Allegra Stratton is right to raise questions about EVs – politicalbetting.com

The problem with a ranking system is that you cant compare across year groups. A particularly good year group might leave a student with a worse “grade” which could have been significantly better if they were 1 year older or younger.

rcs1000 said:

In case anyone was thinking I was joking about hydrogen being the worst of both worlds, here's my rough ranking of ICE, hydrogen, and battery.

Performance:
Battery 10/10
ICE 7/10
Hydrogen 3/10

Infrastructure:
ICE 10/10
Battery 6/10
Hydrogen 1/10

Car's interior:
Battery 10/10 (they're using on the floor)
ICE 7/10
Hydrogen 2/10 (petrol sized engine, massive hydrogen tank taking up half your luggage space)

Fuelling time:
ICE 10/10
Hydrogen 9/10*
Battery 2/10

* Assumes you are right next to one of the three places with hydrogen "on tap". Otherwise 1/10, because you'll have to go out your way to find a station

Environmental impact:
Battery 6/10
ICE 3/10
Hydrogen 1/10 (it's *really* inefficient to go natural gas -> hydrogen -> fuel cell -> motion)

Handling:
ICE 10/10
Battery 5/10
Hydrogen 2/10 (all the extra weight of batteries, none of the performance)

Range:
ICE 10/10 (unless it's the Ford Escape I rented the other day, then 6/10)
Hydrogen 7/10 (the Mirai does get about 350 miles to a tank of hydrogen)
Battery 4/10 (up from 2/10 two years ago)

Hydrogen generation needs lots of green electricity if we are going to reduce harmful emissions, but could it be seen as a useful way to "store" excess green electricity?

Most likely way of using Hydrogen is a fuel cell not a combustion engine as quoted above. A mate in the car industry says the biggest issue is the fact Hydrogen escapes unless liquified etc. So you fill your car up and if you don't drive it the tank is empty a week later.....

However like Mike's hybrid could we see hybrid fuel cell, lithium models? You only need enough battery capacity for pottering about your home or going to work and when you have the long journey up to Glasgow for COP26 you fill up the hydrogen and use it as a fuel cell immediately. In both cases the engine is electric.

But the car only needs small lithium battery (60 miles capacity like the original Zoe perhaps? This would lower cost of battery and be less harmful on the Li production) and can compensate with a hydrogen fuel tank.

Gallowgate said:

The problem with a ranking system is that you cant compare across year groups. A particularly good year group might leave a student with a worse “grade” which could have been significantly better if they were 1 year older or younger.

That's always been the case though - they always moderate against prior years' results.

LostPassword said:

Quincel said:

rcs1000 said:

NerysHughes said:

My daughter lives in Charminster in Bournemouth. A nice place to live. However there is absolutely no off road parking. The Council have instigated a one way system as with cars parked either side of the road there is only room for one car to pass. There are literally thousands of houses with no off road parking. If they all had electric cars how would they charge them. A charger unit would have to installed for each house, but then there is no guarantee that you could park outside your house. Are we going to have hundreds of cables draped across pavements? And what a laugh it would br for teenagers to unplug the chargers.

Well, electric cars clearly aren't for everyone right now.

But this is a continuum: every year, every bit of the electric car ownership equation gets better.

So, prices get lower. A brand new F150 Electric pickup is $45,000. That's barely any more than the regular one. Compare that to six or seven years ago, when Teslas were at least 50% more than equivalent petrol cars.

And range is only improving. The Tesla Model S Long Range will do 420 miles to the... errr... tank. That's almost twice the range of the first Model S (250 miles) from 2013, and that increase has come in seven years.

And the charging infrastructure is going to get better and better. Chargers in street lamps. Chargers in parking garages. Chargers at supermarkets.

And the speed of fast charging has also increased enormously. The first generation of Tesla supercharger would add 80 miles of range in 20 minutes (and that seemed like magic). Current 350KW chargers can add 240 miles in the same time. How long before a complete charge is just 10 minutes? At that point, petrol stations start adding electric car charging facilities, because why not?

I agree. The future isn't a charger for every house. Much as petrol cars began with the owner sourcing the petrol but moved to petrol stations, EVs are undergoing the same shift. But since cars are already mass-market, the shift is happening faster.

My brother bought one a year or so ago, and has had no problem charging it. He lives in a flat, no charger at home, but nearby streets and supermarkets especially provide ample coverage for him. He says that what others told him was true: For the first month you constantly worry about charging it, and then you never think about it again.

Everyone with a smartphone will have had times when their battery failed at an inconvenient moment and that will affect confidence in relying on battery power for cars, until people have contrary experience with battery cars.

Does anyone know how long the batteries hold charge for, if a car is unused for a week or two?

My original Tesla roadster would lose about 1% battery a day. My current EV, I haven’t noticed any losses at all, but there must be some.

timple said:

rcs1000 said:

In case anyone was thinking I was joking about hydrogen being the worst of both worlds, here's my rough ranking of ICE, hydrogen, and battery.

Performance:
Battery 10/10
ICE 7/10
Hydrogen 3/10

Infrastructure:
ICE 10/10
Battery 6/10
Hydrogen 1/10

Car's interior:
Battery 10/10 (they're using on the floor)
ICE 7/10
Hydrogen 2/10 (petrol sized engine, massive hydrogen tank taking up half your luggage space)

Fuelling time:
ICE 10/10
Hydrogen 9/10*
Battery 2/10

* Assumes you are right next to one of the three places with hydrogen "on tap". Otherwise 1/10, because you'll have to go out your way to find a station

Environmental impact:
Battery 6/10
ICE 3/10
Hydrogen 1/10 (it's *really* inefficient to go natural gas -> hydrogen -> fuel cell -> motion)

Handling:
ICE 10/10
Battery 5/10
Hydrogen 2/10 (all the extra weight of batteries, none of the performance)

Range:
ICE 10/10 (unless it's the Ford Escape I rented the other day, then 6/10)
Hydrogen 7/10 (the Mirai does get about 350 miles to a tank of hydrogen)
Battery 4/10 (up from 2/10 two years ago)

Hydrogen generation needs lots of green electricity if we are going to reduce harmful emissions, but could it be seen as a useful way to "store" excess green electricity?

Most likely way of using Hydrogen is a fuel cell not a combustion engine as quoted above. A mate in the car industry says the biggest issue is the fact Hydrogen escapes unless liquified etc. So you fill your car up and if you don't drive it the tank is empty a week later.....

However like Mike's hybrid could we see hybrid fuel cell, lithium models? You only need enough battery capacity for pottering about your home or going to work and when you have the long journey up to Glasgow for COP26 you fill up the hydrogen and use it as a fuel cell immediately. In both cases the engine is electric.

But the car only needs small lithium battery (60 miles capacity like the original Zoe perhaps? This would lower cost of battery and be less harmful on the Li production) and can compensate with a hydrogen fuel tank.

I would again (as I did yesterday) refer people to the JCB video I linked to where the hydrogen was being feed into the engine as if it was petrol rather than using it to power batteries.

Gallowgate said:

The problem with a ranking system is that you cant compare across year groups. A particularly good year group might leave a student with a worse “grade” which could have been significantly better if they were 1 year older or younger.

There can't usually be that much difference between years.

Stocky said:

kinabalu said:

Stocky said:

@TOPPING @Leon

The risk, of course, is the 72 hour before return to UK test. What if you test positive! Travelling as a family we have to have contingency plans thought out for the eventuality.

I'm just not bothering until next year. I can't bear things in my orifices. Rather have 10 jabs than 1 test.

You are doing the tests yourself - it's not really much different to picking your nose.

Really? I heard it had to go quite deep to be effective. But ok, you've done loads so you'd know how it really is.

One of my mates has gone to Greece, he’s a big anti vaxxer, not had either jab, and won’t even take a test!

timple said:

rcs1000 said:

In case anyone was thinking I was joking about hydrogen being the worst of both worlds, here's my rough ranking of ICE, hydrogen, and battery.

Performance:
Battery 10/10
ICE 7/10
Hydrogen 3/10

Infrastructure:
ICE 10/10
Battery 6/10
Hydrogen 1/10

Car's interior:
Battery 10/10 (they're using on the floor)
ICE 7/10
Hydrogen 2/10 (petrol sized engine, massive hydrogen tank taking up half your luggage space)

Fuelling time:
ICE 10/10
Hydrogen 9/10*
Battery 2/10

* Assumes you are right next to one of the three places with hydrogen "on tap". Otherwise 1/10, because you'll have to go out your way to find a station

Environmental impact:
Battery 6/10
ICE 3/10
Hydrogen 1/10 (it's *really* inefficient to go natural gas -> hydrogen -> fuel cell -> motion)

Handling:
ICE 10/10
Battery 5/10
Hydrogen 2/10 (all the extra weight of batteries, none of the performance)

Range:
ICE 10/10 (unless it's the Ford Escape I rented the other day, then 6/10)
Hydrogen 7/10 (the Mirai does get about 350 miles to a tank of hydrogen)
Battery 4/10 (up from 2/10 two years ago)

Hydrogen generation needs lots of green electricity if we are going to reduce harmful emissions, but could it be seen as a useful way to "store" excess green electricity?

