Article extract >>

A top level review of the exams system in England is proposing a new four-tier diploma, to replace GCSEs and A-levels.
Students would also be able to take exams earlier or later rather than at fixed ages as is the case now.

The change might allow bright schoolchildren to begin university degrees at the age of 16.

The review has been carried out by the former chief inspector of schools, Mike Tomlinson, and is out on Tuesday.

The diploma would have four levels - advanced, intermediate, foundation and entry level - in order to include the achievements of all pupils, BBC education correspondent Mike Baker said.

The Russian Federation is embarking on a wholesale reform of its end-of-school exams and university admissions

Mike Baker
BBC education correspondent


Can England learn from Russia?
GCSEs and A-levels would not completely disappear, at least in the short or medium term, but would become component parts of the diploma rather than stand-alone qualifications.

Vocational qualifications and extra-curricular activities would also go towards the diploma.

Mr Tomlinson said: "The working group was set up to tackle a number of long-standing weaknesses.

"These include low post-16 participation and achievement, overburdensome curriculum and assessment system and a vocational framework so varied that employers and Higher Education find it difficult to understand.

"Our proposals will build on the strength of the current system and maintain rigour."

Also proposed in the report is the option for students to bypass AS-levels and go straight to A-level if they want.

A system similar to the French baccalaureate where pupils take a number of subjects for a diploma has been mooted for some time.

The Secondary Heads' Association general secretary John Dunford said a diploma system will help students stick with education longer.

"That raising of the participation rate and raising of the success rate of 17 and 18 year olds is very important in bringing us up to the level of other countries."

End extract <<

For more info :: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3487979.stm

So we're going to adopt this International Baceloreate model are we, or that is what the latest initiative is by the government.

With this and some of the other ideas this week i think the "Education Education Education" thing is proving even more of an irony by the day let alone the year.

I've been through the British state education system and i can tell you from that and people i know that the AVCE module bsed system is a far more efficient and beneficial approach. Not granted it is used at the same level as A Levels but this is how it works if you don't know. Take a sjubject and the individual segments of it are divided into 12 modules, 8 are coursework based and 4 examination based. Personally i feel that an increased combination of this and what we have already spread into the lower age groups is a far better idea.

What do you think, do you :agree: :disagree:

If those not from Britain can get a handle on this i'd like to know what you think and how it works where you are?

Opinions?? Comments??

Critic,

we currently work with the bachelor/master system, but next year things are normally changing in the system here like one can choose the number of subjects (min<->max number of total hours) and if you plan on doing it in a half/year full year whatever (subject) or your full studies over 4-5 years... that's what's been told to us (students), teachers and professors .... and we are all very sceptic about it and how it's going to work out. lol

I think the International Baceloreate model is superior, it forces people to study a wider range of subjects, which would hopefully stop the idiotic situation we have now where large numbers of pupils avoid "difficult" subjects such as maths, physics, chemistry etc.

Either way the best thing for education system would be to vastly reduce the coursework and increase the number of exams, at least then we would actually be able to differentiate between students, something we can't do now.

The change might allow bright schoolchildren to begin university degrees at the age of 16.

University is hard enough when you are 18+, can't imagine 16 year olds being able to do that great. Going to University is a big thing as it means moving away from home in most cases, and also the way you learn is totally different to school. At 16 I don't think you are prepared for it at all.

Originally posted by bagpuss
I think the International Baceloreate model is superior, it forces people to study a wider range of subjects, which would hopefully stop the idiotic situation we have now where large numbers of pupils avoid "difficult" subjects such as maths, physics, chemistry etc.

Either way the best thing for education system would be to vastly reduce the coursework and increase the number of exams, at least then we would actually be able to differentiate between students, something we can't do now.

bagpuss, shock horro, we disagree once again. :laugh:

We've got some key words in your reply ther for me such as it forces the students to do something.

Then it is not that people avoid certain subjects as per their difficulty or not in my experience, they'll deide using a combination of factors such as personal interest, perceived enjoyment and ability. Geography was like that for me from year 7 to 13 of secondary school.

Then you say that either way we should reduce the amount of coursework used in determining grades, at GCSE level it is normally only worth 25% of the final grade which isn't that much and at A Level it sometimes isn't used or to around the same percentage. Also i don't see how coursework doesn't allow you to differentiate between students?

Also it is in my opinion for students to begin to specialise as they progress up the chain.

The money it will cost and the amount of disagreement from the NUT toward the programme and the lack of noticable benefits leads me to feel that this is no the right way to go.

Critic,

Originally posted by Critic
bagpuss, shock horro, we disagree once again. :laugh:


It suprised me too. :)

Originally posted by Critic

We've got some key words in your reply ther for me such as it forces the students to do something.

Then it is not that people avoid certain subjects as per their difficulty or not in my experience, they'll deide using a combination of factors such as personal interest, perceived enjoyment and ability. Geography was like that for me from year 7 to 13 of secondary school.


I'm not saying that the individuals interests don't play a part nor that it applies to everyone, but you only have to look at the drop in the numbers taking the "difficult" subjects at A-level and look at some of the students rather honest answers in TV interviews whenever the subject of why we don't have enough maths or science students, to see many A-level students avoid the more academic subjects such as maths, physics, chemistry etc in favour of easier less aademic ones that they know they are likely to get better grades in.


Originally posted by Critic

Then you say that either way we should reduce the amount of coursework used in determining grades, at GCSE level it is normally only worth 25% of the final grade which isn't that much and at A Level it sometimes isn't used or to around the same percentage. Also i don't see how coursework doesn't allow you to differentiate between students?


GCSE (and A-level for that matter) coursework depends on the subject and exam board and ranges from 20% - 40%, as for it not differentiating between students, it evens out the playingfield as such and enables less gifted students to spend vast amounts of time on it, get unlimited help from their parents / internet and basically gives an unrealistic assestment of their ability.

Coursework is a very large reason as to why since GCSEs have been introduced and A-levels have adopted coursework, year upon year we have often huge improvements in the pass rate and we now have so many people achiveing A grade at a-levels universities and employers can no longer distinguish the brightest students.

Originally posted by Critic

Also it is in my opinion for students to begin to specialise as they progress up the chain.


That's what university is for, specialising as A-level is a waste o time, because you don't study anything to the depth or for the length of time for that specialisation to be much use.

Originally posted by Critic

The money it will cost and the amount of disagreement from the NUT toward the programme and the lack of noticable benefits leads me to feel that this is no the right way to go.


Our education system needs changing as already mentioned the lack of distintion between pupils is a problem (if you don't believe me search the internet, I am pretty sure the institue of directors reported precisely that after the last lot of exam results). Also our education system is failing to produce skilled people in many fields, again this needs to be addressed.

I'm not saying that the individuals interests don't play a part nor that it applies to everyone, but you only have to look at the drop in the numbers taking the "difficult" subjects at A-level and look at some of the students rather honest answers in TV interviews whenever the subject of why we don't have enough maths or science students, to see many A-level students avoid the more academic subjects such as maths, physics, chemistry etc in favour of easier less aademic ones that they know they are likely to get better grades in.

What kind of subjects do you have in mind when it comes to less academic?

If student numbers taking a certain subject are falling then how it is taught [maybe a more practical approach over constant theory] and some of the subject matter should be looked at but i don't see how forcing them to do things and or giving them more one off exams will help the situation.

Do you think it will get the best out of our students or Teachers by forcing them to do something?

GCSE (and A-level for that matter) coursework depends on the subject and exam board and ranges from 20% - 40%, as for it not differentiating between students, it evens out the playingfield as such and enables less gifted students to spend vast amounts of time on it, get unlimited help from their parents / internet and basically gives an unrealistic assestment of their ability.

Coursework is a very large reason as to why since GCSEs have been introduced and A-levels have adopted coursework, year upon year we have often huge improvements in the pass rate and we now have so many people achiveing A grade at a-levels universities and employers can no longer distinguish the brightest students.

