The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Well, I really had expected more posts here about who's waiting for results, who gto what and whose going to which universities as a result. Where is it all?
... and the inevitable "it was harder in my day" argument.
That really hacks me off, for two reasons.
The first is that A levels are blatantly easier now than when I did them way back. It's not to do with the topics or the teachers. These days A levels are modular, you can study one lump at a time and forget about it. In my book that makes them far easier than the "study for two years and then take an exam" format I did. Secondly, if you fail a module you can retake it, twice, without any reprecussions on your final mark. Given those two facts (although I may be misinformed) that must amke A levels easier. End of story.
The second reason is that every year as students wait nervously for their results, the media tell them that the A levels they've worked their behind off for aren't worth as much as the previous years, or the previous years, and so on. Whether that is true or not it devalues the achievements of young people in a system they had no control over. They didn't choose an easier ride, it was imposed upon them. They worked hard and dir their exams and then at the end of it someone comes and criticises what they've accomplished in a way they could not control.
Anyway, this is my proposal to the education minister to end this debacle once and for all. Students should be assessed against the rest of the students under the LEA that year. The same number percentage wise of A's are awarded each year, then same number B's etc.
"but that's not fair" I hear you cry "what if you are in a year with lots of good people, and the next year is populated by intellectual retards?".
And slating students every year for doing well is fair?
In any case, I haven't finished. Along with the grade for the individual there should be an accompanying grade for the year, detailing the spread of results. How that years students have compared to other years.
It's all relative, and yes, maybe it is a little overcomplicated, but it seems far fairer than awarded a lot of A's and then telling the kids that they ain't what they used to be.
... and the inevitable "it was harder in my day" argument.
That really hacks me off, for two reasons.
The first is that A levels are blatantly easier now than when I did them way back. It's not to do with the topics or the teachers. These days A levels are modular, you can study one lump at a time and forget about it. In my book that makes them far easier than the "study for two years and then take an exam" format I did. Secondly, if you fail a module you can retake it, twice, without any reprecussions on your final mark. Given those two facts (although I may be misinformed) that must amke A levels easier. End of story.
The second reason is that every year as students wait nervously for their results, the media tell them that the A levels they've worked their behind off for aren't worth as much as the previous years, or the previous years, and so on. Whether that is true or not it devalues the achievements of young people in a system they had no control over. They didn't choose an easier ride, it was imposed upon them. They worked hard and dir their exams and then at the end of it someone comes and criticises what they've accomplished in a way they could not control.
Anyway, this is my proposal to the education minister to end this debacle once and for all. Students should be assessed against the rest of the students under the LEA that year. The same number percentage wise of A's are awarded each year, then same number B's etc.
"but that's not fair" I hear you cry "what if you are in a year with lots of good people, and the next year is populated by intellectual retards?".
And slating students every year for doing well is fair?
In any case, I haven't finished. Along with the grade for the individual there should be an accompanying grade for the year, detailing the spread of results. How that years students have compared to other years.
It's all relative, and yes, maybe it is a little overcomplicated, but it seems far fairer than awarded a lot of A's and then telling the kids that they ain't what they used to be.
Page:
The only true way you will know if exams are getting easier is to be a teacher or an exam setter. No one else has a clue.
and they're not according to my teachers (some of which used to be markers and question setters)
easier my backside
and they're not according to my teachers (some of which used to be markers and question setters)
easier my backside
The AS-A2 problem is thus, Teachers used to have a curriculum to cover in 2 years.... now they have 2 to cover each within a year. They have a "revision period" to consider at the end of the year, they have mocks to consider... they have to rush coursework and prepare their students for exams at the end of the first year...
They used to have much more time to teach the students things and then in the last 2 months or so they'd revise and do exam technique. Now it's all rushed, by the end of term one they need to consider preparing you for exams.
The "re-take" option making it easier is flawed. You could for example re-take your A-levels anyway so it never really mattered BUT have you ever tried doing too much at once. Struggling through 4 subjects not last school year but the one before was hard enough... I pittied those that had to re-take 1,2,3 even 5 exams... it required revising stuff you are no longer taught. Seeing teachers during lunch hours and free periods in a vain attempt to keep on top of things. Stress levels building. You're not just taking one or two exams in January for A2... your taking them plus subjects you did last year.
I only ever re-took one exam and that was so a B in English was easily obtainable.
AS and A2 is fine and moduler etc... but it's also thick and fast.
They used to have much more time to teach the students things and then in the last 2 months or so they'd revise and do exam technique. Now it's all rushed, by the end of term one they need to consider preparing you for exams.
