In article ,
Derek Geldard wrote:
I asked my son who did "science" GCSE:

What is the first element in the periodic table?

Answer: You are not required to know that, they give you a periodic
table in the exam.

He passed.

Being able to remember HHeLiBeBCNOF says nothing about your ability to
understand science, but not committing it to memory - just in case you're ever
without a printed periodic table - says something about your attitude to
science.

I'd add a viva voce element to all exams to search out real understanding. ;-)

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , Geoffrey wrote:
But what you do not realise is that the A grade of today is just as
good (if not better) as the A grade of your (and my) year. The A level
(and GCSE) students today work HARDER! They are expected to get As and
anything less than a B (or a C at GCSE) is discounted as worthless.

As W.S.Gilbert observed: "When everyone is somebody then no one's
anybody". If (nearly) everyone passes, then a pass is worthless. If 50%
of people get A and B grades then having a C shows that you are below
average ability. Moving everyone up the scale has done those at the
bottom no favours, whilst those who are in the top 10% are no longer
identifiable.

Of course saying this shows me up as someone who has failed to appreciate
that under newLab all children now achieve above average results g

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
Education from a university perspective was and should be about
learning how to think, analyse and deal with issues, not the loading
of explicit information which in many cases has limited shelf life.

It was and still is about thinking. Matt, where did you go wrong?

When I did my second degree as a mature PT student the attitude of many
of the 18-21 year olds was that they wanted to do and learn as little as
possible. One lecturer asked that if students were going to copy one
another's coursework could they please put different spelling mistakes in
each copy. Another said that exams were totally indefensible from an
academic pov but pragmatically they were the only way to ensure that
students did any work, since coursework was so open to abuse.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

Christian McArdle wrote:
I fundamentally disagree. Having compared the experiences that I and my
friends had, and my experience of schools today, I would say there has been
a fundamental shift in the professionalism and achievement in schools in the
last 20 years. Education today is vastly superior.

OK...


There is plenty of independent academic studies that show this, too.

Source, please.


Only last week, there was a study published of a comparison of English
papers submitted in 1992 and 2004. When studied, the 2004 papers not only
had better spelling, punctuation and verb use, but the meaning of the texts
were deeper and more intelligently presented.

I don't believe in nostalgia.

Not nostalgia, fact.


Crime is down. Education is better.

Source, please.

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article , Geoffrey wrote:
But what you do not realise is that the A grade of today is just as
good (if not better) as the A grade of your (and my) year. The A level
(and GCSE) students today work HARDER! They are expected to get As and
anything less than a B (or a C at GCSE) is discounted as worthless.

As W.S.Gilbert observed: "When everyone is somebody then no one's
anybody". If (nearly) everyone passes, then a pass is worthless.

What garbage! What warped logic. So all trained and educated plumbers are
worthless then. Only those with the distinctions should be allowed in your
house.

A pass is a pass, it means you are of a minimum standard. One lecturer used
to say to me, "a degree is a degree, whether a first or just passed". he
would also say, "after a year or two outside, no one cares what grade you
got". He was right.

snip warped logic

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:25:29 -0000, "Christian McArdle"
wrote:



I fundamentally disagree. Having compared the experiences that I and my
friends had, and my experience of schools today, I would say there has been
a fundamental shift in the professionalism and achievement in schools in the
last 20 years. Education today is vastly superior.

See below.

There is plenty of
independent academic studies that show this, too.

Only last week, there was a study published of a comparison of English
papers submitted in 1992 and 2004. When studied, the 2004 papers not only
had better spelling, punctuation and verb use, but the meaning of the texts
were deeper and more intelligently presented.

You have been bezzled !


I don't believe in nostalgia. Crime is down. Education is better. People
have their brains fundamentally wired to not believe the evidence of this,
unfortunately.

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/news/hefce/2001/qaa.htm

Extract Follows.

"After a complete cycle of subject reviews, it is now proposed that in
future greater weight should be placed on institution-wide reviews.
The aim is to give students, their advisers and employers up-to-date
validated information, while ensuring that universities and colleges
have rigorous internal mechanisms in place to promote quality and
standards". Extract ends

And we all know what that means...