Concerning percentages, i was at school in the 90's and most subjects did have it at 25% with the exception being IT that had it at 40% but i accept that other boards might have some different ones.

Coursework levelling the playing field? I'm not too sure about that.

It is my experience that the cream will always rise to the top. If you're bright and put in the effort then you will get the high grade and if you don't then you will ge the grade you deserve. You will also improve your research and analytical skills througout the work period. There is a set time limit and segments have to be in by a certain day . I believe that this kind of aproach greatly benefits students of all ability instead of discriminating against those who might have a bad day or just might not be the best at exams.

A good analogy i heard on the beeb last night was that the proposed model is like a penalty shoot out.

When it comes to the rise in grades i would put that down to examination grade boundaries being lowered and some subject content being made a tad easier to ease gov figures.

That's what university is for, specialising as A-level is a waste o time, because you don't study anything to the depth or for the length of time for that specialisation to be much use.

Yes that is what Universities are for but surely the best approach is a graduale increase in specialisation as they progress through school instead of dumping it on them at 18 or later?

When it comes to A Levels, how do you know that exactly, have you experienced the new AS/A2 Level system yourself?

Our education system needs changing as already mentioned the lack of distintion between pupils is a problem (if you don't believe me search the internet, I am pretty sure the institue of directors reported precisely that after the last lot of exam results). Also our education system is failing to produce skilled people in many fields, again this needs to be addressed.

When it comes to pupil discrimination, they have these things called "sets" which i'm sure you are aware of, people go into one and taught as per their ability and progress up or down accordingly. Yes we are lacking certain skills but i don't see how scrapping what we have now and replacing it with the proposed model will change that. If we need to introduce a new subjects then we can accomodate them in thethe current system in my view. I stand by what i said, this proposed model doesn't have sufficient benefits to warrent such an action. Not to mention that you are going up against the NUT and many students that i heard on the radio tonight also.

Critic,

Originally posted by Vortex-Steve
University is hard enough when you are 18+, can't imagine 16 year olds being able to do that great. Going to University is a big thing as it means moving away from home in most cases, and also the way you learn is totally different to school. At 16 I don't think you are prepared for it at all.

I think it depends upon the student. I did a 2 year diploma (computer science) after leaving school. The first year to year and a half of my degree following that I didn't really learn much that I didn't already know from my own private study or from the diploma (which was very good).

The remainder of my degree (a computing honors degree) was plain sailing and I'm pretty sure could have been condensed into a year or so for me personally.

The only really challenging or inspiring part of my degree was the first semster of the last year. The second semester of the last year worked against me because it was more or less a refresher of everything that had been covered to get people ready for industry (bear in mind that was the third time I'd covered some of the subjects by then)

I would have preferred the opportunity to of going to university at 16, and instead of wasting 6 years (2 diploma, 4 degree), when I really could have spent 2 to 3. That would have saved the tax payer money and perhaps that saving could have gone towards providing financial support for a post-graduate qualification or for more diversity and choice in the degree sylabus.

Regards the GCSE system, when I was at school we were the first year when that was introduced. One of my biggest frustrations with that at the time was that the choice of subjects was limited. For example, I wanted to take computer studies and art, which wasn't possible (you were allowed to take one or the other - presumably the thinking was that they were trying to get people ready for degrees or work at that stage and you'd either go the technical or creative route). If this new system introduces more choice for the student I think that can only be a good thing for those who are genuinelly interested in educating themselves.

EthicalEpi, when i did my GCSE's there were no restrictions concerning subject choic in the way that you described, the only thing you had to make sure of was that the subjects wouldn't clash too much in the timetable which i didn't encounter.

quote from the article >> "The report will also say there should be less emphasis on coursework but will suggest an extended essay as part of the diploma.

A former chief inspector of schools in England, Chris Woodhead, told BBC News 24 while he supported some aspects of the report it was questionable whether the "huge upheaval" teachers, pupils, employers and universities would have to undergo to understand was worth it."

A virtually exam dominated course sounds like bad news to me and the empty gesture of an essay seems utterly inadequate to me.

I also have to agree with the view that this idea if put into practice could devalue the qualifications of hundreds of thousands od former pupils. I think the current Labour gov is making a final hash of the Education system with this last weak effort.

I am unaware of the official Conservative party response to this but i'm guessing that they won't be in agreement. I was in the process of filing the paper work for my own political party but i might be forced to put that on the back burner and aid the Conservatives in my constituency as my party if successful on any level would damage the centre right cause.

I believe you said something about saving tax payers money in your post by attending Uni earlier. Well i don't know if you know or not but the Top Up Fees bill made it through the commons by 5 votes. Basically it is setup as a £3000 /year charge for attendin Uni so that might not be so accurate in the future, the tax payers thing. ;)

Critic,

--------
EthicalEpi, when i did my GCSE's there were no restrictions concerning subject choic in the way that you described, the only thing you had to make sure of was that the subjects wouldn't clash too much in the timetable which i didn't encounter
----------

Yes, I think that was why our choices were limited. I think it was a case of limited resources so they timetabled for subject mixes that complimented each other but that doesn't really help you if you're interested in both technical and creative subjects and there was no option for people like me to even self-study. It was a case of 'you can take this subject and this exam, or this subject and this exam'. I did try to argue the point at the time because I wanted to take latin that was dependant upon another subject I had little interest in at the time, but wasn't allowed to do that either. Hopefully it's changed now.

Regards the taxpayers money I was really talking about the time I attended university. At that time tuition fees didn't exist. Even with tuition fees the government still spends on higher education though, particularly in the 16 to 18 agegroup, and ofcourse there are more people attending higher education now, so it's still relevant. If more capable kids were allowed to get their qualifications faster then there would be more money available to spend on higher education, and perhaps not the need for course fees.

Originally posted by Critic
What kind of subjects do you have in mind when it comes to less academic?


Enviromental studies, general studies, geogpraphy, art, drama, media studies, french, german, spanish, business studies and to a lesser extent english, classics, history, philosphy, etc.

Originally posted by Critic

If student numbers taking a certain subject are falling then how it is taught [maybe a more practical approach over constant theory] and some of the subject matter should be looked at but i don't see how forcing them to do things and or giving them more one off exams will help the situation.

Do you think it will get the best out of our students or Teachers by forcing them to do something?


You mean like they are all forced to do a certain amount of english, maths and science throughtout much of their time at school?

Originally posted by Critic

Coursework levelling the playing field? I'm not too sure about that.

It is my experience that the cream will always rise to the top. If you're bright and put in the effort then you will get the high grade and if you don't then you will ge the grade you deserve. You will also improve your research and analytical skills througout the work period. There is a set time limit and segments have to be in by a certain day . I believe that this kind of aproach greatly benefits students of all ability instead of discriminating against those who might have a bad day or just might not be the best at exams.


The cream do rise to the top, but the problem is so do many others, we have so many students getting three / four A's at a-level now how are we meant to discriminate?

Someone who is very bright can spend one evening on a essay for english and get an A for it, whilst at the same time someone let's say a little above average can spend all week, scour the internet, buy a ton of study guides, get help from thier parents and also attain an A. Now this didn't matter when all that counted were exams, because come exam time we would see who really was the brightest.

As for catering for the lowest common denomenator, that is wrong, the idea that we should panda to people who can't cope with the stress of exams and aren't very good at them is ridiculous, how are these people going to cope with a deadline in the real world if they can't cope with the pressure of an exam?

Originally posted by Critic

Yes that is what Universities are for but surely the best approach is a graduale increase in specialisation as they progress through school instead of dumping it on them at 18 or later?


Why, of what benefit to the student is it?

Originally posted by Critic

When it comes to A Levels, how do you know that exactly, have you experienced the new AS/A2 Level system yourself?


When I was at sixth form we did have AS levels, but frankly very few people did them, they were seen to be mroe work than they were worth, which has proved to be the case.

