Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
gettafa

Well done all our A level students for getting all those As

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, La Colombe said:

Lol, oh to be back in primary school. Now drink your milk. 

Learned quite a bit in primary school thanks which assisted me to make a reasonable living , able to retire at 51 and now have difficulty in spending my income thanks:)

Left school at 15 with a few 'O' levels  and subsequently gained a "post graduate diploma" so it's perhaps foolish to assume that  'A' levels / degrees are  always a prerequisite to 'success'  or to be considered clever.

And , in the spirit of your post :-

                                                           "Now GFY you fatuous 'know nothing' bint".

Hope this helps:lol:

Edited by paswt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, John Wright said:

Whereas, on any sane marking system, you should have been marked down for not following instructions...

Spot the lawyer.

Edited by Declan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, wrighty said:

That's not new.  I used to get scores like that doing my maths and further maths A-levels in 1988 - I'm not making this up, we thought it was odd at the time.  There might have been 12 questions on the paper, and the instructions were to answer 10 of them.  But, if you were a bright lass or lad and had enough time and did all the questions regardless then they were all marked, and you might come away with scores of 119% etc.  I did one past paper as a mock, the teacher marked mine first, gave me 115%, then went back to check his own and found that he'd made the odd slip not me, so pushed it up to 117%.

 

Try doing that in Pully. You'd get your head kicked in

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, wrighty said:

Don't think so.  It may be reasonable to have only marked the first 10 questions, or to have picked the best 10, but not marked down.  In any case, the instructions were probably along the lines of 'Full marks can be achieved by answering 10 questions...' - I'll see if Google has an example somewhere.

Why the best 10, or first 10. You didn’t do what was instructed. So why should you get extra marks. At least in public examinations.

If it was English, or history, should you get extra marks for answering more questions than required, so assuming it’s the same, 10 out of 12, a candidate who gets 8 on each of 12 can get a better grade than the candidate who gets 9 on each of 10, and so on?

I hope not.

and what then do you do with the candidate who only answers 9 but scores  a perfect 10 on each.

A marking system should recognise  failure to follow instructions, and failure to answer the specified number of questions as well as the quality of the answers.

My recollection of instructions was either

Answer X questions. Each question is  worth Y Marks ( or an equal number of marks )

or

Answer 4 from section A and 6 from section B. Questions in section A are worth C marks each and questions in section B are worth D marks each.

Edited by John Wright

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Why the best 10, or first 10. You didn’t do what was instructed. So why should you get extra marks. At least in public examinations.

If it was English, or history, should you get extra marks for answering more questions than required, so assuming it’s the same, 10 out of 12, a candidate who gets 8 on each of 12 can get a better grade than the candidate who gets 9 on each of 10, and so on?

I hope not.

and what then do you do with the candidate who only answers 9 but scores  a perfect 10 on each.

A marking system should recognise  failure to follow instructions, and failure to answer the specified number of questions as well as the quality of the answers.

My recollection of instructions was either

Answer X questions. Each question is  worth Y Marks ( or an equal number of marks )

or

Answer 4 from section A and 6 from section B. Questions in section A are worth C marks each and questions in section B are worth D marks each.

John, part of the assessment of maths (at both school and university level) is speed.  Exams are set such that the average student may not be able to complete all the questions in the allotted time.  Those that can are the more able and should get higher marks.  The way the Joint Matriculation Board maths and further maths A-levels were set were probably that average students would have time to complete 10 questions.  Good students would complete 10 questions and get them all right, and full marks.  The best students would do the lot, get them all right, and score more than full marks.  I'm not sure what the point of that was - I've no idea if 120% in Pure Maths would offset a lower mark in mechanics, or if marks of 101 and above were truncated to 100.

English and History are subjectively marked, unless it's remembering dates or something else trivial, so the comparison is irrelevant.

I agree a marking system should recognise failure to follow instructions, but in the case here the instructions were that all questions answered would be marked and would count, even though only 10 were required for 'full' marks.  As I said, we never understood the point of scoring 120% - it's a bit like Nigel Tufnell's Marshall amplifier going up to 11 (check out the spoof film 'This is Spinal Tap' if you have no idea what I'm on about) - but that's how it was.  For me to have only answered 10 questions to get 100% when I had time to do the other 2 is just like your top English or History student giving 70% effort to his essay, knowing that 70% gets an A. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, paswt said:

Learned quite a bit in primary school thanks which assisted me to make a reasonable living , able to retire at 51 and now have difficulty in spending my income thanks:)

Left school at 15 with a few 'O' levels  and subsequently gained a "post graduate diploma" so it's perhaps foolish to assume that  'A' levels / degrees are  always a prerequisite to 'success'  or to be considered clever.

And , in the spirit of your post :-

                                                           "Now GFY you fatuous 'know nothing' bint".

Hope this helps:lol:

Lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, paswt said:

Left school at 15 with a few 'O' levels  and subsequently gained a "post graduate diploma"

Did you also complete an ordinary or honours degree first?  A PG Diploma is awarded after 120 points of post-graduate study, so it equates to two-thirds of a masters.  Usually though, you can only study for masters level qualifications after getting a degree first. I'd be interested to learn how you managed it with a few 'O' levels.  Bit of a jump to post-grad studies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, wrighty said:

Did you also complete an ordinary or honours degree first?  A PG Diploma is awarded after 120 points of post-graduate study, so it equates to two-thirds of a masters.  Usually though, you can only study for masters level qualifications after getting a degree first. I'd be interested to learn how you managed it with a few 'O' levels.  Bit of a jump to post-grad studies.

He missed out 'Tips' 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, manx-person said:

There are a number of routes after obtaining professional qualifications, for example.

You're right - should've said ordinary or honours degree, or equivalent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, wrighty said:

Did you also complete an ordinary or honours degree first?  A PG Diploma is awarded after 120 points of post-graduate study, so it equates to two-thirds of a masters.  Usually though, you can only study for masters level qualifications after getting a degree first. I'd be interested to learn how you managed it with a few 'O' levels.  Bit of a jump to post-grad studies.

The "Diploma in Management Studies" was described in the blurb as a  "Post Graduate Diploma"  by, what is now, the  " Middlesex University".

I had the gained the Diploma issued by the Public Health Inspectors Education Board (1968/9) the educational requirements being 4 "o" levels .

FWIW many of those on the DMS course who had 'A' levels and a degree dropped out or failed , I s'pose I should have gone to the presentation ceremony (and got a pic) rather than asking them to bung the 'sterstificate'  in the post:D

I appreciate that things may have changed , TBF They did try to throw me off the course as I didn't have a suitable maths qualification required for "statistics" and refused to refund my LA .

So I attended a 'remedial mathematics' course ( with a delightful lecturer )....... as the 'stats exam' was 'open book' he coached me on how to "pass" :lol: ( about 20% failed) .

 

Edited by paswt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Must learn not to do airquotes when reading certain posts. My fingers are getting tired - and I'm getting strange looks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×