There should be A*s at A Level

Watch
This discussion is closed.
Steve.Wren
Badges:
#21
Report 17 years ago
#21
[q1]> The whole upper end is saturated. What would you prefer, extra 'super-papers'?[/q1]

the AEA is basically a revamped version of the old "special papers".

As I understand it Unis are not taking them as an indicator as

a) many schools/colleges have not taken them up this year (what with so many other changes going on
in post 16)

b) the fact that only a limited number of subjects are currently able to be taken at AEA level - i
think there is a slow roll out program so that eventually all A level subjects will be covered.

I'm not sure what the best solution is.

I'm against making A level maths harder (either by moving grade boundaries or whatever) - already it
is officially the hardest a level - a lot harder than some! I can't recall the article reference but
some research had been done by QCA (or for them ) I believe.

Many GCSE students are basing there post-16 choices away from maths based on these issues. Similarly
lots of students are dropping maths at the AS stage as they are comparing there workload to get a
particular grade and realising it is taking them a lot more work effort to get the grade in maths
than other subjects. This evidence is largely anecdotal but I understand it is being looked at in a
more sophisticated manner by some bodies.

Steve
0
Brackets
Badges:
#22
Report 17 years ago
#22
"Danny" <[email protected]?.mo c> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[q1]> On a final point, Elitism is also 'bad' by definition:[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> "The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment[/q1]
[q1]> by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources"[/q1]

I think you'll find that our society is based on the premise that the more you have to give to
society (in our current example, intelligence (perhaps for research purposes or whatever)), the
better treatment you get (better education, more pay).

The word bad is not present in that definition.

--
Alex Studders Greggers Brackets
0
Chris Share
Badges:
#23
Report 17 years ago
#23
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:25:20 +0100s, Danny ([email protected]?.moc) said...
[q1]>I don't neccersarily think that A-levels are the perfect indicator of how well a person will do at[/q1]
[q1]>university. A person may have an excellent mathematical mind, for example, but because they don't[/q1]
[q1]>have the opportunity to go to a public school they shouldn't be denied the opportunity to persue[/q1]
[q1]>education to the highest level. When you say a person has to get A*A*A*A* (theoretically) at[/q1]
[q1]>A-level to get to Oxbridge, effectively you are only allowing the richest most advantaged students[/q1]
[q1]>in. A-level grade attainment is down to how good a student's teachers are as to how good they are[/q1]
[q1]>at the subject. Like you said, IQ tests are only good at measuring one's ability to do an IQ test.[/q1]
[q1]>A-levels are only measuring one's ability to do A-levels, and this ability is a result of much more[/q1]
[q1]>than just how good they are at that subject.[/q1]

By that logic, everyone here and at Oxford has straight A*s at GCSE and straight As at A-level.
Which is complete *******s - they'd take ABB where the A is amazingly high over someone who just
managed AAA any day. That's what interviews are for.

[q1]>I can see sense in what you're saying too, but at present I like the fact that the best[/q1]
[q1]>universities are more accessible, although not by much. On a final point, Elitism is also 'bad' by[/q1]
[q1]>definition:[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>"The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment[/q1]
[q1]>by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources"[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>Dan[/q1]

Elitism at uni is not bad, it's bloody necessary. As long as it's the right sort - elitism based on
wealth etc is bad, but based on intelligence, ability etc is needed. You think that Cambridge
should admit people with Ds at A-level, just because otherwise it'd be discrimination? That'd be
just moronic.

chris
0
Stuart Williams
Badges:
#24
Report 17 years ago
#24
In article <1hujguomdqj2aiecqr5j2519p3n4pvs [email protected]>, [email protected]?.moc says...
[q1]> ....[A] person may have an excellent mathematical mind, for example, but because they don't have[/q1]
[q1]> the opportunity to go to a public school they shouldn't be denied the opportunity to persue[/q1]
[q1]> education to the highest level.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
I haven't got any of the Times league tables in front of me, but I think you'll find that very many
schools averaging say ABB or better are actually State schools - nearly always grammar schools.
Restore the grammar school/direct grant school scheme and you'll massively increase university
access for less well-off students. Of course, it would have other effects besides (e.g. the creation
of sink Secondary Moderns) which might not be welcomed.

Stuart Williams
0
K. Edgcombe
Badges:
#25
Report 17 years ago
#25
In article <[email protected]>, Brackets
<[email protected] com> wrote:
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>"Danny" <[email protected]?.mo c> wrote in message[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>Yes, exactly my point. People who do well, get more benefit. Thats why people who get higher[/q1]
[q1]>grades, should get into the better universities, because, at least ideally, they are more[/q1]
[q1]>intelligent, or have more "intellect" as that definition puts it.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>I'm saying people should get favoured treatment because of their intelligence, and therefore,[/q1]
[q1]>universities are, and should be, elitist.[/q1]

It's not a matter of favoured treatment. There is no point in admitting someone to a highly
demanding university course if they are not going to be able to cope with it. If we are going to run
highly demanding courses (which is a different discussion, of course), and stretch the brightest
students, then we must endeavour to recruit for those courses the people who can cope with them.
Otherwise we waste everyone's time and create a great deal of frustration and misery.

A level grades are not an ideal way to do this, but they need to be part of the process.

When the Royal Academy of Music, for instance, shows a preference for recruiting students with some
talent for music, is this "favoured treatment", or just common sense?

Katy
0
Jhp
Badges:
#26
Report 17 years ago
#26
Danny <[email protected]?.mo c> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q1]> On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 13:56:50 +0100, "JHP"[/q1]
[q1]> <[email protected] t.co.uk> wrote:[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >Danny <[email protected]?.mo c> wrote in message[/q2]
[q2]> >news:[email protected]...[/q2]
[q2]> >> On 14 Jun 2002 03:03:17 -0700, [email protected] (Davido) wrote:[/q2]
[q2]> >>[/q2]
[q2]> >> >Hi, I'd just like to make a suggestion - what do you think?[/q2]
[q2]> >> >[/q2]
[q2]> >> >At present, you need a UMS of 80 for an A, 70 for a B, 60 for a C...[/q2]
[q2]> >> >[/q2]
[q2]> >> >Why not make 90 for A*?[/q2]
[q2]> >> >[/q2]
[q2]> >> >Because at present, whether you are extremely good at Maths and get[/q2]
[q2]> >> >e.g. 98%, or not brilliant like me and just scrape 80%, a grade A is a grade A. So for people[/q2]
[q2]> >> > at the very top, there's little gain out of doing so much more work.[/q2]
[q2]> >> >[/q2]
[q2]> >> >At GCSE I felt that for subjects such as Eng Lit you had to do the VERY best to get an A*.[/q2]
[q2]> >> >However at AS/A2 I slacked off a lot with the mentality "you only need 80 to get an A".[/q2]
[q2]> >> >[/q2]
[q2]> >> >This should not put too much pressure on students - perhaps only Oxbridge might ask for A*AA -[/q2]
[q2]> >> >e.g. A* in Maths if you're doing Maths.[/q2]
[q2]> >> >[/q2]
[q2]> >> >At present, whether you get 480/600 or 590/600 - that's a 110 mark difference, an A is an A.[/q2]
[q2]> >> >[/q2]
[q2]> >> >What are your thoughts on this?[/q2]
[q2]> >>[/q2]
[q2]> >> At least like this people in poorer quality inner city schools have the opportunity to get the[/q2]
[q2]> >> top unis, because as you say As are quite attainable by most people. Introducing A*s would make[/q2]
[q2]> >> it the standard for oxbridge etc so that they become even more elitist.[/q2]
[q2]> >>[/q2]
[q2]> >> Dan[/q2]
[q2]> >>[/q2]
[q2]> >You write as if 'elitist' were a bad thing. It is an entirely good thing[/q2]
as
[q2]> >far as education is concerned. It seems self-evident that the very best should be able to go to[/q2]
[q2]> >the very best institution (however they define[/q2]
that)
[q2]> >and so on down. The only respect in which elitism is a bad thing is in[/q2]
terms
[q2]> >of the differential opportunities that ppl have to excel.[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >As far as you proposal is concerned , I would certainly like to see a significantly more[/q2]
[q2]> >demanding exam regime for A levels. If that means[/q2]
setting
[q2]> >harder exams, being more demanding in marking or adding another grade, I don't really mind, but[/q2]
[q2]> >from my point of view there is now insufficient discrimination available from A levels to allow[/q2]
[q2]> >us to be elitist...[/q2]
[q2]> >[/q2]
[q2]> >.. because, like it or not, that is what we do.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I don't neccersarily think that A-levels are the perfect indicator of how well a person will do at[/q1]
[q1]> university. A person may have an excellent mathematical mind, for example, but because they don't[/q1]
[q1]> have the opportunity to go to a public school they shouldn't be denied the opportunity to persue[/q1]
[q1]> education to the highest level. When you say a person has to get A*A*A*A* (theoretically) at[/q1]
[q1]> A-level to get to Oxbridge, effectively you are only allowing the richest most advantaged students[/q1]
[q1]> in. A-level grade attainment is down to how good a student's teachers are as to how good they are[/q1]
[q1]> at the subject. Like you said, IQ tests are only good at measuring one's ability to do an IQ test.[/q1]
[q1]> A-levels are only measuring one's ability to do A-levels, and this ability is a result of much[/q1]
[q1]> more than just how good they are at that subject.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I can see sense in what you're saying too, but at present I like the fact that the best[/q1]
[q1]> universities are more accessible, although not by much. On a final point, Elitism is also 'bad' by[/q1]
[q1]> definition:[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> "The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment[/q1]
[q1]> by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources"[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Dan[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
A good definition, but I disagree that it's necessarily bad. It seems quite appropriate to me to
give more education resources to people who are better able to benefit from them. Elitism is the
sort of tin gthat plucks workin gcass kids out of theor schols and puts them into Balliol on theor
merit. The fact that that then deprives a marginal candidate from a higly funded school (Laura
Spence, perhaps) makes it all the better.

