[Archived] Thick Gits

[bellamy11]

I do remember when I did my revision for maths GCSE (which was only five years ago) we were given past papers from something like two decades. The exam from twenty years ago was significantly more difficult and I was horrified at how poorly I did at it. For the record I got an A for maths but would have got nowhere near that in 1985 on that showing.

Now I know that I would have done slightly better if I had been taught that particular syllabus because some questions may as well have been written in Chinese, but there was obviously a lot of overlap between what we are taught now and what was on the papers then. I thought the difference was pretty massive.

Certainly I can understand people mocking the exams of today but I agree with pretty much everything Paul has said. We can only pass the exams that are put in front of us and I certainly don't feel bad about the results I got at A level. I know I worked damn hard for them. By the same token, I can't say with any degree of certainty that I would have got the same grades if I were a generation older.

[Duffy]

The problem is you can only be tested on what is being taught in schools, therefore how can you possibly compare an exam today with one 30, 40 or more years ago. The curriculum has been changed so much that a lot of topics have been changed, dropped or added to. It may well be that more advanced maths was being taught years ago and perhaps at an earlier age, but it's definatley not the fault of pupils today if that isn't being taught - if you haven't been taught it how can you be expected to answer a question on the subject?

All in all you still have to get the questions right in order to get a high grade and to say that A-levels have got easier isn't just insulting to those that got A grades, it's insulting to those who got the lower ones as well - if the exams are so easy according to most people they should have failed. People who may have been dissapointed with their results may have ben made to feel even worse by these sorts of comments.

I agree that there should be a basic level that is acceptable, in other words, the Universitys shouldn't have to pick up the pieces because of a poor education but why are people so quick to bash those that have done well?

[thenodrog]

The problem is you can only be tested on what is being taught in schools, therefore how can you possibly compare an exam today with one 30, 40 or more years ago. The curriculum has been changed so much that a lot of topics have been changed, dropped or added to. It may well be that more advanced maths was being taught years ago and perhaps at an earlier age, but it's definatley not the fault of pupils today if that isn't being taught - if you haven't been taught it how can you be expected to answer a question on the subject?

All in all you still have to get the questions right in order to get a high grade and to say that A-levels have got easier isn't just insulting to those that got A grades, it's insulting to those who got the lower ones as well - if the exams are so easy according to most people they should have failed. People who may have been dissapointed with their results may have ben made to feel even worse by these sorts of comments.

I agree that there should be a basic level that is acceptable, in other words, the Universitys shouldn't have to pick up the pieces because of a poor education but why are people so quick to bash those that have done well?

So you must therefore agree with the fact that the A Level results show that kids have got brighter every single year without fail over the past 26 years? You might have done maths but you've obviously never studied genetics.

I suggest that you are likely a victim of constant brainwashing at a vulnerable age by the education authorities and the politicians.

[Eddie]

So you must therefore agree with the fact that the A Level results show that kids have got brighter every single year without fail over the past 26 years? You might have done maths but you've obviously never studied genetics.

Have you not heard of evolution, or did they not teach that in your time?

[Beta Ray Bill]

Have you not heard of evolution, or did they not teach that in your time?

As you're being humourous, for the 'think gits' out there: evolution takes place over longer timescales than years. It's takes at least a decade.

[blue phil]

Have you not heard of evolution, or did they not teach that in your time?

By our current rate of intellectual evolution it should be a piece of p!$$ to solve global warming , world hunger and poverty before the decades out !

Mind you , if people believe New Labour statistics there could be a case for arguing that evolution is going backwards

[thenodrog]

Mind you , if people believe New Labour statistics there could be a case for arguing that evolution is going backwards

[stuwilky]

There is no study hours requirement . You do however much or little you think you need to do to get the grade you want, how much people will need to do will vary. You have some papers and things which you do through the school year, usually one or two per class that will then be assessed as part of your grade and that will take quite a lot of work. I honestly couldn't say that you have to do x amount of hours and if you do that you'll be fine and there's no one there specifically looking at the number of hours you are putting in, the only way to tell is to look at the grades you are getting in class and then eventually at your IB grades. It would be difficult for me to say how many hours I did, but I can safely say that I had a minimum of three hours of work after school each day for the final two years.

I should have asked that question better.

What are the taught hours for the curriculum?

