Science GCSE is more stupider now?
- Thread starter Damini
- Start date
gunner440
Hey Daddy Altman
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2003
- Messages
- 2,888
but like i said, this is a forum
im fairly sure the way i type here wont effect my future career choices.
It's a forum but it's still you posting. The other people replying to the posts are real too. What exactly is hard about typing properly? 'See' instead of 'c' is a case of two more keystrokes. Do you also happen to come from Leeds and have finger related issues?
Oh and the word you're looking for is affect.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 39,161
Man. I always come to threads too late. And there's too much to read again, but here's my £0.02's worth:
Don't even try debating about whether exams are getting easier or not (they are - the fact that we've had 25 years of increasing passes in "British" exams and a steady pass rate in the international baccalaureate should show you that).
What you really need to ask is: why?
The answer is confidence.
We follow American social policy pretty closely and the yanks worked out a long time ago that it doesn't really matter if your population is a bit thick - so long as they feel confident in themselves every time they get knocked back they'll pick themselves up and have another go.
It's the founding principle that their "powerhouse" economy is built on.
So, give the kids A's. They'll hit a winner sooner or later. The important thing is that they keep on trying.
Now, far be it from me to cast aspersions on whether this is actually good for other areas of society (it so isn't). But anyone who can't see that exams are getting easier is either A) in denial or; B) too thick to see it
Don't even try debating about whether exams are getting easier or not (they are - the fact that we've had 25 years of increasing passes in "British" exams and a steady pass rate in the international baccalaureate should show you that).
What you really need to ask is: why?
The answer is confidence.
We follow American social policy pretty closely and the yanks worked out a long time ago that it doesn't really matter if your population is a bit thick - so long as they feel confident in themselves every time they get knocked back they'll pick themselves up and have another go.
It's the founding principle that their "powerhouse" economy is built on.
So, give the kids A's. They'll hit a winner sooner or later. The important thing is that they keep on trying.
Now, far be it from me to cast aspersions on whether this is actually good for other areas of society (it so isn't). But anyone who can't see that exams are getting easier is either A) in denial or; B) too thick to see it
Tom
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 17,686
I had a lot of trouble with exams. Mostly because I never bothered revising for them. They just didn't interest me, and as a consequence I got one C (music), and a load of D's when I left secondary school. I went to college and fixed that, got a load of B's instead.
Same at university. Didn't bother studying, did shit in my exams.
All I ever remembered was the stuff that I found interesting. Music at school was great, so I did well at that. Acoustics, Physics, Studio techniques, editing, etc - all those things at university I did well in. Control systems, maths, electronics - hated them, and did badly in them.
I'm not thick, in fact I'm big-headed enough to think I'm pretty far from thick, but people really should learn that exams aren't anywhere near as important as they'd think. Most employers will tell them the same. You wouldn't believe the number of media students coming into my line of work, and nearly all of them know fuck all about making programmes, none of them have ever seen a steak let alone eaten one so they can't carry any equipment, and hardly any of them can drive a car. In short, they're pretty fucking useless until they've done some grafting and learnt real life skills, instead of discussing what some director did 30 years ago and how 'important' it was.
In short, exams might get you in the door, but common sense and social skills will stop you from being booted back out.
Same at university. Didn't bother studying, did shit in my exams.
All I ever remembered was the stuff that I found interesting. Music at school was great, so I did well at that. Acoustics, Physics, Studio techniques, editing, etc - all those things at university I did well in. Control systems, maths, electronics - hated them, and did badly in them.
I'm not thick, in fact I'm big-headed enough to think I'm pretty far from thick, but people really should learn that exams aren't anywhere near as important as they'd think. Most employers will tell them the same. You wouldn't believe the number of media students coming into my line of work, and nearly all of them know fuck all about making programmes, none of them have ever seen a steak let alone eaten one so they can't carry any equipment, and hardly any of them can drive a car. In short, they're pretty fucking useless until they've done some grafting and learnt real life skills, instead of discussing what some director did 30 years ago and how 'important' it was.
In short, exams might get you in the door, but common sense and social skills will stop you from being booted back out.
Overdriven
Dumpster Fire of The South
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2004
- Messages
- 12,988
Heh, I actually work like this in college. The computing class I do I know who's smart and who isn't. So when ever we get group projects I'm allways picking people who I know will help the project (This means we get good marks heh) and generally leave the thick people in their own groups. I'll still offer them help. It's a mean thing to do, but it gets the work done.
(Love system support Btec crap, people coming out of A-Levels and doing the 2nd year course. Spoke to a A level student about I.T. and they had no idea about OSI and TCP/IP layers. I mean, what do A Level IT students learn? - I come out of this with 3 A levels based around networking/system support - Not a generic A level - Was worth the 2 extra years imo - This will also help with the job I want (DBA) but it's just getting to that point in life for me now. Few months (or years) left of Edu and I'm where I want to be.. I hope)
EDIT:
Regarding becoming a Database Administrator, are there any of you who browse this forum? Need some help regarding the direction in which to take to do this. =< Would appriciate a PM or so, if you don't mind me harassing you for information.
ICT students learn how to use access, excell etc. I did computing and ICT and was taught OSI in both and TCP/IP in one. I guess nobody else in my class would know what it was if asked to recall it though.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 3,352
Generally speaking, I don't think the system works very well at all.
GCSE's, and indeed a-levels, GNVQ's and university education are taylored for the "normal majority" - they stereotype a person and mould the education around that stereotype.
As everyone is different and learns in a different way, I don't think it's a particurlaly effective method, however obviously teaching every single child in a way that suits them is hardly cost or time effective either.
But regardless of method and effectiveness, dumbing down exams and courses to suit the current climate is not helping anyone. Going further down this road, this country is going to be run by people who just don't have a clue. You could say that now, but the intelligence gap between the average 17 year old and the average 47 year old is mind boggling.
Taking myself as an example, I was a distinctly "average" student in the eyes of pretty much every teacher, with the exception of my IT tutor. He was clearly the only one there who could see potential where others didn't, because he didn't just look at the marks gained in an exam to judge a persons ability or future potential. He nodded knowingly when I flunked my A-Level computing - he knew I was more than capable of doing it, probably better than everyone else, but the interest wasn't there - Turbo Pascal was the main reason. I didn't see a reason for learning it. I thought C++ would have been far less of a waste of time. I know now, and he knew then that the curriculum at the time just said "Here's the language you're learning, do it" when in fact they should have explained the reasons for it - being the ideal starting place to learn object orientated programming.
There was very little focus on proper application use, some small use of Excel, Word and a tiny amount of database work in a very old, defunct system that has no impact in today's IT world.
It wasn't until a year later that I was diagnosed as suffering with part of the Autistic spectrum - which explained many of my mannerisms at the time, and why I couldn't pick up what was being shoved down my throat by the set curriculums.
That was me. A single example of how the curriculum is not set to test or extend a single persons mind, more like making everyone try to think alike. I'm not convinced theres many better ways of doing education as a whole to combat that sort of issue, but 2 things make me think it is possible:
1. Discipline - the lack of this is more than apparent in todays world, shootings, stabbings and ASBOs - we're not allowed to smack our kids, cops can't clip them round the ears and teachers aren't allowed to cane them. Ok, opinions on caning was always divided but it sure as hell made sure you didn't do wrong often. Motivation to do what you're told, you'll be better for it.
2. Being more aware of a single child's mindset from the start - rather than filling them with tests and exams, use proper methods to find their strengths and weaknesses, maybe apply some methods used in IQ testing to find out if they have a strong affinity for patterns, logic and/or reasoning - keep a check on this throughout school life and refer to it like medical records are.
