• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Exam Grades not comparable to 50 years ago

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by SueEllen View Post
    Not the kids fault.
    Indeed, they can only sit what has been set

    Originally posted by BrilloPad View Post
    Does it have to be the fault of someone?
    Yes, those that set the curriculum, teach it and set the exams

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by gables View Post
      Yes, those that set the curriculum, teach it and set the exams
      Not even those. It's higher up than that.

      Wanting a system where everyone is at least of a certain standard is all well and good but some kids are just plain thick and you also stifle the elite by concentrating on making sure that your F and U grade students get up to an E or D. 100 IQ is the average for a reason. For all the bright people out there, there has to be a bell-curve distribution of people balancing them out. Others may simply not have the aptitude for exams.

      We're crying out for skilled tradespeople but Bliar and Brown insisted that a high percentage should go to uni. On balance, the Tories upgraded polytechnics to universities, diluting the quality of graduates by default. While some employers may recognise the traditional red bricks, others just see a graduate then moan that Dave and his two E grade A-levels in media and sports science isn't up to the job.

      We're sorting people later in life, at which point we've already invested too much money in their failed education when they could already have been showing promise as an apprentice. You shouldn't be allowed to college without 5 A-Cs; YTS should be re-introduced for those who are ambitious but not as smart to give the a vocational qualification of some sort.
      The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't exist

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by LondonManc View Post
        Not even those. It's higher up than that.

        Wanting a system where everyone is at least of a certain standard is all well and good but some kids are just plain thick and you also stifle the elite by concentrating on making sure that your F and U grade students get up to an E or D. 100 IQ is the average for a reason. For all the bright people out there, there has to be a bell-curve distribution of people balancing them out. Others may simply not have the aptitude for exams.

        We're crying out for skilled tradespeople but Bliar and Brown insisted that a high percentage should go to uni. On balance, the Tories upgraded polytechnics to universities, diluting the quality of graduates by default. While some employers may recognise the traditional red bricks, others just see a graduate then moan that Dave and his two E grade A-levels in media and sports science isn't up to the job.

        We're sorting people later in life, at which point we've already invested too much money in their failed education when they could already have been showing promise as an apprentice. You shouldn't be allowed to college without 5 A-Cs; YTS should be re-introduced for those who are ambitious but not as smart to give the a vocational qualification of some sort.
        Way better said than I could, I'll admit my answer was lazy.

        Comment

        Working...
        X