Most likely way of using Hydrogen is a fuel cell not a combustion engine as quoted above. A mate in the car industry says the biggest issue is the fact Hydrogen escapes unless liquified etc. So you fill your car up and if you don't drive it the tank is empty a week later.....

However like Mike's hybrid could we see hybrid fuel cell, lithium models? You only need enough battery capacity for pottering about your home or going to work and when you have the long journey up to Glasgow for COP26 you fill up the hydrogen and use it as a fuel cell immediately. In both cases the engine is electric.

But the car only needs small lithium battery (60 miles capacity like the original Zoe perhaps? This would lower cost of battery and be less harmful on the Li production) and can compensate with a hydrogen fuel tank.

Nearly all Hydrogen powered cars are actually fuel cell hybrids - because you can't stop and start fuels cells instantly. So they run on the battery and charge from the fuel cell. Then, to get regen braking, you have a bigger battery....

The idea that the problem is Lithium mining is wrong, essentially. Especially when you compare it to the exotic materials you need in the fuel cell.....

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

I AM IN TERMINAL 5, SOUTH LOUNGE, LHR, DRINKING FREE CHAMPAGNE

Slowly, the horrors abate

Don't forget to book your Day 2 PCR you will need that on the PLF before you are allowed back into your own country. If you are let out of Greece, that is, following a negative test.

I really wanted to go to France this Summer. However, the thought of trying to arrange everything for 5 of us (3 kids ranging from 3yo to 12yo) was just too much. Didn't bother. Maybe that was the intention. Hopefully next year, but then again, I said that last year.

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

I AM IN TERMINAL 5, SOUTH LOUNGE, LHR, DRINKING FREE CHAMPAGNE

Slowly, the horrors abate

Don't forget to book your Day 2 PCR you will need that on the PLF before you are allowed back into your own country. If you are let out of Greece, that is, following a negative test.

I’m an old hand at covid travel now. Been there done that.

There was one unnerving moment as I tried to board the Dresden train with Richard Attenborough, sorry, check in at T5, when even the check in lady wasn’t sure if I needed a neg test for Greece. She had to consult a sheaf of documents.

We really are back to wartime era travel.

But there is really efficient table ordering of free bubbles in the BA lounge, which is actually easier than going to the bar, so it’s not all blitz-and-papieren-bitte

isam said:

One of my mates has gone to Greece, he’s a big anti vaxxer, not had either jab, and won’t even take a test!

How did he get in to Greece as tests or proof of vax is/are required.

Are you sure he isn't in Skeggy just pretending?

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

I AM IN TERMINAL 5, SOUTH LOUNGE, LHR, DRINKING FREE CHAMPAGNE

Slowly, the horrors abate

Don't forget to book your Day 2 PCR you will need that on the PLF before you are allowed back into your own country. If you are let out of Greece, that is, following a negative test.

I’m an old hand at covid travel now. Been there done that.

There was one unnerving moment as I tried to board the Dresden train with Richard Attenborough, sorry, check in at T5, when even the check in lady wasn’t sure if I needed a neg test for Greece. She had to consult a sheaf of documents.

We really are back to wartime era travel.

But there is really efficient table ordering of free bubbles in the BA lounge, which is actually easier than going to the bar, so it’s not all blitz-and-papieren-bitte

Is it Nyetimber?

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

ping said:

IanB2 said:

Half of all students getting an A is more than a tad of grade inflation.

Indeed.

We’ve done a huge disservice to past and future students. I don’t see how they can fix this now. I wouldn’t be surprised if this necessitates a complete reworking of the grades. Replace A-E with a new 1-10 national ranking system, perhaps?

How about

Exams for all. Students ranked from 1 - 10, 1 = top 10%, 2 = 11 -> 20%............

Yes, even 19% got an A* grade so even the A* does not distinguish the top 10% now.

A ranking system sounds much more sensible

No. A ranking system is only more sensible if what you want is a ranking system.

If, instead, A-levels are supposed to reflect how much a student knows about a subject, then it is quite possible that today's students really can speak Italian better than their predecessors, because of cheaper holidays and easier access to Italian videos on Youtube.

Looked at another way, if someone said there were more 18-year-olds with driving licences than 30 years ago, you'd not be too shocked. But if someone said they were twice as intelligent, you would smell a rat. So are A-levels supposed to be like driving tests or intelligence tests?

What we do want is a ranking system. Otherwise what is the point of competitive examinations? They are supposed to enable universities and top employers to pick the brightest candidates.

If everyone is getting more intelligent and knowledgeable about the world all to the good. However there are still only about the same number of doctors and lawyers and teachers we need percentage wise as 50 years ago.

There is no reason why everyone should not be able to drive, so all you need is a mere pass to be safe on the roads that is all. The driving test is not equivalent

How does a ranking system pick the brightest candidates?

It doesn't. It picks the ones most able to answer the questions in the way they are presented.

For instance I won an award a national Journalism back in 1989. Given that the previous year my English Teacher announced the O level results with the statement "Congratulations, you've all passed English Language O level, yes that includes Eek" you can see why it doesn't work.

Well obviously you passed English O level too then, which is more than most pupils of your age would have done back then. So that rather proves my point.

Many people demonstrably have problems with geography, logic, and statistical method today. Which proves your point even more.

It was ranked effectively as in 1989 most pupils failed English O level and it was then further ranked by grade amongst those who passed it.

In fact back then fewer pupils passed English O level as a percentage than the percentage of A level pupils who got an A* or A grade A level today

I got AAAA back when As were As, men were men, and buses had conductors and you could smoke on the top deck. Different world. Kids of today wouldn't recognize it.

eek said:

timple said:

rcs1000 said:

In case anyone was thinking I was joking about hydrogen being the worst of both worlds, here's my rough ranking of ICE, hydrogen, and battery.

Performance:
Battery 10/10
ICE 7/10
Hydrogen 3/10

Infrastructure:
ICE 10/10
Battery 6/10
Hydrogen 1/10

Car's interior:
Battery 10/10 (they're using on the floor)
ICE 7/10
Hydrogen 2/10 (petrol sized engine, massive hydrogen tank taking up half your luggage space)

Fuelling time:
ICE 10/10
Hydrogen 9/10*
Battery 2/10

* Assumes you are right next to one of the three places with hydrogen "on tap". Otherwise 1/10, because you'll have to go out your way to find a station

Environmental impact:
Battery 6/10
ICE 3/10
Hydrogen 1/10 (it's *really* inefficient to go natural gas -> hydrogen -> fuel cell -> motion)

Handling:
ICE 10/10
Battery 5/10
Hydrogen 2/10 (all the extra weight of batteries, none of the performance)

Range:
ICE 10/10 (unless it's the Ford Escape I rented the other day, then 6/10)
Hydrogen 7/10 (the Mirai does get about 350 miles to a tank of hydrogen)
Battery 4/10 (up from 2/10 two years ago)

Hydrogen generation needs lots of green electricity if we are going to reduce harmful emissions, but could it be seen as a useful way to "store" excess green electricity?

Most likely way of using Hydrogen is a fuel cell not a combustion engine as quoted above. A mate in the car industry says the biggest issue is the fact Hydrogen escapes unless liquified etc. So you fill your car up and if you don't drive it the tank is empty a week later.....

However like Mike's hybrid could we see hybrid fuel cell, lithium models? You only need enough battery capacity for pottering about your home or going to work and when you have the long journey up to Glasgow for COP26 you fill up the hydrogen and use it as a fuel cell immediately. In both cases the engine is electric.

But the car only needs small lithium battery (60 miles capacity like the original Zoe perhaps? This would lower cost of battery and be less harmful on the Li production) and can compensate with a hydrogen fuel tank.

I would again (as I did yesterday) refer people to the JCB video I linked to where the hydrogen was being feed into the engine as if it was petrol rather than using it to power batteries.

People have been experimenting with running ICEs on hydrogen for a long time - it was of interest back in the days of hydrogen filled airships. Aside from some materials problems, hydrogen is very inefficient in a piston engine for thermodynamic reasons. Hence fuel cells - which are vastly more efficient.

In a number of tests/experiments running an engine on hydrogen has been used in place of a fuel cell, since fuel cells are still rather expensive and need special maintenance of their own.

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

I AM IN TERMINAL 5, SOUTH LOUNGE, LHR, DRINKING FREE CHAMPAGNE

Slowly, the horrors abate

Don't forget to book your Day 2 PCR you will need that on the PLF before you are allowed back into your own country. If you are let out of Greece, that is, following a negative test.

