So its seems as tho tradition has taken the lead over common sense.
In a series like this, there needs to be some thinking outside of the norm so that results are favoured over common proticols.
Things like earlier starts, going on until later (if safe to do so), having a reserve day to make up all of the overs that had not be bowled before? It just seems that every other sport is evolving with the times but cricket stays set in its ways
@LX1 I'm afraid that @bargepole is correct. Just a quick google search and I've found that Oxford's entry exams need to be booked in September and they are then sat in October. I believe Cambridge take the same process and potentially use the same tests.
I also think that some subjects are testing more than others but there is a lot of acronym's that I don't know what they mean.
By the looks of things the testing/exam is just a hurdle to get over to get into the (undefined) selection process and "if shortlisted" you are interviewed. But to be fair, the movement appears to be in the right direction, but from a pretty unacceptable position as little as five years ago (42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils, 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools - Sutton Trust paper 2018)
I think exams are a poor form of assessment when there are so many different forms of learners out there. There should be different ways to be assessed so that all people or students get to show their full understanding better.
Good point. There is no right or wrong way to assess someone's skills. There is a wealth of research out there that suggests interviewing is pointless (and often negative).
Just think about all those wrongun managers you've worked for. Just bullshit luck how they are there.
Boris Johnson for example
(I am a liberal without strong political leaning)
Obviously having little intelligence, yet wangled his way to the Prime Minister through nefarious back slapping
It's depressing if you really allow yourself to think about it
How is it a scam? You must have passed it to get into RGS.
My son and daughter both passed it in 1991 and 1993 respectively, and neither of them went to a private prep school. We did get some practice tests to prepare them for it, as would any parent wanting their kids to go to a Grammar School, but ultimately it was down to them to use the intelligence they were born with, and apply themselves.
It's a scam because it's got nothing to do with intelligence, just whether your brain is wired in a very specific way which doesn't have any real-world application.
Because it is a competitive activity. Only the top-performing 25% or so of primary school pupils in Bucks are offered Grammar School places, and there are many private prep schools who coach pupils to pass the tests.
So we wanted to give them the best possible chance of being in that top echelon. Being familiar with the format of the tests, and the type of questions that typically come up, means that there are no surprises on the day of the test.
I've never worked in education, and never wanted to. And I've not been 'employed' for over 10 years, I run my own legal services company: Small Claims Advisor Limited - if any Gasroomers need any help with legal matters, fill in the enquiry form quoting the reference WWFC20 to get 20% off my fees.
As I've said previously on this forum, it was a big mistake to abolish Grammar Schools in most of England. If in power, I would reinstate them in every town and city, and retain the 12+ as an entrance exam.
Regarding private schools, I have no problem with them as long as they are completely self-funding, and do not receive any handouts from the state, including tax relief on so-called charitable status. But as has been demonstrated elsewhere on this thread, they are losing their influence on prestige University admissions, and in the current economic climate are struggling to find enough parents who can afford to pay their fees.
Forced into the 11+ fiasco, we got practice papers for our child, and had a back-up school in mind should she not pass. We were of the opinion that she has to take the test, so give it a go and if she fails, so be it. No great intensive session or tutor. She obviously had the right mindset for the tests as they are and passed. I went to a tough 'inner city' Comp literally a walk from my front door, but it was first intake post Grammer schools being abolished in Notts, and classes were streamed so brighter pupils were in the top three streams.
Don't agree with selection, but Education is such a tricky thing and I have no answer...but as it seems neither does any government, I am not alone.
My issue is that most of the country have removed selective education except Bucks, Kent, Bournemouth & Lincolnshire (there might be a few others) but everywhere else has removed them.
I know that Dr Challoner's has invested in making their own for families that try and get in from outside the area (London based) so its additional money thats being spent not on the education.
I'd be interested in a study of Selective vs Non selective education and those who apply successfully for Oxford or Cambridge.
Its seems there are 3 tiers of education. Private, selective grammar and "normal" comprehensive education. Don't get me started with 'academies' and 'free schools', waste of time, effort and money. Keep it under the control of government
Comments
Yes avoiding.
Public (private) schools employ separate exam boards to allow thick people to achieve. Which is anti UK. And humanity.
Keep trying lad/lass
Is it ok to touch a bargepole?
https://m.youtube.com/results?sp=mAEA&search_query=mc+hammer+can%27t+touch+this
The silence of the barge
So its seems as tho tradition has taken the lead over common sense.
In a series like this, there needs to be some thinking outside of the norm so that results are favoured over common proticols.
Things like earlier starts, going on until later (if safe to do so), having a reserve day to make up all of the overs that had not be bowled before? It just seems that every other sport is evolving with the times but cricket stays set in its ways
Thats the 2nd part of the process. They need to pass the exam to then get an opportunity to speak to someone.
However, this might have changed since COVID
Snoring noisily I’d have thought.
