Using GCSEs as a predictor for A Level Grades,
Robert Martin
I have just started my A Levels and I went to this Parents Evening at the
school. I was shocked to discover that the teachers have allready predicted
my grade using my GCSE results as a guide. How accurate is this method?
Robert
Theresa Santos
<r...@rdale.prestel.co.uk> writes
--
Theresa Santos
Smurfette
smurf
Neil Fitzroy
D/E, B/C, B/C, C/D for my A's. I've dragged them up a bit, but there's still
a long way to go (I should be predicted AAAA) and YES - I DO GO TO A NORMAL
COMPREHENSIVE!
--
Kind regards,
Neil
Robert Martin wrote in message <6tjpni$qpo$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk>...
Kate Halle
Robert Martin <r...@rdale.prestel.co.uk> wrote in message
6tjpni$qpo$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk...
>Hi,
>
>I have just started my A Levels and I went to this Parents Evening at the
>school. I was shocked to discover that the teachers have allready
predicted
>my grade using my GCSE results as a guide. How accurate is this method?
I guess it's as accurate as you want it to be. Study how you did for your
GCSEs and I guess your A Levels will be of a similar standard.
Surely teachers don't have to do serious predicted grades this early though?
You'll have mocks and stuff before they do the ones that go to prospective
Unis so don't worry whatever they've given you now means nothing. And
parents evening already? They must get to know you quick!
Good luck.
Kate
Laurence Summers
Laurence.
XXX
try http://www.hon.mcmail.com/blokes.htm
for nude pictures.
Neil Fitzroy wrote in message
<905808370.4413.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>They're crap. I got 5A* and 4A at GCSE, yet at one stage I was predicted
>D/E, B/C, B/C, C/D for my A's. I've dragged them up a bit, but there's
still
>a long way to go (I should be predicted AAAA) and YES - I DO GO TO A NORMAL
>COMPREHENSIVE!
>
>
>--
>Kind regards,
>
>Neil
>
>Robert Martin wrote in message <6tjpni$qpo$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk>...
>>Hi,
>>
>>I have just started my A Levels and I went to this Parents Evening at the
>>school. I was shocked to discover that the teachers have allready
>predicted
>>my grade using my GCSE results as a guide. How accurate is this method?
>>
>>Robert
>>
>>
>
>
Laurence Summers
(though we never told him0:}), gave us "target" grades rather than
"predicted" grades for Physics. that way he couldn't get blamed for us
missing a predicted grade.
There is a dodgy ALICE system where the teachers use a line and graph and
other things to give a prediction. It's quite dodgy because I failed my RE
purposely to make a political point, and that brought my score right down.
Predictions on GCSEs are shit! They are done by teachers who want to shut
you up at the beginning of the course. My Music teacher told me that I'd
struggle to get a D, just after I'd transferred from a posh boy's school (I
didn't appreciate the approaches from the other students). Naturally I
dropped the course (after making her life a misery first).
Laurence.
XXX
Smurfette wrote in message ...
XK
I got predicted: (GCSE in parenthesis)
Maths C/D (A)
French C/D (B)
English B/C (A)
Further Maths D/E (N/A obv)
and received
Maths C
French D
English B
Success rate 100%. But the Maths grade still pisses me off no end.
XK
- * - * - *
http://surf.to/kenickie = http://listen.to/kenickie (Kenickie)
- * - * - *
Take your arse out of my e-mail to respond.
- * - * - *
ICQ: 13409405 AIM:XKenickie/duSantiago
- * - * - *
Favourite current track - Helen Love "Long Live The UK Music Scene"
- * - * - *
Smurfette
possibility except to say that if you failed GCSE you're likely to fail
A-level but I think you'd know that already!
smurf
Smurfette
on your GCSE results? You can do very well at GCSE but not be able to
convert that to doing well at A-level, there is so much mroe understanding
involved!
smurf
David Baxter
Agreed. At GCSE I got 1A, 5B's, 2C's and an E, which would suggest I
could have done OK at A levels but I didn't. First years predictions
were all n's and e's so I got a job and now I'm glad I did because it's
a bloody good one.
Jon Stitcher
<XKen...@arse.bigfoot.com> writes
>Well everyone else says it's bollox but...
I did
Maths estimated D I got a high C I got an A at GCSE
Frecch estimated E I got a D and I got an A at GCSE
Law estimated D And I got an A I didnt do GCSE though
Gen Studies esimated A Got an A so that was the only one the teachers
got right
Just ignore them
Jon:)
"i'm gonna pull out my tampon and start splashing around.."
Tom Crispin
awarded a B. Then I took 'A' level maths (the second year only of a two
year course) and I was awarded an A. My degree is a B.Ed (Hons) CANTAB in
mathematics.
The moral is that failing an 'O' level is no indication of ability.
--
Best wishes, Tom.
Veni Vidi Bibi
tom_c...@msn.com
David Baxter wrote in message <35FE5A...@bt.com>...
Laurence Summers
Smurfette wrote in message ...
Not in all subjects. Physics A-Level with ULEAC is a shallow pile of SHIT!
I doubt the average student would be able to put it to much use. I was
lucky that I took Mechanics to compensate for the crap course and teacher.
Laurence
http://www.bigfoot.com/~ourholychurch
Robert Chrismas
> There is a dodgy ALICE system where
> the teachers use a line and graph and
> other things to give a prediction.
Hate to say it, because I don't like the
implications, but I've found ALICE predictions
surprisingly accurate.
Of course there is the odd student who falls
in love, or gets pregnant, or who was ill when
they took GCSEs, who is off the line, but the
vast majority are pretty near.
--
Robert Chrismas e-mail : chrismas at argonet.co.uk
Gregory Bennett
<XKen...@arse.bigfoot.com> writes
>Well everyone else says it's bollox but...
>
Say "UP YOURS" to the teachers and prove them wrong...
--
:0)
Nykki
(sp?) .. Imho, GCSE is parrot style learning, whereas A-level is the
learning of the knowledge, and then the application of it .. GCSE is
basically regurgitating the info that you've been fed, an a-level is that
too, but also applying the knowledge .. so .. therefore .. you can shine at
regurgitating info in GCSE and come out with staright A*'s, but if you don't
have the capacity to learn the info *AND* work with it, then, depending upon
your subjects, you are unlikely to do as well in a-level ..
And I'm talking from personal experience .. in that, I can usually grasp
most of the info, but if I've lost some of it, I can drag my grade up as I
can apply information to the question etc. so I get the marks for my
application ..
And I waffle ...
*g*
nykki
Smurfette
harder than my other subjects, but once you got it it was easy. That's NEAB
though.
smurf
Laurence Summers wrote in message <35fea...@news2.mcmail.com>...
Smurfette
talking GCSEs here which aren't known for being the hardest exams in the
known universe!
smurf
Tom Crispin wrote in message <6tm7s3$ecj$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
Martin Griffiths
>I have just started my A Levels and I went to this Parents Evening at the
>school. I was shocked to discover that the teachers have allready predicted
>my grade using my GCSE results as a guide. How accurate is this method?
Well at my college they pioneered a system where you get a point score
from your GCSE grades (where A=5pts. B=3pts C=1pt.) and they use that
to assess your target A-level grades. But the teachers gave us
predicted grades independent of that, so they could compare the two
and see if you were under or over-achieving. It must work quite well
because our Principal has been giving conferences to explain the
system to other colleges.
--
Martin Griffiths, Huddersfield
Pete
maths is a grade C from either tier...
Anyone got any, or know where I can get, data (ammunition!) as to the
relative failure/pass rates for a given GCSE Maths grade leading onto their A
Level? e.g. I have never personally had a C grade GCSE kid, sorry pupil, pass
A Level. Thoughts?
Cheers
Pete
Matt
of pants but then again, who respects my opinions?
>A-levels are just too different to be able to compare to GCSE through ALIS
>(sp?) .. Imho, GCSE is parrot style learning, whereas A-level is the
>learning of the knowledge, and then the application of it .. GCSE is
>basically regurgitating the info that you've been fed, an a-level is that
>too, but also applying the knowledge .. so .. therefore .. you can shine at
>regurgitating info in GCSE and come out with staright A*'s, but if you don't
>have the capacity to learn the info *AND* work with it, then, depending upon
>your subjects, you are unlikely to do as well in a-level ..
>
I have to disagree with you there because I have just taken my GCSEs and
from my own experience, and what the teachers have told me, if you just
spew the information you have been taught onto the page a C grade is
optimistic, with this mattering more in some subjects than others, i.e.
history or English. To get above a C, this knowledge that you have
acquired needs to be applied.
--
Matt Bloomer, mostly listening to Mansun :o)
+----------------------------------+
| *NEW IMPROVED VERSION* |
| http://www.bigfoot.com/~MBloomer |
+----------------------------------+
*everybody helps me make my own mistakes*
*if I'm left alone I'd make them anyway*
Niall Saville
Hey, you :)
>A-levels are just too different to be able to compare to GCSE through ALIS
>(sp?) .. Imho, GCSE is parrot style learning, whereas A-level is the
>learning of the knowledge, and then the application of it .. GCSE is
>basically regurgitating the info that you've been fed, an a-level is that
>too, but also applying the knowledge .. so .. therefore .. you can shine at
>regurgitating info in GCSE and come out with staright A*'s, but if you don't
>have the capacity to learn the info *AND* work with it, then, depending upon
>your subjects, you are unlikely to do as well in a-level ..
Hmm. Sciencey A levels can be a lot of regurgitation, if you can't (be
bothered) to learn the concepts behind the facts. Then again, you can
try and do them with no facts at all by learning all the concepts,
like wot I did. Chemistry was a lot more factual for me than maths,
say. And learning concepts wasn't enough in German, because no matter
how much grammar you know, if you don't know any vocab...
>And I'm talking from personal experience .. in that, I can usually grasp
>most of the info, but if I've lost some of it, I can drag my grade up as I
>can apply information to the question etc. so I get the marks for my
>application ..
*nod* that's probably the most useful post-GCSE skill to learn.
>And I waffle ...
No comment *cuddle*
Niall
Nykki
Niall Saville wrote in message <3600076f...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>On Tue, 15 Sep 1998 19:35:34 +0100, "Nykki" <stam...@itl.net> wrote:
>
>Hey, you :)
>
>>A-levels are just too different to be able to compare to GCSE through ALIS
>>(sp?) .. Imho, GCSE is parrot style learning, whereas A-level is the
>>learning of the knowledge, and then the application of it .. GCSE is
>>basically regurgitating the info that you've been fed, an a-level is that
>>too, but also applying the knowledge .. so .. therefore .. you can shine
at
>>regurgitating info in GCSE and come out with staright A*'s, but if you
don't
>>have the capacity to learn the info *AND* work with it, then, depending
upon
>>your subjects, you are unlikely to do as well in a-level ..
>
>Hmm. Sciencey A levels can be a lot of regurgitation, if you can't (be
>bothered) to learn the concepts behind the facts. Then again, you can
>try and do them with no facts at all by learning all the concepts,
>like wot I did. Chemistry was a lot more factual for me than maths,
>say. And learning concepts wasn't enough in German, because no matter
>how much grammar you know, if you don't know any vocab...
Yeah, you are right .. sciency subjects are more regurgitating than the arts
.. but I'm arty, I'm biased .. *grin* .. in my experience of a-level
sciences (from looking over friend's shoulders) you're taught all you need
or the exams etc. but in order to get through the exams you do really need
to think and work with the information in order to understand it and succeed
.. I know that in GCSE sciences I just took the teacher's word for it and
lernt my equations, formulae etc and regurgitated them in the exam and
slipped in the appropriate numbers .. but in A-level I really do thihk that
you need to know *why* you're putting what numbers where etc.etc. ..
>>And I'm talking from personal experience .. in that, I can usually grasp
>>most of the info, but if I've lost some of it, I can drag my grade up as I
>>can apply information to the question etc. so I get the marks for my
>>application ..
>
>*nod* that's probably the most useful post-GCSE skill to learn.
Well that's what my 6th form has always drilled into me ..
>>And I waffle ...
>
>No comment *cuddle*
Aww, bless .. *hugs*
>Niall
>
Josh Smith
<ma...@bloomerNOSPAMfamily.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I didn't regurgitate it completely because my memory doesn't work like
>that - I find it much easier to remember a few key things and write
>about why they are important and flesh out my essays/exams in that way.
>Of course, I remember the odd minor point and put that in too but I
>don't regurgitate the information. For example, in my English
>Literature GCSE I used no quotations whatsoever and got an A* for it.
It just goes to show, how low the standard of GCSEs is....
Josh
--
Josh Smith - Media & Technology Freelance Writer
e: jo...@journalism.demon.co.uk - f: +44 -0 870 0558235
t: +44 1367 240233 - 'Externals may change, but man does not.'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cicero
Smurfette
Matt wrote in message ...
>Just you look at what Nykki wrote! If you ask me it's all a huge pile
>of pants but then again, who respects my opinions?
>
>from my own experience, and what the teachers have told me, if you just
>spew the information you have been taught onto the page a C grade is
>optimistic, with this mattering more in some subjects than others, i.e.
>history or English. To get above a C, this knowledge that you have
>acquired needs to be applied.
>--
That's what the teachers tell you (and in Eng and some other subjects it is
true) but if you think that what you put down for GCSEs is aquired knowledge
you're going to get a bit of a shock when you hit A-level! Not that I
actually think that A-level relies as much on aquired knowledge as teachers
make out - they tried to give me a maths reading list for some point as if
that would help in the slightest! I didn't do reading apart from thr text
book for any of my A-levels (except for Economcis but that was for the Camb
interview/out of general interest) and I got through!
smurf
Laurence Summers
Matt wrote in message ...
>I have to disagree with you there because I have just taken my GCSEs and
>from my own experience, and what the teachers have told me, if you just
>spew the information you have been taught onto the page a C grade is
>optimistic, with this mattering more in some subjects than others, i.e.
>history or English. To get above a C, this knowledge that you have
>acquired needs to be applied.
It depends on how good you are at regurgitating though. Did you do a total
regurgitation on any of your subjects? I did one of English Lit and was
fine. Fortunately I didn't take it for A-Level 'cos that might have been
harder (and I can't be arsed to write essays).
Laurence.
XXX
http://www.bigfoot.com/~ourholychurch
Laurence Summers
Nykki wrote in message <36001...@nnrp1.news.uk.psi.net>...
I'm a sciency bloke, and I think A-Levels are still regurgitation (depending
on your board). You don't need to understand if you can regurgitate, but I
found that understanding it rather than learning it was much easier.
Laurence
Dr A. N. Walker
> A-levels are just too diff from GCSEs to make predicting from GCSEs a
One thing you lot should be aware of is that *universities*
expect there to be a correlation. In other words, if I see a UCAS
form for a candidate with scrotty GCSEs, and the school/college is
writing "John is a really good student who will do well at Uni and
we predict grades AAA for his A-levels" *and* there is no sensible
explanation, then I will discount the prediction.
It follows that if your GCSEs are out of line with your
expected A-level results, you should make sure that either you or
your referee explains why I should ignore the GCSEs. This could
be some reason why you did badly then ["John's pet budgie died the
day before, which seriously affected his performance"] or one why
you're doing better now ["I didn't like Maths at GCSE, but it
really came alive when Mr Smith showed us how to win the National
Lottery, and I'm now reading Newton's Principia in my spare time"].
Universities and courses with high entry standards and
large numbers of applicants are looking for *any* excuse to
discard your application, and inconsistencies between your proven
record and your glowing references and self-advertisements are a
pretty good excuse. On the other hand, almost anything out of the
ordinary -- an interesting hobby [*not* "I read science fiction
and listen to rock music, and occasionally play football"] or an
elegant turn of phrase -- may get you noticed positively. We
*want* interesting, non-conformist, students!
--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK.
a...@maths.nott.ac.uk
Matt
huge pile of pants but then again, who respects my opinions?
>
I didn't regurgitate it completely because my memory doesn't work like
that - I find it much easier to remember a few key things and write
about why they are important and flesh out my essays/exams in that way.
Of course, I remember the odd minor point and put that in too but I
don't regurgitate the information. For example, in my English
Literature GCSE I used no quotations whatsoever and got an A* for it.
Laurence Summers
Matt wrote in message ...
>Just you look at what Laurence Summers wrote! If you ask me it's all a
>huge pile of pants but then again, who respects my opinions?
total
>>regurgitation on any of your subjects? I did one of English Lit and was
>>fine. Fortunately I didn't take it for A-Level 'cos that might have been
>>harder (and I can't be arsed to write essays).
>>
>>Laurence.
>>XXX
>>http://www.bigfoot.com/~ourholychurch
>
>I didn't regurgitate it completely because my memory doesn't work like
>that - I find it much easier to remember a few key things and write
>about why they are important and flesh out my essays/exams in that way.
>Of course, I remember the odd minor point and put that in too but I
>don't regurgitate the information. For example, in my English
>Literature GCSE I used no quotations whatsoever and got an A* for it.
What board did you do? My course was based on commenting on various
quotations. We had to use quotations, or so we were told. For English Lit,
I just wrote the essays out in the back of my texts and copied them down in
the exam (the questions are always the same). Efficiency!
>>Laurence.
>>XXX
>>http://www.bigfoot.com/~ourholychurch -- The site has been refurbished and
looks prettier. Heather Bunny, the fair josephine and EOR blundell are all
there!
Laurence Summers
Laurence Summers wrote in message <36015...@news2.mcmail.com>...
What are you talking about Laurence? You're a thick arse and should stop
writing such crap. Get back to studying! You should work harder.
Love
Laurence.
XXX
http://www.bigfoot.com/~ourholychuch - refurbished and much prettier.
Matt
pile of pants but then again, who respects my opinions?
>On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 16:53:30 +0100, Matt
><ma...@bloomerNOSPAMfamily.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>I didn't regurgitate it completely because my memory doesn't work like
>>that - I find it much easier to remember a few key things and write
>>about why they are important and flesh out my essays/exams in that way.
>>Of course, I remember the odd minor point and put that in too but I
>>don't regurgitate the information. For example, in my English
>>Literature GCSE I used no quotations whatsoever and got an A* for it.
>
>It just goes to show, how low the standard of GCSEs is....
>
Not necessarily - I personally hate using quotations so I just packed as
much information into it as possible, i.e. Roger's sadism is truly
pictured when he pushes the rock from his vantage point atop Jack's
tribe's lair onto Piggy below who he doesn't see as a human, just a
thing to which life is unimportant - he didn't see Piggy as a human
being.
Matt
huge pile of pants but then again, who respects my opinions?
>
>Matt wrote in message ...
>>Just you look at what Laurence Summers wrote! If you ask me it's all a
>>huge pile of pants but then again, who respects my opinions?
>>>It depends on how good you are at regurgitating though. Did you do a
>total
>>>regurgitation on any of your subjects? I did one of English Lit and was
>>>fine. Fortunately I didn't take it for A-Level 'cos that might have been
>>>harder (and I can't be arsed to write essays).
>>>
>>>Laurence.
>>>XXX
>>>http://www.bigfoot.com/~ourholychurch
>>
>>I didn't regurgitate it completely because my memory doesn't work like
>>that - I find it much easier to remember a few key things and write
>>about why they are important and flesh out my essays/exams in that way.
>>Of course, I remember the odd minor point and put that in too but I
>>don't regurgitate the information. For example, in my English
>>Literature GCSE I used no quotations whatsoever and got an A* for it.
>
>
>What board did you do? My course was based on commenting on various
>quotations. We had to use quotations, or so we were told. For English Lit,
>I just wrote the essays out in the back of my texts and copied them down in
>the exam (the questions are always the same). Efficiency!
I did the NEAB exams for English and English Literature.
the_flan
Smurfette wrote in message ...
>smurf
ever met the 30ft-smurf? he hangs around here somewhere!
the_flan
Smurfette
Dr A. N. Walker wrote in message <36015D...@maths.nott.ac.uk>...
> One thing you lot should be aware of is that *universities*
>expect there to be a correlation. In other words, if I see a UCAS
>form for a candidate with scrotty GCSEs, and the school/college is
>writing "John is a really good student who will do well at Uni and
>we predict grades AAA for his A-levels" *and* there is no sensible
>explanation, then I will discount the prediction.
>
> It follows that if your GCSEs are out of line with your
>expected A-level results, you should make sure that either you or
>your referee explains why I should ignore the GCSEs. This could
>be some reason why you did badly then ["John's pet budgie died the
>day before, which seriously affected his performance"] or one why
>you're doing better now ["I didn't like Maths at GCSE, but it
>really came alive when Mr Smith showed us how to win the National
>Lottery, and I'm now reading Newton's Principia in my spare time"].
Well that's understandable considering how many schools overestimate on
predictions to make pupils seem better/help if they need special
consideration etc. My school insists on predicting lower rather than higher
and seems quite proud - fine if it's a certain college at Cambridge that
knows this but otherwise it puts students at a disadvantage.
> Universities and courses with high entry standards and
>large numbers of applicants are looking for *any* excuse to
>discard your application, and inconsistencies between your proven
>record and your glowing references and self-advertisements are a
>pretty good excuse. On the other hand, almost anything out of the
>ordinary -- an interesting hobby
beekeeping got me into Cambridge - that and the rowing anyway I'm sure!
Smurfette
Laurence Summers wrote in message <3602a...@news2.mcmail.com>...
>What board did you do? My course was based on commenting on various
>quotations. We had to use quotations, or so we were told. For English
Lit,
>I just wrote the essays out in the back of my texts and copied them down in
>the exam (the questions are always the same). Efficiency!
>
>
>
You are lucky you weren't caught - did you actually realise this was
cheating or did you not think? People being dishonest like that makes it
harder for the rest of us to get the grades that we actually worked (or
didn't in my cas e but hey) for!
smurf
Smurfette
Matt wrote in message ...
>Not necessarily - I personally hate using quotations so I just packed as
>much information into it as possible, i.e. Roger's sadism is truly
>pictured when he pushes the rock from his vantage point atop Jack's
>tribe's lair onto Piggy below who he doesn't see as a human, just a
>thing to which life is unimportant - he didn't see Piggy as a human
>being.
You didn't use quotations but you used examples which is as good/better esp
in NEAB where you ahve the book in front of you and so you get no marks for
regurgitating a quotation!
smurf
Smurfette
smurf
the_flan wrote in message
<906161311.3228.1...@news.demon.co.uk>...
Paul Hornshaw
<wool...@lineone.net> writes
If you cheat, keep it to yourself, eh. Why spoil someone else's real
achievement.
--
Paul Hornshaw
Robert Chrismas
> Laurence Summers wrote in message <3602a...@news2.mcmail.com>...
>
> >What board did you do? My course was based on commenting on various
> >quotations. We had to use quotations, or so we were told. For English
> Lit,
> >I just wrote the essays out in the back of my texts and copied them down
> in
> >the exam (the questions are always the same). Efficiency!
> >
> >
> >
>
> You are lucky you weren't caught - did you actually realise this was
> cheating or did you not think? People being dishonest like that makes it
> harder for the rest of us to get the grades that we actually worked (or
> didn't in my cas e but hey) for!
Of course it's cheating. But the amazing thing is
it's cheating for one ordinary GCSE.
To carefully copy essays into the back of a text
in order to get a GCSE in English Lit does show a
rather odd sense of values and proportion. Did it
really matter that much? Why not just fail?
And was that trouble necessary in order to get a pass
when a bit of work would have got one anyway? It's
not that hard an exam after all.
This is what comes of all the fuss that has been made
about pass rates and qualifications. Why can't we just
tell children that the point of reading Literature is
to enjoy it, not to pass exams? See how we have mixed
them up!
Poor Laurence probably did not enjoy the books, he's
become a cheat, and he thinks this is "Effiency". Mostly
when people say that education screws you up I argue
with them; but I hope no-one mentions this case, because
I can't see that education has done Laurence any good at
all.
--
Robert Chrismas e-mail : chrismas at argonet.co.uk
Laurence Summers
Josh Smith wrote in message <3605fc01....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>that - I find it much easier to remember a few key things and write
>>about why they are important and flesh out my essays/exams in that way.
>>Of course, I remember the odd minor point and put that in too but I
>>don't regurgitate the information. For example, in my English
>>Literature GCSE I used no quotations whatsoever and got an A* for it.
>
>
>--
What about that thing in the news the other day which said that in 2 years
A-Levels are going to be made easier to remove "elitism" from education.
What a pile of shit! They aren't that hard anyway. People can't all expect
to get straight As, and those who can't hack it shouldn't have standards
lowered to help them.
Laurence.
Read my views at http://www.bigfoot.com/~ourholychurch
Laurence Summers
Smurfette wrote in message ...
>
>
>>What board did you do? My course was based on commenting on various
>>quotations. We had to use quotations, or so we were told. For English
>Lit,
>>I just wrote the essays out in the back of my texts and copied them down
in
>>the exam (the questions are always the same). Efficiency!
>>
>>
>>
>
>You are lucky you weren't caught - did you actually realise this was
>cheating or did you not think? People being dishonest like that makes it
>harder for the rest of us to get the grades that we actually worked (or
>didn't in my cas e but hey) for!
It wasn't technically cheating. My teacher knew I was doing it, and only
went so far as to tell me that I couldn't start printing stuff into my text
(I could fit more in it that way). As far as I knew it was allowed.
Laurence
Laurence Summers
Paul Hornshaw wrote in message ...
>>
>>>What board did you do? My course was based on commenting on various
>>>quotations. We had to use quotations, or so we were told. For English
>>Lit,
>>>I just wrote the essays out in the back of my texts and copied them down
in
>>>the exam (the questions are always the same). Efficiency!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You are lucky you weren't caught - did you actually realise this was
>>cheating or did you not think? People being dishonest like that makes it
>>harder for the rest of us to get the grades that we actually worked (or
>>didn't in my cas e but hey) for!
>>smurf
>>
>>
>If you cheat, keep it to yourself, eh. Why spoil someone else's real
>achievement.
Because you don't know who I am, and because I'm sure it was allowed since
my teacher said it was a good idea. There are many ways of doing things. A
friend of mine learnt how to do his maths during the exam from the formula
book - what a guy!
Laurence.
Laurence Summers
Robert Chrismas wrote in message ...
> "Smurfette" <wool...@lineone.net> wrote:
>> Laurence Summers wrote in message <3602a...@news2.mcmail.com>...
>>
>> >What board did you do? My course was based on commenting on various
>> >quotations. We had to use quotations, or so we were told. For English
>> Lit,
>> >I just wrote the essays out in the back of my texts and copied them down
>> in
>> >the exam (the questions are always the same). Efficiency!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You are lucky you weren't caught - did you actually realise this was
>> cheating or did you not think? People being dishonest like that makes it
>> harder for the rest of us to get the grades that we actually worked (or
>> didn't in my cas e but hey) for!
>
>
>it's cheating for one ordinary GCSE.
If it was cheating, why was it encouraged by the teacher???????? I
personally don't think it was cheating, since I chose the bits to copy
during the exam.
>To carefully copy essays into the back of a text
>in order to get a GCSE in English Lit does show a
>rather odd sense of values and proportion. Did it
>really matter that much? Why not just fail?
They weren't carefully copied. They were essays written out in short hand.
I was told to do so which is why I didn't fail.
>And was that trouble necessary in order to get a pass
>when a bit of work would have got one anyway? It's
>not that hard an exam after all.
I had to do lots of work to get all the material for the essays anyway. I
also came from a Shit secondary school which put me at quite a disadvantage.
>
>This is what comes of all the fuss that has been made
>about pass rates and qualifications. Why can't we just
>tell children that the point of reading Literature is
>to enjoy it, not to pass exams? See how we have mixed
>them up!
Education is flawed!!!!! I agree!
>
>Poor Laurence probably did not enjoy the books, he's
>become a cheat, and he thinks this is "Effiency". Mostly
>when people say that education screws you up I argue
>with them; but I hope no-one mentions this case, because
>I can't see that education has done Laurence any good at
>all.
Why? I did well at my A-Levels (without what you call "cheating") and now
I'm going to a "good" university to have fun and become intellectual.
Laurence
Unknown
>> Laurence Summers wrote in message <3602a...@news2.mcmail.com>...
>>
>> >What board did you do? My course was based on commenting on various
>> >quotations. We had to use quotations, or so we were told. For English
>> Lit,
>> >I just wrote the essays out in the back of my texts and copied them down
>> in
>> >the exam (the questions are always the same). Efficiency!
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> You are lucky you weren't caught - did you actually realise this was
>> cheating or did you not think? People being dishonest like that makes it
>> harder for the rest of us to get the grades that we actually worked (or
>> didn't in my cas e but hey) for!
>
>
>Of course it's cheating. But the amazing thing is
>it's cheating for one ordinary GCSE.
>
>in order to get a GCSE in English Lit does show a
>rather odd sense of values and proportion. Did it
>really matter that much? Why not just fail?
>when a bit of work would have got one anyway? It's
>not that hard an exam after all.
>
>about pass rates and qualifications. Why can't we just
>tell children that the point of reading Literature is
>to enjoy it, not to pass exams? See how we have mixed
>them up!
>
>become a cheat, and he thinks this is "Effiency". Mostly
>when people say that education screws you up I argue
>with them; but I hope no-one mentions this case, because
>I can't see that education has done Laurence any good at
>all.
Hi,
I'm 19 and happened to get A* in my English Lit exam, and my method
for doing so was to meticulously colour code every page in the book,
so there was a reference at the top of each page and then coloured
text so I could find my best quotes ASAP. The reason I put a lot of
effort into this preparation was because we got 2 hrs to write 3
essays, an ridiculously short amount of time per essay. There is no
way a quality answer can be given to any meaningful question in 40
minutes.
Anyway, was I cheating for colour coding my books (and writing essay
plans in the back and commenting the margins) ?
No, because the board states that we can write whatever we want into
our texts and take them into the exam.
It's a risk if you actually write complete essays in your book, how
can you be sure they will come up? But if the questions are so
predictable that the method works then I would say use it. I enjoyed
English Lit immensly and it was a wrench to give it up, but I was far
better at the sciences, however, in today's world, employers blindly
look at grades and equate a higher grade in any subject with a more
able person, and for that reason, students not taking every (legal)
advantage that they can get for themselves in an exam are ultimately
selling themselves short.
I am currently reading Maths at Oxford and it is a pleasure doing so,
since despite the obvious pressures to gain a good degree there is a
hug amount of room to explore your subject away from the syllabus,
since they do not have coursework or the like. Your degree is awarded
purely on the basis of the exams you take in the third year.
Consequently I know I can enjoy the forthcoming second year knowing
that if I choose to stray from the predefined course laid out I still
have the Summer vacation to read up on anything I pass over.
Just my opinion!
Paul
Matt
pile of pants but then again, who respects my opinions?
>
Um... I didn't open my book at all in the exam.
Laurence Summers
>>
>>You didn't use quotations but you used examples which is as good/better
esp
>>in NEAB where you ahve the book in front of you and so you get no marks
for
>>regurgitating a quotation!
>>smurf
>>
>Um... I didn't open my book at all in the exam.
In my RE exam, I managed to do the whole lot in 20 minutes (2 hr paper). I
then proceeded to sleep the rest.
Laurence.
http://www.bigfoot.com/~ourholychurch
Josh Smith
<ourhol...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>If any examiners are reading this, he could still be caught.
>>If you cheat, keep it to yourself, eh. Why spoil someone else's real
>>achievement.
>
I think anyone who can cheat in an exam and get away with it deserves
a good grade.
>Because you don't know who I am, and because I'm sure it was allowed since
>my teacher said it was a good idea. There are many ways of doing things. A
>friend of mine learnt how to do his maths during the exam from the formula
>book - what a guy!
>
It wouldn't be that difficult to phone up the NEAB and find out ;-)
Sarajane
Grow up - I may be a long way down the line from my O (we didn't do GSCE's
then) and A levels but where is the pride in working hard for an exam and
passing rather than cheating or bending the rules. You can through life
'cheating' but you willnot get any satisfaction from it in the long run.
Laurence Summers
Josh Smith wrote in message <36044585....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 18:16:04 +0100, "Laurence Summers"
><ourhol...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>>If any examiners are reading this, he could still be caught.
>>>If you cheat, keep it to yourself, eh. Why spoil someone else's real
>>>achievement.
>>
>I think anyone who can cheat in an exam and get away with it deserves
>a good grade.
>
little me.
>
>>Because you don't know who I am, and because I'm sure it was allowed since
>>my teacher said it was a good idea. There are many ways of doing things.
A
>>friend of mine learnt how to do his maths during the exam from the formula
>>book - what a guy!
>>
>It wouldn't be that difficult to phone up the NEAB and find out ;-)
Ehh? What does that mean? My friend did his A-Level Maths by learning it
from the formula book in the exam, and I don't see what that has to do with
NEAB. We did the MEI board I think anyway.
Laurence.
Flame me at:
http://www.bigfoot.com/~ourholychurch
Laurence Summers
I was satisfied enough. I also don't consider what I did "cheating."
Laurence.
Find out my other evil deeds at http://www.bigfoot.com/~ourholychurch
Sarajane wrote in message <6u2hpo$n...@news5-gui.server.cableol.net>...
Robert Clark
Robert Martin <r...@rdale.prestel.co.uk> wrote in article
<6tjpni$qpo$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk>...
> Hi,
>
> I have just started my A Levels and I went to this Parents Evening at the
> school. I was shocked to discover that the teachers have allready
predicted
> my grade using my GCSE results as a guide. How accurate is this method?
>
> Robert
>
>
>
From one Robert to another....
I have just read most of the replys to your posting and have discovered the
most illinformed set of tripe that I have ever read.A levels can be
predicted from GCSE performance with surprising accuracy, but it has to be
remembered that it is a statistical process and some indaviduals will
always not fit.
The main system discussed (ALIS - A-Level Information System) collects data
from approx 800 schools, and 100,000 students and forms data sets of
Average GCSE Score (8 for A*, 7 for B, 6 for C etc) and acheived A level
grade for each subject (and in some cases different syllabuses - eg
Nuffield Physics separately to Physics) and then forms a regression
equation based on this data from which an estimated A level grade can be
made given an average GCSE Score.The data sets often contain over 4000
students for each subject and therefore are statistically valid.These
predictions can estimate approximately 50 % of the outcome, (hundreds of
other factors make up the other 50 %) and average GCSE is the best single
predictor for A Level performance around (over 15 years work has been spent
studying this). Obviously there is no accounting for the student that does
not work very hard !!. However because the prediction is based on what
students have actually done it does take into account differences beween
GCSE and A Level (i.e. the degree of spoon feeding etc...). It is
predictions like this that form the basis for Value Added scores which the
government is intending to bring into play for league tables.
These predictions are realistic targets and independant of what the
teachers actually think of you as it is based upon what students with a
similar ability to yourself obtained on average the previous year.
I don' t want to make this very long so I will stop here. Oh one more
thing.....how do I know all this ? The answer is simple - I am one of the
members of the team that runs the ALIS project and therefore know much more
about this than any of the other people in this thread.
Dr Robert Clark
Robert Martin
Is this ALIS thing a student can use or for teacher use only?
Rob
)________________________________(
Robert Clark <Robert....@btinternet.com> wrote in message
01bde4c5$a1f7be20$0100007f@D5723345btinternet...
Smurfette
at English!
smurf
Matt wrote in message <02$PXEARg$A2E...@bloomerfamily.demon.co.uk>...
>Just you look at what Smurfette wrote! If you ask me it's all a huge
>pile of pants but then again, who respects my opinions?
>
>>
>>Matt wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Not necessarily - I personally hate using quotations so I just packed as
>>>much information into it as possible, i.e. Roger's sadism is truly
>>>pictured when he pushes the rock from his vantage point atop Jack's
>>>tribe's lair onto Piggy below who he doesn't see as a human, just a
>>>thing to which life is unimportant - he didn't see Piggy as a human
>>>being.
>>
>>
esp
>>in NEAB where you ahve the book in front of you and so you get no marks
for
>>regurgitating a quotation!
>>smurf
>>
>Um... I didn't open my book at all in the exam.
Smurfette
smurf
Laurence Summers wrote in message <3603e...@news2.mcmail.com>...
>
>Paul Hornshaw wrote in message ...
>>In article <lmLM1.40$aW4.1...@news-reader.bt.net>, Smurfette
>><wool...@lineone.net> writes
>>>
>>>
>>>>What board did you do? My course was based on commenting on various
>>>>quotations. We had to use quotations, or so we were told. For English
>>>Lit,
>>>>I just wrote the essays out in the back of my texts and copied them down
>in
>>>>the exam (the questions are always the same). Efficiency!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>You are lucky you weren't caught - did you actually realise this was
>>>cheating or did you not think? People being dishonest like that makes it
>>>harder for the rest of us to get the grades that we actually worked (or
>>>didn't in my cas e but hey) for!
>>>
>>>
>>If any examiners are reading this, he could still be caught.
>>If you cheat, keep it to yourself, eh. Why spoil someone else's real
>>achievement.
>
>
>my teacher said it was a good idea. There are many ways of doing things.
A
>friend of mine learnt how to do his maths during the exam from the formula
>book - what a guy!
>
>
>
Smurfette
Laurence Summers wrote in message <36050...@news2.mcmail.com>...
>I didn't "cheat" for ANY of my A-Levels, and did pretty well.
oh nice for you. Most of us did! What is the point in risking all you other
GCSEs to pass something that you shouldn't pass anyway?
>
>I was satisfied enough. I also don't consider what I did "cheating."
>
>
So how else would you class it? If I went into a French exam with list of
french words and their english translation written in the back of my set
text would you count that as cheating? It's basically the same thing!
smurf
Smurfette
Andrew Crane wrote in message <01bde550$3476fec0$LocalHost@prsdb6d1>...
>Laurence Summers <ourhol...@bigfoot.com> wrote in article
><3603e...@news2.mcmail.com>...
>> >Of course it's cheating. But the amazing thing is
>> >it's cheating for one ordinary GCSE.
>> personally don't think it was cheating, since I chose the bits to copy
>> during the exam.
>
>school were told, by the extremely senile head of English department, that
>we *had* to copy essays into the backs of our exam texts! He was actually
>an examiner for SEG too.
>Every other English teacher I spoke to denied this fact, and told us that
>we would have our exams cancelled if we were caught doing this. I was too
>worried about getting caught, so I wrote very short, brief notes (no
>sentances).
you're allowed brief notes eg this is a quotation about Pip's unloyalty to
Joe, just not essays!
smurf
Smurfette
BogeyMan wrote in message <3603ece8...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>Hi,
>
>I'm 19 and happened to get A* in my English Lit exam, and my method
>for doing so was to meticulously colour code every page in the book,
>so there was a reference at the top of each page and then coloured
>text so I could find my best quotes ASAP. The reason I put a lot of
>effort into this preparation was because we got 2 hrs to write 3
>essays, an ridiculously short amount of time per essay. There is no
>way a quality answer can be given to any meaningful question in 40
>minutes.
>Anyway, was I cheating for colour coding my books
no you're allowed brief notes
(and writing essay
>plans in the back and commenting the margins - that's ok (prob)) ?
>No, because the board states that we can write whatever we want into
>our texts and take them into the exam.
No you can make brief notes you cannot write out entire essays, essay plans
would prob pass but if you were caught with essays in your book you stand to
be disqualified from not only that but all GCSEs.
>It's a risk if you actually write complete essays in your book, how
>can you be sure they will come up? But if the questions are so
>predictable that the method works then I would say use it. I enjoyed
>English Lit immensly and it was a wrench to give it up, but I was far
>better at the sciences, however, in today's world, employers blindly
>look at grades and equate a higher grade in any subject with a more
>able person, and for that reason, students not taking every (legal)
Legal's fine - we're talking cheating here, that's going too far.
>advantage that they can get for themselves in an exam are ultimately
>selling themselves short.
>I am currently reading Maths at Oxford and it is a pleasure doing so,
Hey can my sis talk to you coz she's applying? :O)
>since despite the obvious pressures to gain a good degree there is a
>hug amount of room to explore your subject away from the syllabus,
>since they do not have coursework or the like. Your degree is awarded
>purely on the basis of the exams you take in the third year.
>Consequently I know I can enjoy the forthcoming second year knowing
>that if I choose to stray from the predefined course laid out I still
>have the Summer vacation to read up on anything I pass over.
>Just my opinion!
>
fine at degree level - not really poss for GCSE!
smurf
Smurfette
off - ignorance is no defense or whatever!
smurf
Laurence Summers wrote in message <3603e...@news2.mcmail.com>...
>
>Smurfette wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>>>What board did you do? My course was based on commenting on various
>>>quotations. We had to use quotations, or so we were told. For English
>>Lit,
>>>I just wrote the essays out in the back of my texts and copied them down
>in
>>>the exam (the questions are always the same). Efficiency!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>You are lucky you weren't caught - did you actually realise this was
>>cheating or did you not think? People being dishonest like that makes it
>>harder for the rest of us to get the grades that we actually worked (or
>>didn't in my cas e but hey) for!
>>smurf
>
>
>went so far as to tell me that I couldn't start printing stuff into my text
>(I could fit more in it that way). As far as I knew it was allowed.
>
>Laurence
>
Smurfette
gets an A* at CGSE is capable of an A at a-level. Your average GCSE score
may well give an indication of you average A-level score, but surely this
gets fuzzy at the top and bottom of the scale.
How exactly does this idea work? It's fine plotting it backwards but if
someone told you their GCSE result for a subject would you be able to
predict their A-level result which is what has happened in this case?
smurf
Robert Clark wrote in message
<01bde4c5$a1f7be20$0100007f@D5723345btinternet>...
Paul Hornshaw
<wool...@lineone.net> writes
>
>>since despite the obvious pressures to gain a good degree there is a
>>hug amount of room to explore your subject away from the syllabus,
>>since they do not have coursework or the like. Your degree is awarded
>>purely on the basis of the exams you take in the third year.
>>Consequently I know I can enjoy the forthcoming second year knowing
>>that if I choose to stray from the predefined course laid out I still
>>have the Summer vacation to read up on anything I pass over.
>>Just my opinion!
>>
>fine at degree level - not really poss for GCSE!
>
>smurf
>
>
--
Paul Hornshaw
Pauline Seymour
<URL:mailto:Robert....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Robert Martin <r...@rdale.prestel.co.uk> wrote in article
> <6tjpni$qpo$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk>...
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have just started my A Levels and I went to this Parents Evening at the
> > predicted my grade using my GCSE results as a guide.
> > How accurate is this method?
> >
> > Robert
> >
> From one Robert to another....
>
> but it has to be
> remembered that it is a statistical process and some individuals will
> always not fit.
>
> Dr Robert Clark
This, of course, is the whole point. This kind of statistic comes
complete with mean AND STANDARD DEVIATION. There is nothing wrong
with a teacher saying "well, the average score at A-level last year
for someone with your son's GCSE results was ...." PROVIDED THEY ADD
"but this varied considerably ...". On your own admission only 50%
will get the grades predicted by this method. It must be made very
clear to parents that the prediction is NOT based on the work of the
individual being refered to.
Statistics covering large groups of people MUST NOT be applied
willy-nilly to individuals without a lot of caveats. I suspect there
is a serious lack of understanding of statistics among a large
proportion of A-level teachers (maths teachers excepted I hope) and
that many of them using the system don't even know what a standard
deviation is!
-------
Pauline
John Arrowsmith
<pas...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>This kind of statistic comes
>complete with mean AND STANDARD DEVIATION. There is nothing wrong
>with a teacher saying "well, the average score at A-level last year
>for someone with your son's GCSE results was ...." PROVIDED THEY ADD
>"but this varied considerably ...".
Thank-you, Pauline. A consistent grumble whenever I see "the average
was" but never the wholly equally essential "with a standard deviation
of".
Indeed, without the second, how can anyone *ever* gain any information
of value from the former....
Best wishes
--
John Arrowsmith,
hosting South Hunsley School's Newsletters and Global Rock Challenge news
at http://www.arrowsmith.demon.co.uk
Paul Bolchover
Laurence Summers <ourhol...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>It wasn't what she called cheating. Since you're getting so wound up about
>it I'll send you a copy of the page and see what you think.
For those who can't dowload the file, it's a copy of the page in
Laurence's textbook. It has about 20 sentences listing points that
could be raised in a particular essay question. Since each point is a
single sentence which would be expanded into at least one paragraph in
the full essay, I think that it would be fair to say that they qualify
as notes, rather than essays.
To give an example one of the points reads:
"Insists children don't use derogatory terms for blacks (ie Nigger).
Reason why he depends Tom Robinson. Honour and self respect".
My view is that Laurence didn't write an essay in the book, merely a
fairly detailed set of notes/essay plan for a particular question.
I'm not certain what the current exam board guidelines are, but from
the other posts in this thread, it seems that no cheating occurred.
(though I still personally feel that it's sacrilige to write notes on
books, and that anyone who does so should be shot on sight)
Paul Bolchover
Theresa Santos
<pb1...@cus.cam.ac.uk> writes
>My view is that Laurence didn't write an essay in the book, merely a
>fairly detailed set of notes/essay plan for a particular question.
>
>I'm not certain what the current exam board guidelines are, but from
>the other posts in this thread, it seems that no cheating occurred.
>
>(though I still personally feel that it's sacrilige to write notes on
>books, and that anyone who does so should be shot on sight)
>
>
the margin of a book..we weren't allowed to write long sentances in
it..and anyway, if you tried, it would be to your disadvantage as you'd
have to write so small you'd spend half your time dechiphering what was
going on...but like...stars at pages where there were references to a
certain thing...you know..i mean, quite honestly, if you've read the
book at least twice, and listened/discussed in class, you're going to
know your way around the thing..and i found that i didn't actually look
up that many things (well..ok..for macbeth i did..but i hated that
thing.. :))
i know in Alevel, at my school, if your book has like essay hints or
whatever at the back/front they have to be sectioned off, so that you
couldn't look at them without someone noticing..
but then..we have school exams twice a year..every year..from the time
we're 12...
so it's just a routine...
--
Theresa Santos
Robert Clark
Smurfette <wool...@lineone.net> wrote in article
<_adN1.3601$8j6.3...@news-reader.bt.net>...
> sure predicting from lower grades, but how can you say whether someone
who
> gets an A* at CGSE is capable of an A at a-level. Your average GCSE score
> may well give an indication of you average A-level score, but surely this
> gets fuzzy at the top and bottom of the scale.
> How exactly does this idea work? It's fine plotting it backwards but if
> someone told you their GCSE result for a subject would you be able to
> predict their A-level result which is what has happened in this case?
>
> smurf
The cut offs at the top and bottom of the scale obviouslycause limits, but
then if you get straight A's do you really care ?. You can say that someone
who gets A*'s should get an A, but you can not predict better than this !
Prediction from a single GCSE is worse than from average GCSE. I know, this
sounds crazy but it is true (research has been done on this). My view is
that using the average GCSE score incorporates peoples overall ability to
learn, not just being spoon fed a single subject. And also bear in mind
that the subjects you take at A level do have a relationship to the
subjects you take at GCSE !
Robert
Robert Clark
Pauline Seymour <pas...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<ant202037345#mt$@paseymo.ix.netcom.com>...
> This, of course, is the whole point. This kind of statistic comes
> complete with mean AND STANDARD DEVIATION. There is nothing wrong
> with a teacher saying "well, the average score at A-level last year
> for someone with your son's GCSE results was ...." PROVIDED THEY ADD
> "but this varied considerably ...". On your own admission only 50%
> will get the grades predicted by this method. It must be made very
> clear to parents that the prediction is NOT based on the work of the
> individual being refered to.