The "re-take" option making it easier is flawed. You could for example re-take your A-levels anyway so it never really mattered BUT have you ever tried doing too much at once. Struggling through 4 subjects not last school year but the one before was hard enough... I pittied those that had to re-take 1,2,3 even 5 exams... it required revising stuff you are no longer taught. Seeing teachers during lunch hours and free periods in a vain attempt to keep on top of things. Stress levels building. You're not just taking one or two exams in January for A2... your taking them plus subjects you did last year.
I only ever re-took one exam and that was so a B in English was easily obtainable.
AS and A2 is fine and moduler etc... but it's also thick and fast.
We have to have an extra hour of each lesson a week because the A2 course is so vast.
My teachers (especcially Biology) are also saying how, since the introduction of AS levels, there isn't enough time to fit it all in anymore. In two of my subjects we barely covered everything before exam leave.
Hmmm...
Blank...
The classes your mum learnt from, were they A level?
If so, it was a little unfair to try and expect GCSE classes to be anywhere near the same level.
Basically, GCSE people are stuck there whether they like it or not.
A level people generally want to make something of their time in class, so the overall atmosphere would be a LOT better, and the classes are a lot more in depth so you would be learning the language more fluently rather than just being trained in the basic gramma rules.
Now I can't vouch for language lessons, because I have no idea what they are like at A level (although the teachers at my school told me that the new AS level was a LOT more work than half the A level, nearly 50% more to learn) but I can compare the lessons and workbooks I was given, to the lessons and workbooks my mum had to make do with.
And teaching has come a LONG way over the last 25 years or so.
Mum and Dad, both being teachers, have also said that there's a hell of a lot more pressure on A level student than there used to be, and that while University work is harder, you generally get an easier time of it.
Blank...
The classes your mum learnt from, were they A level?
If so, it was a little unfair to try and expect GCSE classes to be anywhere near the same level.
Basically, GCSE people are stuck there whether they like it or not.
A level people generally want to make something of their time in class, so the overall atmosphere would be a LOT better, and the classes are a lot more in depth so you would be learning the language more fluently rather than just being trained in the basic gramma rules.
Now I can't vouch for language lessons, because I have no idea what they are like at A level (although the teachers at my school told me that the new AS level was a LOT more work than half the A level, nearly 50% more to learn) but I can compare the lessons and workbooks I was given, to the lessons and workbooks my mum had to make do with.
And teaching has come a LONG way over the last 25 years or so.
Mum and Dad, both being teachers, have also said that there's a hell of a lot more pressure on A level student than there used to be, and that while University work is harder, you generally get an easier time of it.
Although on second thoughts, it might be a tad odd wandering around as a student when I'm in my forties. People would think I was a staff member, especially with the beard I will have cultivated by then. Although on third thoughts, I could abuse that newly found power to my advantages. Although on fourth thoughts, these advantages would be mainly purile, immature ones, laughing at the expense of others. Then again, that's my favourite kind.
As you were.
As you were.
Blank wrote:
> I plan to ride the education system for as long as possible to avoid
> employment. Master's, PhD, MA......I don't know what order any of it
> goes in, but I figure I'll get 2-3 of each then collect my pension.
Glad to see someone else has the right idea.
I plan to spend at least 7 years in univeristy education, then when I finally get a job I expect to be taken in at the highest level, instead of working up from the bottom.
> I plan to ride the education system for as long as possible to avoid
> employment. Master's, PhD, MA......I don't know what order any of it
> goes in, but I figure I'll get 2-3 of each then collect my pension.
Glad to see someone else has the right idea.
I plan to spend at least 7 years in univeristy education, then when I finally get a job I expect to be taken in at the highest level, instead of working up from the bottom.
Stryke wrote:
> Excellent, I'll see you there. You've got my e-mail, right? I'll let
> you know my York one and you can take advantage of me. And my
> knowledge of the university, of course...
Oh of course. I'm expecting a full tour of the campus, city centre and surrounding areas on day one, and for you to furnish me with a full complement of friends so I don't have to make any myself.
> I'm on a three-year course, but then shall come a gap year that I've
> got lined up with Greenpeace doing Greenpeacey things, and then
> there's probably a Masters in Environmental Law to be done. Then I
> might get a job. But I doubt it :)
I plan to ride the education system for as long as possible to avoid employment. Master's, PhD, MA......I don't know what order any of it goes in, but I figure I'll get 2-3 of each then collect my pension.
> Excellent, I'll see you there. You've got my e-mail, right? I'll let
> you know my York one and you can take advantage of me. And my
> knowledge of the university, of course...
Oh of course. I'm expecting a full tour of the campus, city centre and surrounding areas on day one, and for you to furnish me with a full complement of friends so I don't have to make any myself.
