August 12
Quantity gives you an inferior service
It’s Olympics time again. This one will be the fifteenth that I have watched. You would think, would you not, that in a world so driven by technology, a world of almost infinite TV channels and a world of instant communication, the TV coverage would be 20 times better than in those earlier broadcasts I watched. Let me share a little secret with you, it’s not. It’s not even half as good.
They may broadcast more hours across more channels with red buttons, blue buttons and god knows what else but so much time is not spent on any action but on so-called experts, pundits, whatever, discussing the why and wherefores of what has happened, may happen, could happen, once happened to them. To me who has turned in to watch sport, that is incredibly boring and should never count toward the hours of sport they are showing.
Then you have the endless repeats at other hours presumably for anyone who missed things and to allow these verbose experts another chance to give vent to their opinion. Why? If someone is going to miss something why don’t they record it. I am always being brainwashed into the wonders of catch-up TV. Why bother with catch-up TV if you are going to waste time showing it again on mainstream TV.
And let’s face it much of the commentary is at a pretty low-level. I watched the Konta/Kuznetsova tennis match which has created a storm as the BBC had to apologise, quite rightly, for a homophobic remark made by the commentator Paul Hand. However, the whole commentary should be uploaded to YouTube as a lesson to any aspiring commentator on how not to do the job. The art of TV commentary, as I think the great Richie Benaud said, is to “Put your brain into gear and if you can add to what’s on the screen then do it, otherwise shut up”. Richie, an artist behind the microphone as well as a great player, also said that “The key thing (to commentary) was to learn the value of economy with words and to never insult the viewer by telling them what they can already see”.
Mr Hand showed me that not only had his brain stalled but insulting viewers was his main aim. He not only told everyone what they had just seen but also even announced the score just after the umpire said it and it appeared on our screen. At one stage it seemed as though Konta was playing Stalin as Mr Hand described Kuznetsova as “the Russian tyrant”. In the space of seven minutes he told us that a player had engineered a certain point. He said that he thought a contest was now taking place. I had expected both players to come and play solitaire so that really surprised me. I don’t normally swear but his whole broadcast, in my opinion, was complete and utter shit. Eventually I watched with the sound off. By the way Mr Hand’s highest ranking as a tennis player was 527, far higher than he will ever achieve as a commentator.
That is the problem. So much coverage that the dregs end up on our screen. The days of David Coleman, Dan Maskell and indeed Richie Benaud are no more. Don’t get me wrong, there are some very good current commentators. In tennis David Mercer in company with Jo Durie or Sam Smith are delightful. True class. But others, particularly in another sport I love motor racing, are pretty low quality, far more full of themselves than giving us an insight into what is happening. I’m afraid if you have to be known as “crofty” any hope of being taken seriously has gone.
These people are not helped by the new breed of directors who also like to repeat everything at least four times so you can see what you actually saw before. They are more interested in showing some “arty-farty” film clip than covering the event. But, probably, the new breed of audience, brought up with everything bite-sized and nonentities having a platform to give their opinions, think this is good because it is familiar. From my experience, it’s not. Quantity has surpassed quality and we, the viewer, are the worse for it.
August 19
Money helps but determination is still essential
Not so grumpy this week. In fact, more proud and observant. As I write this the Olympics in Rio are drawing to a close. We, Team GB, have 56 medals, We have 22 gold, 21 silver and 13 bronze and we can add one more certain medal with the women’s hockey team and a possible for young Nick Skelton, well young by my standards, in the jump-off for a show jumping medal.
In fact when Nick was only 2 a certain David Broome won a bronze in the Rome Olympics, the very first I watched. In total, that year, 1960, we won 20 medals, 2 gold, 6 silver and 12 bronze. We sent a team of 252 to Rome; to Rio we have 366. Of course there are a lot more sports now but also more competitive countries. Our 2 golds put us in 12th place overall. This year, with 2 golds, you will be no higher than 23.
