Nice people thread part 4 - sugar and spice and all things

GDB2222

zagubov wrote: »

Wasn't there a journalist a couple of years ago who studied and passed an A level in couple of weeks to show how easy it had become?

Why is that so surprising? A typical A level will involve say 4 hours of teaching a week for say 30 weeks a year. Times 2 years. So, that's 240 hours. The journo could cram most of that into two weeks. You didn't mention whether he had any prior knowledge of the subject or got an A? If he just got a pass, well what good is that?

Besides that, it may be apocryphal, as Mr Google cannot find it (or I need to hone my search skills).

zagubov

GDB2222 wrote: »

Why is that so surprising? A typical A level will involve say 4 hours of teaching a week for say 30 weeks a year. Times 2 years. So, that's 240 hours. The journo could cram most of that into two weeks. You didn't mention whether he had any prior knowledge of the subject or got an A? If he just got a pass, well what good is that?

Besides that, it may be apocryphal, as Mr Google cannot find it (or I need to hone my search skills).

I'm an utter chump! It was an AS level not an A level. here's the link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/aug/16/schools.aslevels
This particular link doesn't tell what grade he got but I seem to remember it was a B.

GDB2222

zagubov wrote: »

I'm an utter chump! It was an AS level not an A level. here's the link
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/aug/16/schools.aslevels
This particular link doesn't tell what grade he got but I seem to remember it was a B.

"A fortnight ago, I entered myself for AS-level sociology. I've never done sociology before. This is the first lesson I've had on the subject and the first exam is in a week."

So, that's 3 weeks study until the first exam. Hopefully, a teacher will be along shortly to say how much teaching is normally involved in an AS level.

I suspect that someone who can make a living as a journalist has some things going for them:
1. An ability to absorb information quickly
2. An ability to make the most of what they know and perhaps cover up any deficiencies.
3. Probably quite intelligent
4. An ability to put their thoughts down on paper

Should have got an A, really.


Edit: He has a 2:1 from Cambridge. Why not an A*?

GDB2222

You need to read the follow up article he wrote:

"A teacher says the results are ready. I take mine. I scored 290 out of 300. Just shy of 97%. In one of the modules I got 100%. The back of my results form tells me that the A-grade boundary was 80%. So not merely an A, but a high A."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/aug/23/schools.aslevels

Masomnia

I'd guess an A level in sociology will be looking for the ability to argue your case well, and apply some statistics to back up your argument. If you've got a degree from Cambridge you'll have been taught how to think, analyse, and argue.

It's basically the journalist's job. Spend a week learning some case studies, and it'll be easy. No surprise.

misskool

zagubov wrote: »

I don't know if any other NPs have kids old enough to be looking at higher education, but it feels like choices of degree courses seem to be smartening up nowadays. DD came back from a university open day this week and passed on info of a new broader type of degree that I'd never heard of before.

It's an Arts and Science degree (BASc) - You get your arts subjects, your science subjects, a foreign language and an internship - http://www.ucl.ac.uk/basc/. It's all very well when someone does a vocational degree such as law or medicine but for those who don't yet know what final direction they're going, they want to pick academic subjects that prepare you for a more general range of jobs, it ticks a few boxes.

I'm not connected to this uni or course in any way, but if I was applying for a degree course now, I think I'd be quite tempted! Anybody seen anything else like it, or better?

Interesting, it's what American colleges have been doing for a while (but they take 4 years as you can switch and chop and change the first 2 years). The course layout also looks very similar.

Only problem I can foresee if a student starts on a pathway and then changes what they want to do and they have to take some of the 101 (introductory) courses again.

More importantly, I worry about the depth at which they will be studying. But perhaps it wouldn't be a problem. I'm intrigued.

zagubov

GDB2222 wrote: »

You need to read the follow up article he wrote:

"A teacher says the results are ready. I take mine. I scored 290 out of 300. Just shy of 97%. In one of the modules I got 100%. The back of my results form tells me that the A-grade boundary was 80%. So not merely an A, but a high A."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2005/aug/23/schools.aslevels

Thanks for finding that- I couldn't! I remembered it as a good pass ie A-C but had a feeling it was a B or better. If they'd had A* grades then that's what he'd have got.

