Undefined discussion subject.
Comments
-
This is from 2016, but I'm not surprised that Jake Humphrey has the same over-inflated sense of importance as Clarkson:
https://twitter.com/mrjakehumphrey/status/7661771004034703360 -
Read where the tweets from! Amused me (not difficult...)ydoethur said:
I think he lives in Chipping Norton?turbotubbs said:
Must be very high up if he's got a view of the Cotswolds from the South East of England!CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
Is that 600 for Anderson?Peter_the_Punter said:6-1. This match isn't going to be a draw.
Great effort if so.
Edit- no, 591. Don't know why I thought he was on 599.0 -
Sorry that 25% was nonsense - no way to guess really.rkrkrk said:
Yeah but one grade down is enough to miss your offer.CarlottaVance said:96.5% were either on (58.7%), or within one grade of (up, 2.2%, down 35.6%) of the teacher's estimate.
So while no doubt we're going to see lots of (quite possibly justified) complaints about "two (or more) grade changes - it only affects 3.5% of the total awards.
So the figure that matters is how many pupils missed one of their grades (and ideally compared to last year).
If it's 36% of grades downgraded, then it could be ~25% of students missing a grade, and so missing out on an offer. Which is HUGE.
If 36% of grades are downgraded.... it's possible every pupil missed a grade if they all did 3 A levels!0 -
I think Oxfordshire is 'the South East' for Twitter purposes.turbotubbs said:
Read where the tweets from! Amused me (not difficult...)ydoethur said:
I think he lives in Chipping Norton?turbotubbs said:
Must be very high up if he's got a view of the Cotswolds from the South East of England!CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
Explains a lot!ydoethur said:
I think Oxfordshire is 'the South East' for Twitter purposes.turbotubbs said:
Read where the tweets from! Amused me (not difficult...)ydoethur said:
I think he lives in Chipping Norton?turbotubbs said:
Must be very high up if he's got a view of the Cotswolds from the South East of England!CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
Posted before, but cause of death on death certificates can be pretty poor. I was involved in a study of people with known conditions who were going to die of those conditions (unless hit by a bus or caught some other serious infection unrelated to underlying condition). Many didn't have the underlying condition on the death certificate at all, even when the trauma cases were excluded.alex_ said:
There’s a fair bit of anecdotal disagreement with the “death certificate” method. Which is why they moved on to the “excess deaths” one. Which is also helpful to some because it apparently shows us doing worse, and the potential flaws in the methodology are far more complicated to delve into.Philip_Thompson said:
The number probably isn't between those. There will be some who linger on for 29 days before succumbing, there will also though be some who get the virus, test positive and die of other causes within 28 days. I doubt the former exceed the latter.Fysics_Teacher said:
I’m sure the true number is somewhere between “ever had C19? Then that’s what you died of even if it looks like the impact with the bus did it” and “managed to linger on for 29 days before finally succumbing? Then it can’t have been C19”. I assume that’s why death certificates are the gold standard here, but they take too long for monitoring trends. A consistent measure is more important here I expect, but if that measure is counting lots of people it shouldn’t then it becomes worse than useless in that it disguises the actual trends leading to wrong policy decisions.SandyRentool said:Thinking about these 5,000 non-death deaths. Has anyone done any sort of analysis to see if the death rate is comparable to that in an equivalent cohort who did not catch COVID? If it is higher, then that would suggest that a fraction of these deaths are still a result of the COVID infection >28 days earlier.
Early recording of COVID-19 deaths will have been poor, I expect - many will have just been put down as some generic respiratory cause. Hopefully much better now as every doctor should be thinking 'could this be COVID-19?', but may even have gone the other way with many people with pneumonia or similar getting a COVID-19 mention even if not infected.
Excess deaths makes more sense and also help to answer how many deaths were really significantly premature - anyone who was really going to die within a month or two won't be an excess death on a yearly basis. For deaths after COVID-19, you need a cut off, could be 28 days, could be double that, doesn't really matter too much but it would be nice if everywhere used a consistent number.2 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_Englandturbotubbs said:
Explains a lot!ydoethur said:
I think Oxfordshire is 'the South East' for Twitter purposes.turbotubbs said:
Read where the tweets from! Amused me (not difficult...)ydoethur said:
I think he lives in Chipping Norton?turbotubbs said:
Must be very high up if he's got a view of the Cotswolds from the South East of England!CorrectHorseBattery said:0 -
In fact the student I mentioned did in fact still get an A*: he must have got everything else right on the paper.ydoethur said:
I once had a candidate - grade 9 - who didn't realise there were two parts to the question paper. So she only did 50% of the questions and still ended up with a grade 5.Fysics_Teacher said:
You predict what you think someone ought to get.rkrkrk said:I'm also a bit confused by some of these numbers.
Results even post-algorithm are higher than last year?
If 37/39% of grades are downgraded, and that has been done correctly to fit with previous years, then does that mean teachers predictions in aggregate were much, much higher than last year?
If that's right... then it doesn't really seem credible.
If most teachers have been honest and put what they really thought, then some others must have gone a grade higher for everyone.
In a normal year some will foul up: I remember an A* student coming out of an exam in tears because he realised with two minutes to go that he had not turned over the page and so missed out the last two questions. That is far more likely than someone will pull a stunning performance out of nowhere (though that does happen). So in a normal year a certain number will under perform on the day almost at random. How do you predict that?
0 -
For A Level geography in 2005 we did a techniques paper rather than coursework because the teachers said it was a pain getting everyone to get it in on time. It was a strange paper but I think I did okay and I think was probably preferable to coursework.Fysics_Teacher said:
Yes. The exam boards are capable of far worse than anything Ofqual can do.tlg86 said:
BiB - Seriously? That's beyond terrible.Fysics_Teacher said:One thing that won’t happen this year is a massive cock-up by the exam boards themselves. I’ve seen A* candidates get a D or E because the board forgot to add in the mark for one paper or transposed the digits (91% becomes 19% for example). In some cases this has cost people their university place as by the time it had been sorted it had gone to someone else.
Sometimes a department will get all their students downgraded for no particular reason, and trying to get any exam board to admit that they have made a mistake is like trying to get blood from a stone.
Obviously there will be students who will not get what they deserve this year, and the way Ofqual have gone about things is not helping. But let’s not pretend that the way things normally go is perfect either.
It’s one of the reasons why I am so pleased to see the back of “coursework” which is another ay of saying “let’s get the teachers to do our job without paying them for it” as we had to mark it. We then had to send off a sample to be moderated and if we were deemed to be over generous the whole group (including those with stone cold certain 100%, a very gettable mark in a science) would be marked down. What they should have done is said “you can’t mark these properly so we will have to take it in and do it properly”. What actually happened was that candidates suffered because of the mistake if someone who was not their teacher marking someone else’s work.0 -
Herman, still cheerleading Trump from beyond the grave.
https://twitter.com/THEHermanCain/status/1293642931610427392?s=20
Btw I'd be quite happy with the suggestion that HC (when extant) displayed many gammony qualities.0 -
So all those Comprehensive kids doing classics will be safely getting through to Scumbag College. Phew - not a disaster then.Stuartinromford said:
One of the wrinkles which I suspect most people haven't followed through is that small cohorts have had their school assessed grades waved through, so the load of keeping the overall statistics down is being shouldered by certain subjects at certain institutions.ydoethur said:
As I predicted.CorrectHorseBattery said:
It's turned out to be a really good year to have taken Music or Classics...
https://twitter.com/philipnye/status/1293833269004443650/photo/10 -
I once got sacked by an exam board for asking why the Chief Examiner had marked identical papers two levels apart. This included threats as to what would happen if I ever complained about their procedures, or their failure to pay me, or their failure to put in place proper whistleblowing procedures.Fysics_Teacher said:
In fact the student I mentioned did in fact still get an A*: he must have got everything else right on the paper.ydoethur said:
I once had a candidate - grade 9 - who didn't realise there were two parts to the question paper. So she only did 50% of the questions and still ended up with a grade 5.Fysics_Teacher said:
You predict what you think someone ought to get.rkrkrk said:I'm also a bit confused by some of these numbers.
Results even post-algorithm are higher than last year?
If 37/39% of grades are downgraded, and that has been done correctly to fit with previous years, then does that mean teachers predictions in aggregate were much, much higher than last year?
