Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 01:01:32 +0000, Roger Hayter wrote:

They held an examination for all applicant, each of whom was
provided with:

A sheet of blotting paper;
A rough sheet;
An answer paper and
A question paper.

At the top of the question paper it said "ALL WORKING MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE ANSWER PAPER".

At the end of the exam, every sheet of paper was collected
from each desk. If anything had been scribbled on any piece of
paper other than the answer paper, it was an instant fail.
The answer paper might have been 100% correct but it wan't
even marked.

Reason for failure? 'Cannot obey a simple instruction.'

That would make sense if they had said all working should be *confned*
to the answer paper. The instructions as you quote them do *not*
forbid doing rough working on the blotter and transcribing it in neater
writing to the answer paper.

Or even on the rough paper. B-)

Or workings trying out various methods to solve the problem before
transcribing all the workings of the choosen method to the answer
paper.

My school maths papers had enough acres of crossings out even with rough
paper attempts!


--

Roger Hayter

On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 22:56:42 +0000, Robin wrote:

ISTM such questions would test how much they /already/ know - which
could vary enormously through chance (eg whether or not they had a
parent who did stuff). What the employer wants to know* is whether or
not they have what it takes to /become/ an electrician.

A big part of which is an interest in the subject. Demostrated by
knowing such "chance" facts. Also bear in mind that these days when
you leave school at 16 there is an swful lot of pressure to gone on
to A levels, college or apprentiship, actually getting a job is the
bottom of the "approved" list of pathways at that life stage. Not
that that there are many jobs for 16 year olds out there, as the 18
year olds who aren't pushed onto to Uni after A levels or college are
far more "qualified". To get any form of support a "low achiever" 16
year old has to take what ever is offered, even if they have
absolutely no knowledge or interest in it what so ever.

I'd have thought that was better assessed by testing things all school
leavers ought to know - e.g. basic arithmetic, algebra and
comprehension.

That ought to be indicated by the GCSE grades in Maths and English.

Oh, and a test based on a 13A plug would also tend to put recent
immigrants at a disadvantage so arguably unlawful as indirect racial
discrimination.

Not just immigrants, how long of moulded plugs been madatory? Anyone
below about 40 probably hasn't knowingly seen a wireable 13 A plug
let alone had to rewire one.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 06/12/2019 11:03, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:40:36 +0000 (UTC), Brian Reay wrote:

That kind of â tinkeringâ by children is pretty well a thing of the
past.

Toys like Mecanno, the various electronic assembly toys, books which
encouraged youngsters to experiment with basic science etc, are no
longer popular.

But still easyly available, so someone must be buying them.

We certainly did for our daughters but from my time teaching I'm sure we
were in a minority.

You still find youngsters who do tinker with things etc - I bumped into
a former pupil a few months back and he reminded me I'd given him a
special version of the R Pi OS I'd assembled when he was in Year 7 or
so. He had just secured a place at a good Uni to study for an
engineering degree. There were others who tinkered with computers at the
'low level' and/or electronics/amateur radio etc but not many. To most
technology was something you bought.

Even basis DIY skills seem be an issue for many youngsters.

And no, I'm not someone who likes to damn the younger generation- I
think we've done them a disservice by not ensuring encouraging them to
learn basic skills.

Our three could all do basic things like fit a plug, change a fuse, when
they could drive, change a wheel, check the oil etc. When they went to
Uni, I sent them off with a basic tool kit. When they got their first
flat etc I bought them a reasonable DIY tool set. In particular, when
they shared a house as students, they were the ones who fixed things.
Oh, they are all girls- I've no time for stereotypes, I've worked with
some excellent female engineers.



The world is a very different place these days. Kids have other ways
of "building" things that have far faster, idea, build, try, fail,
new idea loops. And for things that are all but impossible to do in
the real world. Anything from spacecraft or land based vehicles to
electronic circuits into discreet component logic blocks into
computers...

Those have their place and I'm certainly not deprecating them. However,
they shouldn't replace the teaching of the real basics. Plus, even the
best computer based modeling SW has its limitations. Been there, seen
the 'work arounds' ;-) (EMI compatibility is a good example.)


What they don't teach are the physical skills, like how to use a
screwdriver, hammer, spanner, etc. How various materials behave under
various stress's (heat, cold, tension, compression, bending,
twisting...).


Those are the key skills which are so often lacking in people.

On 06/12/2019 09:21, michael adams wrote:
"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

I was born in 1944. I passed the 11 Plus and went to a Church
school, which covered a large area. It was also a Secondary
Modern for the local area. The Grammar side had 3 forms, A, B,
& C whilst the Secondary Modern side had two forms, D & E.

