So what is this ACTUALLY teaching them?

[Cobra]

No. You've not understood. The grade cut-offs are pushed up just as often as they are pushed down.

Actually I did follow that, but couldn't believe that what you meant, so discounted it,
on the fact that its grossly unfair.

I'll try again, If too many people pass, the exam is deemed to be too easy, so the "pass mark" is increased.
and fewer people pass.

If too few people pass, then the pass mark is lowered, so more people can pass?
Is that correct?
And if so, just who exactly decides the students futures by moving the goal posts.

 

[nilagin]

As an example of how things have been dumbed down, when I took my OTC and HTC in Mechanical Engineering in the 80's we had to write projects, we were expected to do all our own research, reading up on whatever the subject was then write it up in our own words, now in degrees in Mechanical Engineering, they are allowed to just copy and paste from various sources and hand it in, meaning they don't have to show any knowledge on the subject.

 

[Cobra]

now in degrees in Mechanical Engineering, they are allowed to just copy and paste from various sources and hand it in, meaning they don't have to show any knowledge on the subject.

It would now seem that biological sciences are the same, so I guess that.s pretty much right across the board these days

 

[ghoti]

As an example of how things have been dumbed down, when I took my OTC and HTC in Mechanical Engineering in the 80's we had to write projects, we were expected to do all our own research, reading up on whatever the subject was then write it up in our own words, now in degrees in Mechanical Engineering, they are allowed to just copy and paste from various sources and hand it in, meaning they don't have to show any knowledge on the subject.

You're having a laugh, right? Who has told you students can "copy and paste from various sources and hand it in"? On the contrary, universities are extremely strict on plagiarism and have, in recent years, invested heavily on anti-plagiarism software.
In the MEng from the University I work for, there is a rigorous design project in year two, followed by an individual research project in year three and a lengthier dissertation/research (a "mini-thesis") in year four.

 

[ghoti]

It would now seem that biological sciences are the same, so I guess that.s pretty much right across the board these days

Complete nonsense. Biological sciences is my field. Plagiarism laws are strictly enforced, grades for entry have risen in the last few years, and there is the requirement of an individual research project (in a cutting-edge academic laboratory) which culminates in submission of a 10,000 word paper in which the student must have generated, processed, interpreted and drawn valid conclusions from, novel data. This is examined both traditionally and orally.

 

[kendo1]

Because the standard of Intelligence of job applicants certainly hasn't risen accordingly. Far from it.

That's not entirely true.
I must admit that the apparent intelligence of the younger generation has appeared to drop but the actual IQ scores of recent generations has risen ( the Flynn Effect)
Flynn observed a rise of 0.33 points per year in the USA from 1932 to 1978, which is certainly significant!

 

[nilagin]

You're having a laugh, right? Who has told you students can "copy and paste from various sources and hand it in"? On the contrary, universities are extremely strict on plagiarism and have, in recent years, invested heavily on anti-plagiarism software.
In the MEng from the University I work for, there is a rigorous design project in year two, followed by an individual research project in year three and a lengthier dissertation/research (a "mini-thesis") in year four.

Not all degrees are studied in Universities and I have seen it first hand by work colleagues currently "studying" for degrees. All sources have to be quoted in the project and if they don't copy and paste enough entries for their projects they actually get deducted marks.

 

[kendo1]

Complete nonsense. Biological sciences is my field. Plagiarism laws are strictly enforced, grades for entry have risen in the last few years, and there is the requirement of an individual research project (in a cutting-edge academic laboratory) which culminates in submission of a 10,000 word paper in which the student must have generated, processed, interpreted and drawn valid conclusions from, novel data. This is examined both traditionally and orally.

So two E passes would probably not be enough for entry?

 

[ghoti]

Actually I did follow that, but couldn't believe that what you meant, so discounted it,
on the fact that its grossly unfair.

I'll try again, If too many people pass, the exam is deemed to be too easy, so the "pass mark" is increased.
and fewer people pass.

If too few people pass, then the pass mark is lowered, so more people can pass?
Is that correct?
And if so, just who exactly decides the students futures by moving the goal posts.

The same people who would decide students' futures by arbitrarily assigning set cut-off marks. But by using curved-grading, the tests are standardised across different years and the impact of varying difficulty of examinations is reduced. So what you get is a more accurate measure of an individual's ability.

 

[viv1969]

That's not entirely true.
I must admit that the apparent intelligence of the younger generation has appeared to drop but the actual IQ scores of recent generations has risen ( the Flynn Effect)
Flynn observed a rise of 0.33 points per year in the USA from 1932 to 1978, which is certainly significant!

