http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/08/education/08grades.html?hp

Can't say that I disagree with the concept. It could definitely be a problem if it serves to alienate many students.

Dr. Reynolds said he used a similar grading policy — “A, B, or do it over” — when teaching college classes in Wichita, Kan., in the late 1990s. About half of his students in those classes had to rewrite their initial papers, he recalled, but eventually nearly everyone was turning in work that merited an A or B. “I have never given less than a B,” he said.

On the other hand, this could be considered bad teaching. Why not just have A's? It seems the logical option, if two grades are good, one grade is better.

Aphrodite...seriously?



Who names their daughter after the Greek goddess of sexuality?

In any case, I don't see how this changes anything. There was a threshold for failure before, and there is a threshold for failure now.

Unless, of course, the district did not change the actual GPA calculation. That would create some sort of weird, nebulous intermediate zone. Though it is possible that could be a solid metric for the nomination of repetition.

Sexuality in Greece, both today and of yesteryear, was a very different thing. That was only one aspect of her portfolio anyway.

Further off-topic, in Cyprus they called her 'Astarte', which almost has something to do with Space Marines! That's pretty cool!

It isn't a problem if it alienates the students who were going to get D or F anyway. It would be better for the good students to get the wasters out of school as early as possible.

Wiki wrote:"Foam-arisen" Aphrodite was born of the sea foam near Paphos, Cyprus after Cronus severed Uranus' genitals and threw them behind him into the sea, while the Erinyes emerged from the drops of blood.

Woah...

Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't a problem if it alienates the students who were going to get D or F anyway. It would be better for the good students to get the wasters out of school as early as possible.

Or help the less successful students learn...

If a D is an F, then what good does a C do? Only A and B students should stay in school. Everyone else should become a fry cook.

Students who continue to fail will be placed on a “watch list” to receive extra-help classes, as well as tutoring from other students. If they need to make up a failed course, they will be given the option of attending an evening school, known as “Sunset Academy,” that will charge a fee of $150 per class.

It doesn't really seem like much has changed, and it is more a matter of presentation that anything else. I don't think it will actually become a problem, just to be clear.

As well as getting rid of D's, the school increased expectations slightly. I don't think it is make or break, especially in a small community with money to put into helping students that fall behind. I don't think there is a problem with setting standards, as long as they are reasonable. This appear to be reasonable.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Sexuality in Greece, both today and of yesteryear, was a very different thing. That was only one aspect of her portfolio anyway.

Love, beauty, sexuality, and, in some sects, lust.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wrexasaur wrote:
Or help the less successful students learn...

As an 'A' student, I can tell yo that this doesn't happen.

Wrexasaur wrote:
If a D is and F, then what good does a C do? Only A and B students should stay in school. Everyone else should become a fry cook.

As I said, it changes nothing but nomenclature.

dogma wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Sexuality in Greece, both today and of yesteryear, was a very different thing. That was only one aspect of her portfolio anyway.

Love, beauty, sexuality, and, in some sects, lust.

Is telling me what I said supposed to be a new point? The fact that she was born of Uranus' genitals is one thing, that fact that you were born of your mother's is another.

I really don't see the problem. The negative association of a few people never stopped a hundred thousand Mexicans calling their baby boy Jesus.

/offtopic

dogma wrote:As I said, it changes nothing but nomenclature.

Under the old system, students could pass with a 65 — 389 of the 1,500 students at Mount Olive High had a “D” on their final report cards in June — but now anything lower than a 70 will be considered failure.

Did I miss something about a 70 being easier to achieve? I don't even consider the change to be unreasonable.

Also it doesn't 'just change the nomenclature' when more students flunk because of it. If the scale doesn't change, as you said, it is raising the bar.

Many colleges have a policy of dropping students with a C average, and I don't consider that unreasonable either, as there is usually more than enough warning beforehand.

True enough, many people cruise through university/college gunning for the pass-mark and nothing else.

Or help the less successful students learn...

If a D is an F, then what good does a C do? Only A and B students should stay in school. Everyone else should become a fry cook.

There are a lot of students who go to school and absolutely refuse to learn. They don't try to learn and fail. They don't try in the first place. There are of course ways to combat this mentality, but you need to nip it fast. By the time a student enters high school it can be near impossible to catch them up if they're already drastically behind and have no desire to even try.

There comes a point when trying to teach these students becomes a waste of time and resources.

As to the article, there are a lot of things like this going on these days in universities. There have been more than a few teachers in the US that have been trying unconventional methods of teaching students by changing the way they grade assignments. There's a teacher at Michigan State I think it was who isn't giving grades at all. He's giving experience points

dogma wrote:As an 'A' student, I can tell yo that this doesn't happen.

An exclAmAtion student.

The only reason I would understand that to be the case, is if the majority of students simply refused the resources offered. That doesn't appear to be a common thing from what I have seen, if anything there is a rush to the assistance when required. This change provides that requirement.

LordofHats wrote:There are a lot of students who go to school and absolutely refuse to learn. They don't try to learn and fail. They don't try in the first place. There are of course ways to combat this mentality, but you need to nip it fast. By the time a student enters high school it can be near impossible to catch them up if they're already drastically behind and have no desire to even try.

There comes a point when trying to teach these students becomes a waste of time and resources.

When is that made clear?

I think that a passing grade in high school is perfectly fine at set at 65-70%. In college, I think it is perfectly fine to pull the students that try to maintain that average out when necessary. Kilkrazy and yourself appear to be portraying any failing high-school student as a waste of resources automatically. There does come a point where school is simply not a great place certain people, but those cases are often very limited. I have had teachers that just asked too much of me (yes a teacher can ask too much of you) so I had to drop the class to focus on others. I don't mind a standard but teachers that eat into the time I have set aside for other classes, tend to lack perspective on what a student is doing in a given week concerning their education overall.

Some teachers are bad, some students are bad. Creating a system that deals with all of that effectively, can be difficult.

As to the article, there are a lot of things like this going on these days in universities.

The article was about a high school, I really don't care what specific universities are doing and I support their ability to adjust their methods any way they like. Ultimately, I can choose a different school when it comes to college, that isn't always true for high school.

There have been more than a few teachers in the US that have been trying unconventional methods of teaching students by changing the way they grade assignments. There's a teacher at Michigan State I think it was who isn't giving grades at all. He's giving experience points

I want to see a teacher that only gives A's. I'm not kidding, Pass/Fail, literally passing at 90% plus. I would be interested in seeing how that worked out in a college setting. I am sure there are many programs where it really wouldn't make much of a difference at all, assuming that the common achievement was an A in the first place.

Students from the 'A-only' group get the same tests (if not slightly more difficult) as students from the 'A-B' group. It would be interesting to see if it had any negative effect, or if it improved the average from 90-95, to 95-100.

Who names their daughter after the Greek goddess of sexuality?

Uhhh? Maybe somebody who realizes their daughter is going to be that cute? Good lord, cover the girls up, Aphrodite.

A+ for effort though.

Plus she's clearly Greek, her last name looks like the O truck ran into a wheelbarrow full of U's.

Wrexasaur wrote:
There does come a point where school is simply not a great place certain people, but those cases are often very limited.

You should have seen the educational system I attended in high school. Down right horrible. Of two dozen public schools, only 2 were scoring GPA averages above 2.0. If you had a kid who wanted to learn, you sent them to the private school. The kids at the public schools never seemed to try, save a few. Teachers were wasting their time on people who spent the entire class texting, talking, and playing their PSP's (yeah...).

There comes a point where someone has become unteachable. Where is that point? I don't know. Teachers are probably the ones qualified to answer that question. If they don't want to learn why should the teacher have to teach (EDIT: Well, they don't really teach them anyway. It's more like babysitting) them and why should tax payers have to pay for it?

I want to see a teacher that only gives A's. I'm not kidding, Pass/Fail, literally passing at 90% plus. I would be interested how that worked out in a college setting. I am sure there are many programs where it really wouldn't make much of a difference at all, assuming that the common achievement was an A in the first place.

Well it would drop the number of graduating students where I go. My university has a reputation for being a school full of students who just try to skirt by. I wouldn't mind seeing the roaming mobs of people who never attend classes disappear. But then again how will the school make it's $$$ once they go

LordofHats wrote:You should have seen the educational system I attended in high school. Down right horrible. Of two dozen public schools, only 2 were scoring GPA averages above 2.0. If you had a kid who wanted to learn, you sent them to the private school. The kids at the public schools never seemed to try, save a few. Teachers were wasting their time on people who spent the entire class texting, talking, and playing their PSP's (yeah...).

'Multi-tasking' seems to be the term many have slapped onto that. Yes, watching youtube on your laptop in class is comical. Sitting in front of you, is one of the most powerful learning tools ever to hit the common population, so stop looking at lolcats in class.

There comes a point where someone has become unteachable. Where is that point? I don't know. Teachers are probably the ones qualified to answer that question. If they don't want to learn why should the teacher have to teach (EDIT: Well, they don't really teach them anyway. It's more like babysitting) them and why should tax payers have to pay for it?

I agree with K-10 systems with the option to continue for 2 years in order to prepare for college, and further your education in general. Standard K-12 could be considered wasteful in some situations.