I’m an old hand at covid travel now. Been there done that.

There was one unnerving moment as I tried to board the Dresden train with Richard Attenborough, sorry, check in at T5, when even the check in lady wasn’t sure if I needed a neg test for Greece. She had to consult a sheaf of documents.

We really are back to wartime era travel.

But there is really efficient table ordering of free bubbles in the BA lounge, which is actually easier than going to the bar, so it’s not all blitz-and-papieren-bitte

Give me KLM's self service all you can pour downstairs option followed by a whiskey upstairs before leaving.

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

ping said:

IanB2 said:

Half of all students getting an A is more than a tad of grade inflation.

Indeed.

We’ve done a huge disservice to past and future students. I don’t see how they can fix this now. I wouldn’t be surprised if this necessitates a complete reworking of the grades. Replace A-E with a new 1-10 national ranking system, perhaps?

How about

Exams for all. Students ranked from 1 - 10, 1 = top 10%, 2 = 11 -> 20%............

Yes, even 19% got an A* grade so even the A* does not distinguish the top 10% now.

A ranking system sounds much more sensible

No. A ranking system is only more sensible if what you want is a ranking system.

If, instead, A-levels are supposed to reflect how much a student knows about a subject, then it is quite possible that today's students really can speak Italian better than their predecessors, because of cheaper holidays and easier access to Italian videos on Youtube.

Looked at another way, if someone said there were more 18-year-olds with driving licences than 30 years ago, you'd not be too shocked. But if someone said they were twice as intelligent, you would smell a rat. So are A-levels supposed to be like driving tests or intelligence tests?

What we do want is a ranking system. Otherwise what is the point of competitive examinations? They are supposed to enable universities and top employers to pick the brightest candidates.

If everyone is getting more intelligent and knowledgeable about the world all to the good. However there are still only about the same number of doctors and lawyers and teachers we need percentage wise as 50 years ago.

There is no reason why everyone should not be able to drive, so all you need is a mere pass to be safe on the roads that is all. The driving test is not equivalent

How does a ranking system pick the brightest candidates?

It doesn't. It picks the ones most able to answer the questions in the way they are presented.

For instance I won an award a national Journalism back in 1989. Given that the previous year my English Teacher announced the O level results with the statement "Congratulations, you've all passed English Language O level, yes that includes Eek" you can see why it doesn't work.

Well obviously you passed English O level too then, which is more than most pupils of your age would have done back then. So that rather proves my point.

Many people demonstrably have problems with geography, logic, and statistical method today. Which proves your point even more.

It was ranked effectively as in 1989 most pupils failed English O level and it was then further ranked by grade amongst those who passed it.

In fact back then fewer pupils passed English O level as a percentage than the percentage of A level pupils who got an A* or A grade A level today

I got AAAA back when As were As, men were men, and buses had conductors and you could smoke on the top deck. Different world. Kids of today wouldn't recognize it.

LUUUUUUUUXUUUUURY!

eek said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

I AM IN TERMINAL 5, SOUTH LOUNGE, LHR, DRINKING FREE CHAMPAGNE

Slowly, the horrors abate

Don't forget to book your Day 2 PCR you will need that on the PLF before you are allowed back into your own country. If you are let out of Greece, that is, following a negative test.

I’m an old hand at covid travel now. Been there done that.

There was one unnerving moment as I tried to board the Dresden train with Richard Attenborough, sorry, check in at T5, when even the check in lady wasn’t sure if I needed a neg test for Greece. She had to consult a sheaf of documents.

We really are back to wartime era travel.

But there is really efficient table ordering of free bubbles in the BA lounge, which is actually easier than going to the bar, so it’s not all blitz-and-papieren-bitte

Give me KLM's self service all you can pour downstairs option followed by a whiskey upstairs before leaving.

But that was pre-covid. It may have changed. Unless you have recent experience

There’s no buffet food either. Have to order everything. I used to enjoy making weird snacks of Stilton, walnuts, a bit of curry and Bombay mix

TimT said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

ping said:

IanB2 said:

Half of all students getting an A is more than a tad of grade inflation.

Indeed.

We’ve done a huge disservice to past and future students. I don’t see how they can fix this now. I wouldn’t be surprised if this necessitates a complete reworking of the grades. Replace A-E with a new 1-10 national ranking system, perhaps?

How about

Exams for all. Students ranked from 1 - 10, 1 = top 10%, 2 = 11 -> 20%............

Yes, even 19% got an A* grade so even the A* does not distinguish the top 10% now.

A ranking system sounds much more sensible

No. A ranking system is only more sensible if what you want is a ranking system.

If, instead, A-levels are supposed to reflect how much a student knows about a subject, then it is quite possible that today's students really can speak Italian better than their predecessors, because of cheaper holidays and easier access to Italian videos on Youtube.

Looked at another way, if someone said there were more 18-year-olds with driving licences than 30 years ago, you'd not be too shocked. But if someone said they were twice as intelligent, you would smell a rat. So are A-levels supposed to be like driving tests or intelligence tests?

What we do want is a ranking system. Otherwise what is the point of competitive examinations? They are supposed to enable universities and top employers to pick the brightest candidates.

If everyone is getting more intelligent and knowledgeable about the world all to the good. However there are still only about the same number of doctors and lawyers and teachers we need percentage wise as 50 years ago.

There is no reason why everyone should not be able to drive, so all you need is a mere pass to be safe on the roads that is all. The driving test is not equivalent

Even if you accept that an exam-based ranking system would enable picking the 'brightest' - why do we want the 'brightest' to be doctors, lawyers and teachers?

I want my doctor to be smart enough to make the diagnosis/perform the treatment, but I also want them to care, want to help people, be good with people.

I want my teacher to be smart enough to understand the things I need to be taught and to give useful answers to my questions - at GCSE and A level that's not that high a bar, but I also want them, perhaps more so, to inspire me, care and be good at communication.

I want everyone else's lawyers to be as thick as two short planks

We've interviewed smart people (on paper) and found them incurious and poorly suited to the research we do, which involves working with and communicating with doctors and patients.

Exams are the thing that make people work (mostly) at school and probably the best tool to decide who is suited to higher education, who not so much etc etc. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the object of the exercise is to teach people about the world and equip them to go and do useful things. Too much focus on exams risks losing focus on the actual teaching and learning.

Yes a doctor ideally would be good with people too but if they have no medical knowledge then they would be pretty useless on the operating table or in terms of accurately diagnosing illness and treatment.

Same with lawyers, if you do not have a knowledge of the law you cannot advise on the law.

Same with teachers, yes inspiring is good but at the end of the day you are a teacher transferring knowledge not an actor giving a performance.

As a matter of curiosity when was the last time you employed candidates with C or D grades or lower across the board?

Yes, you need knowledge (and a sufficient degree of intelligence to apply and understand that knowledge). However, we're talking about school exams and there are no A levels in law or medicine (or are there? not common anyway?) so A levels are just a clue as to who might have the ability to do well in those professions. My issue was with you saying that we want doctors etc to be the brightest - I disagree, but it does depend on how you define 'brightest', i.e. what % that covers. I'd want my doctor to have done well in med school, I'm not to bothered if they flunked their A levels.

As for you last question, 2018 (as I recall it was two Cs and a D, certainly nothing above C). The person in question wanted to be a doctor at the time, but failed to get the grades. Went into nursing instead and through that into research. Now a Senior Research Fellow (equivalent grade to Senior Lecturer, one below Professor). I only remember because she was - rightly - proud of how she'd turned things around, we wouldn't ordinarily have looked much at the A level results, but her letter highlighted them, the experience was relevant to the job.

HYUFD's impression of education is a little outdated. Education - or at least good education - is no longer about transferring knowledge. With the inter web, knowledge has been almost entirely commoditized. We do not need teachers to access information and knowledge. We need teachers to inspire, teach us intellectual skills (e.g. critical thinking), and help us identify the right questions.

So on that basis why not let everyone become a lawyer or doctor or perform brain surgery? After all you can find out how to do it on the internet.

You need knowledge to be able to effectively critique

Leon said:

I AM FUCKING PILING THROUGH THE FREE CHAMPAGNE. I apologise to anyone flying later if the South Lounge inexplicably runs out of Moët

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

TOPPING said:

Leon said:

I AM IN TERMINAL 5, SOUTH LOUNGE, LHR, DRINKING FREE CHAMPAGNE

Slowly, the horrors abate

Don't forget to book your Day 2 PCR you will need that on the PLF before you are allowed back into your own country. If you are let out of Greece, that is, following a negative test.

I’m an old hand at covid travel now. Been there done that.

There was one unnerving moment as I tried to board the Dresden train with Richard Attenborough, sorry, check in at T5, when even the check in lady wasn’t sure if I needed a neg test for Greece. She had to consult a sheaf of documents.

We really are back to wartime era travel.

But there is really efficient table ordering of free bubbles in the BA lounge, which is actually easier than going to the bar, so it’s not all blitz-and-papieren-bitte

Is it Nyetimber?

Sadly not. Some French shit

Does that make you a dung-beetle, then the way you are piling into it? (Mildly envious.)

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

ping said:

IanB2 said:

Half of all students getting an A is more than a tad of grade inflation.

Indeed.

We’ve done a huge disservice to past and future students. I don’t see how they can fix this now. I wouldn’t be surprised if this necessitates a complete reworking of the grades. Replace A-E with a new 1-10 national ranking system, perhaps?

How about

Exams for all. Students ranked from 1 - 10, 1 = top 10%, 2 = 11 -> 20%............

Yes, even 19% got an A* grade so even the A* does not distinguish the top 10% now.

A ranking system sounds much more sensible

No. A ranking system is only more sensible if what you want is a ranking system.

If, instead, A-levels are supposed to reflect how much a student knows about a subject, then it is quite possible that today's students really can speak Italian better than their predecessors, because of cheaper holidays and easier access to Italian videos on Youtube.

Looked at another way, if someone said there were more 18-year-olds with driving licences than 30 years ago, you'd not be too shocked. But if someone said they were twice as intelligent, you would smell a rat. So are A-levels supposed to be like driving tests or intelligence tests?

What we do want is a ranking system. Otherwise what is the point of competitive examinations? They are supposed to enable universities and top employers to pick the brightest candidates.

If everyone is getting more intelligent and knowledgeable about the world all to the good. However there are still only about the same number of doctors and lawyers and teachers we need percentage wise as 50 years ago.

There is no reason why everyone should not be able to drive, so all you need is a mere pass to be safe on the roads that is all. The driving test is not equivalent

Even if you accept that an exam-based ranking system would enable picking the 'brightest' - why do we want the 'brightest' to be doctors, lawyers and teachers?

I want my doctor to be smart enough to make the diagnosis/perform the treatment, but I also want them to care, want to help people, be good with people.

I want my teacher to be smart enough to understand the things I need to be taught and to give useful answers to my questions - at GCSE and A level that's not that high a bar, but I also want them, perhaps more so, to inspire me, care and be good at communication.

I want everyone else's lawyers to be as thick as two short planks

We've interviewed smart people (on paper) and found them incurious and poorly suited to the research we do, which involves working with and communicating with doctors and patients.

Exams are the thing that make people work (mostly) at school and probably the best tool to decide who is suited to higher education, who not so much etc etc. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the object of the exercise is to teach people about the world and equip them to go and do useful things. Too much focus on exams risks losing focus on the actual teaching and learning.

Yes a doctor ideally would be good with people too but if they have no medical knowledge then they would be pretty useless on the operating table or in terms of accurately diagnosing illness and treatment.

Same with lawyers, if you do not have a knowledge of the law you cannot advise on the law.

Same with teachers, yes inspiring is good but at the end of the day you are a teacher transferring knowledge not an actor giving a performance.

As a matter of curiosity when was the last time you employed candidates with C or D grades or lower across the board?

Yes, you need knowledge (and a sufficient degree of intelligence to apply and understand that knowledge). However, we're talking about school exams and there are no A levels in law or medicine (or are there? not common anyway?) so A levels are just a clue as to who might have the ability to do well in those professions. My issue was with you saying that we want doctors etc to be the brightest - I disagree, but it does depend on how you define 'brightest', i.e. what % that covers. I'd want my doctor to have done well in med school, I'm not to bothered if they flunked their A levels.

As for you last question, 2018 (as I recall it was two Cs and a D, certainly nothing above C). The person in question wanted to be a doctor at the time, but failed to get the grades. Went into nursing instead and through that into research. Now a Senior Research Fellow (equivalent grade to Senior Lecturer, one below Professor). I only remember because she was - rightly - proud of how she'd turned things around, we wouldn't ordinarily have looked much at the A level results, but her letter highlighted them, the experience was relevant to the job.

You do need reasonable command of English to be a lawyer and an advanced knowledge of science to even get to medical school and be able to cope.

So 3 years ago and not a single successful candidate with C or D grades since. Of course there are always avenues for exceptional late developers as per the case above but in general it is clear the vast majority of doctors and lawyers are A grade candidates not C or D grade or below

I got a C in Physics at A Level

Yes and you are a lawyer not a surgeon or engineer so rather proving my point.

'You do need reasonable command of English to be a lawyer and an advanced knowledge of science to even get to medical school and be able to cope.'

Not 'You do need reasonable command of Physics to be a lawyer...'

LOL!

(emphasis mine)

What's it like to be an exceptional late developer, @Gallowgate ?

I would imagine rather a lot of lawyers did not have great grades in science at school unless in a specialist area like IP, however most would have had good grades and indeed A grades in English, History etc.

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

The bonkers thing is that the govt won't accept an NHS test taken abroad before you return as proof that you have tested negative. The NHS which we know and love and all clapped for is deemed as not able to provide a test for return to the UK.

Of course we know it's because people will lie like cheap naafi watches if they have to self-certify with a brought-along test but even still.

If you think thats bad, try getting the NHS to understand that you got vaccinated abroad. Even if it’s with one of they vaccines they’re using, they still don’t seem to understand.

Really? That's disappointing.

rcs1000 said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

ping said:

IanB2 said:

Half of all students getting an A is more than a tad of grade inflation.

Indeed.

We’ve done a huge disservice to past and future students. I don’t see how they can fix this now. I wouldn’t be surprised if this necessitates a complete reworking of the grades. Replace A-E with a new 1-10 national ranking system, perhaps?

How about

Exams for all. Students ranked from 1 - 10, 1 = top 10%, 2 = 11 -> 20%............

Yes, even 19% got an A* grade so even the A* does not distinguish the top 10% now.

A ranking system sounds much more sensible

No. A ranking system is only more sensible if what you want is a ranking system.

If, instead, A-levels are supposed to reflect how much a student knows about a subject, then it is quite possible that today's students really can speak Italian better than their predecessors, because of cheaper holidays and easier access to Italian videos on Youtube.

Looked at another way, if someone said there were more 18-year-olds with driving licences than 30 years ago, you'd not be too shocked. But if someone said they were twice as intelligent, you would smell a rat. So are A-levels supposed to be like driving tests or intelligence tests?

What we do want is a ranking system. Otherwise what is the point of competitive examinations? They are supposed to enable universities and top employers to pick the brightest candidates.

If everyone is getting more intelligent and knowledgeable about the world all to the good. However there are still only about the same number of doctors and lawyers and teachers we need percentage wise as 50 years ago.

There is no reason why everyone should not be able to drive, so all you need is a mere pass to be safe on the roads that is all. The driving test is not equivalent

How does a ranking system pick the brightest candidates?

It doesn't. It picks the ones most able to answer the questions in the way they are presented.

For instance I won an award a national Journalism back in 1989. Given that the previous year my English Teacher announced the O level results with the statement "Congratulations, you've all passed English Language O level, yes that includes Eek" you can see why it doesn't work.

Well obviously you passed English O level too then, which is more than most pupils of your age would have done back then. So that rather proves my point.

Many people demonstrably have problems with geography, logic, and statistical method today. Which proves your point even more.

It was ranked effectively as in 1989 most pupils failed English O level and it was then further ranked by grade amongst those who passed it.

In fact back then fewer pupils passed English O level as a percentage than the percentage of A level pupils who got an A* or A grade A level today

I got AAAA back when As were As, men were men, and buses had conductors and you could smoke on the top deck. Different world. Kids of today wouldn't recognize it.

Yeah, but one of your As was in General Studies.

I always thought the saying was "...when men were men and sheep were nervous...)

darkage said:

TimT said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

ping said:

IanB2 said:

Half of all students getting an A is more than a tad of grade inflation.

Indeed.

We’ve done a huge disservice to past and future students. I don’t see how they can fix this now. I wouldn’t be surprised if this necessitates a complete reworking of the grades. Replace A-E with a new 1-10 national ranking system, perhaps?

How about

Exams for all. Students ranked from 1 - 10, 1 = top 10%, 2 = 11 -> 20%............

Yes, even 19% got an A* grade so even the A* does not distinguish the top 10% now.

A ranking system sounds much more sensible

No. A ranking system is only more sensible if what you want is a ranking system.

If, instead, A-levels are supposed to reflect how much a student knows about a subject, then it is quite possible that today's students really can speak Italian better than their predecessors, because of cheaper holidays and easier access to Italian videos on Youtube.

Looked at another way, if someone said there were more 18-year-olds with driving licences than 30 years ago, you'd not be too shocked. But if someone said they were twice as intelligent, you would smell a rat. So are A-levels supposed to be like driving tests or intelligence tests?

What we do want is a ranking system. Otherwise what is the point of competitive examinations? They are supposed to enable universities and top employers to pick the brightest candidates.

If everyone is getting more intelligent and knowledgeable about the world all to the good. However there are still only about the same number of doctors and lawyers and teachers we need percentage wise as 50 years ago.

There is no reason why everyone should not be able to drive, so all you need is a mere pass to be safe on the roads that is all. The driving test is not equivalent

Even if you accept that an exam-based ranking system would enable picking the 'brightest' - why do we want the 'brightest' to be doctors, lawyers and teachers?

I want my doctor to be smart enough to make the diagnosis/perform the treatment, but I also want them to care, want to help people, be good with people.

I want my teacher to be smart enough to understand the things I need to be taught and to give useful answers to my questions - at GCSE and A level that's not that high a bar, but I also want them, perhaps more so, to inspire me, care and be good at communication.

I want everyone else's lawyers to be as thick as two short planks

We've interviewed smart people (on paper) and found them incurious and poorly suited to the research we do, which involves working with and communicating with doctors and patients.

Exams are the thing that make people work (mostly) at school and probably the best tool to decide who is suited to higher education, who not so much etc etc. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the object of the exercise is to teach people about the world and equip them to go and do useful things. Too much focus on exams risks losing focus on the actual teaching and learning.

Yes a doctor ideally would be good with people too but if they have no medical knowledge then they would be pretty useless on the operating table or in terms of accurately diagnosing illness and treatment.

Same with lawyers, if you do not have a knowledge of the law you cannot advise on the law.

Same with teachers, yes inspiring is good but at the end of the day you are a teacher transferring knowledge not an actor giving a performance.

As a matter of curiosity when was the last time you employed candidates with C or D grades or lower across the board?

Yes, you need knowledge (and a sufficient degree of intelligence to apply and understand that knowledge). However, we're talking about school exams and there are no A levels in law or medicine (or are there? not common anyway?) so A levels are just a clue as to who might have the ability to do well in those professions. My issue was with you saying that we want doctors etc to be the brightest - I disagree, but it does depend on how you define 'brightest', i.e. what % that covers. I'd want my doctor to have done well in med school, I'm not to bothered if they flunked their A levels.

As for you last question, 2018 (as I recall it was two Cs and a D, certainly nothing above C). The person in question wanted to be a doctor at the time, but failed to get the grades. Went into nursing instead and through that into research. Now a Senior Research Fellow (equivalent grade to Senior Lecturer, one below Professor). I only remember because she was - rightly - proud of how she'd turned things around, we wouldn't ordinarily have looked much at the A level results, but her letter highlighted them, the experience was relevant to the job.

You do need reasonable command of English to be a lawyer and an advanced knowledge of science to even get to medical school and be able to cope.

So 3 years ago and not a single successful candidate with C or D grades since. Of course there are always avenues for exceptional late developers as per the case above but in general it is clear the vast majority of doctors and lawyers are A grade candidates not C or D grade or below

I got a C in Physics at A Level

HYUFD does talk a load of bollocks on a load of subjects. We have a Selectocracy in our education system. Quelle surprise that the majority of professionals have the grades the selectocracy demands.

20+ years ago my results were atrocious. 4 GCSEs then 2 B's and an E at A level. Got in to a russell group uni on the basis of an interview and reference, left with a first, then got on a fully funded masters.

That trajectory would be impossible now because universities are ranked partially on A level grades, so all the top ones require straight A's. It is all really a fraud and a sham; the level of education is no significant indication of intelligence or wisdom. It reveals only that people know how to play a game.

When I was at Cambridge, I never met anyone else with as bad GCSE grades as me

Yours were - I admit - substantially worse.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Our granddaughter has just called to see us and we now have the full picture

She obtained - 1 x A*- 3 x A - 1 x B and starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year Japanese and Italian course, with the second year in Japan and the fourth year in Italy

She is so excited and looking forward to her studies and overseas travel

She will by the end of the period by having English, Welsh, French, Italian and Japanese language skills

And of course she has very proud parents and grandparents

Leeds you say? A fine and upstanding institution with the most impeccable standards.

rcs1000 said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

ping said:

IanB2 said:

Half of all students getting an A is more than a tad of grade inflation.

Indeed.

We’ve done a huge disservice to past and future students. I don’t see how they can fix this now. I wouldn’t be surprised if this necessitates a complete reworking of the grades. Replace A-E with a new 1-10 national ranking system, perhaps?

How about

Exams for all. Students ranked from 1 - 10, 1 = top 10%, 2 = 11 -> 20%............

Yes, even 19% got an A* grade so even the A* does not distinguish the top 10% now.

A ranking system sounds much more sensible

No. A ranking system is only more sensible if what you want is a ranking system.

If, instead, A-levels are supposed to reflect how much a student knows about a subject, then it is quite possible that today's students really can speak Italian better than their predecessors, because of cheaper holidays and easier access to Italian videos on Youtube.

Looked at another way, if someone said there were more 18-year-olds with driving licences than 30 years ago, you'd not be too shocked. But if someone said they were twice as intelligent, you would smell a rat. So are A-levels supposed to be like driving tests or intelligence tests?

What we do want is a ranking system. Otherwise what is the point of competitive examinations? They are supposed to enable universities and top employers to pick the brightest candidates.

If everyone is getting more intelligent and knowledgeable about the world all to the good. However there are still only about the same number of doctors and lawyers and teachers we need percentage wise as 50 years ago.

There is no reason why everyone should not be able to drive, so all you need is a mere pass to be safe on the roads that is all. The driving test is not equivalent

How does a ranking system pick the brightest candidates?

It doesn't. It picks the ones most able to answer the questions in the way they are presented.

For instance I won an award a national Journalism back in 1989. Given that the previous year my English Teacher announced the O level results with the statement "Congratulations, you've all passed English Language O level, yes that includes Eek" you can see why it doesn't work.

Well obviously you passed English O level too then, which is more than most pupils of your age would have done back then. So that rather proves my point.

Many people demonstrably have problems with geography, logic, and statistical method today. Which proves your point even more.

It was ranked effectively as in 1989 most pupils failed English O level and it was then further ranked by grade amongst those who passed it.

In fact back then fewer pupils passed English O level as a percentage than the percentage of A level pupils who got an A* or A grade A level today

I got AAAA back when As were As, men were men, and buses had conductors and you could smoke on the top deck. Different world. Kids of today wouldn't recognize it.

Yeah, but one of your As was in General Studies.

Maths, Physics, Chemistry, Eng. Lit. for me.
Fat lot of good it did.

23,510 - only a couple of thousand up on the previous tuesday of 21,691

TimT said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

ping said:

IanB2 said:

Half of all students getting an A is more than a tad of grade inflation.

Indeed.

We’ve done a huge disservice to past and future students. I don’t see how they can fix this now. I wouldn’t be surprised if this necessitates a complete reworking of the grades. Replace A-E with a new 1-10 national ranking system, perhaps?

How about

Exams for all. Students ranked from 1 - 10, 1 = top 10%, 2 = 11 -> 20%............

Yes, even 19% got an A* grade so even the A* does not distinguish the top 10% now.

A ranking system sounds much more sensible

No. A ranking system is only more sensible if what you want is a ranking system.

If, instead, A-levels are supposed to reflect how much a student knows about a subject, then it is quite possible that today's students really can speak Italian better than their predecessors, because of cheaper holidays and easier access to Italian videos on Youtube.

Looked at another way, if someone said there were more 18-year-olds with driving licences than 30 years ago, you'd not be too shocked. But if someone said they were twice as intelligent, you would smell a rat. So are A-levels supposed to be like driving tests or intelligence tests?

What we do want is a ranking system. Otherwise what is the point of competitive examinations? They are supposed to enable universities and top employers to pick the brightest candidates.

If everyone is getting more intelligent and knowledgeable about the world all to the good. However there are still only about the same number of doctors and lawyers and teachers we need percentage wise as 50 years ago.

There is no reason why everyone should not be able to drive, so all you need is a mere pass to be safe on the roads that is all. The driving test is not equivalent

Even if you accept that an exam-based ranking system would enable picking the 'brightest' - why do we want the 'brightest' to be doctors, lawyers and teachers?

I want my doctor to be smart enough to make the diagnosis/perform the treatment, but I also want them to care, want to help people, be good with people.

I want my teacher to be smart enough to understand the things I need to be taught and to give useful answers to my questions - at GCSE and A level that's not that high a bar, but I also want them, perhaps more so, to inspire me, care and be good at communication.

I want everyone else's lawyers to be as thick as two short planks

We've interviewed smart people (on paper) and found them incurious and poorly suited to the research we do, which involves working with and communicating with doctors and patients.

Exams are the thing that make people work (mostly) at school and probably the best tool to decide who is suited to higher education, who not so much etc etc. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the object of the exercise is to teach people about the world and equip them to go and do useful things. Too much focus on exams risks losing focus on the actual teaching and learning.

Yes a doctor ideally would be good with people too but if they have no medical knowledge then they would be pretty useless on the operating table or in terms of accurately diagnosing illness and treatment.

Same with lawyers, if you do not have a knowledge of the law you cannot advise on the law.

Same with teachers, yes inspiring is good but at the end of the day you are a teacher transferring knowledge not an actor giving a performance.

As a matter of curiosity when was the last time you employed candidates with C or D grades or lower across the board?

Yes, you need knowledge (and a sufficient degree of intelligence to apply and understand that knowledge). However, we're talking about school exams and there are no A levels in law or medicine (or are there? not common anyway?) so A levels are just a clue as to who might have the ability to do well in those professions. My issue was with you saying that we want doctors etc to be the brightest - I disagree, but it does depend on how you define 'brightest', i.e. what % that covers. I'd want my doctor to have done well in med school, I'm not to bothered if they flunked their A levels.

As for you last question, 2018 (as I recall it was two Cs and a D, certainly nothing above C). The person in question wanted to be a doctor at the time, but failed to get the grades. Went into nursing instead and through that into research. Now a Senior Research Fellow (equivalent grade to Senior Lecturer, one below Professor). I only remember because she was - rightly - proud of how she'd turned things around, we wouldn't ordinarily have looked much at the A level results, but her letter highlighted them, the experience was relevant to the job.

You do need reasonable command of English to be a lawyer and an advanced knowledge of science to even get to medical school and be able to cope.

So 3 years ago and not a single successful candidate with C or D grades since. Of course there are always avenues for exceptional late developers as per the case above but in general it is clear the vast majority of doctors and lawyers are A grade candidates not C or D grade or below

I got a C in Physics at A Level

HYUFD does talk a load of bollocks on a load of subjects. We have a Selectocracy in our education system. Quelle surprise that the majority of professionals have the grades the selectocracy demands.

Another plug for Dave Skelton's book where he discusses this at some length in terms of educational aspirations for different socio-economic groupings.

EVERYONE MUST READ THIS BOOK!

https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Snobbery-David-Skelton/dp/1785906577

New snippet: "From a young age, working-class children are let down by the education system. This is a pernicious and vicious cycle, since elements of the new snobbery are fuelled by what Michael Sandel called "credentialism - prejudice by the highly educated towards the lesser educated."

And no I'm not Dave Skelton.

My next post had better be a belter.

Stark_Dawning said:

Just looked at the 'A' Level results of my old school. Back in my day you were lucky if you left being able to recite the alphabet, but this year they're sending pupils to Cambridge, UCL, LSE etc. Surely it would be impossible for any type of 'dumbing down' to account for the shift, so I'm hopeful it evinces a genuine improvement.

More likely it just evidences a dramatic improvement in the school concerned

rcs1000 said:

darkage said:

TimT said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

ping said:

IanB2 said:

Half of all students getting an A is more than a tad of grade inflation.

Indeed.

We’ve done a huge disservice to past and future students. I don’t see how they can fix this now. I wouldn’t be surprised if this necessitates a complete reworking of the grades. Replace A-E with a new 1-10 national ranking system, perhaps?

How about

Exams for all. Students ranked from 1 - 10, 1 = top 10%, 2 = 11 -> 20%............

Yes, even 19% got an A* grade so even the A* does not distinguish the top 10% now.

A ranking system sounds much more sensible

No. A ranking system is only more sensible if what you want is a ranking system.

If, instead, A-levels are supposed to reflect how much a student knows about a subject, then it is quite possible that today's students really can speak Italian better than their predecessors, because of cheaper holidays and easier access to Italian videos on Youtube.

Looked at another way, if someone said there were more 18-year-olds with driving licences than 30 years ago, you'd not be too shocked. But if someone said they were twice as intelligent, you would smell a rat. So are A-levels supposed to be like driving tests or intelligence tests?

What we do want is a ranking system. Otherwise what is the point of competitive examinations? They are supposed to enable universities and top employers to pick the brightest candidates.

If everyone is getting more intelligent and knowledgeable about the world all to the good. However there are still only about the same number of doctors and lawyers and teachers we need percentage wise as 50 years ago.

There is no reason why everyone should not be able to drive, so all you need is a mere pass to be safe on the roads that is all. The driving test is not equivalent

Even if you accept that an exam-based ranking system would enable picking the 'brightest' - why do we want the 'brightest' to be doctors, lawyers and teachers?

I want my doctor to be smart enough to make the diagnosis/perform the treatment, but I also want them to care, want to help people, be good with people.

I want my teacher to be smart enough to understand the things I need to be taught and to give useful answers to my questions - at GCSE and A level that's not that high a bar, but I also want them, perhaps more so, to inspire me, care and be good at communication.

I want everyone else's lawyers to be as thick as two short planks

We've interviewed smart people (on paper) and found them incurious and poorly suited to the research we do, which involves working with and communicating with doctors and patients.

Exams are the thing that make people work (mostly) at school and probably the best tool to decide who is suited to higher education, who not so much etc etc. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the object of the exercise is to teach people about the world and equip them to go and do useful things. Too much focus on exams risks losing focus on the actual teaching and learning.

Yes a doctor ideally would be good with people too but if they have no medical knowledge then they would be pretty useless on the operating table or in terms of accurately diagnosing illness and treatment.

Same with lawyers, if you do not have a knowledge of the law you cannot advise on the law.

Same with teachers, yes inspiring is good but at the end of the day you are a teacher transferring knowledge not an actor giving a performance.

As a matter of curiosity when was the last time you employed candidates with C or D grades or lower across the board?

Yes, you need knowledge (and a sufficient degree of intelligence to apply and understand that knowledge). However, we're talking about school exams and there are no A levels in law or medicine (or are there? not common anyway?) so A levels are just a clue as to who might have the ability to do well in those professions. My issue was with you saying that we want doctors etc to be the brightest - I disagree, but it does depend on how you define 'brightest', i.e. what % that covers. I'd want my doctor to have done well in med school, I'm not to bothered if they flunked their A levels.

As for you last question, 2018 (as I recall it was two Cs and a D, certainly nothing above C). The person in question wanted to be a doctor at the time, but failed to get the grades. Went into nursing instead and through that into research. Now a Senior Research Fellow (equivalent grade to Senior Lecturer, one below Professor). I only remember because she was - rightly - proud of how she'd turned things around, we wouldn't ordinarily have looked much at the A level results, but her letter highlighted them, the experience was relevant to the job.

You do need reasonable command of English to be a lawyer and an advanced knowledge of science to even get to medical school and be able to cope.

So 3 years ago and not a single successful candidate with C or D grades since. Of course there are always avenues for exceptional late developers as per the case above but in general it is clear the vast majority of doctors and lawyers are A grade candidates not C or D grade or below

I got a C in Physics at A Level

HYUFD does talk a load of bollocks on a load of subjects. We have a Selectocracy in our education system. Quelle surprise that the majority of professionals have the grades the selectocracy demands.

20+ years ago my results were atrocious. 4 GCSEs then 2 B's and an E at A level. Got in to a russell group uni on the basis of an interview and reference, left with a first, then got on a fully funded masters.

That trajectory would be impossible now because universities are ranked partially on A level grades, so all the top ones require straight A's. It is all really a fraud and a sham; the level of education is no significant indication of intelligence or wisdom. It reveals only that people know how to play a game.

When I was at Cambridge, I never met anyone else with as bad GCSE grades as me

Yours were - I admit - substantially worse.

I've heard it suggested, that re-aligning the exam results so that results come before university offers might be a bad idea. Because if the universities simply give places on the basis of know grades, then the people not getting the grades won't ever get considered.

So, much as credentialism has blocked avenues for the those... without credentials... such a change would remove avenues for those with poorer credentials.

darkage said:

TimT said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

ping said:

IanB2 said:

Half of all students getting an A is more than a tad of grade inflation.

Indeed.

We’ve done a huge disservice to past and future students. I don’t see how they can fix this now. I wouldn’t be surprised if this necessitates a complete reworking of the grades. Replace A-E with a new 1-10 national ranking system, perhaps?

How about

Exams for all. Students ranked from 1 - 10, 1 = top 10%, 2 = 11 -> 20%............

Yes, even 19% got an A* grade so even the A* does not distinguish the top 10% now.

A ranking system sounds much more sensible

No. A ranking system is only more sensible if what you want is a ranking system.

If, instead, A-levels are supposed to reflect how much a student knows about a subject, then it is quite possible that today's students really can speak Italian better than their predecessors, because of cheaper holidays and easier access to Italian videos on Youtube.

Looked at another way, if someone said there were more 18-year-olds with driving licences than 30 years ago, you'd not be too shocked. But if someone said they were twice as intelligent, you would smell a rat. So are A-levels supposed to be like driving tests or intelligence tests?

What we do want is a ranking system. Otherwise what is the point of competitive examinations? They are supposed to enable universities and top employers to pick the brightest candidates.

If everyone is getting more intelligent and knowledgeable about the world all to the good. However there are still only about the same number of doctors and lawyers and teachers we need percentage wise as 50 years ago.

There is no reason why everyone should not be able to drive, so all you need is a mere pass to be safe on the roads that is all. The driving test is not equivalent

Even if you accept that an exam-based ranking system would enable picking the 'brightest' - why do we want the 'brightest' to be doctors, lawyers and teachers?

I want my doctor to be smart enough to make the diagnosis/perform the treatment, but I also want them to care, want to help people, be good with people.

I want my teacher to be smart enough to understand the things I need to be taught and to give useful answers to my questions - at GCSE and A level that's not that high a bar, but I also want them, perhaps more so, to inspire me, care and be good at communication.

I want everyone else's lawyers to be as thick as two short planks

We've interviewed smart people (on paper) and found them incurious and poorly suited to the research we do, which involves working with and communicating with doctors and patients.

Exams are the thing that make people work (mostly) at school and probably the best tool to decide who is suited to higher education, who not so much etc etc. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the object of the exercise is to teach people about the world and equip them to go and do useful things. Too much focus on exams risks losing focus on the actual teaching and learning.

Yes a doctor ideally would be good with people too but if they have no medical knowledge then they would be pretty useless on the operating table or in terms of accurately diagnosing illness and treatment.

Same with lawyers, if you do not have a knowledge of the law you cannot advise on the law.

Same with teachers, yes inspiring is good but at the end of the day you are a teacher transferring knowledge not an actor giving a performance.

As a matter of curiosity when was the last time you employed candidates with C or D grades or lower across the board?

Yes, you need knowledge (and a sufficient degree of intelligence to apply and understand that knowledge). However, we're talking about school exams and there are no A levels in law or medicine (or are there? not common anyway?) so A levels are just a clue as to who might have the ability to do well in those professions. My issue was with you saying that we want doctors etc to be the brightest - I disagree, but it does depend on how you define 'brightest', i.e. what % that covers. I'd want my doctor to have done well in med school, I'm not to bothered if they flunked their A levels.

As for you last question, 2018 (as I recall it was two Cs and a D, certainly nothing above C). The person in question wanted to be a doctor at the time, but failed to get the grades. Went into nursing instead and through that into research. Now a Senior Research Fellow (equivalent grade to Senior Lecturer, one below Professor). I only remember because she was - rightly - proud of how she'd turned things around, we wouldn't ordinarily have looked much at the A level results, but her letter highlighted them, the experience was relevant to the job.

You do need reasonable command of English to be a lawyer and an advanced knowledge of science to even get to medical school and be able to cope.

So 3 years ago and not a single successful candidate with C or D grades since. Of course there are always avenues for exceptional late developers as per the case above but in general it is clear the vast majority of doctors and lawyers are A grade candidates not C or D grade or below

I got a C in Physics at A Level

HYUFD does talk a load of bollocks on a load of subjects. We have a Selectocracy in our education system. Quelle surprise that the majority of professionals have the grades the selectocracy demands.

20+ years ago my results were atrocious. 4 GCSEs then 2 B's and an E at A level. Got in to a russell group uni on the basis of an interview and reference, left with a first, then got on a fully funded masters.

That trajectory would be impossible now because universities are ranked partially on A level grades, so all the top ones require straight A's. It is all really a fraud and a sham; the level of education is no significant indication of intelligence or wisdom. It reveals only that people know how to play a game.

2 Bs at A level then would be 2 As today and your E grade then would be at worst a C now.

Top universities require straight As because almost half the candidates end up getting straight As

NEW THREAD

Leon said:

I AM FUCKING PILING THROUGH THE FREE CHAMPAGNE. I apologise to anyone flying later if the South Lounge inexplicably runs out of Moët

It’s not free, it’s included in the price you paid…

rcs1000 said:

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

eek said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

ping said:

IanB2 said:

Half of all students getting an A is more than a tad of grade inflation.

Indeed.

We’ve done a huge disservice to past and future students. I don’t see how they can fix this now. I wouldn’t be surprised if this necessitates a complete reworking of the grades. Replace A-E with a new 1-10 national ranking system, perhaps?

How about

Exams for all. Students ranked from 1 - 10, 1 = top 10%, 2 = 11 -> 20%............

Yes, even 19% got an A* grade so even the A* does not distinguish the top 10% now.

A ranking system sounds much more sensible

No. A ranking system is only more sensible if what you want is a ranking system.

If, instead, A-levels are supposed to reflect how much a student knows about a subject, then it is quite possible that today's students really can speak Italian better than their predecessors, because of cheaper holidays and easier access to Italian videos on Youtube.

Looked at another way, if someone said there were more 18-year-olds with driving licences than 30 years ago, you'd not be too shocked. But if someone said they were twice as intelligent, you would smell a rat. So are A-levels supposed to be like driving tests or intelligence tests?

What we do want is a ranking system. Otherwise what is the point of competitive examinations? They are supposed to enable universities and top employers to pick the brightest candidates.

If everyone is getting more intelligent and knowledgeable about the world all to the good. However there are still only about the same number of doctors and lawyers and teachers we need percentage wise as 50 years ago.

There is no reason why everyone should not be able to drive, so all you need is a mere pass to be safe on the roads that is all. The driving test is not equivalent

How does a ranking system pick the brightest candidates?

It doesn't. It picks the ones most able to answer the questions in the way they are presented.

For instance I won an award a national Journalism back in 1989. Given that the previous year my English Teacher announced the O level results with the statement "Congratulations, you've all passed English Language O level, yes that includes Eek" you can see why it doesn't work.

Well obviously you passed English O level too then, which is more than most pupils of your age would have done back then. So that rather proves my point.

Many people demonstrably have problems with geography, logic, and statistical method today. Which proves your point even more.

It was ranked effectively as in 1989 most pupils failed English O level and it was then further ranked by grade amongst those who passed it.

In fact back then fewer pupils passed English O level as a percentage than the percentage of A level pupils who got an A* or A grade A level today

I got AAAA back when As were As, men were men, and buses had conductors and you could smoke on the top deck. Different world. Kids of today wouldn't recognize it.

Yeah, but one of your As was in General Studies.

It was!. Great subject. Just needed a bit of nous and knowledge. I'd probably get a D in it now.

England PCR positivity

Case summary

Deaths

Age related data

Age related data scaled to 100K

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

ping said:

IanB2 said:

Half of all students getting an A is more than a tad of grade inflation.

Indeed.

We’ve done a huge disservice to past and future students. I don’t see how they can fix this now. I wouldn’t be surprised if this necessitates a complete reworking of the grades. Replace A-E with a new 1-10 national ranking system, perhaps?

How about

Exams for all. Students ranked from 1 - 10, 1 = top 10%, 2 = 11 -> 20%............

Yes, even 19% got an A* grade so even the A* does not distinguish the top 10% now.

A ranking system sounds much more sensible

No. A ranking system is only more sensible if what you want is a ranking system.

If, instead, A-levels are supposed to reflect how much a student knows about a subject, then it is quite possible that today's students really can speak Italian better than their predecessors, because of cheaper holidays and easier access to Italian videos on Youtube.

Looked at another way, if someone said there were more 18-year-olds with driving licences than 30 years ago, you'd not be too shocked. But if someone said they were twice as intelligent, you would smell a rat. So are A-levels supposed to be like driving tests or intelligence tests?

What we do want is a ranking system. Otherwise what is the point of competitive examinations? They are supposed to enable universities and top employers to pick the brightest candidates.

If everyone is getting more intelligent and knowledgeable about the world all to the good. However there are still only about the same number of doctors and lawyers and teachers we need percentage wise as 50 years ago.

There is no reason why everyone should not be able to drive, so all you need is a mere pass to be safe on the roads that is all. The driving test is not equivalent

Even if you accept that an exam-based ranking system would enable picking the 'brightest' - why do we want the 'brightest' to be doctors, lawyers and teachers?

I want my doctor to be smart enough to make the diagnosis/perform the treatment, but I also want them to care, want to help people, be good with people.

I want my teacher to be smart enough to understand the things I need to be taught and to give useful answers to my questions - at GCSE and A level that's not that high a bar, but I also want them, perhaps more so, to inspire me, care and be good at communication.

I want everyone else's lawyers to be as thick as two short planks

We've interviewed smart people (on paper) and found them incurious and poorly suited to the research we do, which involves working with and communicating with doctors and patients.

Exams are the thing that make people work (mostly) at school and probably the best tool to decide who is suited to higher education, who not so much etc etc. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the object of the exercise is to teach people about the world and equip them to go and do useful things. Too much focus on exams risks losing focus on the actual teaching and learning.

Yes a doctor ideally would be good with people too but if they have no medical knowledge then they would be pretty useless on the operating table or in terms of accurately diagnosing illness and treatment.

Same with lawyers, if you do not have a knowledge of the law you cannot advise on the law.

Same with teachers, yes inspiring is good but at the end of the day you are a teacher transferring knowledge not an actor giving a performance.

As a matter of curiosity when was the last time you employed candidates with C or D grades or lower across the board?

Yes, you need knowledge (and a sufficient degree of intelligence to apply and understand that knowledge). However, we're talking about school exams and there are no A levels in law or medicine (or are there? not common anyway?) so A levels are just a clue as to who might have the ability to do well in those professions. My issue was with you saying that we want doctors etc to be the brightest - I disagree, but it does depend on how you define 'brightest', i.e. what % that covers. I'd want my doctor to have done well in med school, I'm not to bothered if they flunked their A levels.

As for you last question, 2018 (as I recall it was two Cs and a D, certainly nothing above C). The person in question wanted to be a doctor at the time, but failed to get the grades. Went into nursing instead and through that into research. Now a Senior Research Fellow (equivalent grade to Senior Lecturer, one below Professor). I only remember because she was - rightly - proud of how she'd turned things around, we wouldn't ordinarily have looked much at the A level results, but her letter highlighted them, the experience was relevant to the job.

You do need reasonable command of English to be a lawyer and an advanced knowledge of science to even get to medical school and be able to cope.

So 3 years ago and not a single successful candidate with C or D grades since. Of course there are always avenues for exceptional late developers as per the case above but in general it is clear the vast majority of doctors and lawyers are A grade candidates not C or D grade or below

I got a C in Physics at A Level

One better than me

rcs1000 said:

Sandpit said:

TOPPING said:

The bonkers thing is that the govt won't accept an NHS test taken abroad before you return as proof that you have tested negative. The NHS which we know and love and all clapped for is deemed as not able to provide a test for return to the UK.

Of course we know it's because people will lie like cheap naafi watches if they have to self-certify with a brought-along test but even still.

If you think thats bad, try getting the NHS to understand that you got vaccinated abroad. Even if it’s with one of they vaccines they’re using, they still don’t seem to understand.

Really? That's disappointing.

Oh yes. UAE is now on the UK Amber list, rather than the Red list with compulsory hotel quarantine.

BUT:

Vaccinated in UK = No quarantine on return, only a couple of tests.

Vaccinated in UAE, with Pfizer vaccine = Required to quarantine for 10 days in UK, at nominated address.

Emirates Airline seem quite pleased about being off the red list though, this ad is going viral online and about to hit UK TV screens.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=uQHhYRuaEtM

HYUFD said:

darkage said:

TimT said:

Gallowgate said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

Selebian said:

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

HYUFD said:

Pulpstar said:

ping said:

IanB2 said:

Half of all students getting an A is more than a tad of grade inflation.

Indeed.

We’ve done a huge disservice to past and future students. I don’t see how they can fix this now. I wouldn’t be surprised if this necessitates a complete reworking of the grades. Replace A-E with a new 1-10 national ranking system, perhaps?

How about

Exams for all. Students ranked from 1 - 10, 1 = top 10%, 2 = 11 -> 20%............

Yes, even 19% got an A* grade so even the A* does not distinguish the top 10% now.

A ranking system sounds much more sensible

No. A ranking system is only more sensible if what you want is a ranking system.

If, instead, A-levels are supposed to reflect how much a student knows about a subject, then it is quite possible that today's students really can speak Italian better than their predecessors, because of cheaper holidays and easier access to Italian videos on Youtube.

Looked at another way, if someone said there were more 18-year-olds with driving licences than 30 years ago, you'd not be too shocked. But if someone said they were twice as intelligent, you would smell a rat. So are A-levels supposed to be like driving tests or intelligence tests?

What we do want is a ranking system. Otherwise what is the point of competitive examinations? They are supposed to enable universities and top employers to pick the brightest candidates.

If everyone is getting more intelligent and knowledgeable about the world all to the good. However there are still only about the same number of doctors and lawyers and teachers we need percentage wise as 50 years ago.

There is no reason why everyone should not be able to drive, so all you need is a mere pass to be safe on the roads that is all. The driving test is not equivalent

Even if you accept that an exam-based ranking system would enable picking the 'brightest' - why do we want the 'brightest' to be doctors, lawyers and teachers?

I want my doctor to be smart enough to make the diagnosis/perform the treatment, but I also want them to care, want to help people, be good with people.

I want my teacher to be smart enough to understand the things I need to be taught and to give useful answers to my questions - at GCSE and A level that's not that high a bar, but I also want them, perhaps more so, to inspire me, care and be good at communication.

I want everyone else's lawyers to be as thick as two short planks

We've interviewed smart people (on paper) and found them incurious and poorly suited to the research we do, which involves working with and communicating with doctors and patients.

Exams are the thing that make people work (mostly) at school and probably the best tool to decide who is suited to higher education, who not so much etc etc. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the object of the exercise is to teach people about the world and equip them to go and do useful things. Too much focus on exams risks losing focus on the actual teaching and learning.

Yes a doctor ideally would be good with people too but if they have no medical knowledge then they would be pretty useless on the operating table or in terms of accurately diagnosing illness and treatment.

Same with lawyers, if you do not have a knowledge of the law you cannot advise on the law.

Same with teachers, yes inspiring is good but at the end of the day you are a teacher transferring knowledge not an actor giving a performance.

As a matter of curiosity when was the last time you employed candidates with C or D grades or lower across the board?

Yes, you need knowledge (and a sufficient degree of intelligence to apply and understand that knowledge). However, we're talking about school exams and there are no A levels in law or medicine (or are there? not common anyway?) so A levels are just a clue as to who might have the ability to do well in those professions. My issue was with you saying that we want doctors etc to be the brightest - I disagree, but it does depend on how you define 'brightest', i.e. what % that covers. I'd want my doctor to have done well in med school, I'm not to bothered if they flunked their A levels.

As for you last question, 2018 (as I recall it was two Cs and a D, certainly nothing above C). The person in question wanted to be a doctor at the time, but failed to get the grades. Went into nursing instead and through that into research. Now a Senior Research Fellow (equivalent grade to Senior Lecturer, one below Professor). I only remember because she was - rightly - proud of how she'd turned things around, we wouldn't ordinarily have looked much at the A level results, but her letter highlighted them, the experience was relevant to the job.

You do need reasonable command of English to be a lawyer and an advanced knowledge of science to even get to medical school and be able to cope.

So 3 years ago and not a single successful candidate with C or D grades since. Of course there are always avenues for exceptional late developers as per the case above but in general it is clear the vast majority of doctors and lawyers are A grade candidates not C or D grade or below

I got a C in Physics at A Level

HYUFD does talk a load of bollocks on a load of subjects. We have a Selectocracy in our education system. Quelle surprise that the majority of professionals have the grades the selectocracy demands.

20+ years ago my results were atrocious. 4 GCSEs then 2 B's and an E at A level. Got in to a russell group uni on the basis of an interview and reference, left with a first, then got on a fully funded masters.

That trajectory would be impossible now because universities are ranked partially on A level grades, so all the top ones require straight A's. It is all really a fraud and a sham; the level of education is no significant indication of intelligence or wisdom. It reveals only that people know how to play a game.

2 Bs at A level then would be 2 As today and your E grade then would be at worst a C now.

Top universities require straight As because almost half the candidates end up getting straight As

My instinct is that the education system has been set up to be all about your ability to learn and follow a set of rules. It was going that way when I was growing up and I have no doubt the situation is moving further and further in that direction. So if you get better and better at following a set of rules then your grades will go up accordingly. My sons primary school is exactly like that. An incomprehensible maliase of systems that teachers and students have to follow. If you are an exception and cannot operate in such a system, like I obviously was, then you basically have no chance. The university regarded me very highly and it soon became clear why: the other students (ie products of the education system) were robotic automatons with little ability to think critically - and only a handful ever developed that ability. Now the obsession with rule based learning is reaching new heights in that it is encroaching in to the undergraduate university system and is also found in the performance management system adopted by big companies and the public sector. It is just a depressing feature of the world and a manifestation of the decline of civilisation.

CorrectHorseBattery said:

Cases up again, we are losing.

No, cases down again, 4th day in a row.

On hydrogen vehicles this is why they won't be used, there are much better uses for hydrogen https://twitter.com/MLiebreich/status/1397210398252732433?s=20