If that's right... then it doesn't really seem credible.
If most teachers have been honest and put what they really thought, then some others must have gone a grade higher for everyone.
In a normal year some will foul up: I remember an A* student coming out of an exam in tears because he realised with two minutes to go that he had not turned over the page and so missed out the last two questions. That is far more likely than someone will pull a stunning performance out of nowhere (though that does happen). So in a normal year a certain number will under perform on the day almost at random. How do you predict that?
Needless to say, Ofqual didn't care.
Which is why I'm not surprised this has proved to be a fiasco.0 -
Another example of it's what what, it's who. To some extent anyway, as he seems to have had a career working as a journalist.Mexicanpete said:
I have been acquiring late model Rover Minis (3 at present) in the expectation they will go the way of the "Essy." Working ok so far, values going through the roof.Dura_Ace said:
Yep, the recherche du temps perdu factor means their contemporary value far outstrips their actual capabilities and relevance. See also 2 door Mk 1 Escort.Mexicanpete said:
Have you seen the value of "fizzies" these days?
We had a Motobécane Romp moped at our place in France and that was far superior to the Fizzy. Until I put a 74cc barrel on it and seized it.
Yes, didn't check autocorrect. My Chinese phone clearly thinks Clarkson was educated at a Nottingham Comp.ydoethur said:
Repton, not Retford.Mexicanpete said:
He did have an ambitious and hardworking friend called Andy Wilman from Retford School who has helped his career along over the years.CorrectHorseBattery said:
And he hated Repton.
0 -
Remember figures for music, computing, PE, DT (without checking the whole list) will be misleading as the BTECs are popular alternative routes to the A-levels.MarqueeMark said:
So all those Comprehensive kids doing classics will be safely getting through to Scumbag College. Phew - not a disaster then.Stuartinromford said:
One of the wrinkles which I suspect most people haven't followed through is that small cohorts have had their school assessed grades waved through, so the load of keeping the overall statistics down is being shouldered by certain subjects at certain institutions.ydoethur said:
As I predicted.CorrectHorseBattery said:
It's turned out to be a really good year to have taken Music or Classics...
https://twitter.com/philipnye/status/1293833269004443650/photo/1
Do we have any BTEC stats yet?0 -
Might be different with another drop.Peter_the_Punter said:6-1. This match isn't going to be a draw.
0 -
BiB - So did his contemporary Adrian Newey, who's book how to build a car is well worth reading.OldKingCole said:
Another example of it's what what, it's who. To some extent anyway, as he seems to have had a career working as a journalist.Mexicanpete said:
I have been acquiring late model Rover Minis (3 at present) in the expectation they will go the way of the "Essy." Working ok so far, values going through the roof.Dura_Ace said:
Yep, the recherche du temps perdu factor means their contemporary value far outstrips their actual capabilities and relevance. See also 2 door Mk 1 Escort.Mexicanpete said:
Have you seen the value of "fizzies" these days?
We had a Motobécane Romp moped at our place in France and that was far superior to the Fizzy. Until I put a 74cc barrel on it and seized it.
Yes, didn't check autocorrect. My Chinese phone clearly thinks Clarkson was educated at a Nottingham Comp.ydoethur said:
Repton, not Retford.Mexicanpete said:
He did have an ambitious and hardworking friend called Andy Wilman from Retford School who has helped his career along over the years.CorrectHorseBattery said:
And he hated Repton.0 -
Feel sorry for kids this year with A-level and GCSE results and the grading difficulties. Dread to think how I would have got on, I’m one of those irritating gits who did very little during both but managed to pull it together to get good results in final exams and get good grades. A pattern that endured during BA and MA study. I’m a procrastinator, I could never discipline myself to apply myself properly until motivated by the panic of a final deadline. I hate myself for it and recognise it but I can’t seem to change. There must be kids like me who would’ve pulled it together in a similar way who have been denied the chance.0
-
With modern A-levels, it's really quite hard to do that outside of a few subjects (e.g. English, where reading the texts is enough, or Business or Politics, where there isn't much meaningful content).northern_monkey said:Feel sorry for kids this year with A-level and GCSE results and the grading difficulties. Dread to think how I would have got on, I’m one of those irritating gits who did very little during both but managed to pull it together to get good results in final exams and get good grades. A pattern that endured during BA and MA study. I’m a procrastinator, I could never discipline myself to apply myself properly until motivated by the panic of a final deadline. I hate myself for it and recognise it but I can’t seem to change. There must be kids like me who would’ve pulled it together in a similar way who have been denied the chance.
So I suspect you would have been clobbered.1 -
I suspect that we might see a mini-spike in excess deaths as a result of the heat wave. And some media pundits will attribute this to a resurgence in COVID-19.0
-
I think the graph I posted was A Level; you can play with the wider data set here;ydoethur said:
Remember figures for music, computing, PE, DT (without checking the whole list) will be misleading as the BTECs are popular alternative routes to the A-levels.MarqueeMark said:
So all those Comprehensive kids doing classics will be safely getting through to Scumbag College. Phew - not a disaster then.Stuartinromford said:
One of the wrinkles which I suspect most people haven't followed through is that small cohorts have had their school assessed grades waved through, so the load of keeping the overall statistics down is being shouldered by certain subjects at certain institutions.ydoethur said:
As I predicted.CorrectHorseBattery said:
It's turned out to be a really good year to have taken Music or Classics...
https://twitter.com/philipnye/status/1293833269004443650/photo/1
Do we have any BTEC stats yet?
https://ffteducationdatalab.org.uk/2020/08/a-level-results-2020-the-main-trends-in-grades-and-entries/0 -
Wales down by 42% on teacher predictions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/education-53755750
And Northern Ireland down by a third.
That's a pretty epic bungle given the data they had.0 -
My A-levels were 6 modules each, each 1/6th of an A-level. I think I had about 4 exam sittings through the 2 years, it'd have been a piece of cake to award grades with the old modular system as about 75% of the exams were already done !tlg86 said:
For A Level geography in 2005 we did a techniques paper rather than coursework because the teachers said it was a pain getting everyone to get it in on time. It was a strange paper but I think I did okay and I think was probably preferable to coursework.Fysics_Teacher said:
Yes. The exam boards are capable of far worse than anything Ofqual can do.tlg86 said:
BiB - Seriously? That's beyond terrible.Fysics_Teacher said:One thing that won’t happen this year is a massive cock-up by the exam boards themselves. I’ve seen A* candidates get a D or E because the board forgot to add in the mark for one paper or transposed the digits (91% becomes 19% for example). In some cases this has cost people their university place as by the time it had been sorted it had gone to someone else.
Sometimes a department will get all their students downgraded for no particular reason, and trying to get any exam board to admit that they have made a mistake is like trying to get blood from a stone.
Obviously there will be students who will not get what they deserve this year, and the way Ofqual have gone about things is not helping. But let’s not pretend that the way things normally go is perfect either.
It’s one of the reasons why I am so pleased to see the back of “coursework” which is another ay of saying “let’s get the teachers to do our job without paying them for it” as we had to mark it. We then had to send off a sample to be moderated and if we were deemed to be over generous the whole group (including those with stone cold certain 100%, a very gettable mark in a science) would be marked down. What they should have done is said “you can’t mark these properly so we will have to take it in and do it properly”. What actually happened was that candidates suffered because of the mistake if someone who was not their teacher marking someone else’s work.
2 -
Yeah same. I did my A-Levels in 2009/2010.Pulpstar said:
My A-levels were 6 modules each, each 1/6th of an A-level. I think I had about 4 exam sittings through the 2 years, it'd have been a piece of cake to award grades with the old modular system as about 75% of the exams were already done !tlg86 said:
For A Level geography in 2005 we did a techniques paper rather than coursework because the teachers said it was a pain getting everyone to get it in on time. It was a strange paper but I think I did okay and I think was probably preferable to coursework.Fysics_Teacher said:
Yes. The exam boards are capable of far worse than anything Ofqual can do.tlg86 said:
BiB - Seriously? That's beyond terrible.Fysics_Teacher said:One thing that won’t happen this year is a massive cock-up by the exam boards themselves. I’ve seen A* candidates get a D or E because the board forgot to add in the mark for one paper or transposed the digits (91% becomes 19% for example). In some cases this has cost people their university place as by the time it had been sorted it had gone to someone else.
