Dunces of illiberalism

[french frank]

Education, standards, testing and their repercussions are quite serious topics so relevant thoughts and opinions on the subject are welcome.

Getting back to the OP, I'd have to declare a sympathy (in general terms) for the examination system, notwithstanding the regular disasters that seem to occur.

Grade 'inflation' shouldn't happen. If teaching standards have improved that should be considered an element which creates an automatic advantage for current pupils over previous years, decades and generations. It isn't a reason for rewarding them with higher marks - why should students be rewarded because teaching standards have improved? In the sense that the public exams create 'competition', that competition is with contemporaries who study and are examined under the same system.

The better the teaching, the better the facilities available to all (from photocopiers to the internet), the higher the bar should be set. Where hundreds of thousands of students are involved, nationwide, you should expect, at least at the top level, a similar result each year - not a steadily improving one.

[Discuss ]

[John Shelton]

Grade 'inflation' shouldn't happen. If teaching standards have improved that should be considered an element which creates an automatic advantage for current pupils over previous years, decades and generations. It isn't a reason for rewarding them with higher marks - why should students be rewarded because teaching standards have improved? In the sense that the public exams create 'competition', that competition is with contemporaries who study and are examined under the same system.

The better the teaching, the better the facilities available to all (from photocopiers to the internet), the higher the bar should be set. Where hundreds of thousands of students are involved, nationwide, you should expect, at least at the top level, a similar result each year - not a steadily improving one.

[Discuss ]

Except that would assume that the grade proportions (numbers of As, Bs etc.) of, say, 30 years ago are somehow correct or natural and therefore unalterable? Why should that be the case? (especially since you say that "competition is with contemporaries who study and are examined under the same system")?


I don't think I share your sympathy with the exam system, though I didn't have an unhappy relationship with the things and I don't have a good idea of how to do without them. The problem I have, where I agreed with Jenkins, is with an idea that education is identical to preparing people for exams and that a good education is measurable by exam results. It may be "piffle" but I find that a waste of human potential / imagination.

[vinteuil]

I don't think I share your sympathy with the exam system, though I didn't have an unhappy relationship with the things and I don't have a good idea of how to do without them. .

... I have always rather sympathised with the approach of HDF Kitto when he was Professor of Greek at Bristol: his method was to stick up on the noticeboard a few days before the scheduled examinations a notice stating " Here are the results of the Examination. Any Candidate who disagrees with the result is free to sit the examination."

A view shared, I think, with my own supervisor* when I was a student, whose wish it was that every undergraduate should believe there would be an examination (without which stick we might well be a lazy bunch of so-and-so's) - but once that incentive purpose had been served - on the day before our examination we should all be given our results and told to get on with the rest of our lives...

[* RIP JFW, 1932-2006 ]

[MrGongGong]

The problem I have, where I agreed with Jenkins, is with an idea that education is identical to preparing people for exams and that a good education is measurable by exam results. It may be "piffle" but I find that a waste of human potential / imagination.

I was part of a large piece of research into composition teaching in secondary schools recently. One of the surprising ( maybe not such a big one for me at least ) conclusions was that students who had exposure to a more diverse range of musics during their course (which included electric guitarists discovering Gibbons and flute players hearing electroacoustic music for the first time etc ) were likely to be much more rounded educationally , have more awareness and understanding of music as a wide subject BUT get lower marks in the exam as a result. We aren't always good at giving students experiences that will "change their thinking" as this involves a level of risk that many institutions (and often students themselves) are wary of.

[John Shelton]

... I have always rather sympathised with the approach of HDF Kitto when he Professor of Greek at Bristol: his method was to stick up on the noticeboard a few days before the scheduled examinations a notice stating " Here are the results of the Examination. Any Candidate who disagrees with the result is free to sit the examination."

A view shared, I think, with my own supervisor* when I was a student, whose wish it was that every undergraduate should believe there would be an examination (without which stick we might well be a lazy bunch of so-and-so's) - but once that incentive purpose had been served - on the day before our examination we should all be given our results and told to get on with the rest of our lives...

[* RIP JFW, 1932-2006 ]

It is absurd that someone can spend three years producing well-researched, intelligently argued work and for it all to be set at nought (if that is the system) by the artificial setting of an examination room and the pressure of condensing everything into three or four hour slots. If the idea is that's some sort of life preparation then it seems grotesquely at odds with everything that has gone before.

That's interesting and rather dispiriting, Mr GG. That knowledge and broadening of thought can be a distraction and a disadvantage in the context of an examination system. Very interesting.

[french frank]

Except that would assume that the grade proportions (numbers of As, Bs etc.) of, say, 30 years ago are somehow correct or natural and therefore unalterable? Why should that be the case? (especially since you say that "competition is with contemporaries who study and are examined under the same system")?

Well, the larger the sample - and the national sample is hundreds of thousands - the more likely it is that the spread will be similar. Because the competition is with your contemporaries (in that they will be likely to be going for a job, or a place at university at the same time) it is convenient to accept that the spread would be roughly similar each year so it becomes convenient to call the top marks a "First" or a "A*". The only way to ensure that exams are of exactly the same standard year-on-year is to set the identical exam. The problem comes with categories - which is much more fraught in school exams than university grades where systems are not simply numerical.

I don't think I share your sympathy with the exam system, though I didn't have an unhappy relationship with the things and I don't have a good idea of how to do without them.

Well, I shouldn't share my sympathy because unlike you I had a rather poor time with exams, partly because I have a poor memory for facts and partly, as a result of that, due to nerves (will I or won't I be able to remember what I've revised?). But one has to consider that the main point of an exam is to pass well enough to take you on to the next stage where you want to be: not about coming top or winning prizes, or necessarily the particular school/university that you want. There is usually adequate leeway to do that.

The problem I have, where I agreed with Jenkins, is with an idea that education is identical to preparing people for exams and that a good education is measurable by exam results. It may be "piffle" but I find that a waste of human potential / imagination.

There is where one of my major concerns lies - with the annual searchlight on the results, the analysis of what they mean, which bit of the system has failed this year, the happiness, the tears (not to mention the league tables). This is what makes the exams so "important" - a sort of 'exam inflation'.

But you say:

I don't have a good idea of how to do without them

Given that there aren't opportunities for everyone to do exactly what they want, choices have to be made and there have to be criteria for selecting one candidate over another. I think there is more course work evaluation - but all that does is to give certain qualities priority over other qualities. Interviews favour some candidate and disadvantage others. In the end somebody is going to be putting a value on something and saying yes to some candidates and no to others.

[John Shelton]

I didn't say I had a happy relationship with exams - I don't have any especial tale of woe or disaster to influence me one way or the other (some people enjoy them: find the adrenalin concentrates the mind. Adrenalin tends to distract me).

I take your point about a similar spread of results, but I don't understand why that shouldn't be subject to revision over time. There's nothing naturally more correct about 10% of candidates getting an A or a First or whatever than 20% (the numbers are entirely made up for the sake of example). That's by no means necessarily dumbing down - it might be a fairer reflection of work done. Continually revising it would create an oddity, but I don't see why it shouldn't be subject to revision. If that creates difficulties in terms of University entrance, well it may be awkward / a strain on resources, but I don't think universities should only rely on A level grades.

[french frank]

I take your point about a similar spread of results, but I don't understand why that shouldn't be subject to revision over time. There's nothing naturally more correct about 10% of candidates getting an A or a First or whatever than 20% (the numbers are entirely made up for the sake of example).

In practice it would be very unlikely to result in an identical pattern each year. But from a statistical point of view, what you would probably expect is a shifting number, some years better, some years worse. The hysterical (media? political?) reaction that "standards have fallen" if there isn't an annual improvement or there's an insignificant drop seems ridiculous to me.

If that creates difficulties in terms of University entrance, well it may be awkward / a strain on resources, but I don't think universities should only rely on A level grades.

If they did, I probably wouldn't have got to university at all - and certainly not on a course where there were 22 applicants for each place

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Grade 'inflation' shouldn't happen. If teaching standards have improved that should be considered an element which creates an automatic advantage for current pupils over previous years, decades and generations.