After WWII, 'The Bulge' started. By the time I left school,
the fisrt year extended to 1H!

Of course, not long after I left school and started work, the
bulge started to emerge onto the employment market.

Our Group Scoutmaster used to chat to us older boys after
weekly meetings and gave the lads who were on the verge of
leaving school a warning.

He worked for Van den Bergh & Jurgens (part of Unilever) who
manufactured Stork Margerine in the main.

Their apprenticeships were well respected and sought after and
they were now being inundated with applications, so they had
found a devious way of reducing the numbers.

They held an examination for all applicant, each of whom was
provided with:

A sheet of blotting paper;
A rough sheet;
An answer paper and
A question paper.

At the top of the question paper it said "ALL WORKING MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE ANSWER PAPER".

At the end of the exam, every sheet of paper was collected
from each desk. If anything had been scribbled on any piece of
paper other than the answer paper, it was an instant fail.
The answer paper might have been 100% correct but it wan't
even marked.

Reason for failure? 'Cannot obey a simple instruction.'

Which is clearly nonsense.

If at the top of the question paper it had said

"ALL WORKING MUST BE SHOWN AND *ONLY* ON THE ANSWER PAPER"

Then fair enough. But it didn't, did it ?

But as it stands had any of the candidates first done their
workings on the rough sheet, and then copied all them exactly
but more neatly on the answer paper, then they'd have
satisfied the instruction.

In fact they might even have been more satisfactory
candidates. As being able to do rough workings (as was
implied by the provision of the rough sheet) in line
with their thought processes, rather than being slowed down
by the need to be neat, and copying out the workings
afterwards would probably be a far better way of
proceeding.

You won't necesarily choose smart people by setting trick
questions. And it is a trick given the provision of a
blank sheet of paper. All you're doing is bolstering the
ego of the smartarse who came up with the flawed idea,


michael adams


In current exams, at least Maths unless it has changed in the last few
years- it is normal that you can't be award the Answer (A) mark if you
don't show the working and also get the associated Method (M) mark(s).

I forget the exact detail but from memory for A level Maths, something
like 80% of the marks are Method (M) marks.

The mark scheme used generally shows the expected method but alternate,
valid, methods are allowed and will receive the same marks. Depending on
how the exam board works, they sometimes circulate modified mark schemes
with alternate approaches which have appeared.

On 12/6/2019 5:21 AM, Tim Streater wrote:

In the US you cannot even buy a mains plug, strickly speaking.

???
Home Depot sells them.

On 12/6/2019 6:36 AM, Brian Reay wrote:

Our three could all do basic things like fit a plug, change a fuse, when
they could drive, change a wheel, check the oil etc. When they went to
Uni, I sent them off with a basic tool kit. When they got their first
flat etc I bought them a reasonable DIY tool set.Â* In particular, when
they shared a house as students, they were the ones who fixed things.
Oh, they are all girls- I've no time for stereotypes, I've worked with
some excellent female engineers.

When our daughter moved into a shared flat, we gave her a set of basic
tools - in 'girly' colours, so her male flatmates wouldn't
'accidentally' acquire them. Turns out, not only didn't the guys have
tool-kits, they wouldn't have known what to do with them.

"Another John" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"michael adams" mjadams25@ukonline wrote:

Reason for failure? 'Cannot obey a simple instruction.'

Which is clearly nonsense.

If at the top of the question paper it had said

"ALL WORKING MUST BE SHOWN AND *ONLY* ON THE ANSWER PAPER"

Then fair enough. But it didn't, did it ?

But as it stands had any of the candidates first done their
workings on the rough sheet, and then copied all them exactly
but more neatly on the answer paper, then they'd have
satisfied the instruction.

In fact they might even have been more satisfactory
candidates. As being able to do rough workings (as was
implied by the provision of the rough sheet) in line
with their thought processes, rather than being slowed down
by the need to be neat, and copying out the workings
afterwards would probably be a far better way of
proceeding.

You won't necesarily choose smart people by setting trick
questions. And it is a trick given the provision of a
blank sheet of paper. All you're doing is bolstering the
ego of the smartarse who came up with the flawed idea,

What a very good response, Michael!

But 8 hours after Roger Hayter had already given the correct
answer. And rather more succintly. Not that I copied his answer
only I didn't read through the thread first.