I'd imagine people would probably suggest the latter is already being done - it may well be, but not anywhere near as comprehensively as it is. We'd probably be fobbed off with budget issues/finances but in most cases it's a load of bollocks.
Just my 2 cents anyway.
GCSE's, and indeed a-levels, GNVQ's and university education are taylored for the "normal majority" - they stereotype a person and mould the education around that stereotype.
As everyone is different and learns in a different way, I don't think it's a particurlaly effective method, however obviously teaching every single child in a way that suits them is hardly cost or time effective either.
But regardless of method and effectiveness, dumbing down exams and courses to suit the current climate is not helping anyone. Going further down this road, this country is going to be run by people who just don't have a clue. You could say that now, but the intelligence gap between the average 17 year old and the average 47 year old is mind boggling.
Taking myself as an example, I was a distinctly "average" student in the eyes of pretty much every teacher, with the exception of my IT tutor. He was clearly the only one there who could see potential where others didn't, because he didn't just look at the marks gained in an exam to judge a persons ability or future potential. He nodded knowingly when I flunked my A-Level computing - he knew I was more than capable of doing it, probably better than everyone else, but the interest wasn't there - Turbo Pascal was the main reason. I didn't see a reason for learning it. I thought C++ would have been far less of a waste of time. I know now, and he knew then that the curriculum at the time just said "Here's the language you're learning, do it" when in fact they should have explained the reasons for it - being the ideal starting place to learn object orientated programming.
There was very little focus on proper application use, some small use of Excel, Word and a tiny amount of database work in a very old, defunct system that has no impact in today's IT world.
It wasn't until a year later that I was diagnosed as suffering with part of the Autistic spectrum - which explained many of my mannerisms at the time, and why I couldn't pick up what was being shoved down my throat by the set curriculums.
That was me. A single example of how the curriculum is not set to test or extend a single persons mind, more like making everyone try to think alike. I'm not convinced theres many better ways of doing education as a whole to combat that sort of issue, but 2 things make me think it is possible:
1. Discipline - the lack of this is more than apparent in todays world, shootings, stabbings and ASBOs - we're not allowed to smack our kids, cops can't clip them round the ears and teachers aren't allowed to cane them. Ok, opinions on caning was always divided but it sure as hell made sure you didn't do wrong often. Motivation to do what you're told, you'll be better for it.
2. Being more aware of a single child's mindset from the start - rather than filling them with tests and exams, use proper methods to find their strengths and weaknesses, maybe apply some methods used in IQ testing to find out if they have a strong affinity for patterns, logic and/or reasoning - keep a check on this throughout school life and refer to it like medical records are.
I'd imagine people would probably suggest the latter is already being done - it may well be, but not anywhere near as comprehensively as it is. We'd probably be fobbed off with budget issues/finances but in most cases it's a load of bollocks.
Just my 2 cents anyway.
ST^
Can't get enough of FH
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,351
The paper is foundation and higher level. These really stupid questions are only answered by foundation students.
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2003
- Messages
- 45,877
Which is also what is wrong with society today, not everyone excels in science, maths, English etc. Some people excel at other things, crafts, mechanics, practical things and given the right direction can achieve things elsewhere. The problem is kids are told their life is over if they mess up at the GSCE stage when it is far from it.
There is more to life than GSCEs, which have no real practical application anyway.
~Yuckfou~
Lovely person
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,594
Physics was one of my least favourite subjects. In 1978 I took my "O" level and got a D grade. That was considered a fail and was I think below 30%. I just took that example paper, all questions, which took less than 20 minutes, I wasn't timing. I scored 65%, without any study, preparation, or seeing a physics text book in 30 years. In my day that would have been a B grade, rare in Physics.
If taking exams like those after specific study you failed to get A's you really must be a fucknut tbh.
On a separate note, Chei, Jas and Imran?!?!?
If taking exams like those after specific study you failed to get A's you really must be a fucknut tbh.
On a separate note, Chei, Jas and Imran?!?!?