Egotistical Git
- Thread starter ovverbruv
- Start date
Irish Stamp
Forum Moderator
JDCF - I read Human Geography at Sheffield Hallam - great course to do though it's changed since I left a year or so ago. Not in the middle of nowhere either with a large, expanding and ever changing city to study in, good job ops for students, good halls of residence, friendly and approachable lecturers. Oh and as a side note we also have the best looking women in Yorkshire 
As has been said, this one always has, and always will provoke differences of opinions, and I'm sure today's GCSE mathematicians could easily plot an opinion/ age correlation curve 
Taking some of them one by one. Liam's Brazilian example is something I'd agree with, but still feel that if the individual concerned was able to get his head round, urban demographic projections, low-wage globalisation, the socio/economic polarisation of accelerated industrialisation, and corruption in the town planning process (don't suppose they teach you how to do the last named) then he should be capable of completing the full picture, and working out where Brazil is? Does curiousity and the need to satisfy his thirst for knowledge not dictate that he would?
Ironically, it's utilising these memory recall techniques that the GCSE student generation I was referring to, were largely relying on (that and hard work to compensate for lack of natural ability). I remember my old lecturer vividly saying how he'd noticed a massive increase in people merely remembering, and spewing it back parrot fashion.
"There's nothing more disappointing to have your own lectures given in October, repeated back to you without any thought, word for word verbatim come May. You can't fail them, because they're not wrong, but you can only give them a grudging 2:2".
The example I gave of the mischievous teachers BM, referred exclusively to maths, which is a subject that hasn't alterted to anything like the extent that others have. English has altered, and things like punctuation, grammar, and spelling used to be penalised much more heavily than they are today. Indeed, I was talking to a senior at Cambridge exam board recently who assured me that such disciplines have only been re-introduced into teaching very, very recently. Before that, she assured me, the first time a generation were taught punctuation and grammer correctly (or for any prolonged period) was when they learnt French. :suspect:
After having checked out the Maths claim, I understand it is actually worse then I reported. The papers given to A- levels students from the GCSE generation, were not old A level papers, but old O level papers
Purr, you have my sympathy and admiration for your riposte. You do mention one word though "journalist" and an employer "Daily Express". What would you expect?
It will be very interesting to see what effect the reduction of the amount of course work allowed to count towards a grade has in the future? If we suddenly start seeing a reversal, then i think we can all draw our own conclusions regarding how a generation has been allowed to get through the system :brows:
Taking some of them one by one. Liam's Brazilian example is something I'd agree with, but still feel that if the individual concerned was able to get his head round, urban demographic projections, low-wage globalisation, the socio/economic polarisation of accelerated industrialisation, and corruption in the town planning process
(don't suppose they teach you how to do the last named) then he should be capable of completing the full picture, and working out where Brazil is? Does curiousity and the need to satisfy his thirst for knowledge not dictate that he would?Ironically, it's utilising these memory recall techniques that the GCSE student generation I was referring to, were largely relying on (that and hard work to compensate for lack of natural ability). I remember my old lecturer vividly saying how he'd noticed a massive increase in people merely remembering, and spewing it back parrot fashion.
"There's nothing more disappointing to have your own lectures given in October, repeated back to you without any thought, word for word verbatim come May. You can't fail them, because they're not wrong, but you can only give them a grudging 2:2".
The example I gave of the mischievous teachers BM, referred exclusively to maths, which is a subject that hasn't alterted to anything like the extent that others have. English has altered, and things like punctuation, grammar, and spelling used to be penalised much more heavily than they are today. Indeed, I was talking to a senior at Cambridge exam board recently who assured me that such disciplines have only been re-introduced into teaching very, very recently. Before that, she assured me, the first time a generation were taught punctuation and grammer correctly (or for any prolonged period) was when they learnt French. :suspect:
After having checked out the Maths claim, I understand it is actually worse then I reported. The papers given to A- levels students from the GCSE generation, were not old A level papers, but old O level papers
Purr, you have my sympathy and admiration for your riposte. You do mention one word though "journalist" and an employer "Daily Express". What would you expect?