As to the question about tax payers paying for it, I strongly support what money would be spent on that (plus more obviously) being moved into alternative 'end of high school' institutions. There is option in some areas to test out early, and many already do so. Having an option that supports those interested in something besides going to college seems like a great idea. The other point is what those kids would be doing if they weren't in school, assuming they are attending classes in the first place.

I would guess that kicking students out at 16 would promote extra crime to some degree. On the other hand, providing another option than 11-12 standard, could promote the opposite effect, and you could end up with more productive citizenry in general. I don't assume it would be true, it seems possible though.

Well it would drop the number of graduating students where I go. My university has a reputation for being a school full of students who just try to skirt by. I wouldn't mind seeing the roaming mobs of people who never attend classes disappear. But then again how will the school make it's $$$ once they go

It is slightly surprising that the school allows them to get away with that. Personally, I feel that having online education combined with class tests/support would serve to both filter out people that are more interested in drinking with their buddies, as well as give students that are serious a flexible schedule. Do I want to drive 20-30 minutes to school because the public transit system takes me two hours? Umm... no. That isn't to say that having small to medium lectures can't be a good thing, just that besides the cost to implement online education on a large scale, it is generally an obvious fix to a lot of problems. At least IMO.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Wiki wrote:"Foam-arisen" Aphrodite was born of the sea foam near Paphos, Cyprus after Cronus severed Uranus' genitals and threw them behind him into the sea, while the Erinyes emerged from the drops of blood.

Woah...

Kilkrazy wrote:It isn't a problem if it alienates the students who were going to get D or F anyway. It would be better for the good students to get the wasters out of school as early as possible.

Or help the less successful students learn...

If a D is an F, then what good does a C do? Only A and B students should stay in school. Everyone else should become a fry cook.

There need to be remedial classes and extra support for students falling into the D/F trap.

A -- Academics, lawyers, engineers, and professionals generally.
B -- Mid-managers, staff who need a good level of intellectual skills, and skilled technical workers.
C -- semi-skilled workers.

D,F -- The problem is that there are no longer enough jobs for people who can only dig ditches along lines drawn by someone better educated. That's why it's good to minimise the number of children falling to that level.

Bear in mind that any grading system is an artificial distinction. It has to be based on the real need of society to set particular levels and grade people accordingly. Stone-age man had no need for writing. The Victorians required increasing numbers of literate people to be clerks. In the 21st century there are no clerical jobs that do not require computer skills.

Before we get all too forum-elitist here, it's worth mentioning that there are plenty of extremely intelligent and skilled people without formal qualifications, who were perhaps unfortunate enough to start working at an early age and miss out on a lot of the opportunities that people with less potential had to grind through. Those people can have trouble later in life with regards to senior positions available, depending on their line of work up until that point. I know plenty of people who were just not fortunate enough to be able to go on and study, and that's just in my country... I won't even start on Australia's neighbouring countries and their relative social structures.

I'm a different sort of person again... it's not like I didn't have the opportunity - I did very well at university for a couple of years, and got great marks, but it always frustrated me when I'd get a 'C' to the point that I just left and started working again. I only got... like three or four of them. To be honest, I felt like scum as a student anyway, but was never able to find work that I could do at the same time full-time study. I have a bit of OCD (CDO to us ), and that nature had a lot do with the dissatisfaction, and I also know that I only have a 12-18 months of study left if I ever want to finish my degree. I can't study part time because I dedicate myself to my work too much, and I'd be just as dissatisfied not being able to put all of my time into it.

My adult employment has always been in the 'B' category as Kilkrazy has laid out above, despite my having 'no' tertiary qualifications... a hairdresser is technically more qualified than I am, but I'm not bothered for now. I haven't paid for a haircut in ten years anyway, so it's not like they're getting any of my money. It's unlikely that I'll work in the 'A' category (unless I finish my degree), but fortunately I'm not the sort of obsessive that has a problem with that.

Edit: Somewhat coincidentally, my mother just called me to ask about her assessment work... She has been doing the same job for 44 years and is a high grade public servant, and doing a certificate through a university with regards to an aspect of her department that she can take up with the qualification. I basically told her not to worry and just pass through it... she knows the material, she's just worried about getting it perfect. For people in some situations, a pass is perfectly good enough.

I personally think it's a good idea. If you do badly, you have a chance to try again. If your still doing badly you get extra classes. If your still failing you have the option to pay for even more extra classes (I know that not every one can do that though). After all that, if your still getting under C I say the protesters are right and we should let you back into the wild because keeping you in captivity is cruel.

I agree with Arktik_Firangi's argument. Not everyone gets the chance of a good formal education, and a lack of qualifications doesn't automatically mean uselessness.

However people ought to get those chances. Those who do, which is most people in a modern westernised country, should make use of their opportunity.

The ones who fail to do so, whether because of laziness or innate incapacity, should be supported and helped to achieve the level they are capable of.

...and I'm very likely going to meet some incredibly useless people at the national Mensa Convention next month...

Kilkrazy wrote:A -- Academics, lawyers, engineers, and professionals generally.
B -- Mid-managers, staff who need a good level of intellectual skills, and skilled technical workers.
C -- semi-skilled workers.

D,F -- The problem is that there are no longer enough jobs for people who can only dig ditches along lines drawn by someone better educated. That's why it's good to minimise the number of children falling to that level.

You actually believe that? What a load of shyte.

School grades don't mean anything to most employers unless it's some bs corporate environment or perhaps some academic role.

I know "skilled technical workers" with about two gcses.

They don't teach you skills in school. They teach you bs so half, or more, of the population thinks that is what life is about and end up becoming another cog in the system. So the people with a real idea of how to make money have someone to employ.

Regardless of how bad the UK public school system is, it's very much arguable whether or not "the people with a real idea of how to make money" are anywhere near the most useful. Sometimes it's just about knowing who to kneecap.

To put it simply, they employ everyone else.

The qualities that make people good in business aren't taught in school.

The percentage of self-employed persons in the western world has dropped by some 45% over the past half century... it's certainly a changing world.

If they actually taught you how easy it was to make money with a bit of self saught knowledge in a particular area and some dogged determination the/your government would be fethed.

That figure doesn't surprise me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If world war three ripped down society as we know it and we all went back to the stone age. Acedemic ability would have no bearing on the system of leadership which would develop. No one will be taking orders from a grade a student simply because they are a grade a student. And in actual fact, it's no different today. The business owners, the people who employ everyone else, the people who effectively rule the world, are a group who vary academicly from people with straight As to no qualifications at all. That's because grades have no bearing on what they do. It wasn't their grades which got them where they were. Chances are if you got where you were because of academic achievement, your an employee not an employer. And the guy at the top knows less than you about what you do.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:...and I'm very likely going to meet some incredibly useless people at the national Mensa Convention next month...

I'd guarantee it. The difference between between a circle jerk and a Mensa meeting is you remove the girl and add crossword puzzles.

Yea this ultimately seems more like semantics but that article's introduction mentioned D-quality workers which reminded me of this George Carlin joke :

"Do you realize that somewhere in the world there exists a person who qualifies as the worst doctor? If you took the time, by process of elimination you could actually determine the worst doctor in the world. And the funny part is knowing that someone has an appointment to see him tomorrow."

As for the importance of gradeschool education - I'd argue that acing the hidden curriculum is more important for the "real world" but ideally you want to have a balanced gradeschool career including being able to focus and achieve goals like earning a decent GPA, being a productive member in interpersonal relationships (friends, girlfriends, project groups, being able to communicate well, lunches/dinners/parties, etc - part of the hidden curriculum imo), and extra-curricular stuff like athletics (imo learning about and maintaining physical fitness is incredibly important and Gym class isn't enough) and clubs like speech and debate. Oh yea and also balance that while not going crazy or getting ultra stressed out; having fun and the importance of physical and mental health are also huge lessons to learn.

Hell if we really want to go all the way - adapt the ways of the Swiss and South Korea by requiring civil/community/military service in addition to gradeschool education. That way you learn the lessons above, how to defend yourself, how to function as a team and further build confidence, and get a first-hand perspective on how good of a life you have and the sacrifices it took to get there and maintain it. And in the hellish yet unlikely case of a zombie alien Nazi Bin Laden invasion we'd be better prepared as a nation

whatwhat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:A -- Academics, lawyers, engineers, and professionals generally.
B -- Mid-managers, staff who need a good level of intellectual skills, and skilled technical workers.
C -- semi-skilled workers.

D,F -- The problem is that there are no longer enough jobs for people who can only dig ditches along lines drawn by someone better educated. That's why it's good to minimise the number of children falling to that level.

You actually believe that? What a load of shyte.

Show me the hordes of doctors, lawyers, engineers and other high level professionals who got a string of Ds and Es at A level.

Cane wrote:
As for the importance of gradeschool education - I'd argue that acing the hidden curriculum is more important for the "real world" but ideally you want to have a balanced gradeschool career including being able to focus and achieve goals like earning a decent GPA, being a productive member in interpersonal relationships (friends, girlfriends, project groups, being able to communicate well, lunches/dinners/parties, etc - part of the hidden curriculum imo), and extra-curricular stuff like athletics (imo learning about and maintaining physical fitness is incredibly important and Gym class isn't enough) and clubs like speech and debate. Oh yea and also balance that while not going crazy or getting ultra stressed out; having fun and the importance of physical and mental health are also huge lessons to learn.