I'm sorry, but IQ has no bearing in overall learning ability and everyday functionality.

 

[ghoti]

So two E passes would probably not be enough for entry?

No, you would need an A in both Chemistry and Biology at A level and at least a B in Mathematics.

 

[nilagin]

The same people who would decide students' futures by arbitrarily assigning set cut-off marks. But by using curved-grading, the tests are standardised across different years and the impact of varying difficulty of examinations is reduced. So what you get is a more accurate measure of an individual's ability.

We had that in the past, they were called O-Levels and CSEs.

 

[kendo1]

I'm sorry, but IQ has no bearing in overall learning ability and everyday functionality.

There does seem to be a correlation between IQ and learning ability, not necessarily with everyday functionality- but we were not discussing that, were we?

 

[Cobra]

Complete nonsense. Biological sciences is my field. Plagiarism laws are strictly enforced, grades for entry have risen in the last few years, and there is the requirement of an individual research project (in a cutting-edge academic laboratory) which culminates in submission of a 10,000 word paper in which the student must have generated, processed, interpreted and drawn valid conclusions from, novel data. This is examined both traditionally and orally.

OK Maybe the person that told me was a disgruntled student, then, but it just seemed curios that Nilagin, had reported the same thing.

 

[ghoti]

We had that in the past, they were called O-Levels and CSEs.

With respect, you're talking about something completely different.

Look at it this way: you're an employer or a university who wants to employ or enrol the person who has demonstrated the most ability in, say, physics. With set cut-offs, you could have a candidate with an A in physics but also a candidate with a B, the latter of which is actually more able than the A-grade candidate but was unfortunate in sitting a more difficult exam. If you use curved-grading, you know that all A-grade candidates are of roughly the same range of ability regardless of the year they sat their exam. So you can make a much more informed decision about who to employ.

 

[viv1969]

There does seem to be a correlation between IQ and learning ability, not necessarily with everyday functionality- but we were not discussing that, were we?

Apologies. I meant academic functionality.

 

[Cobra]

The same people who would decide students' futures by arbitrarily assigning set cut-off marks. But by using curved-grading, the tests are standardised across different years and the impact of varying difficulty of examinations is reduced. So what you get is a more accurate measure of an individual's ability.

Ok so you tried to defend that last point, I made, but you never confirmed or denied the more important point, , when I said ..

If too many people pass, the exam is deemed to be too easy, so the "pass mark" is increased.
and fewer people pass.
If too few people pass, then the pass mark is lowered, so more people can pass?
Is that correct?

 

[kendo1]

Apologies. I meant academic functionality.

Very true!
A mate of mine apparently has a high IQ, but he is a complete plonker when it comes to social interaction
Maybe it's just his lack of anger management rather than his IQ? More than likely!

Everyone is different, c'est la vie...

 

[nilagin]

With respect, you're talking about something completely different.

Look at it this way: you're an employer or a university who wants to employ or enrol the person who has demonstrated the most ability in, say, physics. With set cut-offs, you could have a candidate with an A in physics but also a candidate with a B, the latter of which is actually more able than the A-grade candidate but was unfortunate in sitting a more difficult exam. If you use curved-grading, you know that all A-grade candidates are of roughly the same range of ability regardless of the year they sat their exam. So you can make a much more informed decision about who to employ.

Look at it this way, you do as my employer does, you set the bar at a certain grade, which in my employers case is a C grade, if you then pass a telephone interview, you are given an aptitude test and a structured interview. That way you find out exactly what someone's capability is like and whether it suits your criteria.

 

[ghoti]

Ok so you tried to defend that last point, I made, but you never confirmed or denied the more important point, , when I said ..

Your analysis is not exactly accurate, no. At the most basic level, and the easiest way to understand it, the same rough proportion of pupils will pass or fail any given test. Take for example the Scottish maths exam that started this thread. Without curving, hugely disproportionate numbers would have failed - not because their ability was less than in previous years, but because the exam was unusually difficult. This is plainly unfair. Curving didn't "make more people pass", exactly, but it did control for the difficulty of the exam so students' real abilities could be revealed.
However, that said, there are complex statistics applied to the curving process which leave room for revealing genuine increases in achievement.

 

[ghoti]

Look at it this way, you do as my employer does, you set the bar at a certain grade, which in my employers case is a C grade, if you then pass a telephone interview, you are given an aptitude test and a structured interview. That way you find out exactly what someone's capability is like and whether it suits your criteria.

