be expected from an A-level Physics student.
I felt very frustrated at being stuck with 'the Tudors and Stuarts' when I was really keen to study the period from the 18th century to the mid-20th century. Alas we were given no choice with the result that I was not very motivated.
You should have had me as your teacher - French Revolution and World War II
Wasn’t there a Chinese revolutionary who, when asked his opinion of the French Revolution said that it was too early to tell?
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
How hard the subject is is only partially dependent on how it is examined. It is more about how wide a set of topics you need to know and how deeply you need to understand those topics. History has been described as a fractal subject in that no matter how short a timescale or area you are studying there is always enough going on to make it interesting (although this is not strictly true for times when there are few primary sources). As an example, you might study American history in the 19th century, or you might concentrate on the Civil War, or you might look at the Role of the Army of the Potomac, or concentrate on the Battle of Gettysburg. People will have got PhDs on the actions of the Twentieth Maine Regiment on one day in that battle.
Physics is much easier at school level, as there are depths that cannot be accessed without particular mathematical skills which are only encountered in A-level maths and beyond, and so cannot be expected from an A-level Physics student.
I felt very frustrated at being stuck with 'the Tudors and Stuarts' when I was really keen to study the period from the 18th century to the mid-20th century. Alas we were given no choice with the result that I was not very motivated.
A Physics teacher can be reasonably expected to have a good understanding of the whole syllabus (specification these days), but an historian will have particular areas of expertise. “Not my period” used to be the excuse of my historian friends at university whenever I asked about anything, or so it seemed.
I agree with Justin though, a big weakness of history in schools is the over-focus on certain periods. When I was lecturing, I found huge numbers who understood Nazi Germany in phenomenal depth, but whose knowledge of the First World War began and ended at Blackadder. Something like 47% of schools now do the Tudors at A-level, but far too few study revolutionary France.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
How hard the subject is is only partially dependent on how it is examined. It is more about how wide a set of topics you need to know and how deeply you need to understand those topics. History has been described as a fractal subject in that no matter how short a timescale or area you are studying there is always enough going on to make it interesting (although this is not strictly true for times when there are few primary sources). As an example, you might study American history in the 19th century, or you might concentrate on the Civil War, or you might look at the Role of the Army of the Potomac, or concentrate on the Battle of Gettysburg. People will have got PhDs on the actions of the Twentieth Maine Regiment on one day in that battle.
Physics is much easier at school level, as there are depths that cannot be accessed without particular mathematical skills which are only encountered in A-level maths and beyond, and so cannot be expected from an A-level Physics student.
I felt very frustrated at being stuck with 'the Tudors and Stuarts' when I was really keen to study the period from the 18th century to the mid-20th century. Alas we were given no choice with the result that I was not very motivated.
You should have had me as your teacher - French Revolution and World War II
Wasn’t there a Chinese revolutionary who, when asked his opinion of the French Revolution said that it was too early to tell?
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
How hard the subject is is only partially dependent on how it is examined. It is more about how wide a set of topics you need to know and how deeply you need to understand those topics. History has been described as a fractal subject in that no matter how short a timescale or area you are studying there is always enough going on to make it interesting (although this is not strictly true for times when there are few primary sources). As an example, you might study American history in the 19th century, or you might concentrate on the Civil War, or you might look at the Role of the Army of the Potomac, or concentrate on the Battle of Gettysburg. People will have got PhDs on the actions of the Twentieth Maine Regiment on one day in that battle.
Physics is much easier at school level, as there are depths that cannot be accessed without particular mathematical skills which are only encountered in A-level maths and beyond, and so cannot be expected from an A-level Physics student.
I felt very frustrated at being stuck with 'the Tudors and Stuarts' when I was really keen to study the period from the 18th century to the mid-20th century. Alas we were given no choice with the result that I was not very motivated.
You should have had me as your teacher - French Revolution and World War II
Wasn’t there a Chinese revolutionary who, when asked his opinion of the French Revolution said that it was too early to tell?
