The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4697461.stm[/URL]
Ahahahahaha.
I laugh but it really isn't funny, it's pathetic. I can 100% guarantee that this will make no improvements to the quality of peoples' desire to learn, if anything these people would believe that they are completely immune to failure and so will do even less work. People that continually fail have no desire to learn and revise and so there's little point in these new, and useless methods.
How about we try concentrating on those that do well, giving us a nation with some geniuses and a few retards, rather than what looks like will happen where there'll be some average and some thick. People that don't work now are more likely to begin to work if all the attention is put on those that already work. Or something...
Ahahahahaha.
I laugh but it really isn't funny, it's pathetic. I can 100% guarantee that this will make no improvements to the quality of peoples' desire to learn, if anything these people would believe that they are completely immune to failure and so will do even less work. People that continually fail have no desire to learn and revise and so there's little point in these new, and useless methods.
How about we try concentrating on those that do well, giving us a nation with some geniuses and a few retards, rather than what looks like will happen where there'll be some average and some thick. People that don't work now are more likely to begin to work if all the attention is put on those that already work. Or something...
Page:
GingerD wrote:
>delayed pacifists
Hehehe.
>delayed pacifists
Hehehe.
Deferred success? Does that mean we now call bullys delayed pacifists so as not to stunt their social growth in later life? RUBBISH! The word 'failed' never hurt anyone when used correctly in my opinion.
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> and b) Rasta already says I win. So neh neh neh ;p
Um. No :-)
> and b) Rasta already says I win. So neh neh neh ;p
Um. No :-)
Kilgore Trout wrote:
> I do. I think the point is that the reason behind Newspeak is that it
> is designed to make it impossible to say (and eventually, think)
> anything negative about Big Brother. In the same way, political
> correctness is making it harder and harder to say anything negative
> about anything. While this is a simplification of the
> argument, I think the comparison is valid.
In 1984, the language extends across the entire sociaty. In this case, it is only the specific area of education, which I think is a pretty significant difference.
Anyway, this is a) a silly argument to continue (though of course, like most arguments, fun)
and b) Rasta already says I win. So neh neh neh ;p
> I do. I think the point is that the reason behind Newspeak is that it
> is designed to make it impossible to say (and eventually, think)
> anything negative about Big Brother. In the same way, political
> correctness is making it harder and harder to say anything negative
> about anything. While this is a simplification of the
> argument, I think the comparison is valid.
In 1984, the language extends across the entire sociaty. In this case, it is only the specific area of education, which I think is a pretty significant difference.
Anyway, this is a) a silly argument to continue (though of course, like most arguments, fun)
and b) Rasta already says I win. So neh neh neh ;p
FinalFantasyFanatic wrote:
> It's as if they remove the idea of failing, they'll remove the action
> itself, which is obviously moronic.
> Truth is, if no-one can fail, then no-one can pass, and we're left
> with a bunch of confused teenagers with nothing to show for whatever
> skills they may have in whatever areas.
Exactly.
> It's as if they remove the idea of failing, they'll remove the action
> itself, which is obviously moronic.
> Truth is, if no-one can fail, then no-one can pass, and we're left
> with a bunch of confused teenagers with nothing to show for whatever
> skills they may have in whatever areas.
Exactly.
It's as if they remove the idea of failing, they'll remove the action itself, which is obviously moronic.
Truth is, if no-one can fail, then no-one can pass, and we're left with a bunch of confused teenagers with nothing to show for whatever skills they may have in whatever areas.
Truth is, if no-one can fail, then no-one can pass, and we're left with a bunch of confused teenagers with nothing to show for whatever skills they may have in whatever areas.
JFH wrote:
> Fair enough, they may have skills in ather
> areas, but that doesn't take away the fact that they fail
> exams.
Exactly. Whether we like it or not, it's the exams that count.
> Fair enough, they may have skills in ather
> areas, but that doesn't take away the fact that they fail
> exams.
Exactly. Whether we like it or not, it's the exams that count.
Not sure...
I probably didn't think this through properly and was just against people being thought of as "failures" or something. I guess there has to be SOME word for not passing. :-)
I probably didn't think this through properly and was just against people being thought of as "failures" or something. I guess there has to be SOME word for not passing. :-)
If you don't pass an exam, then you fail it. Why change the word fail to 'deferred success'?
That might be the dictionary definition, but the way the word failure is used nowdays tends to imply a bit more than that.
Page: