The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
...but GCSE maths has higher and lower tier exam papers for pupils of different abilities, so that (in theory) the GCSE can cater for all students. Right?
So provided the papers are set to the right difficulty, there should be no problems for anyone.
But today it seems the maths GCSE 'demoralises thick kids and doesn't stretch the top 10%'.
So Blair wants to have 2 maths GCSEs - a standard level and a higher level. So that it covers all abilities.
With one GCSE that has 2 tiers of exam papers, you can achieve the same results. If it's not working, you have to redress the nature of the 2 papers - here it's making the lower one easier for those thick kids and including harder stuff for that lucky 10%.
No need for 2 GCSEs. All that does is make it hard to know whether someone getting a high mark on the easy GCSE is smarter or dumber than someone getting a low mark on the hard GCSE. Which does an injustice to all the middle of the road students.
Therefore the proposal for 2 maths GCSEs is nothing more than a hollow labour PR stunt with more spin than Blair could muster on my middle finger.
Fast forward to A-level: Uni tuition fee discounts for people who do maths a-level.
So we're encouraging people to sudy what may not be one of the better subjects, to sacrifice UCAS points and the quality of their uni education, in order to try to escape from oppessive levels of student debt.
We saw that poorer student would be more likely to choose cheaper lower-quality degrees at lame universities because they would charge lower fees.
Now their chances of earning the grades to make it to a good uni are sabotaged too. If you're thinking Oxbridge, giving up an A in some subject for a B/C in maths will probably kill any chance you had of being offered a place.
By the sounds of things there are problems with maths a-levels. But this seems like a *really* bad solution.
So provided the papers are set to the right difficulty, there should be no problems for anyone.
But today it seems the maths GCSE 'demoralises thick kids and doesn't stretch the top 10%'.
So Blair wants to have 2 maths GCSEs - a standard level and a higher level. So that it covers all abilities.
With one GCSE that has 2 tiers of exam papers, you can achieve the same results. If it's not working, you have to redress the nature of the 2 papers - here it's making the lower one easier for those thick kids and including harder stuff for that lucky 10%.
No need for 2 GCSEs. All that does is make it hard to know whether someone getting a high mark on the easy GCSE is smarter or dumber than someone getting a low mark on the hard GCSE. Which does an injustice to all the middle of the road students.
Therefore the proposal for 2 maths GCSEs is nothing more than a hollow labour PR stunt with more spin than Blair could muster on my middle finger.
Fast forward to A-level: Uni tuition fee discounts for people who do maths a-level.
So we're encouraging people to sudy what may not be one of the better subjects, to sacrifice UCAS points and the quality of their uni education, in order to try to escape from oppessive levels of student debt.
We saw that poorer student would be more likely to choose cheaper lower-quality degrees at lame universities because they would charge lower fees.
Now their chances of earning the grades to make it to a good uni are sabotaged too. If you're thinking Oxbridge, giving up an A in some subject for a B/C in maths will probably kill any chance you had of being offered a place.
By the sounds of things there are problems with maths a-levels. But this seems like a *really* bad solution.
Page:
but i wouldn't mind getting paid to do maths (not at uni though, i want to go into games). and that was advanced higher stats or advanced higher pure maths.
i'm just trying to decide what maths course to do in my final year of school. advanced higher stats or higher maths. the scottish standard grade has three tiers which goes from pretty smart to ridicolously easy. i just wonder how long it'll be until england and scotland have the same education system as before.
Belldandy wrote:
> Simon Says wrote:
> I heard that Oxbridge no longer offer three year courses because the
> quality of students entering university has dropped and they spend
> an
> extra year bringing first year undergraduates up to speed.
>
> I think you'll find that is all that most universities do - your
> first year basically is just pass or fail and has no bearing on your
> final degree class.
That wasn't the case with my degree. My first year was worth ten percent of my final degree, although I know of many others which were solely on a pass or fail basis. The point is that a bachelors degree from oxbridge now takes four years instead of just three.
I did A level maths before the AS levels came in and came out with a rather disappointing C. You are right in general that a lot of the material covered isn't very useful in general day to day life, but I still use a lot of that sort of maths regularly.
Then again, I'm not living in the "real world" yet ; )
> Simon Says wrote:
> I heard that Oxbridge no longer offer three year courses because the
> quality of students entering university has dropped and they spend
> an
> extra year bringing first year undergraduates up to speed.
>
> I think you'll find that is all that most universities do - your
> first year basically is just pass or fail and has no bearing on your
> final degree class.
