Exams

[The Toad Of Toad Hall]

As an employer, I would want to make sure that any potential employee had at least 5 A-C passes including math and english

[wazir]

As an employer, I would want to make sure that any potential employee had at least 5 A-C passes including math and english

 

I agree.

 

My point was that the greater the spectrum of grades the better, so that other, less discriminating employers than ourselves are able to identify the appropriate level of staff for the unfortunately necessary working-class jobs.

 

You seemed to be indicating otherwise.

[The Toad Of Toad Hall]

It irritates me that an idiot who has managed to scrape G grades can consider these as passes and is actually awarded with a certifcate for their pathetic effort. Anything below a C should be marked as a fail.

[P.K.]

Some years ago I had the misfortune (I think I upset someone important) to mentor the intake of work placements from the local university. I was appalled to find that their written English was absolutely useless. Spelling, grammar, syntax all dreadfully lacking. As we were the International HQ it made it very difficult as to communicate with those whose first language is not English your instructions have to be as near perfect and as unambiguous as you can achieve.

 

With such a poor grasp of the language it did make me wonder how they could possibly have passed any exams other than maths???

[wazir]

It irritates me that an idiot who has managed to scrape G grades can consider these as passes...

 

I wonder if you might consider talking to someone about why that might be.

[Lao]

a major problem with this is the arbitrary nature of the marking system.

 

take the old A,B,C and fail system, fairly straight forward if you got A B or C you passed anything less was a fail, but how much did you have to get for each? if we assign some figure to each mark for comparison purposes it does make you think.

 

80% - 100% = A

60% - 79% = B

40% - 59% = C

39% or less = Fail

 

if the new system has more marks in it it stand to reason that the distance between each one is smaller.

 

95% - 100% = A*

90% - 94% = A

85% - 89% = B

80% - 84% = C

70% - 79% = D

60% - 69% = E

50% - 59% = F

40% - 49% = G

39% or less = U

 

the above numbers were pulled out of thin air for demonstration purposes only.

 

so this whole "i wouldnt accept anyone with less than a C" attitude is outdate by a new system, (which unfortunately uses a similar marking structure) because the social stigma attached to grades below C is comletely irrelevant.

 

if employers had the actual percentage figures available, they would have a lot more insight into the students actual test scores and could make a more informed choice.

[wazir]

a major problem with this is the arbitrary nature of the marking system.

 

take the old A,B,C and fail system, fairly straight forward if you got A B or C you passed anything less was a fail, but how much did you have to get for each? if we assign some figure to each mark for comparison purposes it does make you think.

 

80% - 100% = A

60% - 79% = B

40% - 59% = C

39% or less = Fail

 

if the new system has more marks in it it stand to reason that the distance between each one is smaller.

 

95% - 100% = A*

90% - 94% = A

85% - 89% = B

80% - 84% = C

70% - 79% = D

60% - 69% = E

50% - 59% = F

40% - 49% = G

39% or less = U

 

the above numbers were pulled out of thin air for demonstration purposes only.

 

so this whole "i wouldnt accept anyone with less than a C" attitude is outdate by a new system, (which unfortunately uses a similar marking structure) because the social stigma attached to grades below C is comletely irrelevant.

 

if employers had the actual percentage figures available, they would have a lot more insight into the students actual test scores and could make a more informed choice.

 

Yes this a good point.

 

If only there was a better and less ambiguous means of presenting numerical data than using the first letters of the alphabet in decreasing percentage order.

 

Hmmmn....

[Lao]

well, i have always said if they would just put me in charge of everything, mistakes like this wouldnt happen.

[censorship]

As we were the International HQ it made it very difficult as to communicate with those whose first language is not English your instructions have to be as near perfect and as unambiguous as you can achieve.

 

I just had to draw attention to this sentence, given it was included in a post criticising other people's English use and the ability to communicate.....would you like to go back to school to learn about punctuation? I imagine the poor quality language use you experienced was a kind-hearted attempt by these young students to try and communicate with someone clearly several rungs below them on the intellectual ladder. They probably thought you were there on some sort of community outreach programme.

[monasqueen]

Some years ago I had the misfortune (I think I upset someone important) to mentor the intake of work placements from the local university. I was appalled to find that their written English was absolutely useless.

 

 

Has anyone else taken note of the road sign by the Sefton - the one that says that Johnny Wattersons Lane is closed, and that Governers Bridge is open?

 

Someone has their spelling up in lights!!!

[Alias]

I think exams are trying to cover too much scope - are they an assessment of the student's proficiency at key levels, or are they a measure of ability relative to other students their age (and of previous years).

 

One idea is for two sets of papers for the core subjects (tongue in cheek, the ones that matter; most GCSEs taken are pointless beyond the certificate) - a conceptual type one structured as the papers currently are (if you have a look at a freely available past paper you'll see the style is quite helpful and instructive to the candidate) to demonstrate proficiency at clearly levelled stages, and a multiple choice paper with lots of harder than average questions. This paper would be set so 80% of students finish in the correct time and there would be no marks for method or suchlike. The results of this paper would not be graded, but tiered against other candidates that have sat it - 90th percentile for example. Computer marking could allow more questions (the current GCSE papers are a bit 'empty' and for a competent student wouldn't challenge their time management) and wouldn't require a burden of more markers, and question numbers could be mixed (although this could add problems) up for each candidate to reduce cheating.

 

Depending on the course/job sought (and its relevance to each exam), the recruiter would be more interested in one of the scores. I haven't really considered the merits of this idea for non-science based subjects, but I'm sure it could be adapted.

[Matt Bawden]

I think the grade boundary is very wide, so to "pass" you need something like E - is that right?

 

I think that is daft if so! Surely A-D should constitute a pass - so the pass rate is inflated, if E is taken into account...

 

 

Why would taking class A drugs help in passing GCSE's

[Matt Bawden]

Good exam grades are thus, when there are few to be found they are worthwhile, whilst when they are many they become worthless.

 

I know people who have gained good exam grades and yet appear to be of average intelligence.

[gazza]

was listerning to radio 1 the other day,

some of the DJ had sat GSCE subjects,

cant remember who it was or for what, but thay got an A, the % thay got was 51%

 

so u can get an A for only getting half the paper right. no wonder there all getting As

[Domino]

Stupid people.

You must remember that nobody fails anymore.

If anyone did, it might make them think they are not nearly as clever as everybody else.

That trauma would probably be too much for a young person to handle.