Nah, you just have to truant grades 7-9 and have a good time. I did and learned the following:

Self-sufficiency (theft, hunting, fishing, swimming, climbing, making fire, building shelter, first aid)
Self-defense (fighting/skirmishing with mates, making traps, testing homemade projectile weapons and explosives, fleeing fire response teams - see making fire, first aid)
Teamwork (alibis, group decision making, if you truant alone you've got other problems anyway, first aid - doing your own stitches sucks, doing your mate's is hell fun)
Athletics and fitness (running - see fleeing fire response teams - see making fire, just about everything else above, don't forget first aid)
First Aid (if you didn't hurt yourself, you learned nothing)
Social (if you don't have any stories to tell from this, you probably would have failed at school too)

Living in a regional area helps though. I feel sorry for you city kids.

Now what did you learn at school between the ages of 11-13? Seriously, I wouldn't actually know. Kids these days are probably just watching the Jonas Brothers and Twilight or some crap. I didn't have any trouble with the maths in tenth grade so it can't have been anything important.

Sounds like the boy scouts on most of those points

Oh yeah... I did that too.

Was it during one of those years you learn to write the number '6' from the top? Because I've always done it from the middle.

Wrexasaur wrote:I agree with K-10 systems with the option to continue for 2 years in order to prepare for college, and further your education in general. Standard K-12 could be considered wasteful in some situations.

As to the question about tax payers paying for it, I strongly support what money would be spent on that (plus more obviously) being moved into alternative 'end of high school' institutions. There is option in some areas to test out early, and many already do so. Having an option that supports those interested in something besides going to college seems like a great idea. The other point is what those kids would be doing if they weren't in school, assuming they are attending classes in the first place.

I would guess that kicking students out at 16 would promote extra crime to some degree. On the other hand, providing another option than 11-12 standard, could promote the opposite effect, and you could end up with more productive citizenry in general. I don't assume it would be true, it seems possible though.

Maybe kicking out is too strong an ending to the problem. My primary problem with is that such students are extremely disruptive in the class room. My teachers spent more than half their time trying to keep things orderly rather than teaching. Specialized programs would be a better solution but I'm not an expert so I don't know. All I know is that I see a problem based on personal experience. Maybe I'm a little biased (Probably).

It is slightly surprising that the school allows them to get away with that. Personally, I feel that having online education combined with class tests/support would serve to both filter out people that are more interested in drinking with their buddies, as well as give students that are serious a flexible schedule. Do I want to drive 20-30 minutes to school because the public transit system takes me two hours? Umm... no. That isn't to say that having small to medium lectures can't be a good thing, just that besides the cost to implement online education on a large scale, it is generally an obvious fix to a lot of problems. At least IMO.

There was one kid I know who failed out of school. Never attended classes, never turned in any assignments. He made the argument he was "depressed" (He wasn't) and ended up getting an extra year for a mental disability . When he failed out with that he went to online courses. He didn't do those either . He drank Dr. Pepper 24/7 and did I don't know know what but in the dorms he liked to be an annoying .

Part of it is probably money. Professors don't end up doing much with students who pay full tuition, we students whose parents pay full tuition, and who only come to enough classes to get that D they need to pass. You get full payments for a full education for someone who isn't getting it. Granted my school kicks you out if you make consistent f's, but then most schools probably do. I just don't understand why anyone would spend $20,000 and only put in enough effort to make a D, and shrug when you fail to make that D and get F's.

Now what did you learn at school between the ages of 11-13? Seriously, I wouldn't actually know. Kids these days are probably just watching the Jonas Brothers and Twilight or some crap. I didn't have any trouble with the maths in tenth grade so it can't have been anything important.

The same thing over and over. Grades 1-4 were pretty much the exact same material covered for 4 f'thing years. Then we go to fifth grade but it's just the same thing. We learn some new stuff finally and then we go over that again for the next five or so years. I didn't actually see new material until I got to eighth grade, and even then, until tenth grade I knew more about history than most of my history teachers, which was sad back then when I knew a lot less than I do now.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Now what did you learn at school between the ages of 11-13? Seriously, I wouldn't actually know. Kids these days are probably just watching the Jonas Brothers and Twilight or some crap. I didn't have any trouble with the maths in tenth grade so it can't have been anything important.

Most of the stuff in basic GCSE's , but that was due to the CE and CASE exams.
Other schools that don't do CE and don't offer CASE, the time spent between 11 and 13 is pretty much wasted, that is unless your REALLY into languarges and are good enough to get into a fast track course (They do they're GCSE in the chosen languarge between years 7-8 (6th to 8th grade I think)) But as it has been mentioned, the UK school system is not amazing.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Oh yeah... I did that too.

Was it during one of those years you learn to write the number '6' from the top? Because I've always done it from the middle.

As a young one I actually was a part of the gifted and talented program . Pretty sweet deal since you get away from the more monotonous busy work while going on field trips like the problem solving obstacle course at Lackland Air Force base.

Regular truancy seems like the hard way to learn lessons but it is a way nonetheless. Not to mention in the USA you can get your parents into some legal trouble by regularly failing to show up to class but this is assuming one cares for such.

I suffered from terrible boredom at school during primary school (grades K to 6), and my requests for extra stimulation were met with boring little quizzes and 'go read a book'. So I generally got in trouble. Dux in Mathematics and English for my primary, though.

If there was anything I was slow to figure out, it was that you can just walk away from school. I don't really recommend it these days... the bureaucracy seems to have kicked up a bit. I don't think I'd have gotten away with it these days, and rode the edge pretty hard as it was.

At least you had a program for bored kids available... Australia has them, apparently, but I never saw anything to do with them.

dogma wrote:

Who names their daughter after the Greek goddess of sexuality?

When your daughter looks like this or you have a good sense of humor.

No-one wants to sit next to her.

Kilkrazy wrote:No-one wants to sit next to her.

I will.

Wrexasaur wrote:I agree with K-10 systems with the option to continue for 2 years in order to prepare for college, and further your education in general. Standard K-12 could be considered wasteful in some situations.

Absolutely. I hate this idea that keeping people in school for an extra two years when they're not interested in anything academic or white collar is somehow good for them, or good for the rest of us. Let them get out and then help them get into a trade by taking the resources that would have been used babysitting them for two more years and put that into apprenticeships instead. Encourage people into trades.

If they decide down the track they'd really like to complete highschool, maybe to go on to college, then adult learning should be supported, but the idea of making or even encouraging kids that don't care to sit there for another two years is really wrongheaded, in my opinion.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
Is telling me what I said supposed to be a new point?

That's not what you said. What you said is that the sexuality of today is not the sexuality of ancient Greece. This is true, but not terribly relevant to my initial comment.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:
The fact that she was born of Uranus' genitals is one thing, that fact that you were born of your mother's is another.

I really don't see the problem. The negative association of a few people never stopped a hundred thousand Mexicans calling their baby boy Jesus.

/offtopic

Nor did it stop anyone from commenting on the oddity of doing so.

Are you really under the impression that reaching towards 'objectivity' will somehow convince me that my emotional reaction to the name 'Aphrodite' is wrong; given that said reaction is not meant to have substantial force?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:If they actually taught you how easy it was to make money with a bit of self saught knowledge in a particular area and some dogged determination the/your government would be fethed.

That figure doesn't surprise me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If world war three ripped down society as we know it and we all went back to the stone age. Acedemic ability would have no bearing on the system of leadership which would develop. No one will be taking orders from a grade a student simply because they are a grade a student. And in actual fact, it's no different today. The business owners, the people who employ everyone else, the people who effectively rule the world, are a group who vary academicly from people with straight As to no qualifications at all. That's because grades have no bearing on what they do. It wasn't their grades which got them where they were. Chances are if you got where you were because of academic achievement, your an employee not an employer. And the guy at the top knows less than you about what you do.

Someone did poorly in school, and is now bitter for that failure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Phryxis wrote:
Uhhh? Maybe somebody who realizes their daughter is going to be that cute? Good lord, cover the girls up, Aphrodite.

A+ for effort though.

Aphrodite wrote:“I don’t know why. I need someone to be constantly on top of me, making sure I do everything.”

God damn it Aphrodite.

God damn it Aphrodite.

Heh, I missed her quote. It's really pretty ridiculous.

I don't care if it makes me a dirty old man, that girl is friggin cute.

The rest of you people can obsess over the details of grading schemes and how best to get the most out of a student. For me this thread is, and always shall be, all about staying on top of Aphrodite.

Or, whatever, that, but in two years.

I'm seriously trying to imagine the people who wrote this article, who made sure to get that picture and that quote in it. It has to be intentional, no?

Where was she 8 years ago, when I was 16?

But yeah, its at least as intentional as this.

Whoa.

dogma wrote:Where was she 8 years ago, when I was 16?

But yeah, its at least as intentional as this.

umm...

well...

whatwhat wrote:If world war three ripped down society as we know it and we all went back to the stone age. Acedemic ability would have no bearing on the system of leadership which would develop. No one will be taking orders from a grade a student simply because they are a grade a student. And in actual fact, it's no different today. The business owners, the people who employ everyone else, the people who effectively rule the world, are a group who vary academicly from people with straight As to no qualifications at all. That's because grades have no bearing on what they do. It wasn't their grades which got them where they were. Chances are if you got where you were because of academic achievement, your an employee not an employer. And the guy at the top knows less than you about what you do.

Anti-intellectualism always makes me a bit sad.

I mean, I could point the fallacy in the above that presumes good grades don't really help anyone earn money, but that isn't what's really wrong with your post. The real problem is the idea that if we can be successful business owners with poor educations, then having a poor education is alright.

Knowing things is good and makes you a better person. It is just that simple. That academic performance does correlate to higher pay (and that tertiary education does correlate to successful business ownership) is beside the point.

Phryxis wrote:

God damn it Aphrodite.

Heh, I missed her quote. It's really pretty ridiculous.

I don't care if it makes me a dirty old man, that girl is friggin cute.

The rest of you people can obsess over the details of grading schemes and how best to get the most out of a student. For me this thread is, and always shall be, all about staying on top of Aphrodite.

Or, whatever, that, but in two years.

I'm seriously trying to imagine the people who wrote this article, who made sure to get that picture and that quote in it. It has to be intentional, no?

And damn, seeing how no one wants to sit beside her I thought I would have no competition. But now that you're eying her up as well I suppose I have to step up my game plan if I want to stay on top.

sebster wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:I agree with K-10 systems with the option to continue for 2 years in order to prepare for college, and further your education in general. Standard K-12 could be considered wasteful in some situations.

Absolutely. I hate this idea that keeping people in school for an extra two years when they're not interested in anything academic or white collar is somehow good for them, or good for the rest of us. Let them get out and then help them get into a trade by taking the resources that would have been used babysitting them for two more years and put that into apprenticeships instead. Encourage people into trades.

If they decide down the track they'd really like to complete highschool, maybe to go on to college, then adult learning should be supported, but the idea of making or even encouraging kids that don't care to sit there for another two years is really wrongheaded, in my opinion.

I wholeheartedly agree. My experiences as a mature student have convinced me of one thing in particular: Education is wasted on young people. Seriously.

I would say that a good 60% of students at my Uni school (Media, Music and Performance) don't deserve to be there. Most of that number don't seem to WANT to be there - I think that for a lot of kids, it's just the 'done' thing to go to university, just another school you have to go to. It makes me sad, because they really don't know how lucky they are to have the opportunity, and they will DEFINITELY regret pissing about for three years and getting a crap degree. If they even get one.

A point on marking: I would prefer an A-F grading system in UK universities. It's what we use at GCSE level and it's a lot less vague than the system we use now, which is basically:

1st, 2:1, 2:2, 3rd

So you get a 'first'. Great. Problem is, it's the same mark whether you get 70% or 99%. Not helpful on an essay mark. Incidentally, I was interested to hear that the pass mark seems to be a lot higher in the US. It's only 40% here. I wonder why that is? It sounds like there's a lot more testing than here - a lot of what I'm doing is essay-writing.

In any case, a perfect illustration of my initial point is that there are people who don't even get 40% for their assignments. That's just laziness.

Yes, yes it is.

A kid in my class got 14% on a music theory test. Shocking.

In the US percentile scores are quite popular; generally these are weighted against success.

How so?

The tendency is to score downwards. For example, a 93% is often an A-.

Albatross wrote:I wholeheartedly agree. My experiences as a mature student have convinced me of one thing in particular: Education is wasted on young people. Seriously.

I would say that a good 60% of students at my Uni school (Media, Music and Performance) don't deserve to be there. Most of that number don't seem to WANT to be there - I think that for a lot of kids, it's just the 'done' thing to go to university, just another school you have to go to. It makes me sad, because they really don't know how lucky they are to have the opportunity, and they will DEFINITELY regret pissing about for three years and getting a crap degree. If they even get one.

Yeah, I think it would work better if university wasn't just the default option. Most kids are there because it's the necessary step before taking a white collar job, not because they actually care that much about learning.

I think it would work best if people went from secondary schooling into the workforce, starting as an accountant's assistant, for instance. They would complete their tertiary education while they worked. I mean, these days most uni courses are basically vocational courses, but for historical reasons they have all these trappings of academia.

If someone wants a degree in pure academia let them, but I think most people looking to be teachers or engineers would be better off working as they did their courses.

So you get a 'first'. Great. Problem is, it's the same mark whether you get 70% or 99%. Not helpful on an essay mark.

That's weird. We always got % scores for our coursework, and then the teacher would tell us the average score. The only time we'd see a grade was at the end of the semester. Just being given a grade and no score for coursework seems really vague and unhelpful.

Incidentally, I was interested to hear that the pass mark seems to be a lot higher in the US. It's only 40% here. I wonder why that is? It sounds like there's a lot more testing than here - a lot of what I'm doing is essay-writing.

I think part of it is due to the US having a lot more T/F components and multi-choice - they bump up scores by a bit. At the end of the its just a number, and doesn't really mean anything without some measure of how hard the test was. Scoring 80% doesn't mean you're any good, if the test was easy and the average was 85%, but there were a few really hard exams I did where the best mark was in the mid-60s.

In any case, a perfect illustration of my initial point is that there are people who don't even get 40% for their assignments. That's just laziness.

Well it depends on how it is marked. 40% of what? It might be that a coherent essay that covers all the main points, but in an entirely superficial way deserves the minimum passing mark... but one school system might designate that 60%, another 50% and another 40%.

@Dogma - See, those mark thresholds are higher, too. Here, 80-100% is an A+. They're pretty rare. I should know, I'm something of a rarity.

sebster wrote:

Albatross wrote:So you get a 'first'. Great. Problem is, it's the same mark whether you get 70% or 99%. Not helpful on an essay mark.

That's weird. We always got % scores for our coursework, and then the teacher would tell us the average score. The only time we'd see a grade was at the end of the semester. Just being given a grade and no score for coursework seems really vague and unhelpful.

Uh, yeah, I probably should have been clearer there... We still get our percentage marks given to us, but to my mind there is a world of difference between 70% and 90%. If I progressed from 70% to 90% over a few years, all my marks would show is a list of firsts. I want the credit, dammit!

Well it depends on how it is marked. 40% of what?

100.

Albatross wrote:A kid in my class got 14% on a music theory test. Shocking.

Shocking? Music doesn't fit the archetype for academia so much as Business and the sciences. I mean, successful musicians typically study music in their youth, and besides being of occasional use to those who really do seek an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of jazz and classical musicianship, music theory teachers at tertiary institutions are the worst kind of old hat. It's like teaching an adult English reading class to a French Canadian. They probably don't even care to read English, but that doesn't mean they can't speak it.

I'm not trying to invalidate your field of study - modern media production and the performance aspect of certain arts are perfectly acceptable, but I wouldn't judge a modern musician on a score in a music theory test.

I agree with what you said before, though... teenagers in performing arts schools are second only to those studying sports science in terms of general academic laziness and "why the hell are you here?" The thing is, the serious ones tend to already know their music theory.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Albatross wrote:A kid in my class got 14% on a music theory test. Shocking.

Shocking? Music doesn't fit the archetype for academia so much as Business and the sciences. I mean, successful musicians typically study music in their youth, and besides being of occasional use to those who really do seek an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of jazz and classical musicianship, music theory teachers at tertiary institutions are the worst kind of old hat.

Oh, Dakka. Where DO you find these people?

So you want an in-depth knowledge of Jazz or Classical musicianship? And as a violinist how do you propose to sight-read your music without a concrete knowledge of music theory? Let's imagine you are a jazz trumpeter: How do you know which modes to use over which chords? How do you know which key you are in? Do you guess? You have a fraction of a second to decide. You have to just 'know' - eyes, brain, fingers. This requires an intimate knowledge of music theory, one that is built up over many years.

How can you analyse a score without knowing what the notation means? How can you have an in-depth knowledge of classical music without analysing musical scores?

Are you high?

Musicology is perfectly suited to academic study. You probably think you're quite hip, don't you? You aren't.

I'm not trying to invalidate your field of study

You couldn't. You would have to know what you where talking about, and you don't seem to.

modern media production and the performance aspect of certain arts are perfectly acceptable, but I wouldn't judge a modern musician on a score in a music theory test.

(sigh)

Yes, you definitely think you're hip. I thought that in your world 'succesful musicians typically study music in their youth'? If a person had done so, then that person should have no difficulty in securing a decent mark. It was a 3-hour exam, which I finished in 45 mins, securing the highest mark in my year by a significant margin, and I started learning music theory from scratch in 2008. Theory is a requirement of my course, a course which has a heavy emphasis on jazz and jazz theory. That person had no excuse not to know their stuff.

Albatross wrote:Uh, yeah, I probably should have been clearer there... We still get our percentage marks given to us, but to my mind there is a world of difference between 70% and 90%. If I progressed from 70% to 90% over a few years, all my marks would show is a list of firsts. I want the credit, dammit!

Ah, that makes more sense. That does seem a really broad range for a single grade. Here we have under 50% is a fail, 50-60% is a pass, 60-70% is a credit pass, 70=80% is a distinction and any more is a high distinction.

100.

But you do get what I mean, yeah?

Albatross wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Albatross wrote:A kid in my class got 14% on a music theory test. Shocking.

Shocking? Music doesn't fit the archetype for academia so much as Business and the sciences. I mean, successful musicians typically study music in their youth, and besides being of occasional use to those who really do seek an in-depth understanding of the intricacies of jazz and classical musicianship, music theory teachers at tertiary institutions are the worst kind of old hat.

Oh, Dakka. Where DO you find these people?

So you want an in-depth knowledge of Jazz or Classical musicianship? And as a violinist how do you propose to sight-read your music without a concrete knowledge of music theory? Let's imagine you are a jazz trumpeter: How do you know which modes to use over which chords? How do you know which key you are in? Do you guess? You have a fraction of a second to decide. You have to just 'know' - eyes, brain, fingers. This requires an intimate knowledge of music theory, one that is built up over many years.

How can you analyse a score without knowing what the notation means? How can you have an in-depth knowledge of classical music without analysing musical scores?

Are you high?

Musicology is perfectly suited to academic study. You probably think you're quite hip, don't you? You aren't.

I'm not trying to invalidate your field of study

You couldn't. You would have to know what you where talking about, and you don't seem to.

modern media production and the performance aspect of certain arts are perfectly acceptable, but I wouldn't judge a modern musician on a score in a music theory test.

(sigh)

Yes, you definitely think you're hip. I thought that in your world 'succesful musicians typically study music in their youth'? If a person had done so, then that person should have no difficulty in securing a decent mark. It was a 3-hour exam, which I finished in 45 mins, securing the highest mark in my year by a significant margin, and I started learning music theory from scratch in 2008. Theory is a requirement of my course, a course which has a heavy emphasis on jazz and jazz theory. That person had no excuse not to know their stuff.

Read the post before you flip your wig, Kojak. All I'm saying is you don't necessarily rip on the guy who flunks music theory.

I said I know perfectly well that a lot of music students are there for the ride. A lot of them don't need to know the theory and need a few years to jack around until their band is ready, or else they're just wasting time because they're hopeless. They shouldn't be where they are, and you clearly should be because you appreciate what is being offered to you.

You just don't need to do a degree to learn music theory. The teachers are there to weed out people not suited to the academic side of it - musicology... but a lot of the people who flunk out are still going to go a long way, and in the mean time it's people like that whose wasted fees keep your precious music school open while they're closing the world over due to problems with funding. Respect them.

I understand that you've come to music late in life and understand it in a different way, but the following is just pointless:

So you want an in-depth knowledge of Jazz or Classical musicianship? And as a violinist how do you propose to sight-read your music without a concrete knowledge of music theory? Let's imagine you are a jazz trumpeter: How do you know which modes to use over which chords? How do you know which key you are in? Do you guess? You have a fraction of a second to decide. You have to just 'know' - eyes, brain, fingers. This requires an intimate knowledge of music theory, one that is built up over many years.

How can you analyse a score without knowing what the notation means? How can you have an in-depth knowledge of classical music without analysing musical scores?

Of course you cannot analyse a score without understanding notation. It is made up of notation. Ever heard of playing by ear? Modes do come naturally to some, very rare people. It is a developed skill in any case, but there is more than one way to acquire it.
You can't analyse the spelling of a written sentence if you can't read. You can still probably speak and have a perfectly good understanding of verbal grammar without knowing what the symbols mean. Some musicians really do just know. And let me tell you, people like me who had to learn it the normal way can be a bit envious, but I'm not going to pull my hair out over it. Of course you don't bloody guess. I wasn't having a go at you and I made it very clear that classical and jazz musicianship are different things.

Met many music producers? Try to have a sustained music theory conversation with one of them... oh yeah, that's not their job. It shouldn't take very long with a little bit of research for you to come up with a long list of extremely talented musicians and composers who have/had very little or no foundation in musical theory. The Box. Get out of it.

Bring back the old 11 plus, then put kids in schools based on their abililities and educational leanings.

Put those who are more acedemic in schools with a heavy tilt towards science, maths, etc.

People who are more artistically inclined go to schools catering to the arts, music, languages, etc.

People who are more skillful with their hands go to schools where you learn practical trades; plumbing, mechanics, nursing etc.

Everyone gets a general education alongside their more specialised one so everyone knows a bit of history, a bit of english, a bit of science and a bit of practical skill.

The number of kids I overhear on my way to work saying how they will be getting 2-3 D's at A-level (usually in some wishy-washy subjects like general studies, etc) and will "probably" go to university to do "something, you know?" is just disturbing.

SilverMK2 wrote:The number of kids I overhear on my way to work saying how they will be getting 2-3 D's at A-level (usually in some wishy-washy subjects like general studies, etc) and will "probably" go to university to do "something, you know?" is just disturbing.

I think it's alright to be undecided about the future of your life at the age of 16. I think we need broad education, and plenty of scope to leave and re-enter education.

These kids would be 17-18, since this particular conversation I was relating happened just before the schools broke up and they had done all their exams.

Though as you say, it is perfectly reasonable to not have a clear idea what you want to go on and do at the age of 16, by 18 you should have a clearer grasp of both what you want to do, and what you are likely to be qualified to do.

At 18 I was unsure as to whether to go and do software engineering, biology or physics at university - I was qualified to do all 3 and in the end chose a subject which combined all these subjects into 1.

But the point is that no matter how decided or undecided you are about what you want to do after you leave school, you still need the grades to back you up in your choice. These children were talking about going to university with 2-3 D's at A-level... anyone who can't at least get 3C's really isn't trying, or isn't suited for acedemic study and may be better suited with a different type of learning.

Though as you say, the ability to leave and re-enter learning is one which should be more available. Lots of people regret having let their education slip in their youth and want to go back to it later on in life. People should never be stopped from bettering themselves.

dogma wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:If they actually taught you how easy it was to make money with a bit of self saught knowledge in a particular area and some dogged determination the/your government would be fethed.

That figure doesn't surprise me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If world war three ripped down society as we know it and we all went back to the stone age. Acedemic ability would have no bearing on the system of leadership which would develop. No one will be taking orders from a grade a student simply because they are a grade a student. And in actual fact, it's no different today. The business owners, the people who employ everyone else, the people who effectively rule the world, are a group who vary academicly from people with straight As to no qualifications at all. That's because grades have no bearing on what they do. It wasn't their grades which got them where they were. Chances are if you got where you were because of academic achievement, your an employee not an employer. And the guy at the top knows less than you about what you do.

Someone did poorly in school, and is now bitter for that failure.

Half expected someone to post that lame presumption. Had to be you I guess.

I actually did quite well in school. And am now 23 years old and self employed whos grades come up in important conversation about naught times a year.

If you actually believe academic ability makes the major difference in the real world you are either very naive or just blind. I perhaps your all scrunched up in a safe little corporate bubble?

Aphrodite wrote:"I don’t know why. I need someone to be constantly on top of me..."

kids these days.

Thanks for tittilating us with that again.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Already posted, rubiks. Thanks for tittilating us with that again, though.

damn it. i looked thru and didn't see it. my bad.

Silver, I really have to disagree with bringing back the 11+. Splitting kids into categories that early is a really bad idea. The onus should be on the curriculum and the teacher to bring those kids up to the highest standard they can attain, not categorise and limit them.(though it would also be helpful if discipline and control were easier to manage, unfortunately due to unprofessional conduct of a lot of teachers I can't see that ever really coming back in the way it would work best.).

The problem with the 11+ is that in the UK we try to force children to learn to read and write too early.

A lot of children get turned off reading at the age of five or six who would easily be able to learn to seven or eight years old but by then they have already fallen behind and become SATS liabilities.

They reach the age of eleven with severely sub-standard reading ability which cripples their ability to partake of formal education from then on.

From looking at it as an outsider, primary education in the UK seems really very competative and intense, but only in upper and middle class situations. There's a huge class gulf at that age, from what I can see.
That extends into secondary school, and is in some ways deepened there, though I think the system DOES do a good job of trying to cater to diverse needs, I also think it is too concerned with categorising kids. Kids tend to live up to what we tell them they are. It's really difficult for a kid to move between streams or bands or sets in my experience. (Which is of course, limited)

11 year old kids haven't even got fully developed brains. I was consdered slow and stupid in primary school, but by the end of secondary was one of the better students in my school. Child centred education isn't about pandering to kids and letting them do what they want, more making sure we don't take choices away from them.

Killkrazy: You make an interesting point about literacy. I was really shocked when I started teaching in Dublin at the poor literacy and numeracy of my students. The numeracy is even worse than the literacy in my experience. I would love to take a year to observe in a bunch of primary schools and try and figure out where they're going wrong with teaching reading, but my suspicion would be that a lot of parents not pulling their weight is a part of it.

Kilkrazy wrote:The problem with the 11+ is that in the UK we try to force children to learn to read and write too early.

A lot of children get turned off reading at the age of five or six who would easily be able to learn to seven or eight years old but by then they have already fallen behind and become SATS liabilities.

They reach the age of eleven with severely sub-standard reading ability which cripples their ability to partake of formal education from then on.

I have never thought of that before, sir.
It seemed to me that it was a lack of intelligence on the student's part that led to the lack of ability but this actually makes sense. +1 to you, good sir.
I think the main problem with a lot of schools is that they almost get more lax as you progress. I remember feeling anxious about finally going to middle school and now I realize that 7th and 8th grade was the greatest two-year near-skive I could ever imagine. Without even really trying that hard I got through geometry with a B average and landed with a 3.6 GPA. Instead of actually trying to increase the intelligence of the student body through education, it seems that they're trying to accomodate for the lackings.

I was so rubbish at German i got an 'X'. Best thing that ever happened: I got 3 hours a week to do other work and didn't need to try and learn another language (note I'm dyslexic and have enough trouble with English ^_^)

Personally i think the biggest problem is that no one is being taught for the sake of being better but to pass a god damn test. And if you can't test it then its not worth it.

Case in point our school had a really nice D&T area just the right size for a school a third the size. Where as they had so many PC's that you could normally spend you're break on one. So the school gets a technology grant for having lots of computers and replaces all of them. Throwing away perfectly good CFT monitors and replacing them with inferior LCD (don't think there was one with out a dead pixel).

The other thing I never understood was the time wasting. Rather then have one long art lesson, D&T or other practical subject (possibly with the lunch break in between) we had 3 one hour lessons. So what was the problem? 5 minute register, 10 minutes on what we're doing, 10 minutes unpacking the work, 25 minutes work, 15 minutes packing up. Now if you're quick you can shave time off here and there but wouldn't it make more sense to only unpack once a week?

I hate to say it but a lot of the time just seemed to be wasting time. Don't get me started on some of the teachers. Lord I've enjoyed ranting about that.

In the case of reading the biggest problem is that you need get mom and dad in on it. Simply put to teach reading you really need one to one.

Da Boss wrote:Silver, I really have to disagree with bringing back the 11+. Splitting kids into categories that early is a really bad idea. The onus should be on the curriculum and the teacher to bring those kids up to the highest standard they can attain, not categorise and limit them.(though it would also be helpful if discipline and control were easier to manage, unfortunately due to unprofessional conduct of a lot of teachers I can't see that ever really coming back in the way it would work best.).

Well, aside from the fact that almost my entire immediate family are teachers (both parents, 1 grandparent and my wife), I think the onus should actually be on the child and their parents to bring them-self up to the required level. Even with the best teachers in the world, a child who refuses to learn, or receives no support at home is unlikely to be able to keep up with those who do.

Discipline is also something that should not just be left up to the schools and teachers to do. Parents need to understand that they are responsible for their children. Teachers should not have to fill that gap and provide the only discipline the child gets (until they run foul of the law perhaps). If you let your child stay out until they want to, to skip school whenever they feel like it, and allow them to speak back to adults (or indeed anyone) however they wish, how exactly is that the fault of the school system? Especially when these parents simultaneously complain that the schools are not doing their part to discipline their little Satans, and then raise hell if the school attempts to actually place any sanctions against the child?

Teachers receive next to no support in dealing with pupils like that, and it shows. Just like laws in society, as soon as enough people stop believing in them, they cease to have any effect. I would love to see, as would most teachers I imagine, a way of disciplining pupils properly.

Regards limiting pupils - I would suggest that it is far more limiting to pupils to have a class disrupted by people who do not fit the current system than it would be for pupils to be streamed into schools which suited their ability, learning styles, etc. Far from limiting them, I believe that such a system would encourage people to learn skills which will benefit them in later life. I in no way believe that if you go to X school, you should not have access to Y subjects - education should be as universal as possible. What I do suggest is that if you go to Z school, you should be with pupils who are best suited to the Z way of teaching, and school Z should focus on teaching the kind of subjects that best suit children with a Z outlook on learning.


@ Killkrazy:
I don't think kids learn to read and write early enough. Both my brother and I could read and write before we went to school. So could my wife and her brother.

The problem comes when you have classes of 30+ kids - a teacher just can't teach that many children when their level of comprehension is so wildly different. You can't help but either turn off the brighter students, or leave the less able behind. Even with all the "Differentiation" stuff you are supposed to plan into every lesson.

Tri wrote:Throwing away perfectly good CFT monitors and replacing them with inferior LCD (don't think there was one with out a dead pixel).

Up to five dead pixels are industry standard, and not considered faults.

I used to work for a certain computer company handling warranty repairs and had to tell people this. Best fun I ever had.


I too was taught to read and write before I went to school.

Silver: I'm a teacher myself, and I agree with the general gist of what you're saying. Parents SHOULD take far more responsibility for their kids, teachers SHOULD have less expectations put on them.
Unfortunately, for many complex reasons, this is not the case and is not likely to ever really be the case outside of some middle class and up areas.
Kids need to be taught responsibility, sure. Totally agree.

I still really disagree with the idea of the 11+. You have to categorise people at some stage, it's inevitable. But categorsing them so young, and in such a sweeping way,I have a major problem with. Kids live up to the labels we give them. To my outsider's eyes, the UK has a severe enough class divide, and something like the 11+ will only make it worse.
There is a big debate about all of this, of course, and I will admit that for some situations, streaming and banding and setting are really useful. The problem tends to be that the implementation is inflexible and flawed.

I breezed through school, up until my sophmore year of highschool, at which point I hit a brick wall. I had never had to study or do much homework, aced all my tests, never paid much attention in class, but then once I was faced with work that actually challenged me, I had no study skills to speak of and I very nearly failed sophmore year. I'm in no way an expert on the subject of education, but perhaps if I'd been put in more challenging classes earlier on I would have fared better when the hard stuff came along. I guess this could be an argument for separating kids based upon their levels or whatnot and grouping them with other kids with similar needs, but then again I'm not too knowledgeable on the matter, just having my own experiences to go own.

I used the 11+ as that was traditionally the point at which your future educational path was set at.

To be truthful, when I say "11+", I refer to a generic point in time, probably before about 13-14.

That point should be the big sort out - based on more than just "how well can you do in this knowledge based test", but also tests built around finding out what kind of learning style you have, general intellect, attitude, etc.

Prior to this I strongly believe in setting children by ability.

Though as you say, there is a great deal of difficulty the implementation of this concept.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rubiksnoob wrote:I breezed through school, up until my sophmore year of highschool, at which point I hit a brick wall. I had never had to study or do much homework, aced all my tests, never paid much attention in class, but then once I was faced with work that actually challenged me, I had no study skills to speak of and I very nearly failed sophmore year. I'm in no way an expert on the subject of education, but perhaps if I'd been put in more challenging classes earlier on I would have fared better when the hard stuff came along. I guess this could be an argument for separating kids based upon their levels or whatnot and grouping them with other kids with similar needs, but then again I'm not too knowledgeable on the matter, just having my own experiences to go own.

This experience is very similar to my own. Up until my second year at university I'd never really been challenged (except in maths, where I had managed to move from middle to top set over the course of my school years, and French, where I moved from bottom to middle), and I really struggled to cope with not just being able to do something in classes.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:

Tri wrote:Throwing away perfectly good CFT monitors and replacing them with inferior LCD (don't think there was one with out a dead pixel).

Up to five dead pixels are industry standard, and not considered faults.

I used to work for a certain computer company handling warranty repairs and had to tell people this. Best fun I ever had.


I too was taught to read and write before I went to school.

True but would you not wait till the monitor had died before replacing it? (those first LCD also had a habit of burning the school logo in place but that's more an IT fault for leaving the screens on) You know I'm typing on an CRT now its nearly 15 years old and still going strong. Sure it can't hit the higher resolutions but 1600x1200 fine for most things.

It's also using a helluva lot more wattage than a LCD screen of the same size. Environmentally and financially, it makes sense in theory.

I still have a 21" CRT monitor I pull out every now and then, I do love the unique picture quality.

Now that you've explained what you mean a bit more, I can agree with you to an much greater extent. Helping kids learn in the correct style would be a really good thing to do. Properly implemented, I wouldn't have much problem with it at all.
My biggest problem comes with streaming/setting by "ability". Ability comes from so many things- prior experience, genetic potential, current environment, attitude, diet... it's fluid and can be improved (or worsened) with the correct techniques. I see it as part of a teacher's job to try and suss out that improvement and move everybody up as much as possible. Classroom management is tricky, but it shouldn't be the primary concern when educating kids (if it is, your school's discipline policy probably needs looking at.)

However, even though I have a problem with it, I still will work in the English system which has a lot more setting than I'm used to. I know it has it's good points, and I try to get my view across through my work.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:It's also using a helluva lot more wattage than a LCD screen of the same size. Environmentally and financially, it makes sense in theory.

I still have a 21" CRT monitor I pull out every now and then, I do love the unique picture quality.

Well yes and no. Environmentally and financially I've gone through 3 LCD screens and yet to break my CRT. CRT use more power to run but not enough to out weigh the cost of buying a similar quality LCD 3 times. True one day its going to break but till then i think I'm making a saving keeping it.

With how crap the public system is in regards to academic training and teaching, I don't think this will matter much.
In an ideal situation D's represent failing with an effort to learn the material.
If a student actually makes a solid attempt to grasp the subject and fails to fully grok it, then I think that should be represented in the grading structure.
F's are pretty much for those who didn't make the attempt or the subject falls far outside of their ability.

Keep in mind I think the scope of C's should be expanded up at the expense of the A range.

JMHO

As I said... in theory.

On the personal level, keeping your one CRT is probably the most sensible financial option. On the scale of 100+ such devices, they are a bit cheaper to purchase and the difference on the power bill is more significant. It's hard to see, of course, as we use a lot more electronic devices these days and the price of power just keeps going up but ya know what? This is completely off topic.

SilverMK2 wrote:


@ Killkrazy:
I don't think kids learn to read and write early enough. Both my brother and I could read and write before we went to school. So could my wife and her brother.

All children don't have your advantages and we need everyone to be literate because it is the foundation of all later education.

Norway doesn't teach children to read until they are seven. They do alphabet from six.

Hungary teaches reading from age eight. They do alphabet from earlier.

These are not backward countries.

Some British children are learning reading at school from the age of four. A couple of years makes a huge difference intellectually at those kind of ages.

SilverMK2 wrote:
The problem comes when you have classes of 30+ kids - a teacher just can't teach that many children when their level of comprehension is so wildly different. You can't help but either turn off the brighter students, or leave the less able behind. Even with all the "Differentiation" stuff you are supposed to plan into every lesson.

Then we need smaller classes. This is one area where private schools have an advantage.

rubiksnoob wrote:

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Already posted, rubiks. Thanks for tittilating us with that again, though.

damn it. i looked thru and didn't see it. my bad.

Don't worry rubiksnoob I'll be constantly on top of her. Yeah Phryxis I missed the quote too, it has to be intentional too much of a coincidence.

Kilkrazy wrote:we need everyone to be literate because it is the foundation of all later education.

Doesn't this then make it even more urgent that we teach children to read and write as early as possible? I will not dispute that some parents are better than others with regards teaching their children the skills they need, but if you are teaching children to read and write at 7/8 rather than 3/4, doesn't that just put children of parents who do not teach their children to read and write at an even greater disadvantage?

I won't claim to be an expert on learning and child development, so I can't say what is the "best" age to learn to read and write at but as far as I am concerned, the faster we get children learning and exploring the world around them (both the tactile and the written), the better.

Then we need smaller classes. This is one area where private schools have an advantage.

Here I will most certainly not argue with you. I also recall reading that the optimum size for schools is approximately 700-800 pupils.

Agreed on the school and class size thing, though there are ways around it.
.

whatwhat wrote:
Half expected someone to post that lame presumption. Had to be you I guess.

I actually did quite well in school. And am now 23 years old and self employed whos grades come up in important conversation about naught times a year.

Wow, all that life experience! You must truly be wise.

whatwhat wrote:
If you actually believe academic ability makes the major difference in the real world you are either very naive or just blind. I perhaps your all scrunched up in a safe little corporate bubble?

I find it amusing that you feel the need to build these large walls against any possible differentiating opinion. You speak ill of 'bubbles' and yet you appear determined to create one.

I am also self-employed, and I am also quite well-off due to that fact. It has a great deal to do with the fact that I am more intelligent than most people, and I credit my education with making me so. Of course, grades only indicate what you did at school. But if that's your only point, then really the issue is only that we need to revisit causality.

SilverMK2 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:we need everyone to be literate because it is the foundation of all later education.

Doesn't this then make it even more urgent that we teach children to read and write as early as possible?

I will not dispute that some parents are better than others with regards teaching their children the skills they need, but if you are teaching children to read and write at 7/8 rather than 3/4, doesn't that just put children of parents who do not teach their children to read and write at an even greater disadvantage?

Apparently not.

The Hungarians and Norwegians teaching their children to read several years later has no detrimental effect. In fact thier foreign language skills are significantly higher than ours, because they spend a couple of years learning foreign languages when it is easily absorbed.

Our trying to teach our children too early, and failing in many cases because they simply are not mature enough will be made worse by pushing the age lower.

The problem with our children who fail to learn to read isn't that they learn later, it is that they don't learn at all.

I won't claim to be an expert on learning and child development, so I can't say what is the "best" age to learn to read and write at but as far as I am concerned, the faster we get children learning and exploring the world around them (both the tactile and the written), the better.

Then we need smaller classes. This is one area where private schools have an advantage.

Here I will most certainly not argue with you. I also recall reading that the optimum size for schools is approximately 700-800 pupils.

Yes, I have read that too. No larger than the headmaster can recognise all the pupils.

Kilkrazy wrote:Yes, I have read that too. No larger than the headmaster can recognise all the pupils.

Would also be nice to have heads that are capable of doing the job. I know of a local school where they made the PE teacher head. I've nothing against the guy just seems he got the job since every one senior retired. Surely it's not good for a school to replace it staff that way.

LordofHats wrote:There comes a point where someone has become unteachable. Where is that point? I don't know. Teachers are probably the ones qualified to answer that question. If they don't want to learn why should the teacher have to teach (EDIT: Well, they don't really teach them anyway. It's more like babysitting) them and why should tax payers have to pay for it?

I taught in the fall semester at an inner-city high school. I went in very idealistic, and came out quite shaken by the experience. I had many students that I felt that I simply could not teach within that setting. 1-on-1, maybe even 1-on-3, perhaps, but in a classroom I just could not get through to them. I feel that perhaps an expert or experienced teacher could do 1-on-10. But with the range of abilities in my classroom, I really did feel the choice strongly every day- do I teach to a high level to push the students that are wanting to learn, paying attention, and learned what we did yesterday? Or do I teach to a lower level that everyone can achieve? Obviously, I usually chose somewhere in the middle, "differentiating" as much as possible- but many students were left behind. I also had many with IEPs (special ed) within my classroom, and I wasn't able to give them the attention that they needed/deserved. It felt like a no-win situation, but I don't know what the solution is- it would cost a fortune to cust my class size by 2/3, which is what I felt was needed.

Da Boss wrote:Kids tend to live up to what we tell them they are. It's really difficult for a kid to move between streams or bands or sets in my experience. (Which is of course, limited)

This is also really clear from teaching. Some kids just have gotten it beaten into them, through life, parents, teachers, or whatever, that they're just not up to snuff. And putting on a positive attitude for them doesn't change it one bit. They really need a role model who shows them that they're worth something, and it's hard to do that while getting them to memorize the pythagorean theorem.

About KilKrazy's point about literacy- it's obviously one of the biggest problems. If kids can't read, they can't learn... my Mom has been a reading teacher in a high school in a rural area for almost the last decade. It's a huge problem in the inner city as well. If they fall behind on reading, it makes them want to give up completely, since they can't keep up with anything else.

I don't have any answers, I just know these are huge problems... and it certainly kicked my tail when I tried to do something about it. I'll probably work with children on a volunteer basis like I did previously, now that I'm back working in engineering. It's very rewarding when you can invest in a child or young adult, the problem with teaching is that you have so many, with so many different problems and needs, that it becomes completely overwhelming.

dogma wrote:Wow, all that life experience! You must truly be wise.

Unless you are suggesting that school grades are going to become more important at a later age, which is plain dumb, I don't really think my age is relevant. Not to mention your also of a similar age (as I recall) and the amount of times you flaunt your all powerful wisdom on these forums makes what you just said fairly ironic.

To explain. Considering the occasion you post anything outside of the off topic section occurs less frequently than Wesley Snipes applies sun tan lotion. On a site which, I feel I must remind you, is about wargaming. The only reason evident to anyone regarding why you actually post on here, is that somehow you are making some sort of significant impact on people by bringing them up on their supposed inaccuracies (which is basically what you do, no?). So do forgive me when I come to the conclusion that someone like you, as described above, has a slightly holier-than-thou sense of their own wisdom.

The universe blesses those who do not engage in such petty arguments with the label of 'maturity'.
You're no better or worse than each other - at the moment you're just a pair of clashing egos demonstrating that you have more in common than you care to realise.
Outside of the forum you'd probably get along... unless your self-employed selves happen to be involved in rival businesses.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:The universe blesses those who do not engage in such petty arguments with the label of 'maturity'.
You're no better or worse than each other - at the moment you're just a pair of clashing egos demonstrating that you have more in common than you care to realise.
Outside of the forum you'd probably get along... unless your self-employed selves happen to be involved in rival businesses.

I don't know which industry Dogma works in, but if it's anything beneath a nobel prize winning rocket scientist, then he's built himself up too much.

whatwhat wrote:
Unless you are suggesting that school grades are going to become more important at a later age, which is plain dumb, I don't really think my age is relevant.

You made your age relevant by commenting on it.

whatwhat wrote:
Not to mention your also of a similar age (as I recall) and the amount of times you flaunt your all powerful wisdom on these forums makes what you just said fairly ironic.

I'm not the one who used his age as support for an observation.

whatwhat wrote:
To explain. Considering the occasion you post anything outside of the off topic section occurs less frequently than Wesley Snipes applies sun tan lotion. On a site which, I feel I must remind you, is about wargaming. The only reason evident to anyone regarding why you actually post on here, is that somehow you are making some sort of significant impact on people by bringing them up on their supposed inaccuracies (which is basically what you do, no?). So do forgive me when I come to the conclusion that someone like you, as described above, has a slightly holier-than-thou sense of their own wisdom.

You're confusing wisdom and knowledge. I don't claim to be wise, I only claim to be knowledgeable.

