Quote jonkemon78:

---

Clearly, you are the same type of lecturer I was discussing in my post. One, who's ego is very important to them. You didn't get the vanguard joke and now you are acting very defensively.

---

What "joke"? After several very experienced people had (with hindsight) wasted their time trying to explain that the question was meaningless without more info and/or context, we all got roundly abused for being too thick to understand what the original poster meant.

Well excuse me, I just run a commercial studio and try to make a living at this lark, as do a lot of other people who have weighed in.

So here's a very modest challenge to you and/or jaybee. Why don't you post a reply publicly naming which educational facility we are talking about, and we and the market can all draw our own conclusions?

If you prefer to continue hiding behing a veil of anonymity, don't be surprised if people respond in a suspicious, unhelpful manner.

Your call.

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

do some work! aren't we bored yet???!!!By the way, how do you set up a bass woofer?

Well it's clear we have a couple of trolls.

Best not reply to this thread any more...

Can the mods kill it?

Quote Ultimate Fish:

---

Can the mods kill it?

---

But I am enjoying it! A bit of agro now and again is good for the soul!

--------------------
www.the-byre.com No longer Forum Member

true enough. Speaking of which there was a punch up on the forecourt of Tesco's petrol station in York yesterday

Apparently one guy filled his car, then started filling petrol cans.... Otherwise he might have had to get off his backside and walk somewhere .... bloke behind him didn't appreciate it...

Yeah, an les lat, reat da fred faav staa's. An all dat, lat, innit. INNIT? jaybee

--------------------
Stuff what I done

INNNIT. How do you set up a tweeter, by the way.

Quote jaybee:

---

INNNIT. How do you set up a tweeter, by the way.

---

You don't.

Oh, I mean: you shouldn't. It may prove to be too challenging, technically.

I didn't get the van joke either, could you expand on that a little bit further?

--------------------
I cna tpye 300 wrods per mniute

look. its been fun, its been emotional. Thankyou for all the answers, good and bad. W'eve been through alot together. Its clear that Me and my colleagues have proved a point and maybe you guys can have learnt a little something too. Goodbye.

How to set up a sub:

1) Treat the room with bass traps to make it fairly even in bass-response in different parts of the room.

2) Make sure the main monitors are not overblown in the bass department.

3) Put the sub in the listening position, then crawl around the front of the room, looking for the most even response. Site the sub at this spot.

4) Adjust the sub's filter to cross-over with the mains, for example at 48 Hz.

5) Set the sub's level lower than you expect.

6) Listen to loads of different music. No bass notes should jump out, or be missing. You will have to fine-tune the filter, the position, and the phasing of the sub, to ensure the smoothest response.

7) I'd recommend REL subs.

8) Don't get upset and posture. Winding up the Forum with "NO REPLIES-nobody knows? or nobody cares?!" was a bit silly. Of course we care, some of us, anyway. It's just that many of us have visited the 'studios' of some collages, and found them and their staff woefully deficient in acoustic, and recording knowledge. (Tie lines to a nice hall in the building? No??? Oh, well! Put the 'studio' in a decent room? Don't be silly, we need the room for storage, or an expensive harpsichord no-one will use, except the department head. You get the gist: The Studio gets stuffed into a silly room in a silly place which will cost a silly amount of money to 'fix'. Rant over!)



G

--------------------
PA stuff on FB

Quote jaybee:

---

Its clear that Me and my colleagues have proved a point and maybe you guys can have learnt a little something too. Goodbye.

---

what point is that? that you shouldnt be employed as lecturers?

Quote:

---

Its clear that Me and my colleagues have proved a point and maybe you guys can have learnt a little something too.

---

If (and I have some doubts) you actually are a member of staff, not some stupid, spotty little chav who thinks the world owes him a living and is about to score another unit failure through sheer halfwitted ignorance and laziness, I certainly agree that you and your colleagues have proven a point.

Your - and by your claimed association with them - their, ignorance, arrogance, stupidity, incompetence and total unsuitability to occupy any position of responsibility in any organisation, let alone a place of education, have very successfully been proven. Congratulations.


As for who learnt what, I'd suggest that if you think anyone here has learned anything out of this thread, other than the above, and perhaps not to waste time helping people who are too far up themselves to realise that help is being given, you're even more of a fool than I think you are.