I think it needs 180 hours teaching plus similar home study. Exam practise and time to integrate the knowledge would have to be factored in.

I noticed that in the first article he identifies this as an exercise in investigating dumbing -down, In the second article when he has passed, it's morphed into an act of solidarity - you can only write about and criticise what you've tried yourself. :cool:

Not a scientific investigation- a mature student with degree and exam experience is going to be half-way home on starting most kinds of courses. If it was an attempt to show dumbing down, I'm not sure what he finally showed at the end of this

zagubov

misskool wrote: »

Interesting, it's what American colleges have been doing for a while (but they take 4 years as you can switch and chop and change the first 2 years). The course layout also looks very similar.

Only problem I can foresee if a student starts on a pathway and then changes what they want to do and they have to take some of the 101 (introductory) courses again.

More importantly, I worry about the depth at which they will be studying. But perhaps it wouldn't be a problem. I'm intrigued.

As this is a typical three- year English degree it would all be above GCE level.

The US system though; after looking after someone applying for an American university, I had to contact them and explain how A levels fitted in their system.

After a good look, it emerged that the freshman year and a fair portion of the sophomore year were equivalent to A level. The Junior and Senior honours years were a higher level. So their degree might have breadth but lack the depth of a UKdegree.

Their Bachelor's seemed to end between what we might call an ordinary degree and an HND. Their Master's degree seemed about the same as our honours degree.

This new degree should have some breadth but without sacrificing depth. I'm intrigued as well.

As Oscar Wild noted, youth is wasted on the young.

misskool

zagubov wrote: »

This new degree should have some breadth but without sacrificing depth. I'm intrigued as well.

As Oscar Wild noted, youth is wasted on the young.

You can't have it all though. I teach students intensively (I only really teach postgraduate level) and even then there are massive gaps to plug. A lot of the biology related courses require intensive lab training and if you cut their teaching time in half, you cut their work experience time in half and therefore, they aren't really training.

But then, half of the people I studied with my first degree with do completely careers (mostly accountants and sales managers) so maybe it's not best not to waste expensive lab time on them.

Maybe they will have better critical thinking skills than straight subject students as they have will have breadth.

I don't know, either way, this is an interesting concept.

lostinrates

zagubov wrote: »

As this is a typical three- year English degree it would all be above GCE level.

The US system though; after looking after someone applying for an American university, I had to contact them and explain how A levels fitted in their system.

After a good look, it emerged that the freshman year and a fair portion of the sophomore year were equivalent to A level. The Junior and Senior honours years were a higher level. So their degree might have breadth but lack the depth of a UKdegree.

Their Bachelor's seemed to end between what we might call an ordinary degree and an HND. Their Master's degree seemed about the same as our honours degree.

This new degree should have some breadth but without sacrificing depth. I'm intrigued as well.

As Oscar Wild noted, youth is wasted on the young.

As a student I was very prejudiced against the US system...pours was ''better'' deeper, higher. As an adult I'm pro it. My US peers have a greater breadth of knowledge IMO than many of my UK ones.

IMO it depends very much on what happens to student numbers. If they remain anything like as high thena broader system that allows post grad specialisation (as has sort of happened by default as so many people feel MA/MSc is necessary to show a difference than a degree used to show) seems workable, but if numbers go down then a more specialised ready for work in field seems more appropriate, and less costly for students going into fields where they need an appropriate rather than just degree level course to proceed.


When I re-entered the primary system in Uk I was frustrated as the age lead I'd had under US primary system was lost. Now I think that for well rounded polymath students then the US or European greater breadth might well produce a better ''finished'' product before specialisation.

What is the system in India and the Far East...China for example? Broad or specialised?