uk education system
i just wanted to talk about how terrible both us and uk education systems.
1. us system is too easy in high school imo. BUT uni is so expensive like 2x as much as it costs iin the uk. so rich ppl are the only ones who can get degrees, so can stay rich because of this, and lower income families connot get degrees, so cannot get higher paying jobs. its stupid.
2. uk system is too exam-based. I consider myself to be clever, i have an IQ of 145, which i think is good idk, but i am so terribly bad at exams, like i get confident A predictions and am the best in my classes, yet i get Cs and even Ds in my exams because i cannot do them. exams dont show the potential of all students. so i think it should be a mixture, like half a levels and half in class stuff, they will take it into account. I UNDERSTAND that this could be similar to the us system, but i dont like the whole gpa thing, as it is unfair to students who cannoot come to school for reasons like mental health, or physical health.
what do yall think
1. us system is too easy in high school imo. BUT uni is so expensive like 2x as much as it costs iin the uk. so rich ppl are the only ones who can get degrees, so can stay rich because of this, and lower income families connot get degrees, so cannot get higher paying jobs. its stupid.
2. uk system is too exam-based. I consider myself to be clever, i have an IQ of 145, which i think is good idk, but i am so terribly bad at exams, like i get confident A predictions and am the best in my classes, yet i get Cs and even Ds in my exams because i cannot do them. exams dont show the potential of all students. so i think it should be a mixture, like half a levels and half in class stuff, they will take it into account. I UNDERSTAND that this could be similar to the us system, but i dont like the whole gpa thing, as it is unfair to students who cannoot come to school for reasons like mental health, or physical health.
what do yall think
Original post by beefreya
i just wanted to talk about how terrible both us and uk education systems.
1. us system is too easy in high school imo. BUT uni is so expensive like 2x as much as it costs iin the uk. so rich ppl are the only ones who can get degrees, so can stay rich because of this, and lower income families connot get degrees, so cannot get higher paying jobs. its stupid.
2. uk system is too exam-based. I consider myself to be clever, i have an IQ of 145, which i think is good idk, but i am so terribly bad at exams, like i get confident A predictions and am the best in my classes, yet i get Cs and even Ds in my exams because i cannot do them. exams dont show the potential of all students. so i think it should be a mixture, like half a levels and half in class stuff, they will take it into account. I UNDERSTAND that this could be similar to the us system, but i dont like the whole gpa thing, as it is unfair to students who cannoot come to school for reasons like mental health, or physical health.
what do yall think
1. us system is too easy in high school imo. BUT uni is so expensive like 2x as much as it costs iin the uk. so rich ppl are the only ones who can get degrees, so can stay rich because of this, and lower income families connot get degrees, so cannot get higher paying jobs. its stupid.
2. uk system is too exam-based. I consider myself to be clever, i have an IQ of 145, which i think is good idk, but i am so terribly bad at exams, like i get confident A predictions and am the best in my classes, yet i get Cs and even Ds in my exams because i cannot do them. exams dont show the potential of all students. so i think it should be a mixture, like half a levels and half in class stuff, they will take it into account. I UNDERSTAND that this could be similar to the us system, but i dont like the whole gpa thing, as it is unfair to students who cannoot come to school for reasons like mental health, or physical health.
what do yall think
Very few people pay for uni/college out of pocket. Either in the UK or US. That's the entire point of having student loans. Which admittedly are constructed better in the UK than US. But the cost is not stopping poor people from pursuing degrees - the idea of crippling debt might. Also, whilst the fees are ridiculously high in the US, you can't just compare it to the UK because the earning potential is much different and there is a lot of variation from state to state. Lastly, having a degree doesn't guarantee a well paid job. Not in the UK, not in the US, not anywhere.
