Students at it again

[MrFrost]

What are they playing at? I mean seriously?

Just heard a Radio interview with one of them who thought it was Thatcher who introduced tuition fees. Clearly half of them are just jumping on the \"hate the coalition bandwagon\".

I wonder why there were no riots when Labour first introduced the fee's, despite stating in their manifesto that they wouldn't.

Labour however, can do no wrong, and we all know that.

[VikingJames]

Maybe because the current generation are being made to pay silly prices by a load of people who went to Uni for nowt.

I'm fairly lucky (providing I get in) in the sense that I'm applying for Uni now for 2011 entry, but the poor buggers in the year below me will be racking up even bigger debts. If they've got the ability, everyone should get a fair crack of the whip, no matter how wealthy they are. If the government want to cut University places, fine, make entry requirements higher so that all the riff-raff doing useless degrees don't get in, and make sure that the people who deserve to study at University can do so.

[MrFrost]

VikingJames wrote:

Maybe because the current generation are being made to pay silly prices by a load of people who went to Uni for nowt.

I'm fairly lucky (providing I get in) in the sense that I'm applying for Uni now for 2011 entry, but the poor buggers in the year below me will be racking up even bigger debts. If they've got the ability, everyone should get a fair crack of the whip, no matter how wealthy they are. If the government want to cut University places, fine, make entry requirements higher so that all the riff-raff doing useless degrees don't get in, and make sure that the people who deserve to study at University can do so.

It was a Labour government who introduced fees in the first place.

I may be wrong, but aren't the Government just lifting the cap on tuition fees? The fees will be set by the uni's themselves?

I agree regarding the \"riff-raff\". Many people attend uni for the sake of getting pissed up and shagging about. I didn't bother with uni, I know alot who did. 95% of them haven't got a job off the back of their degree, and probably half of them are working in call centres at the age of 30.

Going to uni is seen as the fashionable and in thing to do. In alot of cases, it has sod all to do with education.

[VikingJames]

MrFrost wrote:

VikingJames wrote:

Maybe because the current generation are being made to pay silly prices by a load of people who went to Uni for nowt.

I'm fairly lucky (providing I get in) in the sense that I'm applying for Uni now for 2011 entry, but the poor buggers in the year below me will be racking up even bigger debts. If they've got the ability, everyone should get a fair crack of the whip, no matter how wealthy they are. If the government want to cut University places, fine, make entry requirements higher so that all the riff-raff doing useless degrees don't get in, and make sure that the people who deserve to study at University can do so.

It was a Labour government who introduced fees in the first place.

I may be wrong, but aren't the Government just lifting the cap on tuition fees? The fees will be set by the uni's themselves?

I agree regarding the \"riff-raff\". Many people attend uni for the sake of getting pissed up and shagging about. I didn't bother with uni, I know alot who did. 95% of them haven't got a job off the back of their degree, and probably half of them are working in call centres at the age of 30.

Going to uni is seen as the fashionable and in thing to do. In alot of cases, it has sod all to do with education.

I'm not talking Labour v Conservative. Leave that to all the other smartarses on here who are more clued up politically than I am.

And yeah, they are just lifting the cap on the fees, but I think most Uni's charge the maximum they can now, so when the cap is lifted, its unlikely that they're going to keep the fees down, especially when government funding is being withdrawn.

And you are right about the last part, there ARE too many idiots going to Uni who put no effort into their A levels, just go to Uni for the sake of it and come out with a mickey mouse degree. A rise in tuition fees may well put many of these people off from going, but it also has the potential of putting off deserving people who have the ability, but are affected by the financial side. Getting a degree is becoming more about whose got rich parents who can soften the financial blow, to make it worth their sons/daughters going to Uni, rather than who deserves to be there on merit. The sad thing is, a lot of talented people will probably not bother going because it just won't be worth it financially, and therefore they might never fill their potential; and surely that'll be bad for the economy? Skilled people who COULD get the top jobs missing out as they couldn't go to Uni.