If I didn't know some teachers/lecturers and students that are the complete opposite of you I'd say that all my worst fears about the state of audio education have been confirmed. Still, it's always helpful when the lowest common denominator is found.

Quote jaybee:

---

do some work! aren't we bored yet???!!!By the way, how do you set up a bass woofer?

---

This reply gives it all away as far as I'm concerned.

Now shall we all move on and forget about this wind up? Continuing this endless discussion is a waste of energy in my opinion.

--------------------
Imagination is more important than knowledge - A. Einstein

Wow! That was dramatic

A ten second search of Google would have provided countless helpful responses to the original question had it been a serious enquiry -- although a perfectly adequate answer had already been provided by the Byre in a concurrent thread posted by the same person, so perhaps it wasn't intended to be a serious enquiry at all. Did a damn fine job of filling up forum bandwidth didn't it!

I suggest we all leave this discussion well alone now, and watch with interest to see how jaybee and his colleague interact in future threads. Perhaps things have just got off on the wrong footing....

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

just thought i would add a small post to say how shocked i am that a question of this level is being asked by a music tech lecturer.

I am a trainee teacher, going into Music Education from 11-18 and have my main roots in sequencing and notation software.

The question is one of many answers, its like asking "what level do i mix music at?". There is no right and wrong level, but surely you don't want the sub turned down so low you can't hear it and obviously not so high as all you can hear is bass.

I also hear the comments from others saying can't do, teach. Which is very hurtful to those teachers/training who really do want to inspire and give students knowledge. I really hope that people don't tar everyone who is in education with the same brush.

this really does make me quite angry

--------------------
There is nothing Grim about this Reaper
We Fell From The Sky

@ HRJ

Welcome back old bean.



--------------------
if you don't know who i am, i aint gonna tell you.

Thanks Max. Yes, back more or less in one piece from contributing to the severe overcrowding of Amsterdam's transport infrastructure!

Just to add one more generalisation to this thread regarding the teaching staff of music tech courses. There are some absolutely excellent teachers around, most are perfectly competent, but a sizeable number are rather poor. Probably nothing new in that, of course, but this last category are probably unaware and will not accept their personal limitations, and will rarely do anything to better themselves.

Regulars here may recall a thread concerning a 'senior' college lecturer who contradicted the teachings on digital audio fundamentals given by a 'junior' lecturer. In this case the junior lecturer, aware of her inexperience in the subject did considerable research before hand to ensure she explained the topic correctly, and when contradicted in front of her students she sought some reassurances from this forum. When tackled privately about the difference of understanding the 'senior' lecturer, full of ego and arrogance, argued endlessly that the 'junior' was wrong. Even when I became involved and demonstrated very easily the follies of his ways he still refused to accept that his understanding was inept. As far as I know, this 'senior' idiot is still teaching incorrect fundamentals to students on his courses. I could list many other similar examples, and it is easy to form the impression that music tech courses in general are not good... but that would be incorrect. Some are excellent, many are very good, a few are let down by weak lecturers and facilities in some areas, and some are downright awful.

I don't support the notion 'those who can do, those who can't teach!' I 'did' for a long time (and still do) and then I taught to give something back to the industry... and I still teach through the pages of SOS amongst other outlets. I know lots of extremely competent teachers at all levels of academia, and I have been impressed with the capabilities of several music tech and related courses up and down the country.

However, I've also met a depressingly large number of people who simply don't understand the topics they are trying to teach, don't have any real world experience, or are hampered by inadequate facilities and equipment.

Finally, I should just add that not every lecturer who works in a music tech department will (or should) know everything. I wouldn't expect someone who teaches music composition to understand the inner complexities of oversampling, for example. However, I would expect a music tech department to have competent lecturers who, between them, should be able to cover all the bases from music composition and performance, music business practice, fundamental audio theory, practical recording technqiues, and acoustics. Furthermore, I would expect all college lecturers to have the ability to conduct basic research to find answers to specific questions. It was the latter that appeared missing in the original poster's abilities.

Hugh

Welcome back from IBC and I'd wish I had been able to go there to check out all the new HDTV stuff that is coming out now.

You raise a few interesting points here Hugh - and I would just like to add we had a lecturer here not too long ago with some of his class who had been teaching the class that +3dB was a doubling of the volume. In that one day, he managed to make about five or six such fundamental mistakes - and you must remember that his class of 18 or whatever students now go out into the World armed with the 'knowledge' that +3dB is double the volume.

The problem is and has always been that anyone can go out there and call them selves audio engineers. Add to that, the subject was waaaaay simpler when I started out. When I returned to the industry after X years of writing and running a very different type of business, I discovered HUGE holes in my knowledge (that have beeen magnificently displayed by some of my postings! e.g. pre-emphasis on CDs!).

There was never any digital to worry about and so no need to worry about sampling - over or under! There was no 5.1 and all the complications that it brings with it. Tape was forgiving and mastering was done by men in white coats somewhere far away.

So the subject has become much more academic and is rapidly getting even more so. Now we have to get our heads round encoding and living in a multimedia World, as well as dealing with music. So when I have finished reading some endless score, I can start worrying about authoring DVDs and encoding and syncing to video. And kids have to enter that World. They cannot grow into it as you and I did.

This natural difficulty that come with technical advance (if people want to watch a DVD then someone has to make sure that the Boo-Men come from back-left and in all formats!) is now combined with a dramatic drop in learning standards and a dramatic and unrealistic rise in expectations.

When I did GCE O Levels it involved calculus, logarithms etc., etc. Today's GCSE at O or Standard grade does not. Education at a higher level has become an inclusive (rather than an exclusive) activity. In other words, everybody wants and expects to receive a university education and a good job in some 'sexy' industry like media or music. When 'hopefuls' turn up on my doorstep (some believe it or not, with their mothers!) one of my standard questions is 'What is the number one expressed as a logarithm?'

It never ceases to amaze me how many people (who want to study audio engineering or even claim to have done so!) have yet to meet basic maths (which is a pity, as it is good fun!)

But in today's World, the education itself has to be inclusive. We all have to be able to do it. Oversampling is not as easy to understand as, say, multiband compression, so let's not bother, otherwise half the class will just get lost and fail the course. Then where would we be?

If all that were not bad enough as it is, the colleges in the UK are being starved of proper funding. Lecturers are paid less than teachers and we all know what happens if we pay peanuts . . .

Some lecturers are highly motivated and the job in itself is reward enough. I have a friend like that, and because living up here is cheap, he can afford to be a college lecturer. But in the SE of England that luxury would be denied him.

But if all that is not bad enough, enter private colleges who are prepared to take on those students who cannot meet the already lowered entrance standards of some of the 'real' accredited universities and tech colleges.

So here we have this magnificent mis-match: a subject that was always a bit of a swott that has become so much harder to understand - electronics, digital theory, musical theory, accoustics, computer programming and networking - meets a World looking for instant answers.

So, at what level does one set up a sub in a 2.1 configuration? One? Two? Three? Eleven?

Please don't bang on about decibels - they are logarithmic!

--------------------
www.the-byre.com No longer Forum Member

For once you gall is justified, Andrew

It doesn't just apply to Music Tech, though - is it not reasonable to expect that someone who goes to University to study a language knows what is the difference between a verb and a noun, what case means, and the bare basics of syntax? Apparently it isn't!

(Kids these days!)

-Paws

--------------------
Signature (up to 200 characters). You may use UBBCode in your signature

Quote The Byre:

---

I would just like to add we had a lecturer here not too long ago with some of his class who had been teaching the class that +3dB was a doubling of the volume.

---

Hmmm... not an uncommon cause of confusion. A doubling of acoustic power would be a 3dB increase. A doubling of signal voltage would be 6dB. The issue here is the term 'volume' which is an entirely subjective term, rather than a quantifiable, measureable thing. Subjectively, a doubling of perceived volume requires about 10dB more signal voltage....

Quote:

---

In that one day, he managed to make about five or six such fundamental mistakes - and you must remember that his class of 18 or whatever students now go out into the World armed with the 'knowledge' that +3dB is double the volume.

---

To be fair to the teaching profession, such 'errors' are not always the fault of duff teachers. Sometimes the students simply mis-hear or mis-interpret what the teacher has (correctly) stated.

Quote:

---

Add to that, the subject was waaaaay simpler when I started out.

---

I'm not sure that is really true. The fundamentals of audio and acoustics, mic and speaker design, music perforamnce and so on haven't changed significantly. The equipment we use has changed, obviously, but I don't really think working with digital audio is any more demanding than knowing how to align analogue multitracks.

Quote:

---

There was never any digital to worry about and so no need to worry about sampling - over or under! There was no 5.1 and all the complications that it brings with it. Tape was forgiving and mastering was done by men in white coats somewhere far away.

---

You must have been out of the industry for one heck of a long time Digital has been with us for thirty years or so. Surround sound in various guises for at least as long (arguably 60+ years if we consider Fantasound). Modern 24 bit digital systems are every bit as forgiving as tape ever was if used intelligently, if not more so. Okay, so I admit the white coats are a thing of the past... except in Glass Mastering clean rooms!

Quote:

---

So the subject has become much more academic and is rapidly getting even more so.

---

Sorry, I still don't think it is more academic now that previously. Tonmeister courses have always been highly technical simply because to be the best, you needed that level of understanding. Okay, so if you don't understand digital clocking you may well end up with clicks and splats everywhere. But twenty years ago if you didn't undertand bias you'd end up with a really nasty sounding tape recording. What's the difference?

Quote:

---

combined with a dramatic drop in learning standards and a dramatic and unrealistic rise in expectations.

---

Personally, I'm not entirely convinced about the reduction in learning standards -- at least not as far as the private sector and better public sector schools are concerned. I think people are just more aware now of the section of school children who don't progress well. In 'olden times' they would have left school earlier to enter employment, rather than be made to sit exams they can't succeed in.

However, the unrealistic expectations thing is certainly a serious issue. There is a culture these days that everyone should be a 'star' and that no one should ever fail. That everyone should have rights to the job they want, rather than the job they are capable of doing.

Quote:

---

When I did GCE O Levels it involved calculus, logarithms etc., etc. Today's GCSE at O or Standard grade does not.

---

I don't remember doing calculus at O level. I think that was A-level material. My step daughter sitting her GCSEs this year is doing logarithms...

Quote:

---

When 'hopefuls' turn up on my doorstep (some believe it or not, with their mothers!) one of my standard questions is 'What is the number one expressed as a logarithm?'

---

Er... zero! Gizusajobmate... I won't bring my mum...

Quote:

---

Oversampling is not as easy to understand as, say, multiband compression, so let's not bother, otherwise half the class will just get lost and fail the course.

---

Actually, I think oversampling is fairly easy to understand conceptually. It just requires a good teacher and an attentive class.

Quote:

---

If all that were not bad enough as it is, the colleges in the UK are being starved of proper funding. Lecturers are paid less than teachers and we all know what happens if we pay peanuts . . .

---

Some colleges may be being starved of funds. Others have more money than they know what to do with. I recently visited a college that had spent over £70 million on a new 'meeja' builing, and 25% of the budget had gone into decent acoustic isolation between studios, rehearsal rooms and classrooms. Very impressive it was too!

But the point you make is an important one, especially regarding salaries. If you want good teachers and lecturers you have to pay good money. It's obvious! The same applies to the police, nurses and doctors and so on... These should all be well respected and highly regarded positions within our society. They were once. But sadly, people accord more status on 'celebrities' these days.

Quote:

---

Some lecturers are highly motivated and the job in itself is reward enough. I have a friend like that, and because living up here is cheap, he can afford to be a college lecturer. But in the SE of England that luxury would be denied him.

---

Very true. I was once offered a job as a lecturer at an establishment in Oxford but the salary was well below what I could have earned as a freelance sound recordist -- and that's not particularly great!

Quote:

---

So, at what level does one set up a sub in a 2.1 configuration?

---

How about 'with a level of competence'

Good Rant, Andy. We should form the Grumpy Old Blokes Boring Young Folks About Recording Technology and Studies.

Who else will join my Society of GOBBY FARTS?

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Hugh:
>Personally, I'm not entirely convinced about the reduction in learning standards -- at least not as far as the private sector and better public sector schools are concerned.

But what is the pass mark required… seems these days kids only need to score about 10% to get a pass and something like 45% to get a distinction!

Pah, in my day… err, I think I just may qualify for the GOBBY FARTS society too

Tim ;o)

--------------------
Studio: www.kymatasound.com

Quote Tim Rainey:

---

Hugh:
>Personally, I'm not entirely convinced about the reduction in learning standards -- at least not as far as the private sector and better public sector schools are concerned.

But what is the pass mark required… seems these days kids only need to score about 10% to get a pass and something like 45% to get a distinction!

Pah, in my day… err, I think I just may qualify for the GOBBY FARTS society too

Tim ;o)

---

In higher education its as follows

Pass mark 40% or above

For any courses with classification i.e. Foundation Degree, Masters etc.

40% or above pass
60 - 69% Merit
70% and above is a distinction.

Similar kind of guidelines for BA level but they get definitions as 2:2, 2:1, First or Third etc.

University regulations on what is required from students to actually pass a HE course leaves a little to be desired though.

We could keep this going for a long time and I believe we have exchanged views on this subject more than once. As we are both more or less singing off the same hymn sheet, apart from details, there is room for someone to shout at us from the sidelines.

The lecturer in question managed to make those mistakes in my presence and I (like you) asked exactly what he meant by volume - and yes, he meant perceived volume. He then laughed when I sujested that he might be wrong.

As for calculus, I did the London GCE O in 1966 (I think!) and we were the last year to do calculus and many schools went over to doing GCSE exams instead as they were far easier. I failed Maths O (GCE) the first time around and had to do a 'lap-of-honour' in January. Our school did GCSE's as well as an experiment and they seemed very easy and I got an A or a one or whatever the top mark was.

I have never understood what was wrong with the old O and A Level GCE system as set by the universities of London, Cambridge and the AEB. For some reason, someone decided to fix this system and I was never aware of it ever being 'bust!'

That does not mean that I want to see humanity go back to dusty old dickensian 'chalk and talk,' but as we rush off into a brave new World of multimedia studies, could someone somewhere please set a benchmark so that if I hear that a student has a BSc, that will mean a bit more than 'knows how to use ProTools.'

As you may just be able to tell, I feel strongly about this and not because I could give a hoot about standards in general, or because of the effect on the industry or society, or that, if kids do not know that the answer is zero, we shall all go to hell in a handbasket.

I am annoyed because young people today are being 'sold a line.' On another thread, you, John and others came to the conclusion (again) that there are three, four, or perhaps five colleges teaching audio tech today, that do so to a standard that provides their graduates with a realistic chance of employment and career. And we all know that you can go to any college or even none at all and still have a career. The industry is full of people who did the tape-op route, but most of them (e.g. me) had to roll up their sleeves and get a sheepskin or the knowledge equivalent if they wanted to stay in the game.

That means that there are God-knows how many (I hate to think, but it must be over 100 - go on, give me the figure!) that are churning out 25-30 graduates each and every year into a complete and utter vacume. They are being tipped over the edge into a shelf-stacking, burger-flipping abyss.

It's the youngsters who send me their cv's and hope against hope for some kind of career that I feel sorry for; they and their parents that cough up £20k+ for an education that is not worth having.

Oh, back to work (Grumble, grumble, grumble . . .)

--------------------
www.the-byre.com No longer Forum Member

Thanks for the higher education figures Richard.

Quote from the BBC:

"It's the pass marks that are being lowered a little bit each year it seems and now they are about 25% below what they were 12 years ago," Mr Robinson said.

He said to obtain a grade C in a maths GCSE set by the OCR in 1988, pupils would have had to have gained 65% - but in 2000, that level had dropped to 45%.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/education/1505761.stm

Notice that was for the year 2000

I’ve recently seen these ridiculous figures quoted:

16% = pass
47% = A plus

In my day, for a pass, we had to score 125% and lick the master’s boots clean too

Tim ;o)

--------------------
Studio: www.kymatasound.com

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Very true. I was once offered a job as a lecturer at an establishment in Oxford but the salary was well below what I could have earned as a freelance sound recordist -- and that's not particularly great!

Quote:

---

So, at what level does one set up a sub in a 2.1 configuration?

---

How about 'with a level of competence'

Good Rant, Andy. We should form the Grumpy Old Blokes Boring Young Folks About Recording Technology and Studies.

Who else will join my Society of GOBBY FARTS?

hugh

---

I suppose I should, being as I'm officially classified as a miserable Git

Oddly, familiar thing about that Oxford job and teaching...