No external, independant, auditing of standards. :-))

DG

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:32:03 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:



Of course saying this shows me up as someone who has failed to appreciate
that under newLab all children now achieve above average results g

And all schools are "excellent", as if that's possible.

DG

Christian McArdle wrote:
In the past if a student got three As then it was a pretty good bet
that they were, academically speaking, in the top few percent and
therefore would benefit from access to one of the limited university
places available and/or contribute most to a future employer.

The whole problem is that you think only a few percent are worthy of higher
education.

Really ? And where did I say that ? Actually I believe about 50% would
benefit which is rather more than "a few percent"

The fact is that the current generation is harder working, more
intelligent and more academic than anything before.

"more intelligent" ? How do you work that out ? I'd say they are no
more or less intelligent than any other generation.

I can assure you that
even at primary school, there has been a complete sea change. When I went to
primary school in the early 1980s, many of them were staffed by older, non
trained teachers sometimes even without degrees. Now, schools are staffed by
extremely professional teachers, entirely versed in the latest trends and
scientific research into which methods work.

Your experience is obviously different from the experience of my mother
and sister, both of whom, you guessed it, are fully qualified teachers.

School children from the very
first term of compulsory education now get homework.
That would have been
unthinkable 20 years ago. The same ethos now permeates right through the
system. Things have changed.

This next generation will go to university and these 30% getting 'A' grades
achieve just as much as the few percent did in the 1970s.

Not once they get into the real world, they won't.

In five or ten
years, they'll start being serious competition in the job market, too.

Why five or ten years ?

Current university students don't lounge about doing 5 hours contact time a
work and sitting on ridiculous left wing demonstrations. They are far too
busy studying, whilst often working part time to cover the fees and living
expenses that the molly coddled 1960s/70s generation got paid for them.

So, much the same as my experience in the 80s then.

I concede that A Levels are no longer very useful. This isn't because they
have become easier. They have not. What has happened is that education has
improved to such a large degree and the students are working so much harder,
that it is no longer possible to distinguish the very top slice.

No, the "competition is bad" philosophy has dictated that the top slice
should not be identified as such.

John

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:37:34 -0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:

I don't believe in nostalgia.

Not nostalgia, fact.

These days even nostalga isn't what it used to be. :-(

John Schmitt

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
Christian McArdle wrote:
I fundamentally disagree. Having compared the experiences that I and my
friends had, and my experience of schools today, I would say there has
been
a fundamental shift in the professionalism and achievement in schools in
the
last 20 years. Education today is vastly superior.

OK...


There is plenty of independent academic studies that show this, too.

Source, please.


Only last week, there was a study published of a comparison of English
papers submitted in 1992 and 2004. When studied, the 2004 papers not
only
had better spelling, punctuation and verb use, but the meaning of the
texts
were deeper and more intelligently presented.

I don't believe in nostalgia.

Not nostalgia, fact.


Crime is down. Education is better.

Source, please.

You should stop read the Daily Mail and Matt/Lord Hall posts.

wrote in message
ups.com...

Christian McArdle wrote:
In the past if a student got three As then it was a pretty good bet
that they were, academically speaking, in the top few percent and
therefore would benefit from access to one of the limited university
places available and/or contribute most to a future employer.

The whole problem is that you think only a few percent are worthy of
higher
education.

Really ? And where did I say that ?

You clearly implied that. Pure Little Middle England.

"Derek Geldard" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:32:03 GMT, Tony Bryer
wrote:

Of course saying this shows me up as someone who has failed to appreciate
that under newLab all children now achieve above average results g

And all schools are "excellent", as if that's possible.

What amazes me is that when someone sneers degree from partially uni, as
being not worth anything. All degrees are to a minimum externally
unmonitored standard.