EDIT - Another point is, it seems that the genuine student protestors who know what they're talking about were the ones demonstrating peacefully. Sadly the idiots who were just there for a punch-up and a bit of mindless destruction seem to be the ones who turned it violent.

[Boomstick]

Your absolutely spot on Mr Frost.
Why should hard working people, e.g. tradesmen who didnt go to uni pay higher taxes for incoherent chavs to do tourism studies at hull uni?
Uni should be for the top 20% intelectually gifted kids to do worthwhile studies like chemistry, engineering, biology etc. Thats where tax payers money should go, to the kids that will do degrees that are actually worth something and will ultimately improve and contribute to society later on.

Not everyone should or can go to uni, it is not a right either. You have to be clever enough. The last government cheapened degrees so much its unreal, I mean some of the kids that are going to uni nowadays are calling themselves students, but are infact not even fit to work in Greggs. They are a drain on society, time to sort it.

[Savvy]

MrFrost wrote:

What are they playing at? I mean seriously?

Just heard a Radio interview with one of them who thought it was Thatcher who introduced tuition fees. Clearly half of them are just jumping on the \"hate the coalition bandwagon\".

I wonder why there were no riots when Labour first introduced the fee's, despite stating in their manifesto that they wouldn't.

Labour however, can do no wrong, and we all know that.

As I recall there was protests at the introduction of fees and the general consensus has been from introduction that yes students should make a contribution towards their higher education.  The point of these protests is that they are attempting to put a university education beyond the reach of the ordinary working class lad/lass who has studied hard to meet the requirements for their particular course of study! My own opinion is that this is fundamentally wrong, and the chance of a university education should be available for all who wish to take it up! Having met the course entrance requirements of course!

If you yourself had taken the opportunity, perhaps some of these little \"unlucky Alf\" moments might not have come your way eh?  

[hoolahoop]

Boomstick I agree with your post in it's entirety and await the posts from all those Left-wingers on here who will no doubt re-write history for us.
This is democracy folks , this Coalition (with 60% of the voting electorate incidentally) is now seeking to run the country. Let them get on with it ffs, pre-election promises are made and broken by both elected and unelected parties. This is no different but I will never support those that seek to undermine the majority party/group because...........they lost!
This happens every time the Tories win an election , it always has and sets us back a step each time.
Democracy and the right to express oneself can NEVER override the rule of law and that is what is being allowed to happen here

[Boomstick]

hoolahoop wrote:

Boomstick I agree with your post in it's entirety and await the posts from all those Left-wingers on here who will no doubt re-write history for us.
This is democracy folks , this Coalition (with 60% of the voting electorate incidentally) is now seeking to run the country. Let them get on with it ffs, pre-election promises are made and broken by both elected and unelected parties. This is no different but I will never support those that seek to undermine the majority party/group because...........they lost!
This happens every time the Tories win an election , it always has and sets us back a step each time.
Democracy and the right to express oneself can NEVER override the rule of law and that is what is being allowed to happen here

Thanks hoolahoop, and I can really relate to what you just wrote. Especially on this forum and the ususal suspects.

[Savvy]

hoolahoop wrote:

Boomstick I agree with your post in it's entirety and await the posts from all those Left-wingers on here who will no doubt re-write history for us.
This is democracy folks , this Coalition (with 60% of the voting electorate incidentally) is now seeking to run the country. Let them get on with it ffs, pre-election promises are made and broken by both elected and unelected parties. This is no different but I will never support those that seek to undermine the majority party/group because...........they lost!
This happens every time the Tories win an election , it always has and sets us back a step each time.
Democracy and the right to express oneself can NEVER override the rule of law and that is what is being allowed to happen here[/quote]

Is this the same democracy in action that we saw last time under a tory regime? You know the kind that brings in myriad of anti Trade Union legislation to make sure calling a strike was a nigh on impossibility irrespective of the rights or wrongs of what an employer was trying to impose?

Might be your idea of democracy but definately not mine!!!  