It has been a fantastic performance by our athletes and many have made the point of thanking the national lottery for the financial support that many sports have received over the last 18 or so years. This has allowed these athletes to have proper training facilities, proper equipment and, in many cases, not having to worry about earning a living to support their chosen career.
We should all be extremely proud about what our little country has done. One fifth the population of the United States, over half their number of medals. But I don’t believe that these superb athletes, ably assisted with adequate funding, are necessarly any better than those I watched at the 1960 Olympics.
Our two golds then were won in swimming, with Anita Lonsbrough, and in the 50km walk by Don Thompson. Thompson trained for the heat he knew would be in Rome by putting on a heavy tracksuit and exercising in a steam-filled bathroom at his home, His desire to win nearly killed him as he used a paraffin heater to heat the bathroom and the carbon monoxide fumes were making him feel faint after a certain time. Luckily that was the time he stopped for the day.
Of course, in our modern world, with better tracks, better footwear, better training, you would expect times to be quicker and so they are. But that improvement should in no way belittle the achievements of those who went before.
What it proves is what can be achieved with money. Let’s remember that with education and the NHS.
Team GB, I salute you all and, more importantly, thank you for removing any old grumpiness I may have felt this week, particularly with Owen Glendower again.
Stop press: good old Nick got the gold. I think that means he is the oldest medal winner at Rio and the only one who was alive when I watched those Rome Olympics.
August 28
Gradients go up as well as down – so do grades. Don’t worry.
The headlines this week tell us that 66.9% of GCSE pupils this year got a grade C or above. This is a “sharp decline” (BBC words) from last year when 69% got grade C or above. The experts then go into a long list of reasons why. Over 30% more 17 year-olds sat English or Maths exams this year. These pupils, it was claimed, were doing resits as the new government EBacc qualification requires a pass in Maths, English, History or Geography, the Sciences and a language (presumably other than English) and they didn’t get English and Maths last year. Unless we know whether these re-sitters brought the average down or not, this figure is completely meaningless.
However the 16 year-olds’ grades also declined, this time by 1.3 percentage points. So what? Starting in 2017 and being introduced over 3 years or so, exams will be graded differently. Instead of A-E, grades will be 1-9. This is a breathtaking innovation as, in my day, “O” levels, the GCSE equivalent, were graded 1-9. Actually the breathtaking innovation is that in this new system 9 will be the highest grade while in my day it was 1. Grade 5 will be a good pass. Presumably grade 4 will be a bad pass but, apparently, equal to a grade C today.
The reason we can all forget whatever grade comes out as defining the standard of the pupils who take the exam within any year is that the Department of Education (DfE = Dumber for Everyone) have said that roughly the same proportion of students will achieve grade 4 and above as now achieve grade C and above while the same applies to those who will get grade 7 and above as now get a grade A. So regardless of the intelligence of pupils each year, the difficulty of the exam or any possible useful measure, the result will be the same. Might as well as announce the next 8 years now, don’t you think?
The truth of the matter is that with over 700,000 pupils taking these exams, comparison of any results is pointless. It is not a 100 metres race where you can look at an athlete’s times over a season and even this is a bit of a misrepresentation because track surfaces and wind speed can contribute to difference. Usain Bolt running into a 50 mph gale will be slower than Usian Bolt running with a 30mpn following wind. Fact. He is no slower as an athlete though.
Questions in last year’s exams were different from those this year. Marking could have a variation too. Human beings are not robots so, however hard you try to standardise, differences will occur. Even the weather could have had an effect.
Over recent years the media, and indeed educationalists, have shouted long and loud about increased pass rates and how successful young people have been. Some of us knew it was all meaningless. Those of us therefore also know that this year’s students are not, overall, any worse than the previous year. It is impossible to equate as I have already said. It is, however, heartbreaking to those who have worked so hard this year, and only lack the experience of some of the older generation, or a weariness with the modern need to publish results, to be identified as less successful as previous students.