As indeed what was missing from the original specification
was the time element. How much time was alloted to the
question and how long the respectiove candidates actually
took. Basically if ten minutes was allowed and some
candidates a) correctly answered the question in three minutes
in neat writing while leaving the workings sheet
blank then clearly they would be the smartest.
Whereras the ones who used the workings sheet b) , copied it
out neatly and answered the question correctly within say
five minutes would most likely be smarter than the ones
c) who took the whole ten minutes to answer the question
correctly in neat writing while leaving the workings
sheet blank. As stated, there's no real way of sorting a)
who are smarter than b) from c) who are probably dumber than
b).


IME, people who ever said to me, in my long life, [you] 'cannot obey a
simple instruction' were the type of mild bullyboys who made it to
Corporal, and never got further.

Indeed. With ambiguously phrased or "trick" questions what is often
being tested is initiative and the willingnes to take calculated
risks, rather than reasoniong ability as such. In the above
test planning maybe also comes into when trying to make out
the intention behind the question. Did the question paper
provide enough space to display all the workings out ?
Obviously candidates with large writing might view things
differently from candidates with small writing. How did
candidates fare who eventually found they couldn't fit all
their workings onto the question paper both front and back ?


Daniel Kahneman the "thinking Fast and Slow" author early
in his career devised selection tests for the Israeli Army.
I can't remember the precise details but the big conclusion was
that none of the original, carefully thought out tests he devised
actually measured what they were supposed to be measuring


michael adams

....






John

On Fri, 06 Dec 2019 11:45:43 +0000, Brian Reay wrote:

In current exams, at least Maths unless it has changed in the last few
years- it is normal that you can't be award the Answer (A) mark if you
don't show the working and also get the associated Method (M) mark(s).

I forget the exact detail but from memory for A level Maths, something
like 80% of the marks are Method (M) marks.

Indeed. Up to last year I used to set a variety of problems which
required the student to analyse a disk image, extracting filenames,
metadata and so on, as requested. I generated a random image each time.

The answers themselves attracted virtually no marks. The (sometimes
complex) steps to get there were what gained the marks.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On 06/12/2019 10:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/12/2019 10:04, wrote:
On Thursday, 5 December 2019 23:45:24 UTC, Rod SpeedÂ* wrote:
Cant see that algebra is much use to an electrician.

Of course not, electricians /never/ calculate anything using an
equation do they.

Electricians don't, no. Electrical engineers, however, do.

An electrician would need to be able to translate amps to watts and vice
versa.

--
Max Demian

On 06/12/2019 11:33, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 22:56:42 +0000, Robin wrote:

ISTM such questions would test how much they /already/ know - which
could vary enormously through chance (eg whether or not they had a
parent who did stuff). What the employer wants to know* is whether or
not they have what it takes to /become/ an electrician.

A big part of which is an interest in the subject. Demostrated by
knowing such "chance" facts. Also bear in mind that these days when
you leave school at 16 there is an swful lot of pressure to gone on
to A levels, college or apprentiship, actually getting a job is the
bottom of the "approved" list of pathways at that life stage. Not
that that there are many jobs for 16 year olds out there, as the 18
year olds who aren't pushed onto to Uni after A levels or college are
far more "qualified". To get any form of support a "low achiever" 16
year old has to take what ever is offered, even if they have
absolutely no knowledge or interest in it what so ever.

I'd have thought that was better assessed by testing things all school
leavers ought to know - e.g. basic arithmetic, algebra and
comprehension.

That ought to be indicated by the GCSE grades in Maths and English.

Oh, and a test based on a 13A plug would also tend to put recent
immigrants at a disadvantage so arguably unlawful as indirect racial
discrimination.

Not just immigrants, how long of moulded plugs been madatory? Anyone
below about 40 probably hasn't knowingly seen a wireable 13 A plug
let alone had to rewire one.

A lot of, perhaps most, modern appliances with separate plugs have
rewirable ones even if though they are already fitted. Check out table
lamps in your local store.

--
Max Demian

On 06/12/2019 11:33, Dave Liquorice wrote:
how long of moulded plugs been madatory?

They are not mandatory

Anyone
below about 40 probably hasn't knowingly seen a wireable 13 A plug
let alone had to rewire one.

You must be kidding

https://www.screwfix.com/p/diall-13a...ug-white/5751h


--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 05/12/2019 22:46, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
says...

Our Group Scoutmaster used to chat to us older boys after
weekly meetings and gave the lads who were on the verge of
leaving school a warning.

He worked for Van den Bergh & Jurgens (part of Unilever) who
manufactured Stork Margerine in the main.

Their apprenticeships were well respected and sought after and
they were now being inundated with applications, so they had
found a devious way of reducing the numbers.

They held an examination for all applicant, each of whom was
provided with:

A sheet of blotting paper;
A rough sheet;
An answer paper and
A question paper.