[hoolahoop]

Savvy there you go again, that 'anti-trade union legilation' as you put it was to stop 'wildcat' strikes and ffs there were plenty of them.
What you really meant to say I think is that it was 'anti we can do what we like , when we like' legislation.
Please can you explain to me what exact 'democratic rights' were taken from the Unions, were they the one's whereby they used force to disrupt this country at a drop of a hat perhaps ?
The people of this country have the right to elect folk to run this country, not an individual union to disrupt it for their own ends.

[Savvy]

hoolahoop wrote:

Savvy there you go again, that 'anti-trade union legilation' as you put it was to stop 'wildcat' strikes and ffs there were plenty of them.
What you really meant to say I think is that it was 'anti we can do what we like , when we like' legislation.
Please can you explain to me what exact 'democratic rights' were taken from the Unions, were they the one's whereby they used force to disrupt this country at a drop of a hat perhaps ?
The people of this country have the right to elect folk to run this country, not an individual union to disrupt it for their own ends.

The democratic right that the tories were trying to get at because it didn't suit their version of democracy, was the right to withdraw your labour as and when you see fit!  

The people have the right to elect folk to run the country, but people don't have the right have an opposite viewpoint to theirs is that what your saying, cause that doesn't sound very democratic to me!!!

[Ian H]

(with 60% of the voting electorate incidentally)

Interesting thoughts on that considering that the Lib/Dem part of the voting electorate thought that they were on a \"Scrap Tuition Fees\" mandate.

Naive and stupid (and non-university educated) I am, but as the \"students\" only appear to have about 16 hours of lectures per week, why not make them 2 year degree courses instead of 3? ..... then the poor lambs can have their gap year early.

[hoolahoop]

Savvy wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

Savvy there you go again, that 'anti-trade union legilation' as you put it was to stop 'wildcat' strikes and ffs there were plenty of them.
What you really meant to say I think is that it was 'anti we can do what we like , when we like' legislation.
Please can you explain to me what exact 'democratic rights' were taken from the Unions, were they the one's whereby they used force to disrupt this country at a drop of a hat perhaps ?
The people of this country have the right to elect folk to run this country, not an individual union to disrupt it for their own ends.

The democratic right that the tories were trying to get at because it didn't suit their version of democracy, was the right to withdraw your labour as and when you see fit!  

The people have the right to elect folk to run the country, but people don't have the right have an opposite viewpoint to theirs is that what your saying, cause that doesn't sound very democratic to me!!!

You've been 'sold a pup' fella, there wasn't any legislation to prevent Unions from going on strike apart from the fact that proper discussions and secret votes be carried out democratically to ensure that decisions were made by the majority of the membership only when ALL other avenues had been explored. This was a period when both Management and Unions felt it was impossible to talk to each other in a mature way.

Obviously this could NOT continue in this manner in a mature democracy and both sides needed to think about the disruption they could cause to the country and it's inhabitants before proceeding in such a way. Admittedly some legislation was strengthened to prevent disruption to emergency services.

I know we will never agree on this issue  but I would be interested to read which undemocratic 'anti-union' legislation you were specifically referring to ?

[hoolahoop]

Savvy said:-
''The democratic right that the tories were trying to get at because it didn't suit
 their version of democracy, was the right to withdraw your labour as and when you see fit!''

So contracts should be ripped up at the slightest grievance should they ? What sense is there to that anymore than Companies should have the right to change 'terms of employment' without consultation. Both are wrong aren't they surely ?

[VivaRovers]

To drag this back to the actual subject...

What are they playing at? They're playing at standing up for what they believe in. Seriously.

Mr Frost, there were no riots against the tuition fess when introduced/risen by Labour, but there were demonstrations and protests. This rise is seen as the last straw by many, as such tempers have risen, tolerance has lessened and the protests have grown in number and in the case of the other week, developed a nasty edge too.

Yes it is the Universities which set the fees. However, the Government have risen the limit, and partnered this with cuts to funding to Universities. As such they've set a scenario where it is inevitable that tuition fees will rise, and in most cases to the top level.

The LibDems are part of the coalition. A key part of the LibDems manifesto was their pledge to not rise tuition fees, and it was this pledge which saw them become the most popular party amongst students in the run up to the Elections last year. Students voted for the LibDems on that promise and have seen them completely go against that to become within teh coalition. So hating the coalition from most students is not 'a bandwagon' but a genuine anger at being used and abused for a vote.

Suggestions that only those in the top 20% at school or whatever should be allowed/able to go to University are not feasible. The student-body is a wide spectrum. It includes student-nurses and student-doctors. Can you guarantee all these people would have finished in the top 20% at school? What about mature students, who return to study having failed at school?

And thats before the cost issue. Regardless of when the costs have to be met by students, they have to be met by students. As such they are likely to put a lot of people off, mainly those from working class backgrounds. And therefore you lose out on having as a first example that comes to mind, teachers who can relate to the children they teach.

Its easy to make sweeping generalisations, and students often cop for an unfair share of this.

[hoolahoop]

I take it that these current students will be more than happy to pick up the bill on their Income tax then for the next generation or are we as a country going to get a 'windfall' to cover the costs!
Btw I don't buy the fact that ALL/MOST students voted for the Lib/Dems on this one issue otherwise we have a helluva lot of students!
I put it to you this way, the wider agenda is to discredit totally the minor party of the Coalition in the hope of bringing the Govt. down. Day by day incidentally, I am seeing a change in tack by the labour Party from their manifesto and that's perfectly fine for the students and many raving Socialists on here.

[VivaRovers]

hoolahoop wrote:

I take it that these current students will be more than happy to pick up the bill on their Income tax then for the next generation or are we as a country going to get a 'windfall' to cover the costs!
Btw I don't buy the fact that ALL/MOST students voted for the Lib/Dems on this one issue otherwise we have a helluva lot of students!
I put it to you this way, the wider agenda is to discredit totally the minor party of the Coalition in the hope of bringing the Govt. down. Day by day incidentally, I am seeing a change in tack by the labour Party from their manifesto and that's perfectly fine for the students and many raving Socialists on here.

As I said its easy to make sweeping generalisations. I'm neither a student nor a 'raving Socialist'.

There is no wider agenda in these protests, they are simply what they are, a protest against the decision to raise tuition fees to what is perceived as an unacceptable level if Education is to be seen as a right not a priveledge.

I did not say that ALL/MOST students voted for the LibDems. I simply said that the LibDems were the most popular party amongst students in the run up to the elections, which they certainly were.

[hoolahoop]

Viva i know you're not a raving Socialist. lol However when you infer that the L/Dems were the most popular party the inference is there that would have mainly voted for that party or did not exercise their democratic right in the way they are currently doing.
Imo a University place should be earned not given as an excuse to keep folk from working. Far too many are studying 'soft' degrees and are finding it hard later on to persue their chosen careers. Exams have become far easier than they used to be with many a student plagiarising from the internet to get their place.
On that basis why shouldn't a plumber/electrician have the opportunity of 3/4 years at University if they so wish ?

[BillyStubbsTears]

hoolahoop wrote:

Exams have become far easier than they used to be.

Ahh, THAT Old Git classic.

Evidence Hoola?

[hoolahoop]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

Exams have become far easier than they used to be.

Ahh, THAT Old Git classic.

Evidence Hoola?

Do you disagree before we wade on ? It is difficult to assess exactly why it's easier but I would think that the internet assisting with course work would help for starters.
Continual assessment imo is easier than 'one off' exams.
I must admit evidence is hard to come by only a gut feeling.

[BillyStubbsTears]

hoolahoop wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

Exams have become far easier than they used to be.

Ahh, THAT Old Git classic.

Evidence Hoola?

Do you disagree before we wade on ? It is difficult to assess exactly why it's easier but I would think that the internet assisting with course work would help for starters.
Continual assessment imo is easier than 'one off' exams.
I must admit evidence is hard to come by only a gut feeling.