What I am trying to say, specifically to those young people who took the exams this year and didn’t do too well, is this. It matters not one jot providing you have a good level of general education and the determination, persistence and attitude to succeed in whatever you want to do. Oh and by the way, there was no GCSE in determination, persistence or attitude.
2016
August 5
Democracy, through the eyes of those who don’t like when it goes against them.
I’m back. True it’s not Wednesday August 3 but Friday August 5 is good enough. I have decided that now I am uploading weekly again it should be on Friday giving a whole working week to moan about and a complete weekend to get over it.
So, where should I start. Much has happened. We have exercised our democratic right to vote, got the result the majority voted for and almost 4 million people decided we should have another vote because they didn’t like the result. Democracy?
The Labour party, or at least about 170 of their MP’s decided that their leader, elected by a landslide in a democratic vote, shouldn’t be their leader because , it seems, they lost said referendum and he didn’t show leadership in obtaining a “Yes” vote. Point is he didn’t ask for the referendum, he did campaign in favour, although personally I think it is a major plus point that he showed limited enthusiasm for remaining, and we all know that most of these MP’s had been trying to undermine him ever since he was elected. The surprise they then had was that they discovered that their leader was not only an honest man, this must have been a massive shock to many others in politics, but he was also a very strong character, another unusual trait for politicians who quite often confess to a moment of weakness when caught out by the highly trained investigative press, sorry incorrigible gossip mongers, who run our papers (deliberate omission of the word news here).
Now those 170, well most of them, are in complete disarray because they forgot that said leader was extremely popular among the masses who actually vote in elections, probably because he was honest and a man of conviction. I don’t need to agree with all he believes in, that would almost make me his clone, but I can respect a man who not only believes what he says but has spent his whole life campaigning for those beliefs.
The Labour party has fallen 14 points in the polls, yes those polls that are always getting things so wrong, but it is not because of the man who leads them, a man who has lead them to 4 by-election victories and 4 mayoral elections apparently. It is because there is a fear that Owen Glendower or whatever his name is, left on his own now the eagle has flown, may find the Labour party crown hanging in a hawthorne bush and then we will have a devious, scheming upstart as leader of one of our major parties, something that hasn’t happened since Tony Blair or Margaret Thatcher if we want to look at both parties. In my humble opinion those two people in their 20 or so years in charge did more harm to my country, and in one case to the ordinary people of our world, than any financial crisis or terrorist organisation.
I am pretty certain that once the present leader is returned the poll rating for the Labour party will soar again. There are 170 MP’s trying to destroy the party and until all can see that their efforts were in vain, there will be some worry.
I decided I would break both you and I back in gently to my normal diatribe so I think that will be enough. Suffice it to say I don’t like what I view as treachery and if my analogy with the Glendowers holds good, young Owen, should he actually win, will no doubt back-date his victory to the day before he resigned so he can claim he wasn’t part of any scheme to unseat a democratically elected leader.
Just for general information, I was a very big fan of Tony Benn, not all his views and policies but of him as a human being, and I can see, not surprisingly, a very large number of Benn’s characteristics in the current Labour leader. I guess the time they spent in a broom cupboard together may have helped.
August 12
Quantity gives you an inferior service
It’s Olympics time again. This one will be the fifteenth that I have watched. You would think, would you not, that in a world so driven by technology, a world of almost infinite TV channels and a world of instant communication, the TV coverage would be 20 times better than in those earlier broadcasts I watched. Let me share a little secret with you, it’s not. It’s not even half as good.
They may broadcast more hours across more channels with red buttons, blue buttons and god knows what else but so much time is not spent on any action but on so-called experts, pundits, whatever, discussing the why and wherefores of what has happened, may happen, could happen, once happened to them. To me who has turned in to watch sport, that is incredibly boring and should never count toward the hours of sport they are showing.
Then you have the endless repeats at other hours presumably for anyone who missed things and to allow these verbose experts another chance to give vent to their opinion. Why? If someone is going to miss something why don’t they record it. I am always being brainwashed into the wonders of catch-up TV. Why bother with catch-up TV if you are going to waste time showing it again on mainstream TV.
And let’s face it much of the commentary is at a pretty low-level. I watched the Konta/Kuznetsova tennis match which has created a storm as the BBC had to apologise, quite rightly, for a homophobic remark made by the commentator Paul Hand. However, the whole commentary should be uploaded to YouTube as a lesson to any aspiring commentator on how not to do the job. The art of TV commentary, as I think the great Richie Benaud said, is to “Put your brain into gear and if you can add to what’s on the screen then do it, otherwise shut up”. Richie, an artist behind the microphone as well as a great player, also said that “The key thing (to commentary) was to learn the value of economy with words and to never insult the viewer by telling them what they can already see”.
Mr Hand showed me that not only had his brain stalled but insulting viewers was his main aim. He not only told everyone what they had just seen but also even announced the score just after the umpire said it and it appeared on our screen. At one stage it seemed as though Konta was playing Stalin as Mr Hand described Kuznetsova as “the Russian tyrant”. In the space of seven minutes he told us that a player had engineered a certain point. He said that he thought a contest was now taking place. I had expected both players to come and play solitaire so that really surprised me. I don’t normally swear but his whole broadcast, in my opinion, was complete and utter shit. Eventually I watched with the sound off. By the way Mr Hand’s highest ranking as a tennis player was 527, far higher than he will ever achieve as a commentator.
That is the problem. So much coverage that the dregs end up on our screen. The days of David Coleman, Dan Maskell and indeed Richie Benaud are no more. Don’t get me wrong, there are some very good current commentators. In tennis David Mercer in company with Jo Durie or Sam Smith are delightful. True class. But others, particularly in another sport I love motor racing, are pretty low quality, far more full of themselves than giving us an insight into what is happening. I’m afraid if you have to be known as “crofty” any hope of being taken seriously has gone.
These people are not helped by the new breed of directors who also like to repeat everything at least four times so you can see what you actually saw before. They are more interested in showing some “arty-farty” film clip than covering the event. But, probably, the new breed of audience, brought up with everything bite-sized and nonentities having a platform to give their opinions, think this is good because it is familiar. From my experience, it’s not. Quantity has surpassed quality and we, the viewer, are the worse for it.
August 19
Money helps but determination is still essential
Not so grumpy this week. In fact, more proud and observant. As I write this the Olympics in Rio are drawing to a close. We, Team GB, have 56 medals, We have 22 gold, 21 silver and 13 bronze and we can add one more certain medal with the women’s hockey team and a possible for young Nick Skelton, well young by my standards, in the jump-off for a show jumping medal.
In fact when Nick was only 2 a certain David Broome won a bronze in the Rome Olympics, the very first I watched. In total, that year, 1960, we won 20 medals, 2 gold, 6 silver and 12 bronze. We sent a team of 252 to Rome; to Rio we have 366. Of course there are a lot more sports now but also more competitive countries. Our 2 golds put us in 12th place overall. This year, with 2 golds, you will be no higher than 23.
It has been a fantastic performance by our athletes and many have made the point of thanking the national lottery for the financial support that many sports have received over the last 18 or so years. This has allowed these athletes to have proper training facilities, proper equipment and, in many cases, not having to worry about earning a living to support their chosen career.
We should all be extremely proud about what our little country has done. One fifth the population of the United States, over half their number of medals. But I don’t believe that these superb athletes, ably assisted with adequate funding, are necessarly any better than those I watched at the 1960 Olympics.
