I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
Funny how people's opinions change when they take the trouble to understand what they opine on. (I do not exclude myself from this.)
Now I really shouldn't be surprised that you believed the headline and ignored the detail but even so.
I did not say anything of the kind
The political decisions by all four nations may have been the right thing to do but the problems if has caused are huge and it personally worries me for my granddaughters university placing when she takes her A levels next year
I think we should all accept that the quangos and politicians across the land have failed comprehensively and I really do worry about the long term damage to education due to the debasing of the whole system
You said Sky had reported that the funding restrictions had been resolved - as I said they hadn't been...
If Sky said that then I was quoting Sky
But the whole thing is a mess and condemnation should be across the UK to the quangos and politicians.
We had the ridiculous situation here in Wales that Drakeford only followed England after their announcement admitting they were really not for the change
Watching Sky and BBC they are increasingly becoming the English broadcasting corporation virtually ignoring Wales
The population ration between England and Wales is about 18:1, what do you expect? What would be a fair proportion of time dedicated to Welsh issues on Sky, a commercial TV station broadcasting to both, amongst others?
They have always been the English Broadcasting Corporation
I really dont get this view. What do you expect? The BBC have dedicated Scottish and Welsh channels, local radio, Wales has s4c, it isnt hard at all to get local news coverage.
I have no strong views on whether Scotland and/or Wales should be independent, have more or less devolution and think its primarily a view for them to decide, but sour grapes about TV stations focusing mainly on its much bigger audience sections is quite bizarre.
And this is why independence is inevitable. Because even you don't think of us as one country.
If news is happening in Leicester that is national newsworthy then it gets reported. But if it's in Cardiff much less so.
That isnt true. I would think of myself as more British than English, I would prefer it to stay as the UK, but accept if anyone votes to leave they should be able to. Whilst we are still the UK we are one country.
Cardiff would get the same coverage as Leicester. We had Nicola Sturgeon on for 20-30 mins a day on BBC1 for several months during lockdown, a completely disproportionate amount of time if doing it per head of population. Interviewees from the rest of the country, and indeed worldwide would be cut short so we could hear her live. If anything there is more coverage of Scotland and Wales than a per head basis would suggest, but of course England dominates because it is much much bigger.
Its a separate point, but I was very pleased Sturgeon was live so often during the spring and early summer because it showed what a good leader could have done, if we didnt have such incompetents in charge at Westminster.
If you considered yourself British not English then you should want and demand British and not English news. But instead you consider England all that matters and think that Welsh news should be on a different channel. That's not very British.
The news is all Williamson, Williamson, Williamson at the minute - I wonder how many who have been watching the news can even name the Welsh Education Secretary? Let alone whether they should resign or not?
Eh? Im happy with the status quo, with British news, where Scottish, Welsh and NI news gets a higher share of the coverage than a per head basis would demand, but doesnt get equal coverage with England. Because England is much much bigger.
It doesn't get a higher share of the coverage, that's just not true.
Do you think 1/18th of the time spent on Williamson has been spent on his Welsh counterpart?
I have listened to and watched about 2 hours of news so far this week. 15 minutes was with the Welsh Childrens Commissioner (who sounded engaged and doing a good job if anyone is interested in more Welsh news).
I've watched hours of coverage and it has almost all been about Williamson. Even when the Welsh reversed it was discussed in concert with what does this mean for England - before it was later revealed the Welsh only reversed because the English did.
Without Googling it can you even name Williamson's Welsh counterpart? The idea that there has been a comparable level of coverage is for the birds.
I am not saying there is a comparable level of coverage on national channels, of course there isnt because England is much much bigger! There shouldnt be equal coverage.
I agree - equal coverage is a nonsense as is the daily Sturgeon conferences on both Sky and BBC
I am not asking for anything like equal coverage but the chaos in Wales and demands for resignations are not covered at all, making it look like only Williamson is in trouble when that is not the case
Indeed John Swinney's resignation demands were widely covered
After the Six Counties and the Democratic People's Republic of Scotland have gone the Welsh might well think: fuck it, why not?
It would be like Gaza with terrible weather but they would have TAKEN BACK CONTROL.
If Labour lost Wales as well as Scotland prepare for the 1000 year Tory Reich in England with just the occasional Blairite in between.
Though Wales voted Leave just like England and was united with England for centuries before Scotland and Ireland joined the Union even if Scotland voted for independence and Northern Ireland for a United Ireland
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
There's normally a small amount of grade inflation from year to year, but the overall effect is limited because people are competing for uni places etc against their cohort, not people who graduated twenty years ago. This year and next year are a bit different - there simply must be a significant amount of grade deflation next year as the overall inflation this year was absolubtely whopping.
Yes - but literally everyone is aware of the honking great asterisk by the side of all results this year. Because we all know that no-one actually took the exams this year, so it's hard to say whether or not the exams have got easier.
In all statistics and analysis, if there is a single event that's known to be uncharacteristic or incomparable, you remove it from the data. Simply remove this years results from any comparison or such analysis - because to use them for any comparison or analysis would be explicitly wrong statistically.
Gavin Williamson will be saved imo, and more power removed from Ofqual and the Department for Education to Number 10 as part of the ongoing Boris/Cummings power grab. The Telegraph reports that both Ofqual's Chair and Chief Executive are under threat. My guess is Williamson will remain to shield Boris from blame when the September reopening of schools goes pear-shaped, and Brexit at the end of the year.
More interesting is that MPs are starting to question the wisdom of the last couple of decades which is to hive off responsibility to executive agencies like Ofqual in order to shield the government from poor outcomes and bad decisions.
Simon Hoare, a senior Tory MP, said: "Number 10 needs to think about how all of these executive agencies, quangos and arms-length organisations work. They are taking, on a daily basis, political decisions over which ministers have no control, no right of question, no right of direction and no right of overrule.
Didn’t we have a bonfire of the quangos once before? One that created more problems than it solved.
Ofqual is a Non-Ministerial Department (the same as Ofsted). Although it will be treated as one of the "education group" of quangos for administrative purposes, it actually reports direct to Parliament. The reason it was set up in this way was to give it a semblance of independence to counter the accusation that grades were being dumbed down for political gain.
Certainly the advice they gave to Ministers that exam results could be fixed by means of an algorithm was seriously screwed, and you have to question their professional competence or indeed whether they had their own agenda.
It does not matter what you delegate; ministers are ultimately responsible. Williamson can't absolve himself by saying he has received assurances from whoever or whatever Quango. Quangos are all created by parliament and are under the direction of government. The minister leads a gigantic staff whose job is to drill down and check stuff, and his job is to take the blame.
The obvious truth, the elephant in the room, is that with no schools since March and no exams there is insufficient information to assess students accurately because vast amounts of relevant data are missing. The only thing you can be sure of it that you cannot know to whom to mistakes have been made, either under the original scheme or the hasty upgrade revision.
What should have happened (IMHO and imperfect) is that Years 11 and 13 should have been told that they will face exams, even if they are delayed a few weeks, so crack on with working.
As I pointed out, Ofqual is not a standard quango (Non-DepartmentL Public Body used to be the term) but an NMD and therefore designed to operate at arm's length from Government. Also, ministers are not supposed to be experts. So the quality of the advice they receive is vital.
This has of course been an unmitigated cock-up. Back in the febrile early days of the pandemic people were clamouring for certainty and irrational, knee-jerk decisions were made. People would have been better off being told to put up with uncertainty for a few weeks while better decisions were made.
But yes, the DfE should have advised Williamson that the Ofqual plan was a pile of poo. If exam integrity was the problem, then in my view grade inflation should have been assumed and maybe different grades issued (eg, W, V, X, Y, Z) to make the point they are different from normal. How Universities would have coped with making offers is a moot point, but they have bright people running them and they would arguably have been in no different position to now, only with more time.
It would have been nice if a few options could have been offered and consulted on, but the UK Government isn't allowed to work like that. We like to pretend that our political masters are omniscient and can magically present us with the one perfect answer.
But according to Williamson's own account, he and his department were involved 'intimately' with OFQUAL's plans every step of the way. Very simple things like allowing outside validation of their statistical approach (something they explicitly refused despite several requests) would have prevented, or at the very least mitigated the whole debacle at an early stage.
No one is asking for omniscience; not even great expertise. Mere competence would be do.
Now I really shouldn't be surprised that you believed the headline and ignored the detail but even so.
I did not say anything of the kind
The political decisions by all four nations may have been the right thing to do but the problems if has caused are huge and it personally worries me for my granddaughters university placing when she takes her A levels next year
I think we should all accept that the quangos and politicians across the land have failed comprehensively and I really do worry about the long term damage to education due to the debasing of the whole system
You said Sky had reported that the funding restrictions had been resolved - as I said they hadn't been...
If Sky said that then I was quoting Sky
But the whole thing is a mess and condemnation should be across the UK to the quangos and politicians.
We had the ridiculous situation here in Wales that Drakeford only followed England after their announcement admitting they were really not for the change
Watching Sky and BBC they are increasingly becoming the English broadcasting corporation virtually ignoring Wales
The population ration between England and Wales is about 18:1, what do you expect? What would be a fair proportion of time dedicated to Welsh issues on Sky, a commercial TV station broadcasting to both, amongst others?
They have always been the English Broadcasting Corporation
I really dont get this view. What do you expect? The BBC have dedicated Scottish and Welsh channels, local radio, Wales has s4c, it isnt hard at all to get local news coverage.
I have no strong views on whether Scotland and/or Wales should be independent, have more or less devolution and think its primarily a view for them to decide, but sour grapes about TV stations focusing mainly on its much bigger audience sections is quite bizarre.
And this is why independence is inevitable. Because even you don't think of us as one country.
If news is happening in Leicester that is national newsworthy then it gets reported. But if it's in Cardiff much less so.
You think Welsh independence is inevitable?
I honestly don't know for Wales.
For Scotland and Northern Ireland yes, I think it is a case of when not if. I did not think that pre-2014. For Wales I'm honestly not sure. In isolation I don't think they would have even considered it but once Scotland and Northern Ireland go then I suspect there'll be suddenly a lot more demand for Welsh independence too. Ironically though its probably less likely since we've left the EU.
It is not going to happen in Wales
Even after Scotland goes?
Well Scotland has not gone and it is not a done deal by some distance
But if Scotland did leave, I would expect Wales to tighten the bond with England
“England and Wales” would be quite a nice country to be honest, assuming the “federalism” was properly thought out rather than say, Flanders/Wallonia.
Now I really shouldn't be surprised that you believed the headline and ignored the detail but even so.
I did not say anything of the kind
The political decisions by all four nations may have been the right thing to do but the problems if has caused are huge and it personally worries me for my granddaughters university placing when she takes her A levels next year
I think we should all accept that the quangos and politicians across the land have failed comprehensively and I really do worry about the long term damage to education due to the debasing of the whole system
You said Sky had reported that the funding restrictions had been resolved - as I said they hadn't been...
If Sky said that then I was quoting Sky
But the whole thing is a mess and condemnation should be across the UK to the quangos and politicians.
We had the ridiculous situation here in Wales that Drakeford only followed England after their announcement admitting they were really not for the change
Watching Sky and BBC they are increasingly becoming the English broadcasting corporation virtually ignoring Wales
The population ration between England and Wales is about 18:1, what do you expect? What would be a fair proportion of time dedicated to Welsh issues on Sky, a commercial TV station broadcasting to both, amongst others?
They have always been the English Broadcasting Corporation
I really dont get this view. What do you expect? The BBC have dedicated Scottish and Welsh channels, local radio, Wales has s4c, it isnt hard at all to get local news coverage.
I have no strong views on whether Scotland and/or Wales should be independent, have more or less devolution and think its primarily a view for them to decide, but sour grapes about TV stations focusing mainly on its much bigger audience sections is quite bizarre.
And this is why independence is inevitable. Because even you don't think of us as one country.
If news is happening in Leicester that is national newsworthy then it gets reported. But if it's in Cardiff much less so.
That isnt true. I would think of myself as more British than English, I would prefer it to stay as the UK, but accept if anyone votes to leave they should be able to. Whilst we are still the UK we are one country.
Cardiff would get the same coverage as Leicester. We had Nicola Sturgeon on for 20-30 mins a day on BBC1 for several months during lockdown, a completely disproportionate amount of time if doing it per head of population. Interviewees from the rest of the country, and indeed worldwide would be cut short so we could hear her live. If anything there is more coverage of Scotland and Wales than a per head basis would suggest, but of course England dominates because it is much much bigger.
Its a separate point, but I was very pleased Sturgeon was live so often during the spring and early summer because it showed what a good leader could have done, if we didnt have such incompetents in charge at Westminster.
If you considered yourself British not English then you should want and demand British and not English news. But instead you consider England all that matters and think that Welsh news should be on a different channel. That's not very British.
The news is all Williamson, Williamson, Williamson at the minute - I wonder how many who have been watching the news can even name the Welsh Education Secretary? Let alone whether they should resign or not?
Eh? Im happy with the status quo, with British news, where Scottish, Welsh and NI news gets a higher share of the coverage than a per head basis would demand, but doesnt get equal coverage with England. Because England is much much bigger.
It doesn't get a higher share of the coverage, that's just not true.
Do you think 1/18th of the time spent on Williamson has been spent on his Welsh counterpart?
I have listened to and watched about 2 hours of news so far this week. 15 minutes was with the Welsh Childrens Commissioner (who sounded engaged and doing a good job if anyone is interested in more Welsh news).
I've watched hours of coverage and it has almost all been about Williamson. Even when the Welsh reversed it was discussed in concert with what does this mean for England - before it was later revealed the Welsh only reversed because the English did.
Without Googling it can you even name Williamson's Welsh counterpart? The idea that there has been a comparable level of coverage is for the birds.
I am not saying there is a comparable level of coverage on national channels, of course there isnt because England is much much bigger! There shouldnt be equal coverage.
I agree - equal coverage is a nonsense as is the daily Sturgeon conferences on both Sky and BBC
I am not asking for anything like equal coverage but the chaos in Wales and demands for resignations are not covered at all, making it look like only Williamson is in trouble when that is not the case
Indeed John Swinney's resignation demands were widely covered
Not recently. Of course if Williamson had done the right thing it might have been different...
@DavidL - That doesn't sound like much fun for anyone.
He's delighted to be back and see all his pals again but I think that the teachers are finding it pretty tough. They are doing large blocks of time with the same class so that movement through the school is limited. Yesterday my son had 3 hours of statistics, I mean, jeez.
What is clear is that getting kids back into secondary schools safely requires an immense amount of effort and planning affecting every aspect of school life including break times, timetables, meals, work distribution, etc etc. This is not something, if it is to be done right, that schools can start thinking about in September.
The schools I know have been thinking about it since March.
At my school the signs for one way systems have been put in place already and we have an extra training day at the beginning of term to go through which of several scenarios that the senior team have come up with will be the one we use.
That's good to hear but I don't think that a day is going to do it. I can imagine, for example, that teaching the same class for 2-3 hours continuously will bring its own challenges for any teacher and require a considerable reordering of their work materials and lesson plans.
Sod the teachers. Three hours of sitting down will do no good for the pupils, even if the Scottish Government arranges free massage cushions. And we also know students' concentration drops after about 30 minutes.
Better would be a return to normal lessons, with teachers rather than children moving between classrooms, and some sort of structured break for exercise as well, perhaps with the children moving to the room next door where possible, or at least standing and stretching.
@DavidL - That doesn't sound like much fun for anyone.
He's delighted to be back and see all his pals again but I think that the teachers are finding it pretty tough. They are doing large blocks of time with the same class so that movement through the school is limited. Yesterday my son had 3 hours of statistics, I mean, jeez.
What is clear is that getting kids back into secondary schools safely requires an immense amount of effort and planning affecting every aspect of school life including break times, timetables, meals, work distribution, etc etc. This is not something, if it is to be done right, that schools can start thinking about in September.
The schools I know have been thinking about it since March.
At my school the signs for one way systems have been put in place already and we have an extra training day at the beginning of term to go through which of several scenarios that the senior team have come up with will be the one we use.
That's good to hear but I don't think that a day is going to do it. I can imagine, for example, that teaching the same class for 2-3 hours continuously will bring its own challenges for any teacher and require a considerable reordering of their work materials and lesson plans.
Sod the teachers. Three hours of sitting down will do no good for the pupils, even if the Scottish Government arranges free massage cushions. And we also know students' concentration drops after about 30 minutes.
Better would be a return to normal lessons, with teachers rather than children moving between classrooms, and some sort of structured break for exercise as well, perhaps with the children moving to the room next door where possible, or at least standing and stretching.
They do get breaks where they can stand and move about but yes, it is a challenge, one of many arising from the new regime.