But has it happened? Many think that it has but has there ever been a serious study conducted to test that conclusion?

I think there's clear evidence that it has occurred, one of the most visible signs that it has being modern science and engineering courses where there's been a shift to standardise on four-year Masters Degree courses. But the first year of these courses is spent (in the main) filling in knowledge and skills gaps previously covered by the old A levels. Science/engineering students are arriving at university incapable of handling calculus! In fact I've even seen those students unable to handle percentages. As for the imagination of these students who've escaped the rigor of the old system I only pity them for the sheer tedium of arriving at university at 18 and having to grind through basic subject matter; in my day we'd have been tearing into Maxwell's equations. Another slice of evidence of dumbing down comes from the comments of members of the various university Industrial Liaison Panels. Get them together on the subject and hear them moan about the amount they have to educate their newest intake of apprentices.

[amateur51]

But has it happened? Many think that it has but has there ever been a serious study conducted to test that conclusion?

I think there's clear evidence that it has occurred, one of the most visible signs that it has being modern science and engineering courses where there's been a shift to standardise on four-year Masters Degree couses. But the first year of these courses is spent (in the main) filling in knowledge and skills gaps previously covered by the old A levels. Science/engineering students are arriving at university incapable of handling calculus! In fact I've even seen those students unable to handle percentages. As for the imagination of these students who've escaped the rigor of the old system I only pity them for the sheer tedium of arriving at university at 18 and having to grind through basic subject matter; in my day we'd have been tearing into Maxwell's equations. Another slice of evidence of dumbing down comes from the comments of members of the various university Industrial Liason Panels. Get them together on the subject and hear them moan about the amount they have to educate their newest intake of apprentices.

Tell me about it, some people can't even spell it

[Serial_Apologist]

Tell me about it, some people can't even spell it

To be fair, Amsey, it is O Level French.

[french frank]

But has it happened? Many think that it has but has there ever been a serious study conducted to test that conclusion?

(Oh, dear, I should be doing something else )

I think I may be inventing a theory on the hoof here, according to which the answer to your question would be that you don't need to test the conclusion: it lies in the fact (rule according to me!) that marks continually rise.

Marks are in most cases just symbols. As results go up generally, year after year, the value that we put on those symbols should decrease. Just as when the standard of living rises, it means that a higher standard becomes the norm: although the average standard of living is higher than it was, it's still only average in terms of the value that we put upon it. So there's a measurable value and, if you like, a value of worth. The same should apply to exam results. (I think). [A good exam question should sort out the candidates, unless the goal is for all students to get an A*.]


Your point touches on a separate issue which the question of curriculum content. I'm not qualified to discuss that, but if a study of maths or physics papers shows that the course hasn't covered topics which will have to be covered at university level (and hasn't, as compensation, covered topics that would normally be studied later), you might be able to say standards had fallen. Whether that is so or not, I don't know. Again, there are straightforward quadratic equations and more complicated ones - another area where standards could fall, or rise. You need to look at the whole curriculum.

[teamsaint]

Just a couple of points which have probably been covered but....

Teaching to the task, (of passing exams) is immeasurably better than it was 30 years ago, certainly at A level, in my experience. That in part accounts for better grades in my view. (and I have no vested interest in saying this).

Secondly, and far more importantly, MrGG hits the nail on the head. From the day kids go to school , to the day they leave, they are being drilled to pass exams, not to educate them , or give them skills, or inspire them, or to help them develop as people.

I find it upsetting, in fact.

Anyway, here is something apposite, and very entertaining.. from a real expert...well worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY

[An_Inspector_Calls]

There are, of course, the Pisa tests if we want to externally assess our educational progress.

http://www.oecd.org/pisa/46643496.pdf

We ranked (2009) just at the OECD average overall. I'm amazed to see we're above average on science, but then look at who does better than us.

[french frank]

Teaching to the task, (of passing exams) is immeasurably better than it was 30 years ago, certainly at A level, in my experience. That in part accounts for better grades in my view.

Possibly because they didn't have league tables then?

AIC - interesting table, and a few unexpected results. Austria rather badly, Poland I wouldn't have expected to be so good.