| Re: This is for RF and anyone else who thinks the UK's education system is so brilliant |
University of Cambridge, .. |
| Alun Harford (alunharford@yahoo.com) |
2004/02/17 09:54 |
"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
news:c0t899$9je$0@pita.alt.net...
> Look what a mess they've made of it.
>
> They're trying to stop kids from being allowed to take a lot of gcses now.
No. An individual has recommended it in a report.
BIG difference.
>
> When I was a kid it was O levels, and I got thirteen, and one thing you
can
> say is it enables you to get very broad in your basic education before
> starting to specialise, and now they are against that.
No it didn't. It gave you very broad schooling.
> I guess British kids
> are gonna get dumber and dumber until they won't have the ability required
> to clean a toilet.
Have you seen toilets in student houses?
We're already there. :-)
> Exams fail generation of pupils
> Tuesday February 17, 2004
> The Guardian
>
> The secondary school examination and assessment system is so flawed that
> even high-achievers with strings of top-grade GCSEs are leaving school
with
> poor basic skills in numeracy and literacy,
That's because numeracy and literacy are not taught.
> This morning he will unveil sweeping changes to secondary school exams
under
> which a new"diploma" framework may eventually replace GCSEs, A-levels and
> other qualifications for the 14-19 age group.
Oh great - yet another crap scheme that'll change a year later. Fortunately,
IT'S JUST A REPORT BY ONE MAN.
>
> Crucially, all will be required to study a "core" of English,
Already required in almost all cases.
> maths
Well other than the fact that nobody ever studies much of that before
university level, 'numerical trivia' is already done at GCSE.
And I don't see them introducing real Maths before the second year of a
F.Maths A-Level.
> and
> information and communication technology,
Very few teachers have the skills required to teach ICT.
And why do I get the feeling that this will basically mean 'Microsoft'?
The man's a moron.
> likely to be set at a higher
> standard than today's GCSE.
Depends on what 'standard' is used - this will probably mean that they'll
decide on things like "students may not use calculators" (Make the exam
completely pointless as any real counting is done on a computer - but at
least it means it's easy to come up with rubbish questions)
The man's a moron.
> Mr Tomlinson hopes it will go a considerable way
> towards meeting the widespread concern about poor skills.
Is this education or politics? I suspect the latter.
> "If accepted, it will have a huge impact on our education system. That
> weighs heavy because it must be right. It has to be implemented in a
> planned, systematic way," he says.
It has to be rejected by parliament. Fortunately, I suspect it will be.
> Students needed to be set greater challenges in the exam system. "We talk
> about challenge at A-level but for many young people there isn't much of a
> challenge presented by GCSE."
Not much challange at A-level either.
> The assumption had always been that poor literacy and numeracy were
> associated with poor achievement.
Who on earth made that assumption? How many doctors have great handwriting?
How many mathematicians are good at numeracy?
> "What we have found is that this is not the case. It isn't that young
people
> at university are not able to do this - it's not been an integral part of
> their programme and it's not been encouraged and supported by the way in
> which they are assessed.
No university particularly wants numeracy. The ability to think - now THAT'S
a different matter.
> "It's not their fault, nor is it the fault of their teachers."
Yeah - blame no-one.
Political report.
> Even pupils with GCSE and A-level maths were having to take remedial
classes
> once they arrived at university.
Well isn't that a supprise! It's always been that way.
I have 'remedial' classes in Maths at Cambridge (and how many A-level
students are happy with vector calculus in n dimensions?) We're expected to
have done at least 2 A-levels in Maths - it's just that A-Level Maths isn't
Maths and never has been.
> Mr Tomlinson says he is "quite convinced" that GCSEs in maths and English
> language should not be seen as substitutes for basic numeracy and
literacy.
Well good for him.
But what's the point of numeracy? Seriously - in these days who cares, leave
it to a computer processor.
(And while I'm at it what's the point of GCSE Maths?)
> "As the syllabus has developed and the assessment methods have developed,
> it's very difficult to say with assurance that someone getting a
particular
> grade in those subjects has those basic skills at the level required."
That's because GCSE Maths isn't meant to test numeracy.
Nor is GCSE English meant to test literacy.
> An important element in Mr Tomlinson's report is that students will be
> offered the choice of taking a "specialised" diploma focusing on arts or
> sciences or a more general "open"one.
Ah - so now students have to decide what they're giong to study before they
even reach A-Level. I know quite a few people who took science, humanity and
arts A-levels.
>
> Those choosing the science diploma would be required to take an
appropriate
> maths course as well as basic maths.
Well I suppose that would be a good idea as long as it was remotely useful.
> replace discredited coursework, in which there is currently much
> scope for plagiarism.
Don't forget that marking is random at best!
I think they should roll dice to determine marks - it's a fairer system (and
before anybody thinks I may be bitter I should point out that I was at least
reasonably lucky)
Alun Harford
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 |
|
|