Students have to be assessed in some way to be awarded a degree. I don't think there is any doubt about that. However, there is no perfect solution to this. Exams mostly test the student's memory rather than their ability to apply the concepts which I suppose can be alright for humanities, but maybe not so much for STEM degrees. Using coursework instead is a pretty good option in my opinion, although it introduces the factor of uncertainty whether the student has produced the work independently. Using "classroom work" to assess students is an awful idea because of various reasons, including introducing bias (the teacher likes the student = good grade; the teacher dislikes the student = bad grade), much more room for interpretation (e.g. lack of strict criteria means a professor can grade something poorly because he or she personally dislikes it rather than because the quality is poor), classroom work represents a very small portion of all the learning university students should be doing and is in no way a good representation of their abilities.
IQ is a very poor measure of intelligence hence it's not used by any serious institutions. Looking at your post, it seems like you may not be performing very well in exams because of problems with your writing including the fact that you clearly don't check what you're writing/typing, and your poor punctuation and capitalisation. It also seems like you have made a post without doing much research into the subject which I suppose is fine for a discussion or rant thread, but if your attitude is similar to your revision, then it's a major problem.
The US system has its perks, including the fact that students can take college-level classes in highschool and that they have a lot more influence on what modules they take, unlike in UK universities.
Finally, if somebody cannot pursue higher education because of physical or mental health problem then they simply shouldn't pursue higher education until their health improves. However, in terms of highschool and secondary school I do understand that some people are simply victims of circumstance.
Original post by Mara1680
Very few people pay for uni/college out of pocket. Either in the UK or US. That's the entire point of having student loans. Which admittedly are constructed better in the UK than US. But the cost is not stopping poor people from pursuing degrees - the idea of crippling debt might. Also, whilst the fees are ridiculously high in the US, you can't just compare it to the UK because the earning potential is much different and there is a lot of variation from state to state. Lastly, having a degree doesn't guarantee a well paid job. Not in the UK, not in the US, not anywhere.
Students have to be assessed in some way to be awarded a degree. I don't think there is any doubt about that. However, there is no perfect solution to this. Exams mostly test the student's memory rather than their ability to apply the concepts which I suppose can be alright for humanities, but maybe not so much for STEM degrees. Using coursework instead is a pretty good option in my opinion, although it introduces the factor of uncertainty whether the student has produced the work independently. Using "classroom work" to assess students is an awful idea because of various reasons, including introducing bias (the teacher likes the student = good grade; the teacher dislikes the student = bad grade), much more room for interpretation (e.g. lack of strict criteria means a professor can grade something poorly because he or she personally dislikes it rather than because the quality is poor), classroom work represents a very small portion of all the learning university students should be doing and is in no way a good representation of their abilities.
IQ is a very poor measure of intelligence hence it's not used by any serious institutions. Looking at your post, it seems like you may not be performing very well in exams because of problems with your writing including the fact that you clearly don't check what you're writing/typing, and your poor punctuation and capitalisation. It also seems like you have made a post without doing much research into the subject which I suppose is fine for a discussion or rant thread, but if your attitude is similar to your revision, then it's a major problem.
The US system has its perks, including the fact that students can take college-level classes in highschool and that they have a lot more influence on what modules they take, unlike in UK universities.
Finally, if somebody cannot pursue higher education because of physical or mental health problem then they simply shouldn't pursue higher education until their health improves. However, in terms of highschool and secondary school I do understand that some people are simply victims of circumstance.
Students have to be assessed in some way to be awarded a degree. I don't think there is any doubt about that. However, there is no perfect solution to this. Exams mostly test the student's memory rather than their ability to apply the concepts which I suppose can be alright for humanities, but maybe not so much for STEM degrees. Using coursework instead is a pretty good option in my opinion, although it introduces the factor of uncertainty whether the student has produced the work independently. Using "classroom work" to assess students is an awful idea because of various reasons, including introducing bias (the teacher likes the student = good grade; the teacher dislikes the student = bad grade), much more room for interpretation (e.g. lack of strict criteria means a professor can grade something poorly because he or she personally dislikes it rather than because the quality is poor), classroom work represents a very small portion of all the learning university students should be doing and is in no way a good representation of their abilities.
IQ is a very poor measure of intelligence hence it's not used by any serious institutions. Looking at your post, it seems like you may not be performing very well in exams because of problems with your writing including the fact that you clearly don't check what you're writing/typing, and your poor punctuation and capitalisation. It also seems like you have made a post without doing much research into the subject which I suppose is fine for a discussion or rant thread, but if your attitude is similar to your revision, then it's a major problem.
The US system has its perks, including the fact that students can take college-level classes in highschool and that they have a lot more influence on what modules they take, unlike in UK universities.
Finally, if somebody cannot pursue higher education because of physical or mental health problem then they simply shouldn't pursue higher education until their health improves. However, in terms of highschool and secondary school I do understand that some people are simply victims of circumstance.
tbh ur right it was a rant thread...I suffer from memory issues due to my epilepsy and my medication, so this is why I am terrible at exams, obviously I do loads of revision, In fact I have to do more than most people due to issues with my long term memory, so this is why I am bad at exams for literal health and neurological reasons, not because I don't check my writing. I was ranting also which is why my spelling etc was bad. The reason I was ranting is I had just gotten out of an exam and literally couldn't remember anything, it was so frustrating because I knew the stuff, I had done it in class, but in the exam, I just couldn't remember it. So from my point of view, exams are unfair to students like me, who work harder than most, but simply cannot do well due to the fact that the system is fully adapted to test memory (as you said) which a lot of people like me are not good at. I have extra time, but tbh an extra 15 minutes, although it majorly helps, it doesn't just magically heal my epilepsy. I appreciate the actual research you did into this, and I am glad you could explain and dispute my points, the post was me just expressing my frustration out, and when I was talking about the us, I added that in there because of the low income stuff, because I have a friend whose family has not been able to get out of their financial situation simply due to the fact that they don't have the qualifications to get a better job. She is such a smart person, and she deserves to succeed, so it hurts me to see her suffer because of the stupid systems put in place.
(edited 11 months ago)
Original post by beefreya
i just wanted to talk about how terrible both us and uk education systems.
1. us system is too easy in high school imo. BUT uni is so expensive like 2x as much as it costs iin the uk. so rich ppl are the only ones who can get degrees, so can stay rich because of this, and lower income families connot get degrees, so cannot get higher paying jobs. its stupid.
2. uk system is too exam-based. I consider myself to be clever, i have an IQ of 145, which i think is good idk, but i am so terribly bad at exams, like i get confident A predictions and am the best in my classes, yet i get Cs and even Ds in my exams because i cannot do them. exams dont show the potential of all students. so i think it should be a mixture, like half a levels and half in class stuff, they will take it into account. I UNDERSTAND that this could be similar to the us system, but i dont like the whole gpa thing, as it is unfair to students who cannoot come to school for reasons like mental health, or physical health.
what do yall think
1. us system is too easy in high school imo. BUT uni is so expensive like 2x as much as it costs iin the uk. so rich ppl are the only ones who can get degrees, so can stay rich because of this, and lower income families connot get degrees, so cannot get higher paying jobs. its stupid.
2. uk system is too exam-based. I consider myself to be clever, i have an IQ of 145, which i think is good idk, but i am so terribly bad at exams, like i get confident A predictions and am the best in my classes, yet i get Cs and even Ds in my exams because i cannot do them. exams dont show the potential of all students. so i think it should be a mixture, like half a levels and half in class stuff, they will take it into account. I UNDERSTAND that this could be similar to the us system, but i dont like the whole gpa thing, as it is unfair to students who cannoot come to school for reasons like mental health, or physical health.
what do yall think
1. You're right, although US has extracurricular activities, AP so it isn't that easy. They also have AP Physics C (calculus-based physics) which isn't in Physics A-level. There are scholarships and financial aid although it isn't that common, and you could always go to community college then transfer to elite uni (although that is hard).
2. 145 IQ is highly gifted, you are 3SD above the mean, top 0.1% intelligence (approx). But intelligent people can be bad at exams (there are exam techniques). People thought i could do well but y'know, sometimes i underperformed (especially in A-level when i took too many modules first time around for IAL). For mixture, one could do IAL (multiple exam entries).
Original post by Mara1680
Very few people pay for uni/college out of pocket. Either in the UK or US. That's the entire point of having student loans. Which admittedly are constructed better in the UK than US. But the cost is not stopping poor people from pursuing degrees - the idea of crippling debt might. Also, whilst the fees are ridiculously high in the US, you can't just compare it to the UK because the earning potential is much different and there is a lot of variation from state to state. Lastly, having a degree doesn't guarantee a well paid job. Not in the UK, not in the US, not anywhere.
Students have to be assessed in some way to be awarded a degree. I don't think there is any doubt about that. However, there is no perfect solution to this. Exams mostly test the student's memory rather than their ability to apply the concepts which I suppose can be alright for humanities, but maybe not so much for STEM degrees. Using coursework instead is a pretty good option in my opinion, although it introduces the factor of uncertainty whether the student has produced the work independently. Using "classroom work" to assess students is an awful idea because of various reasons, including introducing bias (the teacher likes the student = good grade; the teacher dislikes the student = bad grade), much more room for interpretation (e.g. lack of strict criteria means a professor can grade something poorly because he or she personally dislikes it rather than because the quality is poor), classroom work represents a very small portion of all the learning university students should be doing and is in no way a good representation of their abilities.
IQ is a very poor measure of intelligence hence it's not used by any serious institutions. Looking at your post, it seems like you may not be performing very well in exams because of problems with your writing including the fact that you clearly don't check what you're writing/typing, and your poor punctuation and capitalisation. It also seems like you have made a post without doing much research into the subject which I suppose is fine for a discussion or rant thread, but if your attitude is similar to your revision, then it's a major problem.
The US system has its perks, including the fact that students can take college-level classes in highschool and that they have a lot more influence on what modules they take, unlike in UK universities.
Finally, if somebody cannot pursue higher education because of physical or mental health problem then they simply shouldn't pursue higher education until their health improves. However, in terms of highschool and secondary school I do understand that some people are simply victims of circumstance.
Students have to be assessed in some way to be awarded a degree. I don't think there is any doubt about that. However, there is no perfect solution to this. Exams mostly test the student's memory rather than their ability to apply the concepts which I suppose can be alright for humanities, but maybe not so much for STEM degrees. Using coursework instead is a pretty good option in my opinion, although it introduces the factor of uncertainty whether the student has produced the work independently. Using "classroom work" to assess students is an awful idea because of various reasons, including introducing bias (the teacher likes the student = good grade; the teacher dislikes the student = bad grade), much more room for interpretation (e.g. lack of strict criteria means a professor can grade something poorly because he or she personally dislikes it rather than because the quality is poor), classroom work represents a very small portion of all the learning university students should be doing and is in no way a good representation of their abilities.
IQ is a very poor measure of intelligence hence it's not used by any serious institutions. Looking at your post, it seems like you may not be performing very well in exams because of problems with your writing including the fact that you clearly don't check what you're writing/typing, and your poor punctuation and capitalisation. It also seems like you have made a post without doing much research into the subject which I suppose is fine for a discussion or rant thread, but if your attitude is similar to your revision, then it's a major problem.
The US system has its perks, including the fact that students can take college-level classes in highschool and that they have a lot more influence on what modules they take, unlike in UK universities.
Finally, if somebody cannot pursue higher education because of physical or mental health problem then they simply shouldn't pursue higher education until their health improves. However, in terms of highschool and secondary school I do understand that some people are simply victims of circumstance.
IQ is a good measure of intelligence. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf
The US system is very flexible, although a bit decentralised.
Other than that i agree
Original post by beefreya
tbh ur right it was a rant thread...I suffer from memory issues due to my epilepsy and my medication, so this is why I am terrible at exams, obviously I do loads of revision, In fact I have to do more than most people due to issues with my long term memory, so this is why I am bad at exams for literal health and neurological reasons, not because I don't check my writing. I was ranting also which is why my spelling etc was bad. The reason I was ranting is I had just gotten out of an exam and literally couldn't remember anything, it was so frustrating because I knew the stuff, I had done it in class, but in the exam, I just couldn't remember it. So from my point of view, exams are unfair to students like me, who work harder than most, but simply cannot do well due to the fact that the system is fully adapted to test memory (as you said) which a lot of people like me are not good at. I have extra time, but tbh an extra 15 minutes, although it majorly helps, it doesn't just magically heal my epilepsy. I appreciate the actual research you did into this, and I am glad you could explain and dispute my points, the post was me just expressing my frustration out, and when I was talking about the us, I added that in there because of the low income stuff, because I have a friend whose family has not been able to get out of their financial situation simply due to the fact that they don't have the qualifications to get a better job. She is such a smart person, and she deserves to succeed, so it hurts me to see her suffer because of the stupid systems put in place.
There's nothing wrong with a rant. It's good to get things off your chest rather than remaining frustrated. And it does open up the opportunity for discussion.
I completely agree that some students are put at a disadvantage by the system. In theory, that is why we are supposed to have all sorts of aids (e.g. scribes, extra time etc.) but realistically it seems like most educational institutions are not very accessible to students who might suffer from conditions that affect their learning ability. I've had countless dyslexic people tell me that extra time doesn't solve the problem, because having a couple more minutes to do the exam won't actually make them remember how to spell, fix their handwriting etc. so they will still lose marks based on a learning disability.
Another thing is that exams are supposed to measure the student's ability rather than the effort they put into their studies. In America the professors have a little bit more leeway in how they grade their students (some choose to scrap exams altogether) but in the UK the rules are stricter on that. There are many students who put in a lot of effort but underperform, just like there are a lot of students who neglect their revision and yet still achieve somewhat decent marks.
I'm not really sure how this problem could be solved because a potential employer is interested in how well the person with a certain qualification can perform. In the case of more vocational subjects I think it would be better to have open book exams where the students have to apply the knowledge to a somewhat real-life application they could encounter in their chosen way of work. However, with humanities this becomes a problem because many subjects only directly relate to the job of teaching that particular subject. Things like ancient history cannot really easily be assigned a real-life application (no problem with ancient history specifically, it's just the first thing that came to my head). I personally believe that open book exams are a better reflection of the students performance. However, they of course have their downsides - e.g. a large chunk of the assigned time is spent looking through notes rather than completing the assignment.
In terms of income and qualifications, the problem in my opinion is that there is an over-saturation of graduates which makes employers demand degrees for jobs that could be done either without them or with a training course. This is why having a degree doesn't guarantee you a job, but not having any relevant qualifications puts you at a disadvantage. Data from 2021 shows that 38% of 18 year olds have been accepted to university and due to start within the year. This means that all of these people will graduate at the same time, and more than likely apply to the same jobs. When the recruiters see that all applicants have a degree it doesn't mean much anymore and they have to turn to other things like work experience and extracurriculars. Even the degree classification doesn't mean much (32% of grads last year achieved a first, compared to 17% a decade ago). The cost of qualifications (not just degrees) is massively inflated. It should not cost £9250 for one year to go to university, that's not reasonable. Whilst in the UK the student loans can be a big help, in the US the system works differently and many people end up in big financial trouble because of their student loans. Lastly, it seems that employers are unwilling to give people a chance especially with the economy still recovering. That's hypothetically why we have different minimum wage based on age - to encourage employers to hire young people. I'm not sure about the statistics on that but from my own job searching experience and what my friends have told me, it can be really hard to find a job, not even a good one, just any job when you don't have experience. Lastly, it seems unfair and honestly a pretty poor decision, that it's easier for an 18 year old to take on £40,000 of debt to get a qualification that they might not even use, than it is for somebody to get any help with covering the cost of vocational qualifications which are also ridiculously expensive but more likely to lead to a job.
I have seen time after time, across different companies that competent people don't get good jobs - people with good connections do. There is no amount of work experience or qualifications that can top being a family member of some high up manager.
Original post by justlearning1469
1. You're right, although US has extracurricular activities, AP so it isn't that easy. They also have AP Physics C (calculus-based physics) which isn't in Physics A-level. There are scholarships and financial aid although it isn't that common, and you could always go to community college then transfer to elite uni (although that is hard).
2. 145 IQ is highly gifted, you are 3SD above the mean, top 0.1% intelligence (approx). But intelligent people can be bad at exams (there are exam techniques). People thought i could do well but y'know, sometimes i underperformed (especially in A-level when i took too many modules first time around for IAL). For mixture, one could do IAL (multiple exam entries).
IQ is a good measure of intelligence. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf
The US system is very flexible, although a bit decentralised.
Other than that i agree
2. 145 IQ is highly gifted, you are 3SD above the mean, top 0.1% intelligence (approx). But intelligent people can be bad at exams (there are exam techniques). People thought i could do well but y'know, sometimes i underperformed (especially in A-level when i took too many modules first time around for IAL). For mixture, one could do IAL (multiple exam entries).
IQ is a good measure of intelligence. https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/The-g-factor-the-science-of-mental-ability-Arthur-R.-Jensen.pdf
The US system is very flexible, although a bit decentralised.
Other than that i agree
IQ doesn't actually test somebody's intelligence - it tests memory and pattern recognition which can be an indication of intelligence but isn't synonymous with it. You could have an autistic person (using as an example because autism can heighten pattern recognition) who will score very well, indicating they are extremely intelligent, and yet be low functioning and unable to deal with everyday struggles. This is why IQ can be a good indication of things like academic performance, but not intelligence in general.
As there are different tests, some test other skills like verbal reasoning which puts certain demographics of people at a disadvantage. For example, you wouldn't say to a dyslexic person "Sorry bro, you're just stupid" because of a learning disability. Historical data also shows that ethic minorities score lower than white people. This means that either: 1. IQ scores are not a good indication of intelligence or 2. Ethic minorities are less intelligent than white people (one more step towards eugenics, yay).
It's also entirely possible to "cheat" IQ tests - the more of them you take/practice the higher you score (although I assume there is still some cap on it). Obviously, you're not getting smarter through retaking the test, but you are training your pattern recognition. There have been people who have developed "strategies" of performing well in IQ tests, which of course skews the score and potentially even the bell curve.
Additionally as it is the intelligence quotient it means that other problems are derived from the statistical assumptions. As the score is measured against a bell curve of the given demographic, your IQ could increase or decrease based on whether you take it the day before or after your birthday.
All IQ tests are biased in some way.
And of course there is the fact that people blatantly misinterpret them and finally, the fact that there are different tests means that the same person can achieve different scores in all of them which means the scale is not reliable. Actually, the same person taking the same person on a different day can score differently based on factors such as how much effort they put into taking the test, how well rested and prepared they are etc.
Original post by Mara1680
IQ doesn't actually test somebody's intelligence - it tests memory and pattern recognition which can be an indication of intelligence but isn't synonymous with it. You could have an autistic person (using as an example because autism can heighten pattern recognition) who will score very well, indicating they are extremely intelligent, and yet be low functioning and unable to deal with everyday struggles. This is why IQ can be a good indication of things like academic performance, but not intelligence in general.
As there are different tests, some test other skills like verbal reasoning which puts certain demographics of people at a disadvantage. For example, you wouldn't say to a dyslexic person "Sorry bro, you're just stupid" because of a learning disability. Historical data also shows that ethic minorities score lower than white people. This means that either: 1. IQ scores are not a good indication of intelligence or 2. Ethic minorities are less intelligent than white people (one more step towards eugenics, yay).
It's also entirely possible to "cheat" IQ tests - the more of them you take/practice the higher you score (although I assume there is still some cap on it). Obviously, you're not getting smarter through retaking the test, but you are training your pattern recognition. There have been people who have developed "strategies" of performing well in IQ tests, which of course skews the score and potentially even the bell curve.
Additionally as it is the intelligence quotient it means that other problems are derived from the statistical assumptions. As the score is measured against a bell curve of the given demographic, your IQ could increase or decrease based on whether you take it the day before or after your birthday.
All IQ tests are biased in some way.
And of course there is the fact that people blatantly misinterpret them and finally, the fact that there are different tests means that the same person can achieve different scores in all of them which means the scale is not reliable. Actually, the same person taking the same person on a different day can score differently based on factors such as how much effort they put into taking the test, how well rested and prepared they are etc.
As there are different tests, some test other skills like verbal reasoning which puts certain demographics of people at a disadvantage. For example, you wouldn't say to a dyslexic person "Sorry bro, you're just stupid" because of a learning disability. Historical data also shows that ethic minorities score lower than white people. This means that either: 1. IQ scores are not a good indication of intelligence or 2. Ethic minorities are less intelligent than white people (one more step towards eugenics, yay).
It's also entirely possible to "cheat" IQ tests - the more of them you take/practice the higher you score (although I assume there is still some cap on it). Obviously, you're not getting smarter through retaking the test, but you are training your pattern recognition. There have been people who have developed "strategies" of performing well in IQ tests, which of course skews the score and potentially even the bell curve.
Additionally as it is the intelligence quotient it means that other problems are derived from the statistical assumptions. As the score is measured against a bell curve of the given demographic, your IQ could increase or decrease based on whether you take it the day before or after your birthday.
All IQ tests are biased in some way.
And of course there is the fact that people blatantly misinterpret them and finally, the fact that there are different tests means that the same person can achieve different scores in all of them which means the scale is not reliable. Actually, the same person taking the same person on a different day can score differently based on factors such as how much effort they put into taking the test, how well rested and prepared they are etc.
IQ test do test intelligene, according to these psychological studies.
IQ is supposed to be general intelligence, fair and square. Not social skills.
If the verbal is unusually low it can be used to screen for dyslexia. And if the person is dyslexic, we put less weighting on verbal for FSIQ.
It's entirely possible to cheat (practice effect) but those results would be discarded, if proper procedure is followed.
IQ tests aren't 100% accurate, which is why there is a margin of error.
Original post by beefreya
i just wanted to talk about how terrible both us and uk education systems.
1. us system is too easy in high school imo. BUT uni is so expensive like 2x as much as it costs iin the uk. so rich ppl are the only ones who can get degrees, so can stay rich because of this, and lower income families connot get degrees, so cannot get higher paying jobs. its stupid.
2. uk system is too exam-based. I consider myself to be clever, i have an IQ of 145, which i think is good idk, but i am so terribly bad at exams, like i get confident A predictions and am the best in my classes, yet i get Cs and even Ds in my exams because i cannot do them. exams dont show the potential of all students. so i think it should be a mixture, like half a levels and half in class stuff, they will take it into account. I UNDERSTAND that this could be similar to the us system, but i dont like the whole gpa thing, as it is unfair to students who cannoot come to school for reasons like mental health, or physical health.
what do yall think
1. us system is too easy in high school imo. BUT uni is so expensive like 2x as much as it costs iin the uk. so rich ppl are the only ones who can get degrees, so can stay rich because of this, and lower income families connot get degrees, so cannot get higher paying jobs. its stupid.
2. uk system is too exam-based. I consider myself to be clever, i have an IQ of 145, which i think is good idk, but i am so terribly bad at exams, like i get confident A predictions and am the best in my classes, yet i get Cs and even Ds in my exams because i cannot do them. exams dont show the potential of all students. so i think it should be a mixture, like half a levels and half in class stuff, they will take it into account. I UNDERSTAND that this could be similar to the us system, but i dont like the whole gpa thing, as it is unfair to students who cannoot come to school for reasons like mental health, or physical health.
what do yall think
Scottish System is the best, anyone who says otherwise is salty they have to pay tuition fees :/
Original post by beefreya
i just wanted to talk about how terrible both us and uk education systems.
1. us system is too easy in high school imo. BUT uni is so expensive like 2x as much as it costs iin the uk. so rich ppl are the only ones who can get degrees, so can stay rich because of this, and lower income families connot get degrees, so cannot get higher paying jobs. its stupid.