Having worked as a University academic, and having seen, over a ten year period, a HUGE increase in the quality of students coming in, then yes, I would absolutely disagree. I have controlled experiment data here. I set the same exam paper every single year for 10 years - a paper that the students were not allowed to take out of the exam hall, so they couldn't pass it on to future years. The average marks went up from mid 50s to mid 60s % in a decade.

And don't only take my word for it. A letter in The Times 10 years back said it better than I could. A Professor of Education at Liverpool University who had been an undergraduate at Liverpool 30 years before. He said that he used to believe that his cohort was better than modern students - until he found some of his old exam scripts in the basement. When he realised how little HE knew as a 2o year old, he stopped carping.

But it's the prerogative of old gits to complain that the young 'uns have it easy. Always has been, always will be.

By the way, Clegg has outdone himself tonight in his mendacious hoop jumping. He said it pains him that he hasn't been able to follow through on his pre-election pledge not to raise tuition fees. But he didn't pledge not to increase tuition fees. He pledged to VOTE AGAINST ANY PROPOSALS TO INCRESE FEES. And he didn't just promise it on the quiet. He did so ostentatiously on video. As did EVERY ONE of his colleagues.

Now, it's easy to keep his promise. Vote against the proposals. Easy.

[BobG]

And is therefore irrelevant to the debate Hoola. Taking a political, moral ot economic position, fighting for it and defending it on the basis of a 'gut feel' just shows how shallow and unthinking a lot of the tripe on this thread really is.

BobG

[Savvy]

hoolahoop wrote:

Savvy wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

Savvy there you go again, that 'anti-trade union legilation' as you put it was to stop 'wildcat' strikes and ffs there were plenty of them.
What you really meant to say I think is that it was 'anti we can do what we like , when we like' legislation.
Please can you explain to me what exact 'democratic rights' were taken from the Unions, were they the one's whereby they used force to disrupt this country at a drop of a hat perhaps ?
The people of this country have the right to elect folk to run this country, not an individual union to disrupt it for their own ends.

The democratic right that the tories were trying to get at because it didn't suit their version of democracy, was the right to withdraw your labour as and when you see fit!  

The people have the right to elect folk to run the country, but people don't have the right have an opposite viewpoint to theirs is that what your saying, cause that doesn't sound very democratic to me!!!

You've been 'sold a pup' fella, there wasn't any legislation to prevent Unions from going on strike apart from the fact that proper discussions and secret votes be carried out democratically to ensure that decisions were made by the majority of the membership only when ALL other avenues had been explored. This was a period when both Management and Unions felt it was impossible to talk to each other in a mature way.

Obviously this could NOT continue in this manner in a mature democracy and both sides needed to think about the disruption they could cause to the country and it's inhabitants before proceeding in such a way. Admittedly some legislation was strengthened to prevent disruption to emergency services.

I know we will never agree on this issue  but I would be interested to read which undemocratic 'anti-union' legislation you were specifically referring to ?

So what are you suggesting? Some kind of agreement between the two? My understanding of the situation is that the Tories used their vast democratically elected and massive majority to steam roller anti union legislation through both the commons and the lords! All in the name of democracy of course!!!

As for last part of your post is this sufficent?

Chronology of labour law, 1979 - 1993.
1980 Employment Act (Jim Prior)
•   Definition of lawful picketing restricted to own place of work
•   80% ballot needed to legalise a closed shop
•   Funds offered for union ballots
•   Restricted right to take secondary action
•   Code of practice (six pickets)
•   Repeal of statutory recognition procedure
•   Restricts unfair dismissal and maternity rights
•   Unfair dismissal rights from 1 year to 6 months in companies under 20
1982 Employment Act (Norman Tebbitt)
•   Further restrictions on industrial action - eg. definition of trade dispute
•   Further restricted action to 'own' employer
•   Employers could obtain injunctions against unions and sue unions for damages
•   80% rule extended to ALL closed shops every 5 years
•   Compensation for dismissal because of closed shop
•   Removed union only labour clauses in commercial contracts
1984 Trade Union Act
•   EC elections every 5 years by secret ballot
•   Political fund ballots every 10 years
•   Secret ballots before industrial action
1986 Public Order Act
•   Introduced new criminal offences in relation to picketing
1988 Employment Act (Norman Fowler)
•   Unions to compensate members disciplined for non-compliance with majority decisions
•   Members can seek injunction if no pre-strike ballot
•   Union finances to be open to inspection
•   Unions prevented from paying members' or officials' fines
•   Action to preserve post entry closed shop made unlawful
•   New restrictions on industrial action and election ballots
•   Ballots for separate workplaces
•   Ballots for non-voting EC members
•   Election addresses controlled
•   Independent scrutiny
•   Establishment of CROTUM
1989 Employment Act
•   Tribunal pre-hearing review and proposed deposit of £150
•   Removal of restrictions on the work of women and young workers
•   Exemption of small employer from providing details of disciplinary procedures
•   Restricts time off with pay for union duties
•   Written reasons for dismissal now require 2 years' service
•   Redundancy rebates abolished
•   Abolition of training commission
1990 Employment Act
•   Attack on pre-entry closed shop - unlawful to refuse to employ non-union member
•   All secondary action now unlawful
•   Unions liable for action induced by ANY official unless written repudiation using statutory form of words sent to all members
•   Selective dismissal of strikers taking unofficial action
•   Extended power of CROTUM
1992 Trade Union & Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act
•   Brings together all collective employment rights including trade union finances and elections; union members' rights including dismissal, time off; redundancy consultation; ACAS, CAC and CROTUM; industrial action legislation
•   Does not cover individual rights like unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, maternity etc (these are covered by 1978 EPCA)
1993 Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act
•   Individuals can seek injunction against unlawful action
Trade Unions:
•   Creation of Commissioner for Protection Against Unlawful Industrial Action
•   7 days notice of ballots and of industrial action
•   Members to be involved in ballot to be identified
•   Attack on Bridlington procedures
•   Written consent for check-off every three years
•   Financial records, including salaries, to be available
•   Checks on election ballots
•   Independent scrutiny of strike ballots
•   All industrial action ballots to be postal
•   Postal ballots on union mergers
•   New powers for Certification Officer to check union finances
•   Higher penalties against unions failing to keep proper accounts
•   'Wilson/Palmer' Amendment (sweeteners to those moving to individual contracts)
Individuals (EC inspired):
•   Maternity leave increased to 14 weeks with no length of service requirement
•   Right to written statement within 8 weeks for those working over 8 hours a week
•   Unlawful to dismiss H&S rep in course of duties AND those walking off unsafe site
•   Right of individual to challenge collective agreement in contravention of equal treatment terms
•   Changes to Transfer of Undertakings Regulations
•   Changes to redundancy terms (consultation)
Miscellaneous
•   Abolition of Wages Councils
•   Changes to Tribunals and EAT procedures
•   Career services out of Local Authority control

[Savvy]

hoolahoop wrote:

Savvy said:-
''The democratic right that the tories were trying to get at because it didn't suit
 their version of democracy, was the right to withdraw your labour as and when you see fit!''

So contracts should be ripped up at the slightest grievance should they ? What sense is there to that anymore than Companies should have the right to change 'terms of employment' without consultation. Both are wrong aren't they surely ?

Who's saying that contracts should be ripped up? If disagreements occur, and a satisfactory resolution cannot be reached, then any party to a contract, should have the right to withdraw from that contract! If the other party feels agrieved, they can pursue the matter through the appropriate channels? Not rocket science eh?

[BobG]

And that, of course, plainly ignores the daly 'ripping up' of contracts by employers everywhere. I'll give you just two examples: Swindon Council have recently uniltaterally scrapped unsocial hours payments for those who work evenings and weekends to allow the rest of us to enjoy the 'facilities' in the fair Borough.  Any employee who then decides not to work unsocial hours as he values his evenings and weekends is, though, in breach of his contract and is sacked. It's already happened.

Or how about this one? BT have totally re-written their pension scheme. No choice allowed at all. Yes, they talked it over with the Unions - but in the now long standing fearsome climate of fear they well knew that no bugger would dare to protest. So BT unilaterally tore up that contract. There are many, many examples like this every single day of the week in every single newspaper. Even the Sun. Not that that is actually a newspaper of course.

So get off your pedestal Hoola. Look at both sides. The blinkers are blinding your judgements.

BobG

[VikingJames]

hoolahoop wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

hoolahoop wrote:

Exams have become far easier than they used to be.

Ahh, THAT Old Git classic.

Evidence Hoola?

Do you disagree before we wade on ? It is difficult to assess exactly why it's easier but I would think that the internet assisting with course work would help for starters.
Continual assessment imo is easier than 'one off' exams.
I must admit evidence is hard to come by only a gut feeling.

I can't really compare exams with the past, because I'm doing them now, so I'm not to say whether they have become easier or harder. I must say though, the internet assisting with coursework isn't a matter of the assessments becoming easier, it is the world around us modifying and making information more accessible. In any case, information that goes into coursework still has to be interpreted and put into the context of the assessment, you can't just copy and paste your work from elsewhere like you might think.

Also, I think the style of exams have changed so much that they are incomparable with exams of the past. I may be wrong, but I get the impression that exams in the past were very much pure knowledge based - ie, you have to know an exact fact to get the question right. Nowadays, exams retain the need for ample knowledge, but also seems to require the skills to interpret the knowledge, argue it, explain it, evaluate it and put it into a properly written answer. Rather than filling your head with pure facts and then regurgitating the facts on to a piece of paper, you also have to be able to show that you know what you're talking about and not just writing down dates, names, quotes, numbers etc that you'd memorised. I'll reiterate, I'm not sure if that is precisely the case, but that is the impression I get of the way that exams have evolved, making it difficult to compare whether they're getting easier or not.

Another thing is, I may be wrong, but coursework doesn't seem to be as prominent as it was a few years ago. I'm not sure whether it's my choices of subject or the fact that I have moved up the educational system in the past few years, but it seems to me that coursework is making up less and less of the specification. In one of my A level subjects, they have in recent years done away with the one coursework unit completely and replaced it with an examination.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Actually, VJ, I'd say the opposite in terms of what today's exams are like compared to previous years.

Previously, formal exam at University level (at least in my subject of engineering) used to be set piece events that set PROBLEMS for students. That was the only chance that assessors had of appraising how good students were at solving problems.

And that was fcuking stupid. You ended up with a situation whereby the student who couldn;t see the clever trick required to work their way into the problem got zero, even if they actually knew a damn lot about the subject.

In the real world, you don't solve problems without access to other sources of knowledge. You don't have to remember everything rote fashion. You have books. You have colleagues. Nowadays, you have the internet. All sources of knowledge that might be good, bad or indifferent in quality, but which DO exist. So why assess someone in a scenario that totally isolates them from those sources?

These days, the information-gathering, problem-solving assessment is done via coursework. That is much more realistic. It gives students who are good at figuring things out given time and resources a chance. Those are the ones that we need to nurture as a country. Not nerds who can regurgitate a list of all the Kings and Queens of England since Nogbad the Bad. But coursework can be abused. So you also have a balance of hard, fact based exams. Which, if well prepared, give the poorer students a chance to show that they have a smattering of knowledge, the average student a chance to show that they can apply that knowledge to simple problems, and the very best student a chance to show that they understand the context and the limitations of the knowledge they have.

I find the \"It were better when I were a bairn\" argument laughable.

Health is better these days than it was 50 years ago.
Cars are better
Trains are better
Computers are better
Houses are better
Food is better
Tellies are better
Footballers are better
Athletes are faster

Why should education be different? Why should students be thicker and exams easier?

One reason. Because it makes inadequate old gets feel better about themselves.

[BobG]

Intellectually, BIlly, I agree with you. But talking to my old Danum maths teacher recently, when I bumped into him the KM, didn't half make me sit up. He told me that all of the follwing are now entirely absent from any maths curriculum upto and including A level:

calculus
theorems (God, I hated them!)
Euclidean geometry

There were a couple of other things too but I can't remember them right now. So, if they've been dropped, what has replaced them to ensure that, as you suggest, things have not got any easier?

It was Sneck Nolan who told me this by the way if anyone on here knew him.

BobG

[jonrover]

Boomstick wrote:

Your absolutely spot on Mr Frost.
Why should hard working people, e.g. tradesmen who didnt go to uni pay higher taxes for incoherent chavs to do tourism studies at hull uni?
Uni should be for the top 20% intelectually gifted kids to do worthwhile studies like chemistry, engineering, biology etc. Thats where tax payers money should go, to the kids that will do degrees that are actually worth something and will ultimately improve and contribute to society later on.

Not everyone should or can go to uni, it is not a right either. You have to be clever enough. The last government cheapened degrees so much its unreal, I mean some of the kids that are going to uni nowadays are calling themselves students, but are infact not even fit to work in Greggs. They are a drain on society, time to sort it.

My teachers told me that if you pass an A-Level, you are automatically in the top 5% intellectually in the country, so what's your point exactly? Mind you, with the general quality of your post, I'd be re-sitting my GCSE English buddy, never mind slagging of those who want decent low cost or preferably cost free higher education.

[VikingJames]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Actually, VJ, I'd say the opposite in terms of what today's exams are like compared to previous years.

Previously, formal exam at University level (at least in my subject of engineering) used to be set piece events that set PROBLEMS for students. That was the only chance that assessors had of appraising how good students were at solving problems.

And that was fcuking stupid. You ended up with a situation whereby the student who couldn;t see the clever trick required to work their way into the problem got zero, even if they actually knew a damn lot about the subject.

In the real world, you don't solve problems without access to other sources of knowledge. You don't have to remember everything rote fashion. You have books. You have colleagues. Nowadays, you have the internet. All sources of knowledge that might be good, bad or indifferent in quality, but which DO exist. So why assess someone in a scenario that totally isolates them from those sources?

These days, the information-gathering, problem-solving assessment is done via coursework. That is much more realistic. It gives students who are good at figuring things out given time and resources a chance. Those are the ones that we need to nurture as a country. Not nerds who can regurgitate a list of all the Kings and Queens of England since Nogbad the Bad. But coursework can be abused. So you also have a balance of hard, fact based exams. Which, if well prepared, give the poorer students a chance to show that they have a smattering of knowledge, the average student a chance to show that they can apply that knowledge to simple problems, and the very best student a chance to show that they understand the context and the limitations of the knowledge they have.

I find the \"It were better when I were a bairn\" argument laughable.

Health is better these days than it was 50 years ago.
Cars are better
Trains are better
Computers are better
Houses are better
Food is better
Tellies are better
Footballers are better
Athletes are faster

Why should education be different? Why should students be thicker and exams easier?

One reason. Because it makes inadequate old gets feel better about themselves.

Fair enough. As I said, all of my serious exams that lead to qualifications have taken and are taking place around about the present day, so I'm not really in a position to comment on what exams were like in the past.

I'd have imagined they were much more hard line sort of \"You must memorise the periodic table and then draw it out again from scratch\" type of exams, clearly I was wrong to assume that. I'm doing my second year of A levels at the minute, and 3 out of my 4 subjects require a certain level of \"not just knowing stuff but showing that you know what you're on about\" for the exam. Which involves writing out long written answers, giving both sides of an argument and then arguing the stronger side, so you can see where my point about exams evolving came from. I wouldn't say that is easier than memorising the Periodic table, or reeling off every King and Queen of England since the year dot, but, as you said, it certainly relates more to what you will encounter in your daily life than simply reeling off facts with no meaning behind them.