At the top of the question paper it said "ALL WORKING MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE ANSWER PAPER".

At the end of the exam, every sheet of paper was collected
from each desk. If anything had been scribbled on any piece of
paper other than the answer paper, it was an instant fail.
The answer paper might have been 100% correct but it wan't
even marked.

Reason for failure? 'Cannot obey a simple instruction.'

What if the rough sheet had doodles on it and matchstick figures? How do
they know whether they are 'working' or not?

--
Max Demian

On 06/12/2019 01:01, Roger Hayter wrote:
Terry Casey wrote:

In article ,
says...

I was born in 1944. I passed the 11 Plus and went to a Church
school, which covered a large area. It was also a Secondary
Modern for the local area. The Grammar side had 3 forms, A, B,
& C whilst the Secondary Modern side had two forms, D & E.

After WWII, 'The Bulge' started. By the time I left school,
the fisrt year extended to 1H!

Of course, not long after I left school and started work, the
bulge started to emerge onto the employment market.

Our Group Scoutmaster used to chat to us older boys after
weekly meetings and gave the lads who were on the verge of
leaving school a warning.

He worked for Van den Bergh & Jurgens (part of Unilever) who
manufactured Stork Margerine in the main.

Their apprenticeships were well respected and sought after and
they were now being inundated with applications, so they had
found a devious way of reducing the numbers.

They held an examination for all applicant, each of whom was
provided with:

A sheet of blotting paper;
A rough sheet;
An answer paper and
A question paper.

At the top of the question paper it said "ALL WORKING MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE ANSWER PAPER".

At the end of the exam, every sheet of paper was collected
from each desk. If anything had been scribbled on any piece of
paper other than the answer paper, it was an instant fail.
The answer paper might have been 100% correct but it wan't
even marked.

Reason for failure? 'Cannot obey a simple instruction.'

That would make sense if they had said all working should be *confned*
to the answer paper. The instructions as you quote them do *not*
forbid doing rough working on the blotter and transcribing it in neater
writing to the answer paper.

That would show you don't know what blotting paper is for, no doubt
important in those days.

--
Max Demian

On 05/12/2019 22:16, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
says...


When they start with use they cannot use a screwdriver. Things were
different 10 years ago, they get worse every year in most cases. Every
so often you get a good one.

Why doesn't your boss give potential apprentices a simple test
to find out if they have even the slightest knowledge of the
subject they wish to be paid to learn about?

For example:

1. What is the UK mains voltage? (Accept both 240 & 230,
though the latter answer might indicate a better knowledge of
the subject.)

You mean saying 230V and being wrong is better than the correct answer.


2. What are the colours of the wires in a 3-core mains lead?

Old one. new one or a Chinese one?

On 06/12/2019 05:55, Richard wrote:
On 06/12/2019 01:01, Roger Hayter wrote:
Terry Casey wrote:

In article ,
says...

I was born in 1944. I passed the 11 Plus and went to a Church
school, which covered a large area. It was also a Secondary
Modern for the local area. The Grammar side had 3 forms, A, B,
& C whilst the Secondary Modern side had two forms, D & E.

After WWII, 'The Bulge' started. By the time I left school,
the fisrt year extended to 1H!

Of course, not long after I left school and started work, the
bulge started to emerge onto the employment market.

Our Group Scoutmaster used to chat to us older boys after
weekly meetings and gave the lads who were on the verge of
leaving school a warning.

He worked for Van den Bergh & Jurgens (part of Unilever) who
manufactured Stork Margerine in the main.

Their apprenticeships were well respected and sought after and
they were now being inundated with applications, so they had
found a devious way of reducing the numbers.

They held an examination for all applicant, each of whom was
provided with:

A sheet of blotting paper;
A rough sheet;
An answer paper and
A question paper.

At the top of the question paper it said "ALL WORKING MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE ANSWER PAPER".

At the end of the exam, every sheet of paper was collected
from each desk. If anything had been scribbled on any piece of
paper other than the answer paper, it was an instant fail.
The answer paper might have been 100% correct but it wan't
even marked.

Reason for failure? 'Cannot obey a simple instruction.'

That would make sense if they had said all working should be *confned*
to the answer paper.Â*Â* The instructions as you quote them do *not*
forbid doing rough working on the blotter and transcribing it in neater
writing to the answer paper.


Your problem is that you want someone who actually can think.
It would seem that in Terry's case they wanted mindless robots.


It just means the people that set the rules were to thick to understand
English and should be the first ones sacked.

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 13:26:53 +0000, Max Demian wrote:

On 06/12/2019 01:01, Roger Hayter wrote:
Terry Casey wrote:

In article ,
says...