[Eddie]

Well I had 4 1/2 - 5 hours per subject each week, except for the TOK, where I had about 3 1/2 hours a week. At certain times throughout the two years extra classes were arranged, but that was the basic schedule. Every school I've ever visited or been to where they have used the IB the situation is pretty much the same.

[stuwilky]

Well I had 4 1/2 - 5 hours per subject each week, except for the TOK, where I had about 3 1/2 hours a week. At certain times throughout the two years extra classes were arranged, but that was the basic schedule. Every school I've ever visited or been to where they have used the IB the situation is pretty much the same.

So, roughly 27 per week. Adds weight to your earlier suggestion.

UK Universities view the IB as a whole, with the overall score being used to calculate the UCAS points.

[Eddie]

So, roughly 27 per week.

Probably closer to 33/34 as there are 6 subjects plus the TOK.

[thenodrog]

Here is a victim of this stupidity.

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/...ool_hopeful.php

btw I attach no blame on either the universities or the kids for this ludicrous state of affairs.

I suggest she could always join StuWilky and do 'Northern Studies' at Leeds next year. Finding out how many ferrets you can stuff down your overalls in two minutes, and learning how to wring ones cap properly in public may be adequate compensation for missing out on studying medicine.

[stuwilky]

I suggest she could always join StuWilky and do 'Northern Studies' at Leeds next year. Finding out how many ferrets you can stuff down your overalls in two minutes, and learning how to wring ones cap properly in public may be adequate compensation for missing out on studying medicine.

How dare you, that is a Masters course.

[grizfoot]

It seems it's not just A-levels that are getting easier ...

Another rise in top GCSE grades

[philipl]

There is a bunch of deeply subjective opinionated stuff posted on this thread.

Education is a mine field despite the abundance of academic studies and rigorous assessments undertaken. My professional career is outside the sector but my academic background has kept me close to it ranging from being an external examiner at a former Polytechnic to the management body of one of the UK's top Universities to being very close academically and managerial to a non-UK instititution consistently rated amongst the best in the world in its field.

I will not draw any sweeping conclusions but I will offer the following observations:

- I can think of few industries outside ones involved with public health and safety where there is so much systematic peer review, audit and pressure to achieve year on year performance improvement as exists in education;

- The unification of Universities and Polytechnics into a single level has been a significant success. A few institutions struggle (and that includes one or two "old" Universities) but the levelled playing field has encouraged specialisation and competition and in many subject areas some of the old polytechnics have departments competing at the very highest level in the UK and in some cases internationally

- The quality of work by the Polytechnic students I reviewed in the early '90s was way ahead of that produced by my peer group at a traditional University in the '70s. That levelling up has continued. The group of undergraduates working in my company this summer are excellent.

- The invention of calculators, PCs and the like has radically changed the need for certain skills. My powers of mental arithmetic are abysmal compared with what they were when I was aged 8 to 21 (when I got my first calculator). However, the range of knowledge and analysis now required makes an A-level in Geography (say) in many ways more demanding than a degree in the same subject 50 years ago.

- In the Far East, society regards educational failure with the same degree of abhorance as delinquence. It is simply unacceptable not to be literate or numerate. That is who we are competing with and if we achieve zero failures because everybody has attained the target level, the educational system and all educators are to be applauded.

- There is a difference between ranking and absolute failures- ranking is about merit, failure about basic level of competence. In the international institution I am involved with, there are virtually no failures (the basic level of intake is often higher than Harvard or Oxbridge) but there is intense grade point competition with scoring based on quartiles of the participating population. Somebody comes top, somebody comes bottom.

- Whilst I share disdain for the all too prevalent text speak and inumeracy, there has been a revolution in educational standards and attainment over the past 30 years and it has been for the better.

[broadsword]

Why, then, am I hearing that universities are having to undertake rememdial work on new students, to bring them up to scratch?

As far as I know, students struggle when faced with a question in a different form, as teaching has been replaced by coaching to get results, rather than encouraging an appreciation of a subject - with the result that students have a superficial understanding only. And that is from a conversation I had with a secondary teacher who despaired of the way teaching is going.

[philipl]

By and large, the bodies working on curricula are emphasising depth and application of knowledge and creating a framework for students to learn and understand for the future. Unfortunately, this grand aim gets overwhelmed by each specialist pushing for his or her own areas being fully covered.

Many schools are reacting to the size of curricula by becoming cramming factories which destroys the broader picture- it is a continuing tension.

Yes I do hear about remedial classes at University- in reality they are rare and are sometimes helping students who have crammed information to get a grade but have failed to understand its applicability.