It will be very interesting to see what effect the reduction of the amount of course work allowed to count towards a grade has in the future? If we suddenly start seeing a reversal, then i think we can all draw our own conclusions regarding how a generation has been allowed to get through the system :brows:
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,041
Certainly, when I was at school you passed History by regurgitating the notes you'd taken in class. Likewise for Geography, Chemistry, Physics, RE, etc.
Maths wasn't particularly difficult for any pupil of average intelligence. You were presented with an example and asked to do the same with umpteen others.
Almost every exam was based around knowledge: facts, formulae, paradigms, etc.
Nowadays, pupils have to contextualise their knowledge. They have to understand concepts. Those are more difficult than simply spelling correctly or writing grammatically well, which is why spelling and grammar took on less importance for a generation. And probably rightly so. Not being able to spell a word doesn't mean you don't know what it means or how best to use it. Spelling is checked and corrected once the key concepts are learned. It is like fine-tuning the TV.
Pupils are also subjected to a vastly broader curriculum these days. This impacts upon the amount of time they can have in a subject in a year, therefore after four years they will have spent approximately only 60% of the time my generation did in a subject. For example, in S1/first year, in a 45 period week I had English, Maths, French, Latin, History, Geography, Chemistry, Physics, Art, Music, PE and RE. The last four accounted for six of the periods, so the others averaged almost 8 (x35min = just shy of 5 hours) per week.
The modern curriculum no longer has Latin (regrettably, in my view); History and Geography are combined, as are the sciences (which now include Biology), but pupils also have to do Technical, Business, IT, PSE, Home Economics, Modern Studies all within the same timescale. They also have to learn skills, as opposed to simple knowledge, within all those subjects. It is therefore pointless trying to equate the demands of exams.
Maths wasn't particularly difficult for any pupil of average intelligence. You were presented with an example and asked to do the same with umpteen others.
Almost every exam was based around knowledge: facts, formulae, paradigms, etc.
Nowadays, pupils have to contextualise their knowledge. They have to understand concepts. Those are more difficult than simply spelling correctly or writing grammatically well, which is why spelling and grammar took on less importance for a generation. And probably rightly so. Not being able to spell a word doesn't mean you don't know what it means or how best to use it. Spelling is checked and corrected once the key concepts are learned. It is like fine-tuning the TV.
Pupils are also subjected to a vastly broader curriculum these days. This impacts upon the amount of time they can have in a subject in a year, therefore after four years they will have spent approximately only 60% of the time my generation did in a subject. For example, in S1/first year, in a 45 period week I had English, Maths, French, Latin, History, Geography, Chemistry, Physics, Art, Music, PE and RE. The last four accounted for six of the periods, so the others averaged almost 8 (x35min = just shy of 5 hours) per week.
The modern curriculum no longer has Latin (regrettably, in my view); History and Geography are combined, as are the sciences (which now include Biology), but pupils also have to do Technical, Business, IT, PSE, Home Economics, Modern Studies all within the same timescale. They also have to learn skills, as opposed to simple knowledge, within all those subjects. It is therefore pointless trying to equate the demands of exams.
I still believe that conventional exams will ultimately see the cream rise to the top. There are a number of things that worry me about the present methods for assessing a pupils ability.
1: The over dependence on course work is always going to tempt educated and ambitious parent into play. For the time being it's stopped but I know a few single mums for instance, who try as they might, didn't possess the knowledge to pass on to their children, (the phone used to ring at strange hours with pecuiliar requests like, 'why does thunder go bang'? To some extent the Internet has evened this disparity up.
2: Teachers don't always mark objectively. Admittedly they have prescribed marking schemes these days, and it has alleviated some of the subjectivity that they used to apply, but there's still enough grey areas in the realms of interpretation to allow them to swing a few marks here and there in favour of preferred students.
3: Teachers to some extent, and school management most definately, both have a vested interest in trying to slip one past the moderator. I certainly know of one teacher who put a blanket percentage on their coursework marks, and left it to chance to see of the moderator picked up on it (in snooker parlance you'd call it a shot at nothing). The moderator failed to pick it up, and pupils were artifically graded above their ability. Of course the school were chuffed though the teacher concerned felt quite guilty afterwards knowing that they'd aided and abetted proxy cheating.