SS wrote:
Anyone seen these divices that fit round fuel lines on cars? Now a similar
thing is available for gas pipes. Its a strong pair of magnets that clamp
round the gas pipe. Supposed to ionise the molecules and cause them to burn
more efficiently - any truth in the theory? A similar thing is used to stop
hard water & I think these are proven to work

In your dreams or, rather, Drivel's dreams.

There is plenty of independent academic studies that show this, too.

Source, please.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/54/35344362.pdf

"The United Kingdom stands out in showing consistent rises in educational
investment, in terms
of a rising share of GDP being devoted to education ."

Crime is down. Education is better.

Source, please.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html

o Since peaking in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 44 per cent, representing
8.5 million fewer crimes, with vehicle crime and burglary falling by over a
half (both by 57%) and violent crime falling by 43 per cent during this
period.

o Violent crime has decreased by 11 per cent according to BCS interviews in
2004/05 compared with 2003/04. Recorded crime statistics show a seven per
cent increase in violent crime in 2004/05 compared with 2003/04, although
this increase is partly due to the continuing effect of recording changes.

o The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen from 40 per cent in 1995
to 24 per cent according to BCS interviews in 2004/05, representing almost
six million fewer victims. This is the lowest level recorded since the BCS
began in 1981.

Of course, a friend of yours down the pub got his car radio nicked last
year, so national crime has, in fact, doubled.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:
There is plenty of independent academic studies that show this, too.

Source, please.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/54/35344362.pdf

"The United Kingdom stands out in showing consistent rises in educational
investment, in terms
of a rising share of GDP being devoted to education ."

ROFL. Something meaningful would be better...


Crime is down. Education is better.

Source, please.


http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html

o Since peaking in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 44 per cent, representing
8.5 million fewer crimes, with vehicle crime and burglary falling by over a
half (both by 57%) and violent crime falling by 43 per cent during this
period.

ROFL. Something meaningful would be better...


o Violent crime has decreased by 11 per cent according to BCS interviews in
2004/05 compared with 2003/04. Recorded crime statistics show a seven per
cent increase in violent crime in 2004/05 compared with 2003/04, although
this increase is partly due to the continuing effect of recording changes.

o The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen from 40 per cent in 1995
to 24 per cent according to BCS interviews in 2004/05, representing almost
six million fewer victims. This is the lowest level recorded since the BCS
began in 1981.

Of course, a friend of yours down the pub got his car radio nicked last
year, so national crime has, in fact, doubled.

You are a clow^H^H^Hard.

"more intelligent" ? How do you work that out ? I'd say they are no
more or less intelligent than any other generation.


I would. Increased stimulation and better education does increase the
ability of the human brain to process information. It isn't entirely
heritable.

The whole problem is that you think only a few percent are worthy of
higher
education.

Really ? And where did I say that ? Actually I believe about 50% would

when you said "in the past if a student got three As then it was a pretty
good bet that they were, academically speaking, in the top few percent and
therefore would benefit from access to one of the limited university places
available and/or contribute most to a future employer."

Whilst this does not actually state that those outside the few percent
wouldn't benefit, there is a strong implication there that the rest of your
post did nothing to dispel.

Your experience is obviously different from the experience of my mother
and sister, both of whom, you guessed it, are fully qualified teachers.

I didn't say that teachers were any more satisfied. Indeed, many of the
achievements that have been made have been as a result of, perhaps,
overloading the teachers.

No, the "competition is bad" philosophy has dictated that the top slice
should not be identified as such.

I think it just creeped up on them. Now a failure of imagination and fear of
the Daily Mail has prevented the government from implementing a new system
that would solve the problem, after a promising start when they commissioned
the Tomlinson report in the first place.

Christian.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/54/35344362.pdf

"The United Kingdom stands out in showing consistent rises in educational
investment, in terms
of a rising share of GDP being devoted to education ."

ROFL. Something meaningful would be better...

OK. So you know better than the OECD and the British Crime Survey. Your own
personal experiences mean more. Ha Ha Ha.

o Since peaking in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 44 per cent,
representing
8.5 million fewer crimes, with vehicle crime and burglary falling by over
a
half (both by 57%) and violent crime falling by 43 per cent during this
period.

ROFL. Something meaningful would be better...

FFS, the BCS is the best crime statistical information on the planet. Please
quote me a credible source that shows that crime has done anything other
than massively reduce in the last ten years. Actually don't bother. Because
no such credible source exists.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/54/35344362.pdf

"The United Kingdom stands out in showing consistent rises in educational
investment, in terms
of a rising share of GDP being devoted to education ."

ROFL. Something meaningful would be better...


OK. So you know better than the OECD and the British Crime Survey. Your own
personal experiences mean more. Ha Ha Ha.

Don't be silly. I didn't say that.


o Since peaking in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 44 per cent,

representing

8.5 million fewer crimes, with vehicle crime and burglary falling by over

a

half (both by 57%) and violent crime falling by 43 per cent during this
period.

ROFL. Something meaningful would be better...


FFS, the BCS is the best crime statistical information on the planet. Please
quote me a credible source that shows that crime has done anything other
than massively reduce in the last ten years. Actually don't bother. Because
no such credible source exists.

The last 10 years is a short period. Your statement that "crime has
done anything other than massively reduce in the last ten years" is
simplistic, to say the least. Perhaps you were still in primary
school 10 years ago?

Anyway, I've posted a question on u.l.m about long-term statistics,
so hopefully something will come of that. I even asked that they
be simple, with plenty of pictures.

wrote in message
ups.com...

SS wrote:
Anyone seen these divices that fit round fuel lines on cars? Now a
similar
thing is available for gas pipes. Its a strong pair of magnets that
clamp
round the gas pipe. Supposed to ionise the molecules and cause them to
burn
more efficiently - any truth in the theory? A similar thing is used to
stop
hard water & I think these are proven to work

In your dreams or, rather, Drivel's dreams.

I would like to dream about such wonderfulness. But also I don't.

In article , Geoffrey
writes
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 23:00:48 +0000, Chris Bacon
wrote:

Grunff wrote:
Don't they teach science at school any more? I feel old...

"Science" etc. is still taught - however, what used to be an "O"
level now seems the approximate standard for an "A" level. It
seems that basically anything from the '80s is a pale shadow of
what went before.

You really should stop reading the Daily Mail and live with kids doing
GCSE and A level.

As one who did sciences at O and A level AND has teenaged children I
can assure you that standards of examination are, if anything, higher
than in my day. At least I could skive for most of the year and swat
like mad before exams - todays kids are pressured throughout their
years of GCSE and A level with no letup. From the age of 4 they are
poked, prodded, examined and judged. They have far less leisure (play)
time, no where near as much time for socialisation and art and a LOT
more homework. They go to University with an expectation of a £20,000+
debt when they leave and that is assuming their parents can afford the
fees and a contribution towards living expenses.

People like you who rubbish the achievements of today's youth make me
sick to my stomach

Having just had one child finish GCSE's and another starting I feel I am
in a position to comment, my older child was certainly not pressured
into anything during her GCSE years, a fact that was reflected in poor
results, we complained on numerous occasions about the lack of homework,
course work and teacher involvement all to no avail, if anyone was
putting pressure on it was us, she more or less did what you did in your
time but in her case it didn't work out. We feel that her school let her
down and we know other parents who feel the same way about their
children's education, many of today's schools seem to have lost sight of
what they are really there for.
We put our younger son into a different school (carefully selected) and
we have a completely different regime which is much more in keeping with
what we consider to be a proper education.
Your generalisation about leisure time, socialisation and homework
doesn't stack up, I work a lot with the youngsters around here and they
have as much time as I ever had when I was young.
--
David

In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
What garbage! What warped logic. So all trained and educated
plumbers are worthless then. Only those with the distinctions should
be allowed in your house.

Exactly the opposite. If you dumb down plumbing qualifications so much
that anyone who does a 5 day course is classed as a qualified plumber
then being able to call yourself such becomes worth very much less.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

"Tony Bryer" wrote in message
...
In article ws.net,
Doctor Drivel wrote:
What garbage! What warped logic. So all trained and educated
plumbers are worthless then. Only those with the distinctions should
be allowed in your house.