[Billy Castell]

I always did better when you had to choose from a list of essay titles and wrote the essays in the allotted time. I was rubbish when the structure had x amount of sources quoted, and 5 or 6 questions with increasing marks.

It probably means I'm especially stupid, but never mind. I'll get a 1st when I do my degree in David Beckham Studies.

[Hypo-Luxa]

Blame it on my southern upbringing, but every time I see this thread title I see Thick grits...

I do likes me some grits....mmmmm....

Sorry..back to the subject at hand...

[blue phil]

- Whilst I share disdain for the all too prevalent text speak and inumeracy, there has been a revolution in educational standards and attainment over the past 30 years and it has been for the better.

Nonsense , of course ....unless we are perhaps referring specifically to those university entrants from areas of the country which haven't been devastated by the experiments in recent decades of the "comprehensive" ideology . Independent and grammar schools are behind the "superb" statistics ....and guess which sectors of society they take their pupils from . Not the inner city comps that's for sure !

The former Chief Inspector of Schools , Chris Woodhead , in last week's Sunday Times gives a rather less enthusiastic appraisal of educational standards . In particular he points out the dual standards that have turned this nation's kids into the haves and have nots when it comes to receiving real education .

It's this disgraceful inequality in the provision of education that the Labour Government should be addressing rather than conning people into believing standards as a whole are rising year on year . For a select few they might be , for most they are not . For New Labour read Old Tory - those with money need only apply .

ARTICLE HERE

[joey_big_nose]

Nonsense , of course ....unless we are perhaps referring specifically to those university entrants from areas of the country which haven't been devastated by the experiments in recent decades of the "comprehensive" ideology . Independent and grammar schools are behind the "superb" statistics ....and guess which sectors of society they take their pupils from . Not the inner city comps that's for sure !

The former Chief Inspector of Schools , Chris Woodhead , in last week's Sunday Times gives a rather less enthusiastic appraisal of educational standards . In particular he points out the dual standards that have turned this nation's kids into the haves and have nots when it comes to receiving real education .

It's this disgraceful inequality in the provision of education that the Labour Government should be addressing rather than conning people into believing standards as a whole are rising year on year . For a select few they might be , for most they are not . For New Labour read Old Tory - those with money need only apply .

ARTICLE HERE

I agree with this, things are very unequal in schools.

The core problem is that while reasonably wealthy liberals, such as myself, are willing to apply their ethics to many things - higher taxation to fund public services they do not much use, support for charities from which they do not benefit particularly, recognition and promotion of trade unions who do not represent them - ultimately when it comes to their children this generosity evaporates. Everybody is fiecely protective of their offspring and it is a very principalled individual indeed who would send their child to a school with a poor reputation for the sake of being socially fair. If you could afford it I am sure most would send their child to a private school if the only available comp had very bad results.

This is the core problem. It an effectively segregated system. And it is impossible to see how it can be changed dramatically short of closing all the private schools and instigating a program of bussing. And that would never pass Parliament, in this life or the next.

Anyhow, I actually think the standard of teaching is not too bad at the poorer comps I have seen (although lagging behind those in the leafy home counties for example), but the big problem is that there are very low expectations from the school, family and children themselves about their long term prospects. This leads, inevitably, to the children questioning what the point of being in, and trying hard in school is. THere are appear to be few concrete benefits for applying yourself. Also what got me through my studies, combined with the fear of not meeting expectations placed upon me, was competition with my peers. If the peer standard is low, due to these poor expectations, lack of family support, etc. there is less to spur on a competitive child.

As for children getting more intelligent- as far as I understand it they are. IQ levels have been on the rise since records began and that test has been broadly standardised (if not neccessarily a perfect test of rounded intelligence) across its history. Each decade we see about a 3 point rise in the average IQ. So maybe we are slowly turning into thick gits?

And while there is no doubt in my mind that exams are easier in some regards, their focus greatly encourages creative skills and so forth which are quite rare in other countries with more traditonal systems. Britain is a hotbed in the international creative industry - advertising, television, music, fiction etc. - and a big reason for that I would say is that we put great value in creative teaching methods and thinking at schools and in our culture in general.

So for me, while exams need to be made more discriminating and therefore difficult, generally the teaching system for me is quite good. The big problem is how to address the equality of the overall educational environment. And I have to say I am not hopeful. People don't compromise where kids are concerned.

[Paul]

If you could afford it I am sure most would send their child to a private school if the only available comp had very bad results.

Have to agree with that. I'm not sure what we would have done if we hadn't had Chorley schools available to us, but I didn't buy this house 25 years ago with an eye on where I could educate my unborn children.

As for children getting more intelligent- as far as I understand it they are. IQ levels have been on the rise since records began and that test has been broadly standardised (if not neccessarily a perfect test of rounded intelligence) across its history. Each decade we see about a 3 point rise in the average IQ. So maybe we are slowly turning into thick gits?

And while there is no doubt in my mind that exams are easier in some regards, their focus greatly encourages creative skills and so forth which are quite rare in other countries with more traditonal systems. Britain is a hotbed in the international creative industry - advertising, television, music, fiction etc. - and a big reason for that I would say is that we put great value in creative teaching methods and thinking at schools and in our culture in general.

So for me, while exams need to be made more discriminating and therefore difficult, generally the teaching system for me is quite good. The big problem is how to address the equality of the overall educational environment. And I have to say I am not hopeful. People don't compromise where kids are concerned.

I think this is an excellent point. I've seen in my own children, and the majority we know, - well TBH they are all young people now, not children - a far greater ability for rational and lateral thought coupled with intelligent questioning and conversation than I, or my peers, would have been capable of at a similar age. For all some chose to criticise our educational system there is no doubt it is producing many well rounded individuals. The problem is with those who don't want, for whatever reason, to be educated and there lays a far deeper social problem. Some families, well parents, are seemingly incapable of bringing up their children properly.

While appreciating the topic is entirely different I was struck by this article in yesterday's Observer, The Grief of Liverpool and in particular this paragraph:

In all my travels, this has continued to strike me. Yes, there are grim bits. Yes, there are long unlit roads; and, yes, nasty boarded shops that hardly make you feel life's worth living. But live people do; and stay safe, and grow up, and keep themselves on the right side of the law, and paint their houses, and buy school ties, and do homework. The differences are not just between the council wastelands Croxteth/Norris Green and the private primnesses of Croxteth Park; they are between neighbouring houses, between neighbouring individuals. Bizarrely, my potty-mouthed friend in the car was summing up what many, many around here told me: I blame the parents.

It's all about family but we seem to have such a mass of parents not prepared to invest time in their children's education and development that it has become simpler to bash the system and demean the achievements of those who do well in it.

[blue phil]

It's all about family but we seem to have such a mass of parents not prepared to invest time in their children's education and development that it has become simpler to bash the system and demean the achievements of those who do well in it.

Like it or not it's the "system" that produces such parents . And like it or not those families are growing ever greater in numbers with every generation . Labour still discriminates against the notion of family . They despise the idea of middle class normality - which is ironic because that's the only group they cater for in reality . Those in so called poverty they keep there with sh1te schools and a worse benefit system .

As Woodhead points out there are too many vested interests involved to point out the obvious - that exams are easier and standards are slipping . Teachers can pat themselves on the back with blown up exam statistics as can the politicians , pupils and parents . And yet the country's that racked with violence and anti social behaviour that hundreds of thousands are moving abroad .

It's too easy just to mouth platitudes that parents are to blame ...and even easier just to look after number one and pretend all is rosy . Only the government can provide the right environment to break the cultural void in our society. Unfortunately they seem to be succeeding in their strategy of lying through their back teeth about educational standards in GB . The evidence on the streets of every town at weekends proves the opposite . Compare it with life in similar sized towns abroad next time you go on hols .....that is if the Brits (of all classes and from all types of schools) haven't got there first .

[roversmum]

Like it or not it's the "system" that produces such parents . And like it or not those families are growing ever greater in numbers with every generation . Labour still discriminates against the notion of family . They despise the idea of middle class normality - which is ironic because that's the only group they cater for in reality . Those in so called poverty they keep there with sh1te schools and a worse benefit system .

As Woodhead points out there are too many vested interests involved to point out the obvious - that exams are easier and standards are slipping . Teachers can pat themselves on the back with blown up exam statistics as can the politicians , pupils and parents . And yet the country's that racked with violence and anti social behaviour that hundreds of thousands are moving abroad .

It's too easy just to mouth platitudes that parents are to blame ...and even easier just to look after number one and pretend all is rosy . Only the government can provide the right environment to break the cultural void in our society. Unfortunately they seem to be succeeding in their strategy of lying through their back teeth about educational standards in GB . The evidence on the streets of every town at weekends proves the opposite . Compare it with life in similar sized towns abroad next time you go on hols .....that is if the Brits (of all classes and from all types of schools) haven't got there first .

I don't agree. The so-called "middle classes" are ever striving to keep up their standards. Erosions of pensions they have worked for; mothers having to work whether they like it or not, ever increasing housing costs, trying to send their kids to decent schools.

"Worse benefit system"? My daughter has four children, two of whom have special needs and she is entitled to Carer's Allowance. She is also alleged to be receiving maintenance from the children's fathers who skive around trying to get out of paying for their children. Because of both these factors she is deemed to be £3 above the limit for income support, has to work part time for a pittance and still is below the poverty limit. Often she does not receive the maintenance due to incompetence of the CSA. Someone on income support entitled to Carer's Allowance gets extra on that allowance; housing benefit, council tax; free school meals and prescriptions, amounting to over £100 a week extra. Her children are well disciplined and polite. Many of those we know who receive benefits laze around all day drinking and swearing and making a nuisance of themselves. Their children are wild. They have no intention of getting a job - and indeed why should they?

My daughter has just completed a house swop in order to live a bit closer to us. The house she left was clean, well decorated and tidy. The house that she has moved into was filthy with excrement on the walls, flea infestation, garden full of rubbish and was so disgusting the removal men were physically sick. Of course the previous tenant did not pay any rent etc herself. However, it is a bigger house and we are working day and night and turning it into what will be a good home - with little or no interest from the housing association "we don't do repairs on houses that have been swopped" . It is time housing associations and the like ensured that their tenants respected the homes in which they live and there was more emphasis on responsibilities rather than rights.

[Cheshireblue]

I don't agree. The so-called "middle classes" are ever striving to keep up their standards. Erosions of pensions they have worked for; mothers having to work whether they like it or not, ever increasing housing costs, trying to send their kids to decent schools.

"Worse benefit system"? My daughter has four children, two of whom have special needs and she is entitled to Carer's Allowance. She is also alleged to be receiving maintenance from the children's fathers who skive around trying to get out of paying for their children. Because of both these factors she is deemed to be £3 above the limit for income support, has to work part time for a pittance and still is below the poverty limit. Often she does not receive the maintenance due to incompetence of the CSA. Someone on income support entitled to Carer's Allowance gets extra on that allowance; housing benefit, council tax; free school meals and prescriptions, amounting to over £100 a week extra. Her children are well disciplined and polite. Many of those we know who receive benefits laze around all day drinking and swearing and making a nuisance of themselves. Their children are wild. They have no intention of getting a job - and indeed why should they?

My daughter has just completed a house swop in order to live a bit closer to us. The house she left was clean, well decorated and tidy. The house that she has moved into was filthy with excrement on the walls, flea infestation, garden full of rubbish and was so disgusting the removal men were physically sick. Of course the previous tenant did not pay any rent etc herself. However, it is a bigger house and we are working day and night and turning it into what will be a good home - with little or no interest from the housing association "we don't do repairs on houses that have been swopped" . It is time housing associations and the like ensured that their tenants respected the homes in which they live and there was more emphasis on responsibilities rather than rights.

Now correct me if I am wrong, and I am not in any way making this a personal attack, but everything in that post that you are complaining about is effectively a handout from the state or a state run department that is incompetent. Nowhere in there is there an acknowledgement that perhaps having 4 kids was a mistake, that perhaps her choice in partners to have those kids with was flawed and when all said and done, the house that is effectively being subsidised hugely by taxpayers might actually be far bigger and better located than any that she could afford on her own.

That sums the situation up to me. I'm sure your daughter is a wonderful person that does well by her children and is doing her absolute upmost to make the best out of the situation that she finds herself in. The system may well be letting her down, but let's be clear that the system is there to bale her out of a situation that she got herself into, albeit unwittingly.

If she had gone into restaraunt and ordered a meal that she couldn't afford, would the state have paid the bill?

The "system" is producing a generation of people who all know what their rights are, but do not know what their responsibilities are. I believe it is linked with a decline in the identity of what it means to be English. The English used to have a sense of duty, of purpose and an unshakeable belief in what was right and wrong. We are now so molly-coddled and scared of offending anyone that we are turning out a generation of homogenous blobs with no capacity for any genuine independence or competitiveness. It starts in schools but is becoming widespread through all aspects of society.