I tend to agree that teaching the critical skills and ability to analyse and learn is of greater value than learning set facts. It's just that what I believed I'd witnessed was that the same methods of learning (regurgitation) could be applied just as easily to this quest for 'understanding' as the desired output.
"This is what happened, this is why it happened, these are the implications of it happening, these are the lessons we could learn" - now go away and memorise.
The secret seems to be in stimulating students to use their critical faculties independently, and to think more widely, and to some extent indulge in personal philosophising. Factual regurgitation is a test of memory true, and that is not intelligence. If one can marshall the facts to construct an argument/ position, then one is starting along the road towards demonstrating intelligence and understanding. Like I said however, I believe you can complete a full circle and teach someone what those arguments are in such away that they too fall into rope learning.
I think your opening sentance Dessie, highlights to a large extent what my own lecturer was bemoaning; teaching people to pass by memorising the basics. As he said, he had to give them a 2:2 because they weren't factually incorrect. It doesn't teach people to excel though, yet people are being given grades that suggest they are doing just that. My own experience is that there's a lot of not terribly clever people going through the system who are being educated, and decorated beyond their true ability.
Now obviously the genuinely capable would succeed in any generation (and my God, it's not as if I don't come across them on a daily basis). Even the college staff who I occasionally rub shoulders with, will privately express doubts about the validity of the grades as most I've heard express an opinion are convinced the overall standard has dropped, and it's geting harder for them to select the excellence that they strive for.
At least with a set piece exam, and a neutral candidates number, you stand a beter chance of ensuring objective assessment, and that the author is indeed who they appear to be.
1: The over dependence on course work is always going to tempt educated and ambitious parent into play. For the time being it's stopped but I know a few single mums for instance, who try as they might, didn't possess the knowledge to pass on to their children, (the phone used to ring at strange hours with pecuiliar requests like, 'why does thunder go bang'? To some extent the Internet has evened this disparity up.
2: Teachers don't always mark objectively. Admittedly they have prescribed marking schemes these days, and it has alleviated some of the subjectivity that they used to apply, but there's still enough grey areas in the realms of interpretation to allow them to swing a few marks here and there in favour of preferred students.
3: Teachers to some extent, and school management most definately, both have a vested interest in trying to slip one past the moderator. I certainly know of one teacher who put a blanket percentage on their coursework marks, and left it to chance to see of the moderator picked up on it (in snooker parlance you'd call it a shot at nothing). The moderator failed to pick it up, and pupils were artifically graded above their ability. Of course the school were chuffed though the teacher concerned felt quite guilty afterwards knowing that they'd aided and abetted proxy cheating.
I tend to agree that teaching the critical skills and ability to analyse and learn is of greater value than learning set facts. It's just that what I believed I'd witnessed was that the same methods of learning (regurgitation) could be applied just as easily to this quest for 'understanding' as the desired output.
"This is what happened, this is why it happened, these are the implications of it happening, these are the lessons we could learn" - now go away and memorise.
The secret seems to be in stimulating students to use their critical faculties independently, and to think more widely, and to some extent indulge in personal philosophising. Factual regurgitation is a test of memory true, and that is not intelligence. If one can marshall the facts to construct an argument/ position, then one is starting along the road towards demonstrating intelligence and understanding. Like I said however, I believe you can complete a full circle and teach someone what those arguments are in such away that they too fall into rope learning.
I think your opening sentance Dessie, highlights to a large extent what my own lecturer was bemoaning; teaching people to pass by memorising the basics. As he said, he had to give them a 2:2 because they weren't factually incorrect. It doesn't teach people to excel though, yet people are being given grades that suggest they are doing just that. My own experience is that there's a lot of not terribly clever people going through the system who are being educated, and decorated beyond their true ability.
Now obviously the genuinely capable would succeed in any generation (and my God, it's not as if I don't come across them on a daily basis). Even the college staff who I occasionally rub shoulders with, will privately express doubts about the validity of the grades as most I've heard express an opinion are convinced the overall standard has dropped, and it's geting harder for them to select the excellence that they strive for.