Exactly the opposite. If you dumb down plumbing qualifications so much
that anyone who does a 5 day course is classed as a qualified plumber
then being able to call yourself such becomes worth very much less.

EDUCATION HAS NOT BEEN DUMBED DOWN!!!!! If you meet the minimum standard
then you good. Just because lots meet it you stupidly think that most are
substandard.

Doctor Drivel wrote:
EDUCATION HAS NOT BEEN DUMBED DOWN!!!!! If you meet the minimum standard
then you good.

derisive cheer

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:30:23 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

|
| "Tony Bryer" wrote in message
| ...
| In article ws.net,
| Doctor Drivel wrote:
| What garbage! What warped logic. So all trained and educated
| plumbers are worthless then. Only those with the distinctions should
| be allowed in your house.
|
| Exactly the opposite. If you dumb down plumbing qualifications so much
| that anyone who does a 5 day course is classed as a qualified plumber
| then being able to call yourself such becomes worth very much less.
|
| EDUCATION HAS NOT BEEN DUMBED DOWN!!!!! If you meet the minimum standard
| then you good. Just because lots meet it you stupidly think that most are
| substandard.

It is the "minimum standard" which has been dumbed down. Apprenticeships
used to be five years, at he end of which you had personal experience of
all aspects of the trade.
|
--
Dave Fawthrop dave hyphenologist co uk
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

You wish to see vocational training have greater status and reach, and yet
wish to demean any vocational achievement by insisting on a second tier
designation for it?

I didn't say anything about second tier. I simply said that a degree
course, with the academic implications that it should have is not
always necessary or appropriate for vocational studies. It's
simply a different thing. I didn't say that one was superior or
inferior to the other.


I believe this to be inconsistent. I have no doubt that
a course, even if it included flower arranging, could be worthy of a degree
standard, if the level of expectation and achievement was sufficient to
warrant it.

I don't see it as a question of standards. Simply of appropriateness.

I don't believe in a sharp division between "academic" middle
class good achievement and "vocational" working class "unworthy of degree
status" achievement.

Neither do I and I didn't consider the notion of "class" (whatever that
is) in this either.

I believe such a division would be socially divisive and counter productive.

That's only if you think that a degree is in some way "superior" to
other forms of education. I don't. However, I do think that more
appropriateness in terms of outcome should be a factor and educational
funding applied appropriately as well rather than trying to create a
one-size-fits all situation which doesn't really serve anybody very
effectively.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:45:04 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

But what you do not realise is that the A grade of today is just as
good (if not better) as the A grade of your (and my) year.

I would dispute this, but my main point is elsewhere.

The current system makes no distinction between the labelled grades
awarded to the top third of candidates sitting the exam. My point is
that this is unfair to the excellent candidates in the top 10% and 20%
who deserve a mark distinctive from that awarded to those good students
in th etop 30%, but outside the top 20%. The alternative truly is a
Lewis Carroll situation, if you believe that all these students really
are indistinguishable.

Your system is failing the best students.


--
Cats have nine lives, which is why they rarely post to Usenet.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
...
There is plenty of independent academic studies that show this, too.

Source, please.

http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/20/54/35344362.pdf

"The United Kingdom stands out in showing consistent rises in educational
investment, in terms
of a rising share of GDP being devoted to education ."

Crime is down. Education is better.

Source, please.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html

o Since peaking in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 44 per cent, representing
8.5 million fewer crimes, with vehicle crime and burglary falling by over
a
half (both by 57%) and violent crime falling by 43 per cent during this
period.

o Violent crime has decreased by 11 per cent according to BCS interviews
in
2004/05 compared with 2003/04. Recorded crime statistics show a seven per
cent increase in violent crime in 2004/05 compared with 2003/04, although
this increase is partly due to the continuing effect of recording changes.

o The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen from 40 per cent in
1995
to 24 per cent according to BCS interviews in 2004/05, representing almost
six million fewer victims. This is the lowest level recorded since the BCS
began in 1981.

Of course, a friend of yours down the pub got his car radio nicked last
year, so national crime has, in fact, doubled.

Christian.


The problem with all official statistics about crime is that they are based
on "reported" crimes. since many people nowadays don'y bother to report
crimes anymore as they don't have a reasonable expectation that it will do
any good. So the statistics are fundamentally flawed

Geoffrey wrote:
As one who did sciences at O and A level AND has teenaged children I
can assure you that standards of examination are, if anything, higher
than in my day.

Spot on mate. I did biology & chemistry and so did my daughter. No way was
I educated to the same standard, as I found when I tried to help with her
homework.

When I talk to her friends I'm always impressed with what an articulate,
well read, intelligent lot they are.

Dave



Dave

"Dave Fawthrop" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 15:30:23 -0000, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

|
| "Tony Bryer" wrote in message
| ...
| In article ws.net,
| Doctor Drivel wrote:
| What garbage! What warped logic. So all trained and educated
| plumbers are worthless then. Only those with the distinctions should
| be allowed in your house.
|
| Exactly the opposite. If you dumb down plumbing qualifications so much
| that anyone who does a 5 day course is classed as a qualified plumber
| then being able to call yourself such becomes worth very much less.
|
| EDUCATION HAS NOT BEEN DUMBED DOWN!!!!! If you meet the minimum
standard
| then you good. Just because lots meet it you stupidly think that most
are
| substandard.

It is the "minimum standard" which has been dumbed down.

********.

Apprenticeships are a different thing.

The message ws.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

What amazes me is that when someone sneers degree from partially uni, as
being not worth anything. All degrees are to a minimum externally
unmonitored standard.

I think you are right when you say that degree standards are not
monitored although it seems that that is not what you meant to say.

It certainly used to be the case that what set a university degree apart
from those at lesser establishments was the fact that a university had
total control over the standard of its degree courses.

--
Roger Chapman

Geoffrey wrote:

How DARE YOU! You cavalierly discount the efforts of thousands of
teenagers and wonder why they congregate in shopping malls and spit at
you. I think if I were a teenager today I would read this sort of crap
and say "why the **** should I bother - it doesn't matter how hard I
work or what result I achieve, some middle class, middle aged moron
will say my efforts are worthless".

If you have children I feel sorry for them. I do have children and I
am proud of the effort they made to get A grades and it was a damn
site more effort than I made.

Geoffrey wrote:

How DARE YOU! You cavalierly discount the efforts of thousands of
teenagers and wonder why they congregate in shopping malls and spit at
you. I think if I were a teenager today I would read this sort of crap
and say "why the **** should I bother - it doesn't matter how hard I
work or what result I achieve, some middle class, middle aged moron
will say my efforts are worthless".

If you have children I feel sorry for them. I do have children and I
am proud of the effort they made to get A grades and it was a damn
site more effort than I made.

If you simply look at the results of science A levels, you will find
that many more students achieve an A grade than was previously the case.
This means that the objective of the exam in sorting out the best from
the mediocre has been thwarted. The child may have made more effort, but
that's not the sole criteria. There is no point in training other than
the best to Degree standard, mediocre graduates are not much use to any
employer. My own experience of engineering graduates in recent years,
has been that the "average" standard of graduate is much less subject
competent than their equals of 20-40 years ago. This tells me that the
standards have dropped. Passing exams on coursework is always less
intellectually demanding than achieving a result on a given day and it's
showing in the graduate quality. Also, when 50% of the population goes
to University, the intellectual results are crap. As the old adage puts
it " You can't turn a sows ear into a silk purse". In the real world,
people are probably, on average, less intelligent than they were 50
years ago, as we have not had a war to cull the dimwits!

If teenagers spit at passers by, this reflects the failure of their
inadequate parents to instill discipline and standards into their
offspring and nothing else.

Regards
Capitol

In article ,
Roger wrote:
The message ws.net
from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:

What amazes me is that when someone sneers degree from partially uni, as
being not worth anything. All degrees are to a minimum externally
unmonitored standard.

I think you are right when you say that degree standards are not
monitored although it seems that that is not what you meant to say.

It certainly used to be the case that what set a university degree apart
from those at lesser establishments was the fact that a university had
total control over the standard of its degree courses.

Not true. Whilst the university sets it's own standards there is an external
assessor to each course.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

Christian McArdle wrote:

I can assure you that
even at primary school, there has been a complete sea change. When I went to
primary school in the early 1980s, many of them were staffed by older, non
trained teachers sometimes even without degrees. Now, schools are staffed by
extremely professional teachers, entirely versed in the latest trends and
scientific research into which methods work. School children from the very
first term of compulsory education now get homework. That would have been
unthinkable 20 years ago. The same ethos now permeates right through the
system. Things have changed.

Stop believing government propaganda. There is no intellectual
difference between the graduate and non graduate teacher in a primary
school. It was purely a cosmetic training change. The latest trends in
education are almost always largely backwards and fashion driven. For
the past couple of centuries good primary education standards have been
determined by the classroom teacher. I can show you the results from a
primary school in the 80's, where the literacy/numeracy standards were
streets ahead of the current levels and the children had a can do
attitude with a wide ranging knowledge and high ability. The national
curriculum was imported directly from the USA, where it doesn't work
either. We are producing a lot more children who have poor literacy
etc standards than we were 20 years ago, or even longer. Children do not
change significantly from generation to generation. Why would you want
to provide homework to primary children, when most of them won't do it
anyway? (Maybe their parents will!)

The only person who knows how to teach a primary child is an
experienced classroom teacher, who has a basic understanding of the
available methods, and can use them as appropriate to the child. As
someone who regularly reads the latest scientific(?), educational
research papers, I can assure you that there is very little science
involved in setting up the criteria interpreting the results. The
objective of the paper is to get yourself on the next rung of the
hierarchy, never to achieve anything worthwhile.

Regards
Capitol

Christian McArdle wrote:

I believe such a division would be socially divisive and counter productive.

I don't. I think a bit of social division is a very good thing. The
rest of the world has it, why should we be afraid?

Regards
Capitol

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:45:04 GMT, Geoffrey wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:14:35 +0000, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 00:03:47 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

People like you who rubbish the achievements of today's youth

But the youth of today doesn't _get_ to achieve anything, that's the
problem.

They would do if it were not for people like you.

I have some A level "A" grades (1982).

Mine were 1973.


Well **** you both, mine were 1968...:-)


How DARE YOU! You cavalierly discount the efforts of thousands of
teenagers and wonder why they congregate in shopping malls and spit at
you.

No, that's beacsue they are treted like trash by te educatuion system.

I've looked at some papers. Its all learn by rote, no thinking involved and
course work as you go.


I think if I were a teenager today I would read this sort of crap
and say "why the **** should I bother - it doesn't matter how hard I
work or what result I achieve, some middle class, middle aged moron
will say my efforts are worthless".

Quite right, and that middle aged middle class moron is Tony Bliar.

One size fits all, and you all get a comfit in the caucus race.


If you have children I feel sorry for them. I do have children and I
am proud of the effort they made to get A grades and it was a damn
site more effort than I made.

I am sure it was, but, having got them, nobody cares, because as has been
said, so many people get them that whether you were clver or dim, worked
hard or skived is utterly irrelevant.

All an A level says today is 'not educationally subnormal'

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:44:07 -0000, Christian McArdle wrote:

This next generation will go to university and these 30% getting 'A' grades
achieve just as much as the few percent did in the 1970s.

********. You are rtelling me that suddenly 30% of the kids today aar as
academically gifted as 2% was 30 years ago?

I think not.

All that has happened is that te 30% who would have gone on to do a higher
education of some value - apprenticeships, basisc office skills and the
like, in technical colleges, now go to 'uni' and end up with a worse
education and a ****ing great debt.