Yes, but the initial bar - the C grade - comes from a curved system, so your employer is using curved grading before they even get to the aptitude tests. As they should be if they are sensible.

 

[nilagin]

Yes, but the initial bar - the C grade - comes from a curved system, so your employer is using curved grading before they even get to the aptitude tests. As they should be if they are sensible.

Depends how old the candidate is.

 

[ghoti]

Depends how old the candidate is.

It does, yes, but seeing as the education system has changed so much over the decades, if they didn't account for that they'd not be terribly bright.

 

[viv1969]

However, that said, there are complex statistics applied to the curving process which leave room for revealing genuine increases in achievement.

And for disguising decreases in the same, no doubt

 

[Cobra]

Your analysis is not exactly accurate, no. At the most basic level, and the easiest way to understand it, the same rough proportion of pupils will pass or fail any given test.

So we shift the goal posts to make sure there is roughly a 50/50 split to pass / fail then?
one year some would have failed that should have passed and vice versa, hardly fair is it?

 

[ghoti]

So we shift the goal posts to make sure there is roughly a 50/50 split to pass / fail then?
one year some would have failed that should have passed and vice versa, hardly fair is it?

You could say the same about the set cut-offs you endorse, only moreso.

 

[kendo1]

All this assumes there is no significant difference in ability of the students from year to year (which I think is part of the point the snake was trying to make )

From my past experience (admittedly some decades ago) my teachers recognised that there were 'thick' years and 'bright' years.
There were also well behaved years and not so well behaved years. The two were not necessarily exclusive.

 

[Cobra]

You could say the same about the set cut-offs you endorse, only moreso.

But no goal posts are disturbed, the harder they work, the more likely they are to pass.
(Assuming the back up is there from the lecturers of course )

 

[OldCarlos]

It was called O-Levels and CSE's it worked for years and provided employers a good indication of someone's abilities.

I was expected to pass the 11+ exam & go on to grammar school, but failed (or in todays parlance, didn't quite make it) so attended the local high school.
They were GCE's & CSE's when I was at school. I was in the higher stream so taking GCE's.

There were quite a few who went on to college (no idea of the % of leavers) but a damn sight less went to uni.

You were either bright enough, or you weren't. Simples.

Education today is far too namby-pamby & all about scores/ratings, to the point where manipulating figures & dumbing up/down results is quite common for `school` results.

 

[viv1969]

All this assumes there is no significant difference in ability of the students from year to year (which I think is part of the point the snake was trying to make )

From my past experience (admittedly some decades ago) my teachers recognised that there were 'thick' years and 'bright' years.
There were also well behaved years and not so well behaved years. The two were not necessarily exclusive.

Which also raises the question of, should pupils of all ability levels be taught together?
My school....secondary...taught in three ability "bands", so that pupils could be taught in different ways according to ability.
It worked well. I seem to recall CSE, GSE and A level achievements were good across the bands.
Less able students weren't pressured by learning faster than able, and more able pupils weren't restricted by the slower progress of some of the other students.

 

[OldCarlos]

for governments to disguise employment figures.

Been saying it for years!

 

[nilagin]

You could say the same about the set cut-offs you endorse, only moreso.

How so, it worked back then. At the end of the day, you are educated to a syllabus to sit an exam. You are not going to be asked questions on something you haven't been taught, so there are no hard questions, the exam is there to test your ability to answer those questions. So if you get 80% or whatever correct you get your A. You don't say "Oh dear, they found it hard this year, lets lower the goal posts to 34% because no-one got above 45% correct". Fact is they don't know what they should, Failed, end of go sit the exam again.

 

[Cobra]

My school....secondary...taught in three ability "bands", so that pupils could be taught in different ways according to ability.

We had 4 "bands" and yes it was the studious, the triers that want to learn, the well I'm here suppose I'd better write something downers, if its only the football scores.
And what the point of me being here, that class was mostly empty most of the time as they were also the "lets play hookie" group

 

[kendo1]

There are no hard questions, just questions you don't the answer to.
If you know the answer, or can work it out, it's easy.

As Ruth said, I was streamed, as was everyone in my school. It worked.
My kids were streamed in their school, too. It worked for them.

 

[OldCarlos]

Which also raises the question of, should pupils of all ability levels be taught together?
My school....secondary...taught in three ability "bands", so that pupils could be taught in different ways according to ability.
It worked well. I seem to recall CSE, GSE and A level achievements were good across the bands.
Less able students weren't pressured by learning faster than able, and more able pupils weren't restricted by the slower progress of some of the other students.

It was the same for us & seemed to work well.

