Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Next year they'll say it's not fair to have lower grades than this year - especially as those children will also have had their work interrupted by virus.
So you're then in a position of prizes for everyone and a completely meaningless exam system.
That then means employers just set their own tests to determine who really is capable.
Next year they'll say it's not fair to have lower grades than this year - especially as those children will also have had their work interrupted by virus.
So you're then in a position of prizes for everyone and a completely meaningless exam system.
That then means employers just set their own tests to determine who really is capable.
Youy're forgetting that the results still rank people, and there are dates on the certificates.
Either the system will revert to the pre-virus procedures and no comparable special treatment, which is rough justice of sorts but a special case (as, it must be said, so much else to do with the virus). Or the system needs to be reviewed in its approach to grading. It will be very interesting to see what the promised review in Scotland does.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Its been claimed that France and Germany accept many more seekers than the UK though, so these are the ones presumably who are not successful in their applications.....???
Next year they'll say it's not fair to have lower grades than this year - especially as those children will also have had their work interrupted by virus.
So you're then in a position of prizes for everyone and a completely meaningless exam system.
That then means employers just set their own tests to determine who really is capable.
Which employers are these who are recruiting non-graduates and who care how much the new man in sales can remember about Tudor monarchs or the photoelectric effect? That's the sad truth for school-leavers: none of it matters very much and in a few years, it won't matter at all.
Next year they'll say it's not fair to have lower grades than this year - especially as those children will also have had their work interrupted by virus.
So you're then in a position of prizes for everyone and a completely meaningless exam system.
That then means employers just set their own tests to determine who really is capable.
Youy're forgetting that the results still rank people, and there are dates on the certificates.
Either the system will revert to the pre-virus procedures and no comparable special treatment, which is rough justice of sorts but a special case (as, it must be said, so much else to do with the virus). Or the system needs to be reviewed in its approach to grading. It will be very interesting to see what the promised review in Scotland does.
Option B.
The point is that this has shown with brutal clarity that the people running our exam systems are morons.
Now those of us who have worked for them - as I have - and seen their incompetence up close knew that already.
But as of this moment, everyone knows are exams are controlled by people who cannot manage simple quality control processes or basic statistics.
How does that affect the credibility of exams going forward? Hint - not positively.
So I do not see how either OFQUAL or the SQA or indeed the direct exam boards survive this fiasco. They already looked shaky enough even before today’s announcement (and given the way England’s results are set up, I am 99% sure Williamson will have to follow suit here).
That might well be a good thing. But it does depend on what replaces them.
FPT Theuniondivvie said: » show previous quotes As a matter of interest what was your solution to this year's exam situation? If I missed it amongst all the sound and the fury, apologies.
I said: The point of an external exam system is to have some form of external, objective assessment. That is what the exams usually achieve. What was required for each student was their prelim plus, say, a maximum of 2 pieces of course work that someone could look at externally and assess. Had they done that then the marking would have focused on the child, not on the system.
By using the algorithm, and now by using the unmediated teacher assessments, there is no external assessment at all. The exam results are therefore as credible as the HNC and HND "results" now handed out by colleges.
At least in England we shall benefit from Gavin Williamson bringing his impressive expertise, maturity, independence of thought, and depth of understanding of matters educational to bear over the next difficult couple of weeks.
At least in England we shall benefit from Gavin Williamson bringing his impressive expertise, maturity, independence of thought, and depth of understanding of matters educational to bear over the next difficult couple of weeks.
He is certainly, in Sir Humphrey’s phrase, possessed of enviable intellectual suppleness and moral manoeuvrability.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Its been claimed that France and Germany accept many more seekers than the UK though, so these are the ones presumably who are not successful in their applications.....???
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Thanks. So the genuine asylum seekers paying silly money to traffickers for an inflatable dinghy would be far better off just getting on the first flight from [insert random airport here].
If you debase a currency, it doesn't buy you any more than it would have done before.
That's the really shocking thing about this fiasco. Everyone is focusing on these people whose results were marked down, no one is focusing on every child in Scotland who have been robbed today of the value of their certificates.
USA Dem VP betting -- Rice favourite and Demings third-best following @TheKitchenCabinet's post on the previous thread about the DNC speakers' schedule.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Its been claimed that France and Germany accept many more seekers than the UK though, so these are the ones presumably who are not successful in their applications.....???
Quite possible the french and german's have an unofficial policy of encouraging selected migrants to apply. IE those with skills and discourage the rest. Not saying they do but I would be able to see the attraction then encourage the others to go to calais etc.
In the talk of migrants in the last thread I did notice one thing which was glaring by its omission. There was lots of talk of fair share and fair to migrants. No talk of what was fair to the people of this country. The ones who have to pay for it all even though a lot are barely scraping by, or the ones that have continuously been pushed down housing lists as more needy people entered above them. The people having to rent homes not actually big enough because competition for housing has pushed rents up or have to endure the infrastructure we have which isn't good enough to serve those already here.
Strange that people never mention these people when arguing we should let even more people in. It's almost as if it won't really affect them. They aren't applying for council housing 3p on the basic income tax won't be missed. They have a home and a mortgage and are quite content they won't need to compete for suitable rented accommodation where the rent actually costs more than the mortgage they supposedly can't afford. It won't be their kids taught in schools which have multilingual classes moving slowly because the grasp of english isn't good enough.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Its been claimed that France and Germany accept many more seekers than the UK though, so these are the ones presumably who are not successful in their applications.....???
France receives about ten times as many asylum applications as we do per year, c/300,000.
The French government strategy for them is to encourage as many as possible to leave the country before the French government has to make a decision. So, you put them in camps in shitty parts of the country with no jobs, and which are near other countries where they will hopefully self deport to.
Of the 300,000, perhaps 50-75,000 will attempt to leave France for Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden and the UK. And perhaps 10% of them (c. 6,000/year) try to come to the UK - which is seen as (a) an better place to be an immigrant (generally), and (b) is a place where they are going to find it easier, as they probably speak English already.
Edit: my numbers are out of date. At the peak of the European migration crisis, France was up to close to 300,000 asylum seekers a year, but it has since fallen to 125,000. Scale my numbers accordingly.
If you debase a currency, it doesn't buy you any more than it would have done before.
That's the really shocking thing about this fiasco. Everyone is focusing on these people whose results were marked down, no one is focusing on every child in Scotland who have been robbed today of the value of their certificates.
Two wrongs are very much not making a right here.
But I am afraid this was inevitable the moment exams were cancelled without thought being given as to what could replace them.
Edit - I think it would have been less of an issue if they hadn’t previously said teacher gradings were not credible. Now they’re saying their replacement was less credible. This way lies madnes.
At least in England we shall benefit from Gavin Williamson bringing his impressive expertise, maturity, independence of thought, and depth of understanding of matters educational to bear over the next difficult couple of weeks.
He is certainly, in Sir Humphrey’s phrase, possessed of enviable intellectual suppleness and moral manoeuvrability.
Loose, rather than supple, I think ?
And perhaps imbecility, in place of manoeuvrability.
Next year they'll say it's not fair to have lower grades than this year - especially as those children will also have had their work interrupted by virus.
So you're then in a position of prizes for everyone and a completely meaningless exam system.
That then means employers just set their own tests to determine who really is capable.
Youy're forgetting that the results still rank people, and there are dates on the certificates.
Either the system will revert to the pre-virus procedures and no comparable special treatment, which is rough justice of sorts but a special case (as, it must be said, so much else to do with the virus). Or the system needs to be reviewed in its approach to grading. It will be very interesting to see what the promised review in Scotland does.
Option B.
The point is that this has shown with brutal clarity that the people running our exam systems are morons.
Now those of us who have worked for them - as I have - and seen their incompetence up close knew that already.
But as of this moment, everyone knows are exams are controlled by people who cannot manage simple quality control processes or basic statistics.
How does that affect the credibility of exams going forward? Hint - not positively.
So I do not see how either OFQUAL or the SQA or indeed the direct exam boards survive this fiasco. They already looked shaky enough even before today’s announcement (and given the way England’s results are set up, I am 99% sure Williamson will have to follow suit here).
That might well be a good thing. But it does depend on what replaces them.
The usual way of things is that the replacement has a different name but is just as competent as the old organisation.
They were in an impossible situation though. If the estimated results had looked anything like normal it would have been easier to look the other way.
Many teachers must have known they were over-estimating, but presumably didn't want to harm anyone's chances 'just in case'.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Its been claimed that France and Germany accept many more seekers than the UK though, so these are the ones presumably who are not successful in their applications.....???
France receives about ten times as many asylum applications as we do per year, c/300,000.
The French government strategy for them is to encourage as many as possible to leave the country before the French government has to make a decision. So, you put them in camps in shitty parts of the country with no jobs, and which are near other countries where they will hopefully self deport to.
Of the 300,000, perhaps 50-75,000 will attempt to leave France for Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden and the UK. And perhaps 10% of them (c. 6,000/year) try to come to the UK - which is seen as (a) an better place to be an immigrant (generally), and (b) is a place where they are going to find it easier, as they probably speak English already.
Edit: my numbers are out of date. At the peak of the European migration crisis, France was up to close to 300,000 asylum seekers a year, but it has since fallen to 125,000. Scale my numbers accordingly.
So its a sort of SAS boot camp selection. If you can survive long enough in the poor conditions we offer you to force us to make a decision, you're in.
The Migrants from France live in a country of peace, freedom and relative prosperity.
Migrants from Hong Kong don't. They are under a yoke of oppression that gets heavier by the day and we are partly responsible because they were once our colony.
Our duty to them far outweighs our duty to those who love in peace and freedom in France.
We should do all we can to help both groups.
I don't think we have any obligation to people who live in foreign countries that are peaceful, free and prosperous. None whatsoever.
I've not got a huge problem with the principle that the country of first safe arrival should process the asylum application.
But I would say that coming from Britain due to the advantageous geography. Were I from Turkey, I'd have a massive problem with it as, I am sure, would you. And indeed Turkey gets many, many times the applications we do.
However, the false claim is that the asylum seeker himself is acting unlawfully by putting in an application in a country other than the one in which he first sets foot. That's simply a lie put about by people who should know better.
What is required is more effective agreements between states, which presumably would come at a cost to geographically advantaged countries like the UK, Ireland, and Denmark, as there is little incentive for countries on the Med in playing ball with the UK dumping people back wherever they reckon they might have passed through.
Imagine a world where asylum seekers are pooled and redistributed irrespective of where they made the claim. You’d be fucked off royally to end up in Iceland!
But I do agree with your general point. It’s why I fully support the 0.7% foreign aid budget, even if I might not always agree with how it is spent.
Iceland is one step up from St. Helena, which was the proposal (later said to be a joke but for all the world reading like it was deadly serious) from one contributor here.
Iceland is very far from being St Helena. It's a small country but very economically developed etc.
The proposal to pool refugees and take them from camps near the conflict zones is a good one. A pity that it was not done.
The people crossing the channel are mostly economic migrants. "Mostly" because such things are not black and white (ha). Many are leaving a fucked up country, where they could stay....
Iceland is a jackpot for anyone seeking a new country. For one thing, they have enough geothermal energy to keep heating costs low and enough left over to heat the pavements in downtown Reykjavik! Lots of lovely space if you want it, stunning scenery, decent entertainment options and you can easily get by with speaking English.
But the food? I have never seen an Icelandic restaurant.
It's fine. Stay away from fermented shark, though, only tourists are stupid enough to try it.
EDIT: Having read further, I see it's already been mentioned....
Next year they'll say it's not fair to have lower grades than this year - especially as those children will also have had their work interrupted by virus.
So you're then in a position of prizes for everyone and a completely meaningless exam system.
That then means employers just set their own tests to determine who really is capable.
Youy're forgetting that the results still rank people, and there are dates on the certificates.
Either the system will revert to the pre-virus procedures and no comparable special treatment, which is rough justice of sorts but a special case (as, it must be said, so much else to do with the virus). Or the system needs to be reviewed in its approach to grading. It will be very interesting to see what the promised review in Scotland does.
Option B.
The point is that this has shown with brutal clarity that the people running our exam systems are morons.
Now those of us who have worked for them - as I have - and seen their incompetence up close knew that already.
But as of this moment, everyone knows are exams are controlled by people who cannot manage simple quality control processes or basic statistics.
How does that affect the credibility of exams going forward? Hint - not positively.
So I do not see how either OFQUAL or the SQA or indeed the direct exam boards survive this fiasco. They already looked shaky enough even before today’s announcement (and given the way England’s results are set up, I am 99% sure Williamson will have to follow suit here).
That might well be a good thing. But it does depend on what replaces them.