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
If you simply look at the results of science A levels, you will find
that many more students achieve an A grade than was previously the case.
This means that the objective of the exam in sorting out the best from
the mediocre has been thwarted.

At one time A Levels were marked so that (approximately) the same percentages
received the same grades each year. If you were unfortunate to be in a
'bright' year your potential A could drop to a C or D and a middling student
might only get an O. The intention now is to give the same grade as a student
would get whether examined this year, last year, next year, or 5 years ago. If
you are an employer testing candidates for a job you might want to choose the
best 5 - and only the best 5. For an educational attainment that view is
wrong. As long as A Levels were for University admission only the old system
may have been right. As an examination in its own right the present system is
wrong. Educational attainment *is* improving year on year. I'd rather it
slowed down and gave kids more time for other important activities.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

In article , Capitol
wrote:
Why would you want to provide homework to primary children, when most of
them won't do it anyway? (Maybe their parents will!)

Have you tried asking Primary School teachers? Now try explaining how parents
do their kids spelling learning homework. All my wife's class (Y2 inner city
Manchester) do their homework. Some better than others of course. But your
defeatist assumptions are wrong.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing

On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:49:04 -0000, Christian McArdle wrote:


You wish to see vocational training have greater status and reach, and yet
wish to demean any vocational achievement by insisting on a second tier
designation for it?

No. I wish to see that vocational training get the status it deserves,
which is very high, but that it not be confused with an academic
discipline, which suits maybe 2-3% of the population, who will mostly never
achieve anything much beyind fleshing out someone esles theory, or
teaching, but, just occasionally will produce a genius of such importance,
that it makes the waste of money on the rest of the 2% worth while.


I believe this to be inconsistent. I have no doubt that
a course, even if it included flower arranging, could be worthy of a degree
standard, if the level of expectation and achievement was sufficient to
warrant it.

It dependfs what you call a degree. In the olden days academic education
was more about teachjing people how to think,in order that they could
become innovators in their fields.

Todays 'degrees' ARE vocational, in that they consist in mostly
regurgitating the 'party line' on this, or that subject.

Arguably all medical degrees for example have been in that mould for many
years, for example...precious few medical resercrhers tend to come out of
that discipline, just lots of professional doctors..well thats OK, but
don't confuse that with an academic education, which is for a very few, not
necessrarily something to aspire to at all, but something that should be
given to those with the apititude for it.

That 2% make new rules, that the other 30-40% learn, and apply.

That 2% discovers new things, innovates. The other 20-30% implements and
devleops their knowledge. The last 60-70% mostly do what they are told and
go along for the ride.

Society is a team.. Being a genuius is not necessarily a route to a high
income or a happy life.

Just going along for the ride is noi disgrace either. Someone has to do all
the other stuff..drive the busses etc etc.


don't believe in a sharp division between "academic" middle
class good achievement and "vocational" working class "unworthy of degree
status" achievement.

I do believe in a sharp divison between academic abnd cvocational training,
but it has nothing to do with class. As I said, Medical school is
vocational training...and there are plenty gf ex WC eacedemics of total
excellence aroudn at Oxbridge.

Its innate aptidude that makes the difference: The ability to cope with
exteremly high levels of abstraction..few people have it, and its not that
useful a skill in daily life, but in terms of tackling (some) very complecx
problems, those are the people that society needs to use.

Yotyr post betrays yoi as someone who hasn't had, and wouldn't benefit from
an acedemic education. Let it be. Few do. Less than in fact used to go to
University when I went...there were plenty of quite average students
around...however te catchement area was wide enough to make sure that
nearly all te true academics went to university, along with a bunch of
people who shuld have been in vocational training, and eventually did end
up there anway afterwards.



I believe such a division would be socially divisive and counter productive.

Then don't look at it that way - you are the one with the 'class glasses'
on.

What wqe need is an exam to sift out teh few that can benefit from the
academic approach - a super exam to sort out those with IQs up around 140
to 160..

Because its that group that is getting disenfranchised and denied the
access to te 'special needs' eduication they desperately need.




Christian.