 

[nilagin]

Which also raises the question of, should pupils of all ability levels be taught together?
My school....secondary...taught in three ability "bands", so that pupils could be taught in different ways according to ability.
It worked well. I seem to recall CSE, GSE and A level achievements were good across the bands.
Less able students weren't pressured by learning faster than able, and more able pupils weren't restricted by the slower progress of some of the other students.

It was the same for me too and it worked brilliantly, if you started slacking in your O-Level classes and letting your efforts slip, their was always the threat of being dropped into the CSE group.
Up to and including 1978, all Ford Craft Apprentices were taught to City and Guild level at College, Technical Apprentices were taught to ONC (OTC BTEC) level and then HNC (HTC BTEC) but once having been signed off from their apprenticeships, those who had sat C&G's were allowed to do their ONC and HTC if they wished. When I started my apprenticeship in 79, we were all started on the OTC BTEC course, after a month or so we were tested, those that failed, continued the rest of their apprenticeship doing C&G's whilst those who passed continued with the OTC and then HTC.
Now Ford have gone one step further, You can start the equivalent of a craft apprenticeship but now they study the "equivalent" to the OTC and HTC, or there is the equivalent to a technical apprenticeship but they study for a degree straight away. Basically as you say, people are then taught accordingly to their capability and aptitude.

 

[ghoti]

How so, it worked back then. At the end of the day, you are educated to a syllabus to sit an exam. You are not going to be asked questions on something you haven't been taught, so there are no hard questions, the exam is there to test your ability to answer those questions.

You ignore the fact that there are innumerable ways to ask questions on things the students have been taught. The questions could address curriculum content but are used in a context which many students, for whatever reason, don't find intuitive. For example, the controversial question in the Scottish maths exam under discussion involved calculus which is covered in the syallabus. If it had been presented as a straightforward calculation, without context, many students would have realised what they had to do without trouble. As it turns out, it was presented as a real world scenario, where students would have had to visualise the scenario and apply abstract mathematics to it. Same maths, different approach. I'm all for examining students on their ability to apply curriculum knowledge to the real world - but it is very difficult to do this with reliable and consistent difficulty. In this case, the scenario proved a little too confusing. If the question had been worded or presented differently, it may not have. It's not fair that students this year had a calculus question which was significantly more tricky than in years previous.
Now, if we could reliably set a "difficulty" level to complex conceptual questions there would be no need for curving! But, unfortunately, we can't. The only reliable way to measure a question's difficulty is to have students attempt the question!
And it didn't "work back then". That's why it was curving was introduced. "Back then" many students would have walked away with either grades indicating they were more able (because a paper was unusually easy) or less able (because a paper was unusually hard) than they actually were.

 

[viv1969]

And it didn't "work back then". That's why it was curving was introduced. "Back then" many students would have walked away with either grades indicating they were more able (because a paper was unusually easy) or less able (because a paper was unusually hard) than they actually were.

Any credibility just vanished.
You just wrote off a couple of generations of learning / students as rubbish.
Exams were harder.
University places were earned, not given / gifted.
Courses were in subjects with merit, not "how can we get the thick kids in".
It would appear you're a fine poster child for the core of todays education system and all it lacks.
You've made my night, thanks.

 

[nilagin]

And it didn't "work back then". That's why it was curving was introduced. "Back then" many students would have walked away with either grades indicating they were more able (because a paper was unusually easy) or less able (because a paper was unusually hard) than they actually were.

As a product of back then and as others of similar age and older on here have already testified, it did work and so you are talking rubbish. Back then we were taught using real world examples as for some it was the only way it could provide understanding. All papers back then were set to a required level. So there was direct comparison between A grades, regardless of whether they were achieved in '75, '76, etc, Where as by changing the goal posts of what score can achieve an A grade, their can be no direct comparison, because they have no way of knowing how someone who got an A with a 34% score could have scored the previous year. So back then did work, but the current system doesn't work and can't on that basis. It just merely gives a result on a whim.

 

[kendo1]

"Back then" many students would have walked away with either grades indicating they were more able (because a paper was unusually easy) or less able (because a paper was unusually hard) than they actually were.

From my recollection, exams were pretty much of a muchness. I don't recall seeing past papers that were excessively hard or easy (we did try past papers during each course)

I see no reason why 10% must pass at an A grade. This would imply that someone, one year, who should have received a very good B grade might receive an A, and conversely, someone who should have received an A received a B.
Given that there are differences between each year's ability in different subjects, surely there must be years when 9, 11, 8 or 12% should pass...