>
> Statistics covering large groups of people MUST NOT be applied
> willy-nilly to individuals without a lot of caveats. I suspect there
> is a serious lack of understanding of statistics among a large
> proportion of A-level teachers (maths teachers excepted I hope) and
> that many of them using the system don't even know what a standard
> deviation is!
>
> -------
> Pauline
>
>
This is very true, which is why we distribute 'chances' graphs with the
data. These show how students actually performed in the previous year for
each subject and are split into 4 quarters based on ability as reflected by
average GCSE score. We do not encourage rigid prediction (i.e. a predicted
A Level points score of 7.2) but rather suggest that this is combined with
the chances graphs so that it can be said (for example) that you are
predicted an A/B, most people with your ability get B's, quite a few do
get A's so it is worth working, but be careful as 2% of students actually
failed, so don't rest on your laurels....
At conferences and by INSET we do try to educate teachers in Stats if they
are unfamiliar with the area. However, you can not stop people using
information badly.
Ultimately the mentoring of students through there A levels rests with the
teachers involved as they know the students and their work much better than
anyone else. Predictive systems can only be used as a guide, but I believe
that they can be very useful. After all a teacher has opinions as to
dificulty of subjects and performance of students, but without data this
can not be compared easily to the national picture.
Robert
Robert Clark
John Arrowsmith <jo...@arrowsmith.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
> Thank-you, Pauline. A consistent grumble whenever I see "the average
> was" but never the wholly equally essential "with a standard deviation
> of".
>
> Indeed, without the second, how can anyone *ever* gain any information
> of value from the former....
>
In the ALIS project statistics are always presented with backgrounds of
'Acceptable Variation' construdted from SD's
Robert
>
>
Josh Smith
<ourhol...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>Smurfette wrote in message ...
>>you teacher told you to cheat?! Am I really hearing (reading) this?
>
>It wasn't what she called cheating. Since you're getting so wound up about
>it I'll send you a copy of the page and see what you think.
>
>
'To Kill A Mockingbird' presumably?
Laurence Summers
Josh Smith wrote in message <3609995d....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:34:43 +0100, "Laurence Summers"
><ourhol...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Smurfette wrote in message ...
>>>you teacher told you to cheat?! Am I really hearing (reading) this?
>>
>>It wasn't what she called cheating. Since you're getting so wound up
about
>>it I'll send you a copy of the page and see what you think.
>>
>>
>'To Kill A Mockingbird' presumably?
Correct, but my question was; "Was having that in the back of my text
cheating?"
Thanks
Laurence.
Roger Watson
>'To Kill A Mockingbird' presumably?
>
>--
>Josh Smith - Media & Technology Freelance Writer
>e: jo...@journalism.demon.co.uk - f: +44 -0 870 0558235
>t: +44 1367 240233 - 'Externals may change, but man does not.'
>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cicero
Quick aside:- There's a site up here all about "To Kill A Mockingbird"
http://www.karoo.net/mockingbird/
Our head of English contacted a group of players from Monroeville,
Alabama and they came over to put the play on.
Our school site is:- http://www.maletlambert.hull.sch.uk/
The group have just left Hull at the moment and after that I don't
know.
Any further details from :-Garry Burnett
Ga...@lougar.karoo.co.uk
Roger :o)
********************************************************
* Roger mailto:Ro...@Halsham.karoo.co.uk *
* Visit http://www.karoo.net/halsham/ *
********************************************************
Laurence Summers
Robert Clark wrote in message
<snip>
>Prediction from a single GCSE is worse than from average GCSE. I know, this
>sounds crazy but it is true (research has been done on this). My view is
>that using the average GCSE score incorporates peoples overall ability to
>learn, not just being spoon fed a single subject. And also bear in mind
>that the subjects you take at A level do have a relationship to the
>subjects you take at GCSE !
Not really. There isn't that much choice in GCSE. I was forced (quite
literally) into taking Music and French - 2 subjects which I had no desire
to learn. I proceeded to fail them (quite purposely). I had to do so to
make a point with RE (the fucking hypocrites insisted that we didn't belong
there if we didn't think we should take RE - I didn't belong there - I was
sent there and they should have been greatful that I boosted their pitiful
average grade). The French teacher was crap, and told us that if we didn't
scrape our C grades the Head Teacher would be upset with him. It's one
thing to think that, but to tell the class is definitely an incentive to
fail just to spite him.
I'm evil and vindictive
Laurence.
Find out about my other evil thoughts at
http://www.bigfoot.com/~ourholychurch
Unknown
>
>Hey can my sis talk to you coz she's applying? :O)
Sure, which college is she applying to?
Paul
Unknown
Why? A degree is more than a three year course of learning predefined
facts. You 'read' for a degree, get a feel for the subject and then
take exams at the end of it to determine how well you have done.
Of course there is a syllabus to be tested on, but someone who
rigidily sticks to it for three years, is:
a) a person with absolutely no love or appreciation for the subject.
b) worse at answering questions on the syllabus due to a lack of
practise in creative thinking.
It was an intention carried out last year and during this summer
vacation and one I intend to carry out next year.
In the third year of course you focus on the syllabus, a year is more
than enough time to get up to speed for exams.
Paul
Smurfette
thing! :O)
smurf
Laurence Summers wrote in message <3606b...@news2.mcmail.com>...
>
>Josh Smith wrote in message <3609995d....@news.demon.co.uk>...
>>On Mon, 21 Sep 1998 11:34:43 +0100, "Laurence Summers"
>><ourhol...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Smurfette wrote in message ...
>>>>you teacher told you to cheat?! Am I really hearing (reading) this?
>>>
>>>It wasn't what she called cheating. Since you're getting so wound up
>about
>>>it I'll send you a copy of the page and see what you think.
>>>
>>>
>
Smurfette
BogeyMan wrote in message <3606b7f...@news.dircon.co.uk>...
>Why? A degree is more than a three year course of learning predefined
>facts. You 'read' for a degree, get a feel for the subject and then
>take exams at the end of it to determine how well you have done.
>Of course there is a syllabus to be tested on, but someone who
>rigidily sticks to it for three years, is:
>a) a person with absolutely no love or appreciation for the subject.
>b) worse at answering questions on the syllabus due to a lack of
>practise in creative thinking.
>
>It was an intention carried out last year and during this summer
>vacation and one I intend to carry out next year.
>In the third year of course you focus on the syllabus, a year is more
>than enough time to get up to speed for exams.
>
Didn't he mean for GCSE? Obviously that's true at degree level, although
poss not a some ex-polies and of course some more scientific courses - I
actually thought the vast majority of Economics at Camb would be doing my
own reading/research to get my own opinions!
smurf
Smurfette
Smurfette
Robert Clark wrote in message
<01bde58a$e6c8aa80$0100007f@D5723345btinternet>...
>
>
><_adN1.3601$8j6.3...@news-reader.bt.net>...
>> sure predicting from lower grades, but how can you say whether someone
>who
>> gets an A* at CGSE is capable of an A at a-level. Your average GCSE score
>> may well give an indication of you average A-level score, but surely this
>> gets fuzzy at the top and bottom of the scale.
>> How exactly does this idea work? It's fine plotting it backwards but if
>> someone told you their GCSE result for a subject would you be able to
>> predict their A-level result which is what has happened in this case?
>>
>> smurf
>
>The cut offs at the top and bottom of the scale obviouslycause limits, but
>then if you get straight A's do you really care ?. You can say that someone
>who gets A*'s should get an A, but you can not predict better than this !
No I totally disagree that you would expect someone with an A* to get an A
at A-level, that was my point. An A* at GCSE shows no more than that the
person has either worked hard/possibly has some talent at the subject. Case
in point I got an A* in GCSE Latin by memorising abt 200 lines of set text -
I couldn't have translated them if I ahd been handed a dictionary, if I had
gone on to A-level I might have just scraped at C, I certainly couldn't have
got an A!
>
>Prediction from a single GCSE is worse than from average GCSE. I know, this
>sounds crazy but it is true (research has been done on this).
Not in the slightest - a single GCSE score can be due to luck/extra
work/problems with understanding the syllabus etc obviously overall GCSE
score gives a better indication of your general intell (or eduacational)
level and shows better what you would get at A-level.
My view is
>that using the average GCSE score incorporates peoples overall ability to
>learn, not just being spoon fed a single subject. And also bear in mind
>that the subjects you take at A level do have a relationship to the
>subjects you take at GCSE !
Depends on the subject really. I still don't understand how a general GCSE
score can be used to predict individual grades for A-level as has happened
in this case. Surely that can only be done by combining GCSE grade with what
the teacher has learnt about the student from teachingt hem for the last two
years - obviously not poss if the pupil has just started a new
school/college.
smurf
Robert Martin
you are studying at A Level would be better.
My grade D in French has much less signficance than my A* in Science.
If I were to take A Level French (as if...) then my A Level grade predicted
from my average GCSE score (5xA*, 3xA, 2xD) would not be accurate in the
slightest!
Robert
Robert Clark
Smurfette <wool...@lineone.net> wrote in article
<7KPN1.10014$Y41.3...@news-reader.bt.net>...
> No I totally disagree that you would expect someone with an A* to get an
A
> at A-level, that was my point. An A* at GCSE shows no more than that the
> person has either worked hard/possibly has some talent at the subject.
Case
> in point I got an A* in GCSE Latin by memorising abt 200 lines of set
text -
> I couldn't have translated them if I ahd been handed a dictionary, if I
had
> gone on to A-level I might have just scraped at C, I certainly couldn't
have
> got an A!
Predictions are based on average GCSE - to get an A* average requires A* in
all subjects taken, and someone who can do this is bright. Also predictions
are based on what students have done and so takes into account the ability
to pass exams by rote learning. 50 % of students will score worse than the
prediction - they have to as the prediction represents an average A level
grade acheived and statistics demand that 50 % is less than average and 50
% is greater than average. The real key is the degree to which student
exceed (or not) the predictions. i.e. half a grade does not mean much
wheras 2 grades does.
> I still don't understand how a general GCSE
> score can be used to predict individual grades for A-level as has
happened
> in this case. Surely that can only be done by combining GCSE grade with
what
> the teacher has learnt about the student from teachingt hem for the last
two
> years - obviously not poss if the pupil has just started a new
> school/college.
> smurf
>
>
You are missing the point. The prediction is based upon what your fellow
students in a previous year (of similar ability as measured by average GCSE
score, which like it or not is a good indicator) achieved on average. Thus
statistically you can say that the grade a person is most likely to acheive
is this one. It is the same as saying that someone who gets E's at GCSE is
unlikely to get A's at A level - the prediction just gets a lot (and I mean
a lot) of data to improve this sort of estimation. Of course, students are
people (no matter what some may think !) and this allways has to be borne
in mind in education.
Robert
Robert Clark
Robert Martin <r...@rdale.prestel.co.uk> wrote in article
<6u8m0j$5dd$1...@phys-ma.sol.co.uk>...
Yes indeed but.... you would not consider taking A level french, nor is it
likely that you would be accepted onto a course. People generally take
their best subjects at A level, and in your case the 2xD's would not really
affect your average GCSE (6.9 with and 7.6 without). If people took
subjects they were bad at this sort of analysis may (but only may) not be
possible, but that is clearly not the case. These sort of matters have been
researched over the last 15 years and as counter intuitive as some of it
may be, it does actually work quite well.
Robert
Ken Smith
>
>
>Why? A degree is more than a three year course of learning predefined
>facts. You 'read' for a degree, get a feel for the subject and then
>take exams at the end of it to determine how well you have done.
>Of course there is a syllabus to be tested on, but someone who
>rigidily sticks to it for three years, is:
>a) a person with absolutely no love or appreciation for the subject.
>b) worse at answering questions on the syllabus due to a lack of
>practise in creative thinking.
>
>It was an intention carried out last year and during this summer
>vacation and one I intend to carry out next year.
>In the third year of course you focus on the syllabus, a year is more
>than enough time to get up to speed for exams.
>
Anyone who takes this as gospel or even general is in for a nasty shock.
many practical degrees include coursework in their grading system and
many include project work which will virtually dictate your honours
grade. Does this stifle creative thinking? certainly not you can choose
your own project and providing it is sufficiently challenging you will
be able to go where your fancy takes you. You may also be subjected to
yearly exeams not simply finals. A good syllabus will make you look at
the subject in broader terms whereas simply following your passion may
lead to a very narrow viewpoint. As for having no LOVE for the subject
just because you follow the syllabus what absolute tosh. If you love
the subject you don't ignore the syllabus you go beyond it. There will
be many people who study "The ARTS" and Humanities who will call you a
very sad person for spending much of the night solving that vital
problem but such is the nature of love.
--
Ken Smith
http://www.kencom.demon.co.uk/
"What is the point of us spending half the night arguing whether there
is or isn't a god when that machine gives you his phone number in the morning"
Magick Thighs.
Laurence
Laurence.
Smurfette wrote in message <3KPN1.10011$Y41.3...@news-reader.bt.net>...
Elizabeth
<<<<<I have just read most of the replys to your posting and have discovered
the
most illinformed set of tripe that I have ever read.A levels can be
predicted from GCSE performance with surprising accuracy, >>>>>>>
With due respect Dr. Clark you do not appear to have read through the thread
well enough to have arrived at such a vast generalisation as to suggest that
all are ill informed. . Some of us ( as in more than one , not just myself)
did point out that ALIS worked quite well very early on in this thread. We
also pointed out how it worked.
Dr. L. Le Tissier
Paul Hornshaw
>>>
>>>smurf
>>>
>>>
>>I think you're in for a shock if that's you're intention.
>>--
>>Paul Hornshaw
>
>facts. You 'read' for a degree, get a feel for the subject and then
>take exams at the end of it to determine how well you have done.
>Of course there is a syllabus to be tested on, but someone who
>rigidily sticks to it for three years, is:
>a) a person with absolutely no love or appreciation for the subject.
>b) worse at answering questions on the syllabus due to a lack of
>practise in creative thinking.
>
>It was an intention carried out last year and during this summer
>vacation and one I intend to carry out next year.
>In the third year of course you focus on the syllabus, a year is more
>than enough time to get up to speed for exams.
>
>Paul
--
Paul Hornshaw
Unknown
Yes, I took them for A-level and they are a joke, allowing people to
retake bits of exam time and time again. They are absurdly easy and
IMHO they need to stop the habit of leading you through questions bit
by bit which make the exams a paint by numbers job.
E.g in Maths, first you might be asked to quote a rule. Part (b) will
make you use this rule to prove a simple identity. Part (c) will then
make you do an integral where this identity is the only possible
substitution (and will tell you do so by using the phrase "hence or
otherwise").
At degree level modular courses may be of equal difficullty (although
I doubt that since I think one thing a degree should test is to be
able to handle a large number of topics at once, not give it to you in
bite size chunks), but they are a pain. They put students under
constant stress and promote an exam oriented attitude to work and
life.
THIS IS BAD! Students want to get drunk, not revise for 3 years <G>
Paul
Sunil Rao
>>Ever heard of modular courses?
>
>retake bits of exam time and time again. They are absurdly easy and
>IMHO they need to stop the habit of leading you through questions bit
>by bit which make the exams a paint by numbers job.
Sorry, but what does this have to do with modular courses??? Even a non-
modular examination might suffer from the same "defect".
>E.g in Maths, first you might be asked to quote a rule. Part (b) will
>make you use this rule to prove a simple identity. Part (c) will then
>make you do an integral where this identity is the only possible
>substitution (and will tell you do so by using the phrase "hence or
>otherwise").
IMHO, questions like these allow an examiner to assess the precise
extent of a candidate's knowledge. Someone who's good at Maths will
answer the question correctly ANYWAY. It's a lot harder to tell the
difference between a C-grade candidate and an E-grade one if all the
questions are too difficult to be answered by either!
--
"I see you have books under your arm, brother. It is indeed a rare pleasure
these days to come across somebody that still reads, brother."
- Anthony Burgess
Robert Clark
Elizabeth <lynd...@email.msn.com> wrote in article
<u7PA1Ix59GA.149@upnetnews03>...
> With due respect Dr. Clark you do not appear to have read through the
thread
> well enough to have arrived at such a vast generalisation as to suggest
that
> all are ill informed. . Some of us ( as in more than one , not just
myself)
> did point out that ALIS worked quite well very early on in this thread.
We
> also pointed out how it worked.
>
> Dr. L. Le Tissier
>
My apologies - I came accross this thread in a different newsgroup to
uk.education.teachers and the start of the thread was not Re: anything so I
assumed that it was the real start of the thread. The only replies that I
saw were by students who were making comments like 'it';s rubbish', 'I
failed on purpose - so there' and others of a similar ilk ( I am sure that
you must of seen them). Severel of the replies that I have seen since show
that indeed there are people out there who do understand the systems and
what is trying to be acheived. I am sorry if I have inadvertantly offended
anyone.
Robert
Unknown
wrote:
>?@?.? wrote, and I reply...
>>>Ever heard of modular courses?
>>
>>Yes, I took them for A-level and they are a joke, allowing people to
>>retake bits of exam time and time again. They are absurdly easy and
>>IMHO they need to stop the habit of leading you through questions bit
>>by bit which make the exams a paint by numbers job.
>
>Sorry, but what does this have to do with modular courses??? Even a non-
>modular examination might suffer from the same "defect".
Each module is designed to last for about 1 school term (allowing
revision in the 3rd term) and hardly any material can be covered in
such a short time period. Hence the module exams tend to be tightly
focused, there are about nine topics and funnily enough there are nine
questions on an exam paper. It is rare that any one question will
shift focus from one topic to another - obviously that would be
considered too confusing for the modern day average A-level candidate
<G>.
Seriously though, material is being lopped off the end of syllabi(?)
all the time and so is now spread so thinly over modules that it is
impossible for examiners to think up new questions. They tend to be
very similar to previous ones witha few numbers changed.
(And lets remember that A-levels are meant to be the *gold standard*
of education - fools gold by my experience of them).
The only good thing about modules is that they meant that having taken
half my A-levels in the lower Sixth Form I could afford to take an
extremely relaxed attitude to my final year's study, knwoing that
unless I averaged below a high C on each paper I would get straight
A's. Never have I been so relaxed about taking exams.
>>E.g in Maths, first you might be asked to quote a rule. Part (b) will
>>make you use this rule to prove a simple identity. Part (c) will then
>>make you do an integral where this identity is the only possible
>>substitution (and will tell you do so by using the phrase "hence or
>>otherwise").
>
>IMHO, questions like these allow an examiner to assess the precise
>extent of a candidate's knowledge. Someone who's good at Maths will
>answer the question correctly ANYWAY. It's a lot harder to tell the
>difference between a C-grade candidate and an E-grade one if all the
>questions are too difficult to be answered by either!
I think you have hit upon the exact problem, Maths is not a subject
solely about knowledge, it is also about insight and creativity, and
the present system of modular A levels is wrecking that by simply
requiring you to recall a formula or two and then practically giving
you the method to solve the question through this multi part step
through question idea.
A better way to test a pupil would be to return to the idea of 3 hour
papers with limited choice (say any 5 out of 7 or 8 questions).