After the Six Counties and the Democratic People's Republic of Scotland have gone the Welsh might well think: fuck it, why not?
It would be like Gaza with terrible weather but they would have TAKEN BACK CONTROL.
Unlike Scotland, Wales is a construct that has only existed as a unified entity almost entirely under rule of the Kingdom of England or successors throughout all of it's history.
After the Six Counties and the Democratic People's Republic of Scotland have gone the Welsh might well think: fuck it, why not?
It would be like Gaza with terrible weather but they would have TAKEN BACK CONTROL.
Unlike Scotland, Wales is a construct that has only existed as a unified entity almost entirely under rule of the Kingdom of England or successors throughout all of it's history.
Wales could have almost complete autonomy yet remain within “England and Wales”. Devo-max if you like. English Prime Ministers however will have to understand that they are governing almost exclusively for England.
After the Six Counties and the Democratic People's Republic of Scotland have gone the Welsh might well think: fuck it, why not?
It would be like Gaza with terrible weather but they would have TAKEN BACK CONTROL.
Unlike Scotland, Wales is a construct that has only existed as a unified entity almost entirely under rule of the Kingdom of England or successors throughout all of it's history.
And of course a few kings have been Welsh, effecting a sort of reverse take-over.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
After the Six Counties and the Democratic People's Republic of Scotland have gone the Welsh might well think: fuck it, why not?
It would be like Gaza with terrible weather but they would have TAKEN BACK CONTROL.
Unlike Scotland, Wales is a construct that has only existed as a unified entity almost entirely under rule of the Kingdom of England or successors throughout all of it's history.
Well, that was true of Ireland, not that it made any difference.
One big reason Wales is less likely to become independent than Scotland is geography. There are large Welsh population centres close to the English border with large English population centres close by on the other side.
The Scottish central belt is much further from the English border, and Newcastle is similarly far away on the English side.
This is one reason why the Welsh electorate is closer to England and voted to Leave the EU.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Why is that frustrating? It’s efficient. If they are measured purely on one metric, it’s entirely rational to focus entirely on that metric.
The same happens in business. If you incentivise on KPIs, they are going to be targeted and screw any other consequences.
That’s the problem with standardised comparisons. If you know the algorithm, you can ALWAYS get an advantage.
After the Six Counties and the Democratic People's Republic of Scotland have gone the Welsh might well think: fuck it, why not?
It would be like Gaza with terrible weather but they would have TAKEN BACK CONTROL.
Unlike Scotland, Wales is a construct that has only existed as a unified entity almost entirely under rule of the Kingdom of England or successors throughout all of it's history.
After the Six Counties and the Democratic People's Republic of Scotland have gone the Welsh might well think: fuck it, why not?
It would be like Gaza with terrible weather but they would have TAKEN BACK CONTROL.
Unlike Scotland, Wales is a construct that has only existed as a unified entity almost entirely under rule of the Kingdom of England or successors throughout all of ITS history.
Isn't England a construct that has only existed as a unified entity almost entirely under rule of the Kingdom of Wessex or successors throughout all of ITS history?
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Yeah, that's the "more targeted learning" bit. First rule of economics: incentives matter. If we measure their value by their exam result, then they will rationally focus on their exam result. Any diversion will detract from that. They may have a better rounded and deeper grasp of the subject, but how would they prove it? If the concentration of effort boosts them from a B to an A, then that can make a massive difference in the onward trajectory of their life.
If we want to use these exams for this purpose, then that is what will rationally happen.
“England and Wales” would be quite a nice country to be honest, assuming the “federalism” was properly thought out rather than say, Flanders/Wallonia.
The Belgian devolutionary settlement has done a good job of holding the country together and frankly, after the 1961 Grève du Siècle, you wouldn't have given that short odds.
The asymmetric structure that balances the interests and representation of two and a half geographical regions and three linguistic communities is actually quite elegant.
That is shocking, completely unnecessary from the publics point of view. That data is very valuable, if we are going to give it to the private sector (we shouldnt, but if), lets at least sell it and get some decent cash for it.
Now I really shouldn't be surprised that you believed the headline and ignored the detail but even so.
I did not say anything of the kind
The political decisions by all four nations may have been the right thing to do but the problems if has caused are huge and it personally worries me for my granddaughters university placing when she takes her A levels next year
I think we should all accept that the quangos and politicians across the land have failed comprehensively and I really do worry about the long term damage to education due to the debasing of the whole system
You said Sky had reported that the funding restrictions had been resolved - as I said they hadn't been...
If Sky said that then I was quoting Sky
But the whole thing is a mess and condemnation should be across the UK to the quangos and politicians.
We had the ridiculous situation here in Wales that Drakeford only followed England after their announcement admitting they were really not for the change
Watching Sky and BBC they are increasingly becoming the English broadcasting corporation virtually ignoring Wales
The population ration between England and Wales is about 18:1, what do you expect? What would be a fair proportion of time dedicated to Welsh issues on Sky, a commercial TV station broadcasting to both, amongst others?
They have always been the English Broadcasting Corporation
I really dont get this view. What do you expect? The BBC have dedicated Scottish and Welsh channels, local radio, Wales has s4c, it isnt hard at all to get local news coverage.
I have no strong views on whether Scotland and/or Wales should be independent, have more or less devolution and think its primarily a view for them to decide, but sour grapes about TV stations focusing mainly on its much bigger audience sections is quite bizarre.
And this is why independence is inevitable. Because even you don't think of us as one country.
If news is happening in Leicester that is national newsworthy then it gets reported. But if it's in Cardiff much less so.
That isnt true. I would think of myself as more British than English, I would prefer it to stay as the UK, but accept if anyone votes to leave they should be able to. Whilst we are still the UK we are one country.
Cardiff would get the same coverage as Leicester. We had Nicola Sturgeon on for 20-30 mins a day on BBC1 for several months during lockdown, a completely disproportionate amount of time if doing it per head of population. Interviewees from the rest of the country, and indeed worldwide would be cut short so we could hear her live. If anything there is more coverage of Scotland and Wales than a per head basis would suggest, but of course England dominates because it is much much bigger.
Its a separate point, but I was very pleased Sturgeon was live so often during the spring and early summer because it showed what a good leader could have done, if we didnt have such incompetents in charge at Westminster.
If you considered yourself British not English then you should want and demand British and not English news. But instead you consider England all that matters and think that Welsh news should be on a different channel. That's not very British.
The news is all Williamson, Williamson, Williamson at the minute - I wonder how many who have been watching the news can even name the Welsh Education Secretary? Let alone whether they should resign or not?
Eh? Im happy with the status quo, with British news, where Scottish, Welsh and NI news gets a higher share of the coverage than a per head basis would demand, but doesnt get equal coverage with England. Because England is much much bigger.
It doesn't get a higher share of the coverage, that's just not true.
Do you think 1/18th of the time spent on Williamson has been spent on his Welsh counterpart?
I have listened to and watched about 2 hours of news so far this week. 15 minutes was with the Welsh Childrens Commissioner (who sounded engaged and doing a good job if anyone is interested in more Welsh news).
I've watched hours of coverage and it has almost all been about Williamson. Even when the Welsh reversed it was discussed in concert with what does this mean for England - before it was later revealed the Welsh only reversed because the English did.
Without Googling it can you even name Williamson's Welsh counterpart? The idea that there has been a comparable level of coverage is for the birds.
I am not saying there is a comparable level of coverage on national channels, of course there isnt because England is much much bigger! There shouldnt be equal coverage.
Who said equal? Your line was 1/18th.
Sky and the BBC are giving more than 18x as much coverage to Williamson etc than they are to the Welsh counterpart. I couldn't even name his Welsh counterpart without Googling it the coverage has been so absent.
Despite disagreeing with you more often than not, you sometimes make some great points, have admirable tenacity and a willingness to (occassionally) move well away from the party line but arguing with you can be tiring. You used the word comparable. That implies equal.
Look at the BBC annual report and you will see the lengths they go to to try and get balanced coverage between the different nations and regions of the UK, and the metrics they use to track this. It is broadly right and balanced.
