AQA ICT3 clarification needed
ICT User
"For the coursework in Unit 3, candidates will be expected to tackle a
task related problem which will have limited scope and will be a
self-contained problem....... The project is intended to be a
'snapshot' in time."
What exactly does the above mean. The bits I have problems with is,
how do they define/judge what is limited scope? (for an excel project,
how do you decide what is too hard or too easy). What exactly do they
mean by a snapshot in time?
I don't think their guide would win any campaign for plain english
awards.
ICT User
Matthew M. Huntbach
> I have been reading the AQA ICT A level teachers guide. It says
> "For the coursework in Unit 3, candidates will be expected to tackle a
> task related problem which will have limited scope and will be a
> self-contained problem....... The project is intended to be a
> 'snapshot' in time."
> What exactly does the above mean.
More indication of the crapulous nature of what is called "ICT" in
education circles? Though if "ICT" means learning management bullshit
talk, maybe it's a useful qualification. Wish I could speak it, I often
feel I'm hampered in life by an inability not only to understand it,
but also to take seriously anyone who spouts it.
Matthew Huntbach
Becky Loader
"Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a48433$nm3$2...@beta.qmul.ac.uk...
> Though if "ICT" means learning management bullshit
> talk, maybe it's a useful qualification. Wish I could speak it, I often
> feel I'm hampered in life by an inability not only to understand it,
> but also to take seriously anyone who spouts it.
Management speak: where you don't talk to people but instead 'liaise with
them' over every minor thing; where any word you like can become a verb (to
action, to 'Belbinise'); and where every word is a possible acronym (TEAM -
Together Each Achieves More was one I stumbled across recently).
It's a lot of shit spoken by people who aren't clever enough to realise how
stupid it makes them look.
Becky
Mark Thakkar
> Management speak: where you don't talk to people but instead 'liaise
> with them' over every minor thing; where any word you like can become
> a verb (to action, to 'Belbinise'); and where every word is a
> possible acronym (TEAM - Together Each Achieves More was one I
> stumbled across recently).
>
> It's a lot of shit spoken by people who aren't clever enough to
> realise how stupid it makes them look.
I think you need to downsize your anger - perhaps we could interface
some time and try to leverage you into a more positive frame of mind?
...
I've found a wonderful slide-presentation on "Technology-Enabled
Translation" (http://www.stc.org/46thConf/postconf/tt2u.pdf). E.g.:
_Why Terminology Management?_
* Terminology represents corporate information capital
* Terminology is part of the corporate image
* Proper terminology management can save cost by:
- increasing consistency
- permitting leverage among publications
- improving document readability and understandability
- controlling variants and unintended terms for the same object or
concept
Mark.
--
James Gregory
Mark Thakkar wrote:
>
> Becky,
>
> > Management speak: where you don't talk to people but instead 'liaise
> > with them' over every minor thing; where any word you like can become
> > a verb (to action, to 'Belbinise'); and where every word is a
> > possible acronym (TEAM - Together Each Achieves More was one I
> > stumbled across recently).
> >
> > It's a lot of shit spoken by people who aren't clever enough to
> > realise how stupid it makes them look.
>
> I think you need to downsize your anger - perhaps we could interface
> some time and try to leverage you into a more positive frame of mind?
>
> ...
>
Well, we could certainly run it up the flag pole and see if it flies.
James
Ray Pang
"Becky Loader" <becky....@nospam.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a48cs0$1d0hfj$1...@ID-34541.news.dfncis.de...
Watch The Office on BBC2 10pm Mondays. You'll love it.
Becky Loader
"Ray Pang" <r_p...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a48ptf$1djlkr$1...@ID-33144.news.dfncis.de...
> Watch The Office on BBC2 10pm Mondays. You'll love it.
I do, and I do :)
Becky
Gaurav Sharma
"Mark Thakkar" <mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.16d1dc94c...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Becky,
>
> > Management speak: where you don't talk to people but instead 'liaise
> > with them' over every minor thing; where any word you like can become
> > a verb (to action, to 'Belbinise'); and where every word is a
> > possible acronym (TEAM - Together Each Achieves More was one I
> > stumbled across recently).
> >
> > It's a lot of shit spoken by people who aren't clever enough to
> > realise how stupid it makes them look.
>
> I think you need to downsize your anger - perhaps we could interface
> some time and try to leverage you into a more positive frame of mind?
>
> ...
I think Becky here has mis-interpreted the information, for example she may
not have the necessary knowledge to oblige to such a system's dynamics on a
WAN discussion forum such as this (Unless she is using Internet Browser
software for which different implications may imply under the digital
copyright patents act 1994). I suggest a consultation with an analyst so
that performance indicators can be identified and evaluated to produce the
required solution for the client herein.
--
Gaurav Sharma
David
exam questions as well.
The Teacher's Guide to the AQA spec. contains a list of features which
could be considered "advanced". Students should try to use some of those
features but they certainly don't have to use them all.
I have no idea what a "task related problem" is!
I have no idea what "a snapshot in time" means. I have even sat through
a couple of AQA training sessions but I still don't understand what it
means.
"Limited in scope" is emphasising the importance of students not being
over-ambitious. In my limited experience, students are more inclined to
be overambitious than under-ambitious. For example, this year, I had a
student who effectively wanted to computerise Fords at Dagenham! They
should choose a simple and limited problem that, although simple and
limited, is substantial enough to allow them to use the "advanced
features" effectively. It should be a realistic problem that allows them
to show off the fact that they can do a few clever things in Excel.
One cannot stress often enough to the students that the documentation of
their work is of far greater importance than the work itself.
In article <idte6uoj423i5kugl...@4ax.com>, ict@user.
says...
David
> More indication of the crapulous nature of what is called "ICT" in
> education circles? Though if "ICT" means learning management bullshit
> talk, maybe it's a useful qualification. Wish I could speak it, I often
> feel I'm hampered in life by an inability not only to understand it,
> but also to take seriously anyone who spouts it.
>
> Matthew Huntbach
ICT is not the same thing as Computing. Most ICT teachers understand
this. In this newsgroup, I do not see much evidence of people getting
the two subjects mixed up. Why do you continually feel the need to point
this out to everyone?
As you obviously have no interest in ICT, I am slightly confused about
why you spend so much time in an ICT newsgroup!
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <a48433$nm3$2...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says...
> > More indication of the crapulous nature of what is called "ICT" in
> > education circles? Though if "ICT" means learning management bullshit
> > talk, maybe it's a useful qualification. Wish I could speak it, I often
> > feel I'm hampered in life by an inability not only to understand it,
> > but also to take seriously anyone who spouts it.
> ICT is not the same thing as Computing. Most ICT teachers understand
> this. In this newsgroup, I do not see much evidence of people getting
> the two subjects mixed up. Why do you continually feel the need to point
> this out to everyone?
As I have already said, in my experience, which comes from handling
thousands of UCAS forms, not only do large numbers of students think
university Computer Science is an extension of what they are doing in
school "ICT", so do the teachers who write their UCAS references. In
schools talks I have given I have generally found teachers regard it
as something new and rather surprising to be told that ICT and
Computer Science are different things.
> As you obviously have no interest in ICT, I am slightly confused about
> why you spend so much time in an ICT newsgroup!
I only read and reply to what is crossposted to the newsgroup I do
read and contribute to: alt.uk.a-levels. If you do not want me
to contribute to threads, just make sure they are not crossposted
to aua.
Matthew Huntbach
Gaurav Sharma
"David" <kutfktf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.16d368019...@news.demon.co.uk...
> In article <a48433$nm3$2...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says...
> > More indication of the crapulous nature of what is called "ICT" in
> > education circles? Though if "ICT" means learning management bullshit
> > talk, maybe it's a useful qualification. Wish I could speak it, I often
> > feel I'm hampered in life by an inability not only to understand it,
> > but also to take seriously anyone who spouts it.
> >
> > Matthew Huntbach
>
> ICT is not the same thing as Computing. Most ICT teachers understand
> this. In this newsgroup, I do not see much evidence of people getting
> the two subjects mixed up. Why do you continually feel the need to point
> this out to everyone?
Most students don't know this when it comes to making a choice at the time,
and choose ICT, to find out these facts at a later date, by which time
they're screwed. Different people are viewing these posts all the time and
it's literally MMH's job ethic to tell them these sort of things.
> As you obviously have no interest in ICT, I am slightly confused about
> why you spend so much time in an ICT newsgroup!
>
ICT is an escape-route for clueless under-achieving idiots in general.
And stop cross-posting your shite in the first place.
--
Gaurav Sharma
Alex Warren
> As you obviously have no interest in ICT, I am slightly confused about
> why you spend so much time in an ICT newsgroup!
(Slaps forehead)
Alex
--
OneBollock.com. All because the lady loves.
http://www.onebollock.com/
John Cartmell
<kutfktf...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "Limited in scope" is emphasising the importance of students not being
> over-ambitious. In my limited experience, students are more inclined to
> be overambitious than under-ambitious. For example, this year, I had a
> student who effectively wanted to computerise Fords at Dagenham! They
> should choose a simple and limited problem that, although simple and
> limited, is substantial enough to allow them to use the "advanced
> features" effectively. It should be a realistic problem that allows
> them to show off the fact that they can do a few clever things in Excel.
IT students that haven't been KISSed to death by this stage have lacked the
appropriate teaching!
--
John Cartmell
David
> David (kutfktf...@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
> > In article <a48433$nm3$2...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says...
> As I have already said, in my experience, which comes from handling
> thousands of UCAS forms, not only do large numbers of students think
> university Computer Science is an extension of what they are doing in
> school "ICT", so do the teachers who write their UCAS references.
On this point I completely agree with you but you seem to imply that this
is somehow the "fault" of ICT or of ICT teachers. There is definitely
not enough *competent* careers advice for students who want to do
IT/Computing courses. Very few careers teachers understand the
difference between ICT and computing and that is simply disgraceful. You
should be attacking careers tutors and Heads of sixth forms because these
are the people who should be pointing these people in the right
direction.
> read and contribute to: alt.uk.a-levels. If you do not want me
> to contribute to threads, just make sure they are not crossposted
> to aua.
I don't mind your contributions at all. I just feel that you might be
developing an unhealthy obsession with ICT.
Alasdair Kesson
wrote:
>In article <a4bnv7$t4m$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says...
>> David (kutfktf...@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
>> > In article <a48433$nm3$2...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says...
>
>> As I have already said, in my experience, which comes from handling
>> thousands of UCAS forms, not only do large numbers of students think
>> university Computer Science is an extension of what they are doing in
>> school "ICT", so do the teachers who write their UCAS references.
>
>On this point I completely agree with you but you seem to imply that this
>is somehow the "fault" of ICT or of ICT teachers. There is definitely
>not enough *competent* careers advice for students who want to do
>IT/Computing courses. Very few careers teachers understand the
>difference between ICT and computing and that is simply disgraceful. You
>should be attacking careers tutors and Heads of sixth forms because these
>are the people who should be pointing these people in the right
>direction.
>
It would also be helpful to have the IT industry and Higher Education
coming into schools to explain the wide range of careers and courses
available to students and the employer/HE expectations in terms of
qualifications, skills, knowledge etc
Charly Lowndes
I love the thread on jargon .... but I think the meaning may relate to the contrast with ICT6, which lays stress on a system which has a cycle of processing, eg an
accounts system with some notion of month-end or year-end: perhaps archiving transactions, providing a summary, and setting running totals to zero or some other initial
value. The ICT3 system perhaps doesn't need this, being a snapshot .... so it might calculate profit scenarios, etc.
Hope this isn't too boring :)
Charly Lowndes
Magdalen College School, Oxford
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <a4bnv7$t4m$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says...
> > read and contribute to: alt.uk.a-levels. If you do not want me
> > to contribute to threads, just make sure they are not crossposted
> > to aua.
> I don't mind your contributions at all. I just feel that you might be
> developing an unhealthy obsession with ICT.
The UCAS admissions process has almost finished for the year - we've just
started receiving the first "late" applications, so we've seen most of
what we're going to get. And once again, worse than ever, I am getting
hundreds of applicants who have been badly advised, misled, due to this
confusion which is engendered by the existence of something called
"ICT" in schools. Do you think I like rejecting hundreds of people who
have applied to my course and are obviously keen to do it, but who
I know won't be able to cope due to bad advice given at schools? I've
just checked through the first semesters exam results, and seen large
numbers of our students with qualification showing high grades in "ICT"
who are achieving dreadful results - they clearly can't cope with even the
very basic material that is in the first semester of a very standard
Computer Science degree. Don't you think this is a scandal, because they
and their teachers truly believed those high grades in "ICT" meant they
would do brilliantly in our Computer Science degree? If someone with
a grade A in an "ICT" A-level lacks the ability to cope with even the
simplest programming exercise, just what does this "A" mean? If someone
else thinks this "A" means someting valuable, let them speak in its
defence.
Matthew Huntbach
Frank McAree
> David (kutfktf...@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
> > In article <a4bnv7$t4m$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says...
>
> > > read and contribute to: alt.uk.a-levels. If you do not want me
> > > to contribute to threads, just make sure they are not crossposted
> > > to aua.
>
> > I don't mind your contributions at all. I just feel that you might be
> > developing an unhealthy obsession with ICT.
>
> The UCAS admissions process has almost finished for the year - we've just
> started receiving the first "late" applications, so we've seen most of
> what we're going to get. And once again, worse than ever, I am getting
> hundreds of applicants who have been badly advised, misled, due to this
> confusion which is engendered by the existence of something called
> "ICT" in schools. Do you think I like rejecting hundreds of people who
> have applied to my course and are obviously keen to do it, but who
> I know won't be able to cope due to bad advice given at schools?
snip<---
I'm intrigued, do you just reject students who have studied ICT out of hand.
What about students who do not have any post 16 qualification in a related
area, say a student who applies having just studied maths, physics
Do you actually specify that a qualification in Computing is a pre-requisite
for your course ?
FM
Matthew M. Huntbach
> "Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> The UCAS admissions process has almost finished for the year - we've just
>> started receiving the first "late" applications, so we've seen most of
>> what we're going to get. And once again, worse than ever, I am getting
>> hundreds of applicants who have been badly advised, misled, due to this
>> confusion which is engendered by the existence of something called
>> "ICT" in schools. Do you think I like rejecting hundreds of people who
>> have applied to my course and are obviously keen to do it, but who
>> I know won't be able to cope due to bad advice given at schools?
> I'm intrigued, do you just reject students who have studied ICT out of
> hand. What about students who do not have any post 16 qualification in a
> related area, say a student who applies having just studied maths, physics
Huh? Do you suppose Maths is not a "related area" to academic Computer
Science?
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! expletive deleted !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Do you actually specify that a qualification in Computing is a
> pre-requisite for your course ?
Maths is *the* most relevant A-level subject for academic Computer Science.
Ask any university admissions tutor for Computer Science and you will
be told this, look at the Computer Science entry in any university
prospectus and you will find this to be the case. Why is this message
not getting through to schools and FE colleges?
The reason for this is not, at least in most cases, that much use of
A-level Maths is made in academic Computer Science, but that A-level
Maths exercises, develops and tests the same sort of skills that are
required. Every year when I look at our university exam results and
compare them to the entrance qualifications, I find the closest
correlation is with the Maths A-level grade.
Most pre-university Computing qualifications just aren't oriented enough
towards programming to be of very much use in academic Computer Science.
At most they familiarise students with a few of the terms, and give
a teeny-weeny bit of programming. However, because they understate the
extent to which academic Computer Science is about programming, and
are too much based on rote-memorisation of terms, they are of limited
use, and can often be misleading.
In general, I find that students with an "ICT" qualification but not
maths or science are generally useless at academic Computer Science, so
I reject them out of hand. If they have A-level Computing but no other
maths or science, I'll want to see a very good grade before I accept them.
But even a moderate grade in A-level Maths generally means they're a good
bet, even if they haven't done A-level Computing. If they've done
A-level Maths and A-level ICT, they're a bit dodgy, because they may
have been misled by the ICT into thinking doing a Computer Science
degree means doing more of what they did in "ICT". So I'll probably
want to see slightly better Maths than I wold if they hadn't done ICT
at all.
When I said "useless" above, I do mean in *all* aspects of Computer
Science, even those "human skills" and analysis ones, which I am told
"ICT" is supposed to be about. "Vocational ICT" qualifications are
even more useless, though I find the BTEC National Diploma is often
ok, at least when passed at Distinction level. But I've never come
across anyone with a GNVQ in "ICT" who shows any ability at anything.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> What I didn't understand is why so many students read your prospectus and
> fail to understand, until I found this in a FE college prospectus for 'A'
> level ICT:
> "This course covers the handling and processing of data using all aspects
> of the Microsoft Office 2000 package including internet and e-mail. You
> will learn the value of data to a company and the use of modern technology
> in industry and commerce. It is a good preparation for degree level study
> in computing, business studies and management etc
Being able to use email, the internet, wordprocessors, spreadsheets etc
has no relevance to academic Computer Science. It is like supposing the
main ability that is required for someone to become an automobile engineer
designing car engines is passing their driving test. "Learn the value of
data to a company" sounds much more like Business Studies than Computer
Science. The fact is that without maths it is *NOT* a "good preparation
for degree level study in computing". That FE college prospectus is
LYING to its potential students. It is tricking them into doing something
that actually won't lead them where they want to go. Isn't that an
irresponsible and thoroughly wicked (in the old sense of the word) thing
to do?
> To narrow the focus, I've copied below from the Edexel spec and from your
> qmw prospectus. While there are obviously a few things in common - database
> structures, issues - it is also obvious that topics like "fundamental
> algorithms, data representation techniques, software development
> environments and component-based programming." and "logical and mathematical
> underpinnings " are going to be extremely difficult for anyone who isn't
> comfortable with a mathematical approach to problem solving.
Yup, school "ICT" doesn't cover these things but many students
and their teachers think academic Computer Science is just more of
what school "ICT" was about. Maybe they think it's just about learning
the functions of the more obscure buttons on their word processors.
Sending someone to a Computer Science degree on the basis of supposing
it's more of school "ICT" without any realisation it's about algorithms
and logic and programming, is like sending someone on a mechanical
engineering degree specialising in automobile design without any
understanding that it's going to be about the science of materials and
involve lots of maths, but won't involve advanced driving skills.
Matthew Huntbach
David
> Roger (abej...@btinternet.com) wrote:
> Being able to use email, the internet, wordprocessors, spreadsheets etc
> has no relevance to academic Computer Science.
I think this is complete bollocks. You are right to say that ICT and
Computer Science are different subjects. You are right to say that Maths
is much more important than ICT for an A level student who wants to do a
Computing degree. However, to suggest that ICT has "no relevance" to
computer science is just silly.
> It is like supposing the
> main ability that is required for someone to become an automobile engineer
> designing car engines is passing their driving test.
Is it possible to design a car if you have never driven a car? Yes I
suppose it is theoretically possible but I would not want to argue that
passing the driving test has "no relevance" to designing a car.
> "Learn the value of
> data to a company" sounds much more like Business Studies than Computer
> Science.
Yes there is a big cross-over between Business Studies and ICT. ICT
teaches students to consider the needs of users when designing computer
systems and users are very often business organisations. Too often
programmers are not focussed enough on the needs of their users, which is
why such an alarming proportion of computer systems fail to meet their
original objectives and are delivered late and/or over-budget.
> The fact is that without maths it is *NOT* a "good preparation
> for degree level study in computing".
I completely agree.
> That FE college prospectus is
> LYING to its potential students.
I did not spot a lie but it is very important for careers advisors/tutors
in the FE college to give sound advice to students doing their "options".
Too many counsellors do not realise that Maths is the main requirement
for computer science and it is shocking that bad advice is often given.
David
> Frank McAree (fk...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
> > "Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
> Maths is *the* most relevant A-level subject for academic Computer Science.
> Ask any university admissions tutor for Computer Science and you will
> be told this, look at the Computer Science entry in any university
> prospectus and you will find this to be the case. Why is this message
> not getting through to schools and FE colleges?
Because parents and teachers allow 16 year olds to take the subjects they
enjoy rather than the subjects that would be most useful to them. This
is why so many students take subjects like Media Studies and so few do
Maths and Physics.
Parents have a big responsibility. They really cannot leave it to the
school because many schools don't have sixth forms and students move
around at 16+.
Schools which do have sixth forms are in a money and numbers game. They
are under massive pressure to keep their numbers up and this is achieved
by keeping the kids happy.
David
> David (kutfktf...@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
> > In article <a4bnv7$t4m$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says...
>
> If someone with
> a grade A in an "ICT" A-level lacks the ability to cope with even the
> simplest programming exercise, just what does this "A" mean? If someone
> else thinks this "A" means someting valuable, let them speak in its
> defence.
The A does mean something valuable but it is absolutely no guarantee of
any programming ability because ICT IS NOT THE SAME SUBJECT AS COMPUTING.
It is something of value but not necesasarily something that you would
appreciate. Believe it or not, there are many valuable things in life
other than computer programming!
John Cartmell
<abej...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> There are very few teachers qualified to teach Computer Science, and
> almost every teacher is 'qualified' to teach ICT. It is the subject of
> the moment.
There are very few teachers qualified to teach Computer Science. There are
very few teachers qualified to teach IT (or even ICT whatever that is).
School administrators know that the former is the case; they are stupid
enough to believe that they know better regarding the latter (and their
ignorance is encouraged by the government).
--
John Cartmell MAUG - now at Trafford MV Rugby Club, FinnyBank Road, Sale http://www.acorn.manchester.ac.uk next meeting Wednesday - 20-2-02
** NEW SOFTWARE again? This month could be about virtually anything...
John Tissandier
> ...though I find the BTEC National Diploma is often
> ok, at least when passed at Distinction level.
Given that I teach on this course I am glad to hear I am not completely
wasting my time!
But how are you planning to interpret the new BND course? The old BTEC was one
uniform course, but it is now split into three separate streams: business,
programming and networking/support.
And to make matters more complicated, not content with having created the new
BND, Edexcel are introducing the NEW new BND this September. This will
increase the number of units from 16 to 18 (i.e. = 3 'A' levels) and have
external assessment. They will keep three steams (General, ICT Systems
Support, Software Development) and the name of the course will lose the
cherished word Computing and be changed to BTEC National Diploma in IT
Practitioners. I'm sure the IT bit will bug you.
What I find annoying is that the incompetent assholes couldn't keep going on
the old scheme just one more year until they had sorted out the new
qualification. I can only presume that the first new BTEC was a failure and
rejected by QCA and they had to go back to the drawing board to produce the
new-new one. But the amount of work for people like me delivering it! We have
had to reorganise everything last September only to have to reorganise
everything again this September. This will surely drive me to early
retirement.
John
John Cartmell
<m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> "Learn the value of data to a company" sounds much more like Business
> Studies than Computer Science. The fact is that without maths it is
> *NOT* a "good preparation for degree level study in computing".
I'd be willing to argue that maths is only half the equation; understanding
the circumstances and use is the other half. I'd agree that ICT as taught
isn't the answer but neither is Maths alone (and your reliance in that is
the cause of many of the current problems with computers).
--
John Cartmell
John Cartmell
<m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> Maths is *the* most relevant A-level subject for academic Computer
> Science. Ask any university admissions tutor for Computer Science and
> you will be told this, look at the Computer Science entry in any
> university prospectus and you will find this to be the case. Why is this
> message not getting through to schools and FE colleges?
Possibly not as simple as you think. There are those of us who expected IT
to include more of what was included in Computer Science. The National
Curriculum changes, with IT included, half-included, excluded from
Technology (and Technology being involved in a revolution, watering-down
and counter-revolution) didn't help. The fact that Computer Science looked
like a dodo (as examined) didn't help. The idea that IT should be taught
across the curriculum (ie every teacher could teach the subject) made the
whole idea laughable.
IT could, and should, be as appropriate a prerequisite as Maths. ICT isn't
but, as it totters at present, has little relevance at all.
--
John Cartmell
Frank McAree
> Frank McAree (fk...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
> > "Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
>
> >> The UCAS admissions process has almost finished for the year - we've
just
> >> started receiving the first "late" applications, so we've seen most of
> >> what we're going to get. And once again, worse than ever, I am getting
> >> hundreds of applicants who have been badly advised, misled, due to this
> >> confusion which is engendered by the existence of something called
> >> "ICT" in schools. Do you think I like rejecting hundreds of people who
> >> have applied to my course and are obviously keen to do it, but who
> >> I know won't be able to cope due to bad advice given at schools?
>
> > I'm intrigued, do you just reject students who have studied ICT out of
> > hand. What about students who do not have any post 16 qualification in a
> > related area, say a student who applies having just studied maths,
physics
>
> Huh? Do you suppose Maths is not a "related area" to academic Computer
> Science?
>
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! expletive deleted !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> > Do you actually specify that a qualification in Computing is a
> > pre-requisite for your course ?
>
> Maths is *the* most relevant A-level subject for academic Computer
Science.
So my longstanding standard advice to students wanting to do programming
courses ' don't do IT do further maths' seems to still hold true.
Interestingly, many of our students want to get into computer games
companies - the only ones that have been successful so far, didn't do ICT,
maths etc. nor degrees in computing/computer science... They did Art .
FM
Gaurav Sharma
"Frank McAree" <fk...@dial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:3c6c1fbf$0$238$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
bracket with a fixed pay for anyone from any discipline, thus your statement
is flawed.
--
Gaurav Sharma
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <a4gf6i$lq$4...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says...
> > David (kutfktf...@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
> > > In article <a4bnv7$t4m$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says...
> > If someone with
> > a grade A in an "ICT" A-level lacks the ability to cope with even the
> > simplest programming exercise, just what does this "A" mean? If someone
> > else thinks this "A" means someting valuable, let them speak in its
> > defence.
> The A does mean something valuable but it is absolutely no guarantee of
> any programming ability because ICT IS NOT THE SAME SUBJECT AS COMPUTING.
This would be fine if most people, the students that take it, the teachers
that write UCAS forms, the politicians that promote "ICT" in schools, the
administrators that encourage "ICT" qualifications, the people that
write FE prospectuses etc realised it. But they don't.
> It is something of value but not necesasarily something that you would
> appreciate. Believe it or not, there are many valuable things in life
> other than computer programming!
Fine - that is why I keep saying let those who value school "ICT" sing
its praises and tell us of its value. I happen to be a lecturer and the
admissions tutor for a university degree programme where programming is
the central skill. So obviously programming ability is something that
concerns me. I wouldn't be concerned at all about school "ICT" except
for the fact that about half the applicants I get for our degree
programme clearly believe that what they have done in their school
"ICT is the most relevant thing for our degree, and in quite a few cases
have even given up more relevant things, like Maths, because they believe
"ICT" is what I want to see - and the references written by their teachers
suggest the teachers are similarly nisguided and misinformed.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <a4gp6v$48i$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says...
> > Roger (abej...@btinternet.com) wrote:
> > Being able to use email, the internet, wordprocessors, spreadsheets etc
> > has no relevance to academic Computer Science.
> I think this is complete bollocks. You are right to say that ICT and
> Computer Science are different subjects. You are right to say that Maths
> is much more important than ICT for an A level student who wants to do a
> Computing degree. However, to suggest that ICT has "no relevance" to
> computer science is just silly.
I do not find there is any correlation between ability to use common
office applications and ability to succeed in a Computer Science degree.
If someone or their teacher tells me on their UCAS form, as they often
do, how much they enjoy using these applications and how they have
succeeded in mastering them, it tells me nothing whatsoever of any use
to help me determine whether they are suitable for taking a degree in
Computer Science. They might as well have used the space on the UCAS form
to tell me what colour socks they like wearing.
> > "Learn the value of
> > data to a company" sounds much more like Business Studies than Computer
> > Science.
> Yes there is a big cross-over between Business Studies and ICT. ICT
> teaches students to consider the needs of users when designing computer
> systems and users are very often business organisations.
Fine, so let academics who teach on Business Studies degrees sing the
praises and relevance of school "ICT".
> Too often
> programmers are not focussed enough on the needs of their users, which is
> why such an alarming proportion of computer systems fail to meet their
> original objectives and are delivered late and/or over-budget.
No, failure in computer systems is more likely to be due to poor design
and bad programming. I am not surprised software systems fail if the
sort of person who programs them is the sort of "computer expert" I come
across who has marvellous qualification in "ICT" but absolutely no sense
of logic that is necessary to put together a few lines of code.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> Matthew
> > ...though I find the BTEC National Diploma is often
> > ok, at least when passed at Distinction level.
> Given that I teach on this course I am glad to hear I am not completely
> wasting my time!
Yes, it's the one "ICT" qualification I do have some time for, and I have
seen some excellent undergraduates who have come in with a BTEC National
Diploma in IT.
> But how are you planning to interpret the new BND course? The old BTEC
> was one uniform course, but it is now split into three separate streams:
> business, programming and networking/support.
Right, no-one bothered to tell me this, but I would say the programming
stream will be good, the other two useless for my purposes.
> What I find annoying is that the incompetent assholes couldn't keep going
> on the old scheme just one more year until they had sorted out the new
> qualification.
Indeed. It's the one "ICT" qualification I find is of use, so they abolish
it. Typical.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
In what way? I use Maths as the main indicator for acceptance onto our
degree because it is by far the best predictor of success on our degree.
I don't use "ICT" qualifications (except the BTEC National Diploma) because
experience suggests that A grades in ICT A-level and Distinction grades
in ICT GNVQ tell me nothing whatsoever about a person's ability in the
degree.
Our degree is not particularly mathematical, and is accredited by the
BCS and IEE as being professionally relevant. If you think the *contents*
of our degree programme are "the cause of many of the current problems with
computers" I'd be pleased to hear your criticisms. Here:
http://www.dcs.qmul.ac.uk/courses/2002-2003/index.html
you can find a detailed description of our undergraduate degree and the
course units that make it up. What in this is "the cause of many of the
current problems with computers"? If you cannot supply an answer, then
please withdraw your criticism of me. ALL I am concerned with is what
qualifications will tell me a student will succeed on this degree, and I
do a detailed analysis of entrance qualifications against results on the
degree every year, and this is the main thing that informs me which
qualifications to take seriously, and which not to. If I found that
there was a strong correlation between applicants wearing red socks and
and students who got first class degrees, I'd make a point of recruiting
applicants who wore red socks. If I found there was a strong correlation
between applicants who wore blue socks and students who failed the
degree, I'd make a point of not taking on applicants who wore blue socks.
I say what I say about entrance qualifications not though any prejudice
but through direct experience with what works for us and what doesn't.
I wish people like you could understand this, rather than accuse me of
having prejudices against "ICT" and in favour of Maths.
Matthew Huntbach
Michael Saunby
"Matthew M. Huntbach" <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a4ihgf$jde$3...@beta.qmul.ac.uk...
> David (kutfktf...@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
> > In article <a4gf6i$lq$4...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says...
> > > David (kutfktf...@yahoo.co.uk) wrote:
> > > > In article <a4bnv7$t4m$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk
says...
>
> > > If someone with
> > > a grade A in an "ICT" A-level lacks the ability to cope with even
the
> > > simplest programming exercise, just what does this "A" mean? If
someone
> > > else thinks this "A" means someting valuable, let them speak in
its
> > > defence.
>
> > The A does mean something valuable but it is absolutely no guarantee
of
> > any programming ability because ICT IS NOT THE SAME SUBJECT AS
COMPUTING.
>
> This would be fine if most people, the students that take it, the
teachers
> that write UCAS forms, the politicians that promote "ICT" in schools,
the
> administrators that encourage "ICT" qualifications, the people that
> write FE prospectuses etc realised it. But they don't.
>
I suspect it is a problem that affects many countries. There was a
programme on the TV a while back showing graduates from India leaving
for work in Silicon Valley. Apparently more US work visas are issued in
Madras than anywhere else in the world. These graduates have in most
cases never seen a PC before going to University, but their maths grades
are excellent and some of the best computer programmers and engineers in
the world are produced there.
It's a different culture though, we want young people to enjoy
themselves and be "happy", in other lands perhaps they are more driven
towards success and believe it will follow hard work. Maths is hard,
it's no longer compatible with our culture. This has happened before
though with dangerous work, most manufacturing is now done in developing
countries. The UK is probably a very good place to make pop records and
TV programmes though.
Michael Saunby
John Cartmell
<m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> What in this is "the cause of many of the current problems with
> computers"? If you cannot supply an answer, then please withdraw your
> criticism of me.
Too touchy!
I wasn't criticising you - rather the state of computer use / computer
programming / project administration in general.
I'd suggest that we are distinctly short of people who understand both what
needs doing and how it can be done. You may be turning out the latter but
large chunks of my taxes are being thrown away because we don't have the
former. ;-((
--
John Cartmell
Mark Thakkar
>> As you obviously have no interest in ICT, I am slightly confused
>> about why you spend so much time in an ICT newsgroup!
>
> (Slaps forehead)
The irony in this perennial confusion is quite amusing, though. The
very people who ought to be au fait with what is, after all, a
/technologically/-driven form of communication, seem to be blissfully
ignorant of it.
Mark.
John Tissandier
> seen some excellent undergraduates who have come in with a BTEC National
> Diploma in IT.
Ah, there has been some misunderstanding. I thought you meant the BTEC
National Diploma In Computing. That's what I teach on.
John
Matthew M. Huntbach
Maybe it is called BTEC National Diploma in Computing. Part of the confusion
is that many people seem to use the two terms interchangeably. I always
go on the range of modules the applicant is taking.
Matthew Huntbach
John Tissandier
> is that many people seem to use the two terms interchangeably. I always
> go on the range of modules the applicant is taking.
The BTEC National Diploma in Computing includes units like Programming
Concepts, Programming Practice and Programming Project. Quite a number of our
students don't like programming because they find it hard. There are some
subjects where it is easy to hide behind waffle, but programming does tend to
lay bare an individual's intellectual pretensions to being able to think
logically and solve problems.
But you are right it is confusing that people keep changing the labels
according to fashion. When I first joined the college 15 years ago on my
contract I was a Lecturer in Computing working in the Computing Department, now
apparently I am a Lecturer in IT working in the Business and IT department -
and yet what I teach hasn't changed!! It is still A level Computing and the
programming and networking units of the BTEC National in Computing (now renamed
as we were discussing).
John
`p
`p
`p
`p
Alex Warren
"`p" <smar...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a4k72f$rg5f$1...@ID-84214.news.dfncis.de...
> FUs set.
Yeah. Right.
Alex
Niall Saville
wrote:
>Path: uni-berlin.de!pc-62-30-9-30-kn.blueyonder.co.UK!not-for-mail
>From: "`p" <smar...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>Newsgroups: alt.uk.a-levels
>Subject: Re: AQA ICT3 clarification needed
>Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 23:55:15 -0000
>Organization: ho-hum ;-)
>Lines: 4
>Message-ID: <a4k72f$rg5f$1...@ID-84214.news.dfncis.de>
>References: <idte6uoj423i5kugl...@4ax.com> <a48433$nm3$2...@beta.qmul.ac.uk> <MPG.16d368019...@news.demon.co.uk> <a4bnv7$t4m$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk> <MPG.16d37f06e...@news.demon.co.uk> <a4gf6i$lq$4...@beta.qmul.ac.uk> <MPG.16d60cb2...@news.demon.co.uk> <a4ihgf$jde$3...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>
>Reply-To: "`p" <smar...@blueyonder.co.uk>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: pc-62-30-9-30-kn.blueyonder.co.uk (62.30.9.30)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1013817231 901295 62.30.9.30 (16 [84214])
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
>Xref: uni-berlin.de alt.uk.a-levels:87541
>X-Agent-Group: alt.uk.a-levels
>
>FUs set.
Where?
Oh, you haven't set FUs at all, you've just snipped the list of groups
this is posted to.
Hint: Learn how to use the Followup-To header.
This has been a remarkably nice post. Next time I will be your fifth
physically distinct posting with substantially identical content - if
you do it within ten days I will follow Rahul Dhesi's definition of
spam and seek an auto-cancel.
HAND.
--
"You can't trust anyone!"
- "Try pseudo-trust. Like a compromise."
sachi, 2001
Matthew M. Huntbach
> Matthew Huntbach wrote:
> > Maybe it is called BTEC National Diploma in Computing. Part of the
> > confusion is that many people seem to use the two terms interchangeably.
> > I always go on the range of modules the applicant is taking.
> The BTEC National Diploma in Computing includes units like Programming
> Concepts, Programming Practice and Programming Project.
Oh yes, those are the ones I look for. I wouldn't take anyone with a BTEC
unless they had a Distinction in all of those.
> Quite a number of our students don't like programming because they find
> it hard.
Please say who they are on their UCAS forms so that I can reject them.
> There are some subjects where it is easy to hide behind waffle, but
> programming does tend to lay bare an individual's intellectual pretensions
> to being able to think logically and solve problems.
Exactly. Which is why, even though I accept there is more to Computing
than programming, I regard the ability to program as the key test. How
can anyone have the logic to deal with the analysis etc side of
computing, which those arguing against me in this thread have been going
on about, if they lack the ability to cope with simple programming?
> But you are right it is confusing that people keep changing the labels
> according to fashion. When I first joined the college 15 years ago on my
> contract I was a Lecturer in Computing working in the Computing Department,
> now apparently I am a Lecturer in IT working in the Business and IT
> department - and yet what I teach hasn't changed!!
Yes, in the past Computing in schools and FE colleges tended to come under
Maths. But now it comes under Business Studies. This may well go a long way
towards explaining why we get so many highly unsuited applicants to our
degree programe in Computer Science - they really do see it as a branch
of Business Studies and hence are wholly unprepared for the fact that it
is more closely related to mathematics.
Matthew Huntbach
JHP
Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:a4qghe$afr$2...@beta.qmul.ac.uk...
It's also worth noting that the IT/IS stuff studied in Business Studies is
essentially different from Computer Science - it is more directed towards
Organisational Behaviour, Knowledge Management and Business Policy and as
such school ICT is not a good indicator of success.
In fact I'm beginning to wonder what on earth ICT at school is for other
than the obvious route of leaving after A levels - a perfectly honourable
thing to do, but if that's what it's for why do schools go on about what a
good preparation it is for university. Matthew doesn't want it in CS; I
don't want in Business Studies, particularly. I imagine Andy is desperate
for ICT ppl to do his maths courses.... What's it for?
John
Matthew M. Huntbach
> It's also worth noting that the IT/IS stuff studied in Business Studies is
> essentially different from Computer Science - it is more directed towards
> Organisational Behaviour, Knowledge Management and Business Policy and as
> such school ICT is not a good indicator of success.
> In fact I'm beginning to wonder what on earth ICT at school is for other
> than the obvious route of leaving after A levels - a perfectly honourable
> thing to do, but if that's what it's for why do schools go on about what a
> good preparation it is for university. Matthew doesn't want it in CS; I
> don't want in Business Studies, particularly. I imagine Andy is desperate
> for ICT ppl to do his maths courses.... What's it for?
Obvious - bums on seats in FE colleges and 6th forms. Happy politicians
content that the kiddies are doing "IT", which is all about computers, so
that must be modern and useful, mustn't it? Happy kids, because they're
doing something that doesn't make you think too hard - you can pass it all
by memorising definitions, much better than that boring and useless maths,
innit? Happy teachers, because as has been said in this thread "anyone can
teach ICT".
And, as I've always said, I can see it might be useful if you want a job
as a secretary or something like that.
Matthew Huntbach
Stuart Williams
wrote:
>>ICT .... What's it for?
>
>Obvious - bums on seats in FE colleges and 6th forms. Happy politicians
>content that the kiddies are doing "IT", which is all about computers, so
>that must be modern and useful, mustn't it? Happy kids, because they're
>doing something that doesn't make you think too hard - you can pass it all
>by memorising definitions, much better than that boring and useless maths,
>innit? Happy teachers, because as has been said in this thread "anyone can
>teach ICT".
Well, not all teachers are happy: we used to do Computing A level but
the Head of IT insisted on changing to ICT because the sort of pupils
who were choosing Computing were doing very badly at it. This was
partly my fault, since I put a lot of pressure on bright pupils who
wanted to read Computing at university to do Double Maths instead. I
still tell bright kids to avoid both Business Studies and ICT, though
some refuse to listen. I guess everyone working in an institution
which attracts both clever and less clever pupils has to put on a
range of courses, and there will be a tendency for the low-value
(=easy) courses to drive out the high-value (=hard) ones. I gather
from previous posts of yours that the same thing happens at QM. Still,
there does seem to be a growing awareness these days that it is better
to take e.g. Economics than Business Studies if you're capable of it.
[BTW, in view of your usual diatribes against teachers misrepresenting
their pupils' suitability for CS at QM, I'd like to record that on the
last reference I wrote for a candidate applying to you, the final
sentence was "We cannot support this candidate's application". He did
eventually recognise that he ought to be going to art college
instead.]
Stuart Williams
Pete Bartlett
> companies - the only ones that have been successful so far, didn't do ICT,
> maths etc. nor degrees in computing/computer science... They did Art.
To give an idea what games programmers actually do check out the spare-time
website of a friend of mine
http://www.freefall.freehosting.net/news/frontpage.html . Course people with
artistic flair are required to make games look good but they'd get nowhere
without people who know how to program and know a bit of Physics.
Pete
John Cartmell
<j.h.pow...@fingerwhsmithnet.co.uk(removeyourfingertoreply)> wrote:
> I'm beginning to wonder what on earth ICT at school is for other than
> the obvious route of leaving after A levels - a perfectly honourable
> thing to do, but if that's what it's for why do schools go on about what
> a good preparation it is for university. Matthew doesn't want it in CS;
> I don't want in Business Studies, particularly. I imagine Andy is
> desperate for ICT ppl to do his maths courses.... What's it for?
Good question.
IT was part of Technology (or not) and was apparently an excellent course
to test clear thinking, problem solving and an ability to work alone, in
groups, self-motivating etc.
As part of the dumbing-down of Technology, IT somehow got confused with a
related 'subject' area - that of using computers in other subjects. At the
same time ICT reared its ugly head and the government let schools off a
potential problem by suggesting that all teachers could teach ICT 'across
the curriculum' - so obviously any teacher could teach IT.
In short IT was hi-jacked and only a limited number of schools were likely
to want to provision 'proper' IT when any idiot could teach the 'subject'
which, by that time, was being reduced in scope because ICT 'specialists'
weren't trained in the subject and schools were moving over to Windows
machines with a limited range of software reminiscent of an office rather
than an educational establishment.
IT - RIP?
--
John Cartmell
`p
"Roger" <abej...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:a4s3h5$16a$1...@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> >IT - RIP?
>
> Yes and no. I think the reason that 'p is getting frustrated here is
that he
> well aware of how useful well taught IT can be. On the other hand,
Matthew
> gets equally frustrated because he sees so many applications from
students
> who haven't grasped the difference between good office applications
skills
> and programming. The sadness is that 'p's students are likely to be
> relegated to the same waste bin as all the others, even though they
may have
> a much better grounding in computing skills alongside the IT ones.
>
>
Succintly put, Roger.
I shall post no more on this subject.
Thanks to both you and Alasdair for winding my neck in so nicely.
And to Uncle Lionel, I'm sorry. Again. :-(
--
`p
John Cartmell
<abej...@btinternet.com> replied to:
> >IT - RIP?
> Yes and no. I think the reason that 'p is getting frustrated here is
> that he well aware of how useful well taught IT can be. On the other
> hand, Matthew gets equally frustrated because he sees so many
> applications from students who haven't grasped the difference between
> good office applications skills and programming. The sadness is that
> 'p's students are likely to be relegated to the same waste bin as all
> the others, even though they may have a much better grounding in
> computing skills alongside the IT ones.
These are my worries. I found the original Technology proposals to be
exciting - and even the published orders were potentially good. Early
indications were that IT could be pushed to be something special even if
Technology had fallen by the wayside.
We now appear to have a subject that is all about cheap, low-value training
and no matter how good 'ICT' can be taught in isolated oases the whole area
will suffer. It's a gross waste of chances, pupils' & teachers' efforts and
money down the drain.
Will someone please show me I'm wrong?
--
John Cartmell
Mark Thakkar
> To give an idea what games programmers actually do check out the
> spare-time website of a friend of mine
> http://www.freefall.freehosting.net/news/frontpage.html . Course
> people with artistic flair are required to make games look good but
> they'd get nowhere without people who know how to program and know a
> bit of Physics.
Ooh, someone actually /using/ quaternions!
Mark.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> On 18 Feb 2002 16:07:14 GMT, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew M. Huntbach)
> wrote:
>>>ICT .... What's it for?
>>Obvious - bums on seats in FE colleges and 6th forms. Happy politicians
>>content that the kiddies are doing "IT", which is all about computers, so
>>that must be modern and useful, mustn't it? Happy kids, because they're
>>doing something that doesn't make you think too hard - you can pass it all
>>by memorising definitions, much better than that boring and useless maths,
>>innit? Happy teachers, because as has been said in this thread "anyone can
>>teach ICT".
> Well, not all teachers are happy: we used to do Computing A level but
> the Head of IT insisted on changing to ICT because the sort of pupils
> who were choosing Computing were doing very badly at it.
Yup, proves my point. Kids do ICT because they can't do Maths or even
A-level Computing. So not only is ICT of little use on its own, it
actually serves as a warning that the person taking it probably is no
good at or hates maths or anything else that involves a bit of hard thought.
> This was partly my fault, since I put a lot of pressure on bright pupils
> who wanted to read Computing at university to do Double Maths instead. I
> still tell bright kids to avoid both Business Studies and ICT, though
> some refuse to listen.
Yes, as Rob Martin put it, what could you or I know? Obviously to
actually *tell* a 16-year old something that 16-year old would rather
not know makes one a patronising old git.
> [BTW, in view of your usual diatribes against teachers misrepresenting
> their pupils' suitability for CS at QM, I'd like to record that on the
> last reference I wrote for a candidate applying to you, the final
> sentence was "We cannot support this candidate's application". He did
> eventually recognise that he ought to be going to art college
> instead.]
Good for you. This means when I get another application where you've
written something nice on the reference, I'll believe it. Surprising how
many schools and FE colleges send UCAS references which are just
cut-and-paste jobs, so every student of theirs has the same wondrous
qualities. Sometimes they even forget to change every occurrence of
the name, or change he to she when appropriate. Do they honestly think
we're going to be fooled when we get a whole batch of UCAS froms with
identical references?
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> Matthew M. Huntbach wrote:
>> Obvious - bums on seats in FE colleges and 6th forms. Happy politicians
>> content that the kiddies are doing "IT", which is all about computers, so
>> that must be modern and useful, mustn't it? Happy kids, because they're
>> doing something that doesn't make you think too hard - you can pass it all
>> by memorising definitions, much better than that boring and useless maths,
>> innit? Happy teachers, because as has been said in this thread "anyone can
>> teach ICT".
>Mr Huntbach, you know nothing of how IT is (properly) taught by myself and
>many others in this ng.
No, I hope you do a good job. But I do know plenty about students who come
onto my degree with qualifications which are called "IT".
>If I held opinions like your mobius loop opinion of
>IT it would make me, as an academic, ashamed.
As I keep saying, all I write is based on *experience*. It is not mere
opinion.
> And in a post with the MSID:<a4qghe$afr$2...@beta.qmul.ac.uk> Mr *Huntbach*
> pontificated:
> "Exactly. Which is why, even though I accept there is more to Computing
> than programming, I regard the ability to program as the key test. How
> can anyone have the logic to deal with the analysis etc side of
> computing, which those arguing against me in this thread have been going
> on about, if they lack the ability to cope with simple programming?"
> Have you *ever* done any work outside of academia?
> If you had you would know that there are many analysts that have never
> programmed in their lives.
Sure. But my point is that if someone is so lacking in logical skills
that they can't cope with a simple bit of programming, it does rather
ask questions about their ability to handle anything else which involves
logical precision.
> You also spouted off, in the same thread:
> "Yes, in the past Computing in schools and FE colleges tended to come under
> Maths. But now it comes under Business Studies. This may well go a long way
> towards explaining why we get so many highly unsuited applicants to our
> degree programe in Computer Science - they really do see it as a branch
> of Business Studies and hence are wholly unprepared for the fact that it
> is more closely related to mathematics."
> Absolute tosh, yet again. I have worked with many programmers, commercial
> ones to be sure - so again they don't have a proper pedigree by your
> *enlightened* standards - that had no maths qualifications other than a
> grade at GCE, I had a CSE grade 3, remember. And the best IBM Systems
> Programmer I ever met, was an ex-binman who had no qualifications at all -
> but, by gum, that lad could make a mainframe's VM (partition) management
> sing and dance.
As I have said, my experience is that there is a close correlation amongst
today's teenagers with success at maths and ability at programming.
Doesn't mean you *have* to have a maths qualification to be able to
program, I've never said that. Also, the situation was very different in
the past, which it seems is what you are talking about. In those days
many children were denied the chance to take serious maths qualifications.
Even O-levels were for an elite minority. My own parents were intelligent
people (my mother went on to get a good university degree as a mature
student) but had no qualifications because in those days people like
them weren't expected to get any. These days, however, all kids are
expected to take a full range of GCSEs (and with the decline in standards
I bet your CSE grade 3 in Maths is equivalent to a good GCSE grade in it
now).
> IT most defintiely does not come under Business Studies!
I was replying to someone who said that it did where he taught. And
checking up a few FE college and school web sites and booklets, it seems
it very commonly does these days.
> You are displaying nothing but your own opinions.
As I keep saying, everything I am writing here is based on detailed
experience with large numbers of students, analysing their performance
in degree examinations againsty their entrance qualifications.
> You have said that you don't not want to see A level ICT applicants for
> your CS course, fine;
Not at all. I'm saying that, unfortunately, based on past experience,
students with A-level ICT but no A-level Maths are unlikely to do well
on our degree programme. When you've had, as I have, people with these
qualifications crying their eyes out on your office because they just
can't cope with the degree, and feel they were misled by thinking it
would be like the "ICT" they did at school, you'll know what I mean.
> I wouldn't send any student of mine because I wouldn't tell an IT student
> to do a CS degree course, let alone any that are capable of the good
> grades at A level Maths that you require from my school to you even on
> a bet.
What do you recommend them to do?
> Now why don't you go back and get your jollies in alt.a-level, where there
> aren't as many people who know what you're talking about, nor understand
> the silly game that you're playing.
I'm not playing a silly game. I'm expressing my genuine concern based on
a lot of experience. You make yourself look stupid by failing to understand
the point I'm making.
Matthew Huntbach
JHP
> JHP wrote:
>
> >
> >> `p flapped at the mouth extensively<
>
>
> LMAO I'd rather flap at the mouth that make a labial excretion like some
> dolts.
>
> >
> > The only troll here appears to be you. I share Matthew's low opinion of
> > ICT as an A level. Even in a Business Studies course it is the A level
> > whose content is overtaken most quickly in the first year. It appears
> > neither to provide any basis of knowledge nor of advancement of thinking
> > skills.
>
> I beg to differ. I don't know where you get your students from but mine
are
> equipped with a good set of outside-of-the box thinking skills and some
> applied knowledge.
>
> >I have no idea why that is; perhaps it is the curriculum. From our
> > point of view it ranks well below media studies and drama as a basis for
> > entry. Yo may not wnat that to be the poinion of ATs, but it is. Perhaps
> > we ought to be attacking the curriculum setters rather than one naother.
> >
> > Oh and before you start, I almost certainly have more real-life
experience
> > of major ISs and their design than you have.
> >
> ROFLMAO
>
> And my dad was bigger than your dad too.
>
>
> But did I say that you didn't have more *real life* experience than
myself?
> (Query: Is there any other kind of life other than "real-life" though? Is
> this virtual communication beyond the etherial?) No, I did not. I was
> questioning your colleague's creditionals for spouting drivel about IT and
> its fitness for life outside his rather narrow circle/experience of *just*
> *lecturing* in CS.
>
> I say it again, CS is not IT, IT is not CS. They are opposite sides of a
> coin, that are joined tgether by its rim: the computer. Being a wiz at
> being able to knock up a compiler or write a device driver or being able
to
> dream in C does not equip one necessarily with the same analysis driven
set
> of skills/qualities that IT does. They are not the same therefore they
> should *not* be assessed using the same criteria.
>
> And moaning about the fact that someone receives an excessive amount of
> UCAS applications from misguided students/VIth Form tutors in
> uk.ed-schools-it does not figure largely as a rational thing to do in my
> book.
>
> Then to compound the error to flagrantly and blatantly *misunderstand*
> (despite being told politely and then rudley) that IT teachers who know
> what they are doing (the majority who post in here) don't tell their
> students to apply for a CS degree and to flame the efforts of others who
> obviously are beneath Mr Huntbach's level of competence and academic
regard
> smacks of *swanking* *off* and looking down on the poor relations.
>
> It is so sad, sooooo sad. Mr Huntbach should know better, it's a shame
> that he is so set in a such a stereotypical CS image, it maligns the
> message he ultimately wants to get across.
> --
> `p
Your listening skills need to improve to the level of your paranoia. No one
is saying *your* students aren't given thinking skills that are valuable in
a degree course. What both Matthew and I are saying is that in our very
different areas the possession of an A level in ICT (whether for reasons of
poor teaching or poor curriculum or self-selection by students) is one of
the poorest reasons to admit a student. We are not being 'swanky' we are
trying to protect the kids we borrow for 4 years. There is absolutely no
point in admitting anyone who by virtue of their qualifications is less than
suitable for a demanding course. I simply do not want blubbing first years
who can't cope because their A levels didn't help them The fact of the
matter is that almost anything is better than ICT as s basis for university
study. I have some students who do fine with ICT, but I make a general
point.
John
JHP
>
> And also, it really annoys me, no, it p*sses me off mightily,
(excellent)
> `p
>
>
>
>
>
More utter bollocks. You have no idea what our attitudes are to struggling
students. Education is not just about getting everybody to get a particular
qualification, it's about helping everybody to achieve whatever their
potential is. Proper universities work just as hard with students as
improper ones (whatever they are , you snobby twat). Universities and
schools are discriminatory - we discriminate in favour of people who learn
and against people who don't. Get over it.
John
Roger
of 20.587 (making it 2nd most popular A level) pupils only 5.2% got an
A at AS level (compared to biology 19.9% and chemistry 22.6% for
example). That means somebody with an A is in the top 5.2% of 20,587
candidates. That is the 2nd lowest % of A grades out of all the
subject. The rest of the grades are poor and the number with no grade
is high too compared to other subjects.
A full breakdown of all the grades and entries for all the AS subjects
can be found here http://www.aqa.org.uk/over/stat_pdf/aqanas01.pdf
I know you could say that weak candidates tend do the subject, but
still. If it really was that easy surely the results would be better?
Those statistics make a weak argument that it is an easy subject. Its
an easy subject where very few got an A and 22.3% got no grade at all?
I would of thought if it was so easy the results would be very good.
Where is the evidence that it is easy?
Matthew M. Huntbach
We have already had someone who teaches it posting admitting that his
college put it on to attract all those students who found A-level Maths
and A-level Computing too hard.
Matthew Huntbach
manager
<snip>
> > Where is the evidence that it is easy?
>
> We have already had someone who teaches it posting admitting that his
> college put it on to attract all those students who found A-level Maths
> and A-level Computing too hard.
>
> Matthew Huntbach
Our college has done this too. Doesn't mean it's easy, just that it's sort
of user friendly like Media Studies. Proper computing is a bit like Euclid,
the pons asinorum comes up fairly early on and you tend to shed the less
able fairly rapidly. In I(C)T, they don't hit a brick wall so they think
they can do it and keep going. This means that the less able are usually
able to scrape up some sort of a pass. The trouble is that the board wants
to preserve "intellectual rigour". This means they insist on precise and
excessively pedantic definitions e.g. the scholastic definitions of
information, knowledge and data. This can tend to discourage the more able
who have an understanding of the subject but don't tend to put down the
exact, required words cf the mark schemes which were available on the old
NEAB site. That's why the pass rate at the top end is so poor. There is also
the problem that it can be a self selecting group. We noticed that our
Computing groups tending to have almost a B average at GCSE whereas the IT
groups tended to have a C- GCSE average.
John McCabe
Roger
wrote:
>Roger (@.) wrote:
That's not evidence that its easy though is it. Might be evidence that
a lot of people think it will be easy. The stats show it is very
popular. The results show that out of 20.587 people most did not find
it easy. If 30% were getting A's and it had a 95% pass rate then it
would make more argument that it was easy.
How can you say something is easy when the results are poor?
Matthew M. Huntbach
> On 20 Feb 2002 11:53:31 GMT, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew M. Huntbach)
> wrote:
> >Roger (@.) wrote:
>>> Where is the evidence that it is easy?
>>We have already had someone who teaches it posting admitting that his
>>college put it on to attract all those students who found A-level Maths
>>and A-level Computing too hard.
> That's not evidence that its easy though is it. Might be evidence that
> a lot of people think it will be easy.
Fine, that's enough. if ICT is taken by the sort of person who thinks
it is easy, then it's the mark of someone who's seeking an easy option.
The sort of person who seeks easy options rather than challenging
ones (even if they are wrong about the options they choose) is the sort
of person I (and probably most academics) would rather not have on our
degree programme.
> The stats show it is very
> popular. The results show that out of 20.587 people most did not find
> it easy. If 30% were getting A's and it had a 95% pass rate then it
> would make more argument that it was easy.
> How can you say something is easy when the results are poor?
As I said, the problem is the *belief* that it is an easy option.
Someone else has already posted stats showing that the people in his
ICT class were grade C- GCSEs while the people in his Computing class
were grade B GCSEs. My experience suggests this is not unusual. Thus
if weaker people tend to take ICT you'd expect fewer of them to get grade
As even if it was no harder.
Matthew Hunbach
John Cartmell
Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> Fine, that's enough. if ICT is taken by the sort of person who thinks
> it is easy, then it's the mark of someone who's seeking an easy option.
> The sort of person who seeks easy options rather than challenging
> ones (even if they are wrong about the options they choose) is the sort
> of person I (and probably most academics) would rather not have on our
> degree programme.
Except that every (GCSE) IT class that I've taken has been a mix. One in
particular was almost full of easy-optioners (because they'd been told by
the head of year that it was an easy option). That doesn't mean that all
were after the easy option and one or two would be good candidates for a
fairly tough CS course.
Other classes have been mixes of easy-optioners, hard workers (but it's
just another subject), chose the subject for the teacher, like IT/CS as a
subject and IT/CS high flyers.
Do you really want to chuck out the baby with the bath-water?
--
John Cartmell
MAUG is no longer - but RONWUG - RISC OS North West User Group www.ronwug.org
meets at Trafford MV Rugby Club, FinnyBank Road, Sale
next meeting *today* - 20-2-02 This month could be about Virtually anything...
Roger
computing, rather than they think it will be easy. As I(C)T has a
trendy youthful image which probably appeals to 16-18yr olds more.
Again the students probably think the A level ICT is something which
it is not. It is not messing about with computers, for the course work
it is really the writing it up of it that counts. Its the planning and
methodology of the project that gets the marks. Specification,
Implementation, Testing, Evaluation and User Documentation are the
sections for the AS course work part. That probably breaks down into a
list of 30 or so stages which must be carried out to gain high marks.
Surely being in top 5.2% of nearly 25,000 of candidates is an
achievement. Surely some of these candidates go on to do well at uni?
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <a50ed0$c8s$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>,
> Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Fine, that's enough. if ICT is taken by the sort of person who thinks
> > it is easy, then it's the mark of someone who's seeking an easy option.
> > The sort of person who seeks easy options rather than challenging
> > ones (even if they are wrong about the options they choose) is the sort
> > of person I (and probably most academics) would rather not have on our
> > degree programme.
> Except that every (GCSE) IT class that I've taken has been a mix. One in
> particular was almost full of easy-optioners (because they'd been told by
> the head of year that it was an easy option). That doesn't mean that all
> were after the easy option and one or two would be good candidates for a
> fairly tough CS course.
> Other classes have been mixes of easy-optioners, hard workers (but it's
> just another subject), chose the subject for the teacher, like IT/CS as a
> subject and IT/CS high flyers.
> Do you really want to chuck out the baby with the bath-water?
How do I tell which is baby and which is bathwater?
Matthew Huntbach
John Cartmell
Matthew M. Huntbach <m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Do you really want to chuck out the baby with the bath-water?
> How do I tell which is baby and which is bathwater?
42? ;-)
Matthew M. Huntbach
> Is probably that students find ICT more appealing than maths or
> computing, rather than they think it will be easy. As I(C)T has a
> trendy youthful image which probably appeals to 16-18yr olds more.
You might say that, I couldn't possibly comment. I have been told in
no uncertain terms by the denizens of alt.uk.a-levels that to even
dare think of what might be in a 16-18 year old's head when you are
somewhat older is to be "patronising".
> Again the students probably think the A level ICT is something which
> it is not.
Which is what I keep saying. But, after the hammering I've got in
aua, I can't possibly say it again - how dare I suggest that 16 year
olds don't know exactly what they are doing, how patronising.
> Surely being in top 5.2% of nearly 25,000 of candidates is an
> achievement. Surely some of these candidates go on to do well at uni?
In my experience, if they don't also have a good Maths A-level they don't
do well in a Computer Science degree. Sorry, but I've tried taking on
people with grade A in ICT and nothing else scientific/mathematical,
and they have always flopped. That's not to say they might not do well
at other things or in other places, obviously I can only go on my own
experience. What I say here is based on my very real disappointment at
finding people with a grade A in what I at first assumed was a very
relevant A-level who showed no discernable skills in my subject.
Matthew Huntbach
John Cartmell
<m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk> wrote:
> I've tried taking on people with grade A in ICT and nothing else
> scientific/mathematical, and they have always flopped.
There's a clue here. IT is/should be a subject that challenges in a wide
variety of areas. Perhaps it's misguidedly awarding good marks for people
who excel in just a few areas.
I'd suggest that IT could be a good guide as long as you find it in concert
with good maths/science grades.
Personally I'd like a test that gave high marks only where candidates
scored at a wide variety of tests within IT and where logic, lateral
thinking, mathematical thinking, numeracy, literacy, design and graphicacy
were all tested alongside an ability to use standard and non-standard IT
applications and equipment.
--
John Cartmell
Fleur Designs - Manchester UK http://www.cartmell.demon.co.uk
~ designer craft products ~ information products ~ information services ~
Original (and unique) Board Games designed using RISC OS computers
Jess
opinion as someone who's done IT a-level (and got an A).
IT is *easier* than any other A-level I've done (for the record, I've done
Eng lit, law and psychology at a-level and am studying maths, physics,
biology and chemisty at AS at the moment). It does require work, but not a
lot, and the work required is not at a high standard by any means.
IT is in no way scientific, and does not test any mathematical, scientific,
problem solving or logic abilities.
If I'd known that many (some? Just Matthew?) uni admin people do not respect
IT as an a-level, and regard people who have done it as the type of people
who just go for easy options, I wouldn't have done it.
Ian
"Jess" <Jessic...@hotmail.comical> wrote:
The expectations in ICT in schools in general are lower than for subjects
like maths, English and science. Whereas there is a big thrust with
numeracy and literacy strategies to lay down the foundations of number
bonds, punctuation, spelling etc in ICT its drop it in a Publisher Wizard
and if it looks OK that's good education. ('p, I know there are some good
ICT teachers about, but certainly nowhere near enough in secondary and
they are like hen's teeth in primary). A level ICT is just a symtom at the
head of the chain. If you regularly use a computer at home and have had an
interest in it I should think A level ICT is a breeze. (Same would
probably be true of an A level musician. Mind I did a MSc in education
management about 10 years ago and I would say that the intellectual
demands were lower than in A level maths and physics so there are many
differences in difficulty in different subjects at different levels that
appear anomalous.
Easiest solution for HE CS courses is to only take able mathematicians.
Snag is that there are not enough of these around and we have been through
all that argument many times.
Mark Thakkar
> How can you say something is easy when the results are poor?
I guess most people here have read Douglas Adams. You know the
spaceship powered by bad news? Well, how about one powered by the
uk.education.schools-it-ers' rapid-response stupidity?
Mark.
David
too difficult. it is almost impossible to make a judgement one way or
another.
The poor pass rate for ICT is largely explained by a poor calibre of
student and poor quality teaching. Although some people here are saying
that "anyone can teach ICT", there is a shortage of competent A level ICT
teachers. Results and OFSTED evidence seem to support this.
Sadly, many students choose ICT because they are genuinely interested in
computers and programming but they are not good at writing essays. They
come unstuck when they find that 60% of the marks are awarded for written
exams and most of the marks on the coursework are awarded for
documentation, analysis and evaluation.
Good practical skills and an aptitude for programming are no guarantee of
a good mark at ICT A Level.
Students are *obviously* choosing to do ICT at A level when they are not
cut out for the course.
This could be the fault of:
careers advisors and pastoral staff
parents
a lack of good vocational courses
the exam boards/QCA who produced the A level specification
However, I don't think it is the fault of ICT teachers. I do not want
massive A level classes. I would rather have a smaller class of students
who were well suited to the course and knew why they were doing the
subject.
In article <5l967u85uf4loisqb...@4ax.com>, Roger < @ . >
says...
David
> > Computing degree. However, to suggest that ICT has "no relevance" to
> > computer science is just silly.
>
> I do not find there is any correlation between ability to use common
> office applications and ability to succeed in a Computer Science degree.
Neither do I. Why don't you go back and read what I said again?
David
fk...@dial.pipex.com says...
> So my longstanding standard advice to students wanting to do programming
> courses ' don't do IT do further maths' seems to still hold true.
Most good A level students do 4 A levels these days. If they want to do
a computer science degree, they should certainly do Maths but does it
really matter what else they do. Is there anything actually *wrong* in
doing ICT at A level.
David
Jessic...@hotmail.comical says...
> If I'd known that many (some? Just Matthew?) uni admin people do not respect
> IT as an a-level, and regard people who have done it as the type of people
> who just go for easy options, I wouldn't have done it.
Has Matthew actually said that he would discriminate against applicants
with ICT A level. I can understand why he is annoyed that applicants are
citing their success at ICT as evidence of an aptitude for programming
but I cannot understand why he would actually discriminate *against* ICT.
That would be extremely narrow minded and stupid. If this is what he
actually does, I think he should make this clear and then tell us which
university employs him, so that I can make a formal protest.
Mark Thakkar
>> If I'd known that many (some? Just Matthew?) uni admin people do not
>> respect IT as an a-level, and regard people who have done it as the
>> type of people who just go for easy options, I wouldn't have done it.
>
> Has Matthew actually said that he would discriminate against
> applicants with ICT A level. I can understand why he is annoyed that
> applicants are citing their success at ICT as evidence of an aptitude
> for programming but I cannot understand why he would actually
> discriminate *against* ICT. That would be extremely narrow minded
> and stupid. If this is what he actually does, I think he should make
> this clear and then tell us which university employs him, so that I
> can make a formal protest.
What you have to bear in mind is that the job of an admissions tutor is
to discriminate: to choose, from a pool of candidates, the ones he
thinks will be best suited to the course. If, based on past experience,
he finds that candidates with property X are downright useless, he's not
only /entitled/ but /required/ - in order to fulfil his role - to reject
candidates with property X (and with little else to commend them).
Mark.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <3c6c1fbf$0$238$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>,
> fk...@dial.pipex.com says...
> > So my longstanding standard advice to students wanting to do programming
> > courses ' don't do IT do further maths' seems to still hold true.
> Most good A level students do 4 A levels these days.
No they don't. Amongst the UCAS applicants I get, it is still fairly rare
for someone to be doing four A-levels. Many good A-level students do
three, and I don't expect or recommend any more.
Matthew Huntbach
Alasdair Kesson
Taking this to its logical extension. A student with A Grade ICT and
A Grade Maths would be rejected because ICT is a waste of space and
anyone taking it can't have 2 braincells to rub together?
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <wbSc8.94881$as2.15...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> Jessic...@hotmail.comical says...
> > If I'd known that many (some? Just Matthew?) uni admin people do not
> > respect IT as an a-level, and regard people who have done it as the
> > type of people who just go for easy options, I wouldn't have done it.
> Has Matthew actually said that he would discriminate against applicants
> with ICT A level. I can understand why he is annoyed that applicants are
> citing their success at ICT as evidence of an aptitude for programming
> but I cannot understand why he would actually discriminate *against* ICT.
> That would be extremely narrow minded and stupid. If this is what he
> actually does, I think he should make this clear and then tell us which
> university employs him, so that I can make a formal protest.
I am employed by Queen Mary, University of London, which ought to be
obvious from my email address. As I have said - time and time again in
this thread - what I look for in admissions is based on experience,
looking at what qualifications the students who did well on our degree
came in with, and what qualifications the students whi did badly came in
with. Why do you accuse me of being "narrow minded and stupid" if, after
finding that students who came in with an A-level in ICT tend to do
badly, I decide I will prefer not to recruit such people? If I found
that students who came in with A-level ICT did well, I would discriminate
in favour of them - would you say that is equally "narrow minded and
stupid"? What you seem to be saying is that in making admissions
decisions, I shouldn't base them on what I know works and does not work
when they come onto our degree. So what should I base my decisions on
then? Should I just put all the names in a hat and pull out sufficient
to fill our places at random?
The main thing I look for is good performance in Maths - the reason for
this is that the strongest correlation I can find between entrance
qualifications and ability to succeed on the degree is a positive
one with the grade in A-level Maths. So long as someone has a good
A-level in Maths, I'm not too bothered about what else they have.
A very good grade (preferably A, maybe B) in A-level Computing has
some correlation with success, so I will look for that. If someone has
an A-level ICT as well as a good A-level in Maths, I'll feel it's a
little unfortunate - I would rather it had been in something else, but
I won't reject them for it. But if they have an A-level in ICT but
no A-level in Maths, and none in anything scientific either, I will always
reject them. That is because I have had a number of experiences with
such people who have failed spectacularly on our degree, and none with
that sort of background who have done well.
However, I am concerned that many applicants with A-level ICT, even
those with A-level Maths, seem to think - as they state clearly in their
UCAS form - that what they do in their Computer Science degree will
be a continuation of what they did in their A-level ICT. For example
they will write things like "I want to do a Computer Science degree
because I enjoyed A-level ICT and want to carry on with the subject".
This does bring into question whether they really understand what a
Computer Science degree will involve. Experience suggests such people
are likely to drop out or fail when they discover that Computer
Science as an academic subject, unlike ICT at school, is very much
oriented around programming. Therefore, if I see comments like that I
will be a little suspicious about the person, and thus might want to
bring them in for interview to check out they really understand what
they're letting themselves in for, and also want slightly higher grades
than I would want otherwise, because if tehy are smart they are more
likely to be able to break through their suprise at finding the degree
wasn't quite what they expected.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 11:52:32 -0000, Mark Thakkar
> <mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> >What you have to bear in mind is that the job of an admissions tutor is
> >to discriminate: to choose, from a pool of candidates, the ones he
> >thinks will be best suited to the course. If, based on past experience,
> >he finds that candidates with property X are downright useless, he's not
> >only /entitled/ but /required/ - in order to fulfil his role - to reject
> >candidates with property X (and with little else to commend them).
> Taking this to its logical extension. A student with A Grade ICT and
> A Grade Maths would be rejected because ICT is a waste of space and
> anyone taking it can't have 2 braincells to rub together?
No, this is quite obviously *not* taking the point to its logical
extension. Mark wrote quite clearly "candidates with property X (and
little else to commend them)" whereas you have introduced a candidate
with property X but also property Y, where property Y means, based on
past experience, almost certain to do well on the degree.
Secondly, you have drawn conclusions that weren't in Mark's or my
argument. Simply because property X means someone is going to be useless
at the degree I'm admissions tutor for, doesn't mean they are useless
altogether. As I keep saying, ICT is not, based on my experience, a
good indicator of success on my Computer Science degree, but I hope that
somewhere out there in the world there are people who find a good ICT
A-level a good indicator of useful skills. As I've suggested, maybe
it's the mark of a good secretary, and I certainly wouldn't suggest a
good secretary "can't have 2 braincells to rub together".
I hope, that you did not reply to Mark as you did because you are a
disgruntled ICT teacher. I'm afraid if you are, you are a very good
advertisment for the lack of logic and clear thinking in school ICT.
Matthew Huntbach
David
says...
> The expectations in ICT in schools in general are lower than for subjects
> like maths, English and science.
If you're talking of the expectations of teachers then I agree with you
and I believe OFSTED agrees with you. They have found that ICT is the
"least well taught of all national curriculum subjects".
If you are talking about the expectations of the exam boards, the QCA,
etc. then I would want to disagree with you. The low pass rate for ICT
at A Level could be said to be evidence that the course is intellectually
demanding but that students are failing to meet these demands.
> head of the chain. If you regularly use a computer at home and have had an
> interest in it I should think A level ICT is a breeze.
Not necessarily! Many students do badly at A level, even though they are
what I crudely describe as "geeky" kids. They enjoy using their
computer, often they enjoy taking computers apart and putting them back
together again. Sometimes they have good mathematical skills and an
aptitude for programming (Matthew Huntbach take note) but often they do
badly at A Level because they are not prepared for the essay writing, the
written analysis, the designing and the evaluation.
An A in Maths and a U in English Language might be enough to persuade
Matthew Huntbach to let you on his computer science course but I would
strongly advise against tackling ICT A level.
> (Same would
> probably be true of an A level musician. Mind I did a MSc in education
> management about 10 years ago and I would say that the intellectual
> demands were lower than in A level maths and physics so there are many
> differences in difficulty in different subjects at different levels that
> appear anomalous.
Discussions about which subjects are "hard" and which are "easy"
generally go nowhere. Is Mathematics more intellectually demanding than
Media Studies? Surely it's impossible to say since they require such
different aptitudes.
David
mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk says...
> What you have to bear in mind is that the job of an admissions tutor is
> to discriminate: to choose, from a pool of candidates, the ones he
> thinks will be best suited to the course. If, based on past experience,
> he finds that candidates with property X are downright useless, he's not
> only /entitled/ but /required/ - in order to fulfil his role - to reject
> candidates with property X (and with little else to commend them).
An admissions tutor should not be a law unto himself. He should base his
judgements on acceptable criteria. Universities are public bodies that
can be held accountable.
If Mr Huntbach is rejecting students who have done ICT instead of Maths
then he is absolutely in the right.
If he is rejecting students who have done an A level in ICT *and* also
done A level Maths simply *because* they have done ICT as an additional A
Level then I do not feel that his behaviour is justified and I would like
to make a complaint to the appropriate authority. If my complaint is not
taken seriously then I shall simply advise all my students to avoid his
university.
David
alasdai...@nounsolicitedmessages.bigfoot.com says...
> Taking this to its logical extension. A student with A Grade ICT and
> A Grade Maths would be rejected because ICT is a waste of space and
> anyone taking it can't have 2 braincells to rub together?
This obviously makes no sense whatsoever. If this policy is being
operated by Matthew Huntbach's department, I feel he should tell us which
University and which department!
David
> Why do you accuse me of being "narrow minded and stupid"
I didn't. Read what I said again.
> If someone has
> an A-level ICT as well as a good A-level in Maths, I'll feel it's a
> little unfortunate - I would rather it had been in something else, but
> I won't reject them for it.
In that case, you are little more than a harmless bigot with too much
time on his hands.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <MPG.16deefe0a...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
> mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk says...
> > What you have to bear in mind is that the job of an admissions tutor is
> > to discriminate: to choose, from a pool of candidates, the ones he
> > thinks will be best suited to the course. If, based on past experience,
> > he finds that candidates with property X are downright useless, he's not
> > only /entitled/ but /required/ - in order to fulfil his role - to reject
> > candidates with property X (and with little else to commend them).
> An admissions tutor should not be a law unto himself. He should base his
> judgements on acceptable criteria. Universities are public bodies that
> can be held accountable.
Indeed. I would hope that the criterion that I accept students whose
profile, based on past experience, suggests they will succeed, and
reject students who profile, based on past experience, suggests they
will fail, is acceptable.
> If Mr Huntbach is rejecting students who have done ICT instead of Maths
> then he is absolutely in the right.
Yes, that is what I said I do. Although even then I might consider what
looks like a really able student who was just badly advised e.g. someone
who has a grade A GCSE in Maths. In this case, the interview is often
crucial in deciding whether someone didn't do A-level Maths because
they were badly advised (I might then offer a place) or didn't do A-level
Maths because they dislike maths and/or can't do it (I then wouldn't offer
a place).
> If he is rejecting students who have done an A level in ICT *and* also
> done A level Maths simply *because* they have done ICT as an additional A
> Level then I do not feel that his behaviour is justified and I would like
> to make a complaint to the appropriate authority. If my complaint is not
> taken seriously then I shall simply advise all my students to avoid his
> university.
Look here, I am at a university institution which doesn't find it
particularly easy to recruit good students - we are in competition with
the other more well-known University of London colleges who tend to cream
off the better applicants who want to study in London and leave us with
what is left (fighting over them with City and Brunel and sometimes
even the better London ex-polies). I can't *afford* to reject an applicant
just on a whim. I have to work hard to get reasonably good students for
our degree, and one way I can do so is to get those who fail to meet the
more obvious criteria which would get them a place at say Imperial or
UCL, but which I, taking more care over admissions and considering other
factors, can see would make a good Computer Science student. I always
tend to err on the side of generosity, so if I reject someone it's
because I'm pretty damn sure, based on past experience that they won't
do well on our degree. I am always very well aware that if I reject
an applicant I must have a reason that will be acceptable if that
applicant or his or her school or college contacts me to ask for a
reason for rejection.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <a52uad$5oc$2...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says...
> > If someone has an A-level ICT as well as a good A-level in Maths, I'll
> > feel it's a little unfortunate - I would rather it had been in something
> > else, but I won't reject them for it.
> In that case, you are little more than a harmless bigot with too much
> time on his hands.
Why do you accuse me of having "too much time" on my hands? I am an
academic who is teaching a new course this year, with a class of some
200 students. I have a stack of test papers to mark, I have coursework
to devise, notes to write, as well as UCAS forms to deal with. I have
publicity material, prospectus entries etc to write, which also fall to
me as admissions tutor, plus visits to schools, and various correspeondence
on admissions matters. Apart from that, as an academic, I am expected to
do research, attend conferences, publish papers etc.
I regard ICT as a rather weak A-level - this is based on consideration
of what it involves, and disappointing experience with students that
have it. If someone has a Maths A-level, which I regard as near
essential, and maybe Computing or some science, I would prefer the
third A-level to be in an arts subject - English, or Histry maybe.
Something contrasting to the maths and science to prove they can
also read and write and have some human skills. I would prefer that
more contrasting A-level to ICT, which is why I said I would regard
it as a little unfortunate for someone to have the A-level ICT as
one of their three - it just doesn't fit well into what I regard
as the ideal profile. This doesn't mean I regard A-level ICT as
entirely useless, perhaps there are other people for whose purposes
it is a very useful part of their profile.
Why do you call me a "bigot"? That would suggest I have taken a
position out of pure prejudice without any real argument or thought.
I have explained my position and why I take it, and I have done so
repeatedly in this thread. The fact that I am having to continually
repeat myself, and coming up across a whole load of people attacking
me, who appear to be unable to follow a logical argument, and who
resort to name-calling because they can't understand the points I am
making in a rational way, does not paint a very good picture to me
of "ICT" and the people who teach it.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <20020221.082226...@zaphod.com>, i...@zaphod.com
> says...
>> head of the chain. If you regularly use a computer at home and have had an
>> interest in it I should think A level ICT is a breeze.
> Not necessarily! Many students do badly at A level, even though they are
> what I crudely describe as "geeky" kids. They enjoy using their
> computer, often they enjoy taking computers apart and putting them back
> together again. Sometimes they have good mathematical skills and an
> aptitude for programming (Matthew Huntbach take note) but often they do
> badly at A Level because they are not prepared for the essay writing, the
> written analysis, the designing and the evaluation.
Actually, one sort of student I like to avoid is the sort who likes
taking computers apart, knows all the latest jargon from the glossy
hobby magazines, spends a lot of time using computer applications at
home, ... and tends to think that "programming" means using HTML.
I much prefer people who are more interested in logic and puzzle-solving,
but not particularly "computer mad". The "computer mad" types often find
it difficult to get down to serious computer science and waste a lot
of time on the department's machines doing stuff which isn't related
to their academic work. They also often have serious "attitude" problems
which reflect in general poor behaviour and performance.
> An A in Maths and a U in English Language might be enough to persuade
> Matthew Huntbach to let you on his computer science course but I would
> strongly advise against tackling ICT A level.
On the contrary, as I have already said, I much prefer applicants who
have a contrasting third A-level which shows skills in reading and
writing and the humanities side of life. As people in alt.uk.a-levels
will know, I've often had to knock down those who, following from my
comment that A-level Maths is the most essential thing for a Computer
Science degree, suppose that what I really want to see is Maths, Further
Maths, More Maths and maybe Physics. If someone had a U in English, I
would certainly regard that as a very serious point against them. I am
always particularly pleased to see a good grade in General Studies, and
will accept that in the place of a third grade in a science. There are,
of course, plenty of aspects of our computer science degree where
reading and writing skills are crucial. Someone who can code, but can't
write up a good report describing their code and how it fits into
a real world system, is not going to get a good degree, because a
major part of the assessent is based on the final year project report.
Matthew Huntbach
Roger
these postings and groups. I suspect they do, makes you wonder what
they make of all the discussions. They must be all too aware of what
people think of it and the problems.
If people think its so easy what do you suggest they do make it even
harder? The results of it are poor as it is. Over 22% don't even get a
grade at the moment, If they made it harder I dread to think what the
results would be then,
Mark Thakkar
>> If, based on past experience, he finds that candidates with property
>> X are downright useless, he's not only /entitled/ but /required/ -
>> in order to fulfil his role - to reject candidates with property X
>> (and with little else to commend them).
>
> Taking this to its logical extension. A student with A Grade ICT and
> A Grade Maths would be rejected because ICT is a waste of space and
> anyone taking it can't have 2 braincells to rub together?
That's illogical. Note the "and with little else to commend them"
above. Obviously an A in Maths would be a lot else to commend them, on
Matthew's view.
Mark.
David
> I regard ICT as a rather weak A-level - this is based on consideration
> of what it involves, and disappointing experience with students that
> have it.
Some people have suggested that because ICT has such a poor pass rate it
must logically follow that ICT is a "difficult" subject. I have
disagreed with this assertion. in my (albeit limited) experience, the
calibre of students who choose ICT is low. too often, students choose
ICT because they think it will be a "doss lesson on the computers".
Others choose it because A level ICT can be done without GCSE ICT and it
is, one of the few open entry courses. These are bad reasons for
choosing ICT. People underestimate the intellectual rigour of the
course.
It is impossible to say that one area of learning is more "difficult"
than another and anyone who attempts to make such an assertion is simply
a "mindless bigot with too much time on his hands". It leads to "my
subject is better than your subject arguments" that generally go nowhere.
Mark Thakkar
> If Mr Huntbach is rejecting students who have done ICT instead of
> Maths then he is absolutely in the right.
>
> If he is rejecting students who have done an A level in ICT *and*
> also done A level Maths simply *because* they have done ICT as an
> additional A Level then I do not feel that his behaviour is justified
> and I would like to make a complaint to the appropriate authority.
No one's saying he does the latter.
Mark.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> In article <a538do$8ia$1...@beta.qmul.ac.uk>, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk says...
> > I regard ICT as a rather weak A-level - this is based on consideration
> > of what it involves, and disappointing experience with students that
> > have it.
> It is impossible to say that one area of learning is more "difficult"
> than another and anyone who attempts to make such an assertion is simply
> a "mindless bigot with too much time on his hands". It leads to "my
> subject is better than your subject arguments" that generally go nowhere.
There is no point in repeating myself. Please go and re-read what I have
already written in this thread, and prove to me that people who teach
ICT are capable of following a logical arguemnt expressed in English
rather than shooting their mouths off because they lack that ability.
Matthew Huntbach
David
mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk says...
Several people suggested that he did. He has now stated clearly that he
does not.
David
Matthew Huntbach has now said that he does not reject students because
they have done ICT.
However, he has previously said:
"If they've done
A-level Maths and A-level ICT, they're a bit dodgy, because they may
have been misled by the ICT into thinking doing a Computer Science
degree means doing more of what they did in "ICT". So I'll probably
want to see slightly better Maths than I wold if they hadn't done ICT
at all."
This seems to suggest that he *does* discriminate against ICT. What do
you think?
In article <MPG.16df40a1f...@News.CIS.DFN.DE>,
mark.t...@balliol.ox.ac.uk says...
JHP
Roger < @ . > wrote in message
news:5l967u85uf4loisqb...@4ax.com...
> But as I said before, a lot keep saying A level ICT is easy, yet out
> of 20.587 (making it 2nd most popular A level) pupils only 5.2% got an
> A at AS level (compared to biology 19.9% and chemistry 22.6% for
> example). That means somebody with an A is in the top 5.2% of 20,587
> candidates. That is the 2nd lowest % of A grades out of all the
> subject. The rest of the grades are poor and the number with no grade
> is high too compared to other subjects.
>
> A full breakdown of all the grades and entries for all the AS subjects
> can be found here http://www.aqa.org.uk/over/stat_pdf/aqanas01.pdf
>
> I know you could say that weak candidates tend do the subject, but
> still. If it really was that easy surely the results would be better?
> Those statistics make a weak argument that it is an easy subject. Its
> an easy subject where very few got an A and 22.3% got no grade at all?
> I would of thought if it was so easy the results would be very good.
>
> Where is the evidence that it is easy?
The problem is that we just don't know from the figures whether it is easy
or whether the entry cohort is poor.
John