At least with a set piece exam, and a neutral candidates number, you stand a beter chance of ensuring objective assessment, and that the author is indeed who they appear to be.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Is there no subject that you cannot write a very large post on Warbler? It`s not a criticism it`s just schools and exams and how A levels must be ***** easythese days has got to be the most boring subject on the face of the Earth.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
...or posts even!
But is this not tantamount to dumbing down, if people's attention spans can't cope with a few paragraphs? Old forums were more challenging than these new ones you know
In seriousness it was something I was going to have a whine about elsewhere (and make some sweeping generalisations in the process). One liners really don't do much for me I'm afraid, and it's a something that has come characterise what I tend to regard as the least interesting fora. Once this approach to analysis becomes the accepted cultural modus operandi for any forum, then it simulataneously becomes self limiting (imho) as it automatically starts to propogate a sense of shallowness, and becomes particularly unstimulating by way of thought provocation. Ultimately it becomes unrewarding to contribute to, and thus ensnares itself.
Don't get me wrong Warbler. I enjoy your views, I just don't have time for reading all of them. Communication is all about what the reciever gets, not what the sender sends.
I hope you don't take offence, it's just I miss a lot of what you say because the length can be intimidating when I pop in here at work for a 3 minute mental diversion.
I hope you don't take offence, it's just I miss a lot of what you say because the length can be intimidating when I pop in here at work for a 3 minute mental diversion.
K
Kathy
Guest
Perhaps we should rename Warbler, Waffler? (absolutely no offence meant, Warbler!) 
I'm only jealous because I live my life at around 100mph, and that includes what I type and what I read.
I'm only jealous because I live my life at around 100mph, and that includes what I type and what I read.
Desert Orchid
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2005
- Messages
- 25,041
Edging back towards the topic...
By coincidence, my daughter has just received the result of a first-year university English exam (which she missed due to ill-health in January). She did very well and is delighted with the result as she's had this exam hanging over her since then and hasn't been able to enjoy her summer as fully as she'd wanted.
Now, Mrs Orchid is a depute head and former head of a large English department. When Orchidette showed us her exam paper last week I grimaced as it looked hellishly hard. Mrs Orchid agreed and opined that it seemed a lot harder than anything she ever had to do in first-year English at uni in the early 70s.
"There's no way I'd have got that high a mark in that paper at her age," she told me out of earshot of our daughter, "but then again, she work a lot harder than you or I did."
So, hardly evidence that standards are falling or that students are slacking, since our daughter reckons she needs to study hard just to keep up with the rest of the class.
Or maybe that's just Glasgow University?
By coincidence, my daughter has just received the result of a first-year university English exam (which she missed due to ill-health in January). She did very well and is delighted with the result as she's had this exam hanging over her since then and hasn't been able to enjoy her summer as fully as she'd wanted.
Now, Mrs Orchid is a depute head and former head of a large English department. When Orchidette showed us her exam paper last week I grimaced as it looked hellishly hard. Mrs Orchid agreed and opined that it seemed a lot harder than anything she ever had to do in first-year English at uni in the early 70s.
"There's no way I'd have got that high a mark in that paper at her age," she told me out of earshot of our daughter, "but then again, she work a lot harder than you or I did."
So, hardly evidence that standards are falling or that students are slacking, since our daughter reckons she needs to study hard just to keep up with the rest of the class.
Or maybe that's just Glasgow University?
Tout Seul
Senior Jockey
- Joined
- May 2, 2003
- Messages
- 2,628
My own experience mirrors yours, DO.
What really pisses me off are the sweeping generalisations people make to the effect the exams are easier now than when they sat them, that the youth of today are not as bright or well taught as before, that because there is a coursework element the whole paper is devalued and that working hard is no substitute for having a good memory.
Firstly from the viewpoint of someone who selected young people for jobs in which if they were successful could in a very short time earn six figure salaries and go on to earn seven figures. I took on people leaving after A-Levels and also after University. The consistent high calibre of the individuals applying was amazing and selection was very difficult. I always asked to see the actual scores they got in percentage terms. I would rule out those that did not excel at course work as I wanted people that could research and present their work well. In the real world they are required to use as many resources as neccessary to complete a project.