Comparable does not mean equal, if I wanted to use the word equal I would have used the word equal. I didn't say equal because I didn't mean equal. I did say comparable because it has a different meaning and that meaning is what I meant.
comparable /ˈkɒmp(ə)rəb(ə)l/ adjective able to be likened to another; similar. "the situation in Holland is comparable to that in England"
You had already set (which I agreed with) the ratio of 1/18. If under your own logic the coverage of Wales was comparable to the coverage of England then 1/18th of the coverage dedicated to Williamson should have been dedicated to Williamson's Welsh counterpart.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Many university courses are now 4-year degrees rather than the traditional three (sorry, Scotland; your cause is noble) -- at least for those who wish to progress further in a subject -- in part because A-levels no longer provide the same platform.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Why is that frustrating? It’s efficient. If they are measured purely on one metric, it’s entirely rational to focus entirely on that metric.
The same happens in business. If you incentivise on KPIs, they are going to be targeted and screw any other consequences.
That’s the problem with standardised comparisons. If you know the algorithm, you can ALWAYS get an advantage.
Its frustrating because so few of them show a desire to do more than just what is needed. There seems very few with a love of the subject.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
And the introduction of league tables led to schools being more choosy about which exam boards they were using, creating disincentives for any of the boards to be perceived to be setting more challenging exams.
After the Six Counties and the Democratic People's Republic of Scotland have gone the Welsh might well think: fuck it, why not?
It would be like Gaza with terrible weather but they would have TAKEN BACK CONTROL.
Unlike Scotland, Wales is a construct that has only existed as a unified entity almost entirely under rule of the Kingdom of England or successors throughout all of ITS history.
Isn't England a construct that has only existed as a unified entity almost entirely under rule of the Kingdom of Wessex or successors throughout all of ITS history?
England was effectively united under Athelstan in 927, it has been united longer than Germany, Spain and Italy and indeed France whose first king Philip II reigned from 1190
US has now recorded 175,000 C-19 deaths. If LadyG pops by can somebody plese point this out to him. He thought this was about the level it would max out at. I suggested 200,00 and he thought I was being pessimistic. Now it's starting to look as thou 250,00 will be achieved before the pandemic finlly abates.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Physics is an interesting example. My son did Higher Physics last year and much of what he did was not in the syllabus when I did it. There was far more about Einsteinian physics, gravity and space. Indeed the Physics teacher said that much of the course was material that he had covered in first and second year at University and he is only in his 30s.
No doubt a lot of this stuff I did has been taken out. There is a lot less emphasis on using trolleys to calculate acceleration rates, less on lenses and light and probably more that I have long since forgotten. I would really hesitate to say that the content was less overall though.
Comparable does not mean equal, if I wanted to use the word equal I would have used the word equal. I didn't say equal because I didn't mean equal. I did say comparable because it has a different meaning and that meaning is what I meant.
comparable /ˈkɒmp(ə)rəb(ə)l/ adjective able to be likened to another; similar. "the situation in Holland is comparable to that in England"
You had already set (which I agreed with) the ratio of 1/18. If under your own logic the coverage of Wales was comparable to the coverage of England then 1/18th of the coverage dedicated to Williamson should have been dedicated to Williamson's Welsh counterpart.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
And the introduction of league tables led to schools being more choosy about which exam boards they were using, creating disincentives for any of the boards to be perceived to be setting more challenging exams.
League tables distort elsewhere. Why do the police focus on middle class traffic offences? is it because its an easy target, most cough-up and you can show what a good job you are doing?
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Physics is an interesting example. My son did Higher Physics last year and much of what he did was not in the syllabus when I did it. There was far more about Einsteinian physics, gravity and space. Indeed the Physics teacher said that much of the course was material that he had covered in first and second year at University and he is only in his 30s.
No doubt a lot of this stuff I did has been taken out. There is a lot less emphasis on using trolleys to calculate acceleration rates, less on lenses and light and probably more that I have long since forgotten. I would really hesitate to say that the content was less overall though.
Do you mean GCSE Higher physics or Scottish Highers physics?
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Physics is an interesting example. My son did Higher Physics last year and much of what he did was not in the syllabus when I did it. There was far more about Einsteinian physics, gravity and space. Indeed the Physics teacher said that much of the course was material that he had covered in first and second year at University and he is only in his 30s.
No doubt a lot of this stuff I did has been taken out. There is a lot less emphasis on using trolleys to calculate acceleration rates, less on lenses and light and probably more that I have long since forgotten. I would really hesitate to say that the content was less overall though.
Thats fair - my example was from1990 after all. However there is a feel that first year uni courses need to make up for what has not been taught to that point (generally, not restricted to physics).
That's pretty stupid. There will be people who refuse to give their data because they don't want some American consultancy firm playing with it - fuck it, I might be one of them. Still, all that data will be useful when McKinsey want to pitch for work with the US health firms that will be invited to run the NHS when the US trade deal goes through.
Frankly I would trust Huawei more than McKinsey and Dido with my data.
No you wouldn't.
You're just saying that to make a political point.
No, the Chinese have never done anything dodgy with my data, while at the core of government here people have a track record of misusing and mishandling data.
+1. No doubt the Chinese are more dangerous if one has important defence data or the like. But I doubt if Huawei care what I'm doing, while I wouldn't be in the least surprised to hear that the British government makes use of it and quite possibly sells it.
The whole anti-Huawei case is contaminated by the obvious fact that Trump is obsessed with China-bashing, partly for domestic reasons and partly as he thinks it'll lead to a better outcome to trade negotiations. It's possible that they are a genuine proble, but Britain seems to be dragged along with Trump's paranoia which isn't nemcessarily even genuine.
Ladies & Gentlemen: the moral and ethical bankruptcy of the modern British Left.
Atlee and Bevin must be turning in their graves.
In foreign affairs it is hard to see anything other than moral bankruptcy across the board. This government was only to happy to be doing business with Huawei and the Chinese until just a few moinths ago, when it became politically more expedient not to. We still do business with every kind of depraved regime, including ones that cut people's heads off in public.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Physics is an interesting example. My son did Higher Physics last year and much of what he did was not in the syllabus when I did it. There was far more about Einsteinian physics, gravity and space. Indeed the Physics teacher said that much of the course was material that he had covered in first and second year at University and he is only in his 30s.
No doubt a lot of this stuff I did has been taken out. There is a lot less emphasis on using trolleys to calculate acceleration rates, less on lenses and light and probably more that I have long since forgotten. I would really hesitate to say that the content was less overall though.
Do you mean GCSE Higher physics or Scottish Highers physics?
Something to which English Tories of all people should surely be able to relate.
The Tories used to be conservative and used to offer competence as a selling point. Now they have tossed both away, all they have left is what all nationalist parties are about when you come down to it - culture war. If Labour is ever to regain power, it needs to understand this and not to rise to the bait. That is one reason among many why it is so good Corbyn and Co are now no longer in charge of the party.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Physics is an interesting example. My son did Higher Physics last year and much of what he did was not in the syllabus when I did it. There was far more about Einsteinian physics, gravity and space. Indeed the Physics teacher said that much of the course was material that he had covered in first and second year at University and he is only in his 30s.
No doubt a lot of this stuff I did has been taken out. There is a lot less emphasis on using trolleys to calculate acceleration rates, less on lenses and light and probably more that I have long since forgotten. I would really hesitate to say that the content was less overall though.
Thats fair - my example was from1990 after all. However there is a feel that first year uni courses need to make up for what has not been taught to that point (generally, not restricted to physics).
I hesitate to generalise but I would say that there is at least as much depth but perhaps not the same breadth which might leave holes for the Universities to fill.
‘Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said the prime minister must personally lead the back-to-school campaign in order to ensure confidence.’
Er - no. Nothing would be more likely to see the government forfeit what little confidence is left on this issue than having imbeciles like Johnson and Cummings in direct charge of this. Not even Williamson, improbable though that may seem.
Halfon is usually very good on education but he’s slipped up there.
He would - and I mean this seriously - have been better calling for the ESC to take charge of it themselves. They’re quite good.
The key to having schools re-open is having protocols that work, and are not chaotic and contradictory. If parents and teachers have confidence then there won't be an issue.
I wish it were so simple. The virus does not obey the rules of politics. The matter will be judged neither on protocols or advance confidence. By mid October we will have an idea whether 9 million school children, 2 million undergraduates and a million+ staff all working together in enclosed spaces indirectly kills large numbers of people and/or brings the country to a halt. I seriously doubt whether anyone has, or could have, any idea where we will be by October. Who is in titular charge of the virus and education will make no difference.
Actually, there ought to be nothing to stop any university with a bio lab to set up their own testing regime. They could do pooled tests of every department or college on a weekly, or even daily basis. The costs would be pretty low, and the results quick enough to go back and test every individual in a department if infection showed up.