Originally posted by Critic

When it comes to pupil discrimination, they have these things called "sets" which i'm sure you are aware of, people go into one and taught as per their ability and progress up or down accordingly.


Yes, but 30 years ago only the very top pupils would get the very top grade, thus we could differetiate.

Originally posted by Critic

Not to mention that you are going up against the NUT and many students that i heard on the radio tonight also.


Students are the last people that should be consulted on education, you only have to look at their reaction to top fees to see that.

Enviromental studies, general studies, geogpraphy, art, drama, media studies, french, german, spanish, business studies and to a lesser extent english, classics, history, philosphy, etc.

I'm assuming you meant A Levels when referring to Environment Studies I have to say that for some i am quite suprised that you brought them up. So taking your previous remarks into account Geography and Languages and Business Studies are pretty easy to achieve at A Level and English is farly easy then. hmm i'm not soo sure how much agreement you'll get on that from those who've taken those subjects at AS/A2 level.

You mean like they are all forced to do a certain amount of english, maths and science throughtout much of their time at school?

No i was referring to this statement made by you early on that i didn't think you answered properly. >>

"it forces people to study a wider range of subjects"

The cream do rise to the top, but the problem is so do many others, we have so many students getting three / four A's at a-level now how are we meant to discriminate?

Someone who is very bright can spend one evening on a essay for english and get an A for it, whilst at the same time someone let's say a little above average can spend all week, scour the internet, buy a ton of study guides, get help from thier parents and also attain an A. Now this didn't matter when all that counted were exams, because come exam time we would see who really was the brightest.

As for catering for the lowest common denomenator, that is wrong, the idea that we should panda to people who can't cope with the stress of exams and aren't very good at them is ridiculous, how are these people going to cope with a deadline in the real world if they can't cope with the pressure of an exam?

First paragraph, there are these things called Grades.

Second paragraph, so you think that coursework at AS/A2 level is all about an essay do you ?

Concerning your last sentence in the second paragraph, there is a penalty shoot out at the Fa Cup Final, Ruud Van Nistlerooy scores his penalty and Thiery Henry has his saved. Based on that does that mean that the player who scored that one penatly is the better player?

3rd paragraph, who said anything about the lowest common demomenator or the stress of exams.

Why, of what benefit to the student is it?

It was obvious to me, guess not so to you. Look at like this; you have two people that enlist in the army, one climbs the ranks and maybe concentrating and learning the skills of a certain field as he goes and becomes let's say an explosives expert in the SBS, the other is entered into the SBS all of a sudden after 7 years in the army with little specific experience with explosives; they are both given a task, which one will be more competent and able to adapt?

When I was at sixth form we did have AS levels, but frankly very few people did them, they were seen to be mroe work than they were worth, which has proved to be the case.

So basically you have no personal contact with the new AS/A2 level or AVCE system introduced in the past few years or indirect contact with it by what you're saying.

Yes, but 30 years ago only the very top pupils would get the very top grade, thus we could differetiate. Then i would say that the more financially efficient and less wasteful and obtrusive approach would be to look at the Grading structure or other things i suggested and not a total upheaval of the secondary education system.

Students are the last people that should be consulted on education, you only have to look at their reaction to top fees to see that.

Those were university students; but you might want to consider the views of thousands of teachers don't you think? Also maybe consider the possible discrimination and devaluation of hundreds of thousands of qualifications and their holders.

Critic,

Originally posted by Critic
I'm assuming you meant A Levels when referring to Environment Studies I have to say that for some i am quite suprised that you brought them up. So taking your previous remarks into account Geography and Languages and Business Studies are pretty easy to achieve at A Level and English is farly easy then. hmm i'm not soo sure how much agreement you'll get on that from those who've taken those subjects at AS/A2 level.


I am saying that they are easier to achieve a higher grade in than more academic subjects such as Maths or Sciences.

Originally posted by Critic

No i was referring to this statement made by you early on that i didn't think you answered properly. >>

"it forces people to study a wider range of subjects"


And I was making the point that we are all forced to study certain subjects throughout our education.

Originally posted by Critic

First paragraph, there are these things called Grades.


Yes which were once of value, but please try and answer the point you have been ignoring, that now so many people get top grades, there is no longer a way to differentate the best from merely the above average / good.

Originally posted by Critic

Second paragraph, so you think that coursework at AS/A2 level is all about an essay do you ?

Concerning your last sentence in the second paragraph, there is a penalty shoot out at the Fa Cup Final, Ruud Van Nistlerooy scores his penalty and Thiery Henry has his saved. Based on that does that mean that the player who scored that one penatly is the better player?


No, but the same applies to projects or anything else you can do at home away from controlled conditions.

As for the shootout analogy, it's innaccurate, that would be more akin to a single multiple choice question rather than one or more entire exam papers. (Although a good choice of players, only idiot would say Van Nistlerooy is better then Henry)

Originally posted by Critic

3rd paragraph, who said anything about the lowest common demomenator or the stress of exams.


You stated "I believe that this kind of aproach greatly benefits students of all ability instead of discriminating against those who might have a bad day or just might not be the best at exams" thus I assumed (maybe I shouldn't of ) that the reason most people who have big problems with exams is down to pressure, if I was wrong maybe you could inform of why else certain people are "not the best at exams"?

Originally posted by Critic

It was obvious to me, guess not so to you. Look at like this; you have two people that enlist in the army, one climbs the ranks and maybe concentrating and learning the skills of a certain field as he goes and becomes let's say an explosives expert in the SBS, the other is entered into the SBS all of a sudden after 7 years in the army with little specific experience with explosives; they are both given a task, which one will be more competent and able to adapt?


I fail to see the relevence of specialised or non-specialised training to the ability to adapt.

Originally posted by Critic

So basically you have no personal contact with the new AS/A2 level or AVCE system introduced in the past few years or indirect contact with it by what you're saying.


Please, how much as A-level Maths changed in 10 years?

Originally posted by Critic

Then i would say that the more financially efficient and less wasteful and obtrusive approach would be to look at the Grading structure or other things i suggested and not a total upheaval of the secondary education system.


Because it's not the grading system that is wrong, it's the structure of the system, which with things such as coursework (in non-controlled conditions) distorts the grades. I think the fact that 16 year olds will be able to start a degree is a good thing, after all A-levels teach you very little of actual use and are really only there to decide if / which university you go to.

Originally posted by Critic

Those were university students; but you might want to consider the views of thousands of teachers don't you think? Also maybe consider the possible discrimination and devaluation of hundreds of thousands of qualifications and their holders.


And sixth form students view the situation so much more clearly than those at university?

As for teachers, I do consider the views of teachers, I also consider the views of universities and employers.

Your last sentence is hilarious, you speak about devaluation of a qualification, yet fail to see the irony of how A-levels and degrees have been devalued over the last 30 years by the system you seem so in favour of.

bagpus:

---------
I am saying that they are easier to achieve a higher grade in than more academic subjects such as Maths or Sciences.
---------

Surely that depends upon the aptitude of the student in question. You're quite right that an art or drama student mightn't be great at maths, but sit a mathematician down with a set of paints and a canvas and they mightn't be the best artist in the world either.

Creative intelligence and ability, and higher (as opposed to robotic) reasoning is an equally valuable commodity imho.

I think your understanding of the word accademic could do with some revision. Some of the subjects you consider less acadmic are almost purely academic in nature (philosophy for example).

Originally posted by EthicalEpi
bagpus:

---------
I am saying that they are easier to achieve a higher grade in than more academic subjects such as Maths or Sciences.
---------

Surely that depends upon the aptitude of the student in question. You're quite right that an art or drama student mightn't be great at maths, but sit a mathematician down with a set of paints and a canvas and they mightn't be the best artist in the world either.


In your somewhat narrow example I agree, but I would highlight the relative difficulty of Maths or Sciences with another example, suppose evey single student taking A-levels took maths, physics and geography, I would bet you anything that over the country as a whole the average grade for geography would be higher than for maths or physics, certain subjects on the whole are more difficult.