The usual way of things is that the replacement has a different name but is just as competent as the old organisation.
They were in an impossible situation though. If the estimated results had looked anything like normal it would have been easier to look the other way.
Many teachers must have known they were over-estimating, but presumably didn't want to harm anyone's chances 'just in case'.
You can see the logic all round - no harm in pushing things a bit. As I said last week the issue was the lack of a first round feedback loop.
SQA should have asked for the results, run their statistics and gone back and said please try again as you seem to be x% wrong. And then used that second set of results.
The fact they didn't do that and the result then looked so politically bad made this outcome virtually unavoidable.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
USA Dem VP betting -- Rice favourite and Demings third-best following @TheKitchenCabinet's post on the previous thread about the DNC speakers' schedule.
Susan Rice: 2.4 Kamala Harris: 2.58...
Is too much perhaps being read into that; has Rice ever given a DNC speech before ?
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
It would be genuinely interesting to know how many of Merkel's million are still in Germany, where they are housed, and how they are doing.
In his pantomime mendacity, he managed to reveal what had been shrouded in politeness before: British weakness, European incoherence, and Chinese power. The president might have created new ways of winning and losing, but in the end he did not build a new world—he exposed the nature of the one that already existed.
Next year they'll say it's not fair to have lower grades than this year - especially as those children will also have had their work interrupted by virus.
So you're then in a position of prizes for everyone and a completely meaningless exam system.
That then means employers just set their own tests to determine who really is capable.
Youy're forgetting that the results still rank people, and there are dates on the certificates.
Either the system will revert to the pre-virus procedures and no comparable special treatment, which is rough justice of sorts but a special case (as, it must be said, so much else to do with the virus). Or the system needs to be reviewed in its approach to grading. It will be very interesting to see what the promised review in Scotland does.
Option B.
The point is that this has shown with brutal clarity that the people running our exam systems are morons.
Now those of us who have worked for them - as I have - and seen their incompetence up close knew that already.
But as of this moment, everyone knows are exams are controlled by people who cannot manage simple quality control processes or basic statistics.
How does that affect the credibility of exams going forward? Hint - not positively.
So I do not see how either OFQUAL or the SQA or indeed the direct exam boards survive this fiasco. They already looked shaky enough even before today’s announcement (and given the way England’s results are set up, I am 99% sure Williamson will have to follow suit here).
That might well be a good thing. But it does depend on what replaces them.
The usual way of things is that the replacement has a different name but is just as competent as the old organisation.
They were in an impossible situation though. If the estimated results had looked anything like normal it would have been easier to look the other way.
Many teachers must have known they were over-estimating, but presumably didn't want to harm anyone's chances 'just in case'.
You can see the logic all round - no harm in pushing things a bit. As I said last week the issue was the lack of a first round feedback loop.
SQA should have asked for the results, run their statistics and gone back and said please try again as you seem to be x% wrong. And then used that second set of results.
The fact they didn't do that and the result then looked so politically bad made this outcome virtually unavoidable.
Yes, that would have been the way to do it. Have a 'chat' with all those whose estimated grades seemed to be a long way out of line (positive or negative), and find out why.
It is odd that more than one government failed to spot this oncoming train.
after COVID and working from home taking over, its only a matter of time, surely, before London has a defund the police style mayor of the type we see in US cities now.
The usual way of things is that the replacement has a different name but is just as competent as the old organisation.
They were in an impossible situation though. If the estimated results had looked anything like normal it would have been easier to look the other way.
Many teachers must have known they were over-estimating, but presumably didn't want to harm anyone's chances 'just in case'
The problem is we were told to predict what people were likely to get.
Always, in any given year, statistics are brought down by students who for whatever reason bomb in the exams. So I can recall cases of somebody whose father died on the morning of the exam (and didn’t tell us) others who were ill, still others who failed to revise because they thought a good grade was in the bag, those who forgot to set the alarm so missed breakfast, etc. etc.
But we can’t know who they are, until it happens.
Now in my particular case because I had quite small numbers of students I did know who was and wasn’t likely to bomb, and could adjust accordingly. In a a subject with a cohort of 300, that would have been much harder.
The problem with these randomised algorithms is they apply a statistical basis to something that has no statistical basis. You can’t use mathematics to predict which student will get drunk the night before.
This was compounded by the fact that statistics do indicate this was a brighter than average year - after my blazing row with that idiot, I checked their SATS scores and they were 5% up on the year before. That matched with their target grades as I had them for my students.
So we did what we were told, only to be told that OFQUAL didn’t like the result so would do something even sillier that nobody with a brain would have even attempted.
If they had had any sense, they would have sent the results back with a ‘try again’ so at least those of us who knew them would be setting the grades, not a bunch of unintelligent failures with a misleading computer programme. Or asked for evidence. They did neither. They absolutely own this catastrophe.
Hopefully they will all end up driving vans for Amazon rather than ruining children’s futures, but they would probably get lost leaving the warehouse so that in itself would be a poor solution.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
It would be genuinely interesting to know how many of Merkel's million are still in Germany, where they are housed, and how they are doing.
It would. Causing much crime, overcrowding, social unease and tension? Or integrating pretty well and in the early stages of a sustained, long term contribution to an economy under pressure to support an ageing indigenous population?
The usual way of things is that the replacement has a different name but is just as competent as the old organisation.
They were in an impossible situation though. If the estimated results had looked anything like normal it would have been easier to look the other way.
Many teachers must have known they were over-estimating, but presumably didn't want to harm anyone's chances 'just in case'
The problem is we were told to predict what people were likely to get.
Always, in any given year, statistics are brought down by students who for whatever reason bomb in the exams. So I can recall cases of somebody whose father died on the morning of the exam (and didn’t tell us) others who were ill, still others who failed to revise because they thought a good grade was in the bag, those who forgot to set the alarm so missed breakfast, etc. etc.
But we can’t know who they are, until it happens.
Now in my particular case because I had quite small numbers of students I did know who was and wasn’t likely to bomb, and could adjust accordingly. In a a subject with a cohort of 300, that would have been much harder.
The problem with these randomised algorithms is they apply a statistical basis to something that has no statistical basis. You can’t use mathematics to predict which student will get drunk the night before.
This was compounded by the fact that statistics do indicate this was a brighter than average year - after my blazing row with that idiot, I checked their SATS scores and they were 5% up on the year before. That matched with their target grades as I had them for my students.
So we did what we were told, only to be told that OFQUAL didn’t like the result so would do something even sillier that nobody with a brain would have even attempted.
If they had had any sense, they would have sent the results back with a ‘try again’ so at least those of us who knew them would be setting the grades, not a bunch of unintelligent failures with a misleading computer programme. Or asked for evidence. They did neither. They absolutely own this catastrophe.
Hopefully they will all end up driving vans for Amazon rather than ruining children’s futures, but they would probably get lost leaving the warehouse so that in itself would be a poor solution.
What I don't understand is this - were Ofqual really comparing year on year small sample sizes of maybe 10 or fewer?
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
It would be genuinely interesting to know how many of Merkel's million are still in Germany, where they are housed, and how they are doing.
It would. Causing much crime, overcrowding, social unease and tension? Or integrating pretty well and in the early stages of a sustained, long term contribution to an economy under pressure to support an ageing indigenous population?
A German acquaintance of mine got involved in teaching at least one of the migrants the language but I never did ask her how everything went.
She is a single woman in here fifties and so all may not have been what it seemed!
Swinney withdraws all downgraded awards. All to be based on teacher assessments. Quite the climb down. Also increased grades left in place.
PRIZES FOR ALL
(dear lord that's a catastrophic call ... )
Yep - and it's going to cause problems if England doesn't do the same...
For university admissions? They already do different exams, so it might just come down to the universities themselves applying a model of their own.
You missed the bit earlier today where Universities have been told to keep places open for inevitable appeals.
Was that all UK universities or just Scottish ones?
Either way, it is going to be carnage.
This is going to be a motorway pileup that undermined a mainline bridge, causing four trains to plummet to destruction on the wreckage, before a Boeing 747 crashed on the confusion, topped off by a series of nuclear tipped tomahawk missiles.
It is going to be awful beyond belief.
But if the U turn has happened there seems to be less need for appeals anyway? Or am I missing something?
No sign of any u-turn for England. Only Scotland so far.
Be reasonable, they need to actually announce results before they can u-turn on them.
The usual way of things is that the replacement has a different name but is just as competent as the old organisation.
They were in an impossible situation though. If the estimated results had looked anything like normal it would have been easier to look the other way.
Many teachers must have known they were over-estimating, but presumably didn't want to harm anyone's chances 'just in case'
The problem is we were told to predict what people were likely to get.
Always, in any given year, statistics are brought down by students who for whatever reason bomb in the exams. So I can recall cases of somebody whose father died on the morning of the exam (and didn’t tell us) others who were ill, still others who failed to revise because they thought a good grade was in the bag, those who forgot to set the alarm so missed breakfast, etc. etc.
But we can’t know who they are, until it happens.
Now in my particular case because I had quite small numbers of students I did know who was and wasn’t likely to bomb, and could adjust accordingly. In a a subject with a cohort of 300, that would have been much harder.
The problem with these randomised algorithms is they apply a statistical basis to something that has no statistical basis. You can’t use mathematics to predict which student will get drunk the night before.
This was compounded by the fact that statistics do indicate this was a brighter than average year - after my blazing row with that idiot, I checked their SATS scores and they were 5% up on the year before. That matched with their target grades as I had them for my students.
So we did what we were told, only to be told that OFQUAL didn’t like the result so would do something even sillier that nobody with a brain would have even attempted.
If they had had any sense, they would have sent the results back with a ‘try again’ so at least those of us who knew them would be setting the grades, not a bunch of unintelligent failures with a misleading computer programme. Or asked for evidence. They did neither. They absolutely own this catastrophe.
Hopefully they will all end up driving vans for Amazon rather than ruining children’s futures, but they would probably get lost leaving the warehouse so that in itself would be a poor solution.
What I don't understand is this - were Ofqual really comparing year on year small sample sizes of maybe 10 or fewer?
No. Only of 15 or more. 5-15 was a mixture, 4 or fewer teacher grades only.*
But as they could only realistically compare with one year, it wasn’t even worth the effort of trying statistical modelling even if it hadn’t been invalid for other reasons, frankly.
*According to whistleblowers. OFQUAL have issued denials but they’re all over the place on them. I believe the whistleblowers.
Better for the Tories that they lose in the first round as Khan gets 50%, or that it goes to the second round? It could just increase the difference between them and Labour.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
It would be genuinely interesting to know how many of Merkel's million are still in Germany, where they are housed, and how they are doing.
It would. Causing much crime, overcrowding, social unease and tension? Or integrating pretty well and in the early stages of a sustained, long term contribution to an economy under pressure to support an ageing indigenous population?
If you debase a currency, it doesn't buy you any more than it would have done before.
That's the really shocking thing about this fiasco. Everyone is focusing on these people whose results were marked down, no one is focusing on every child in Scotland who have been robbed today of the value of their certificates.
Perhaps that will come in time. In the short term, at the least, it silences those with the loudest grievances, which is likely why England will presumably do the same.
The usual way of things is that the replacement has a different name but is just as competent as the old organisation.
They were in an impossible situation though. If the estimated results had looked anything like normal it would have been easier to look the other way.
Many teachers must have known they were over-estimating, but presumably didn't want to harm anyone's chances 'just in case'
The problem is we were told to predict what people were likely to get.
Always, in any given year, statistics are brought down by students who for whatever reason bomb in the exams. So I can recall cases of somebody whose father died on the morning of the exam (and didn’t tell us) others who were ill, still others who failed to revise because they thought a good grade was in the bag, those who forgot to set the alarm so missed breakfast, etc. etc.
But we can’t know who they are, until it happens.
Now in my particular case because I had quite small numbers of students I did know who was and wasn’t likely to bomb, and could adjust accordingly. In a a subject with a cohort of 300, that would have been much harder.
The problem with these randomised algorithms is they apply a statistical basis to something that has no statistical basis. You can’t use mathematics to predict which student will get drunk the night before.
This was compounded by the fact that statistics do indicate this was a brighter than average year - after my blazing row with that idiot, I checked their SATS scores and they were 5% up on the year before. That matched with their target grades as I had them for my students.
So we did what we were told, only to be told that OFQUAL didn’t like the result so would do something even sillier that nobody with a brain would have even attempted.
If they had had any sense, they would have sent the results back with a ‘try again’ so at least those of us who knew them would be setting the grades, not a bunch of unintelligent failures with a misleading computer programme. Or asked for evidence. They did neither. They absolutely own this catastrophe.
Hopefully they will all end up driving vans for Amazon rather than ruining children’s futures, but they would probably get lost leaving the warehouse so that in itself would be a poor solution.
So, if you were to take results from the 'multiverse', you were asked for the mode for each pupil whereas the exam board really wanted the mean.
And yes (as Eek also pointed out), a 'try again' or 'are you sure?' would have been the obvious thing to do.
Interesting to see the impact on the next round of Scottish polling. This seems to be the first major Sturgeon/SNP blunder for some time.
Blunders only tend to help if there is a willingness to reward another side. That may prove trickier, particularly as it'll look no better over the border.
USA Dem VP betting -- Rice favourite and Demings third-best following @TheKitchenCabinet's post on the previous thread about the DNC speakers' schedule.
Susan Rice: 2.4 Kamala Harris: 2.58...
Is too much perhaps being read into that; has Rice ever given a DNC speech before ?
I don't think so, if anything Harris' price hasn't perhaps headed out as much as it should have. She's probably got the steer that she isn't the VP candidate so is speaking Thursday. It might not mean anything but alternatively it might mean something. The unlisted outsider speakers might be the best value of all but laying Harris was a simpler plan for me. As it's all at Biden's whims the stakes for me are way less than on the main event.
Data late due to technical difficulties, could indicate they are doing the big update to bring reporting in line with the other home nations and Europe and putting a 28 day recovery filter on deaths.
Swinney withdraws all downgraded awards. All to be based on teacher assessments. Quite the climb down. Also increased grades left in place.
PRIZES FOR ALL
(dear lord that's a catastrophic call ... )
Yep - and it's going to cause problems if England doesn't do the same...
For university admissions? They already do different exams, so it might just come down to the universities themselves applying a model of their own.
You missed the bit earlier today where Universities have been told to keep places open for inevitable appeals.
Was that all UK universities or just Scottish ones?
Either way, it is going to be carnage.
This is going to be a motorway pileup that undermined a mainline bridge, causing four trains to plummet to destruction on the wreckage, before a Boeing 747 crashed on the confusion, topped off by a series of nuclear tipped tomahawk missiles.
It is going to be awful beyond belief.
But if the U turn has happened there seems to be less need for appeals anyway? Or am I missing something?
No sign of any u-turn for England. Only Scotland so far.
Be reasonable, they need to actually announce results before they can u-turn on them.
Schools find out tomorrow, although we don’t get the UCAS decisions until after 7am on Thursday, so we have to guess how bad it is.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.
Data late due to technical difficulties, could indicate they are doing the big update to bring reporting in line with the other home nations and Europe and putting a 28 day recovery filter on deaths.
That was my thoughts....
I hope so. And hope they will start the API feed, as well
USA Dem VP betting -- Rice favourite and Demings third-best following @TheKitchenCabinet's post on the previous thread about the DNC speakers' schedule.
Susan Rice: 2.4 Kamala Harris: 2.58...
Is too much perhaps being read into that; has Rice ever given a DNC speech before ?
I don't think so, if anything Harris' price hasn't perhaps headed out as much as it should have. She's probably got the steer that she isn't the VP candidate so is speaking Thursday. It might not mean anything but alternatively it might mean something. The unlisted outsider speakers might be the best value of all but laying Harris was a simpler plan for me. As it's all at Biden's whims the stakes for me are way less than on the main event.
I think Harris being a speaker on Thursday is a key indicator she is not the VP pick. There is always a risk of reading too much into things but, FWIW, I am with Pulpstar.
Its not my country of course (but plenty comment on USA policy so I think I can here) but the Scottish exam decision today is a disgrace- Whatever the technical rights or wrongs ,politicians should not have this power to retrospectively alter grades .Politicains ultimately make decisions to get or stay elected , its shameful they have done that in this case and altered grades for utlimately this reason
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.
Cameron was brave and principled.
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
There was a rather horrifying survey done of voting intentions among various groups in France, a while back.. The border/immigation services were staggeringly FN....
USA Dem VP betting -- Rice favourite and Demings third-best following @TheKitchenCabinet's post on the previous thread about the DNC speakers' schedule.
Susan Rice: 2.4 Kamala Harris: 2.58...
Is too much perhaps being read into that; has Rice ever given a DNC speech before ?
I've no idea. Nor do I see why someone cannot give two speeches. Stacey Abrams is also not a listed speaker, so far as I could see, to name another who was once tipped for the nomination. However, meaningful or not, it has certainly shifted the market.
I'd guess the next sign will come from American airport-watchers reporting Secret Service agents descending on the home of Rice, Harris or whoever. I'd be grateful if someone can just tell us when Biden's press conferences are scheduled, as no doubt one will be used to make this announcement.
Data late due to technical difficulties, could indicate they are doing the big update to bring reporting in line with the other home nations and Europe and putting a 28 day recovery filter on deaths.
That was my thoughts....
I hope so. And hope they will start the API feed, as well
"Owing to technical difficulties, the data will not be updated until 12 August 2020."
Data late due to technical difficulties, could indicate they are doing the big update to bring reporting in line with the other home nations and Europe and putting a 28 day recovery filter on deaths.
That was my thoughts....
I hope so. And hope they will start the API feed, as well
"Owing to technical difficulties, the data will not be updated until 12 August 2020."
Yes, I think it must be putting the 28 day filter in place but that shouldn't be very difficult.
Data late due to technical difficulties, could indicate they are doing the big update to bring reporting in line with the other home nations and Europe and putting a 28 day recovery filter on deaths.
That was my thoughts....
I hope so. And hope they will start the API feed, as well
"Owing to technical difficulties, the data will not be updated until 12 August 2020."
Yes, I think it must be putting the 28 day filter in place but that shouldn't be very difficult.
I think the problem is the discontinuity in the data - the political fallout for an overnight drop in the numbers will be huge.
The usual way of things is that the replacement has a different name but is just as competent as the old organisation.
They were in an impossible situation though. If the estimated results had looked anything like normal it would have been easier to look the other way.
Many teachers must have known they were over-estimating, but presumably didn't want to harm anyone's chances 'just in case'
The problem is we were told to predict what people were likely to get.
Always, in any given year, statistics are brought down by students who for whatever reason bomb in the exams. So I can recall cases of somebody whose father died on the morning of the exam (and didn’t tell us) others who were ill, still others who failed to revise because they thought a good grade was in the bag, those who forgot to set the alarm so missed breakfast, etc. etc.