...SalivaDirect does not require any special type of swab or collection device; a saliva sample can be collected in any sterile container. This test is also unique because it does not require a separate nucleic acid extraction step. This is significant because the extraction kits used for this step in other tests have been prone to shortages in the past. Being able to perform a test without these kits enhances the capacity for increased testing, while reducing the strain on available resources. Additionally, the SalivaDirect methodology has been validated and authorized for use with different combinations of commonly used reagents and instruments, meaning the test could be used broadly in most high-complexity labs.
Yale intends to provide the SalivaDirect protocol to interested laboratories as an “open source” protocol, meaning that designated laboratories could follow the protocol to obtain the required components and perform the test in their lab according to Yale’s instructions for use. Because this test does not rely on any proprietary equipment from Yale and can use a variety of commercially available testing components, it can be assembled and used in high-complexity labs throughout the country, provided they comply with the conditions of authorization in the EUA....
Oxford is rolling out its own testing service, but the current plan seems to be only for symptomatic students and staff. Results supposed to be back in 24 hours. This could be useful in preventing the usual colds and flu from panicking everyone, but it probably won't do a lot to reduce CV transmission.
I'm sure they have the capability to do pooled saliva testing en masse, and the maths does show that this could make a big difference to spread, but University leaderships are no more competent than government ministers so...
Mr. Observer, I don't disagree entirely but it seems unreasonable to single out the Conservatives when we have a Leader of the Opposition who kneels before overtly anti-capitalist morons with a catchy slogan, and Holyrood is led by an overt nationalist.
What's critical for the blues is to oust the imbecile and get a vaguely competent leader.
Trump: backed off the boards Pence: 1.02 (was 1.04 and flicked out to 1.05 yesterday)
Now 1.01 and only for £500.
Tbh I'd be wary of 1.01 as there is still just about time for Pence to be replaced though there have been no reports of Ivanka practising her acceptance speech and I'd only expect it if Pence did something unbelievably stupid over the next day or so. 1.01 is where I'd expect the price to be Saturday-ish, with the GOP convention starting Monday.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Physics is an interesting example. My son did Higher Physics last year and much of what he did was not in the syllabus when I did it. There was far more about Einsteinian physics, gravity and space. Indeed the Physics teacher said that much of the course was material that he had covered in first and second year at University and he is only in his 30s.
No doubt a lot of this stuff I did has been taken out. There is a lot less emphasis on using trolleys to calculate acceleration rates, less on lenses and light and probably more that I have long since forgotten. I would really hesitate to say that the content was less overall though.
Do you mean GCSE Higher physics or Scottish Highers physics?
Scottish Higher.
OIC
I have to agree that the A Level courses nowadays do contain a fair amount of what I was studying at university in year 1/2 during the 80s. This has meant the nowadays reduction in coverage of lenses, mutual induction, and electronics ( I did a nuffield A level!!) I also remember doing a lot more planetary mechanics then. I also remember covering a lot about structures of materials (which was good for engineering I suppose).
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Many university courses are now 4-year degrees rather than the traditional three -- in part because A-levels no longer provide the same platform.
Mr. Observer, I don't disagree entirely but it seems unreasonable to single out the Conservatives when we have a Leader of the Opposition who kneels before overtly anti-capitalist morons with a catchy slogan, and Holyrood is led by an overt nationalist.
What's critical for the blues is to oust the imbecile and get a vaguely competent leader.
When you look at the polls, and you look at events, its quite clear that many people do not see voting labour as the solution to the dreadful mess we;re in. Starmer should be streets ahead. He ain't
IF the tories are vulnerable, its from the populist right. Get Brexit wrong and the BP would take 10 per cent off them overnight. And that would just be the start.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Physics is an interesting example. My son did Higher Physics last year and much of what he did was not in the syllabus when I did it. There was far more about Einsteinian physics, gravity and space. Indeed the Physics teacher said that much of the course was material that he had covered in first and second year at University and he is only in his 30s.
No doubt a lot of this stuff I did has been taken out. There is a lot less emphasis on using trolleys to calculate acceleration rates, less on lenses and light and probably more that I have long since forgotten. I would really hesitate to say that the content was less overall though.
Do you mean GCSE Higher physics or Scottish Highers physics?
Scottish Higher.
OIC
I have to agree that the A Level courses nowadays do contain a fair amount of what I was studying at university in year 1/2 during the 80s. This has meant the nowadays reduction in coverage of lenses, mutual induction, and electronics ( I did a nuffield A level!!) I also remember doing a lot more planetary mechanics then. I also remember covering a lot about structures of materials (which was good for engineering I suppose).
Oh lord I had forgotten the series and parallel circuits. So tedious. I think my son touched on that but we spent ages building them.
Mr. Observer, I don't disagree entirely but it seems unreasonable to single out the Conservatives when we have a Leader of the Opposition who kneels before overtly anti-capitalist morons with a catchy slogan, and Holyrood is led by an overt nationalist.
What's critical for the blues is to oust the imbecile and get a vaguely competent leader.
My point was that now that the Tories have given up on conservatism and competence, there is nothing else there but culture war (and, as Dido Harding shows, cronyism). Allowing Johnson/Cummings to set dividing points by constantly responding to them, as Corbyn and Co would, is not something a labour party serious about winning should do.
Mr. Observer, I don't disagree entirely but it seems unreasonable to single out the Conservatives when we have a Leader of the Opposition who kneels before overtly anti-capitalist morons with a catchy slogan, and Holyrood is led by an overt nationalist.
What's critical for the blues is to oust the imbecile and get a vaguely competent leader.
When you look at the polls, and you look at events, its quite clear that many people do not see voting labour as the solution to the dreadful mess we;re in. Starmer should be streets ahead. He ain't
IF the tories are vulnerable, its from the populist right. Get Brexit wrong and the BP would take 10 per cent off them overnight. And that would just be the start.
Farage is biding his time. A rotten brexit is just the springboard he needs.
That's pretty stupid. There will be people who refuse to give their data because they don't want some American consultancy firm playing with it - fuck it, I might be one of them. Still, all that data will be useful when McKinsey want to pitch for work with the US health firms that will be invited to run the NHS when the US trade deal goes through.
Frankly I would trust Huawei more than McKinsey and Dido with my data.
No you wouldn't.
You're just saying that to make a political point.
I would certainly trust Huawei more - and I am literally typing this on a Huawei phone so I am not just making a point!
No you wouldn't.
If you do you're either ignorant or naive.
The CCP are obviously an even bigger bunch of gangsters and crooks than the Tory party, but the latter have a far greater ability to fuck up my life, owing to proximity.
Well, that's something. I think it supports what I was saying earlier about the huge introspection and circle jerk the West has about itself, which ironically is a sign of arrogance and self obsession - even on the Left - as it doesn't realise it's increasingly irrelevant and being eclipsed.
The CCP want to watch and control everything you do with your data. They don't have to be resident here to do it. If they control cyberspace and the global economic levers they will achieve dominance and compliance without a shot ever being fired:
CPC = evil and competent. tories = evil and incompetent.
I'm not sure which is worse but I'd much rather socialise with Xi Jinping than Johnson.
Xi Jinping shoots dissidents, executes rivals, silences critics, oppresses and bullies his neighbouring countries, threatens others (including us), arrests those who speak against him ( and worse) and is committing crimes against humanity against the Uighur Muslims.
Johnson does none of those things.
If you're not sure who is worse then you're not thinking straight or you don't want to.
Yeah, but Boris said several things that taken out of context might be regarded as racist. I mean, come on.
BJ not as bad as Xi.
Finally the BJ boosters have found a populist slogan to get the rest of the nation(s) aboard. BJ's ratings in Scotland might even go below -50% once it gains common currency.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Many university courses are now 4-year degrees rather than the traditional three -- in part because A-levels no longer provide the same platform.
And in part because they can charge by the year!
More likely so that they can award the MSc which is more attractive to students.
Mr. Observer, I don't disagree entirely but it seems unreasonable to single out the Conservatives when we have a Leader of the Opposition who kneels before overtly anti-capitalist morons with a catchy slogan, and Holyrood is led by an overt nationalist.
What's critical for the blues is to oust the imbecile and get a vaguely competent leader.
When you look at the polls, and you look at events, its quite clear that many people do not see voting labour as the solution to the dreadful mess we;re in. Starmer should be streets ahead. He ain't
IF the tories are vulnerable, its from the populist right. Get Brexit wrong and the BP would take 10 per cent off them overnight. And that would just be the start.