The difficulty with your argument is that it doesn't allow us to discriminate among the great crowds
of ppl who want our services (i.e. places on our degrees). I now that A levels don't predict
perfectly performance at university, but of course we on;t just take A levels into account. We also
have school references, background knowledge of the educational context (for example, what sort of
school you come from etcetera). The alternative (which we've explored here on occasion is to have
fully discounted system where we admit n some specious unmeasured estimate of 'potential'. That's
not what universities are about. We are not responsible for the school system; we have enough
trouble maintaining academic standards in our own institutions. John
0
Dr A. N. Walker
Badges:
#27
Report 17 years ago
#27
In article <o33kgugt0583v60slfb21q5v31rlfm6 [email protected]>, Danny
<[email protected]?.mo c> wrote:
[q1]>I sympathise with both sides of the argument. All I'm saying is give people a chance who get[/q1]
[q1]>slightly lower grades, don't let grades be the be all and end all.[/q1]

Admissions doesn't work like that. We don't know enough about applicants to be able to make
interestingly-differential offers, for the most part. Indeed, the pressures are on us from
UCAS and the guides to state clearly what our offer [singular]
is. Most departments will take a few people, depending on quotas and numbers of applicants, who
don't actually meet that offer, but it's still grade-driven, because we have to make instant
decisions with virtually no other evidence.

--
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. [email protected]
0
Jhp
Badges:
#28
Report 17 years ago
#28
ath <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
[q1]> There's enough of a disrimination in the actual A-Level the person is doing... wouldn't you rate[/q1]
[q1]> an A in Physics or Chemistry higher than an A[/q1]
in
[q1]> Politics or in Business Studies? Most universities have specific subject requirements and they[/q1]
[q1]> seem to... I do Politics to give me some relief[/q1]
from
[q1]> my other sciences and to be blunt its simple compared to Physics or Chemistry... ath[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
What tendentious nonsense. You underestimate the skills of expression needed in Politics, for
example, which are badly underdevelopod in ppl who have done excuslively science subjects. I would
guess that you are mistaking information content for development and critical ability. John
0
Brackets
Badges:
#29
Report 17 years ago
#29
"Davido" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q3]> > > An A* grade at A-level might over-pressure some students - just imagine trying to meet an[/q3]
[q3]> > > A*A*A*[/q3]
offer.
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I said it was provided that only Oxbridge use it, and have maximum offer A*AA = not that much[/q1]
[q1]> pressure.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I don't really agree with Danny that A Levels are elitist and that you can only get 90 if you are[/q1]
[q1]> from a top public school. I got 9A*s from an extremely poor state school by putting in the work.[/q1]
[q1]> At A Level in some cases the teachers aren't important - you can get 90+ by working hard.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I'm surprised, I thought more people at the "top" would agree with me[/q1]
[q1]> - I discussed this at school today with someone who's not only going to get AAAAA, but over 90% in[/q1]
[q1]> all of them, but she disagreed abt A*s.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I think the thread went immediately off-topic regarding elitism - my argument was that because UMS[/q1]
[q1]> 80 = A, there is no distinction between someone that scrapes an A, maybe by an unexpected 100 on[/q1]
[q1]> one paper and[/q1]
[q1]> B/C in the rest, and one that has scored 95%+ consistently.[/q1]

Although it sounds good in theory, but then why shouldn't we have categories in between all the
other possible grades? Why should someone 1 mark below an E be marked as badly as someone who didn't
turn up? I think universities should be given actual marks instead of grades, or at least in
addition to, so for borderline cases and so on they have more to go by. However, as far as I can
tell, employers couldn't really care less if you got 80 or 100, under their eyes you have "good"
a-levels, and thats as much as it counts for, in borderline cases they'll look at other things if
a-level grades are at all similar. Or am I wrong?

--
Alex Studders Greggers Brackets
0
Gaurav Sharma
Badges:
#30
Report 17 years ago
#30
"Davido" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q3]> > > An A* grade at A-level might over-pressure some students - just imagine trying to meet an[/q3]
[q3]> > > A*A*A*[/q3]
offer.
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I said it was provided that only Oxbridge use it, and have maximum offer A*AA = not that much[/q1]
[q1]> pressure.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I don't really agree with Danny that A Levels are elitist and that you can only get 90 if you are[/q1]
[q1]> from a top public school. I got 9A*s from an extremely poor state school by putting in the work.[/q1]
[q1]> At A Level in some cases the teachers aren't important - you can get 90+ by working hard.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I'm surprised, I thought more people at the "top" would agree with me[/q1]
[q1]> - I discussed this at school today with someone who's not only going to get AAAAA, but over 90% in[/q1]
[q1]> all of them, but she disagreed abt A*s.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> I think the thread went immediately off-topic regarding elitism - my argument was that because UMS[/q1]
[q1]> 80 = A, there is no distinction between someone that scrapes an A, maybe by an unexpected 100 on[/q1]
[q1]> one paper and[/q1]
[q1]> B/C in the rest, and one that has scored 95%+ consistently.[/q1]

But as I stated earlier it'll put more pressure on students. You could limit offers to AAA, but then
what's the point of A*s - to prove to friends that you can get a few more percent in your exams than
someone else? Most people don't even get A-grades, introducing an A* grade will just devalue what
they have more than neccasary.
G.Sharma.
0
Danny
Badges:
#31
Report 17 years ago
#31
On 14 Jun 2002 14:36:27 -0700, [email protected] (Davido) wrote:

[q2]>> > An A* grade at A-level might over-pressure some students - just imagine trying to meet an[/q2]
[q2]>> > A*A*A* offer.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>I said it was provided that only Oxbridge use it, and have maximum offer A*AA = not that much[/q1]
[q1]>pressure.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>I don't really agree with Danny that A Levels are elitist and that you can only get 90 if you are[/q1]
[q1]>from a top public school. I got 9A*s from an extremely poor state school by putting in the work. At[/q1]
[q1]>A Level in some cases the teachers aren't important - you can get 90+ by working hard.[/q1]

No but the chances are much higher if you are from a public school. I forgot who but someone earlier
was talking about getting the right (most intelligent) people into the best jobs. Howcomes the
'best' people (those at Oxbridge) are mostly from the highest social classes? It's not because upper
class people are more intelligent, but because they are given a better opportunity to get the best
they can. This is hardly getting the best suited people to the best jobs. I bet there are so many
people who are doing **** jobs now who would make excellent teachers, for example. I'm not sure
who's problem it is to be honest. All I know is that's it's a very complicated one and not as simple
and straightforward as 'the education system is elitist, and that's the only way, so get over it'.

Dan
0
Jhp
Badges:
#32
Report 17 years ago
#32
[q1]> As for elitism, I think someone who gets AAB from a inner city state school should be favoured[/q1]
[q1]> over someone with AAAAA from Winchester - as a generalisation the former has not been so[/q1]
[q1]> "spoon-fed" and is likely to do better at degree level.[/q1]

On what basis, exactly? As an AT you would have to justify that decision n the face of parents and
head teachers who would point out that the inner-city applicant has not in fact demonstrated the
solid, certified achievement of the Wykehamist. This is not a moral argument but a practical one.
How would you argue it in the court? Your approach would require such detailed knowledge of each
state school that the whole system would founder under its own weight. You also have to remember
that ATs are not interested in fairness overall, but in ensuring that we select the applicants best
fitted at the time of entry to do well on our courses. John
0
Very Wise
Badges:
#33
Report 17 years ago
#33
"ath" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
[q1]> There's enough of a disrimination in the actual A-Level the person is doing... wouldn't you rate[/q1]
[q1]> an A in Physics or Chemistry higher than an A[/q1]
in
[q1]> Politics or in Business Studies? Most universities have specific subject requirements and they[/q1]
[q1]> seem to... I do Politics to give me some relief[/q1]
from
[q1]> my other sciences and to be blunt its simple compared to Physics or Chemistry... ath[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
What are the top 5 most difficult subjects?

Physics, Chemsitry, Maths, Economics and History?
0
K. Edgcombe
Badges:
#34
Report 17 years ago
#34
In article <[email protected]>, JHP
<[email protected] t.co.uk> wrote:
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]>>[/q2]
[q2]>> As for elitism, I think someone who gets AAB from a inner city state school should be favoured[/q2]
[q2]>> over someone with AAAAA from Winchester - as a generalisation the former has not been so[/q2]
[q2]>> "spoon-fed" and is likely to do better at degree level.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>On what basis, exactly? As an AT you would have to justify that decision n the face of parents and[/q1]
[q1]>head teachers who would point out that the inner-city applicant has not in fact demonstrated the[/q1]
[q1]>solid, certified achievement of the Wykehamist.[/q1]

However, there is a case for considering whether the AAB candidate has shown potential in a way that
the Wykehamist has not been given the opportunity to
do. This should go into the melting pot along with all the other evidence.

Oxford and Cambridge, who have the *immense* privilege of being able to interview candidates at some
length, can think about making this sort of assessment, and they do. That's why I find it so odd
that people bleat about the interview process being elitist. It is precisely the interview process
that gives us some chance of spotting the potential star from the non-star school.

Katy
0
Becky Loader
Badges:
#35
Report 17 years ago
#35
"Becky Loader" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

[q1]> (2 A*, a smaller head, and slightly more sophistry)[/q1]

I could make a huge play of sophists and how I try to deceive you all by using blinding yet dodgy
arguments to prove my intelligence, but, to practise the very humbleness I was preaching, I, er,
didn't mean that :>

Becky
0
Mark Thakkar
Badges:
#36
Report 17 years ago
#36
Davido,

[q1]> I think someone who gets AAB from a inner city state school should be favoured over someone with[/q1]
[q1]> AAAAA from Winchester - as a generalisation the former has not been so "spoon-fed" and is likely[/q1]
[q1]> to do better at degree level.[/q1]

AAAAArgh! The idiot version of a comparatively sensible argument!

To see how utterly wrong you are, suppose you're at Winchester, taking five A-levels. What more can
you do than get AAAAA? If the point's not yet home, suppose you're Albert Einstein, but you've gone
to Winchester. Meanwhile someone far less intelligent has gone to a state school. Naturally you get
straight As [1] - but you don't get in, because you've been "spoon-fed" and are obviously likely to
do worse at degree level.

The comparatively sensible argument runs as follows: suppose you have two candidates, one of whom
has got AAB from an inner-city state school, and the other of whom has got AAB from Winchester.
/Then/, again as a generalization, the person who's got AAB from the inner-city state school should
be favoured over the person who's got AAB from Winchester.