Originally posted by EthicalEpi

Creative intelligence and ability, and higher (as opposed to robotic) reasoning is an equally valuable commodity imho.


And what makes you think you don't need creative intelligence for maths and that you do for drama?

Originally posted by EthicalEpi

I think your understanding of the word accademic could do with some revision. Some of the subjects you consider less acadmic are almost purely academic in nature (philosophy for example).

I agree academic is the wrong word, so I'll just stick with difficult. (And yes I probably shouldn't have stuck philosphy on the end of that list)

whatever they do finally decide to do, i really think that they ought to stick to it. They have been hashing the two exam types about now to much.

---------
In your somewhat narrow example I agree, but I would highlight the relative difficulty of Maths or Sciences with another example, suppose evey single student taking A-levels took maths, physics and geography, I would bet you anything that over the country as a whole the average grade for geography would be higher than for maths or physics, certain subjects on the whole are more difficult
----------------

What I was really trying to illustrate with that example, is that intelligence is very hard to classify and that what's difficult for one person might come very naturally for another. I wasn't really thinking of geography there, but more of the arts.

To use your own example, if every single a-level student was forced to take art or design, how many of them would do as well as in maths. Probably about the same proportion I would think as most people tend to lean one way or the other.

---------
And what makes you think you don't need creative intelligence for maths and that you do for drama?
----------

Well, I was thinking more of your mention of art rather than drama, but nonetheless at the sort of level that we're talking about here (degree and A level), very little creative intelligence is required for mathematics or the sciences (certainly not to the degree that would be expected of an art student at the same level). Getting through a science a level or degree is largely a matter of learning and understanding what has come before rather than going anywhere new.

Post-graduate study and phd research would be where a larger degree of creative ability would be required but we weren't talking about that here.

--------
I agree academic is the wrong word, so I'll just stick with difficult. (And yes I probably shouldn't have stuck philosphy on the end of that list)
----------

I do see what you're saying, and I agree to some extent (particularly where geography is concerned - not to underestimate the importance of geographers in the world either). I just think some of those subjects that you listed there as somehow being less worthy than the sciences show a lack of understanding of what's involved in those subjects.

Am I right in guessing that you are or were a student of the sciences?

Originally posted by EthicalEpi
To use your own example, if every single a-level student was forced to take art or design, how many of them would do as well as in maths. Probably about the same proportion I would think as most people tend to lean one way or the other.


But art / design is somewhat different to other subjects in that if you don't have some natural artistic ability you are going to struggle, regardless of how bright you are. (bright in the traditional IQ sense).

Originally posted by EthicalEpi

Well, I was thinking more of your mention of art rather than drama, but nonetheless at the sort of level that we're talking about here (degree and A level), very little creative intelligence is required for mathematics or the sciences (certainly not to the degree that would be expected of an art student at the same level). Getting through a science a level or degree is largely a matter of learning and understanding what has come before rather than going anywhere new.


On "creative intelligence" I am not even sure what it is, I suspect what you call creative intelligence I would call being creative, but that is very different thing from intelligence. To me being creative or artistic is just that, it does not mean someone is intelligent.

Originally posted by EthicalEpi

I do see what you're saying, and I agree to some extent (particularly where geography is concerned - not to underestimate the importance of geographers in the world either). I just think some of those subjects that you listed there as somehow being less worthy than the sciences show a lack of understanding of what's involved in those subjects.


If I was alone in deeming that those subjects are less worthy (to varying degrees) you might have a point, but my view is very well supported by the employers in this country and all over the world, employers are crying out for maths and science graduates, where as those who take an easy option such as media studies are ten a penny, it's not me who decides a subjects worth.

Originally posted by EthicalEpi

Am I right in guessing that you are or were a student of the sciences?

Partly, I studied maths, physics and geography at a-level. I also cannot ever recall walking out a geography class and someone saying "did you understand any of that?" ;)

---------
But art / design is somewhat different to other subjects in that if you don't have some natural artistic ability you are going to struggle, regardless of how bright you are. (bright in the traditional IQ sense).
---------

You could say the same thing about mathematics ofcourse. As I was saying it depends upon the aptitude of the student in question. People who tend to lean towards the arts, in general aren't so good at left brain activities, and vice versa. Your average mathematics student is going to struggle with art or design in the same way that an art student might struggle with degree level maths. Not saying this is the case always as there are exceptions, but it's worth thinking about.

I think limiting the definition of intelligence to mathematics or science is unbelievably arrogant, particularly as those subjects at least at the level that we're talking about here involve largely a combination of memory and robotic reasoning and far less ability to think for oneself than say the study of philosophy, art or literature for example, at least at the levels that we're talking about here.

--------
On "creative intelligence" I am not even sure what it is, I suspect what you call creative intelligence I would call being creative, but that is very different thing from intelligence. To me being creative or artistic is just that, it does not mean someone is intelligent
--------

I'm merely widening the definition of intelligence to that which can't be measured in simple 'employer friendly' terms.

The case of mathematics is a perfect example. The software package mathematica's programmed knowledge far exceeds that of the typical A level (or even degree level) student for example, but would you consider it truly intelligent. Sure it's capable of robotic reasoning, and present it with the typical question an A level student is posed on their exam and it'll have the answer to you in less time than it takes to blink, but ask it a complex philosophical question, or about it's appreciation of picasso and the meaning behind his work and see how far it gets.

Your definition of intelligence is incredibly narrow and limiting.

-----------
f I was alone in deeming that those subjects are less worthy (to varying degrees) you might have a point
-----------

Ah...so the consensus is always right then? LOL!

I have to admit I'm surprised to hear you personally use that argument, because that would make you wrong about a great deal that I've seen you talk about in some of the other threads here (I'm not saying you are wrong btw - just trying to illustrate a point that reason isn't a democratic process).

--------
my view is very well supported by the employers in this country and all over the world, employers are crying out for maths and science graduates
-------

That's because those subjects lend themselves more to industry, and those (dare I say - more 'accademic' subjects) like philosophy, art and literature aren't so widely required.

Education should be about more than churning out work-ready robots to join the corporate/industrial machine, so I feel those more accademic subjects do have a very valid place in education and in the world in general (it would be a sad boring place without them).

-----
I also cannot ever recall walking out a geography class and someone saying "did you understand any of that?"
-----

As I said, I'm not arguing about geography as as far as I know learning geography is simply a matter of remembering things. For many of the other subjects you mention that's not the case though.

I am saying that they are easier to achieve a higher grade in than more academic subjects such as Maths or Sciences.

Well i have to share the view of EthicalEpi's view that an individuals performance in a subject is relative to other factors such as personal interest and whether they're good at practical work but maybe not so confident with numbers or might find learning other languages easy.

By your logic someone who let's say has a degree in Maths or Astro Physics is more intelligent than someone who can speak 5 languages. To you i would say that they each have a purpose and if i was in a foreign country and in a sticky situation i would rather have my fluent speaker and not the person who can tell me the lenth of the knife he is pointing at me by using pythagoras therom just by looking at it.

My point is that intelligence can be measured in many ways and not just by the Maths and the sciences.

[/quote]And I was making the point that we are all forced to study certain subjects throughout our education.[/quote]

Understood but still haven't said whether you think that forcing students to do something and what you said in that quote will get the best out of the student?

Yes which were once of value, but please try and answer the point you have been ignoring, that now so many people get top grades, there is no longer a way to differentate the best from merely the above average / good.[/quote]

Already answered that

No, but the same applies to projects or anything else you can do at home away from controlled conditions.

As for the shootout analogy, it's innaccurate, that would be more akin to a single multiple choice question rather than one or more entire exam papers. (Although a good choice of players, only idiot would say Van Nistlerooy is better then Henry)

I beg to differ on the analogy, the penalty taker has one attemtp to win the tro-hy for his team, if he doesn't score, failure. If years of effort are settled by an exam, they have that one attempt, you can't make corrections to your answers once all is said and one and it has been collected in; if you slipped up, suffering a minor illness that affects your performance, misread a question which leads to you not having enough time to correct it before the time is up, revision wasn;'t up to scratch for that exam and so on. You are going to judge the individual based on a 90 minute test and not his performance in the years leading up to it or known ability or potential. That's just not how things should be done.

On the coursework issue, it appears we're just not going to get close to agreeing it even has a place in the educationsystem so i don't see a need in either of us firing blanks endlessly.

The 3rd paragraph thing i feel i have also answered in this reply.

When it comes to your comments on Ruud then i guess i am an idiot by your logic then but i think you knew i would say that. ;)

I fail to see the relevence of specialised or non-specialised training to the ability to adapt.

The point as i said before is that a student will perform better when eased into a situation or if he gradually learns something. This is in regard to specialising and the extra work load and research/analytical skills necessary which by your methods of only beginning to specialise at Uni would not occur on any kind of leveluntil then. It is better that a student begins to specialise in certain subjets on a sliding scale as he/she progress through school and not through your approach in my opinion.

Please, how much as A-level Maths changed in 10 years?

I would say that it has changed from what i've heard from those in the education sector. That really wasn't the point i was making, yoj're making wild assumptions about how the AS/A2 or AVCE level system works yet not having been through it or known anyone that has. A lot has heppened in 10 years and if you let school in the early 90s the you just won't know that.

And sixth form students view the situation so much more clearly than those at university?

As for teachers, I do consider the views of teachers, I also consider the views of universities and employers.

Your last sentence is hilarious, you speak about devaluation of a qualification, yet fail to see the irony of how A-levels and degrees have been devalued over the last 30 years by the system you seem so in favour of.

It's not sixth form or University students that you will be effecting iwith these changes, it is the future generation and those that have finished school in recent years.

On you second point that just sounds like a top down dictat and if you considered what the teachers had to say then you might not think the way that you do and not fob them off from your distant vantage point even though they will mot affected.

Your last sentence just shows more evidence of your flippent view of thousands and simply feel it is ok to cut them adrift. You overstate the evaluagion of University degrees in my view and it is only occuring in certain fields. Degree students will still find it relatively easy to get jobs but if the government pushes this through those with AVCE or AS/A2 qualifications without a degree will find it more difficult to get a job and those with them will find it more difficult to apply for courses at Uni.

EthicalEpi, in the last paragraph of your last response to bagpuss you said that as far as you knew Geography was mainly about remembering things. Well i can tell you for one that without practical experience in the field you will find it difficult to reach A2 level geography. It's not just about text books and theory, you need actual ability and personal experience. Just wanted to stress that it isn't as black and white as your comment suggested. :)

Critic,

I have to agree with bagpus that maths, particularly at A level hasn't changed much in the last ten years (probably much longer than that). Major changes in mathematics come along infrequently and usually effect only the higher spheres. The theory that A level students are learning now, is probably the same as they were being taught 10 years ago (although the methods of teaching it might have changed and the facilities they have - computers etc. have obviously changed).

As for geography - I really can't comment from any personal experience, not having studied geography to any great extent, but I really can't see that it would be a case of much more than remembering information. What exactly do you mean by practical experience?

Originally posted by EthicalEpi

You could say the same thing about mathematics ofcourse. As I was saying it depends upon the aptitude of the student in question. People who tend to lean towards the arts, in general aren't so good at left brain activities, and vice versa. Your average mathematics student is going to struggle with art or design in the same way that an art student might struggle with degree level maths. Not saying this is the case always as there are exceptions, but it's worth thinking about.


No you couldn't say the same about mathematics, generally someone who has an aptitude for maths is pretty good at most subjects, which all involve logic, reasoning, forming arguments to differing extents, on the other hand someone can be technically and creatively brillant when it comes to art, but that really has no bearing on wether they are going to be able to write great philopshy essays or not.

Originally posted by EthicalEpi

I think limiting the definition of intelligence to mathematics or science is unbelievably arrogant, particularly as those subjects at least at the level that we're talking about here involve largely a combination of memory and robotic reasoning and far less ability to think for oneself than say the study of philosophy, art or literature for example, at least at the levels that we're talking about here.


I am not limiting intelligence to maths or science, I am just saying that they are the hardest subjects to get a good grade in.

Originally posted by EthicalEpi

I'm merely widening the definition of intelligence to that which can't be measured in simple 'employer friendly' terms.


My definition of intelligence doesn't have anything to do with employers, it has to do with what the general understanding of the concept is, which is based upon someones ability to solve problems, use logic, reason, etc, wether someone is particularly creative with a paintbrush, bears about a much relevence to intelligence as my ability to be creative on the football pitch.

As for the maths software, again you are confusing me stating that certain subjects are more difficult than others, with me saying that only those subjects require intelligence.

Originally posted by EthicalEpi

I have to admit I'm surprised to hear you personally use that argument, because that would make you wrong about a great deal that I've seen you talk about in some of the other threads here (I'm not saying you are wrong btw - just trying to illustrate a point that reason isn't a democratic process).


Not really, everyone in the country could have the opposite opinion to the employers on the worthiness of maths and science, but in the case of A-levels virtually their sole purpose is to show employers and universities how bright or not a particular person is. Perhaps I didn't make my point very well, I wasn't infering that I had numbers on my side, I was infering that given the whole point of someone taking A-levels, when it comes to the worthiness of a particular subject the only view that matters is that of the employers. (and univerities)

Originally posted by EthicalEpi

Education should be about more than churning out work-ready robots to join the corporate/industrial machine, so I feel those more accademic subjects do have a very valid place in education and in the world in general (it would be a sad boring place without them).


I never said we should remove these subjects, just they are not as difficult. Also having swapped from english lit to geography after two months, I would question the supposed academic label you have given it, there was not that much thinking involved given we would go through the book in class and have a class discussion about what things meant, anothe example of the brightest giving the insights in class (along wih the teacher) and everyone else simply using those ideas in their essays.

To add I would also say that you evaluation of maths requiring simply robotic reasoning and memory is wrong, it requires understanding, the understanding of far more complex abstract concepts than you will find in any other other subject (physics / philosphy aside), which is precisely why so many people struggle with it, they don't understand exactly what or why they are doing and can barely follow the teacher let alone figure out what to do by themselves.

As for geography - I really can't comment from any personal experience, not having studied geography to any great extent, but I really can't see that it would be a case of much more than remembering information. What exactly do you mean by practical experience?

A few weeks spent doing hands on practical geography like river studies, mapping land topography, urban centre study, Geology, geographical systems and vegetation succession etc. I did all my practical study down in Devon. Without actually going out and doing it for real what you take into the exam room is limited. The marks which students in my geography group got were a good indicator of that. Pretty much across the board the students met their maximum potential for this area. This is also something that cannot be met through exams alone and if things like this and the student grading and coursework was intergrated in this way feel that the future generations would be brighter than through this proposed scheme.

Concerning Maths, well i can only go on what teachers that i know have commented on and friends who took the subject and or other AS/A2 level subjects; and how they said that the course structure and content was changed as well as the approach.

Critic,

If a 16 year old can pass the tests, they are bright and certainly able to go to more advanced studies, whether they are college or some trade school. Let them run with the skills they worked hard to develop. The B and C students will go to college at an average age and if they are lucky, will stick it out. Some don't. A girl I met last night after 4 years of Pre-Med isn't sure if she can handle 8 more years or even 2 more to become a nurse.

Then there are the dropouts and D and F students. In the U.S. we have a very high rate of inner city dropouts: these folks often become car thieves, welfare cases, drug dealers and prostitutes.
We have worked with these groups and find that by age 25 they are ready to go back to school or find some technical skills; the problem is many of the girls are pregnant or single moms by then and holding down a job, going to school and caring for a child is almost impossible. That is the basis for the KCK free PC labs for kids.

So...

On the subject of what courses should a child or teen or young adult learn, might I suggest you give them basic computer skills, from assembly to configuration, able to use applications and set up a basic network or website and if they are artistic, lean them towards graphic arts. If they are financially sharp and driven to form their own company, lean them towards running a website/business or accounting and business management. If they are introverted but not very artistic, lean them towards engineering (playing with inanimate objects) and arts such as software or network engineering, lab work, biotech etc. and if they are a 'caring' person, they can head for medical sciences, nursing or veterinary medicine etc. I don't think this is a 'forceful' approach as it allows each student to explore career paths based on an early foundation in com sci.

Com Sci skills open the door to jobs that pay reasonably close to a living wage. They open the door to learning new skills, such as video editing (TV/Broadcasting career), becoming a CPA or (uh), webhosting guru. By giving them a 'common demoninator' foundation (computer science) that is required in virtually all businesses, you give them the ability to find and maintain a job, explore various segments of businesses they are interested in.

We have taught kids as young as FIVE to assemble a PC. They are slow, make a lot of mistakes but hey, Mozart was doing concerts at that age so I think an early start can't hurt. I do think that in today's economy it should be made difficult for anyone to get a 4 year college degree if they can't operate excel (or equivilent) and a word processor since in between jobs as a 'guitar player', they just might find they need to fill in some work as a 'hotel desk clerk' where these skills can be utilized.

Buy them a screwdriver, throw them a broken down PC and some education on making it run and you have given them hope and when the thing actually works, you have given them self-esteem which is worth 100 times more than a degree. That is what we have found. How about you? What has your education in com sci done for your life and pocketbook? Would you (or do you) share some of that knowledge and good fortune with the less fortunate (or blindly stumbling) folks in your community? Just a thought.

Originally posted by Critic

By your logic someone who let's say has a degree in Maths or Astro Physics is more intelligent than someone who can speak 5 languages. To you i would say that they each have a purpose and if i was in a foreign country and in a sticky situation i would rather have my fluent speaker and not the person who can tell me the lenth of the knife he is pointing at me by using pythagoras therom just by looking at it.


Well you can certainly tell who is the logical one who studied maths here. ;) I never said people who took maths or sciences were any more intelligent than anyone else, I said it was harder to achieve good grades in those subjects, there is a difference you know. The only mention I've made in relation to intelligence is wether someone being good art bears any relation to intelligence.

Originally posted by Critic

My point is that intelligence can be measured in many ways and not just by the Maths and the sciences.


See the above answer.

Originally posted by Critic

Understood but still haven't said whether you think that forcing students to do something and what you said in that quote will get the best out of the student?


I don't care wether it gets the best out of the student, I am sure some student would peform best if they didn't have to sit maths or english GCSEs, unfortunately for them the country needs people with skills in those areas, I see no difference between forcing pupils to take a wider subject range at A-level (or Baceloreate system) to fufill the needs of the country and doing the same at GCSE level.

Originally posted by Critic

I beg to differ on the analogy, the penalty taker has one attemtp to win the tro-hy for his team, if he doesn't score, failure. If years of effort are settled by an exam, they have that one attempt, you can't make corrections to your answers once all is said and one and it has been collected in; if you slipped up, suffering a minor illness that affects your performance, misread a question which leads to you not having enough time to correct it before the time is up, revision wasn;'t up to scratch for that exam and so on. You are going to judge the individual based on a 90 minute test and not his performance in the years leading up to it or known ability or potential. That's just not how things should be done.


Fine then have several exams smaller exams and timed essays to take a percent just like coursework does now.

Originally posted by Critic

On the coursework issue, it appears we're just not going to get close to agreeing it even has a place in the educationsystem so i don't see a need in either of us firing blanks endlessly.


True, but it seems from your link those in charge also have a problem with coursework.

>> "The report will also say there should be less emphasis on coursework but will suggest an extended essay as part of the diploma" <<

Originally posted by Critic

When it comes to your comments on Ruud then i guess i am an idiot by your logic then but i think you knew i would say that. ;)


Well I was hoping you could be objective...

Originally posted by Critic

I would say that it has changed from what i've heard from those in the education sector. That really wasn't the point i was making, yoj're making wild assumptions about how the AS/A2 or AVCE level system works yet not having been through it or known anyone that has. A lot has heppened in 10 years and if you let school in the early 90s the you just won't know that.


Are my assumptions incorrect? Is all coursework now supervised and timed or am I correct in assuming you take it home? What other assumptions have I made, certainly none about the grades as they are all there for people to see, maybe you could inform me of any changes that actually bear any relevence to this thread.

Originally posted by Critic

It's not sixth form or University students that you will be effecting iwith these changes, it is the future generation and those that have finished school in recent years.


Yes and they will get a broader more personalised education with these changes.

Originally posted by Critic

On you second point that just sounds like a top down dictat and if you considered what the teachers had to say then you might not think the way that you do and not fob them off from your distant vantage point even though they will mot affected.


The whole country will be affected from an improved education system, nor can I see anything in your link to state that teachers are somehow against it, maybe you could point it out to me.

Originally posted by Critic

Your last sentence just shows more evidence of your flippent view of thousands and simply feel it is ok to cut them adrift. You overstate the evaluagion of University degrees in my view and it is only occuring in certain fields. Degree students will still find it relatively easy to get jobs but if the government pushes this through those with AVCE or AS/A2 qualifications without a degree will find it more difficult to get a job and those with them will find it more difficult to apply for courses at Uni.


People who go though AVCE will only find it more difficult to get a job, because of the vast number of people going to university now, not because the system is being changed.

If you can't see how so many people getting to university, only to come out and work in call centres or how such a high proportion of a-level students getting all A / B grades has not devalued the system, then you will never see it.

-------
No you couldn't say the same about mathematics, generally someone who has an aptitude for maths is pretty good at most subjects, which all involve logic, reasoning, forming arguments to differing extents, on the other hand someone can be technically and creatively brillant when it comes to art, but that really has no bearing on wether they are going to be able to write great philopshy essays or not.
---------

Yes I can say the same thing about mathematics. To put it in your original sentence:

"But mathematics is somewhat different to other subjects in that if you don't have some natural mathematical ability you are going to struggle"

That's what I meant by that.

You're essentially saying that someone who's good at mathematics, will be good at other left brain activities which is exactly my point.

Art, music, literature are equally important to humanity imho.

So why should science and mathematics be considered more worthy than the arts? Or is your argument that they are more worthy or important in the furtherence of capitalism? (though that too is debatable given the importance of the creative industries).


-------
am not limiting intelligence to maths or science, I am just saying that they are the hardest subjects to get a good grade in.
--------

Sorry. I must have misread what you were saying. My mistake.

Regarding difficulty, it really depends upon the individual. What's difficult for one can be easy for another.

For example: I had a friend at college who turned up half an hour late to an important maths exam, without a calculator, and to everyone's amazement he walked out 20 minutes before everyone else while we're still banging away on our calculators - yet achieved one of the top scores regardless. Maths to him came incredibly easy and always had. He had to put very little effort into it and always achieved great results.

He quite obviously had a mind that was more geared towards those sorts of activities, a talent if you will.

If you asked him if he found a-level maths difficult he would have laughed at you, and would have probably had difficulty understanding why you were finding it hard.

Ask him to write a poem, a story, or an analysis and critique of a shakespeare play and he mightn't fair so well. The rules to such endeavors wouldn't be so formalised you see.

You mention students on TV being honest that the reason they didn't take maths or sciences was because they would find it more difficult to achieve higher grades. If you had asked my friend the same question about why he didn't take art, or literature he might have given you the same answer. Does that therefor, following your logic, mean that art or literature is more difficult than maths or science?

Or are they merely different?

Are they harder because a greater number of people find them harder, or are there simply a greater number of people who have other strengths?

Perhaps you're right and they are simply lowering the standards but bearing in mind the cost of education, and the cost to industry of letting out vast numbers of qualified but not very bright people into important jobs, I would doubt (and sincerely hope) that wasn't the case.

---------
My definition of intelligence doesn't have anything to do with employers, it has to do with what the general understanding of the concept is, which is based upon someones ability to solve problems, use logic, reason, etc, wether someone is particularly creative with a paintbrush, bears about a much relevence to intelligence as my ability to be creative on the football pitch.
----------

I see what you're getting at, though I you'll probably find that studing art (particularly at degree level) involves a lot more than ability with a paintbrush.


---------
As for the maths software, again you are confusing me stating that certain subjects are more difficult than others, with me saying that only those subjects require intelligence.
---------

Yes, point taken.

---------
I wasn't infering that I had numbers on my side, I was infering that given the whole point of someone taking A-levels, when it comes to the worthiness of a particular subject the only view that matters is that of the employers. (and univerities)
---------------

Sorry. That was the way that seemed.

I disagree that the worthiness of a subject should be dictated solely by employers however. I feel that education should be about more than churning out workers (though that's sadly how its largely viewed now unfortunately).


-----------
I never said we should remove these subjects, just they are not as difficult.
-----------

It feel it depends upon the aptitude of the individual. See above.


-------
we would go through the book in class and have a class discussion about what things meant, anothe example of the brightest giving the insights in class (along wih the teacher) and everyone else simply using those ideas in their essays.
--------

Ahh... I see what you're getting at. That scenareo would be far less likely in a math class as you would actually have had to have grasped the subject personally to get anywhere. You couldn't simply apropriate the ideas of the brightest student without fully understanding them.


--------
To add I would also say that you evaluation of maths requiring simply robotic reasoning and memory is wrong, it requires understanding, the understanding of far more complex abstract concepts than you will find in any other other subject (physics / philosphy aside), which is precisely why so many people struggle with it, they don't understand exactly what or why they are doing and can barely follow the teacher let alone figure out what to do by themselves.
--------

Yes, I admit I didn't put that very well and it probably sounded a bit harsh, and quite patronising to mathematicians. I'm very sorry about that. I guess what I was trying to get across is that at a-level or degree level, mathematics is largely about understanding and following rules that have been laid down by others. The rules aren't so formulated in some of the subjects that you consider less worthy, so there is more scope for invention and personal input even at those lower levels (something many people who are comfortable with logic and learning fixed and definite rules might have trouble with).

Well you can certainly tell who is the logical one who studied maths here. I never said people who took maths or sciences were any more intelligent than anyone else, I said it was harder to achieve good grades in those subjects, there is a difference you know. The only mention I've made in relation to intelligence is wether someone being good art bears any relation to intelligence.

I think i'll ignore your first sentence :disagree:. Ok i might have taken something from what you have said which wasn't entirely there, took it a bit too far and for that i have to concede. However my example still i feel backs up my statement that your reference regarding the difficulty of a particular subject is relative; granted when people think academic subjects in the general meaning of the word Maths and the sciences will be up there but i stand by what i said about comparing the subjects.

I don't care wether it gets the best out of the student, I am sure some student would peform best if they didn't have to sit maths or english GCSEs, unfortunately for them the country needs people with skills in those areas, I see no difference between forcing pupils to take a wider subject range at A-level (or Baceloreate system) to fufill the needs of the country and doing the same at GCSE level.

Most people i know did at least 10 or 11 GCSEs, how wider do you think you can make that?

When it comes to AS/A2 Levels or AVCEs then i can't see how many subjects you're gonna be able to fit in. Most people i know went from 4-3 subjects for the A2 year due to workload so that they could achieve their potential and put in the maximum effort for the subjects that they felt counted.

I can't see how you are going to put in more subjects at both levels unless you're going to be teaching them at Key Stage 2-3 level and depth throughout which would be stupid.

Fine then have several exams smaller exams and timed essays to take a percent just like coursework does now.


I'll refer you to my post immediately before this where i explain the benefits of not just simple exam judgement and grading and why i see a place for coursework. Personally i think that the attainment of knowledge is greater than through a simple exam based course.

True, but it seems from your link those in charge also have a problem with coursework.

>> "The report will also say there should be less emphasis on coursework but will suggest an extended essay as part of the diploma" <<


Yes well it won't be the first nor the last time that i disagree with policy made by this Labour government.

Well I was hoping you could be objective...


I was being objective, for one look at the goals per game ratio in theor respective careers at the two clubs.

Are my assumptions incorrect? Is all coursework now supervised and timed or am I correct in assuming you take it home? What other assumptions have I made, certainly none about the grades as they are all there for people to see, maybe you could inform me of any changes that actually bear any relevence to this thread.

You are right on those points i cannot argue but the assumption that coursework is to blame for the quality of our school leavers and that it allows less bright students to achieve the same as others more capable is inaccurate to me. When it comes to grades coursework as we've discussed is normally worth around 25% of the grade at the present time so there is more to it than that and i've told you many times that i thnk the grading structure and boundaries are where we should look but you don't agree there so....

Other changes? Well ther is subject matter, course structure, teaching approach, the amount of coursework and exam representation and UCAS points/Grade structure.

Yes and they will get a broader more personalised education with these changes.

That is a matter of opinion.

The whole country will be affected from an improved education system, nor can I see anything in your link to state that teachers are somehow against it, maybe you could point it out to me.


It isn't in the original article, it is a primary source; NUT representatives were on National radio on Saturday, they were opposed then and that was only 48 hours ago and then there wer the 5 or so students who contributed and dozens of teachers from all over the country who thought it was a bad idea.

I will however attemtp at some point later today to try and find a secondary source.

People who go though AVCE will only find it more difficult to get a job, because of the vast number of people going to university now, not because the system is being changed.

If you can't see how so many people getting to university, only to come out and work in call centres or how such a high proportion of a-level students getting all A / B grades has not devalued the system, then you will never see it.

Concerning AVCE students, say you have that qualification and you go to an employer after/if this proposal goes live. The employer will now know that the government an through them thatthe education system view courseworkas an irrelevance; you have infront of you someone whose grades are achieved through mainly just that, do you not see how in the eyes of the employer they could be devalued if the gov went with this?

I never said that in some areas degrees are being devalued but i felt you overstated it; you also have to take into account the sizable percentage of students who don't graduate as they quit or failed. So in my view the determined and better students are still seeing it through until the end and receive the end product it deserves.

Critic,

Originally posted by Critic
Most people i know did at least 10 or 11 GCSEs, how wider do you think you can make that?

I can't see how you are going to put in more subjects at both levels unless you're going to be teaching them at Key Stage 2-3 level and depth throughout which would be stupid.


On GCSEs, I should of stated in terms of depth I was refering to A-levels not GCSEs, my fault.

The depth of A-levels is already stupid, studying A-levels is the most pointless educational experience you will ever undertake, the vast majority of what you learn will never be used again except to answer questions on quiz shows. Take maths as an example the only maths that most people use throughout most of their lives is arithmatic, basic statistics, maybe geometry and maybe trigonometry, all of which are taught at primary and secondary school, most people will never need to know about intergration, differentiation, real numbers and so on. Okay so what about engineers and mathmaticians surely they use maths, yeah and they taught everything they need to know at university, including being taught the entire A-level maths syllabus in the first few months at uni, A-levels are primarily there for one reason only, so employers and universties can differentiate between students, something which the system is failing at currently.


Originally posted by Critic

I'll refer you to my post immediately before this where i explain the benefits of not just simple exam judgement and grading and why i see a place for coursework. Personally i think that the attainment of knowledge is greater than through a simple exam based course.


You explain the benefit of field work, field work is fine, people can learn from it, they should just be tested under controlled conditions where they can't get help from parents, friends, study guides and the internet.

In fact the field work should highlight why Maths and Physics are difficult, carrying out field work in geography helps people to understand, in maths trying to relate how doing something weird with a bunch of numbers to a segment of a curve in three dimensions cannot be aided by any fieldwork.

As for attainment of knowledge, see my above answer in relation to A-levels and knowledge.

Originally posted by Critic

I was being objective, for one look at the goals per game ratio in theor respective careers at the two clubs.


And I expect in goals per chances Owen has a better ratio than both of them, but he is clearly not the best player, Henry is the quickest, most creative, has more assists, scores plenty and as shown by the voting for European player of the year is clearly the prefered choice of the experts (and he is even the choice of many ex-Man Utd players and managers, who appear to be a little more objective than you).

Originally posted by Critic

that coursework is to blame for the quality of our school leavers and that it allows less bright students to achieve the same as others more capable is inaccurate to me.


So let me get this right you don't think some students get a higher mark for an essay by using the internet, study guides, their parents and spending many, many hours on it, than they would if they were made to write the same essay in a classroom under controlled conditions?

Originally posted by Critic
Concerning AVCE students, say you have that qualification and you go to an employer after/if this proposal goes live. The employer will now know that the government an through them thatthe education system view courseworkas an irrelevance; you have infront of you someone whose grades are achieved through mainly just that, do you not see how in the eyes of the employer they could be devalued if the gov went with this?


And do you not see that one of the major reasons these changes are being brought about is because employers already view the system as devalued with such a high proportion of students attaining high grades.

ok first off university is not 'hard enough' at 18 (i moved outtahome at 16 and put myself thru colege so it was pretty much like uni but with a full schedule unlike uni, so its more then possible), its a walk in the palk your first year. "nd year is a little tougher but thats it.
As for scrapping a2 and as levels, having had a foot in both doors and done as and a levels proper, i reckon they should go back to old style a levels and o levels. GCSE's should go complete as should these a2 and as larks. They were brought in as a smokescreen to reduce the requirements and make them easier. My as was far easier then my first years of any of my a levels and looking back on my dads a level in chemistry he covered far more topics then i ever did in my a level in chemisty some 20 years later. Theres been a constant decline in standards which periodic jumps in decline with the introduction of new systems. Looking now comparing my computing a level to a friends a2 computing work, we did more complex programming and database work. we had two major projects, one coding and one database, not a basic spreadsheet project anyone with a clue how to press f1 could do. They seriously need to scrap the current mess and introduce some harder testing or face having their qualifications a laughing stock.
Each year we get a higher average grade, wow i wonder why, because each year the damn work gets easier. Seriously compare a parents school work in a subject like say maths to one of their kids, we started alegbra in yr 9, my father in o levels did it in yr 7. The govt push down standards to push up results and make themselves look better. If I was sitting the same standard of qualifications as my father or mother (both with at least one first class honours degree each, in my mothers case two, which is something i didnt manage to get just for comparisson, they are both brighter then i am) then how come they struggled with 3 \ 4 a levels and yet i could comfortably put myself thru college while working AND do 5 a levels and an as for fun and frolliks? because the standards have got way too each.
I went for a job interview I guess about 8 months ago to somewhere I had worked previously, and got chatting afterwards to the interviewer who was my old boss, and we were talking about how they looked at qualifications, and he said basically they ignore gcse's unless theyre grade b or below in which case they dismiss the student, they consider old o levels to be comparable to current a2 levels and recent a levels. This being based upon how he sees people he hires working. Industry doesnt seem to have much respect for current qualifications.

bagpuss, you kinda missed the point on a levels, they were supposed to do a coupe of things, one is prime you for your degree by giving you a nmore in depth view of your chosen subjects, I dont know what courses you did but mine helped plenty in my degree and in work. Secondly they WERE supposed to be a benchmark, they were always supposed to be the hardest stage of your academic career. Hrder then degrees and harder then gcse's in the level of effort you had to put in. They were there to weed out those unsuiible for degrees etc, now theyre just there to suit labours demands to get everybody into university whether it suiits them or not.
Im all for having vocational qualifcations and two tier system like say germany i believe with technical and academic schools, id love to see grammar schools brought back as well. We definately need a change in the current system, as long as its not an excuse to lower standards yet again.

ok first off university is not 'hard enough' at 18 (i moved outtahome at 16 and put myself thru colege so it was pretty much like uni but with a full schedule unlike uni, so its more then possible), its a walk in the palk your first year. "nd year is a little tougher but thats it.

"put myself thru colege so it was pretty much like uni"

At 16 when I did my alevels in college it was nothing like uni, I had a full schedule as well, but the work was so much easier to do compared to uni.

I agree the first year is easy at uni but thats because they are taking in people with different backgrounds and skills and want to bring everyone to the same level. It doesnt count towards your degree anyway.

Second year is a lot harder I found with more work... I had roughly 20 hours a week of set lectures, but with the amount of coursework to do, plus having exams for 10/12 modules it means there is a lot to remember. Maybe you did an easy course at a crap uni, but it is definetly a lot more work than college and I do not know many 16 year olds who are mature enough to cope with it.

In the final year you also have do a major project on your own, it takes a lot of motivation to actually bother as there is no one there to push you to work like in school.

Originally posted by richy
bagpuss, you kinda missed the point on a levels, they were supposed to do a coupe of things, one is prime you for your degree by giving you a nmore in depth view of your chosen subjects, I dont know what courses you did but mine helped plenty in my degree and in work.


I think that rather depends on what degree course you do, medicine is a very obvious example which requires people to be primed by taking chemistry and biology, but degrees like medicine are in th minority. Many degree courses such as law, politics, economics, media studies, accountancy and so on take in people who have a-levels in many differing subjects, they then spend the first few months taking things vey easy bringing eveyone up to speed, it is really of very little value being primed for law or economics when you then have to sit there being taught the same stuff again.

Originally posted by richy

Secondly they WERE supposed to be a benchmark, they were always supposed to be the hardest stage of your academic career. Hrder then degrees and harder then gcse's in the level of effort you had to put in. They were there to weed out those unsuiible for degrees etc, now theyre just there to suit labours demands to get everybody into university whether it suiits them or not.


Which is the point I've been making all along, the standards are now so much easier to achieve they no longer provide an effective benchmark.

I took very practical courses so my view is probably biased, but chemistry biology biology s level stats and computing were all very useful in later studies and in work.

Steve if you had been living away from home, been working and facing the full 9-5 every day then yes it would have been like university tbh, i noticed first yr was a little easier then my 2nd yr at college, well a lot easier, 2nd year was a lot harder and 3rd year despite a lot of bad luck (uni chucked me out for 3 months for not paying my fees which i had exemption from paying because they lost my paperwork repeatedly:)) was easier then 2nd yr. £rd yr does require motivation but the bulk of your learning is in 2nd yr. I think theres a number of kids that would benefit from uni at 16 yrs old, admittedly not many but the potential is there and shouldnt be denied.

They certainly have to make the damn exams harder, if halfwits like me can pass em somethings wrong:)

So let me get this right you don't think some students get a higher mark for an essay by using the internet, study guides, their parents and spending many, many hours on it, than they would if they were made to write the same essay in a classroom under controlled conditions?

I am not saying it does't happen or people don't try but in my personal experience and of course that isn't the entire nation the ones who got caught copying or if it didn't look like it came from them personally were told to either do it again and still meet the deadline if that was ossible or failed that module. The teacher went through them [the coursework] with a fine tooth comb comparing to alternate sources and the ones who tried it diddn't succeed.

When it comes to the hours put into the work, well as i said it isn't a simple essay anymore, i'd like to see you write 6-15 thousand words with graphs and tables and flow charts and diagrams in a few hours. That is what it took just to meet the criteria of the work being finished.

You talk about study guides, well would you rather that there were no revision guides too?

Critic,

id rather all books were open book exams but a damn sight harder. Then youd weed out the kids who get good grades based on a good memory rather then based upon actual comprehension. Theres too many kids with grades that just reflect their memory rather then their actual cognitive power.
Ive yet to have a job where when faced with a problem my boss turns round and says no you cant read the manual you should have memorised it.