That's a big call a few months into this government's tenure and before the furlough scheme unwinds. Agree about the populist right, though: the Tories have only one way to win from here on in.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Physics is an interesting example. My son did Higher Physics last year and much of what he did was not in the syllabus when I did it. There was far more about Einsteinian physics, gravity and space. Indeed the Physics teacher said that much of the course was material that he had covered in first and second year at University and he is only in his 30s.
No doubt a lot of this stuff I did has been taken out. There is a lot less emphasis on using trolleys to calculate acceleration rates, less on lenses and light and probably more that I have long since forgotten. I would really hesitate to say that the content was less overall though.
Much of that which my grandson talks about re Physics (planning to take A Level in it next year) is unrecognisable to me, who did A levels in 1957. However much of the M.Pharm curriculum is equally unrecognisable to me, who did the professional equivalent in 1961. And that's because the science has moved on. I'm always impressed by the science young people know, having also picked up the basics of what we did.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Many university courses are now 4-year degrees rather than the traditional three -- in part because A-levels no longer provide the same platform.
And in part because they can charge by the year!
Not really, most 4 year courses have a sandwich year in the middle for work experience which allows the university to add a project and charge another £5-9.25k for doing incredibly little.
Believe me I saw a lot of tricks when looking at universities - mainly because I love finding them..
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Physics is an interesting example. My son did Higher Physics last year and much of what he did was not in the syllabus when I did it. There was far more about Einsteinian physics, gravity and space. Indeed the Physics teacher said that much of the course was material that he had covered in first and second year at University and he is only in his 30s.
No doubt a lot of this stuff I did has been taken out. There is a lot less emphasis on using trolleys to calculate acceleration rates, less on lenses and light and probably more that I have long since forgotten. I would really hesitate to say that the content was less overall though.
Do you mean GCSE Higher physics or Scottish Highers physics?
Scottish Higher.
OIC
I have to agree that the A Level courses nowadays do contain a fair amount of what I was studying at university in year 1/2 during the 80s. This has meant the nowadays reduction in coverage of lenses, mutual induction, and electronics ( I did a nuffield A level!!) I also remember doing a lot more planetary mechanics then. I also remember covering a lot about structures of materials (which was good for engineering I suppose).
Oh lord I had forgotten the series and parallel circuits. So tedious. I think my son touched on that but we spent ages building them.
As a retired teacher I lament the reduction in time spent on series/parallel circuits! I also lament the lack of electronics now, i.e. digital logic gates, operational amplifiers etc. They have been stolen by the D&T subjects!!
Of course, the haulage disagreement with the EU shows us that the UK is not after a Canada-style deal.
Well that tunnel under the Atlantic is not quite finished yet, is it?
Exactly, David. We were not, are not and never will be Canada. Thus, we need more from the EU than Canada does, so they will need more from us.
Strangely, international trade tends to follow an inverse square law with distance between countries, and Canada is bleeding miles away. A bit like gravity and electricity, since we are discussing physics, and probably other stuff I've forgotten.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Physics is an interesting example. My son did Higher Physics last year and much of what he did was not in the syllabus when I did it. There was far more about Einsteinian physics, gravity and space. Indeed the Physics teacher said that much of the course was material that he had covered in first and second year at University and he is only in his 30s.
No doubt a lot of this stuff I did has been taken out. There is a lot less emphasis on using trolleys to calculate acceleration rates, less on lenses and light and probably more that I have long since forgotten. I would really hesitate to say that the content was less overall though.
Much of that which my grandson talks about re Physics (planning to take A Level in it next year) is unrecognisable to me, who did A levels in 1957. However much of the M.Pharm curriculum is equally unrecognisable to me, who did the professional equivalent in 1961. And that's because the science has moved on. I'm always impressed by the science young people know, having also picked up the basics of what we did.
MPharm in recent years has become very clinical based, to the detriment of the science content. There is now an acceptance by the GPHC that this has gone to far, and more emphasis is returning to the science. However the idea of the 'scientist on the high street' has little relevance to community pharmacists, whose only CPD relates to clinical matters. Much more important for hospital pharmacists.
That's just the start. While self righteous politicians obsess about which petty rule to enforce next, which fines to increase and which holidays to ruin, businesses are struggling badly. Many are still reliant on government cash.
The British chambers of commerce says trading conditions have improved only modestly since the end of lockdown.
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Physics is an interesting example. My son did Higher Physics last year and much of what he did was not in the syllabus when I did it. There was far more about Einsteinian physics, gravity and space. Indeed the Physics teacher said that much of the course was material that he had covered in first and second year at University and he is only in his 30s.
No doubt a lot of this stuff I did has been taken out. There is a lot less emphasis on using trolleys to calculate acceleration rates, less on lenses and light and probably more that I have long since forgotten. I would really hesitate to say that the content was less overall though.
Do you mean GCSE Higher physics or Scottish Highers physics?
Scottish Higher.
OIC
I have to agree that the A Level courses nowadays do contain a fair amount of what I was studying at university in year 1/2 during the 80s. This has meant the nowadays reduction in coverage of lenses, mutual induction, and electronics ( I did a nuffield A level!!) I also remember doing a lot more planetary mechanics then. I also remember covering a lot about structures of materials (which was good for engineering I suppose).
Oh lord I had forgotten the series and parallel circuits. So tedious. I think my son touched on that but we spent ages building them.
As a retired teacher I lament the reduction in time spent on series/parallel circuits! I also lament the lack of electronics now, i.e. digital logic gates, operational amplifiers etc. They have been stolen by the D&T subjects!!
Yes, capacitors, amplifiers, transistors, its all coming back now, shudder.
Sounds like Govey is going to be the strategist behind Bettertogether II by default, just by having a tenth of a clue as opposed to the zilch possessed by the rest of the cabinet. Expect more vetted walkabouts in Peterburgh and Fraserhead.
Of course, the haulage disagreement with the EU shows us that the UK is not after a Canada-style deal.
Well that tunnel under the Atlantic is not quite finished yet, is it?
Exactly, David. We were not, are not and never will be Canada. Thus, we need more from the EU than Canada does, so they will need more from us.
Strangely, international trade tends to follow an inverse square law with distance between countries, and Canada is bleeding miles away. A bit like gravity and electricity, since we are discussing physics, and probably other stuff I've forgotten.
But the US is our biggest single market and it is as far away as Canada.
And even if this was true traditionally where freight costs of physical goods would be a material consideration, I do wonder if it is in an age where so much of what we trade are pixels (Russel Kirsch RIP).
Now I really shouldn't be surprised that you believed the headline and ignored the detail but even so.
I did not say anything of the kind
The political decisions by all four nations may have been the right thing to do but the problems if has caused are huge and it personally worries me for my granddaughters university placing when she takes her A levels next year
I think we should all accept that the quangos and politicians across the land have failed comprehensively and I really do worry about the long term damage to education due to the debasing of the whole system
You said Sky had reported that the funding restrictions had been resolved - as I said they hadn't been...
If Sky said that then I was quoting Sky
But the whole thing is a mess and condemnation should be across the UK to the quangos and politicians.
We had the ridiculous situation here in Wales that Drakeford only followed England after their announcement admitting they were really not for the change
Watching Sky and BBC they are increasingly becoming the English broadcasting corporation virtually ignoring Wales
The population ration between England and Wales is about 18:1, what do you expect? What would be a fair proportion of time dedicated to Welsh issues on Sky, a commercial TV station broadcasting to both, amongst others?
They have always been the English Broadcasting Corporation
I really dont get this view. What do you expect? The BBC have dedicated Scottish and Welsh channels, local radio, Wales has s4c, it isnt hard at all to get local news coverage.
I have no strong views on whether Scotland and/or Wales should be independent, have more or less devolution and think its primarily a view for them to decide, but sour grapes about TV stations focusing mainly on its much bigger audience sections is quite bizarre.
They are crap. take 320M out of us and spend about 50p here. Sottish content is minimal , news coverage the same 5 minutes tagged on at end of English news. Football coverage dire, show English games all the time but at best 30 mins highlights of Scottish football. Crap service at big money charges, calling it British and ripping us off is anything but sour grapes, blinding anger more like.
Sounds like Govey is going to be the strategist behind Bettertogether II by default, just by having a tenth of a clue as opposed to the zilch possessed by the rest of the cabinet. Expect more vetted walkabouts in Peterburgh and Fraserhead.
Where does the myth that Dido Harding oversaw the development of the failed test-and trace app come from? I mean, I know this is the era of fake news, but when I tried it a few moments ago it took Google just 0.45 seconds to come up with the correct answer:
Harding’s appointment comes as the NHS has launched its Covid-19 app on the Isle of Wight.
Now I really shouldn't be surprised that you believed the headline and ignored the detail but even so.
I did not say anything of the kind
The political decisions by all four nations may have been the right thing to do but the problems if has caused are huge and it personally worries me for my granddaughters university placing when she takes her A levels next year
I think we should all accept that the quangos and politicians across the land have failed comprehensively and I really do worry about the long term damage to education due to the debasing of the whole system
You said Sky had reported that the funding restrictions had been resolved - as I said they hadn't been...
If Sky said that then I was quoting Sky
But the whole thing is a mess and condemnation should be across the UK to the quangos and politicians.
We had the ridiculous situation here in Wales that Drakeford only followed England after their announcement admitting they were really not for the change
Watching Sky and BBC they are increasingly becoming the English broadcasting corporation virtually ignoring Wales
The population ration between England and Wales is about 18:1, what do you expect? What would be a fair proportion of time dedicated to Welsh issues on Sky, a commercial TV station broadcasting to both, amongst others?
They have always been the English Broadcasting Corporation
I really dont get this view. What do you expect? The BBC have dedicated Scottish and Welsh channels, local radio, Wales has s4c, it isnt hard at all to get local news coverage.
I have no strong views on whether Scotland and/or Wales should be independent, have more or less devolution and think its primarily a view for them to decide, but sour grapes about TV stations focusing mainly on its much bigger audience sections is quite bizarre.
And this is why independence is inevitable. Because even you don't think of us as one country.
If news is happening in Leicester that is national newsworthy then it gets reported. But if it's in Cardiff much less so.
That isnt true. I would think of myself as more British than English, I would prefer it to stay as the UK, but accept if anyone votes to leave they should be able to. Whilst we are still the UK we are one country.
Cardiff would get the same coverage as Leicester. We had Nicola Sturgeon on for 20-30 mins a day on BBC1 for several months during lockdown, a completely disproportionate amount of time if doing it per head of population. Interviewees from the rest of the country, and indeed worldwide would be cut short so we could hear her live. If anything there is more coverage of Scotland and Wales than a per head basis would suggest, but of course England dominates because it is much much bigger.
Its a separate point, but I was very pleased Sturgeon was live so often during the spring and early summer because it showed what a good leader could have done, if we didnt have such incompetents in charge at Westminster.
If you considered yourself British not English then you should want and demand British and not English news. But instead you consider England all that matters and think that Welsh news should be on a different channel. That's not very British.
The news is all Williamson, Williamson, Williamson at the minute - I wonder how many who have been watching the news can even name the Welsh Education Secretary? Let alone whether they should resign or not?
Eh? Im happy with the status quo, with British news, where Scottish, Welsh and NI news gets a higher share of the coverage than a per head basis would demand, but doesnt get equal coverage with England. Because England is much much bigger.
It doesn't get a higher share of the coverage, that's just not true.
Do you think 1/18th of the time spent on Williamson has been spent on his Welsh counterpart?
I have listened to and watched about 2 hours of news so far this week. 15 minutes was with the Welsh Childrens Commissioner (who sounded engaged and doing a good job if anyone is interested in more Welsh news).
I've watched hours of coverage and it has almost all been about Williamson. Even when the Welsh reversed it was discussed in concert with what does this mean for England - before it was later revealed the Welsh only reversed because the English did.
Without Googling it can you even name Williamson's Welsh counterpart? The idea that there has been a comparable level of coverage is for the birds.
I am not saying there is a comparable level of coverage on national channels, of course there isnt because England is much much bigger! There shouldnt be equal coverage.
Who said equal? Your line was 1/18th.
Sky and the BBC are giving more than 18x as much coverage to Williamson etc than they are to the Welsh counterpart. I couldn't even name his Welsh counterpart without Googling it the coverage has been so absent.
Despite disagreeing with you more often than not, you sometimes make some great points, have admirable tenacity and a willingness to (occassionally) move well away from the party line but arguing with you can be tiring. You used the word comparable. That implies equal.
Look at the BBC annual report and you will see the lengths they go to to try and get balanced coverage between the different nations and regions of the UK, and the metrics they use to track this. It is broadly right and balanced.
‘Robert Halfon, the Conservative chair of the education select committee, said the prime minister must personally lead the back-to-school campaign in order to ensure confidence.’
Er - no. Nothing would be more likely to see the government forfeit what little confidence is left on this issue than having imbeciles like Johnson and Cummings in direct charge of this. Not even Williamson, improbable though that may seem.
Halfon is usually very good on education but he’s slipped up there.
He would - and I mean this seriously - have been better calling for the ESC to take charge of it themselves. They’re quite good.
The key to having schools re-open is having protocols that work, and are not chaotic and contradictory. If parents and teachers have confidence then there won't be an issue.
I wish it were so simple. The virus does not obey the rules of politics. The matter will be judged neither on protocols or advance confidence. By mid October we will have an idea whether 9 million school children, 2 million undergraduates and a million+ staff all working together in enclosed spaces indirectly kills large numbers of people and/or brings the country to a halt. I seriously doubt whether anyone has, or could have, any idea where we will be by October. Who is in titular charge of the virus and education will make no difference.
Actually, there ought to be nothing to stop any university with a bio lab to set up their own testing regime. They could do pooled tests of every department or college on a weekly, or even daily basis. The costs would be pretty low, and the results quick enough to go back and test every individual in a department if infection showed up.
...SalivaDirect does not require any special type of swab or collection device; a saliva sample can be collected in any sterile container. This test is also unique because it does not require a separate nucleic acid extraction step. This is significant because the extraction kits used for this step in other tests have been prone to shortages in the past. Being able to perform a test without these kits enhances the capacity for increased testing, while reducing the strain on available resources. Additionally, the SalivaDirect methodology has been validated and authorized for use with different combinations of commonly used reagents and instruments, meaning the test could be used broadly in most high-complexity labs.
Yale intends to provide the SalivaDirect protocol to interested laboratories as an “open source” protocol, meaning that designated laboratories could follow the protocol to obtain the required components and perform the test in their lab according to Yale’s instructions for use. Because this test does not rely on any proprietary equipment from Yale and can use a variety of commercially available testing components, it can be assembled and used in high-complexity labs throughout the country, provided they comply with the conditions of authorization in the EUA....
Oxford is rolling out its own testing service, but the current plan seems to be only for symptomatic students and staff. Results supposed to be back in 24 hours. This could be useful in preventing the usual colds and flu from panicking everyone, but it probably won't do a lot to reduce CV transmission.
I'm sure they have the capability to do pooled saliva testing en masse, and the maths does show that this could make a big difference to spread, but University leaderships are no more competent than government ministers so...
--AS
The marginal cost of pooled tests (on top of the lab overhead) would be around 50p per head. It seems an absolute no brainer to me, as it ought to be a great deal easier to set up than the existing rigmarole.
Of course, the haulage disagreement with the EU shows us that the UK is not after a Canada-style deal.
Well that tunnel under the Atlantic is not quite finished yet, is it?
Exactly, David. We were not, are not and never will be Canada. Thus, we need more from the EU than Canada does, so they will need more from us.
Strangely, international trade tends to follow an inverse square law with distance between countries, and Canada is bleeding miles away. A bit like gravity and electricity, since we are discussing physics, and probably other stuff I've forgotten.
But the US is our biggest single market and it is as far away as Canada.
And even if this was true traditionally where freight costs of physical goods would be a material consideration, I do wonder if it is in an age where so much of what we trade are pixels (Russel Kirsch RIP).
The Single Market is our biggest single market. Our trade relationship to it is very different tot he one we have with the US. You are right, though, that it is in digital services where the UK can best prosper from here on in.
I know the Nats make much of Ruth Davidson not holding surgeries but what do they make of this? At least Ruthie D turns up to Holyrood and participates...
I’m still puzzled about the apparent aversion to “grade inflation” and why Williams demanded that it be avoided. This year’s cohort are the first to have taken the new, more rigorous GCSE specifications - where these more academically demanding qualifications not meant to lead to higher pass rates at A level? If not, why not?
Old uns dont like young uns having better grades than them. Old uns are in charge.
In 1973 the standard grades offered for entry to top universities in popular subjects was around BBC. The course for which I got that offer now asks A*AA, and they take 6 times more people than in those far off days. So I think us older ones have got used to it by now. Naturally young people are much cleverer than we were.