I was born in 1944. I passed the 11 Plus and went to a Church
school, which covered a large area. It was also a Secondary
Modern for the local area. The Grammar side had 3 forms, A, B,
& C whilst the Secondary Modern side had two forms, D & E.

After WWII, 'The Bulge' started. By the time I left school,
the fisrt year extended to 1H!

Of course, not long after I left school and started work, the
bulge started to emerge onto the employment market.

Our Group Scoutmaster used to chat to us older boys after
weekly meetings and gave the lads who were on the verge of
leaving school a warning.

He worked for Van den Bergh & Jurgens (part of Unilever) who
manufactured Stork Margerine in the main.

Their apprenticeships were well respected and sought after and
they were now being inundated with applications, so they had
found a devious way of reducing the numbers.

They held an examination for all applicant, each of whom was
provided with:

A sheet of blotting paper;
A rough sheet;
An answer paper and
A question paper.

At the top of the question paper it said "ALL WORKING MUST BE
SHOWN ON THE ANSWER PAPER".

At the end of the exam, every sheet of paper was collected
from each desk. If anything had been scribbled on any piece of
paper other than the answer paper, it was an instant fail.
The answer paper might have been 100% correct but it wan't
even marked.

Reason for failure? 'Cannot obey a simple instruction.'

That would make sense if they had said all working should be *confned*
to the answer paper. The instructions as you quote them do *not*
forbid doing rough working on the blotter and transcribing it in neater
writing to the answer paper.

That would show you don't know what blotting paper is for, no doubt
important in those days.

Try working it out with a pencil.



--
Regards, Paul Herber
https://www.paulherber.co.uk/

"Brian Reay" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 December 2019 18:03:51 UTC, ARW wrote:
This year we have 2 third year apprentices. Neither of them can fit a
back box straight, wire up a two way lightswitch etc etc.

Could I suggest that being able to wire up a two way lightswitch should
be an *entry criterion* to being an electrical apprentice?

Fairly sure I could have done it at 16.

In fact I was probably doing it about 8, with a battery and paperclips
and brass paper fasteners for switches :-)

If someone hasn't got to that stage by 16, where is the evidence of their
interest and ability?

Owain

Admittedly my back boxes aren't always straight, but I blame the
bricks...

That kind of €˜tinkering by children is pretty well a thing of the past.

No its not. One of my neighbours kids whose dad does nothing
like that keeps borrowing my tools to do stuff like that and doesnt
normally need to ask me what to use and returns them still perfect
and does a decent job of what he wants to achieve.

I did the same thing at his age, but used my dads tools and did all
the electrical stuff and repair of appliances and stuff like lawnmowers
and bikes etc and cars. My dad was much more into carpentry;

Toys like Mecanno, the various electronic assembly toys,
books which encouraged youngsters to experiment with
basic science etc, are no longer popular.

But stuff like Minecraft is.

Like you, I was tinkering with basic electrical things at 8 or so, I
went on to gain an engineering degree, and worked in industry.

Now too many youngsters want to be €˜celebrities.

Never come across any like that at all.

Without wishing to be racist etc, back in the 80s I was working in a
developing country on some military equipment along side some
Americans. Some local Army person were assigned to help us. One
of the Americans made some disparaging comments about the
technical skills of his local assistants while we were having dinner
one evening. As one of his colleagues pointed out, the soldiers
had probably never had even a bicycle as a child let alone worked
on anything as complicated as the kit they now were faced with.

And yet quite a few in africa and india are brilliant mechanics.

The bloody afghans made their own very decent rifles by
copying what the brits showed up with out of bar stock etc
during the Afghan wars and ****ed the poms over completely.

By not ensuring our children explore basic technology etc
we are placing them in the same position. Playing computer
games / having the latest mobile phone isnt basic technology.

But connecting them up and doing the table they are mounted on etc is.

wrote in message
...
On Friday, 6 December 2019 09:40:39 UTC, Brian Reay wrote:
That kind of €˜tinkering by children is pretty well a thing of the past.
...
Without wishing to be racist etc, back in the 80s I was working in a
developing country on some military equipment along side some Americans.

OTOH in developing countries tinkering is much more prevalent and if the
soldiers *had* had a bicycle as children [1] they would probably have
known how to change the tyre, patch the inner tube, fix the chain etc and
even weld the frame with a couple of wires from the light socket and a
home-made transformer.

[1] Yes, I do mean one bike, many children :-)

And make their own interesting toys from junk
like those wheel things they run around fast,.
https://www.pinterest.com.au/pin/524599056567573251/

wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 5 December 2019 23:45:24 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
Cant see that algebra is much use to an electrician.

