Anual rise in gratuitous media photos of schoolgirls...

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by MrPVRd, Aug 25, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. ...oops I mean in GCSE passes. The Torygraph is the worst offender for printing photos of 16 year old girlies (18 for A levels) hugging each other and their staff must be composed of leering old perverts with very dodgy Japanese-style fetishes :twisted:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4182006.stm

    So, are GCSEs now being given away with cereal packets? Or do we have an uber-generation of geniuses? 8O

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4182006.stm

     
  2. Another good reason to buy it, and Liz Hurley isn't always available to provide the "thinking man's Page 3"!
     
  3. Sorry, this was the best I could do!

    [​IMG]
     
  4. The children aren't getting any thicker or brainier, well not in any great jumps from year to year at any rate.

    Obviously if you compare a child from today, with a 1970s child there will be differences, although not neccesarily intelligence.

    The problem is with our target obsessed government for them to be seen to educate the kids they must ALL get As.

    So the standards and/or results are slightly "massaged" each year. Lets face it they "massage" all other results, just have a look at the "Waiting for Telic medal thread".

    Why do we need an A*? Wasn't there talk of an A**?

    It's a simple concept. The vast majority of kids should be getting C's and D's. (pefrably the higher one) The real brainiacs should get As and the slightly less poindextors should get Bs. It is not degrading achieve a C is it? I didn't think so, I got Bs and Cs and an E in French!!!(If I have to talk to a Frenchy I just use CLAP!!!)

    There are a few cases arising where kids that should be able to launch straight in to a higher course (A level or Degree) haven't quite got the skill base although they do have the grade.

    But with people going round saying it should be called "deferred success" not failure (although I do sort of see where she is coming from) what will happen?

    My Mum came out with a classic, I wouldn't think she is of the progressive libral sort, but she said that it was "demeaning to a child to fail an exam" this was a few months prior to the "deferred success" thing. After she had attended a few courses. I would say yes it is, but it is also character building.

    If this sort of thinking is driving the Education system, what will happen?
     
  5. No but the sixth form lovelies are getting more lip-smackingly gorgeous year on year. If it wasn't for these "gratuitous" shots being liberally interspersed with pictures of Ruth "Dave" Kelly I would not be able to leave myself alone of a morning!!

    Education secretaries appear to be getting uglier, in direct proportional relation to the improvement in results..discuss?
     
  6. I was amused when listening to the radio recently when the subject changed to exam results and the lowering of standards.

    As usual they had a whole host of gas bags on justifying all the A*s etc that kids were getting, and then some fairly sensible folk who put across the point that if the aim of the exam was for everyone to pass, why didn't they just give them out at birth! :D

    Anyway, the comment that made me laugh/cry the most was along these lines

    This shows an inherent mis-understanding of the issue at hand.

    Athletes can break records because they are competing against each other, that is to say a group of highly trained and elite individuals. Therefore, they are effectively increasing the gap in performance between themselves and society as a whole.

    In contrast, exam results on average (that is to say the median of the population, not an elite or specialist group) have continued to increase, meaning that on average every single person is slightly higher up the results scale.; Therefore the group as a whole has moved up the scale, meaning that those with exam results (using the same scale as previous years) judged to be better than previous years, are actually on the same intellectual level.

    The best way to judge it would be to take an annual average score for each subject, then the next year compare it to last years average score and then give them a result that reflects their perfromance compared to the national average. A would be the top 20%, B 20-40% , C 40-60%, D 60-80 and E would be the complete clots! :D

    Simple really but not likely to be used as they would label it discriminatory and devisive (ie it sorts the wheat from the chaff!)

    Agent smith
     
  7. I say bring back the house systems (didn't bliar send his kids to a school with a house system while disassembling the system in non-private schools?)

    And bring back the old sets.

    My school had an official set system. Specifically Maths groups 1 - 6. The classes weren't officially grouped but, let's put it this way, the kids in class D and A were only barely capable of walking and breathing at the same time and L and C were a right bunch of spotters.

    And it seemed to have worked well.

    Now adays this would be seen as competitive and devisive.

    If it helps the kids that can do better do more, and helps the kids who need help just turning Oxygen in to Carbon Dioxide by moving at their pace.
     
  8. There is a bit in that article that has me puzzled?

    So the actual grade you get is open to an appeal process or something?

    Oh and the fact that Mz Yan can manage to self teach herself enough LAW in one month to pass seems to say something about the level of knowledge required. Either that or she is a 'kin genius..

    As you may have guessed I have the square root of Fückall A levels.
     
  9. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4162816.stm

    Three brains each?
    Obviously not related to John Prescott!
     
  10. In relation to your question about appeals, students sit a number of tests throughout their academic year. They achieve what is termed an expected result. Should their exam result turn out to be way below the expected, they have the right to appeal and ask to have their expected result taken into consideration.

    I think the system was developed to accomodate the clever (and not so clever) ones who brick it in the exam.

    I can understand the reasons behin it but it's not exactly reasuring now is it? Imagine the following analogy

    A world class athlete does well all year in preperation for the olympic games and makes his way to the finals of his event. He then proceeds to have an absolute arrse of a race/game. Would it be in the spirit of things to grant him an appeal, where his years performance was taken into consideration? Me thinks not!

    Well i suppose, we are now the country of appeals thanks to the blairs. :roll:
     
  11. But perhaps, crossing the floor of the Commons, to David 'Two Brains' Willetts?

    As for whoever said that Education Secretaries are becoming proportionally less attractive...

    1997-2001: David Blunkett
    2001-2002: Estelle Morris
    2002-2004: Charles Clarke
    2004-present: Ruth Kelly

    Quite frankly, they're all hideous.

    [edit]As for appeals etc, it's not just for people who brick it in the exam. The exam boards have a habit of seriously arrsing results up (like the scandal in 2001 (?) over it - still goes on, just doesn't make the papers). When papers get sent for a re-mark, they can go up 30 or 40 marks out of 100.

    smithie
     
  12. The ability to memorize 'Facts' is one thing.
    How many 'Clever' folk have the practical ability to employ these 'Facts' ?
    john
     
  13. Are the exam results not done to a normal distribution? As in only a % percentage of A's, B's etc?

    From what I know of education here in paddyland, if a region has too many A's, then the exams have to be remarked until the correct numbers are in.
     
  14. Bombard,

    Think the answer is partly here - http://www.qca.org.uk/12812_12922.html Scroll down and you'll find a para on setting the grade boundaries. The page seems to have been written by someone who wins the award for 'adopting the most patronising tone on a webpage'.

    As I recall (from some years ago), the 'X per cent get grade A, Y per cent grade B...' approach came in for much criticism for being unfair. It could mean that standards varied from year to year, potentially disadvantaging students who scored higher marks than their predecessors yet who recieved a lower grade. This became relevant as more gap-years were taken - someone applying for University after a gap year might have scored, say, 65% and been awarded an A. Next year, 68% might have been needed to gain an A because a higher number of students scored that mark, thus pushing the grade boundary up. Someone getting 66% in the second year could, therefore, lose out in a university application, while the student who scored fewer marks the year before didn't, since their fewer marks got a higher grade. There was also much fuss about the idea that someone at the lower end of the grade scale could be downgraded simply because the numbers were out. I'm not quite sure what the outcome was, though.

    Since the percentage of students gaining grade A at GCSE has gone up year on year, though, it would appear that the approach you outlined has been dropped.