I did A-levels in the 80s. Off feel the average pupil now probably does 2-3x the amount of homework and revision compared to the average pupil in my day. They take it more seriously, have better teachers, access to a wider variety of teaching media to find what suits them best so they should get better grades without being significantly cleverer than we were.
I had a friend about twenty years ago who was adamant that it was pure grade inflation and waxed lyrical about it. Then his sister became a teacher.
He looked into it in a lot more depth and ended up with a far more nuanced outlook. According to him, the grade inflation seemed comprised of multiple things:
- Changed teaching methods. The teachers now spent a lot longer on structuring their lessons to optimise different learning techniques and ensure coverage. The work done by teachers outside of lessons is staggering. - Significantly increased homework and coursework. The pupils genuinely do more work than we did. - More targeted learning. The Department of Education and Ofqual all set things up so that any time you spent that isn't teaching directly to the test is wasteful and discouraged. - Improved facilities and teaching media. This feeds into the different learning techniques. - (At the time): retakes. He was originally extremely skeptical about the value of retakes ("Just keep going until you get the result you want"), but he did a 180 on these ("Any test where luck has enough of a part that you can just try repeatedly until you roll sixes isn't a test that's worth the name"). The retakes reduced the random aspect of sitting tests (One bad day in two years, emotional damage, minor fuckup that ends up changing your life, etc). - Plus a small element of genuine grade inflation, which was different in different subjects. That, however, was all most people focused on, because it was the easiest to grasp.
However - the reduction in the content of the syllabus is another very important factor. Even in 1990 I was shown a 4 page summary of the content withdrawn from the Physics A level course I was taking, It was not replaced by anything else. Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
Physics is an interesting example. My son did Higher Physics last year and much of what he did was not in the syllabus when I did it. There was far more about Einsteinian physics, gravity and space. Indeed the Physics teacher said that much of the course was material that he had covered in first and second year at University and he is only in his 30s.
No doubt a lot of this stuff I did has been taken out. There is a lot less emphasis on using trolleys to calculate acceleration rates, less on lenses and light and probably more that I have long since forgotten. I would really hesitate to say that the content was less overall though.
Do you mean GCSE Higher physics or Scottish Highers physics?
Scottish Higher.
OIC
I have to agree that the A Level courses nowadays do contain a fair amount of what I was studying at university in year 1/2 during the 80s. This has meant the nowadays reduction in coverage of lenses, mutual induction, and electronics ( I did a nuffield A level!!) I also remember doing a lot more planetary mechanics then. I also remember covering a lot about structures of materials (which was good for engineering I suppose).
Oh lord I had forgotten the series and parallel circuits. So tedious. I think my son touched on that but we spent ages building them.
As a retired teacher I lament the reduction in time spent on series/parallel circuits! I also lament the lack of electronics now, i.e. digital logic gates, operational amplifiers etc. They have been stolen by the D&T subjects!!
Yes, capacitors, amplifiers, transistors, its all coming back now, shudder.
And its all completely irrelevant now as its been superseded. The number of people that now need to know that stuff is incredibly small.
Comments
(I do not exclude myself from this.)
I am not asking for anything like equal coverage but the chaos in Wales and demands for resignations are not covered at all, making it look like only Williamson is in trouble when that is not the case
Indeed John Swinney's resignation demands were widely covered
Do you ever think before committing to word
In all statistics and analysis, if there is a single event that's known to be uncharacteristic or incomparable, you remove it from the data. Simply remove this years results from any comparison or such analysis - because to use them for any comparison or analysis would be explicitly wrong statistically.
Very simple things like allowing outside validation of their statistical approach (something they explicitly refused despite several requests) would have prevented, or at the very least mitigated the whole debacle at an early stage.
No one is asking for omniscience; not even great expertise.
Mere competence would be do.
Better would be a return to normal lessons, with teachers rather than children moving between classrooms, and some sort of structured break for exercise as well, perhaps with the children moving to the room next door where possible, or at least standing and stretching.
Another factor is the sheer emphasis on learning exactly what is needed to pass the exam, not on anything that adds depth. We feel this keenly at Uni where students continually ask 'is this in the exam?'. Very frustrating, but its what they have been brought up with.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/18/science/foot-surveying-metrology-dennis.html
One big reason Wales is less likely to become independent than Scotland is geography. There are large Welsh population centres close to the English border with large English population centres close by on the other side.
The Scottish central belt is much further from the English border, and Newcastle is similarly far away on the English side.
This is one reason why the Welsh electorate is closer to England and voted to Leave the EU.
The same happens in business. If you incentivise on KPIs, they are going to be targeted and screw any other consequences.
That’s the problem with standardised comparisons. If you know the algorithm, you can ALWAYS get an advantage.
https://twitter.com/murdo_fraser/status/1296010985430548481?s=20
First rule of economics: incentives matter. If we measure their value by their exam result, then they will rationally focus on their exam result. Any diversion will detract from that. They may have a better rounded and deeper grasp of the subject, but how would they prove it? If the concentration of effort boosts them from a B to an A, then that can make a massive difference in the onward trajectory of their life.
If we want to use these exams for this purpose, then that is what will rationally happen.
The asymmetric structure that balances the interests and representation of two and a half geographical regions and three linguistic communities is actually quite elegant.
comparable
/ˈkɒmp(ə)rəb(ə)l/
adjective
able to be likened to another; similar.
"the situation in Holland is comparable to that in England"
You had already set (which I agreed with) the ratio of 1/18. If under your own logic the coverage of Wales was comparable to the coverage of England then 1/18th of the coverage dedicated to Williamson should have been dedicated to Williamson's Welsh counterpart.
Has that happened, yes or no?
Is it Gavin's fault?
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/scotland/2020/08/scotland-s-dreaming-why-snp-appears-unstoppable
No doubt a lot of this stuff I did has been taken out. There is a lot less emphasis on using trolleys to calculate acceleration rates, less on lenses and light and probably more that I have long since forgotten. I would really hesitate to say that the content was less overall though.
They were clearly incapable of seeing what was in front of their nose...
Russell Kirsch, inventor of the pixel, dies in his Portland home at age 91
https://www.dpreview.com/news/2623782158/russell-kirsch-inventor-of-the-pixel-dies-in-his-portland-home-at-age-91
https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2020/08/why-williamson-should-be-moved-now.html
I'm sure they have the capability to do pooled saliva testing en masse, and the maths does show that this could make a big difference to spread, but University leaderships are no more competent than government ministers so...
--AS
What's critical for the blues is to oust the imbecile and get a vaguely competent leader.
I have to agree that the A Level courses nowadays do contain a fair amount of what I was studying at university in year 1/2 during the 80s. This has meant the nowadays reduction in coverage of lenses, mutual induction, and electronics ( I did a nuffield A level!!) I also remember doing a lot more planetary mechanics then. I also remember covering a lot about structures of materials (which was good for engineering I suppose).
IF the tories are vulnerable, its from the populist right. Get Brexit wrong and the BP would take 10 per cent off them overnight. And that would just be the start.
Finally the BJ boosters have found a populist slogan to get the rest of the nation(s) aboard. BJ's ratings in Scotland might even go below -50% once it gains common currency.
Take back control!
Austerity by stealth
However much of the M.Pharm curriculum is equally unrecognisable to me, who did the professional equivalent in 1961.
And that's because the science has moved on. I'm always impressed by the science young people know, having also picked up the basics of what we did.
Believe me I saw a lot of tricks when looking at universities - mainly because I love finding them..
The British chambers of commerce says trading conditions have improved only modestly since the end of lockdown.
Well Duuuuhhhh what did Sunak and co expect?
https://twitter.com/Soupelina/status/1296021753068691457?s=20
Edit, copying the headline into a new private window worked fine.
https://twitter.com/DanielFerrie/status/1295703716302135296
Johnson's government has achieved the spectacular feat of uniting twitter against it
https://twitter.com/MrJohnNicolson/status/1296024836888829953?s=20
And even if this was true traditionally where freight costs of physical goods would be a material consideration, I do wonder if it is in an age where so much of what we trade are pixels (Russel Kirsch RIP).
https://twitter.com/pongosapien/status/1295673184423944194?s=20
Harding’s appointment comes as the NHS has launched its Covid-19 app on the Isle of Wight.
https://www.digitalhealth.net/2020/05/baroness-dido-harding-appointed-to-lead-nhs-covid-19-app/