Of course not, electricians /never/ calculate anything using an equation
do they.

Thats not school algebra.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , alan_m
wrote:

On 05/12/2019 22:56, Robin wrote:

ISTM such questions would test how much they /already/ know - which
could vary enormously through chance (eg whether or not they had a
parent who did stuff). What the employer wants to know* is whether or
not they have what it takes to /become/ an electrician. I'd have
thought that was better assessed by testing things all school leavers
ought to know - e.g. basic arithmetic, algebra and comprehension.

A decent interview should sort that out. Its not only what they know but
their attitude to actually working.

I'm sure that most reading this group have HAD to fit a mains plug but
these day they all come moulded onto the cable.

In the US you cannot even buy a mains plug, strickly speaking.

BULL****.

Which would be a problem in our village hall, where the three
appliances you are asked to leave disconnected and (for the two
fridges), door open, have their mains cable coming up through the
counter top via a cable-width hole, with the plug above along with the
wall sockets.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 02:06:46 +1100, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH the senile asshole's latest troll****

02:06 in Australia? Did NOBODY in Australia talk to you all day long again,
you cantankerous senile pest? Will the posters on Usenet now have to pay for
it?

--
addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent:
"You on the other hand are a heavyweight bull****ter who demonstrates
your particular prowess at it every day."
MID:

Max Demian wrote:

On 06/12/2019 01:01, Roger Hayter wrote:



That would make sense if they had said all working should be *confned*
to the answer paper. The instructions as you quote them do *not*
forbid doing rough working on the blotter and transcribing it in neater
writing to the answer paper.

That would show you don't know what blotting paper is for, no doubt
important in those days.

I know perfectly well what blotting paper is for, having spent the late
50s and early 60s doodling on it with a pen nib, pencil or biro.

--

Roger Hayter

On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 02:04:44 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll****

02:04??? Are you completely nuts? Will the posters on Usenet have to pay for
it again because NOBODY in Australia was willing to talk to you cantankerous
senile pest all day long?

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 01:52:27 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the abnormal senile asshole's latest troll****

01:52??? Yet AGAIN? Will the posters on Usenet have to pay for it again that
NOBODY in Australia was willing to talk to you all day long again, you
obnoxious cantankerous senile pest?

--
dennis@home to retarded senile Rot:
"sod off rod you don't have a clue about anything."
Message-ID:

"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 06/12/2019 10:44, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 06/12/2019 10:04, wrote:
On Thursday, 5 December 2019 23:45:24 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
Cant see that algebra is much use to an electrician.

Of course not, electricians /never/ calculate anything using an equation
do they.

Electricians don't, no. Electrical engineers, however, do.

An electrician would need to be able to translate amps to watts and vice
versa.

Thats not school algebra except in the most mindlessly pedantic sense.

"Max Demian" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 06/12/2019 11:33, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 22:56:42 +0000, Robin wrote:

ISTM such questions would test how much they /already/ know - which
could vary enormously through chance (eg whether or not they had a
parent who did stuff). What the employer wants to know* is whether or
not they have what it takes to /become/ an electrician.

A big part of which is an interest in the subject. Demostrated by
knowing such "chance" facts. Also bear in mind that these days when
you leave school at 16 there is an swful lot of pressure to gone on
to A levels, college or apprentiship, actually getting a job is the
bottom of the "approved" list of pathways at that life stage. Not
that that there are many jobs for 16 year olds out there, as the 18
year olds who aren't pushed onto to Uni after A levels or college are
far more "qualified". To get any form of support a "low achiever" 16
year old has to take what ever is offered, even if they have
absolutely no knowledge or interest in it what so ever.

I'd have thought that was better assessed by testing things all school
leavers ought to know - e.g. basic arithmetic, algebra and
comprehension.

That ought to be indicated by the GCSE grades in Maths and English.

Oh, and a test based on a 13A plug would also tend to put recent
immigrants at a disadvantage so arguably unlawful as indirect racial
discrimination.

Not just immigrants, how long of moulded plugs been madatory? Anyone
below about 40 probably hasn't knowingly seen a wireable 13 A plug
let alone had to rewire one.

A lot of, perhaps most, modern appliances with separate plugs have
rewirable ones even if though they are already fitted. Check out table
lamps in your local store.

But hardly ever need to be rewired by the owner, so its
a silly test for who might be useful as an electrician.

On Friday, 6 December 2019 15:06:55 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
Of course not, electricians /never/ calculate anything using an equation
do they.
Thats not school algebra.

Perhaps it should be.