Sometimes a department will get all their students downgraded for no particular reason, and trying to get any exam board to admit that they have made a mistake is like trying to get blood from a stone.
Obviously there will be students who will not get what they deserve this year, and the way Ofqual have gone about things is not helping. But let’s not pretend that the way things normally go is perfect either.
It’s one of the reasons why I am so pleased to see the back of “coursework” which is another ay of saying “let’s get the teachers to do our job without paying them for it” as we had to mark it. We then had to send off a sample to be moderated and if we were deemed to be over generous the whole group (including those with stone cold certain 100%, a very gettable mark in a science) would be marked down. What they should have done is said “you can’t mark these properly so we will have to take it in and do it properly”. What actually happened was that candidates suffered because of the mistake if someone who was not their teacher marking someone else’s work.0 -
Seems like the teachers really, really overestimated.ydoethur said:Wales down by 42% on teacher predictions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/education-53755750
And Northern Ireland down by a third.
That's a pretty epic bungle given the data they had.
I get the idea that some will mess up on the day, though some surely also overperform on the day, but it can't be by that much surely?
There should have been some response to the initial filing of grades saying "this doesn't seem right, please check or show your workings".0 -
Either that, or the relevant authorities are not giving us the correct figures, which is another possibility we should bear in mind.Philip_Thompson said:
Seems like the teachers really, really overestimated.ydoethur said:Wales down by 42% on teacher predictions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/education-53755750
And Northern Ireland down by a third.
That's a pretty epic bungle given the data they had.
I get the idea that some will mess up on the day, though some surely also overperform on the day, but it can't be by that much surely?
There should have been some response to the initial filing of grades saying "this doesn't seem right, please check or show your workings".
But yes, your last sentence is quite right. From the outset the obvious problem with this whole system is that there was no failsafe.0 -
What a moronic idea, changing a grading system using letters (which everyone understood) to a system using numbers (which only teachers understand).ydoethur said:
New GCSE is 9-1, 9 being the highest.CorrectHorseBattery said:Sorry can somebody explain these grade 5, grade 9s to me.
4 is the equivalent of a C grade in old money. 5 is a good C. 6 a B.
7 an A, and 8 an A*.
Not sure how it works in science, but in Humanities 9 is a subset of grade 8 - the top 500 candidates, I think - to differentiate at the top end.
Which is why I never predict anyone a 9.
Never underestimate the propensity of the education sector to needlessly complicate things. It's maddening.0 -
Herein lies the problem. I bet you laziness is the root cause of all of this. It’s much easier to run an algorithm and be done with it, than have actual conversations with schools over suspect results, if they even bothered to look.Philip_Thompson said:
Seems like the teachers really, really overestimated.ydoethur said:Wales down by 42% on teacher predictions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/education-53755750
And Northern Ireland down by a third.
That's a pretty epic bungle given the data they had.
I get the idea that some will mess up on the day, though some surely also overperform on the day, but it can't be by that much surely?
There should have been some response to the initial filing of grades saying "this doesn't seem right, please check or show your workings".0 -
The main problem, and I think it is a difficult one is that in a normal year pupils missing out on predicted grades will be random. Overall it may look systemic but this year those random variations have been algorithmed out to the closest matching systemic pattern that appears as a result of the random variation in a normal year.2
-
People will understand them in time - it doesn’t really matter.Anabobazina said:
What a moronic idea, changing a grading system using letters (which everyone understood) to a system using numbers (which only teachers understand).ydoethur said:
New GCSE is 9-1, 9 being the highest.CorrectHorseBattery said:Sorry can somebody explain these grade 5, grade 9s to me.
4 is the equivalent of a C grade in old money. 5 is a good C. 6 a B.
7 an A, and 8 an A*.
Not sure how it works in science, but in Humanities 9 is a subset of grade 8 - the top 500 candidates, I think - to differentiate at the top end.
Which is why I never predict anyone a 9.
Never underestimate the propensity of the education sector to needlessly complicate things. It's maddening.0 -
Sounds like my interview on Tuesday went well. Had a call off the headhunter saying I'm the preferred candidate and can I consider if I would set up as a Ltd Company as an alternative to them setting up a UK Ltd Company (they are Romanian) to employ me from...3
-
People will come to understand it, given time.Anabobazina said:
What a moronic idea, changing a grading system using letters (which everyone understood) to a system using numbers (which only teachers understand).ydoethur said:
New GCSE is 9-1, 9 being the highest.CorrectHorseBattery said:Sorry can somebody explain these grade 5, grade 9s to me.
4 is the equivalent of a C grade in old money. 5 is a good C. 6 a B.
7 an A, and 8 an A*.
Not sure how it works in science, but in Humanities 9 is a subset of grade 8 - the top 500 candidates, I think - to differentiate at the top end.
Which is why I never predict anyone a 9.
Never underestimate the propensity of the education sector to needlessly complicate things. It's maddening.
The issue with the way this change happened is that neither the exam boards nor OFQUAL understood it, which is how the 2018 GCSEs became a car crash.0 -
Fingers crossed RP.RochdalePioneers said:Sounds like my interview on Tuesday went well. Had a call off the headhunter saying I'm the preferred candidate and can I consider if I would set up as a Ltd Company as an alternative to them setting up a UK Ltd Company (they are Romanian) to employ me from...
1 -
This last summer exam period, which was all online, we have had:Fysics_Teacher said:One thing that won’t happen this year is a massive cock-up by the exam boards themselves. I’ve seen A* candidates get a D or E because the board forgot to add in the mark for one paper or transposed the digits (91% becomes 19% for example). In some cases this has cost people their university place as by the time it had been sorted it had gone to someone else.
Sometimes a department will get all their students downgraded for no particular reason, and trying to get any exam board to admit that they have made a mistake is like trying to get blood from a stone.
Obviously there will be students who will not get what they deserve this year, and the way Ofqual have gone about things is not helping. But let’s not pretend that the way things normally go is perfect either.
*raw mark entered, not percentage
*transposition of columns
*late submissions (we had a several day late window) not picked up
*several submissions marked as late (they weren't).
*coursework essay emailed to academic, who then refused to mark it
All pilot error by individual academics (well, not the last one, but that was completely avoidable) and typically where the final check step wasn't done properly.0 -
Many grading systems use numbers and its not that complicated to understand. Plus if you consistently do the same number of subjects you can add the number grades together to get a total overall grade.Anabobazina said:
What a moronic idea, changing a grading system using letters (which everyone understood) to a system using numbers (which only teachers understand).ydoethur said:
New GCSE is 9-1, 9 being the highest.CorrectHorseBattery said:Sorry can somebody explain these grade 5, grade 9s to me.
4 is the equivalent of a C grade in old money. 5 is a good C. 6 a B.
7 an A, and 8 an A*.
Not sure how it works in science, but in Humanities 9 is a subset of grade 8 - the top 500 candidates, I think - to differentiate at the top end.
Which is why I never predict anyone a 9.
Never underestimate the propensity of the education sector to needlessly complicate things. It's maddening.
When I did my Baccalaureate you did six subjects that were graded from 1 (lowest) to 7 (highest) with a total possible grade of 45. One of my classmates actually got a 45 which is almost unheard of, he was one of the brightest people I've ever met and was initially graded 44 easily getting the results that he needed for his university place but he appealed the one subject he got a 6 in and got it reviewed and appealed to a 7 too.0 -
Maureen Lipman for the social media age:tlg86 said:This is from 2016, but I'm not surprised that Jake Humphrey has the same over-inflated sense of importance as Clarkson:
https://twitter.com/mrjakehumphrey/status/766177100403470336
“A blue tick and he says he’s failed... You get a blue tick; you’re a celebrity!”0 -
Why has "General Studies" died a death?