I think it’s attributed to Deng.
Thanks!
Probably not the best way to answer an essay question though...
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
Underpredicting can also have the effect of reducing take up of a subject at A-Level if done at GCSE. This can be a good thing of course, as long as the ones you want to do it still do.
History is a very hard subject at A-level, although not quite as hard as physics. I will take people who really enjoy it, but otherwise I only want people who will do well at it. The ones in the middle tend to lose heart quickly and drop out.
Back in the 70s when I took A Level History , it consisted of two 3-hour papers each requiring four essay answers.
How hard the subject is is only partially dependent on how it is examined. It is more about how wide a set of topics you need to know and how deeply you need to understand those topics. History has been described as a fractal subject in that no matter how short a timescale or area you are studying there is always enough going on to make it interesting (although this is not strictly true for times when there are few primary sources). As an example, you might study American history in the 19th century, or you might concentrate on the Civil War, or you might look at the Role of the Army of the Potomac, or concentrate on the Battle of Gettysburg. People will have got PhDs on the actions of the Twentieth Maine Regiment on one day in that battle.
Physics is much easier at school level, as there are depths that cannot be accessed without particular mathematical skills which are only encountered in A-level maths and beyond, and so cannot be expected from an A-level Physics student.
I felt very frustrated at being stuck with 'the Tudors and Stuarts' when I was really keen to study the period from the 18th century to the mid-20th century. Alas we were given no choice with the result that I was not very motivated.
You should have had me as your teacher - French Revolution and World War II
Wasn’t there a Chinese revolutionary who, when asked his opinion of the French Revolution said that it was too early to tell?
I think it’s attributed to Deng.
Thanks!
Probably not the best way to answer an essay question though...
On the contrary, it would show a clear appreciation of the ongoing impact of radical Jacobin ideals. Change and continuity demonstrated.
I probably wouldn’t write the whole essay on it though...
Comments
I certainly hope so. And so does my wallet.
I hope his choice is ready for the burn they are going to get.
Interesting that a lot of those are high end establishments. Also that the Spiders is included out at Dyce. That is the first port of call for everyone coming off the choppers from the North Sea. That will worry a few companies.
The measure of a good leader is how they deal with a crisis/disaster. If Trump was any good he'd have benefitted from the pandemic.
A crisis shows the mettle of a leader. In Trump's case that turns out to be tin.
But, of course, lots of low risks equals quite a lot of infections.
I’d compare him with mercury. Fun to look at, makes an entertaining display, but bugger all use to man nor beast because it’s highly toxic and freezes at stupid moments.
It should be Condoleezza.
The explosion happened close to the scene of a huge car bombing which killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in 2005. A verdict is due in the trial of four men accused of orchestrating the attack on Mr Hariri at a special court in the Netherlands.
Beirut explosion: Port officials under house arrest as rescue efforts continue
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53670839
@TheScreamingEagles I think this is a case of poor grammar rather than an Oxford comma, but it’s still slightly unfortunate.
But I still think mercury is a better parallel.
Think of Republican voters in 2016 as your younger selves. Naively playing with a highly toxic substance because it is great fun.
And getting poisoned...
Alistair said:
I see Douglas Ross was elected un-opposed to the SCon leadership position.
I remember people on here saying his gypsy comment was taken out of context and he was aggressively 'clipped'
The full video is here
The extract you might have seen is the entirety of the comment, there is no out of context manipulation.
The mooth will be new Governor General as soon as she gets her gong. She will operate Douglas in the fight for takeover of Scotland as they try to rule the colony from ‘Queen Elizabeth House’
https://www.tes.com/news/SQA-results-day-2020-analysis-sqas-methodology
The story so far.
Exams were cancelled. Nobody knew what else to use.
They therefore went with teacher grades, even though teachers are known to overpredict.*
They failed to put in place any quality assurance controls whatsoever, even though contrary to their claims it wouldn’t have been that hard to do so (just use the markers).
They then found, for some reason, that the results were higher than they were happy with.
