Re: Are 'we' too negative?

Liste des GroupesRevenir à csipg action 
Sujet : Re: Are 'we' too negative?
De : noway (at) *nospam* nochance.com (JAB)
Groupes : comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Date : 12. Sep 2024, 08:54:05
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vbu6mv$547c$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 11/09/2024 15:38, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
On 9/11/2024 1:42 AM, JAB wrote:
On 09/09/2024 16:13, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
No as it's done nationally so everyone in the entire country who took the exam at the same time is included regardless of who their classmates were i.e. your grade was dependent on how thousands and thousands of other students did in the entire country.
>
So they actually grade the entire country on the curve?
>
>
Yep that's how it was done, nationally although there were several different exam boards who controlled their own grading and in theory they all had to stick to the same overall standard. I suppose it's technically possible that if you did a horribly obscure* subject with the right exam board they may be some deviation as all you peers are dimwits/Mr. Spocks.
>
*There weren't a lot of them as schools were generally quite conservative so ours was considered a bit avant garde as it offered commerce (business studies). Even then they then played it safe by you had to be in the bottom stream to take it.
>
Somehow that sounds very ... British.  :P
>
Probably the most British part of it was how it entrenched the class system. So years 1 -3 (11 - 13 years old) classes were mixed ability but in years 4 - 5 everything was split into the top and bottom streams*. That pretty much put you on to a path of either your going to college to do A levels and then possibly onto to University or we'll keep you amused for a couple of years until you're old enough to get a job. Let's just say there was somewhat of a correlation between class and which stream you were in.
>
It wasn't until the mid-90's they they really tried to shake it up and provide access to all and not just some.
>
*Yes they really were called the top and bottom streams just in case you didn't realise were you sat in the pecking order of life.
 So the point wasn't to objectively determine how much the students had learned but to identify the proper social strata everyone should be in.
 
It wasn't quite that bad but it did feed into it. You still see remnants of it today in the too many people go to University mantra as it's wasted on them. Now of course that means other people's children and certainly not their own.

Date Sujet#  Auteur
2 Sep 24 * Are 'we' too negative?19JAB
2 Sep 24 `* Re: Are 'we' too negative?18Spalls Hurgenson
4 Sep 24  `* Re: Are 'we' too negative?17JAB
4 Sep 24   +* Re: Are 'we' too negative?4Dimensional Traveler
5 Sep 24   i`* Re: Are 'we' too negative?3JAB
6 Sep 24   i `* Re: Are 'we' too negative?2H1M3M
6 Sep 24   i  `- Re: Are 'we' too negative?1Dimensional Traveler
6 Sep 24   `* Re: Are 'we' too negative?12Spalls Hurgenson
7 Sep 24    `* Re: Are 'we' too negative?11JAB
7 Sep 24     `* Re: Are 'we' too negative?10Dimensional Traveler
8 Sep 24      `* Re: Are 'we' too negative?9JAB
8 Sep 24       `* Re: Are 'we' too negative?8Dimensional Traveler
9 Sep 24        `* Re: Are 'we' too negative?7JAB
9 Sep 24         `* Re: Are 'we' too negative?6Dimensional Traveler
9 Sep 24          `* Re: Are 'we' too negative?5JAB
9 Sep 24           `* Re: Are 'we' too negative?4Dimensional Traveler
11 Sep 24            `* Re: Are 'we' too negative?3JAB
11 Sep 24             `* Re: Are 'we' too negative?2Dimensional Traveler
12 Sep 24              `- Re: Are 'we' too negative?1JAB

Haut de la page

Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.

NewsPortal