The difference is that in this case the Winchester student has not performed as well as the
admissions tutor in question would like, given that he went to an extremely
good[-at-extracting-good-grades] school.

It really pains me to see the idiot version.

Mark.

[1] Whether or not Einstein would have got straight As at A-level is of course irrelevant. I
understand, though, that he wasn't only good at physics and maths.
0
Richard Magrath
Badges:
#37
Report 17 years ago
#37
[email protected] (Davido) wrote in message
news:<b74f6c67.0206150115.5fd8e9 [email protected]>...
[q3]> > >But above about 90% - most of it is down to exam technique, and the way you have been taught[/q3]
[q3]> > >rather than your actual ability at the subject. Some people who have perfect exam technique and[/q3]
[q3]> > >get straight 100's are often not that much cleverer than the people who get a random scatter of[/q3]
[q3]> > >marks in the low 80's. So i think having an A* would mean too much emphasis would be placed on[/q3]
[q3]> > >how you are taught.[/q3]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> eesh ive caused a bit of a stir havent i, 40 posts in half a day.[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> But looking at Rob Martin's comments I hate to say that makes perfect sense. As it is, instead of[/q1]
[q1]> enjoying the books for AS Literature and getting B grades, I have spent the last week when doing[/q1]
[q1]> my A Levels with a poster on my wall of the mark scheme, making sure I get all the "Assessment[/q1]
[q1]> Objectives" that AQA require into my essay, and that I mathematically distribute my comments[/q1]
[q1]> according to their respective weightings... This shows success at the top end has nowt to do with[/q1]
[q1]> how good you are but how well you follow the system. However in Maths I think the higher you do[/q1]
[q1]> the better you are.[/q1]

To extend that theory, I was going to suggest that the A* grade be awarded only for maths/science
subjects, or any other subject where there are definite right and wrong answers. A-levels as English
and, um, similar ones are just too subjective.

Rich
0
Davido
Badges:
#38
Report 17 years ago
#38
[q2]> > I got 9 of them at GCSE you may think I would be all for it.[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]> Did you really? Good job you said: I absolutely needed that 35th mention of it for it to finally[/q1]
[q1]> sink in...[/q1]

Hahahahahaha. I need to catch up with Brian, I've only mentioned mine 15 times :-P but my AS grades
only once for some reason......
0
Brackets
Badges:
#39
Report 17 years ago
#39
"steve.wren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
[q2]> > The whole upper end is saturated. What would you prefer, extra 'super-papers'?[/q2]

[q1]> b) the fact that only a limited number of subjects are currently able to[/q1]
be
[q1]> taken at AEA level - i think there is a slow roll out program so that eventually all A level[/q1]
[q1]> subjects will be covered.[/q1]

I was going to pick up on this point. How can those of us who don't do maths show our flair in
other subjects?

--
Alex Studders Greggers Brackets
0
Danny
Badges:
#40
Report 17 years ago
#40
On Fri, 14 Jun 2002 15:33:17 +0100, "Brackets" <[email protected] com> wrote:

[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>"Danny" <[email protected]?.mo c> wrote in message[/q1]
[q1]>news:[email protected]...[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q2]>> On a final point, Elitism is also 'bad' by definition:[/q2]
[q2]>>[/q2]
[q2]>> "The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored[/q2]
[q2]>> treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial[/q2]
[q2]>> resources"[/q2]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>I think you'll find that our society is based on the premise that the more you have to give to[/q1]
[q1]>society (in our current example, intelligence (perhaps for research purposes or whatever)), the[/q1]
[q1]>better treatment you get (better education, more pay).[/q1]
[q1]>[/q1]
[q1]>The word bad is not present in that definition.[/q1]

Yes I do find it is, I'm not saying it's right though. The word bad is not in that definition but
are you saying people should get favoured treatment due to their social status, financial resources
etc? I think this is a bad thing. Ideally we should live in a more meritocratic sociey.

Dan
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Regarding Ofqual's most recent update, do you think you will be given a fair grade this summer?

Yes (267)
34.19%
No (514)
65.81%

Watched Threads

View All