So they moderated them based on an algorithm they’re not sharing, using data that isn’t relevant, on the basis of a complete lack of valid empirical evidence. To the extent they actually end up increasing some marks for no obvious reason.
They are then surprised when people think this isn’t good enough.
And worst of all, this appears to be happening in England as well.
So we can draw only one definite conclusion from all this.
Quangocrats are complete idiots.
*i actually generally underpredict my students, to the scale of one grade. This is because if I tell them what I think they’re going to get, they tend to relax when they need to be revising, and fail to get it. If I tell them they’re not quite there, it keeps them working. Drives SLT up the wall, but that’s purely a bonus.
This would go a long way to explaining the high incidence of asymptomatic and non-infections, why getting to herd immunity levels does not seem to be happening, and why the curves are flattening at below expected levels.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-08-exposure-common-cold-coronaviruses-immune.html
Which is nice for her and no doubt justified in that particular case but what we are going to have is tens of thousands of successful appeals based on this absurd system which already has grade inflation of 5% built in. How far will that extend by the time that the appeals are finished? We are going to end up with tarnished and frankly incredible results which are going to get dumped on the Universities to try and sort out who gets to come.
I had a teacher at school who claimed his method of marking was to throw the papers off the top of a set of stairs. The nearer to the top your paper landed the better mark you got. There was a scientific rigour to this approach that seems to be currently lacking.
(Sorry: Physics joke...)
Edit: though you could say the ones on the higher steps have more potential I suppose.
https://twitter.com/MatthewWells/status/1290991968496029696?s=20
He blew it bigly.
https://phys.org/news/2020-08-strains-sars-cov-.html
The old series was an ITV show but the current show is going to air on Britbox a venture part owned by the BBC, the new Spitting Image was commissioned by the BBC and ITV/
But days that Darren Grimes is right are about as rare as days as I willingly eat a pizza with pineapples on it.
This is what you should have done.
Luton mayor resigns over garden party lockdown breach
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-53670994
This is starting to sound like a metaphor.
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1291041006931120133?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1291039871101014017?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1291007306910576642?s=20
https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1291006753660899330?s=20
Schools have the option to inform pupils and parents what grade and ranking they submitted to the exam board(s). Will be interesting to see how many do so in order to get parents off their back.
AQA have a provisional exam timetable up, but OCR don’t (haven’t checked Edexcel). Exams will however begin on the 5th October.
You may find this page of interest.
https://www.ocr.org.uk/administration/support-and-tools/siu/gq-autumn-2020-nea-arrangements-587934/#sciences
Its actually quite a difficult watch, and very sad.
Whoever his VP pick is, that's one important appointment, and whoever it is will come under intense scrutiny. No wonder they are delaying until the last moment.
Or tea.
History has been described as a fractal subject in that no matter how short a timescale or area you are studying there is always enough going on to make it interesting (although this is not strictly true for times when there are few primary sources). As an example, you might study American history in the 19th century, or you might concentrate on the Civil War, or you might look at the Role of the Army of the Potomac, or concentrate on the Battle of Gettysburg. People will have got PhDs on the actions of the Twentieth Maine Regiment on one day in that battle.
Physics is much easier at school level, as there are depths that cannot be accessed without particular mathematical skills which are only encountered in A-level maths and beyond, and so cannot be expected from an A-level Physics student.
This result could mean that people can be vaccinated against COVID 19 using a coronavirus that causes the common cold. The common cold is not dangerous for most people, and presumably vaccine trials for a cold virus would not be required. Hopefully one of the vaccine trials will be successful however.
I felt somewhat bitter at being denied the opportunity to study Chamberlain and the Munich Agreement etc - and the Return to the Gold Standard .The quality of teaching was pretty poor really in my traditiona Grammar School at that level for History. Apparently Geography was even worse.
Probably not the best way to answer an essay question though...
I probably wouldn’t write the whole essay on it though...
https://twitter.com/errolbarnett/status/1290940305865400321?s=19