That wasn't the case with my degree. My first year was worth ten percent of my final degree, although I know of many others which were solely on a pass or fail basis. The point is that a bachelors degree from oxbridge now takes four years instead of just three.
I did A level maths before the AS levels came in and came out with a rather disappointing C. You are right in general that a lot of the material covered isn't very useful in general day to day life, but I still use a lot of that sort of maths regularly.
Then again, I'm not living in the "real world" yet ; )
You'd think so, but it doesn't work like that in practice.
My mate had BBB (for a uni that didn't accept General studies) with one B in media. I hade BBE (same subjects except E for maths instead of media) he got in on the same course as I applied for, I didn't - that was at Nottingham Uni.
My mate had BBB (for a uni that didn't accept General studies) with one B in media. I hade BBE (same subjects except E for maths instead of media) he got in on the same course as I applied for, I didn't - that was at Nottingham Uni.
Belldandy, those people who got higher scores than you because they did Media Studies are still less likely than you to get into good universities because those selecting students will see that they did better but only at 'mikky mouse courses'.
I was very good at Maths and got a Higher A in the end.
Have I used anything from it? Nope
Have I forgetten everything? Yes
What do I use Maths for in the real world? Giving out change even though the computer can do it for me.
Have I used anything from it? Nope
Have I forgetten everything? Yes
What do I use Maths for in the real world? Giving out change even though the computer can do it for me.
Anyone here actually do A Level Maths before the A/AS Level thing came in?
I did, and scored an astounding E grade whilst 90% of the class didn't even get graded. This was out of a class of 18 by the way so it's not like class size was to blame, nor was there any shortage of text books or equipment.
Considering my GCSE score was A then I did pretty badly. Even the guy in the class who got A* at GCSE only scraped a C by getting his paper remarked.
The problem is that A Level maths, for the most part, is useless. The complex stuff would just not be done by a person in employment even if it was of use because a computer does it faster and with greater accuracy.
It was a waste of two years me taking it and meant that I couldn't get in the university of my first choice because it brought my UCAS score down. Others I know, who did course like Media Studies, of course did well - without doing half the work maths involved, and got higher UCAS scores. Thankfully some places accepted General Studies A Level so I was saved.
In short, unless you want to do a course at Uni which absolutely requires A Level maths then use your brains and do something which will get your UCAS score up.
I did, and scored an astounding E grade whilst 90% of the class didn't even get graded. This was out of a class of 18 by the way so it's not like class size was to blame, nor was there any shortage of text books or equipment.
Considering my GCSE score was A then I did pretty badly. Even the guy in the class who got A* at GCSE only scraped a C by getting his paper remarked.
The problem is that A Level maths, for the most part, is useless. The complex stuff would just not be done by a person in employment even if it was of use because a computer does it faster and with greater accuracy.
It was a waste of two years me taking it and meant that I couldn't get in the university of my first choice because it brought my UCAS score down. Others I know, who did course like Media Studies, of course did well - without doing half the work maths involved, and got higher UCAS scores. Thankfully some places accepted General Studies A Level so I was saved.
In short, unless you want to do a course at Uni which absolutely requires A Level maths then use your brains and do something which will get your UCAS score up.
When i did my GCSE's Maths in 2000..there was higher, intermediate and foundation...
Simon Says wrote:
> I heard that Oxbridge no longer offer three year courses because the
> quality of students entering university has dropped and they spend an
> extra year bringing first year undergraduates up to speed.
I think you'll find that is all that most universities do - your first year basically is just pass or fail and has no bearing on your final degree class.
> I heard that Oxbridge no longer offer three year courses because the
> quality of students entering university has dropped and they spend an
> extra year bringing first year undergraduates up to speed.
I think you'll find that is all that most universities do - your first year basically is just pass or fail and has no bearing on your final degree class.
Didn't they do something like this years ago when they split classes into people who were to take 'O' levels and people who they were going to make sit the GCSE?
It sounds familiar as I seem to remember getting the top grade at GCSE for English simply because of the class I was in (not 'O' level) although I'm sure if I'd been allowed to sit the 'O' level I would have passed easily.
It didn't work then and should not work now. If I'm reading this right it will not improve peoples maths skills but will hand anyone a grade who can add together 2 + 2.
It sounds familiar as I seem to remember getting the top grade at GCSE for English simply because of the class I was in (not 'O' level) although I'm sure if I'd been allowed to sit the 'O' level I would have passed easily.
It didn't work then and should not work now. If I'm reading this right it will not improve peoples maths skills but will hand anyone a grade who can add together 2 + 2.
Page: