The Conservative Party

I have always been anti-exam.. Maybe because I was fucking hopeless at them. All they indicate is what you have remembered on a certain day at a certain time and whether you can write about it in a coherent manner.

Kids are taught to answer questions, they are not taught to question answers. Its all very well knowing that the Battle of Trafalgar was in 1805 and some fella stood on a column called Nelson was in charge of a ship called HMS Victory. Its great knowing that. But what is the point of knowing that if you do not know the context behind it and the reason and rationale for the Battle.

Could you answer that in one hour under pressure in an exam hall, or would your knowledge and understanding be better judged over a one week period with course work, discussion and debate taken into account.

Is it better to understand the subject than repeat than what you have learned about a subject?

The whole system is designed to get those kids who are better at memorising and have more access to materials to memorise to get into top universities than it is to get kids to actually understand a subject. So in history is a kid with a great memory who is able to rote learn more talented than a kid who understands the subject but does not remember the dates things happened. Does the A* of the kid who can rote learn discriminate against the D of the kid who understands the subject but can't remember the name of the warship.

In my opinion, rote learning produces drones, they are easily malleable, which of course plays into hands of authoritarian governments, a kid who is free thinking and questions the answers is less likely to be controlled.
 
Rascal said:
I have always been anti-exam.. Maybe because I was fucking hopeless at them. All they indicate is what you have remembered on a certain day at a certain time and whether you can write about it in a coherent manner.

Kids are taught to answer questions, they are not taught to question answers. Its all very well knowing that the Battle of Trafalgar was in 1805 and some fella stood on a column called Nelson was in charge of a ship called HMS Victory. Its great knowing that. But what is the point of knowing that if you do not know the context behind it and the reason and rationale for the Battle.

Could you answer that in one hour under pressure in an exam hall, or would your knowledge and understanding be better judged over a one week period with course work, discussion and debate taken into account.

Is it better to understand the subject than repeat than what you have learned about a subject?

The whole system is designed to get those kids who are better at memorising and have more access to materials to memorise to get into top universities than it is to get kids to actually understand a subject. So in history is a kid with a great memory who is able to rote learn more talented than a kid who understands the subject but does not remember the dates things happened. Does the A* of the kid who can rote learn discriminate against the D of the kid who understands the subject but can't remember the name of the warship.

In my opinion, rote learning produces drones, they are easily malleable, which of course plays into hands of authoritarian governments, a kid who is free thinking and questions the answers is less likely to be controlled.
Click to expand...
And how do you suggest students are tested for ability? I suspect that you haven't been in a school for a while? All our children didn't just learn dates in history but the causes as to why things happened. I taught maths for many years and it was all about learning skills to solving problems. I taught A level maths - Mechanics and that was the same. Looking at problems and deciding which skills were required to solve them. I later became Head of ICT and that was the same.

You do need the 'skill' of being able to remember that certain chemicals go with certain other chemicals to create the reaction required. If you don't test that in an exam then how do you?

In a previous life I was a Vehicle Engineer and we would have exams to test if we could remember how to examine/test/remove/replace components. How do you do that without an exam?

'Could you answer that in one hour under pressure in an exam hall, or would your knowledge and understanding be better judged over a one week period with course work, discussion and debate taken into account.'

Really? 30 students in a class! And who will judge how good they are? I have met to many teachers who have colluded with Headteachers to 'produce' good coursework to keep school results up. Even if students study only 6 subjects at GCSE that would take a whole half term. Not practicable.

A good idea in theory but not a starter.
 
Last edited:
Fred_Quimby said:
And how do you suggest students are tested for ability? I suspect that you haven't been in a school for a while? All our children didn't just learn dates in history but the causes as to why things happened. I taught maths for many years and it was all about learning skills to solving problems. I taught A level maths - Mechanics and that was the same. Looking at problems and deciding which skills were required to solve them. I later became Head of ICT and that was the same.

You do need the 'skill' of being able to remember that certain chemicals go with certain other chemicals to create the reaction required. If you don't test that in an exam then how do you?

In a previous life I was a Vehicle Engineer and we would have exams to test if we could remember how to examine/test/remove/replace components. How do you do that without an exam?

'Could you answer that in one hour under pressure in an exam hall, or would your knowledge and understanding be better judged over a one week period with course work, discussion and debate taken into account.'

Really? 30 students in a class! And who will judge how good they are? I have met to many teachers who have colluded with Headteachers to 'produce' good coursework to keep school results up. Even if students study only 6 subjects at GCSE that would take a whole half term. Not practicable.

A good idea in theory but not a starter.
Click to expand...
Why do we have to test Kids for ability?

If a kid of lesser ability gets better exam results than a kid with greater ability then the system is broken as you suggest with your logistical issues.

What you are saying is the system is broken. You say kids are taught why things happen, they are not taught to question why things happen. I can teach you as a Maths teacher what the Fibonacci sequence is, but why is it is useful? The kid who questions the answers are the kids you want, not the kids who accept the answers.
 
Rascal said:
Why do we have to test Kids for ability?

If a kid of lesser ability gets better exam results than a kid with greater ability then the system is broken as you suggest with your logistical issues.

What you are saying is the system is broken. You say kids are taught why things happen, they are not taught to question why things happen. I can teach you as a Maths teacher what the Fibonacci sequence is, but why is it is useful? The kid who questions the answers are the kids you want, not the kids who accept the answers.
Click to expand...
Actually kids are taught the Fibonacci sequence is useful and why and when it would be useful. The level of understanding that you are looking for do not, generally speaking, come in until A level. You are asking for a much higher level of understanding than most students are capable of. This, as I said, is more an area of A level and University.
 
mat said:
Funny how England's were up and Scotland's down. No political interference there whatsoever.

Williamson looks like a shit Alan Partridge.
Click to expand...

Rascal said:
I have always been anti-exam.. Maybe because I was fucking hopeless at them. All they indicate is what you have remembered on a certain day at a certain time and whether you can write about it in a coherent manner.

Kids are taught to answer questions, they are not taught to question answers. Its all very well knowing that the Battle of Trafalgar was in 1805 and some fella stood on a column called Nelson was in charge of a ship called HMS Victory. Its great knowing that. But what is the point of knowing that if you do not know the context behind it and the reason and rationale for the Battle.

Could you answer that in one hour under pressure in an exam hall, or would your knowledge and understanding be better judged over a one week period with course work, discussion and debate taken into account.

Is it better to understand the subject than repeat than what you have learned about a subject?

The whole system is designed to get those kids who are better at memorising and have more access to materials to memorise to get into top universities than it is to get kids to actually understand a subject. So in history is a kid with a great memory who is able to rote learn more talented than a kid who understands the subject but does not remember the dates things happened. Does the A* of the kid who can rote learn discriminate against the D of the kid who understands the subject but can't remember the name of the warship.

In my opinion, rote learning produces drones, they are easily malleable, which of course plays into hands of authoritarian governments, a kid who is free thinking and questions the answers is less likely to be controlled.
Click to expand...

Rascal said:
Why do we have to test Kids for ability?

If a kid of lesser ability gets better exam results than a kid with greater ability then the system is broken as you suggest with your logistical issues.

What you are saying is the system is broken. You say kids are taught why things happen, they are not taught to question why things happen. I can teach you as a Maths teacher what the Fibonacci sequence is, but why is it is useful? The kid who questions the answers are the kids you want, not the kids who accept the answers.
Click to expand...


There was a kid in my class ..... John T*****e....had a photographic memory.... Top top passes in all GCSEs ..... A Stars across the board in his A Levels. Obviously went on to UNI and got a glowing degree.

Problem was he was thick as a plank ....in fact if you gave him two short planks , a hammer and a nail .. he couldn't join the two planks together.

Probably spent his whole life in full time education.

I dont know what the answer is .... but it isn't relying on exams in totality ... nor is it allowing Private schools to put pupils through International A levels (which are easier than standard A levels) to boost their results.
 
