On Jun 4, 4:32*pm, Tony Polson wrote:
wrote:
On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 15:15:06 +0100
Tony Polson wrote:
And of course it is grades on which NuLabour wish to be judged. *Well,
it is obvious that, if you dumb down the subject, more people will get A
grades. *But these grades are meaningless if they are not materially
better than an O Level grade.

Indeed. And since all scientific, mathematic, engineering and computer based
roles all require interview examinations either verbal or written which arn't
going to be dumbed down for any politician, all that'll happen is we'll end up
with a lot of kids wandering around with "A" grades wondering why they flunk
every job interview and the firms are all hiring from overseas.

Unfortunately, if you change within three decades from sending 20% of
the population to University to sending 50%, it is almost inevitable
that standards will have to drop. *They have, and how!

It's inevitable that *the standard of the median graduate* will have
to drop.

This always seems to flummox 'grumble grumble, things were better in
my day' codgers: yes, of course the average graduate is 'worse' on
some measures than the average graduate 25 years ago. But that's
trivial and irrelevant. The questions a

1) are the top 40% of present-day graduates 'better' than the average
graduate 25 years ago?
2) are the bottom 60% of present-day graduates 'better' than the top
37.5% of non-university-going school leavers 25 years ago?

If the answer to those questions is yes, then education policy (at
least for the top 50% academically) has been a success. Given that all
measures (including international skills comparisons, not just
qualifications) show the median adult is indeed more skilled than 25
years ago, that's a strong sign that the answer to both questions is
yes.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot og
www.johnband.org

wrote:
On Jun 4, 4:32 pm, Tony Polson wrote:


Unfortunately, if you change within three decades from sending 20% of
the population to University to sending 50%, it is almost inevitable
that standards will have to drop. They have, and how!

It's inevitable that *the standard of the median graduate* will have
to drop.

This always seems to flummox 'grumble grumble, things were better in
my day' codgers: yes, of course the average graduate is 'worse' on
some measures than the average graduate 25 years ago. But that's
trivial and irrelevant. The questions a

1) are the top 40% of present-day graduates 'better' than the average
graduate 25 years ago?
2) are the bottom 60% of present-day graduates 'better' than the top
37.5% of non-university-going school leavers 25 years ago?

If the answer to those questions is yes, then education policy (at
least for the top 50% academically) has been a success. Given that all
measures (including international skills comparisons, not just
qualifications) show the median adult is indeed more skilled than 25
years ago, that's a strong sign that the answer to both questions is
yes.

AOL.

Modern opinions of media studies and the like are quite tame compared to
what some Victorians thought about dumbing down by introducing subjects
like engineering. :-)

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 09:32:07 -0700 (PDT)
wrote:
least for the top 50% academically) has been a success. Given that all
measures (including international skills comparisons, not just
qualifications) show the median adult is indeed more skilled than 25
years ago, that's a strong sign that the answer to both questions is
yes.

If thats the case then they're not learning these skills at school because
when contemporary kids have been given old O or A level papers in a couple
of TV shows they flunk badly. And if a modern paper seems easier when put
side by side with an old one then it probably is.

B2003

On Jun 5, 10:09*am, wrote:
least for the top 50% academically) has been a success. Given that all
measures (including international skills comparisons, not just
qualifications) show the median adult is indeed more skilled than 25
years ago, that's a strong sign that the answer to both questions is
yes.

If thats the case then they're not learning these skills at school because
when contemporary kids have been given old O or A level papers in a couple
of TV shows they flunk badly. And if a modern paper seems easier when put
side by side with an old one then it probably is.

Except that getting on for all kids take GCSEs, whereas only (POOMA,
but magnitude-right) 40% of kids took O-levels and 30% took A-levels.
And the syllabus has changed; sadly we don't have a time machine to
carry out the reverse experiment...

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org