When I moved back to Oxford from Wales, I was slightly perturbed to discover that the available Media/Audio/tech teaching jobs within the local area ALL paid less than I had been earning In Wales for the same thing.

Oxford, possibly one of the most expensive places to live outside of London, pays less than North Wales.... one of the cheapest places to live in the Uk

Offered posts, declined all.,... on the same grounds.... Simply couldn't afford to live on it... never mind support 5 kids and my horrific gear habit...

I Still teach some Media Tech , but as a freelance contractor, and I get to set the rates.... (within reason)



Max



Note to self, I should shut up now before Hugh nicks all my clients



--------------------
if you don't know who i am, i aint gonna tell you.

Quote The Byre:

---

As for calculus, I did the London GCE O in 1966 (I think!) and we were the last year to do calculus and many schools went over to doing GCSE exams instead as they were far easier.

---

That would be CSE exams, not the modern GCSE which is somewhat different. I sat my GCE O level in 1977 and we were the last year to use slide rules...

Quote:

---

Our school did GCSE's as well as an experiment and they seemed very easy and I got an A or a one or whatever the top mark was.

---

As I recall, the top grade in a CSE exam was roughly equivalent to a C (pass) grade in the GCE. Modern GCSE exams today have similar sliding levels of difficulty, but are supposed to be graded with absolute equivalence. Ho hum...

Quote:

---

I have never understood what was wrong with the old O and A Level GCE system as set by the universities of London, Cambridge and the AEB. For some reason, someone decided to fix this system and I was never aware of it ever being 'bust!'

---

Quite. It's a case of being seen to do something, even if the something wasn't what was actually needed. Far easier to fiddle with womething that already works, instead of trying to fix something that is obviously broken.

hugh

--------------------
Technical Editor, Sound On Sound

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

As I recall, the top grade in a CSE exam was roughly equivalent to a C (pass) grade in the GCE. Modern GCSE exams today have similar sliding levels of difficulty, but are supposed to be graded with absolute equivalence. Ho hum...

---

Interestingly enough, when I took my GCE O Levels in 1986, some of the subjects we did what they called '16+' at the time, which I think is what evolved into the GCSE later. We sat the exam and basically received an O Level and a CSE. For one set of exams in French I received a GCE O Level Grade C and a CSE Grade 1. Not entirely sure what the rationale behind this odd setup was, to be honest.

'What is the number one expressed as a logarithm?'

WGAF?????

"So, at what level does one set up a sub in a 2.1 configuration?"

*You set the level so the drool comes out of each side of the mouth, evenly. The mouth of the sales rep.

*About a foot higher than your foot.

*It's a sub, so it goes in the basement, stoopid.

*20,000 leagues under the sea.

*That will do for now . . .


[/coat]

g

--------------------
PA stuff on FB

At least as regards the context of this thread, can I be a founder Gobby Fart too please?

--------------------
Dynamite with a laser beam...

Quote Richard H:

---

Quote Tim Rainey:

---

Hugh:
>Personally, I'm not entirely convinced about the reduction in learning standards -- at least not as far as the private sector and better public sector schools are concerned.

But what is the pass mark required… seems these days kids only need to score about 10% to get a pass and something like 45% to get a distinction!

Pah, in my day… err, I think I just may qualify for the GOBBY FARTS society too

Tim ;o)

---

In higher education its as follows

Pass mark 40% or above

For any courses with classification i.e. Foundation Degree, Masters etc.

40% or above pass
60 - 69% Merit
70% and above is a distinction.

Similar kind of guidelines for BA level but they get definitions as 2:2, 2:1, First or Third etc.

---

'Pass marks' are something of a simplification and don't really accuratley describe the way many University courses are marked. For example, Maths at Oxford used to be something like this:

Each 3 hour paper, of which there are 8, contains 8 questions of 25 marks each. You are expected to attempt about 4 questions per paper. A number of tallies are taken:

-all marks gained are added up, giving a simple total

-the score for each question is sqaured, and these sqaures numbers are then added, to give a sqaured sum total. This measure is best serviced by answering questions as fully as possible - one 20/25 is worth four 10/25s for example

- scoring over 20 in a question scores you an 'alpha', over 15 scores a 'beta'. The number of alphas and betas scored is tallied.