Have each question as a multi-parter but witha less obvious step
through element and use a variety of topics in each one, thus giving
the less able student a chance to show their knowledge but allowing
the able student to display their ability to grasp and thread together
an answer which doesn't blatantly arrive from one very signposted
direction.
Also, perhaps GCSE has the right idea. What about tiering papers? Then
a paper of appropriate level could be set that could more easily tell
between a C or an E grade candidate.
Well, just a few ideas, but they'll never happen seeing as Labour is
keen to water down standards even further...
Paul
Sam Saunders
Sam
Sunil Rao
>On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 22:51:04 +0100, Sunil Rao <su...@raos.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>?@?.? wrote, and I reply...
>>>>Ever heard of modular courses?
>>>
>>>Yes, I took them for A-level and they are a joke, allowing people to
>>>retake bits of exam time and time again. They are absurdly easy and
>>>IMHO they need to stop the habit of leading you through questions bit
>>>by bit which make the exams a paint by numbers job.
>>
>>Sorry, but what does this have to do with modular courses??? Even a non-
>>modular examination might suffer from the same "defect".
>
>Each module is designed to last for about 1 school term (allowing
>revision in the 3rd term) and hardly any material can be covered in
>such a short time period. Hence the module exams tend to be tightly
>focused, there are about nine topics and funnily enough there are nine
>questions on an exam paper. It is rare that any one question will
>shift focus from one topic to another - obviously that would be
>considered too confusing for the modern day average A-level candidate
><G>.
Even a non-modular exam can have questions like this. Most modular
syllabi can and sometimes do draw upon skills, methods and techniques
that are meant to have been previously learnt.
>Seriously though, material is being lopped off the end of syllabi(?)
>all the time and so is now spread so thinly over modules that it is
>impossible for examiners to think up new questions. They tend to be
>very similar to previous ones witha few numbers changed.
There's only so much scope for originality without making an exam so
difficult that 90% of the people who are taking it can't answer a single
question.
>(And lets remember that A-levels are meant to be the *gold standard*
>of education - fools gold by my experience of them).
They're not.
>The only good thing about modules is that they meant that having taken
>half my A-levels in the lower Sixth Form I could afford to take an
>extremely relaxed attitude to my final year's study, knwoing that
>unless I averaged below a high C on each paper I would get straight
>A's. Never have I been so relaxed about taking exams.
I've noticed that if you're genuinely interested in any subject, you'll
breeze through with an A.
>>>E.g in Maths, first you might be asked to quote a rule. Part (b) will
>>>make you use this rule to prove a simple identity. Part (c) will then
>>>make you do an integral where this identity is the only possible
>>>substitution (and will tell you do so by using the phrase "hence or
>>>otherwise").
>>
>>IMHO, questions like these allow an examiner to assess the precise
>>extent of a candidate's knowledge. Someone who's good at Maths will
>>answer the question correctly ANYWAY. It's a lot harder to tell the
>>difference between a C-grade candidate and an E-grade one if all the
>>questions are too difficult to be answered by either!
>
>I think you have hit upon the exact problem, Maths is not a subject
>solely about knowledge, it is also about insight and creativity, and
>the present system of modular A levels is wrecking that by simply
>requiring you to recall a formula or two and then practically giving
>you the method to solve the question through this multi part step
>through question idea.
A-level questions have ALWAYS been like this. I've seen question papers
from the 50s. I've even seen question papers of an equivalent standard
from the last century. Sure, the MATERIAL covered may have been harder,
but the questions certainly have not changed!
>A better way to test a pupil would be to return to the idea of 3 hour
>papers with limited choice (say any 5 out of 7 or 8 questions).
>Have each question as a multi-parter but witha less obvious step
>through element and use a variety of topics in each one, thus giving
>the less able student a chance to show their knowledge but allowing
>the able student to display their ability to grasp and thread together
>an answer which doesn't blatantly arrive from one very signposted
>direction.
There exists a mechanism for this. If you want some sort of challenge,
do STEP, although some questions here can suffer from "signposting" too.
The point is that it's all relative - it is extremely difficult to
devise a question paper that can test people of different abilities.
What you might find obvious may seem hopelessly vague for somebody else.
>Also, perhaps GCSE has the right idea. What about tiering papers? Then
>a paper of appropriate level could be set that could more easily tell
>between a C or an E grade candidate.
Perhaps.
>Well, just a few ideas, but they'll never happen seeing as Labour is
>keen to water down standards even further...
Seeing that it was the previous government that created all the "new
Universities", I'm not so sure that the problem lies where you appear to
think it does.
Peter Richmond
>
> Hi,
>
> I have just started my A Levels and I went to this Parents Evening at the
> school. I was shocked to discover that the teachers have allready predicted
> my grade using my GCSE results as a guide. How accurate is this method?
>
I was predicted 3 E's in my A-Levels. I thought that was VERY strange
since I only took 2 a-levels.
But the system they use isnt accurate. I know a girl (sorry young woman)
who was predicted 2 Ds and 1 E and she got 2 Cs and 1 D.
BUT you can use the predictions as a starting point. If you are
predicted 3 Ds, aim for 3 Cs and you will probably end up with 3 Bs! :)
--
Peter Richmond.
--
Home : Sunderland, United Kingdom.
Web : http://www.richmd.demon.co.uk/c98/
Pager: 01426 281 367 (BT Rates).
Matthew M. Huntbach
> Robert Martin wrote:
> > I have just started my A Levels and I went to this Parents Evening at the
> > school. I was shocked to discover that the teachers have allready predicted
> > my grade using my GCSE results as a guide. How accurate is this method?
> I was predicted 3 E's in my A-Levels. I thought that was VERY strange
> since I only took 2 a-levels.
> But the system they use isnt accurate.
Of course it isn't. It's simply a matter of statistical correlation - people
with low grade GCSEs tend to get low grade A-levels, people with high grade
GCSEs tend to get high grade A-levels. Obviously with anything like this
it isn't an exactp rediction at all. Why is it that people find such a
simple concept so hard to deal with?
Matthew Huntbach
Smurfette
Matthew M. Huntbach wrote in message <6unf7g$7g4$2...@beta.qmw.ac.uk>...
>Of course it isn't. It's simply a matter of statistical correlation -
people
>with low grade GCSEs tend to get low grade A-levels, people with high grade
>GCSEs tend to get high grade A-levels. Obviously with anything like this
>it isn't an exactp rediction at all. Why is it that people find such a
>simple concept so hard to deal with?
I have no problem with such an approximation and I think most people don't.
It's the way that this is being applied to give "exact" estimates for
individual subjects (like saying B/C in maths) that I can't understand.
smurf
Josh Smith
wrote:
>I have no problem with such an approximation and I think most people don't.
>It's the way that this is being applied to give "exact" estimates for
>individual subjects (like saying B/C in maths) that I can't understand.
>smurf
>
Without impinging at the unrivelled knowledge of statistics suggested
by this *Further* Maths student -- since when was B -> C, exact?
<grin>
Josh
--
Josh Smith - Media & Technology Freelance Writer
e: jo...@journalism.demon.co.uk - f: +44 -0 870 0558235
- 'Externals may change, but man does not.'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Cicero
Matthew M. Huntbach
> Matthew M. Huntbach wrote in message <6unf7g$7g4$2...@beta.qmw.ac.uk>...
> >Of course it isn't. It's simply a matter of statistical correlation -
> >people with low grade GCSEs tend to get low grade A-levels, people with high
> >grade GCSEs tend to get high grade A-levels. Obviously with anything like
> >this it isn't an exactp rediction at all. Why is it that people find such a
> >simple concept so hard to deal with?
> I have no problem with such an approximation and I think most people don't.
> It's the way that this is being applied to give "exact" estimates for
> individual subjects (like saying B/C in maths) that I can't understand.
I suspect all that is meant is "this is the grade you are most likely to
get following the statistical average for people with your GCSEs". Which
people who lack numeracy skills are thinking means "This is the grade
which you are definitely going to get and there's nothing you can do about it".
Matthew Huntbach
Smurfette
Josh Smith wrote in message <361f6d19....@news.demon.co.uk>...
don't.
>>It's the way that this is being applied to give "exact" estimates for
>>individual subjects (like saying B/C in maths) that I can't understand.
>>
>
>Without impinging at the unrivelled knowledge of statistics suggested
>by this *Further* Maths student -- since when was B -> C, exact?
:OP huh! That was the reason for the quotation marks. Did I ever claim to do
English? You've seen my spelling, you shouldn't expect anything better!
smurf
Smurfette
Matthew M. Huntbach wrote in message <6usm1v$lt$1...@beta.qmw.ac.uk>...
>I suspect all that is meant is "this is the grade you are most likely to
>get following the statistical average for people with your GCSEs". Which
>people who lack numeracy skills are thinking means "This is the grade
>which you are definitely going to get and there's nothing you can do about
it".
Yes but my problem here is how can an A ever be realisticly predicted? If
you get an A* at GCSE your grade at A-level surely could be moreorless
anything, realisticly between and A and a C. Saying A/C doesn't really help
anyone.
I think the main problem is the way these "predictions" are being presented
especially to students and parents. Given a bad prediction some will sit
back and say "oh well why work if that's all I can hope to get"
smurf
Mark Scott
back. I found CGSE physics, maths and english grades could give a good
prediction of A level physics grade, if they were weighted 4-2-1.
If the teachers just guess, its not so good.
Mark Scott
On Mon, 14 Sep 1998 20:04:09 +0100, "Robert Martin"
<r...@rdale.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I have just started my A Levels and I went to this Parents Evening at the
>school. I was shocked to discover that the teachers have allready predicted
>my grade using my GCSE results as a guide. How accurate is this method?
>
>Robert
>
>