Our two golds then were won in swimming, with Anita Lonsbrough, and in the 50km walk by Don Thompson. Thompson trained for the heat he knew would be in Rome by putting on a heavy tracksuit and exercising in a steam-filled bathroom at his home, His desire to win nearly killed him as he used a paraffin heater to heat the bathroom and the carbon monoxide fumes were making him feel faint after a certain time. Luckily that was the time he stopped for the day.
Of course, in our modern world, with better tracks, better footwear, better training, you would expect times to be quicker and so they are. But that improvement should in no way belittle the achievements of those who went before.
What it proves is what can be achieved with money. Let’s remember that with education and the NHS.
Team GB, I salute you all and, more importantly, thank you for removing any old grumpiness I may have felt this week, particularly with Owen Glendower again.
Stop press: good old Nick got the gold. I think that means he is the oldest medal winner at Rio and the only one who was alive when I watched those Rome Olympics.
August 28
Gradients go up as well as down – so do grades. Don’t worry.
The headlines this week tell us that 66.9% of GCSE pupils this year got a grade C or above. This is a “sharp decline” (BBC words) from last year when 69% got grade C or above. The experts then go into a long list of reasons why. Over 30% more 17 year-olds sat English or Maths exams this year. These pupils, it was claimed, were doing resits as the new government EBacc qualification requires a pass in Maths, English, History or Geography, the Sciences and a language (presumably other than English) and they didn’t get English and Maths last year. Unless we know whether these re-sitters brought the average down or not, this figure is completely meaningless.
However the 16 year-olds’ grades also declined, this time by 1.3 percentage points. So what? Starting in 2017 and being introduced over 3 years or so, exams will be graded differently. Instead of A-E, grades will be 1-9. This is a breathtaking innovation as, in my day, “O” levels, the GCSE equivalent, were graded 1-9. Actually the breathtaking innovation is that in this new system 9 will be the highest grade while in my day it was 1. Grade 5 will be a good pass. Presumably grade 4 will be a bad pass but, apparently, equal to a grade C today.
The reason we can all forget whatever grade comes out as defining the standard of the pupils who take the exam within any year is that the Department of Education (DfE = Dumber for Everyone) have said that roughly the same proportion of students will achieve grade 4 and above as now achieve grade C and above while the same applies to those who will get grade 7 and above as now get a grade A. So regardless of the intelligence of pupils each year, the difficulty of the exam or any possible useful measure, the result will be the same. Might as well as announce the next 8 years now, don’t you think?
The truth of the matter is that with over 700,000 pupils taking these exams, comparison of any results is pointless. It is not a 100 metres race where you can look at an athlete’s times over a season and even this is a bit of a misrepresentation because track surfaces and wind speed can contribute to difference. Usain Bolt running into a 50 mph gale will be slower than Usian Bolt running with a 30mpn following wind. Fact. He is no slower as an athlete though.
Questions in last year’s exams were different from those this year. Marking could have a variation too. Human beings are not robots so, however hard you try to standardise, differences will occur. Even the weather could have had an effect.
Over recent years the media, and indeed educationalists, have shouted long and loud about increased pass rates and how successful young people have been. Some of us knew it was all meaningless. Those of us therefore also know that this year’s students are not, overall, any worse than the previous year. It is impossible to equate as I have already said. It is, however, heartbreaking to those who have worked so hard this year, and only lack the experience of some of the older generation, or a weariness with the modern need to publish results, to be identified as less successful as previous students.
What I am trying to say, specifically to those young people who took the exams this year and didn’t do too well, is this. It matters not one jot providing you have a good level of general education and the determination, persistence and attitude to succeed in whatever you want to do. Oh and by the way, there was no GCSE in determination, persistence or attitude.
August 12
Quantity gives you an inferior service
It’s Olympics time again. This one will be the fifteenth that I have watched. You would think, would you not, that in a world so driven by technology, a world of almost infinite TV channels and a world of instant communication, the TV coverage would be 20 times better than in those earlier broadcasts I watched. Let me share a little secret with you, it’s not. It’s not even half as good.
They may broadcast more hours across more channels with red buttons, blue buttons and god knows what else but so much time is not spent on any action but on so-called experts, pundits, whatever, discussing the why and wherefores of what has happened, may happen, could happen, once happened to them. To me who has turned in to watch sport, that is incredibly boring and should never count toward the hours of sport they are showing.
Then you have the endless repeats at other hours presumably for anyone who missed things and to allow these verbose experts another chance to give vent to their opinion. Why? If someone is going to miss something why don’t they record it. I am always being brainwashed into the wonders of catch-up TV. Why bother with catch-up TV if you are going to waste time showing it again on mainstream TV.
And let’s face it much of the commentary is at a pretty low-level. I watched the Konta/Kuznetsova tennis match which has created a storm as the BBC had to apologise, quite rightly, for a homophobic remark made by the commentator Paul Hand. However, the whole commentary should be uploaded to YouTube as a lesson to any aspiring commentator on how not to do the job. The art of TV commentary, as I think the great Richie Benaud said, is to “Put your brain into gear and if you can add to what’s on the screen then do it, otherwise shut up”. Richie, an artist behind the microphone as well as a great player, also said that “The key thing (to commentary) was to learn the value of economy with words and to never insult the viewer by telling them what they can already see”.
Mr Hand showed me that not only had his brain stalled but insulting viewers was his main aim. He not only told everyone what they had just seen but also even announced the score just after the umpire said it and it appeared on our screen. At one stage it seemed as though Konta was playing Stalin as Mr Hand described Kuznetsova as “the Russian tyrant”. In the space of seven minutes he told us that a player had engineered a certain point. He said that he thought a contest was now taking place. I had expected both players to come and play solitaire so that really surprised me. I don’t normally swear but his whole broadcast, in my opinion, was complete and utter shit. Eventually I watched with the sound off. By the way Mr Hand’s highest ranking as a tennis player was 527, far higher than he will ever achieve as a commentator.
That is the problem. So much coverage that the dregs end up on our screen. The days of David Coleman, Dan Maskell and indeed Richie Benaud are no more. Don’t get me wrong, there are some very good current commentators. In tennis David Mercer in company with Jo Durie or Sam Smith are delightful. True class. But others, particularly in another sport I love motor racing, are pretty low quality, far more full of themselves than giving us an insight into what is happening. I’m afraid if you have to be known as “crofty” any hope of being taken seriously has gone.
These people are not helped by the new breed of directors who also like to repeat everything at least four times so you can see what you actually saw before. They are more interested in showing some “arty-farty” film clip than covering the event. But, probably, the new breed of audience, brought up with everything bite-sized and nonentities having a platform to give their opinions, think this is good because it is familiar. From my experience, it’s not. Quantity has surpassed quality and we, the viewer, are the worse for it.
August 19
Money helps but determination is still essential
Not so grumpy this week. In fact, more proud and observant. As I write this the Olympics in Rio are drawing to a close. We, Team GB, have 56 medals, We have 22 gold, 21 silver and 13 bronze and we can add one more certain medal with the women’s hockey team and a possible for young Nick Skelton, well young by my standards, in the jump-off for a show jumping medal.
In fact when Nick was only 2 a certain David Broome won a bronze in the Rome Olympics, the very first I watched. In total, that year, 1960, we won 20 medals, 2 gold, 6 silver and 12 bronze. We sent a team of 252 to Rome; to Rio we have 366. Of course there are a lot more sports now but also more competitive countries. Our 2 golds put us in 12th place overall. This year, with 2 golds, you will be no higher than 23.
It has been a fantastic performance by our athletes and many have made the point of thanking the national lottery for the financial support that many sports have received over the last 18 or so years. This has allowed these athletes to have proper training facilities, proper equipment and, in many cases, not having to worry about earning a living to support their chosen career.
We should all be extremely proud about what our little country has done. One fifth the population of the United States, over half their number of medals. But I don’t believe that these superb athletes, ably assisted with adequate funding, are necessarly any better than those I watched at the 1960 Olympics.
Our two golds then were won in swimming, with Anita Lonsbrough, and in the 50km walk by Don Thompson. Thompson trained for the heat he knew would be in Rome by putting on a heavy tracksuit and exercising in a steam-filled bathroom at his home, His desire to win nearly killed him as he used a paraffin heater to heat the bathroom and the carbon monoxide fumes were making him feel faint after a certain time. Luckily that was the time he stopped for the day.
Of course, in our modern world, with better tracks, better footwear, better training, you would expect times to be quicker and so they are. But that improvement should in no way belittle the achievements of those who went before.
What it proves is what can be achieved with money. Let’s remember that with education and the NHS.
Team GB, I salute you all and, more importantly, thank you for removing any old grumpiness I may have felt this week, particularly with Owen Glendower again.
Stop press: good old Nick got the gold. I think that means he is the oldest medal winner at Rio and the only one who was alive when I watched those Rome Olympics.
August 28
Gradients go up as well as down – so do grades. Don’t worry.
The headlines this week tell us that 66.9% of GCSE pupils this year got a grade C or above. This is a “sharp decline” (BBC words) from last year when 69% got grade C or above. The experts then go into a long list of reasons why. Over 30% more 17 year-olds sat English or Maths exams this year. These pupils, it was claimed, were doing resits as the new government EBacc qualification requires a pass in Maths, English, History or Geography, the Sciences and a language (presumably other than English) and they didn’t get English and Maths last year. Unless we know whether these re-sitters brought the average down or not, this figure is completely meaningless.
However the 16 year-olds’ grades also declined, this time by 1.3 percentage points. So what? Starting in 2017 and being introduced over 3 years or so, exams will be graded differently. Instead of A-E, grades will be 1-9. This is a breathtaking innovation as, in my day, “O” levels, the GCSE equivalent, were graded 1-9. Actually the breathtaking innovation is that in this new system 9 will be the highest grade while in my day it was 1. Grade 5 will be a good pass. Presumably grade 4 will be a bad pass but, apparently, equal to a grade C today.
The reason we can all forget whatever grade comes out as defining the standard of the pupils who take the exam within any year is that the Department of Education (DfE = Dumber for Everyone) have said that roughly the same proportion of students will achieve grade 4 and above as now achieve grade C and above while the same applies to those who will get grade 7 and above as now get a grade A. So regardless of the intelligence of pupils each year, the difficulty of the exam or any possible useful measure, the result will be the same. Might as well as announce the next 8 years now, don’t you think?
The truth of the matter is that with over 700,000 pupils taking these exams, comparison of any results is pointless. It is not a 100 metres race where you can look at an athlete’s times over a season and even this is a bit of a misrepresentation because track surfaces and wind speed can contribute to difference. Usain Bolt running into a 50 mph gale will be slower than Usian Bolt running with a 30mpn following wind. Fact. He is no slower as an athlete though.
Questions in last year’s exams were different from those this year. Marking could have a variation too. Human beings are not robots so, however hard you try to standardise, differences will occur. Even the weather could have had an effect.
Over recent years the media, and indeed educationalists, have shouted long and loud about increased pass rates and how successful young people have been. Some of us knew it was all meaningless. Those of us therefore also know that this year’s students are not, overall, any worse than the previous year. It is impossible to equate as I have already said. It is, however, heartbreaking to those who have worked so hard this year, and only lack the experience of some of the older generation, or a weariness with the modern need to publish results, to be identified as less successful as previous students.
What I am trying to say, specifically to those young people who took the exams this year and didn’t do too well, is this. It matters not one jot providing you have a good level of general education and the determination, persistence and attitude to succeed in whatever you want to do. Oh and by the way, there was no GCSE in determination, persistence or attitude.