I got to 35 before realising that quadratic equations had any real-world purpose. I thought they were invented to torture schoolchildren.

Owain

On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 02:36:01 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's troll****

02:36??? LOL And you've been up and trolling for almost an hour ALREADY!

What's it like for you knowing yourself what a sick asshole you are, senile
asshole?

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 02:10:56 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

FLUSH senile asshole's usual troll****

02:10??? AGAIN? So, you've made up your senile "mind" and decided that you
will be up and trolling on these UK groups ALL NIGHT long again, senile
Rodent! ROTFLOL

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 02:37:36 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile asshole's latest troll****

02:37??? ROTFLOL Will the posters on Usenet have to pay for it again that
NOBODY in Australia talked to you all day long again, you abnormal cretinous
senile pest? LOL

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

wrote in message
...
On Friday, 6 December 2019 15:06:55 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
Of course not, electricians /never/ calculate anything using an
equation
do they.
Thats not school algebra.

Perhaps it should be.

Not for those who intend to be electricians.

I got to 35 before realising that quadratic equations had any real-world
purpose.
I thought they were invented to torture schoolchildren.

Certainly useful for engineers but not electricians.

In article ,
says...

On 05/12/2019 22:16, Terry Casey wrote:

Why doesn't your boss give potential apprentices a simple test
to find out if they have even the slightest knowledge of the
subject they wish to be paid to learn about?

For example:

1. What is the UK mains voltage?
2. What are the colours of the wires in a 3-core mains lead?
3. [Line drawing of the inside of a 13A plug.]

On the drawing, using the letters C, E, F, L & N, show the
Live, Neutral and Earth connections and the position of the
Fuse and Cable clamp.

ISTM such questions would test how much they /already/ know - which
could vary enormously through chance (eg whether or not they had a
parent who did stuff).

Surely any school leaver who wants to be trained for such a
job should be able to show that they already have a grasp of
basic principles?

What the employer wants to know* is whether or
not they have what it takes to /become/ an electrician. I'd have
thought that was better assessed by testing things all school leavers
ought to know - e.g. basic arithmetic, algebra and comprehension.

I would agree but I didn't set out to write the complete test!


Oh, and a test based on a 13A plug would also tend to put recent
immigrants at a disadvantage so arguably unlawful as indirect racial
discrimination.

Assuming a European immigrant, wiring colours were harmonized
50 years ago. And are you suggesting that an immigrant from
anywhere interested in becoming an electrician would not have
bothered to find out how to fit UK plugs to any equipment they
bought with them?



--

Terry

On 06/12/2019 11:03, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 09:40:36 +0000 (UTC), Brian Reay wrote:

That kind of â tinkeringâ by children is pretty well a thing of the
past.

Toys like Mecanno, the various electronic assembly toys, books which
encouraged youngsters to experiment with basic science etc, are no
longer popular.

But still easyly available, so someone must be buying them.

The world is a very different place these days. Kids have other ways
of "building" things that have far faster, idea, build, try, fail,
new idea loops. And for things that are all but impossible to do in
the real world. Anything from spacecraft or land based vehicles to
electronic circuits into discreet component logic blocks into
computers...

What they don't teach are the physical skills, like how to use a
screwdriver, hammer, spanner, etc. How various materials behave under
various stress's (heat, cold, tension, compression, bending,
twisting...).


Just watched 'Escape to the chateauxIY' on C4.

some crazy woman was trying to fill a 1 to 3 inch gap between
some oak lintels (on a step ladder, above her head) with
expanding foam, and then blaming the material for 'falling out'.
'It never did this at home'.

We never saw the after effect when it had expanded. **** knows
what she was using but she was using the canister upside down,
i.e. like a can of WD40, which is normally wrong for a can
of expanding foam or sealant.

The local mayor then asked her (via interpreter) why she hadn't
learnt any french (having been there for 5 years).

On 06/12/2019 16:27, Terry Casey wrote:
In article ,
says...

On 05/12/2019 22:16, Terry Casey wrote:

Why doesn't your boss give potential apprentices a simple test
to find out if they have even the slightest knowledge of the
subject they wish to be paid to learn about?

For example:

1. What is the UK mains voltage?
2. What are the colours of the wires in a 3-core mains lead?
3. [Line drawing of the inside of a 13A plug.]

On the drawing, using the letters C, E, F, L & N, show the
Live, Neutral and Earth connections and the position of the
Fuse and Cable clamp.

ISTM such questions would test how much they /already/ know - which
could vary enormously through chance (eg whether or not they had a
parent who did stuff).

Surely any school leaver who wants to be trained for such a
job should be able to show that they already have a grasp of
basic principles?