Anyway, you've left out a number of possible variables concerning my motivations. Not the least of which being that the banter of this segment of the forum amuses me in manner not unlike the way reading the rest of the forum amuses me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whatwhat wrote:
I don't know which industry Dogma works in, but if it's anything beneath a nobel prize winning rocket scientist, then he's built himself up too much.

To my mind building oneself up requires direct reference to one's capabilities. I've done this a few times, no doubt, but its hardly the core of my posting style. It might stick out in your mind because it seems to irritate you; I know that your posts stick out in my mind because they irritate me.

SilverMK2 wrote:These kids would be 17-18, since this particular conversation I was relating happened just before the schools broke up and they had done all their exams.

Though as you say, it is perfectly reasonable to not have a clear idea what you want to go on and do at the age of 16, by 18 you should have a clearer grasp of both what you want to do, and what you are likely to be qualified to do.

I know people in their mid to late 20s - talented, hard working people - who still don't know exactly what they want to do with their lives.

But the point is that no matter how decided or undecided you are about what you want to do after you leave school, you still need the grades to back you up in your choice. These children were talking about going to university with 2-3 D's at A-level... anyone who can't at least get 3C's really isn't trying, or isn't suited for acedemic study and may be better suited with a different type of learning.

Ah, I missed that their grades were poor. I see you point know.

The people who do
the same thing for their whole life
are unlucky ones.

Hrmmm... sorry, just came from haiku thread.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Read the post before you flip your wig, Kojak. All I'm saying is you don't necessarily rip on the guy who flunks music theory.

I said I know perfectly well that a lot of music students are there for the ride. A lot of them don't need to know the theory and need a few years to jack around until their band is ready, or else they're just wasting time because they're hopeless. They shouldn't be where they are, and you clearly should be because you appreciate what is being offered to you.

You just don't need to do a degree to learn music theory. The teachers are there to weed out people not suited to the academic side of it - musicology... but a lot of the people who flunk out are still going to go a long way, and in the mean time it's people like that whose wasted fees keep your precious music school open while they're closing the world over due to problems with funding. Respect them.

Most courses that deal with Popular Music are massively oversubscribed. The people who are lucky enough to get a place shouldn't be so arrogant as to think that they deserve to be there without doing any work. You have a lovely view about people who 'flunk music theory' - I remember when I used to think an academic education didn't matter because 'my band's gonna make it, man!' The reality is, the UK is a ridiculously competetive market to break into - my old band got a glowing review in the NME, interest from several major labels and the offer of a 5-album deal. We STILL didn't make it. It's not the '60s anymore. Hell, it's not even the '90s anymore! An increasing number of emerging recording artists now have a formal qualification in music or performing arts, or some other formal musical training. The time of the 'honest amateur' is coming to an end. It was a fad. Get over it.

I understand that you've come to music late in life and understand it in a different way...

I play 5 musical instruments and have been a gigging musician since I was 14. You?

Can I assume that you don't think I understand music in the same way as you do? Well I do. I've been there - I didn't used to think a musical education mattered. I've tried both ways, the main difference is that MY way means I'll have less chance of working a McJob for the rest of my life.

Of course you cannot analyse a score without understanding notation. It is made up of notation. Ever heard of playing by ear?

Yep, did it for 12 years. You?

How many orchestras 'play by ear', just out of interest?

Modes do come naturally to some, very rare people. It is a developed skill in any case, but there is more than one way to acquire it.

Explain to me what a 'mode' is. Bonus points if you don't use google. I think you might actually be trying to describe the difference between perfect and relative pitch.

You can't analyse the spelling of a written sentence if you can't read. You can still probably speak and have a perfectly good understanding of verbal grammar without knowing what the symbols mean. Some musicians really do just know. And let me tell you, people like me who had to learn it the normal way can be a bit envious, but I'm not going to pull my hair out over it. Of course you don't bloody guess. I wasn't having a go at you and I made it very clear that classical and jazz musicianship are different things.

They aren't all that different, actually. Many scholars are describing jazz as 'America's classical music', and analysing it in the same way.
What degree do you think I'm taking? Do you think I'm taking a music degree? Because I'm not, I'm taking Popular Musicology - it's my business to study the semiology of musical texts, and that requires a secure knowledge of musical theory.

Met many music producers? Try to have a sustained music theory conversation with one of them... oh yeah, that's not their job. It shouldn't take very long with a little bit of research for you to come up with a long list of extremely talented musicians and composers who have/had very little or no foundation in musical theory. The Box. Get out of it.

Your arse. Stop talking out of it.
Do a lot of succesful 20th century popular musicians have little or no formal training? Yes. Do they just 'know' or just 'do' it? Absolutely not. John Lennon and Paul McCartney between them wrote over 200 hundred songs before they ever released a record. No-one just 'does' it. They practise and practise. They learn.
Not that it makes a bit of difference. Some people enjoy having a hand. Other people want to know how it works, and why we have them. I fall into the latter camp - there's nothing wrong with the advancement of human understanding as an end in itself. That anti-intellectuallism has been a common affliction amongst fans and performers of popular music shouldn't make people ashamed of wanting to study it.

Arctik_Firangi wrote:The people who do
the same thing for their whole life
are unlucky ones.

Hrmmm... sorry, just came from haiku thread.

Win

Albatross... do you have to be so confrontational? Maybe you can take this to PM...

RiTides wrote:Albatross... do you have to be so confrontational? Maybe you can take this to PM...

Yes. Yes I do. Wanna make something of it?

*cracks knuckles*


Just kidding! I approach this forum the way I approach life - if I feel I'm being attacked, I don't defend myself as much as I just attack back twice as hard.

I'm usually smiling when I type. I dunno, perhaps I just come across more angry than I mean to sometimes.

Anyway, feth it. I don't care.

Albatross, get over it. I was never having a go at you and you brought all of this up out of absolutely nothing. I'm not going to waste my time quoting things apart. I know what the difference between modes, pitch and relative pitch are, and I won't stoop to appease you with a detailed answer after your childish and unprovoked attacks.

I too have been performing from a very young age, thanks very much to a grandparent who was a music teacher, and many friends with similar interests. As keyboards are my primary instrument, I have also usually been the theoretical foundation of performing associations I have been involved in. I'm sure that if you'd stop sitting on your balls we could have a civil conversation about it if we really wanted to. I'm also sure you couldn't find fault with my music theory marks . That doesn't make either of us any 'better' than someone who can't work with notation.

We clearly do have a very similar experience and understanding of music as one another, but we clearly have very different personalities otherwise. I'm sorry if I don't think that music theory teachers in tertiary institutions are the pinnacle of intellectualism, but this is just my experience and you can't expect any amount of frenzied abuse to make any difference to that. I don't know where you learned that as a coping mechanism but it's pretty fething weird.

I used to live with an extremely angry trombonist. Do you play brass by any chance?

If you have anything else to say, make it a conclusion or a PM, because I don't care to talk about this crap in this thread.

EDIT: And seeing that most recent post, maybe we do have a bit more in common again. My posts can come across as aggro too, but I'm just talking about what I know I know. Peace, man.

whatwhat and Dogma, Albatross and Artik Firangi...we need Shuma and Fateweaver to have it out in here next! Then we can all group hug and cry it out.
No?
...
FINE.

Albatross wrote:I'm usually smiling when I type. I dunno, perhaps I just come across more angry than I mean to sometimes.

Personally, I'd chalk it up to your avatar . Some sort of cringe/grimace/wink thing going on there? And is it you?

Arctik_Firangi wrote:Albatross, get over it. I was never having a go at you and you brought all of this up out of absolutely nothing. I'm not going to waste my time quoting things apart. I know what the difference between modes, pitch and relative pitch are, and I won't stoop to appease you with a detailed answer after your childish and unprovoked attacks.

Oh, come on, snowflake. I never said anything THAT bad. The Number 1 rule of Snide-Tennis is don't be a big fething girl about it!

That doesn't make either of us any 'better' than someone who can't work with notation.

That wasn't my point - my point was that on a course in which it is a vitally important component, and in which places are limited, it is VERY slack to get such a low mark, especially when you consider that entrants had to pass a short theory exam as part of the application process.

We clearly do have a very similar experience and understanding of music as one another, but we clearly have very different personalities otherwise. I'm sorry if I don't think that music theory teachers in tertiary institutions are the pinnacle of intellectualism, but this is just my experience and you can't expect any amount of frenzied abuse to make any difference to that. I don't know where you learned that as a coping mechanism but it's pretty fething weird.

If someone says something stupid, I say 'that's stupid'. I'm sorry that you can't give as good you get, but it really isn't my fault, and you shouldn't expect people to cut you some slack - especially when you act like a bit of a smart-arse, truth be told. It's worth pointing out that the classes in comp + theory at my uni are generally taken by Phds, as befits the setting and advanced nature of study. If your experience differs, then that's more of a commentary on where you went to school/college than anything else. That said, my uni isn't exactly a top institution - although it is at the cutting edge of popular music study.

I used to live with an extremely angry trombonist. Do you play brass by any chance?

No, but I AM actually considering taking up the trumpet. Perhaps it's a 'chicken/egg' thing?

EDIT: And seeing that most recent post, maybe we do have a bit more in common again. My posts can come across as aggro too, but I'm just talking about what I know I know.

Me too.

Peace, man.

Fair enough. Let's leave it there.


So... How about that local sports team?