Observer article

[Ian/Cath Ford]

Don't usually do this, but I thought this was quite interesting:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1288276,00.html

There's also an article in the TES about Chris Sivewright for people
with long memories.

Ian
--
Ian, Cath, Eoin & Calum Ford
The view from Beccles

I loved the words you wrote to me/But that was bloody yesterday

No e-mail address. If you want to talk to me then talk here to start with and we can go back to your place later...

[adam]

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1288276,00.html

Interesting indeed.

Couple of comments from little me:

Firstly, if, in the past (so, the current adult generation) only 4% of
people went to university, and we are currently going through one of the
biggest economic booms ever, quality of life seems to have dramatically
increased *without* a university educated population in charge, then is it
realistic to expect that having another 46% in university will increase our
prosperity by ten times?

I don't think so, I think people are people, and people will learn what
people learn, whether or not they go to university. I think life teaches
(most) people to think much more than writing essays. I think that writing
essays will help develop the skills of the few that are interested and
enthuastic about learning when they are teenagers, but that is very few.

I think that the kind of people that letter is talking about, let's call
them the "intellectual elite", they are still important and it is important
to have resources which can stretch the people that want to be stretched.

But I think a lot of people go to university just because they need to in
order to get a job. The job market is demanding degrees and so people are
getting them.

Lowering of admissions standards into universities is obviously gonna pull
down the general average standard of universities, and devalue degree
classes. People will complain that "Students now arrive at university
without the knowledge or skills considered automatic in our day" but isn't
that because these students are exactly the people that wouldn't go to
university under the old system?

As long as it doesn't pull down the very top, then all it is doing is making
education more accessible to everyone. Which has gotta be a good thing.


Thoughts?

adam

[John Porcella]

Post by adam

Post by Ian/Cath Ford
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1288276,00.html

Interesting indeed.
Firstly, if, in the past (so, the current adult generation) only 4% of
people went to university, and we are currently going through one of the
biggest economic booms ever, quality of life seems to have dramatically
increased *without* a university educated population in charge, then is it
realistic to expect that having another 46% in university will increase our
prosperity by ten times?

No.

Post by adam
I don't think so, I think people are people,

How observant of you!

[Richard Magrath]

Post by adam
Thoughts?

Isn't it really just saying that the politicisation of education is a bad thing?

Richard (rm399 at cam.ac.uk)

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Richard Magrath

Post by adam
Thoughts?

Isn't it really just saying that the politicisation of education is a bad thing?
Richard (rm399 at cam.ac.uk)

No. When we had old-fashioned A-levels there were widespread complaints that

1) It was unfair and stressful because all the assessment came in two exam
papers at the end of two years study.

2) It was unfair because assessment was subjective.

So people were given what they asked for - assessment continuously over two
years, and elaborate fixed marking schemes with no room for personal
judgement and variation.

Clearly the fail rates are going to go down if you introduce a system where
people can bail out half-way through if they find they aren't coping with
the subject.

Clearly the number of people gaining top marks in assessments is going to go
up if you abolish anything open-ended and without a fixed marking scheme in
order to judge ability beyond the commonplace.

It is part of the stupid cynicism about politics we have that Prof McCabe
suggests this is all some political plot and forgets that the changes he now
complains about were demanded in the past by teachers and people like
himself complaining about the "elitism" of A-levels.

Matthew Huntbach

[Adam Atkinson]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
When we had old-fashioned A-levels there were widespread complaints that
1) It was unfair and stressful because all the assessment came in two exam
papers at the end of two years study.
2) It was unfair because assessment was subjective.

Also, it was unfair to girls because they do better with continuous
assessment.

[John Porcella]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Richard Magrath

Post by adam
Thoughts?

Isn't it really just saying that the politicisation of education is a bad thing?
Richard (rm399 at cam.ac.uk)

No. When we had old-fashioned A-levels there were widespread complaints that
1) It was unfair and stressful because all the assessment came in two exam
papers at the end of two years study.

I remember such comments well and they were justified in those complaints.

Post by Matthew Huntbach
2) It was unfair because assessment was subjective.

I was unaware of this complaint then.

[Richard Magrath]

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Richard Magrath

Post by adam
Thoughts?

Isn't it really just saying that the politicisation of education is a bad thing?
Richard (rm399 at cam.ac.uk)

Wait, you say

Post by Matthew Huntbach
No. When we had old-fashioned A-levels there were widespread complaints that

But then

Post by Matthew Huntbach
It is part of the stupid cynicism about politics we have that Prof McCabe
suggests this is all some political plot and forgets that the changes he now
complains about were demanded in the past by teachers and people like
himself complaining about the "elitism" of A-levels.

So... wasn't I right then, in saying that the article was a negative
interpretation of the effects of politics on education?

Richard

[Matthew Huntbach]

Post by Richard Magrath

Post by Matthew Huntbach

Post by Richard Magrath
Isn't it really just saying that the politicisation of education is a bad thing?

Wait, you say

Post by Matthew Huntbach
No. When we had old-fashioned A-levels there were widespread complaints that

But then

Post by Matthew Huntbach
It is part of the stupid cynicism about politics we have that Prof McCabe
suggests this is all some political plot and forgets that the changes he now
complains about were demanded in the past by teachers and people like
himself complaining about the "elitism" of A-levels.

So... wasn't I right then, in saying that the article was a negative
interpretation of the effects of politics on education?

I thought the thrust of the article was that the changes to A-levels were some
cynical ploy by politicians to get them to look good and that no-one else
apart from politicians wanted them.

I assumed this was what you meant by "the politicisation of education", that
you agreed with this thesis.

Matthew Huntbach

[Richard Magrath]

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I thought the thrust of the article was that the changes to A-levels were some
cynical ploy by politicians to get them to look good and that no-one else
apart from politicians wanted them.
I assumed this was what you meant by "the politicisation of education", that
you agreed with this thesis.
Matthew Huntbach

Hmm, I don't know, I don't really have enough experience of the
matters involved - except from the inside, of course, and what Beckett
said about the apple and the worm comes to mind - to make such a
decision. However, to step away from the article, I would have thought
that as a liberal you would prefer less government intervention in
education? Though I'm now talking more about education in the literal
sense rather than the specific matter of A-levelling which is under
discussion...

Richard