When I applied for Oxford there was no exam. Are you making things up? @bargepole
They got rid of that years ago (sadly)
That was 20 years ago though so would be interesting if they have reverted back?
@LX1 I'm afraid that @bargepole is correct. Just a quick google search and I've found that Oxford's entry exams need to be booked in September and they are then sat in October. I believe Cambridge take the same process and potentially use the same tests.
I also think that some subjects are testing more than others but there is a lot of acronym's that I don't know what they mean.
Fair play. I support an exam system. Interviews have been demonstrated by much research to be useless, or worse than useless in every domain
@Otter87
Was PYCAB one of the acronyms?
If you know what any of these mean, you are a smarter person than I
CAT, ELAT, GAT and MAT
HAT, MLAT, PAT
https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/applying-to-oxford/guide/admissions-tests
By the looks of things the testing/exam is just a hurdle to get over to get into the (undefined) selection process and "if shortlisted" you are interviewed. But to be fair, the movement appears to be in the right direction, but from a pretty unacceptable position as little as five years ago (42% of Oxbridge places go to private school pupils, 7% of all UK pupils attend private schools - Sutton Trust paper 2018)
You mean my Dad is a Duke/Minister and he went to (insert name) College as did his father before him is no longer enough?
I think exams are a poor form of assessment when there are so many different forms of learners out there. There should be different ways to be assessed so that all people or students get to show their full understanding better.
Case in point: the 11+. A scam.
It's a test
Good point. There is no right or wrong way to assess someone's skills. There is a wealth of research out there that suggests interviewing is pointless (and often negative).
Just think about all those wrongun managers you've worked for. Just bullshit luck how they are there.
Boris Johnson for example
(I am a liberal without strong political leaning)
Obviously having little intelligence, yet wangled his way to the Prime Minister through nefarious back slapping
It's depressing if you really allow yourself to think about it
How is it a scam? You must have passed it to get into RGS.
My son and daughter both passed it in 1991 and 1993 respectively, and neither of them went to a private prep school. We did get some practice tests to prepare them for it, as would any parent wanting their kids to go to a Grammar School, but ultimately it was down to them to use the intelligence they were born with, and apply themselves.
I'm close friends with a Comprehensive school teacher who is against the 12plus but fully supports private education.
Blows my mind
It's a scam because it's got nothing to do with intelligence, just whether your brain is wired in a very specific way which doesn't have any real-world application.
If it is ultimately down to intelligence they were born with, why did you get them practice tests to prepare?
I think it's some kind of 'doffing the cap' to 'moneyed people' who are really thick. But turkeys continue to vote for Christmas
And I'm maybe naiive about how much influence freemasons have
Because it is a competitive activity. Only the top-performing 25% or so of primary school pupils in Bucks are offered Grammar School places, and there are many private prep schools who coach pupils to pass the tests.
So we wanted to give them the best possible chance of being in that top echelon. Being familiar with the format of the tests, and the type of questions that typically come up, means that there are no surprises on the day of the test.
So it’s not ultimately down to the intelligence they were born with then?
It sounds like you are employed in education @bargepole.
What is your ideal model (comp/12plus/private/other)?
I've never worked in education, and never wanted to. And I've not been 'employed' for over 10 years, I run my own legal services company: Small Claims Advisor Limited - if any Gasroomers need any help with legal matters, fill in the enquiry form quoting the reference WWFC20 to get 20% off my fees.
As I've said previously on this forum, it was a big mistake to abolish Grammar Schools in most of England. If in power, I would reinstate them in every town and city, and retain the 12+ as an entrance exam.
Regarding private schools, I have no problem with them as long as they are completely self-funding, and do not receive any handouts from the state, including tax relief on so-called charitable status. But as has been demonstrated elsewhere on this thread, they are losing their influence on prestige University admissions, and in the current economic climate are struggling to find enough parents who can afford to pay their fees.
Forced into the 11+ fiasco, we got practice papers for our child, and had a back-up school in mind should she not pass. We were of the opinion that she has to take the test, so give it a go and if she fails, so be it. No great intensive session or tutor. She obviously had the right mindset for the tests as they are and passed. I went to a tough 'inner city' Comp literally a walk from my front door, but it was first intake post Grammer schools being abolished in Notts, and classes were streamed so brighter pupils were in the top three streams.
Don't agree with selection, but Education is such a tricky thing and I have no answer...but as it seems neither does any government, I am not alone.
My issue is that most of the country have removed selective education except Bucks, Kent, Bournemouth & Lincolnshire (there might be a few others) but everywhere else has removed them.
I know that Dr Challoner's has invested in making their own for families that try and get in from outside the area (London based) so its additional money thats being spent not on the education.
I'd be interested in a study of Selective vs Non selective education and those who apply successfully for Oxford or Cambridge.
Its seems there are 3 tiers of education. Private, selective grammar and "normal" comprehensive education. Don't get me started with 'academies' and 'free schools', waste of time, effort and money. Keep it under the control of government