2. uk system is too exam-based. I consider myself to be clever, i have an IQ of 145, which i think is good idk, but i am so terribly bad at exams, like i get confident A predictions and am the best in my classes, yet i get Cs and even Ds in my exams because i cannot do them. exams dont show the potential of all students. so i think it should be a mixture, like half a levels and half in class stuff, they will take it into account. I UNDERSTAND that this could be similar to the us system, but i dont like the whole gpa thing, as it is unfair to students who cannoot come to school for reasons like mental health, or physical health.
what do yall think
1. us system is too easy in high school imo. BUT uni is so expensive like 2x as much as it costs iin the uk. so rich ppl are the only ones who can get degrees, so can stay rich because of this, and lower income families connot get degrees, so cannot get higher paying jobs. its stupid.
2. uk system is too exam-based. I consider myself to be clever, i have an IQ of 145, which i think is good idk, but i am so terribly bad at exams, like i get confident A predictions and am the best in my classes, yet i get Cs and even Ds in my exams because i cannot do them. exams dont show the potential of all students. so i think it should be a mixture, like half a levels and half in class stuff, they will take it into account. I UNDERSTAND that this could be similar to the us system, but i dont like the whole gpa thing, as it is unfair to students who cannoot come to school for reasons like mental health, or physical health.
what do yall think
I think you need to put less emphasis on IQ and put more practice into taking exams. The UK education system is actually very good. If you engage with it and study hard, you can learn a lot. It gives you a broad curriculum of knowledge and skills that give you a good grounding of the basics you can then use to specialise in whatever you like.
As for potential - that is a fair question. But if you are the best in the class, then surely you have the ability to figure out how to do exams. It is important that we learn how to remember key bits of knowledge. You wouldn't expect a surgeon to have a textbox handy to that she can remember how to perform an operation, or a car mechanic to need to watch a YouTube video so they can fix a car.
Good luck!
Original post by justlearning1469
IQ test do test intelligene, according to these psychological studies.
IQ is supposed to be general intelligence, fair and square. Not social skills.
If the verbal is unusually low it can be used to screen for dyslexia. And if the person is dyslexic, we put less weighting on verbal for FSIQ.
It's entirely possible to cheat (practice effect) but those results would be discarded, if proper procedure is followed.
IQ tests aren't 100% accurate, which is why there is a margin of error.
IQ is supposed to be general intelligence, fair and square. Not social skills.
If the verbal is unusually low it can be used to screen for dyslexia. And if the person is dyslexic, we put less weighting on verbal for FSIQ.
It's entirely possible to cheat (practice effect) but those results would be discarded, if proper procedure is followed.
IQ tests aren't 100% accurate, which is why there is a margin of error.
I get what you are saying, but no IQ is not actually a perfect measure of intelligence (it is okay, but can fluctuate depending on so many factors, some you can control for but lots you cannot, hence why the confidence intervals are so wide, a higher IQ will often have a huge window of confidence, so can be plus or minus 20 points), and they are also culturally bound (see IQ tests in non-western populations) and the theoretical framework (domains and models) do also differ across the different IQ tests (look at Stanford Binet, WAIS, Ravens, etc). Adaptive skills are key, which IQ tests like the WAIS do not measure. Put simply, how we function in life is not measured in an IQ. Also, IQ tests can of course be practised and it is impossible to reduce these effects when administered (thats why there is a retest clause put into IQs, as in not to be done before 12-14 month intervals for most of the main tests). This does not stop someone practicing before they come, and we do see this in children from high achieving families, hence why IQ should generally be used on those with suspected difficulties rather than the general population. I am not sure how you could get rid of these effects, as there is nothing in the procedure you can use to remove or reduce it.
(edited 11 months ago)
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- What should I know about the education systems in the UK before starting PGCE
- education systems
- UCAS - how to convert USA Bachelors and Masters into UK qualifications?
- ucas application
- Mathematics education
- College application
- Moved from the UK to Turkey
- Discrimination against English A level students 2023
- National 4 and 5 Scottish exams to be scrapped
- Why Not to Study in the Netherlands
- UK vs US for skl?
- Advice on completing high school & further education after taking time out?
- Convent my GCSE
- Gcse grade from africa are equal to which grades in uk.
- Moving to Scotland after year 12 in England
- GCSE english speech?
- Becoming a doctor in the US from UK medical school
- University of Manchester vs Fordham University
- Opportunities and challenges I've faced as an international student
- what is UCAS
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