> I'm on a three-year course, but then shall come a gap year that I've
> got lined up with Greenpeace doing Greenpeacey things, and then
> there's probably a Masters in Environmental Law to be done. Then I
> might get a job. But I doubt it :)
I plan to ride the education system for as long as possible to avoid employment. Master's, PhD, MA......I don't know what order any of it goes in, but I figure I'll get 2-3 of each then collect my pension.
Strafio wrote:
> Anysway, once I talked to my mum about A Levels and she described the
> teaching she got at a grammar school.
> It was crap.
> The teacher read out the notes in the exercise book, set the exercise
> and then marked the work (probably using an answer book! :-D).
>
> Teaching has fantastically improved since then, and seeing some of
> the ancient materials my school was forced to make do with when the
> new Further Maths books weren't printed in time (yep, our stupid
> backwards government set exams before people were ready to teach the
> content) and they were just from 1993.
Well, from what I've heard from my Mum, teaching was actually a lot better then. Certainly her languages were taught a hell of a lot better. I got an A at GSCE French, and even I would admit that I'm rubbish at French. I could barely speak it at all. But the aforementioned mother is a French genius. The teaching methods were very different, more concentration on being able to actually speak French, have a conversation, and pronounce words correctly. Not like my French tuition, which was largely academic. And most of my set one class were absolute retards, put there not on their own merit, intelligence and skill at the language but simply to make up the numbers. It was a regular battle to make the idiots do anything, and this was the top set of the school.
I don't think the questions on the tests are necessarily getting easier, but the pass boundaries aren't moving as they did before. In the past, they moved the boundaries to account for the varying standard of papers, so if a paper was for some reason easier than usual, the same number of people (roughly) would get the A grade, B grade etc. ie, the top 5% would get an A. If the paper is easy, it's harder to get a good grade, if the paper's harder it's easier to get a good grade, relatively. Now, anyone who gets above 80% gets an A. It isn't moved.
Which is quite annoying for those of us who would probably do well anyway. ho hum.
> Anysway, once I talked to my mum about A Levels and she described the
> teaching she got at a grammar school.
> It was crap.
> The teacher read out the notes in the exercise book, set the exercise
> and then marked the work (probably using an answer book! :-D).
>
> Teaching has fantastically improved since then, and seeing some of
> the ancient materials my school was forced to make do with when the
> new Further Maths books weren't printed in time (yep, our stupid
> backwards government set exams before people were ready to teach the
> content) and they were just from 1993.
Well, from what I've heard from my Mum, teaching was actually a lot better then. Certainly her languages were taught a hell of a lot better. I got an A at GSCE French, and even I would admit that I'm rubbish at French. I could barely speak it at all. But the aforementioned mother is a French genius. The teaching methods were very different, more concentration on being able to actually speak French, have a conversation, and pronounce words correctly. Not like my French tuition, which was largely academic. And most of my set one class were absolute retards, put there not on their own merit, intelligence and skill at the language but simply to make up the numbers. It was a regular battle to make the idiots do anything, and this was the top set of the school.
I don't think the questions on the tests are necessarily getting easier, but the pass boundaries aren't moving as they did before. In the past, they moved the boundaries to account for the varying standard of papers, so if a paper was for some reason easier than usual, the same number of people (roughly) would get the A grade, B grade etc. ie, the top 5% would get an A. If the paper is easy, it's harder to get a good grade, if the paper's harder it's easier to get a good grade, relatively. Now, anyone who gets above 80% gets an A. It isn't moved.
Which is quite annoying for those of us who would probably do well anyway. ho hum.
Blank wrote:
> I'm afraid you are. I haven't had anything official yet, but I did
> better than the conditional offer, so I think they're contractually
> obliged to give me a place.
>
> By the way, I meant to ask you, are you on a three or four year
> course?
--
Excellent, I'll see you there. You've got my e-mail, right? I'll let you know my York one and you can take advantage of me. And my knowledge of the university, of course...
I'm on a three-year course, but then shall come a gap year that I've got lined up with Greenpeace doing Greenpeacey things, and then there's probably a Masters in Environmental Law to be done. Then I might get a job. But I doubt it :)
> I'm afraid you are. I haven't had anything official yet, but I did
> better than the conditional offer, so I think they're contractually
> obliged to give me a place.
>
> By the way, I meant to ask you, are you on a three or four year
> course?
--
Excellent, I'll see you there. You've got my e-mail, right? I'll let you know my York one and you can take advantage of me. And my knowledge of the university, of course...
I'm on a three-year course, but then shall come a gap year that I've got lined up with Greenpeace doing Greenpeacey things, and then there's probably a Masters in Environmental Law to be done. Then I might get a job. But I doubt it :)
Page: