So what is this ACTUALLY teaching them?

[Llamaman]

Cambridge regularly makes E grade offers if you're on a scholarship.

 

[Steve Smith]

Something similar happened with the mathematics part of the Access course my son has just finished at college.

The questions were way above the level being taught and subsequently, the grades were low. Even the lecturer struggled to answer a lot of them.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

The whole system is cocked up

My friends son has been offered courses at 2 universites even if he only gets E grades

That's not what university is about, that's we want your £9,000

I was offered a place if only got two E grades back in 1983 so it's nothing new. The difference is, it would have been the government's money they were after then, not mine.


Steve.

 

[ghoti]

They get given a list of formulae, really? We had to learn them as well. As for the questions, it's been 36yrs since I did any maths like that, never needed to use anything like it since neither and I've worked in mechanical engineering for that 36yrs.

The difficult question involved calculus (quite basic calculus). Calculus is extremely important in engineering and a huge amount of modern technology. I don't know the specifics of your work in "mechanical engineering" but you would need calculus to work out things like friction forces across complex surfaces when designing mechanical systems with moving parts. Engineering undergrads will be have calculus hammered into them from early on, for good reason.

 

[ghoti]

The confusion and displeasure over there being a pass mark of 34% can be resolved by understanding that the vast majority of examining bodies use curved grading.
This is done because we know that the distribution of ability or intelligence in a population doesn't change much from year to year. However, the quality of teaching and the quality of exams may change.
So saying an "A" means you get 80% of the questions right (for example) is stupid because some years this may be easier to achieve than in other years. It tells you very little about what the ability of the student actually is relative to the population. So, instead, you define an A as, for example, the range of scores where you find the top 10% of performers. This might be 95% or higher on an easy test. It might be 50% or higher on a difficult test. It doesn't matter. It still says "this person is in the top 10%". Much more useful than setting an arbitrary pass mark for an A.

So the reason the pass mark for the exam is 34% will be because the 34-100% range is where the top 50% of pupils scored. Pretty simple and sensible, really.

 

[Cobra]

Well it worked perfectly well many years ago when the pass mark was 60% ( I think)
You either attained the required standard and passed or you didn't.

There was no goal post shifting because, 70% of the class only got 35% ( for example).

 

[ghoti]

Well it worked perfectly well many years ago when the pass mark was 60% ( I think)
You either attained the required standard and passed or you didn't.

There was no goal post shifting because, 70% of the class only got 35% ( for example).

But that's a really silly way to do things. That's why it was changed.
What does an arbitrary pass mark of 60% actually tell you? Think about it.

It tells you nothing or very little about anyone's ability. Unless you set exactly the same test every year (which is plainly a bad idea).

If you grade on a curve it tells you the ability of people relative to the population. Which is actually the thing you want to measure when you set examinations.

 

[Cobra]

What does an arbitrary pass mark of 60% actually tell you? Think about it.

That that class had been taught to the required standard, did their homework and didn't go bitching to their MP / face book mates / their next door neighbour because they failed.

The teachers know the syllabus, and teach the class to the required standard, for that years exam paper.
It can't be the same every year, as they older students will give the next generation the answers.
TBH though they might just as well the way things are going!

 

[simon ess]

The teachers know the syllabus, and teach the class to the required standard, for that years exam paper.

So, to some extent, you would also be assessing the teachers and the exam setters.

I took O levels in 1974 and they were graded in the way ghoti has outlined.

 

[Cobra]

So, to some extent, you would also be assessing the teachers and the exam setters.

I'm a little older than you, going on that and I'm pretty sure that the teachers and examiners were also assessed, yes.
But that really wasn't the point, pupils are taught "what they need to know" if they are too lazy to work / study then so be it,
they fail.

 

[ghoti]

That that class had been taught to the required standard, did their homework and didn't go bitching to their MP / face book mates / their next door neighbour because they failed.

The teachers know the syllabus, and teach the class to the required standard, for that years exam paper.
It can't be the same every year, as they older students will give the next generation the answers.
TBH though they might just as well the way things are going!

But the papers are set by humans, not by some omniscient deity. The difficulty will invariably and naturally change from year to year. There's no way to set two different exams of exactly the same difficulty. Especially when they involve solving complex problems (like in maths or science) or involve a degree of subjectivity (like in English or creative arts).

If you set an arbitrary pass mark (say, 60%) then what happens is you get situations where individuals will fail when someone of comparable ability passed the year before; due to the latter test being more difficult. With curved grading, pupils of comparable ability will walk away with similar grades regardless of the difficulty of the exam. I struggle to understand why anyone wouldn't find that entirely sensible.

And the pass mark isn't altered because "people moan" about failing. The pass mark is set before the results are given. The examiners will look at the spread of scores, the top 10% of students will get an 'A' (be that a score of 95%+ or 65%+ or anything else) the next 10% a 'B' - that's how the cut-off scores are established.

 

[Cobra]

But the papers are set by humans, not by some omniscient deity. The difficulty will invariably and naturally change from year to year. There's no way to set two different exams of exactly the same difficulty. Especially when they involve solving complex problems (like in maths or science) or involve a degree of subjectivity (like in English or creative arts).

But you can set the same equation, you just alter the numbers / letters.

Dissecting a frog is no different from dissecting a bird, most of the bits are the same just a few variations on theme.

 

[ghoti]

But you can set the same equation, you just alter the numbers / letters.

That would make for an absolutely terrible exam and a terrible education! I don't know when you sat exams but these days you don't just have some numbers to stick into an equation, turn the handle and out pops the answer!
You actually have to apply that knowledge to solve problems. These days, we expect students to be able to make conceptual leaps. We expect students to demonstrate that they understand the things they are learning, and haven't just absorbed them by rote so they can regurgitate them like a parrot.

 

[Cobra]

You actually have to apply that knowledge to solve problems.

We expect students to demonstrate that they understand the things they are learning,

That's exactly my point,(s) you don't have to use the same equation over and over to get standardisation.

 

[ghoti]

That's exactly my point,(s) you don't have to use the same equation over and over to get standardisation.

But you seem to think you can just "swap the numbers" around and get a decent test. You can't. It would be a terrible way to educate people.

You can either have bad exams, supported by rote learning, where there is standardisation. Or you can have good exams, supported by conceptual learning, where difficulty will always naturally and unpredictably vary.

 

[Cobra]

But you seem to think you can just "swap the numbers" around and get a decent test. You can't. It would be a terrible way to educate people.

Well either the questions are a variation on a theme or they are exactly the same every year

 

[ghoti]

Well either the questions are a variation on a theme or they are exactly the same every year

Forgive me, I'm struggling to grasp your point.
So how do you imagine this working? What kinds of questions would you ask so you get different questions but a standardised test from year to year, while retaining a conceptual element (i.e. not pure knowledge)? You can't set complex problem solving questions and know with confidence how difficult they are going to be, you only know how difficult they were once you've had people sit the tests! That's why we standardise results through curved grading!

 

[Cobra]

Forgive me, I'm struggling to grasp your point.

I thought you were,
its simple, a test either contains the same same questions year after year to keep totally standardised
or the questions are different year after year, which you seem to think gives a false reading, on abilities.

Besides we are now way off the original point of the thread.

 

[ghoti]

I thought you were,
its simple, a test either contains the same same questions year after year to keep totally standardised
or the questions are different year after year, which you seem to think gives a false reading, on abilities.

Having different questions year after year does give a false reading on abilities. This is uncontroversial and well established. Which is why we have curved grading.
What is the solution you are suggesting which does not involve curved grading? How are you going to standardise your tests so their results reflect true ability as accurately as possible?

 

[Cobra]

Having different questions year after year does give a false reading on abilities. This is uncontroversial and well established. Which is why we have curved grading.
What is the solution you are suggesting which does not involve curved grading? How are you going to standardise your tests so their results reflect true ability as accurately as possible?

I give up!

 

[ghoti]

Besides we are now way off the original point of the thread.

Why are we way off the original point? Your original post was about changing the pass mark to recognise a particularly difficult test. This is called curved grading, and is exactly what we are talking about here.

 

[ghoti]

I give up!

I suspect you don't actually have a solution.

If anyone else understand's the point Cobra is trying to make, please let me know. I'd be really keen to hear a solution, as setting tests and exams is part of my work (albeit in tertiary rather than secondary education).

 

[Cobra]

I suspect you don't actually have a solution.

If it is in fact part of your job, then its your problem not mine.
It was never my intention to offer a solution, it was a wry look at the way kids are treated these days,
don't like the results? bitch and whine until the results are more to your liking.
That kinda brings us full circle.

 

[ghoti]

If it is in fact part of your job, then its your problem not mine.
It was never my intention to offer a solution, it was a wry look at the way kids are treated these days,
don't like the results? bitch and whine until the results are more to your liking.
That kinda brings us full circle.

But that's not how kids are treated these days. The results aren't changed because of "bitching and whining", they are graded to a curve. That's why the pass mark was so low (34%), not because people moaned about it.

I don't have a problem with the way students are graded on a curve, I think it's a fantastic and extremely useful idea. You gave the impression that you thought it was better when "60%" was a pass and that was that. So if you think that's a better system I'd genuinely like to hear why you think so and how you would standardise tests, because if your idea works better than curved grading for standardisation it would be very interesting and I would like to raise it with my department.

 

[Llamaman]

I give up!

Probably best when you're losing

 

[wack61]

Are you sure it was a University?

There are Universities and ... learning establishments.

I'm sure it would have been a college or polytechnic 25 years ago.

 

[kendo1]

I'm sure it would have been a college or polytechnic 25 years ago.

It's just from my experience, my niece went to Magdalene College Cambridge and required 6 A passes for entry.

 

[wack61]

what would it cost to go to university, 9k is just the fees, what are we talking, 5k living expenses , £100 a week, I'd say that was a conservative number

14k a year, 3 year course 42k , 4 years 56k

Am I the only one that thinks that's nuts if you can't reach a decent standard at A level

 

[viv1969]

To be fair, in the case of the exam in question, I do see Cobra's point.

Going in, the pass mark for a C grade pass was 45%.
After the exams were completed, an awful lot of online whining took place and hey presto, upon marking, the required percentage for a C grade pass was dropped to 34.
Ordinarily 34% would represent a fail.
I believe if SQA truly believed they had made an error, then the exam should have been restructured and re-sat.

 

[ghoti]

To be fair, in the case of the exam in question, I do see Cobra's point.

Going in, the pass mark for a C grade pass was 45%.
After the exams were completed, an awful lot of online whining took place and hey presto, upon marking, the required percentage for a C grade pass was dropped to 34.
Ordinarily 34% would represent a fail.
I believe if SQA truly believed they had made an error, then the exam should have been restructured and re-sat.

This isn't the case. The SQA (and most other academic qualification authorities) have no set pass marks for any grade. It's simply not true that "going in, the pass mark for a C grade pass was 45%". The grade cut-offs are only ever set after all of the papers are marked and the spread of performance is known. This is done for very good reasons that I have tried to set out above. It's not desirable to have situation where a pupil whose ability would have secured them a pass in 2014, fails in 2015 because of variation in the difficulty of the examination.

The required percentage for a pass was not dropped to 34% because of whining. There was a lot of whining, sure, but that's not why the pass mark was changed. It was changed using exactly the same calculations that are used to set grade cut-offs in every other year, it just seems remarkable because this was a paper where students, on average, did remarkably poorly.

 

[viv1969]

There general levels set for each grade. Anyone can look them up.
These may vary by a FEW percentage points, depending on the difficulty of the exam.
Eleven doesn't qualify as "a few" anywhere.

 

[Cobra]

Probably best when you're losing

Or the people totally miss the point of the thread

because if your idea works better than curved grading for standardisation it would be very interesting and I would like to raise it with my department.

Did you miss the bit where I said

It was never my intention to offer a solution, it was a wry look at the way kids are treated these days,

 

[ghoti]

There general levels set for each grade. Anyone can look them up.
These may vary by a FEW percentage points, depending on the difficulty of the exam.
Eleven doesn't qualify as "a few" anywhere.

That's just a third-party quote from Wikipedia that describes the general situation, it's not a rule of the SQA that cut-offs only vary by "a FEW percentage points". The cut-offs are wherever the statistical analysis says they should be, be that a variation of 1% or a variation of 20%.
Usually, yes, this is within a few percentage points of 45%, but that's not a rule, it's just how it usually works out. In this case the exam was particularly difficult so the adjustment was particularly large. No big deal. It's how almost all academic qualifications authorities work these days.

 

[viv1969]

Usually, yes, this is within a few percentage points of 45%, but that's not a rule, it's just how it usually works out.

Handy for them this year then, that kind of "fluidity". (Because heaven forbid the overall student pass rates shouldn't be seen to increase year on year).

 

[ghoti]

Here's how it works*, using every photographer's favourite kind of graph - the histogram:

Examine the histogram above.
If we take the results of all of the students who sat an exam, and plot the number achieving each score in a histogram, we would almost always see this "bell curve" shape. Most pupils would get middle-of-the-road score, and only a few would do very well or very badly.
However, the upper and lower limits (particularly the upper) will be affected by the difficulty of the exam. In an easy exam point "B" may represent a score of 100%, in a very difficult exam it could represent a score of, say, 75%. Point "A" may represent our "pass cut-off" score, placed in a position so it will always include the top 60% of performers regardless of what their performance actually was. With a difficult exam (where point B is, for the sake of argument, 75%) point A will be in the same place on the curve but will represent a lower score because everything is being pushed to the left.


*roughly...in practise it's a bit more complicated, but this is the general idea

 

[AJQS]

The difficult question involved calculus (quite basic calculus). Calculus is extremely important in engineering and a huge amount of modern technology. I don't know the specifics of your work in "mechanical engineering" but you would need calculus to work out things like friction forces across complex surfaces when designing mechanical systems with moving parts. Engineering undergrads will be have calculus hammered into them from early on, for good reason.

Designing is not proper engineering. Engineering is putting things together and making the stuff someone else has designed, for which all the maths you could ever need is in this little book.

I kinda wish I did know some A level maths however.

 

[ghoti]

Designing is not proper engineering. Engineering is putting things together and making the stuff someone else has designed, for which all the maths you could ever need is in this little book.

I kinda wish I did know some A level maths however.

I hope no proper engineers read this opinion!

Professional engineering certainly does encompass designing, creating and testing. Problem is that a lot of mechanics and systems operators have decided to call themselves "engineers", much to the chagrin of real engineers. Who can be a forthright bunch.

 

[Gremlin]

Exams used to scare the hell out of me, I failed my 11 plus miserably and started secondary school in the idiots class ( yes I know )
Before the first half term break came I had moved up to the Grammar School stream, which was affiliated to the local secondary and stayed
there in the A level stream as opposed to O level as was the lower alternative in those days.
I like the way that some of the courses for some other certificates are going when you want to gain diplomas etc, you don't do exams as such, but are marked on
the course work undertaken during the year, much of which is researched and written up by the person working towards the cerificate.

 

[nilagin]

Designing is not proper engineering. Engineering is putting things together and making the stuff someone else has designed, for which all the maths you could ever need is in this little book.

I kinda wish I did know some A level maths however.

I had a Zeus book, never used it once in over 30yrs, I binned it.

 

[AJQS]

I had a Zeus book, never used it once in over 30yrs, I binned it.

Used mine daily, but then I was working in an environment where all the screw threads were still Whitworth!