On Thu, Feb 07, 2002 at 08:55:52AM +0000, Ian wrote:
On Thursday 07 February 2002 03:03, 'Frank Shute' wrote:
Today you need 5 grade As at 'A' level, grade 8 piano and a gold Duke of Edinburgh award just to get a sniff of the place. (I exaggerate, but only slightly---I had lunch with an geography don at St Catharine's a couple of months ago who confessed in hushed tones she had let someone in with a 'B' once.)
Margaret Thatcher is a St Catherine's alumnus and she went to a state school and her father was a grocer.
I had a student get in with BCD - offered two E's from an interview and probably decided it then didn't matter too much. Recently interviewed an Oxford grad for a job who had similar A level grades - but this was from a while ago.
That's interesting.
Along with Imperial, Oxford and Cambridge have produced the Most Nobel laureates of any British universities. I'd say that would be something to be proud of.
Thought it was more than the rest of Europe put together ;-)
I think you're right. But then we've got the advantage of using a language that is (wrong expression I know) `lingua franca' of science.
Once you've pissed your pants address yourself to this:
Year A: x % pass exam B Year A + 20: x + 10 % pass exam B
Hence, a greater percentage have passed. So the exam is easier to pass for *whatever* reason.
No, the students might be better prepared. In fact in all liklihood it could be a combination of these. You said maths wasn't your strong point and I think the deductive logic bits are showing the cracks :-)
I acknowledged that may be the case but then you can say `the exam is easier to pass nowadays because students are better prepared'. All I'm saying is that the exam is easier to pass. BTW, maths wasn't my strong point some time back but it is now - Distinction at HND and doing Honours now. FWIW, the purpose of the argument above that I posted was just a piece of rhetoric to dismiss a numb-skull.
Rather more people can run a mile in under 4 mins these days than in 1955. Its just as difficult a task now - ok the tracks might make it a little easier, but in general there are more good runners.
Yes but a mile is a constant, an exam is not - it's a subjective thing to assess the inherent difficulty of an exam. Running 4 minute miles is easier now even though it's the same length but the only similarity is it's a subjective thing with regards the inherent and perceived difficulty in running it in <4 mins. Your metaphor therefore doesn't hold. My point is that statistical data can be misconstrued in the context of the language it is presented in. We're not talking about a programming language here that is carefully designed not to be duplicitous in meaning, we're talking about the English language. You can't use deductive logic when it comes to language and if you read Wittgenstein, Kant, Hulme, Chomsky, Huxley, Orwell etc. they indicate why. My favourite anecdote about this is from the Vietnam War: US General: `We have less reports of VietCong infiltrating villages, hence we are winning the war' Journalist: `In your experience General, how often do the VietCong contact the US Defense Dept to inform them that they have infiltrated a village?' What a surprise that the US lost the war. Hence, it comes as no surprise to me that the `facts' dressed up as `hard data' regards schools & the health service (or anything else for that matter) presented by the government ad nauseum bear no correlation with my personal experience. They're just using rhetorical smoke & mirrors to push home what is their own largely hidden agenda. But most people fall for the `smoke & mirrors' as every magician knows. FWIW, people might aswell look at tea leaves in order to assess the future state of something as complex as a health service or school system. You can't model it properly so you can't use statistics in any meaningful way with that regard. I know that that statement is counter-intuitive but believe me it's the truth. Unfortunately, an industry has grown up around statistics because people think it has a scientific grounding and therefore they think that they must be telling the truth. But stats are prone to misuse and misinterpretation by people who don't understand mathematics and it's limitations or by people who are trying to `prove' some point. Also as you well know there is no one `Statistical Method' and what they all have in common is that you can't prove anything with them in a formal mathematical proof sense ie: by induction, counter-example etc. Mathematics and engineering on the other hand you can use statistics satisfactorily because you can model simple systems and you can use your statistical results to see whether they conform with your model by empirical means. I'll address the `positive discrimination' part of your earlier post at a latter data. Needless to say I disagree with you :)
Regards,
Regards, -- Frank *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* Boroughbridge. Tel: 01423 323019 --------- PGP keyID: 0xC0B341A3 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* http://www.esperance-linux.co.uk/ No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. -- Eleanor Roosevelt