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1293863273960546306?s=200 -
Gammon is a state of mind. Anyone can be gammonesque.0
-
I agree, I taught the modular physics schemes for years when it was 6 units, then 4 units. Retaking units was neered upon by some snobby universities, but at least they knew the work by the end, rather than fluking a top grade on the day which can happen now (previous to this year). To achieve an A* physics last year was in the region of 70% pass mark, whereas in the modular days, you had to achieve in the region of 85% for an A then the A* was awarded on purely A2 work at 85% level. Pleased to say that I just mark now rather than teach. Sadly a lean payment year so far.Gallowgate said:
Yeah same. I did my A-Levels in 2009/2010.Pulpstar said:
My A-levels were 6 modules each, each 1/6th of an A-level. I think I had about 4 exam sittings through the 2 years, it'd have been a piece of cake to award grades with the old modular system as about 75% of the exams were already done !tlg86 said:
For A Level geography in 2005 we did a techniques paper rather than coursework because the teachers said it was a pain getting everyone to get it in on time. It was a strange paper but I think I did okay and I think was probably preferable to coursework.Fysics_Teacher said:
Yes. The exam boards are capable of far worse than anything Ofqual can do.tlg86 said:
BiB - Seriously? That's beyond terrible.Fysics_Teacher said:One thing that won’t happen this year is a massive cock-up by the exam boards themselves. I’ve seen A* candidates get a D or E because the board forgot to add in the mark for one paper or transposed the digits (91% becomes 19% for example). In some cases this has cost people their university place as by the time it had been sorted it had gone to someone else.
Sometimes a department will get all their students downgraded for no particular reason, and trying to get any exam board to admit that they have made a mistake is like trying to get blood from a stone.
Obviously there will be students who will not get what they deserve this year, and the way Ofqual have gone about things is not helping. But let’s not pretend that the way things normally go is perfect either.
It’s one of the reasons why I am so pleased to see the back of “coursework” which is another ay of saying “let’s get the teachers to do our job without paying them for it” as we had to mark it. We then had to send off a sample to be moderated and if we were deemed to be over generous the whole group (including those with stone cold certain 100%, a very gettable mark in a science) would be marked down. What they should have done is said “you can’t mark these properly so we will have to take it in and do it properly”. What actually happened was that candidates suffered because of the mistake if someone who was not their teacher marking someone else’s work.0 -
Sad times, easiest "A" grade ever.CarlottaVance said:Why has "General Studies" died a death?
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1293863273960546306?s=200 -
Because it was pointless, and with the extra pressure on timetables and changes to the statutory PSHE regime there is no space for pointless any more.CarlottaVance said:Why has "General Studies" died a death?
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1293863273960546306?s=200 -
Totally, but that doesn't explain why I don't remember getting the results.ydoethur said:
Were you less hardened to alcohol at the time you got O-levels?eristdoof said:
I remember the day I got my A-level and degree results, but not my O-Level results.rkrkrk said:Also have fond memories of my A-level results day.
A teacher told my friends on the morning I had missed my offer and so asked them to be extra supportive to me on the day. Which they were.
As it happened, I hadn't missed my offer. So I was pretty confused as to why everyone kept telling me I was putting a brave face on it and how they knew I'd be okay.
I didn't start drinking until 8 months after I got my O-Level results! I couldn't stand the taste of it at the time.1 -
Sloppy from England this morning.0
-
Excellent I hope you spend the next four months in a crowded room going through a pandemic as you are clearly a knowitallAndy_JS said:Closing schools has arguably been the biggest mistake. Preventing students from sitting their exams.
0 -
First, good.CarlottaVance said:Why has "General Studies" died a death?
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1293863273960546306?s=20
Second, I thought it had been superseded by an additional, extended project, qualification
Third, I thought it got axed about two to three years ago?0 -
Teacher's haven't been asked to give predicted grades to exam boards for years now. Only UCAS would have been sent predicted grades from schools for University entry purposes when the students were originally applying in Autumn year 13. These grades would have been what the teacher thought they could achieve after seeing that level of work in class tests and mocks. Obviously teachers would have been subject to lots of pressure from parents and headteachers. If teachers this year had sent in their "predictions" obtained in the usual way, I would have assumed they would be knocked down anyway, like in a normal year.ydoethur said:
Either that, or the relevant authorities are not giving us the correct figures, which is another possibility we should bear in mind.Philip_Thompson said:
Seems like the teachers really, really overestimated.ydoethur said:Wales down by 42% on teacher predictions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/education-53755750
And Northern Ireland down by a third.
That's a pretty epic bungle given the data they had.
I get the idea that some will mess up on the day, though some surely also overperform on the day, but it can't be by that much surely?
There should have been some response to the initial filing of grades saying "this doesn't seem right, please check or show your workings".
But yes, your last sentence is quite right. From the outset the obvious problem with this whole system is that there was no failsafe.0 -
Has Jos Buttler taken over as fielding coach?1
-
News media does this kind of thing all the time, it's like a vox-pop.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Are we really now into conspiracy theories by the media to make HMG look good !!!!!!!!!!!!!!ydoethur said:
Their school would have done and told them who to focus on.Big_G_NorthWales said:
Are you suggesting Sky rigged their reporteek said:
Schools had the results yesterday, if you want to rig a story it wasn't exactly difficult.Big_G_NorthWales said:I cannot comment on the exam results as I have no knowledge of the subject
However watching Sky this morning they had three students open their results live and each of the students was delighted and each had achieved their grades
They then went to a FE college and exactly the same with the two students opening their envelopes and one achieved her results for a teaching assistant and another received his results to gain access to the RAF as an aircraft engineer
It was good tv seeing young people so happy
I would just add Williamson is useless and needs to be sent to the backbenches
We have our results and in a focus group of2 children and 5 results there are 3 appeals and that's from a good school.
Another child got is appealing 2 out of 3 where the final grade is lower than both the mock and the school grade.
Watching it 'live' there was no doubt none of the students knew their results before opening their envelope
They film lots of people who say "I dunno" or "so what" but every tenth respondent says something like "You're joking - Not another one!"1 -
General Studies and Critical Thinking are not considered proper A levels by this government. Critical Thinking is not considered an attribute by this government particularly the ministers in charge of evaluating algorithms0
-
you really couldn't make it up, Barraclough from porridge could do a better job0
-
I suspect given this year's fiasco, that is about to change.Daveyboy1961 said:
Teacher's [sic] haven't been asked to give predicted grades to exam boards for years now.ydoethur said:
Either that, or the relevant authorities are not giving us the correct figures, which is another possibility we should bear in mind.Philip_Thompson said:
Seems like the teachers really, really overestimated.ydoethur said:Wales down by 42% on teacher predictions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/education-53755750
And Northern Ireland down by a third.
That's a pretty epic bungle given the data they had.
I get the idea that some will mess up on the day, though some surely also overperform on the day, but it can't be by that much surely?
There should have been some response to the initial filing of grades saying "this doesn't seem right, please check or show your workings".
But yes, your last sentence is quite right. From the outset the obvious problem with this whole system is that there was no failsafe.0 -
Psychology is one of the most popular A Levels...ydoethur said:
Because it was pointless, and with the extra pressure on timetables and changes to the statutory PSHE regime there is no space for pointless any more.CarlottaVance said:Why has "General Studies" died a death?
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1293863273960546306?s=20
(ducks)
1 -
Yup, and that causes two problems.Pulpstar said:The main problem, and I think it is a difficult one is that in a normal year pupils missing out on predicted grades will be random. Overall it may look systemic but this year those random variations have been algorithmed out to the closest matching systemic pattern that appears as a result of the random variation in a normal year.
First is at the prediction stage. Suppose I have a class of 10 in Upper Sixth Physics. I know that they should all get (say) B's, but I also know that some of them will fail to pull it out on the day. (No, not like that George, put it away or I'll have to call the pastoral team again). But I can't really tell who, so I probably have to predict them all B's, even if that's technically an overprediction.
Yes, some will randomly overachieve in a normal year, but my intuition is that (in physics, anyway) random underachievement is much more likely than random overachievement. Quite a bit of the "teachers overpredict" is down to that, even before we get to the human instinct to give the benefit of the doubt to borderline candidates who you have known (and very occasionally come to like) over a year and a bit.
The other problem is that, if you really wanted to force the CAGs back onto the usual grade curve, the fairest way to do it would have been a literal lottery. Go through a subject, apply -1 grade to randomly chosen students (maybe even the ones who, by their rank ordering were clearly borderline) until you get the distribution you want. Unfair? Perhaps, though probably a better approximation to what really happens than we'd like to admit.
Instead, we have had an equation applied to the CAG results. And the cat's doings on top of the cake is that some students have had the equation applied to them when others haven't. And the cat's doings on top of the cat's doings is that the poshest places and subjects are the most likely to have had their grades left slightly inflated.0 -
Now you've done it.OldKingCole said:
Might be different with another drop.Peter_the_Punter said:6-1. This match isn't going to be a draw.
That's it for England's chances.0 -
I disagree, it forced students to study around their topics and also keep up maths and languages and history as well. It died a death because the universities didnt accept it anymore and so the exam boards stopped offering it.ydoethur said:
Because it was pointless, and with the extra pressure on timetables and changes to the statutory PSHE regime there is no space for pointless any more.CarlottaVance said:Why has "General Studies" died a death?
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1293863273960546306?s=200 -
At least 20 years ago it was not included in UCAS scores, and many uni departments ignored general studies completely, as it was a measure of the school you went to not the quality of the candidate.BannedinnParis said:
First, good.CarlottaVance said:Why has "General Studies" died a death?
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1293863273960546306?s=20
Second, I thought it had been superseded by an additional, extended project, qualification
Third, I thought it got axed about two to three years ago?0 -
apologies for my apostrophe there.ydoethur said:
I suspect given this year's fiasco, that is about to change.Daveyboy1961 said:
Teacher's [sic] haven't been asked to give predicted grades to exam boards for years now.ydoethur said:
Either that, or the relevant authorities are not giving us the correct figures, which is another possibility we should bear in mind.Philip_Thompson said:
Seems like the teachers really, really overestimated.ydoethur said:Wales down by 42% on teacher predictions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/education-53755750
And Northern Ireland down by a third.
That's a pretty epic bungle given the data they had.
I get the idea that some will mess up on the day, though some surely also overperform on the day, but it can't be by that much surely?
There should have been some response to the initial filing of grades saying "this doesn't seem right, please check or show your workings".
But yes, your last sentence is quite right. From the outset the obvious problem with this whole system is that there was no failsafe.1 -
And also because there isn't the funding any more to run it as an extra A level, which is usually what it was. Sixth form colleges used to do it for the money - not any more.ydoethur said:
Because it was pointless, and with the extra pressure on timetables and changes to the statutory PSHE regime there is no space for pointless any more.CarlottaVance said:Why has "General Studies" died a death?
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1293863273960546306?s=200 -
Moral of the story, if you want good exam results move to Winchester and send your kids to Winchester Grammar- even if you have to live in a tent0
-
While I'm here,
GCSE memory - scanned the list posted up and didn't clock how well I'd done. It was only when I got the three or four letters in one place that it all came together.
A-level - had dropped Further Maths down to an AS, so I could could concentrate on ensuring my Physics was an A. So, mission achieved on that front and was personally glad I got my S-level Chemistry distinction. Genuinely enjoyed that paper, and think we could have a healthier attitude to S-levels or whatever they are called now. Bought A's second album A vs Monkey Kong and sat in a park all afternoon.
And while we're here, Finals. Results themselves were sent to me, handwritten, by my College Tutor and then I went for a beer with the Organic Tutor in the Gloucester Arms. Picked up the transcript months later ... old school0 -
Teaching people how to think, analyse and argue is pointless? I found it a refreshing change from the more "academic" (sic) subjects.ydoethur said:
Because it was pointless, and with the extra pressure on timetables and changes to the statutory PSHE regime there is no space for pointless any more.CarlottaVance said:Why has "General Studies" died a death?
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1293863273960546306?s=20
Bit like the Scottish government dropping economics.....1 -
Weren't many people saying in 1970/71 "What a moronic idea changing a currency that uses three units, which everyone understood, to a system using decimal numbers, which only scientists understand"?Anabobazina said:
What a moronic idea, changing a grading system using letters (which everyone understood) to a system using numbers (which only teachers understand).ydoethur said:
New GCSE is 9-1, 9 being the highest.CorrectHorseBattery said:Sorry can somebody explain these grade 5, grade 9s to me.
4 is the equivalent of a C grade in old money. 5 is a good C. 6 a B.
7 an A, and 8 an A*.
Not sure how it works in science, but in Humanities 9 is a subset of grade 8 - the top 500 candidates, I think - to differentiate at the top end.
Which is why I never predict anyone a 9.
Never underestimate the propensity of the education sector to needlessly complicate things. It's maddening.1 -
I think the disgusted cricket supporters are all going to be Middlesex supporters this morning.eristdoof said:
Is he a relative of "Disgusted from Tunbridge Wells"?tlg86 said:Sloppy from England this morning.
Don't get me wrong, I'm grinning from ear to ear. But WTAF are they thinking of at letting a THIRD brilliant young cricketer join Gloucestershire?0 -
Nope. Golden rule is you don't change a brand that everyone understands.ydoethur said:
People will come to understand it, given time.Anabobazina said:
What a moronic idea, changing a grading system using letters (which everyone understood) to a system using numbers (which only teachers understand).ydoethur said:
New GCSE is 9-1, 9 being the highest.CorrectHorseBattery said:Sorry can somebody explain these grade 5, grade 9s to me.
4 is the equivalent of a C grade in old money. 5 is a good C. 6 a B.
7 an A, and 8 an A*.
Not sure how it works in science, but in Humanities 9 is a subset of grade 8 - the top 500 candidates, I think - to differentiate at the top end.
Which is why I never predict anyone a 9.
Never underestimate the propensity of the education sector to needlessly complicate things. It's maddening.
The issue with the way this change happened is that neither the exam boards nor OFQUAL understood it, which is how the 2018 GCSEs became a car crash.
Needless fiddling for the sake of it: unfortunately that's a known trait of the education sector.1 -
Abid Alli clearly going to get a century today.1
-
I taught General Studies.CarlottaVance said:
Teaching people how to think, analyse and argue is pointless? I found it a refreshing change from the more "academic" (sic) subjects.ydoethur said:
Because it was pointless, and with the extra pressure on timetables and changes to the statutory PSHE regime there is no space for pointless any more.CarlottaVance said:Why has "General Studies" died a death?
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1293863273960546306?s=20
Bit like the Scottish government dropping economics.....
I don't feel it did any of that, or at least, not well enough to justify the amount of time and effort put in.
At the school where I taught it, it was brought in as part of a PSHE course by an ambitious deputy head trying to show impact.
He got promoted to a Headship.
The rest of us, when he had gone, took one look at each other and dropped it.3 -
Gavin goes to the top of the class then.ydoethur said:Wales down by 42% on teacher predictions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/education-53755750
And Northern Ireland down by a third.
That's a pretty epic bungle given the data they had.0 -
Some people still think that.eristdoof said:
Weren't many people saying in 1970/71 "What a moronic idea changing a currency that uses three units, which everyone understood, to a system using decimal numbers, which only scientists understand"?Anabobazina said:
What a moronic idea, changing a grading system using letters (which everyone understood) to a system using numbers (which only teachers understand).ydoethur said:
New GCSE is 9-1, 9 being the highest.CorrectHorseBattery said:Sorry can somebody explain these grade 5, grade 9s to me.
4 is the equivalent of a C grade in old money. 5 is a good C. 6 a B.
7 an A, and 8 an A*.
Not sure how it works in science, but in Humanities 9 is a subset of grade 8 - the top 500 candidates, I think - to differentiate at the top end.
Which is why I never predict anyone a 9.
Never underestimate the propensity of the education sector to needlessly complicate things. It's maddening.0 -
Takes years of practice to really enjoy beer.eristdoof said:
Totally, but that doesn't explain why I don't remember getting the results.ydoethur said:
Were you less hardened to alcohol at the time you got O-levels?eristdoof said:
I remember the day I got my A-level and degree results, but not my O-Level results.rkrkrk said:Also have fond memories of my A-level results day.
A teacher told my friends on the morning I had missed my offer and so asked them to be extra supportive to me on the day. Which they were.
As it happened, I hadn't missed my offer. So I was pretty confused as to why everyone kept telling me I was putting a brave face on it and how they knew I'd be okay.
I didn't start drinking until 8 months after I got my O-Level results! I couldn't stand the taste of it at the time.0 -
Group prediction is much easier than individual prediction, like predicting the number of CON seats in a GE is much easier than predicting exactly which seats are going to change.Stuartinromford said:
Yup, and that causes two problems.Pulpstar said:The main problem, and I think it is a difficult one is that in a normal year pupils missing out on predicted grades will be random. Overall it may look systemic but this year those random variations have been algorithmed out to the closest matching systemic pattern that appears as a result of the random variation in a normal year.
First is at the prediction stage. Suppose I have a class of 10 in Upper Sixth Physics. I know that they should all get (say) B's, but I also know that some of them will fail to pull it out on the day. (No, not like that George, put it away or I'll have to call the pastoral team again). But I can't really tell who, so I probably have to predict them all B's, even if that's technically an overprediction.
Yes, some will randomly overachieve in a normal year, but my intuition is that (in physics, anyway) random underachievement is much more likely than random overachievement. Quite a bit of the "teachers overpredict" is down to that, even before we get to the human instinct to give the benefit of the doubt to borderline candidates who you have known (and very occasionally come to like) over a year and a bit.
The other problem is that, if you really wanted to force the CAGs back onto the usual grade curve, the fairest way to do it would have been a literal lottery. Go through a subject, apply -1 grade to randomly chosen students (maybe even the ones who, by their rank ordering were clearly borderline) until you get the distribution you want. Unfair? Perhaps, though probably a better approximation to what really happens than we'd like to admit.
Instead, we have had an equation applied to the CAG results. And the cat's doings on top of the cake is that some students have had the equation applied to them when others haven't. And the cat's doings on top of the cat's doings is that the poshest places and subjects are the most likely to have had their grades left slightly inflated.
In your scenario predicting a B for all pupils is the correct thing to do, but the individual who got an A and the individual who got a C will be annoyed with your prediction.0 -
Like playing an instrument, it helps to practice every day.OldKingCole said:
Takes years of practice to really enjoy beer.eristdoof said:
Totally, but that doesn't explain why I don't remember getting the results.ydoethur said:
Were you less hardened to alcohol at the time you got O-levels?eristdoof said:
I remember the day I got my A-level and degree results, but not my O-Level results.rkrkrk said:Also have fond memories of my A-level results day.
A teacher told my friends on the morning I had missed my offer and so asked them to be extra supportive to me on the day. Which they were.
As it happened, I hadn't missed my offer. So I was pretty confused as to why everyone kept telling me I was putting a brave face on it and how they knew I'd be okay.
I didn't start drinking until 8 months after I got my O-Level results! I couldn't stand the taste of it at the time.1 -
Nigelb said:
Now you've done it.OldKingCole said:
Might be different with another drop.Peter_the_Punter said:6-1. This match isn't going to be a draw.
That's it for England's chances.
And practically everyone to the left of the stumps had a go at it, too!0 -
A good understanding of psychology helps in people to comprehend tweets like this.Nigelb said:
Psychology is one of the most popular A Levels...ydoethur said:
Because it was pointless, and with the extra pressure on timetables and changes to the statutory PSHE regime there is no space for pointless any more.CarlottaVance said:Why has "General Studies" died a death?
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1293863273960546306?s=20
(ducks)
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1293861034009268224?s=210 -
Hardly comparable to metrication is it? Changing letters to numbers is a near-pointless change with very little to justify it.eristdoof said:
Weren't many people saying in 1970/71 "What a moronic idea changing a currency that uses three units, which everyone understood, to a system using decimal numbers, which only scientists understand"?Anabobazina said:
What a moronic idea, changing a grading system using letters (which everyone understood) to a system using numbers (which only teachers understand).ydoethur said:
New GCSE is 9-1, 9 being the highest.CorrectHorseBattery said:Sorry can somebody explain these grade 5, grade 9s to me.
4 is the equivalent of a C grade in old money. 5 is a good C. 6 a B.
7 an A, and 8 an A*.
Not sure how it works in science, but in Humanities 9 is a subset of grade 8 - the top 500 candidates, I think - to differentiate at the top end.
Which is why I never predict anyone a 9.
Never underestimate the propensity of the education sector to needlessly complicate things. It's maddening.
0 -
But if you've layed the draw, you're ok. Pakistan make 300+ they can easily go on to win.Nigelb said:
Now you've done it.OldKingCole said:
Might be different with another drop.Peter_the_Punter said:6-1. This match isn't going to be a draw.
That's it for England's chances.
Netweather still saying no rain. BBC disagree. Can't both be right!0 -
No FA Cup replays next season.
I wonder if that will remain the case for following seasons after the pandemic is over.0 -
For internal grades ( the sort of thing that gets sent to parents every half term or so) I have made a serious transposition error by missing out a student and giving every student from there on the grade of the pupil one above them in the alphabet. That did not go down well.BannedinnParis said:
This last summer exam period, which was all online, we have had:Fysics_Teacher said:One thing that won’t happen this year is a massive cock-up by the exam boards themselves. I’ve seen A* candidates get a D or E because the board forgot to add in the mark for one paper or transposed the digits (91% becomes 19% for example). In some cases this has cost people their university place as by the time it had been sorted it had gone to someone else.
Sometimes a department will get all their students downgraded for no particular reason, and trying to get any exam board to admit that they have made a mistake is like trying to get blood from a stone.
Obviously there will be students who will not get what they deserve this year, and the way Ofqual have gone about things is not helping. But let’s not pretend that the way things normally go is perfect either.
*raw mark entered, not percentage
*transposition of columns
*late submissions (we had a several day late window) not picked up
*several submissions marked as late (they weren't).
*coursework essay emailed to academic, who then refused to mark it
All pilot error by individual academics (well, not the last one, but that was completely avoidable) and typically where the final check step wasn't done properly.
I now get someone to check every time.0 -
Much harder to make simple calculation errors in pharmacy before metrication.Anabobazina said:
Hardly comparable to metrication is it? Changing letters to numbers is a near-pointless change with very little to justify it.eristdoof said:
Weren't many people saying in 1970/71 "What a moronic idea changing a currency that uses three units, which everyone understood, to a system using decimal numbers, which only scientists understand"?Anabobazina said:
What a moronic idea, changing a grading system using letters (which everyone understood) to a system using numbers (which only teachers understand).ydoethur said:
New GCSE is 9-1, 9 being the highest.CorrectHorseBattery said:Sorry can somebody explain these grade 5, grade 9s to me.
4 is the equivalent of a C grade in old money. 5 is a good C. 6 a B.
7 an A, and 8 an A*.
Not sure how it works in science, but in Humanities 9 is a subset of grade 8 - the top 500 candidates, I think - to differentiate at the top end.
Which is why I never predict anyone a 9.
Never underestimate the propensity of the education sector to needlessly complicate things. It's maddening.0 -
My school had a 'rule' whereby the bright kids had to take four A-Levels, even though UCAS wanted only three (and wouldn't accept General Studies as one of them). So the wise among us 'took' General Studies then immediately dropped it on the first hour of the new term, so we could focus on getting three proper A-Levels. This annoyed the pen pushers no end but there was sod all they could do about it.ydoethur said:
I taught General Studies.CarlottaVance said:
Teaching people how to think, analyse and argue is pointless? I found it a refreshing change from the more "academic" (sic) subjects.ydoethur said:
Because it was pointless, and with the extra pressure on timetables and changes to the statutory PSHE regime there is no space for pointless any more.CarlottaVance said:Why has "General Studies" died a death?
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1293863273960546306?s=20
Bit like the Scottish government dropping economics.....
I don't feel it did any of that, or at least, not well enough to justify the amount of time and effort put in.
At the school where I taught it, it was brought in as part of a PSHE course by an ambitious deputy head trying to show impact.
He got promoted to a Headship.
The rest of us, when he had gone, took one look at each other and dropped it.
Worked brilliantly for me.
0 -
My long standing impression is bbc bundle thunderstorms in with rain generally, netweather file them under thunderstorms and do really detailed storm warnings but leave them out of the general forecast.Peter_the_Punter said:
But if you've layed the draw, you're ok. Pakistan make 300+ they can easily go on to win.Nigelb said:
Now you've done it.OldKingCole said:
Might be different with another drop.Peter_the_Punter said:6-1. This match isn't going to be a draw.
That's it for England's chances.
Netweather still saying no rain. BBC disagree. Can't both be right!0 -
Using numbers where the higher the number the better (go back far enough and O-levels had 1 as the top grade) allows for the addition of grade 10 and even the possibility of going all the way to 11 in a less clunky way than adding a *.eristdoof said:
Weren't many people saying in 1970/71 "What a moronic idea changing a currency that uses three units, which everyone understood, to a system using decimal numbers, which only scientists understand"?Anabobazina said:
What a moronic idea, changing a grading system using letters (which everyone understood) to a system using numbers (which only teachers understand).ydoethur said:
New GCSE is 9-1, 9 being the highest.CorrectHorseBattery said:Sorry can somebody explain these grade 5, grade 9s to me.