Class boundaries are then decided using a mix of these measures.

eg
3rd - 300 marks
2.2 400 marks 5 betas, one alpha
2.1 600 marks, 5 alphas
1st 800 marks, sum squared total > 10,000

In terms of a tradional %age, no-one scored much above 50% - no-one is expected to as the papers are not designed that way.

Bit off topic, but what I wanted to show was that % scores on their own do not mean much...

(having said that, school exams are all much easier these days without a doubt, anyone trying to deny it is either a fool, or works for the government... (not XOR there)

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Good Rant, Andy. We should form the Grumpy Old Blokes Boring Young Folks About Recording Technology and Studies.

Who else will join my Society of GOBBY FARTS?

---

Some of us 'young folks' are listening attentively & nodding heads in agreement...

Mike

--------------------
www.ehsound.co.uk - Live Sound Hire & Services

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Quote The Byre:

---

...

I have never understood what was wrong with the old O and A Level GCE system as set by the universities of London, Cambridge and the AEB. For some reason, someone decided to fix this system and I was never aware of it ever being 'bust!'

---

Quite. It's a case of being seen to do something, even if the something wasn't what was actually needed. Far easier to fiddle with womething that already works, instead of trying to fix something that is obviously broken.

hugh

---

Hmm ... well we're *way* off topic but I cannot let this pass - sorry.

At the time of the change, it wasjudged that there was a fundamental problem with O levels - that they were designed for a very small percentage of the population and designed (at least originally) for people who would eventually be doing academic subjects in the few Universities we had prior to the 1960s expansion. Over the years, their design changed, but the exclusivity did not.

CSEs were designed to be a lower level of exam, but at their inception, required a very early choice for candiadtes. In some areas, your route to O or CSE was decided as early as 11 and almost always by 13.

This early streaming and extreme exclusivity of the qualifications was changed and eroded over time, but it was still a fundamental problem of the O level exam.

The 2nd thing that happen in education was the debate between inclusive and exclusive education. The O level, by its design, was based on an exclusiv model of education. However, inclusive models have become standard in many educational systems, including the UK.

Hence you have a problem. Even with an exclusive educational system, the O level was considered extreme and too high level for too many. But it is fundamentally bust if you move to an inclusive educational model.

Hence the move to GCSEs and the subsequent chnage to A levels.

Note that I neither defend nor advocate all this - but I just couldn't let the comment "chaneg for change's sake" pass. There were fundamental educational reasons - both practical and philosophical - for the change.

If I was to express an opinion, I think that GCSEs have done some good, but many of the promises made about GCSEs have not been delivered, and the pendulum seems to be swinging away from inclusive educational models anyway. The fear that they suppress excellence and just average out educational achievement to a drab norm has turned out to have some truth. I would not be surprised if we see a fundamental change back to something like a GSE/O level hierarchy within the next 5 to 10 years.

--------------------
Andrew

Quote Michael Harrison:

---

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

Good Rant, Andy. We should form the Grumpy Old Blokes Boring Young Folks About Recording Technology and Studies.

Who else will join my Society of GOBBY FARTS?

---

Some of us 'young folks' are listening attentively & nodding heads in agreement...

Mike

---

Agreed.

Seablade

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

That would be CSE exams, not the modern GCSE which is somewhat different. I sat my GCE O level in 1977 and we were the last year to use slide rules...

---

I was born in 1977

Quote Ultimate Fish:

---

Quote Hugh Robjohns:

---

That would be CSE exams, not the modern GCSE which is somewhat different. I sat my GCE O level in 1977 and we were the last year to use slide rules...

---

I was born in 1977

---

me too

this thread is great lol

lets go off on another tangent and talk about the highlights of growing up in the 80's

Discuss

Ahem, i sat mine in '78 and we used slide rules

Quote Richard H:

---

this thread is great lol

lets go off on another tangent and talk about the highlights of growing up in the 80's

Discuss

---

My teen years happened in the 1980s, so don't get me started on *that*....

Quote Richard H:

---

lets go off on another tangent and talk about the highlights of growing up in the 80's

Discuss

---

And a staple musical diet of tat from Stock, Aitken and Waterman

So much has changed

... although

--------------------
need to get rid of this stupid sig...

I have just had a horrible vision of Rick Astley

Don't panic, its normal. It happens to lots of guys.