But we can’t know who they are, until it happens.
Now in my particular case because I had quite small numbers of students I did know who was and wasn’t likely to bomb, and could adjust accordingly. In a a subject with a cohort of 300, that would have been much harder.
The problem with these randomised algorithms is they apply a statistical basis to something that has no statistical basis. You can’t use mathematics to predict which student will get drunk the night before.
This was compounded by the fact that statistics do indicate this was a brighter than average year - after my blazing row with that idiot, I checked their SATS scores and they were 5% up on the year before. That matched with their target grades as I had them for my students.
So we did what we were told, only to be told that OFQUAL didn’t like the result so would do something even sillier that nobody with a brain would have even attempted.
If they had had any sense, they would have sent the results back with a ‘try again’ so at least those of us who knew them would be setting the grades, not a bunch of unintelligent failures with a misleading computer programme. Or asked for evidence. They did neither. They absolutely own this catastrophe.
Hopefully they will all end up driving vans for Amazon rather than ruining children’s futures, but they would probably get lost leaving the warehouse so that in itself would be a poor solution.
So, if you were to take results from the 'multiverse', you were asked for the mode for each pupil whereas the exam board really wanted the mean.
And yes (as Eek also pointed out), a 'try again' or 'are you sure?' would have been the obvious thing to do.
The US has just stripped Hong Kong of any export privileges:
imported goods produced in Hong Kong, such goods may no longer be marked to indicate “Hong Kong” as their origin, but must be marked to indicate “China.”
I am expecting an update from the German Health Ministry -
"In related news, water is wet"
Russia has more doctors per capita than most European countries, including "our NHS" so I'd imagine this is not a true roll-out as heralded but more a clinical trial by any other name, announced like this in order to give Vladimir Putin bragging rights if it works, and not kill too many Russians if not.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Its been claimed that France and Germany accept many more seekers than the UK though, so these are the ones presumably who are not successful in their applications.....???
We have refugee charities etc trying to make it penis size competition, but it is a policy far more rational and humane to invest heavily in stabilising the source countries and helping those countries retain and benefit from the skills of those economic migrants.
Which is what we have done for many years to a far greater extent than anyone else in Europe - out famous international development operation. Only the small scandi countries are in the same league iirc.
USA Dem VP betting -- Rice favourite and Demings third-best following @TheKitchenCabinet's post on the previous thread about the DNC speakers' schedule.
Susan Rice: 2.4 Kamala Harris: 2.58...
Is too much perhaps being read into that; has Rice ever given a DNC speech before ?
I've no idea. Nor do I see why someone cannot give two speeches....
Me either. A google search failed to turn up a Rice DNC speech, which wasn't entirely a surprise.
I am expecting an update from the German Health Ministry -
"In related news, water is wet"
Russia has more doctors per capita than most European countries, including "our NHS" so I'd imagine this is not a true roll-out as heralded but more a clinical trial by any other name, announced like this in order to give Vladimir Putin bragging rights if it works, and not kill too many Russians if not.
The problem is that the number of doctors in Russia is falling....
Swinney withdraws all downgraded awards. All to be based on teacher assessments. Quite the climb down. Also increased grades left in place.
PRIZES FOR ALL
(dear lord that's a catastrophic call ... )
Yep - and it's going to cause problems if England doesn't do the same...
For university admissions? They already do different exams, so it might just come down to the universities themselves applying a model of their own.
You missed the bit earlier today where Universities have been told to keep places open for inevitable appeals.
Was that all UK universities or just Scottish ones?
Either way, it is going to be carnage.
This is going to be a motorway pileup that undermined a mainline bridge, causing four trains to plummet to destruction on the wreckage, before a Boeing 747 crashed on the confusion, topped off by a series of nuclear tipped tomahawk missiles.
It is going to be awful beyond belief.
But if the U turn has happened there seems to be less need for appeals anyway? Or am I missing something?
No sign of any u-turn for England. Only Scotland so far.
Be reasonable, they need to actually announce results before they can u-turn on them.
I wonder if they are awake enough to learn from the Scottish Gov cockup.
I am expecting an update from the German Health Ministry -
"In related news, water is wet"
Russia has more doctors per capita than most European countries, including "our NHS" so I'd imagine this is not a true roll-out as heralded but more a clinical trial by any other name, announced like this in order to give Vladimir Putin bragging rights if it works, and not kill too many Russians if not.
It will be a bit unfortunate if it kills Doctors....
Data late due to technical difficulties, could indicate they are doing the big update to bring reporting in line with the other home nations and Europe and putting a 28 day recovery filter on deaths.
That was my thoughts....
I hope so. And hope they will start the API feed, as well
"Owing to technical difficulties, the data will not be updated until 12 August 2020."
Yes, I think it must be putting the 28 day filter in place but that shouldn't be very difficult.
I think the problem is the discontinuity in the data - the political fallout for an overnight drop in the numbers will be huge.
Yes, I've heard a 5k drop in the headline figure is about what to expect and daily figures dropping to around 20 per day for all settings by event date rather than the ~50 or so at the moment.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.
Cameron was brave and principled.
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
Seroconversion, with the development of neutralising antibodies to the virus, is up to 90%, which is a significant improvement on PI.
They claim an improved manufacturing process: ...Electron microscopic examination of the samples further verified that the average number of spikes per virion of the viral sample used in phase 2 trial was almost double to those used in phase 1 trial (Fig. 3B). These observations indicated that CoronaVac used in phase 2 trial contained more bona fide immunogens, which explains its better protective immune responses, highlighting the importance of developing an optimum manufacturing process..
Swinney withdraws all downgraded awards. All to be based on teacher assessments. Quite the climb down. Also increased grades left in place.
PRIZES FOR ALL
(dear lord that's a catastrophic call ... )
Yep - and it's going to cause problems if England doesn't do the same...
For university admissions? They already do different exams, so it might just come down to the universities themselves applying a model of their own.
You missed the bit earlier today where Universities have been told to keep places open for inevitable appeals.
Was that all UK universities or just Scottish ones?
Either way, it is going to be carnage.
This is going to be a motorway pileup that undermined a mainline bridge, causing four trains to plummet to destruction on the wreckage, before a Boeing 747 crashed on the confusion, topped off by a series of nuclear tipped tomahawk missiles.
It is going to be awful beyond belief.
But if the U turn has happened there seems to be less need for appeals anyway? Or am I missing something?
No sign of any u-turn for England. Only Scotland so far.
Be reasonable, they need to actually announce results before they can u-turn on them.
I wonder if they are awake enough to learn from the Scottish Gov cockup.
I don't think they have time. I'd suspect the Scottish government decision has made it much more difficult than if they were sticking to their guns, since the pressure to u-turn will be immense, and that Scotland already did wand why have they not reacted similarly right away will be questioned.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
IIRC, between 75 and 80% of claims happen at the UK's international airports. So, if we assume that 30,000 asylum seekers arrive in the UK each year, that means around 6,000 come via the Channel.
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Many votes in being "tough" on this issue. Merkel was imo brave and principled to go the other way.
Merkel was neither brace nor principled. Brave and principled would have been saying Germany would be taking more migrants and offering safe transport to get there. She took the path of least resistance instead and created a darkly Darwinian experiment of survival of the fittest that led to many deaths with no safe transit.
Cameron was brave and principled.
I think it rather telling, whether one supports Merkel's intentions or their consequences or not, that apparently cooperation between nations which is usually stated to be so vital went right out the window and it was deemed ok to act unilaterally in the way she did.
I think PT is absolutely correct on this one. Merkel's behaviour was despicable.
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
I think it pretty reasonable to posit that it was not pure moral goodness that lay behind the decision, as is often implied, and I do think the impacts on other places which had not participated in the decision should be noted given that acting unilaterally is supposedly frowned upon, often by the same people praising Merkel's decision.
Data late due to technical difficulties, could indicate they are doing the big update to bring reporting in line with the other home nations and Europe and putting a 28 day recovery filter on deaths.
That was my thoughts....
I hope so. And hope they will start the API feed, as well
"Owing to technical difficulties, the data will not be updated until 12 August 2020."
Yes, I think it must be putting the 28 day filter in place but that shouldn't be very difficult.
I think the problem is the discontinuity in the data - the political fallout for an overnight drop in the numbers will be huge.
Yes, I've heard a 5k drop in the headline figure is about what to expect and daily figures dropping to around 20 per day for all settings by event date rather than the ~50 or so at the moment.
I should imagine that there will be some attempt to prevent the backdating on the grounds of upsetting too many people.
Do you remember the time that John Major destroyed the NHS* by introducing published stats on surgical outcomes? The eventual compromise was that no back dated data would be published. A number of senior and rather old surgeons gave up operating, just before the stats were brought in**.
*8th time the Tories destroyed the NHS since 79, I believe **A med student friend of mine told me that one Prof was nicknamed "Killer". He thought this was unfair, since he didn't kill people. Just crippled them for life.
Are there any statistics as to where the claim of asylum was made?
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
Comments
https://twitter.com/scotgp/status/1293191963525578752?s=20
(It doesn't get much reported, but more of France's asylum seekers head North to Belgium, Holland and beyond than try and cross the Channel. While Sangrettes and the Calais jungle gets all the press, the reality is that the French government puts migrant camps by their international borders, makes conditions really shit, and then hope that as many as possible self-deport. They do this because it is politically popular in France.)
So you're then in a position of prizes for everyone and a completely meaningless exam system.
That then means employers just set their own tests to determine who really is capable.
Either the system will revert to the pre-virus procedures and no comparable special treatment, which is rough justice of sorts but a special case (as, it must be said, so much else to do with the virus). Or the system needs to be reviewed in its approach to grading. It will be very interesting to see what the promised review in Scotland does.
The point is that this has shown with brutal clarity that the people running our exam systems are morons.
Now those of us who have worked for them - as I have - and seen their incompetence up close knew that already.
But as of this moment, everyone knows are exams are controlled by people who cannot manage simple quality control processes or basic statistics.
How does that affect the credibility of exams going forward? Hint - not positively.
So I do not see how either OFQUAL or the SQA or indeed the direct exam boards survive this fiasco. They already looked shaky enough even before today’s announcement (and given the way England’s results are set up, I am 99% sure Williamson will have to follow suit here).
That might well be a good thing. But it does depend on what replaces them.
Theuniondivvie said:
» show previous quotes
As a matter of interest what was your solution to this year's exam situation? If I missed it amongst all the sound and the fury, apologies.
I said:
The point of an external exam system is to have some form of external, objective assessment. That is what the exams usually achieve. What was required for each student was their prelim plus, say, a maximum of 2 pieces of course work that someone could look at externally and assess. Had they done that then the marking would have focused on the child, not on the system.
By using the algorithm, and now by using the unmediated teacher assessments, there is no external assessment at all. The exam results are therefore as credible as the HNC and HND "results" now handed out by colleges.
Why "was"? Who's his successor? Ross Greer?
Germany accepts a similar percentage of applicants to us (somewhere around half), and France around a third of applicants.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Asylum_statistics#Main_countries_of_destination:_Germany.2C_France_and_Spain
Susan Rice: 2.4
Kamala Harris: 2.58
Val Demings: 16.5
Gretchen Whitmer: 18.5
Elizabeth Warren: 19
Michelle Obama: 28
Tammy Duckworth: 36
Hillary Clinton: 55
Karen Bass: 60
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 80
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 150
Stacey Abrams: 150
Gina Raimondo: 200
Barack Obama: 260
In the talk of migrants in the last thread I did notice one thing which was glaring by its omission. There was lots of talk of fair share and fair to migrants. No talk of what was fair to the people of this country. The ones who have to pay for it all even though a lot are barely scraping by, or the ones that have continuously been pushed down housing lists as more needy people entered above them. The people having to rent homes not actually big enough because competition for housing has pushed rents up or have to endure the infrastructure we have which isn't good enough to serve those already here.
Strange that people never mention these people when arguing we should let even more people in. It's almost as if it won't really affect them. They aren't applying for council housing 3p on the basic income tax won't be missed. They have a home and a mortgage and are quite content they won't need to compete for suitable rented accommodation where the rent actually costs more than the mortgage they supposedly can't afford. It won't be their kids taught in schools which have multilingual classes moving slowly because the grasp of english isn't good enough.
The French government strategy for them is to encourage as many as possible to leave the country before the French government has to make a decision. So, you put them in camps in shitty parts of the country with no jobs, and which are near other countries where they will hopefully self deport to.
Of the 300,000, perhaps 50-75,000 will attempt to leave France for Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Sweden and the UK. And perhaps 10% of them (c. 6,000/year) try to come to the UK - which is seen as (a) an better place to be an immigrant (generally), and (b) is a place where they are going to find it easier, as they probably speak English already.
Edit: my numbers are out of date. At the peak of the European migration crisis, France was up to close to 300,000 asylum seekers a year, but it has since fallen to 125,000. Scale my numbers accordingly.
But I am afraid this was inevitable the moment exams were cancelled without thought being given as to what could replace them.
Edit - I think it would have been less of an issue if they hadn’t previously said teacher gradings were not credible. Now they’re saying their replacement was less credible. This way lies madnes.
And perhaps imbecility, in place of manoeuvrability.
They were in an impossible situation though. If the estimated results had looked anything like normal it would have been easier to look the other way.
Many teachers must have known they were over-estimating, but presumably didn't want to harm anyone's chances 'just in case'.
EDIT: Having read further, I see it's already been mentioned....
SQA should have asked for the results, run their statistics and gone back and said please try again as you seem to be x% wrong. And then used that second set of results.
The fact they didn't do that and the result then looked so politically bad made this outcome virtually unavoidable.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/08/donald-trump-foreign-policy/615139/
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1293211207583903744?s=19
It is odd that more than one government failed to spot this oncoming train.
Always, in any given year, statistics are brought down by students who for whatever reason bomb in the exams. So I can recall cases of somebody whose father died on the morning of the exam (and didn’t tell us) others who were ill, still others who failed to revise because they thought a good grade was in the bag, those who forgot to set the alarm so missed breakfast, etc. etc.
But we can’t know who they are, until it happens.
Now in my particular case because I had quite small numbers of students I did know who was and wasn’t likely to bomb, and could adjust accordingly. In a a subject with a cohort of 300, that would have been much harder.
The problem with these randomised algorithms is they apply a statistical basis to something that has no statistical basis. You can’t use mathematics to predict which student will get drunk the night before.
This was compounded by the fact that statistics do indicate this was a brighter than average year - after my blazing row with that idiot, I checked their SATS scores and they were 5% up on the year before. That matched with their target grades as I had them for my students.
So we did what we were told, only to be told that OFQUAL didn’t like the result so would do something even sillier that nobody with a brain would have even attempted.
If they had had any sense, they would have sent the results back with a ‘try again’ so at least those of us who knew them would be setting the grades, not a bunch of unintelligent failures with a misleading computer programme. Or asked for evidence. They did neither. They absolutely own this catastrophe.
Hopefully they will all end up driving vans for Amazon rather than ruining children’s futures, but they would probably get lost leaving the warehouse so that in itself would be a poor solution.
She is a single woman in here fifties and so all may not have been what it seemed!
But as they could only realistically compare with one year, it wasn’t even worth the effort of trying statistical modelling even if it hadn’t been invalid for other reasons, frankly.
*According to whistleblowers. OFQUAL have issued denials but they’re all over the place on them. I believe the whistleblowers.
And yes (as Eek also pointed out), a 'try again' or 'are you sure?' would have been the obvious thing to do.
It might not mean anything but alternatively it might mean something.
The unlisted outsider speakers might be the best value of all but laying Harris was a simpler plan for me.
As it's all at Biden's whims the stakes for me are way less than on the main event.
Cameron was brave and principled.
I hope so. And hope they will start the API feed, as well
I think the real issue is that they don’t know what they wanted and didn’t understand what might work.
"In related news, water is wet"
Perhaps buying off 2020's cohort will save their skin. After all the (likely) collapse in grades in 2021 will be after the Holyrood election.
I'd guess the next sign will come from American airport-watchers reporting Secret Service agents descending on the home of Rice, Harris or whoever. I'd be grateful if someone can just tell us when Biden's press conferences are scheduled, as no doubt one will be used to make this announcement.
https://twitter.com/oscwilliams/status/1293216333807652865?s=20
Mind you, p*ssing off the MoD might mean it's a good idea....
Think the fury over the Spearfish torpedo upgrade multiplied by 3 orders of magnitude.
imported goods produced in Hong Kong, such goods may no longer be marked to indicate “Hong Kong” as their origin, but must be marked to indicate “China.”
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/08/11/2020-17599/country-of-origin-marking-of-products-of-hong-kong
This means any "China" tariffs automatically apply to them. More of a psychological than financial blow, but telling just the same.
Edit: Ah, I see I behind the times on this thread and has already been debated.
Which is what we have done for many years to a far greater extent than anyone else in Europe - out famous international development operation. Only the small scandi countries are in the same league iirc.
And we should be proud of that.
A google search failed to turn up a Rice DNC speech, which wasn't entirely a surprise.
Mostly out of windows, I understand.
New YouGov.
6 point lead.
Tory dropping
One point not noted was that Germany at the time had a shrinking population and a lot empty homes (unlike the UK) so had many facilities available.
This was 2014:
Immunogenicity and Safety of a SARS-CoV-2 Inactivated Vaccine in Healthy Adults Aged 18-59 years: Report of the Randomized, Double-blind, and Placebo-controlled Phase 2 Clinical Trial
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.31.20161216v1.full.pdf
Seroconversion, with the development of neutralising antibodies to the virus, is up to 90%, which is a significant improvement on PI.
They claim an improved manufacturing process:
...Electron microscopic examination of the samples further verified that the average number of spikes per virion of the viral sample used in phase 2 trial was almost double to those used in phase 1 trial (Fig. 3B). These observations indicated that CoronaVac used in phase 2 trial contained more bona fide immunogens, which explains its better protective immune responses, highlighting the importance of developing an optimum manufacturing process..
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/5883/Who-will-win-the-2020-Democratic-vice-presidential-nomination
Give it twelve hours...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0UNxlTYADI
I should imagine that there will be some attempt to prevent the backdating on the grounds of upsetting too many people.
Do you remember the time that John Major destroyed the NHS* by introducing published stats on surgical outcomes? The eventual compromise was that no back dated data would be published. A number of senior and rather old surgeons gave up operating, just before the stats were brought in**.
*8th time the Tories destroyed the NHS since 79, I believe
**A med student friend of mine told me that one Prof was nicknamed "Killer". He thought this was unfair, since he didn't kill people. Just crippled them for life.
https://www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-scots-grade-u-turn-places-huge-pressure-williamson
Hard to disagree with its conclusion even if Mary Bousted is an utter fool.