In the end it came down to personalities and my assessment as to how they would fit in my teams.
As a father I have watched with admiration the commitment of my sons to achieving top level grades. Both are bright but the hours that they have spent week in, week out, over the years, often working into the early hours far surpasses the efforts of anyone I knew in my day and many of their friends have done the same. Yet one is the lynchpin of a local football team whilst also undertaking a number of projects for his school and the community.
The eldest got his reward with straight A's(v.high %s) and is thriving at uni. whilst the youngest has just had his first year A-level results. As expected he got near maximum %s on the coursework modules as would anyone who put the same effort in because the resources (via the internet) are there for most ( or should be- a different point for discussion). The same applies to many of his friends and though there is a greater degree of variation in their scores in the exam modules most have done very well. My son attends a comprehensive that suffers from having a significant gang and drug use element so when people tell me that the the all theyouth of today have it easy and are inferior to their predecessors my answer is - you are talking out of your arse.
What really pisses me off are the sweeping generalisations people make to the effect the exams are easier now than when they sat them, that the youth of today are not as bright or well taught as before, that because there is a coursework element the whole paper is devalued and that working hard is no substitute for having a good memory.
Firstly from the viewpoint of someone who selected young people for jobs in which if they were successful could in a very short time earn six figure salaries and go on to earn seven figures. I took on people leaving after A-Levels and also after University. The consistent high calibre of the individuals applying was amazing and selection was very difficult. I always asked to see the actual scores they got in percentage terms. I would rule out those that did not excel at course work as I wanted people that could research and present their work well. In the real world they are required to use as many resources as neccessary to complete a project.
In the end it came down to personalities and my assessment as to how they would fit in my teams.
As a father I have watched with admiration the commitment of my sons to achieving top level grades. Both are bright but the hours that they have spent week in, week out, over the years, often working into the early hours far surpasses the efforts of anyone I knew in my day and many of their friends have done the same. Yet one is the lynchpin of a local football team whilst also undertaking a number of projects for his school and the community.
The eldest got his reward with straight A's(v.high %s) and is thriving at uni. whilst the youngest has just had his first year A-level results. As expected he got near maximum %s on the coursework modules as would anyone who put the same effort in because the resources (via the internet) are there for most ( or should be- a different point for discussion). The same applies to many of his friends and though there is a greater degree of variation in their scores in the exam modules most have done very well. My son attends a comprehensive that suffers from having a significant gang and drug use element so when people tell me that the the all theyouth of today have it easy and are inferior to their predecessors my answer is - you are talking out of your arse.
An Capall #2 Son just got a 1-1 in his Masters (Business). The only bad mark he got all year was in a paper I helped him with as he was under time pressure to finish and I did some research/prep for him. An Capallette just finished her year three successfully. The only crisis she had all year was a bad mark on a paper I edited for her.
I am sure this means something!
I am sure this means something!
trackside528
At the Start
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 5,377
My whole scholastic career explained in a sentence...Originally posted by Warbler@Aug 19 2007, 01:45 AM
Why use 2 or 3 words when 20 or 30 are available to make the same point
h34r: Congrats to your nippers btw An Cappal, though crisis management clearly isn't for you...
Flagship uberalles
Journeyman
I am not sure how representative this is though as the current exam is to test what has been taught on the current curriculum. If the curriculum is only 20% different 20 years ago then that can explain the difference in grades.
A few of the better teachers that I had and have subsequently spoken to would like to teach their pupils to learn, thus negating this issue, but regrettably there are many factors that instead force them to teach to students to pass the applicable exam with the highest grade. [/b][/quote]
This is exactly the problem IMO - the trick at A-Level and GCSE seems to be to teach the pupil to pass the exam rather than actually learn the subject.
From my own experience, university is no different - I would say only one or two lecturers actually attempted to stimulate any original thought or required the student to go and apply their own learning techniques to a subject area. The rest went through the motions, taught by reading out overheads / presentations (with very little expansion on points of detail) and past exam questions, then f**ked off home at lunchtime.
And these are the people campaigning for better pay conditions - do me a favour, a pay cut would be more in line for the majority that I encountered in 7 years at uni.