What the employer wants to know* is whether or
not they have what it takes to /become/ an electrician. I'd have
thought that was better assessed by testing things all school leavers
ought to know - e.g. basic arithmetic, algebra and comprehension.

I would agree but I didn't set out to write the complete test!


Oh, and a test based on a 13A plug would also tend to put recent
immigrants at a disadvantage so arguably unlawful as indirect racial
discrimination.

Assuming a European immigrant, wiring colours were harmonized
50 years ago. And are you suggesting that an immigrant from
anywhere interested in becoming an electrician would not have
bothered to find out how to fit UK plugs to any equipment they
bought with them?



But plug designs are highly variable over Europe, and only
we have 'ring mains'.

On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 03:07:02 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH troll****

03:07??? LOL Poor senile trolling asshole from Oz!

--
Bod addressing senile Rot:
"Rod, you have a sick twisted mind. I suggest you stop your mindless
and totally irresponsible talk. Your mouth could get you into a lot of
trouble."
Message-ID:

On 06/12/2019 15:46, wrote:
On Friday, 6 December 2019 15:06:55 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
Of course not, electricians /never/ calculate anything using an equation
do they.
Thats not school algebra.

Perhaps it should be.

I got to 35 before realising that quadratic equations had any real-world purpose. I thought they were invented to torture schoolchildren.

When I was building my conservatory, I had a wall and a window at 90°,
connected by another wall at an angle, with the roof sloping down at an
another angle. I've forgotten what I needed to calculate, but it quickly
turned out to be a quadratic equation that I needed to solve.

SteveW

On Fri, 6 Dec 2019 07:11:10 -0500, S Viemeister wrote:

When our daughter moved into a shared flat, we gave her a set of basic
tools - in 'girly' colours, so her male flatmates wouldn't
'accidentally' acquire them.

No.1 Daugher asked for a tool kit when she moved into rented student
accomdation. Didn't dare get her one in girly colours though.

Turns out, not only didn't the guys have tool-kits, they wouldn't have
known what to do with them.

Do you wish to rephrase that? Most odd for a young male not to know
what to do with his tool kit. B-)

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 06/12/2019 15:30, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Hayter
wrote:

Max Demian wrote:

On 06/12/2019 01:01, Roger Hayter wrote:

That would make sense if they had said all working should be *confned*
to the answer paper.Â*Â* The instructions as you quote them do *not*
forbid doing rough working on the blotter and transcribing it in
neater
writing to the answer paper.

That would show you don't know what blotting paper is for, no doubt
important in those days.

I know perfectly well what blotting paper is for, having spent the late
50s and early 60s doodling on it with a pen nib,Â* pencil or biro.

Blotting paper is for filling up the ink-well on your friend's desk.

And flicking an ink soaked piece with a ruler.

--
Max Demian

On 06/12/2019 15:27, Roger Hayter wrote:
I know perfectly well what blotting paper is for, having spent the late
50s and early 60s doodling on it with a pen nib, pencil or biro.

Of course . It's for pressing flowers in...


--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

"Terry Casey" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On 05/12/2019 22:16, Terry Casey wrote:

Why doesn't your boss give potential apprentices a simple test
to find out if they have even the slightest knowledge of the
subject they wish to be paid to learn about?

For example:

1. What is the UK mains voltage?
2. What are the colours of the wires in a 3-core mains lead?
3. [Line drawing of the inside of a 13A plug.]

On the drawing, using the letters C, E, F, L & N, show the
Live, Neutral and Earth connections and the position of the
Fuse and Cable clamp.

ISTM such questions would test how much they /already/ know - which
could vary enormously through chance (eg whether or not they had a
parent who did stuff).

Surely any school leaver who wants to be trained for such a
job should be able to show that they already have a grasp of
basic principles?

Not necessarily anymore with those who have no idea
about what they want to do after school and someone
suggests that it's a decent job with a continuing future.

What the employer wants to know* is whether or
not they have what it takes to /become/ an electrician. I'd have
thought that was better assessed by testing things all school leavers
ought to know - e.g. basic arithmetic, algebra and comprehension.

I would agree but I didn't set out to write the complete test!


Oh, and a test based on a 13A plug would also tend to put recent
immigrants at a disadvantage so arguably unlawful as indirect racial
discrimination.

Assuming a European immigrant, wiring colours were harmonized
50 years ago. And are you suggesting that an immigrant from
anywhere interested in becoming an electrician would not have
bothered to find out how to fit UK plugs to any equipment they
bought with them?

More likely that they don't realise that Unwired color use is different
to where they come from because they didn't bring any with them.