4 is the equivalent of a C grade in old money. 5 is a good C. 6 a B.
7 an A, and 8 an A*.
Not sure how it works in science, but in Humanities 9 is a subset of grade 8 - the top 500 candidates, I think - to differentiate at the top end.
Which is why I never predict anyone a 9.
Never underestimate the propensity of the education sector to needlessly complicate things. It's maddening.
A fairly well disguised reason for the new grading system is that the old A* grade is now covered by grades 8 and 9. Having grade A** would have made this more obvious.1 -
And for "English Regional" purposes:ydoethur said:
I think Oxfordshire is 'the South East' for Twitter purposes.turbotubbs said:
Read where the tweets from! Amused me (not difficult...)ydoethur said:
I think he lives in Chipping Norton?turbotubbs said:
Must be very high up if he's got a view of the Cotswolds from the South East of England!CorrectHorseBattery said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_East_England0 -
The head-to-head between the BBC Weather Service and Netweather is as fascinating as the cricket today. Netweather winning so far. BBC keep pushing back the time of the forecast rain. Bit like me tipping a horse and then changing my mind in running.IshmaelZ said:
My long standing impression is bbc bundle thunderstorms in with rain generally, netweather file them under thunderstorms and do really detailed storm warnings but leave them out of the general forecast.Peter_the_Punter said:
But if you've layed the draw, you're ok. Pakistan make 300+ they can easily go on to win.Nigelb said:
Now you've done it.OldKingCole said:
Might be different with another drop.Peter_the_Punter said:6-1. This match isn't going to be a draw.
That's it for England's chances.
Netweather still saying no rain. BBC disagree. Can't both be right!0 -
I don't think psychology helps with things like that.williamglenn said:
A good understanding of psychology helps in people to comprehend tweets like this.Nigelb said:
Psychology is one of the most popular A Levels...ydoethur said:
Because it was pointless, and with the extra pressure on timetables and changes to the statutory PSHE regime there is no space for pointless any more.CarlottaVance said:Why has "General Studies" died a death?
https://twitter.com/ian_a_jones/status/1293863273960546306?s=20
(ducks)
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1293861034009268224?s=210 -
Actually pupils are (or used to be at least) used to being graded using the National Curriculum levels which the GCSE grades don’t exactly match, but are related to. It was using letters that was new for the students even if adults assumed it was normal.Anabobazina said:
Hardly comparable to metrication is it? Changing letters to numbers is a near-pointless change with very little to justify it.eristdoof said:
Weren't many people saying in 1970/71 "What a moronic idea changing a currency that uses three units, which everyone understood, to a system using decimal numbers, which only scientists understand"?Anabobazina said:
What a moronic idea, changing a grading system using letters (which everyone understood) to a system using numbers (which only teachers understand).ydoethur said:
New GCSE is 9-1, 9 being the highest.CorrectHorseBattery said:Sorry can somebody explain these grade 5, grade 9s to me.
4 is the equivalent of a C grade in old money. 5 is a good C. 6 a B.
7 an A, and 8 an A*.
Not sure how it works in science, but in Humanities 9 is a subset of grade 8 - the top 500 candidates, I think - to differentiate at the top end.
Which is why I never predict anyone a 9.
Never underestimate the propensity of the education sector to needlessly complicate things. It's maddening.
0 -
yeah, sympathise with that one - do online assessment for first year maths for chemical engineers, so I don't even have the mental check of "is this the student I think it is". We have a lot of very, very similar names.Fysics_Teacher said:
For internal grades ( the sort of thing that gets sent to parents every half term or so) I have made a serious transposition error by missing out a student and giving every student from there on the grade of the pupil one above them in the alphabet. That did not go down well.BannedinnParis said:
This last summer exam period, which was all online, we have had:Fysics_Teacher said:One thing that won’t happen this year is a massive cock-up by the exam boards themselves. I’ve seen A* candidates get a D or E because the board forgot to add in the mark for one paper or transposed the digits (91% becomes 19% for example). In some cases this has cost people their university place as by the time it had been sorted it had gone to someone else.
Sometimes a department will get all their students downgraded for no particular reason, and trying to get any exam board to admit that they have made a mistake is like trying to get blood from a stone.
Obviously there will be students who will not get what they deserve this year, and the way Ofqual have gone about things is not helping. But let’s not pretend that the way things normally go is perfect either.
*raw mark entered, not percentage
*transposition of columns
*late submissions (we had a several day late window) not picked up
*several submissions marked as late (they weren't).
*coursework essay emailed to academic, who then refused to mark it
All pilot error by individual academics (well, not the last one, but that was completely avoidable) and typically where the final check step wasn't done properly.
I now get someone to check every time.0 -
-
Although it is a long time ago I did significantly better at A-level than was projected and managed to get into the LSE instead of Hull. Then clearing was much less formalised.0
-
The biggest trap is when the official surname of a pupil is not the same as the one they are known by (usually because they only use the second part of a double barrelled one).BannedinnParis said:
yeah, sympathise with that one - do online assessment for first year maths for chemical engineers, so I don't even have the mental check of "is this the student I think it is". We have a lot of very, very similar names.Fysics_Teacher said:
For internal grades ( the sort of thing that gets sent to parents every half term or so) I have made a serious transposition error by missing out a student and giving every student from there on the grade of the pupil one above them in the alphabet. That did not go down well.BannedinnParis said:
This last summer exam period, which was all online, we have had:Fysics_Teacher said:One thing that won’t happen this year is a massive cock-up by the exam boards themselves. I’ve seen A* candidates get a D or E because the board forgot to add in the mark for one paper or transposed the digits (91% becomes 19% for example). In some cases this has cost people their university place as by the time it had been sorted it had gone to someone else.
Sometimes a department will get all their students downgraded for no particular reason, and trying to get any exam board to admit that they have made a mistake is like trying to get blood from a stone.
Obviously there will be students who will not get what they deserve this year, and the way Ofqual have gone about things is not helping. But let’s not pretend that the way things normally go is perfect either.
*raw mark entered, not percentage
*transposition of columns
*late submissions (we had a several day late window) not picked up
*several submissions marked as late (they weren't).
*coursework essay emailed to academic, who then refused to mark it
All pilot error by individual academics (well, not the last one, but that was completely avoidable) and typically where the final check step wasn't done properly.
I now get someone to check every time.0 -
And off they come for rain....with BOTH outfits indicating it should be dry! No-score draw?!Peter_the_Punter said:
The head-to-head between the BBC Weather Service and Netweather is as fascinating as the cricket today. Netweather winning so far. BBC keep pushing back the time of the forecast rain. Bit like me tipping a horse and then changing my mind in running.IshmaelZ said:
My long standing impression is bbc bundle thunderstorms in with rain generally, netweather file them under thunderstorms and do really detailed storm warnings but leave them out of the general forecast.Peter_the_Punter said:
But if you've layed the draw, you're ok. Pakistan make 300+ they can easily go on to win.Nigelb said:
Now you've done it.OldKingCole said:
Might be different with another drop.Peter_the_Punter said:6-1. This match isn't going to be a draw.
That's it for England's chances.
Netweather still saying no rain. BBC disagree. Can't both be right! 0 -
Chipping Norton is in Oxfordshire, which is technically "South East England" * and is in the Cotswolds.turbotubbs said:
Read where the tweets from! Amused me (not difficult...)ydoethur said:
I think he lives in Chipping Norton?turbotubbs said:
Must be very high up if he's got a view of the Cotswolds from the South East of England!CorrectHorseBattery said:
As a Chipping Norton resident, I have encountered Clarkson locally although his gaffe is a fairway outside town.
* = yes its bollocks, and arguments for southern england (we get BBC South, or BBC West Midlands depending which way you tv aerial points) or as ITV used to claim "south midlands".0 -
@Peter_the_Punter I laid the draw at 3.2 off the back of your post.0
-
In hindsight it’s a shame that the government decided this was the year to crack down on unconditional offers.2
-
Just catching up with the schools fiasco. Looks like Gavin needs a dunce hat. Though he hasn't been helped by teachers massively over estimating the capability of their students. Even at the time loads of people said cancelling exams was a poor idea, now it has come to pass and thousands of young people will pay the price. The government should have done what the Premier League did and taken a cautious tone, hopeful about sitting exams when it was safe to do so.
It would have been safe to sit them by the beginning of July when the infection rate was just a few hundred per day. Even if it meant needing multiple sittings consecutively for the same exam and having holding rooms etc... in case the exam halls weren't big enough. Even putting up temporary marquees in large outdoor venues would have been acceptable.
F1 has managed to hold a 13 race season with the option of two more races, it was not beyond the wit of man to hold A-levels at least. The lack of creativity in the DfE and teaching unions is truly lamentable.0 -
BBC and Netweather both base their forecasts on the US GFS model - since their forecast data is made freely available to commercial forecasters.Peter_the_Punter said:
But if you've layed the draw, you're ok. Pakistan make 300+ they can easily go on to win.Nigelb said:
Now you've done it.OldKingCole said:
Might be different with another drop.Peter_the_Punter said:6-1. This match isn't going to be a draw.
That's it for England's chances.
Netweather still saying no rain. BBC disagree. Can't both be right!
Why not use the Met Office forecast which uses the superior British forecast model?0 -
I find this slightly annoying too. One senses it's a way of boasting rather than boosting others. I'd quite like to see someone tweeting the same message but from the opposite direction -tlg86 said:This is from 2016, but I'm not surprised that Jake Humphrey has the same over-inflated sense of importance as Clarkson:
https://twitter.com/mrjakehumphrey/status/766177100403470336
"Hey, kids. Ok so you got straight As. So did I. But I'm not defined by this. It's not who I am. I dropped out of uni and now I stack shelves at Tesco."0 -
Decimilisation was certainly a mistake.eristdoof said:
Weren't many people saying in 1970/71 "What a moronic idea changing a currency that uses three units, which everyone understood, to a system using decimal numbers, which only scientists understand"?Anabobazina said:
What a moronic idea, changing a grading system using letters (which everyone understood) to a system using numbers (which only teachers understand).ydoethur said:
New GCSE is 9-1, 9 being the highest.CorrectHorseBattery said:Sorry can somebody explain these grade 5, grade 9s to me.
4 is the equivalent of a C grade in old money. 5 is a good C. 6 a B.
7 an A, and 8 an A*.
Not sure how it works in science, but in Humanities 9 is a subset of grade 8 - the top 500 candidates, I think - to differentiate at the top end.
Which is why I never predict anyone a 9.
Never underestimate the propensity of the education sector to needlessly complicate things. It's maddening.0 -
Glad to hear that.Philip_Thompson said:OldKingCole said:
I wonder if the furlough scheme was one of those left over from the trashed 'pandemic planning' of ...... when was it ...... 2018?Philip_Thompson said:
Sunak has been tested more than most Chancellors ever would already and has so far done a very impressive job - far better than just doling out money.nichomar said:
How do you know? They have never been tested, what you actually mean is that Sunak does things I like and agree with the others ‘might’ not. Sunak as yet has not been tested he has just doled out money come back in two years and maybe a value judgement can be made on his ability.Philip_Thompson said:
For a party leader electoral success is one of the most important elements of competence required. That extends to a Prime Minister too under a Cabinet style of government - Sunak is more competent Chancellor than Dodds or McDonnell would be and its only because of Boris's electoral success that we have Sunak.ydoethur said:
He has a track record of electoral success, and undeniable ability at campaigning.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson has a track record of success and undeniable ability and competence.ydoethur said:
But it doesn’t work like that, does it? If he appointed by ability and competence, about the only ones to survive a purge would be Sunak, Wallace, Buckland, Coffey and Hart.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is expected Boris will refresh his cabinet in September and Williamson needs to be demoted, along with several othersydoethur said:
One thought that occurs to me is that unlike in Scotland this is part 1 of 2.Jonathan said:Has Williamson resigned yet?
And next week will be much worse as the algorithm was far more important in GCSE results, and the damage done to grades of students in historically weak schools in core subjects, e.g. Maths and English, could be immense.
So although he hasn’t resigned yet, it’s only just beginning.
And that includes Johnson himself.
I’m struggling to think of any time he’s shown competence. He couldn’t even read an autocue correctly on Have I Got News For You.
The furlough scheme was set up with unprecedented efficiency and worked.
During his summer emergency jobs statement he identified where the economy was really struggling and came out with very targeted proposals rather than blanket ones.
The one masterstroke other than the furlough scheme was the Eat Out scheme which cost the Treasury a miniscule amount of money in the COVID scheme of things but has had a transformative impact. When it was announced my first reaction was it was a bit gimmicky, but I was wrong it was quite intelligent and well thought through. It is getting a very powerful return on the money spent by the Treasury compared to any proposed alternatives. We were out yesterday at a local restaurant which we wouldn't have gone to had it not been for the scheme, the restaurant was fully booked out which would never normally happen on a Wednesday.
I think the Eat out scheme has partly, but not entirely, transferred eating out from later in the week.
If the furlough scheme was then good job the planning was done. If it wasn't then it was wonderfully creative.OldKingCole said:
I wonder if the furlough scheme was one of those left over from the trashed 'pandemic planning' of ...... when was it ...... 2018?Philip_Thompson said:
Sunak has been tested more than most Chancellors ever would already and has so far done a very impressive job - far better than just doling out money.nichomar said:
How do you know? They have never been tested, what you actually mean is that Sunak does things I like and agree with the others ‘might’ not. Sunak as yet has not been tested he has just doled out money come back in two years and maybe a value judgement can be made on his ability.Philip_Thompson said:
For a party leader electoral success is one of the most important elements of competence required. That extends to a Prime Minister too under a Cabinet style of government - Sunak is more competent Chancellor than Dodds or McDonnell would be and its only because of Boris's electoral success that we have Sunak.ydoethur said:
He has a track record of electoral success, and undeniable ability at campaigning.Philip_Thompson said:
Johnson has a track record of success and undeniable ability and competence.ydoethur said:
But it doesn’t work like that, does it? If he appointed by ability and competence, about the only ones to survive a purge would be Sunak, Wallace, Buckland, Coffey and Hart.Big_G_NorthWales said:
It is expected Boris will refresh his cabinet in September and Williamson needs to be demoted, along with several othersydoethur said:
One thought that occurs to me is that unlike in Scotland this is part 1 of 2.Jonathan said:Has Williamson resigned yet?
And next week will be much worse as the algorithm was far more important in GCSE results, and the damage done to grades of students in historically weak schools in core subjects, e.g. Maths and English, could be immense.
So although he hasn’t resigned yet, it’s only just beginning.
And that includes Johnson himself.
I’m struggling to think of any time he’s shown competence. He couldn’t even read an autocue correctly on Have I Got News For You.
The furlough scheme was set up with unprecedented efficiency and worked.
During his summer emergency jobs statement he identified where the economy was really struggling and came out with very targeted proposals rather than blanket ones.
The one masterstroke other than the furlough scheme was the Eat Out scheme which cost the Treasury a miniscule amount of money in the COVID scheme of things but has had a transformative impact. When it was announced my first reaction was it was a bit gimmicky, but I was wrong it was quite intelligent and well thought through. It is getting a very powerful return on the money spent by the Treasury compared to any proposed alternatives. We were out yesterday at a local restaurant which we wouldn't have gone to had it not been for the scheme, the restaurant was fully booked out which would never normally happen on a Wednesday.
I think the Eat out scheme has partly, but not entirely, transferred eating out from later in the week.
I doubt it regarding the Eat Out scheme. Personally we would never have gone out this weekend so our meal yesterday was definitely an extra one. Yesterday was our first meal out since February and having crossed that bridge and had a meal out now I'd feel a lot more confident to have another one next month even without the scheme.
I`m sure it is working to some extent, but could this be to a very modest extent considering the cost? I wonder how much money is being shelled out to Costa and Starbucks, for instance?
Our local pubs are fully booked Mon to Weds and turning people away. The same pubs have virtually no diners Thurs and Fri and only marginally more Sat and Sun. Who would eat out at full cost Thurs - Sun when you can go for half price Mon - Weds? Our local pub is having to hire temporary staff Mon-Weds only.
My concern, then, is that custom is bottlenecking more than it is increasing overall, and the scheme represents poor value for money for taxpayers.0