Last edited:
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
There was a kid in my class ..... John T*****e....had a photographic memory.... Top top passes in all GCSEs ..... A Stars across the board in his A Levels. Obviously went on to UNI and got a glowing degree.

Problem was he was thick as a plank ....in fact if you gave him two short planks , a hammer and a nail .. he couldn't join the two planks together.

Probably spent his whole life in full time education.

I dont know what the answer is .... but it isn't relying on exams in totality ... nor is it allowing Private schools to put pupils through International A levels (which are easier than standard A levels) to boost their results.
Click to expand...

ahhhh but when they are all learning Latin they will all be equally intelligent
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
There was a kid in my class ..... John T*****e....had a photographic memory.... Top top passes in all GCSEs ..... A Stars across the board in his A Levels. Obviously went on to UNI and got a glowing degree.

Problem was he was thick as a plank ....in fact if you gave him two short planks , a hammer and a nail .. he couldn't join the two planks together.

Probably spent his whole life in full time education.

I dont know what the answer is .... but it isn't relying on exams in totality ... nor is it allowing Private schools to put pupils through International A levels (which are easier than standard A levels) to boost their results.
Click to expand...
The claim that there is such a thing as a photographic memory is a very, very dubious one.

This, combined with your eagerness to suggest that a young person who got top grades at GCSE, A Level and degree level was "thick" suggests that you might not be the most unbiased or informed witness.

I am certainly not saying that the qualifications this person achieved makes them really intelligent either - you can get such qualifications with lots of hard work, rather than some genius intellect. But the description of this person as thick and some sort of recipient of gross luck with his, alleged, photographic memory, sounds very similar to many cases of sour grapes.
 
jma said:
The claim that there is such a thing as a photographic memory is a very, very dubious one.

This, combined with your eagerness to suggest that a young person who got top grades at GCSE, A Level and degree level was "thick" suggests that you might not be the most unbiased or informed witness.

I am certainly not saying that the qualifications this person achieved makes them really intelligent either - you can get such qualifications with lots of hard work, rather than some genius intellect. But the description of this person as thick and some sort of recipient of gross luck with his, alleged, photographic memory, sounds very similar to many cases of sour grapes.
Click to expand...

Errr..........I beg to differ - I have seen The Champions - a photographic memory was their forte. They could also communicate by means of ESP.......the funny sound effect that preceded things told you it was happening lol
 
jma said:
The claim that there is such a thing as a photographic memory is a very, very dubious one.

This, combined with your eagerness to suggest that a young person who got top grades at GCSE, A Level and degree level was "thick" suggests that you might not be the most unbiased or informed witness.

I am certainly not saying that the qualifications this person achieved makes them really intelligent either - you can get such qualifications with lots of hard work, rather than some genius intellect. But the description of this person as thick and some sort of recipient of gross luck with his, alleged, photographic memory, sounds very similar to many cases of sour grapes.
Click to expand...
You spelled ‘bollocks’ wrong.
 
jma said:
The claim that there is such a thing as a photographic memory is a very, very dubious one.

This, combined with your eagerness to suggest that a young person who got top grades at GCSE, A Level and degree level was "thick" suggests that you might not be the most unbiased or informed witness.

I am certainly not saying that the qualifications this person achieved makes them really intelligent either - you can get such qualifications with lots of hard work, rather than some genius intellect. But the description of this person as thick and some sort of recipient of gross luck with his, alleged, photographic memory, sounds very similar to many cases of sour grapes.
Click to expand...

Good point. Photographic memory is a bollocks term.

Stating the obvious but there are different types of intelligence, somebody who is very good at maths and hard sciences might not be so good at social sciences and subjects that require more flexible thinking.

I can remember aged 16 suggesting to a classmate and teacher that the wild west become more civilised because of the influx of women and norms of family life that replaced the mostly men in saloons (fighting over whores).

He struggled to understand why, despite it being a very basic concept and not really arguable to the contrary.

He was far from thick, was among the top boffins in maths and science and I'm pretty sure he did A-level maths and physics, and then went on to do maths at Cambridge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top