Paralympic Cycling

Andy Leighton [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

Surely these are just two sides of the same coin? If an exam tests
to see if you have a certain level of ability and you don't you fail.

Not really. An exam does not test to see if you have a certain level of
ability, it tests your level of ability. This is not simply a semantic
difference. Rather than setting an abitrary level at which we deem
someone's knowledge to be sufficient, try and find out what they know
(or have learnt).

Quoted message said:

I agree that exams are not always the best tool we have to show the
level of ability (or of inability) but it is better than nothing.

It is better than nothing, but worse than many alternatives, one of
which is coursework. An exam (As currently setup) tests a student's
ability to remember facts under pressure. A bit like Mastermind!

A better test is to establish how much they understood. This requires a
different type of skill that is not easily covered by a written, timed
test.

Quoted message said:

As someone who passed the 11+ I will pass on that question. BTW where
I live the 11+ is still done and there is still a selective Grammar school.

Congratulations. There are still a number of schools around where the 11
+ is an entrance requirement, but they are not the "only" option. Back
in the "good ol' days" those who went to a <spit> comprehensive were fit
only for blue collar work. It's a simple pass-fail system, but is not
actually supported by many people. Something to do with equality IIRC.

Quoted message said:

So they should get a pass for turning up?

You're still not getting it. Remove the concept of "pass" or "fail" from
your head and look again.

Quoted message said:

Failing one set of exams does
not brand you for life.

That depends greatly on the exams.

Quoted message said:

You can retake them, you can wait and return
to education later in life, you can find something else where you are a
winner and I am a loser (because you are more able at that activity).

But while the "pass or fail" attitude that you show still exists in
society, those who "failed" will not easily get those opportunities.

Quoted message said:

Some people who fail their exams go on to become very successful even in
academic fields.

Which says a great deal about the relevance of the exams, doesn't it?

Quoted message said:

I am sorry Jon if you can see the word solely (or even mainly) in my post
I will wholeheartedly apologise for this and my original post.

OK. The implication was there, if not explicit. If you had not intended
to show sport as being a competitive "win or lose" example, then it was
perhaps, misplaced. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Firstly this newsgroup is uk.rec.cycling not uk.sport.cycling (so is
sport-related through accident - not enough interest in setting up the
latter group), many people post here because they enjoy cycling as
recreation or even because they cycle as utility. I myself have
never competed in any cycling event (it would be pretty pointless unless it
was a slow race).

See my post to Euan for my understanding of "sport". It explains a great
deal.

Quoted message said:

You are still competing, albeit with yourself. Now you cannot really
use the words winner and loser in those situations but you can point to
the good performances and the bad.

But not "pass or fail" unless arbitrary targets are set.

Quoted message said:

Ahh so you have a rant because of how sport was mismanaged at your
school.

Sadly not just mine. My experiences are far from unique.

Quoted message said:

Fine. But when you play a game of football (which we never did
at school), hockey, rugby, tennis or run/swim a race or even play darts,
snooker, cards or pirates there is competition and there are winners and
losers.

And when I cycle to get somewhere, swim in the morning for the pleasure
of it, run to keep fit there is no competition (Well, I tend to race
other cyclists but that's beside the point!) and no winners or losers.
When they stand the winners on the podium after a competition the top
three are singled out. Why not just one? Or the whole field?

Quoted message said:

BTW - the OED defines sport as a game or competitive activity esp.
an outdoor one (eg football, cricket ...).

Chess? :-)

Jon

Jon Senior said:

Quoted message said:

Fine. But when you play a game of football (which we never did
at school), hockey, rugby, tennis or run/swim a race or even play darts,
snooker, cards or pirates there is competition and there are winners and
losers.

And when I cycle to get somewhere, swim in the morning for the pleasure
of it, run to keep fit there is no competition [snip] and no winners or
losers.

In my worldview that isn't sport - it is recreation and physical exercise.
It is obviously related to sport as these activities can also be sports as
well as recreation. But your view obviously differs so much from mine on
the definition of sport it seems worthless to further debate sport wrt
competition.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Jon Senior said:

Quoted message said:

Fine. But when you play a game of football (which we never did
at school), hockey, rugby, tennis or run/swim a race or even play darts,
snooker, cards or pirates there is competition and there are winners and
losers.

And when I cycle to get somewhere, swim in the morning for the pleasure
of it, run to keep fit there is no competition [snip] and no winners or
losers.

In my worldview that isn't sport - it is recreation and physical exercise.
It is obviously related to sport as these activities can also be sports as
well as recreation. But your view obviously differs so much from mine on
the definition of sport it seems worthless to further debate sport wrt
competition.

--
Andy Leighton => [email hidden]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_

Anyone want to say anything further on Paralympic cycling/ handcycling or do
you want to start a new thread on school exams?
--
OJ

Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Elbert Hubbard (1856 - 1915)

On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 18:43:45 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Gawnsoft [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

Hmm - I'd say it's only a sports-related NG to the extent it's a
competition-related NG.

"Sport" always referred to some kind of physical activity.

Chess is a recognised sport.

Quoted message said:

Generally
those that have a competition element but not necessarily (Snooker?).
Exercise includes activities such as walking and use of gym machines,
neither of which I think of as sport.

Cycling is, for many, like walking. Very few walkers are prepping
for their the Olympic walking events. Not all cyclists are cycling as
competition training.

Quoted message said:

I admit that my personal definition probably differs greatly from the
textbook one (If such a think exists!).

And it seems to be a bit inconsistent internally, too. :-)

--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk

Gawnsoft [email hidden] opined the
following...

Quoted message said:

Chess is a recognised sport.

I had a feeling it might be.

Quoted message said:

Cycling is, for many, like walking. Very few walkers are prepping
for their the Olympic walking events. Not all cyclists are cycling as
competition training.

This was my point. I view sport as both competitive and non-competitive.
It is possible to participate in a sport without at any point being in
competition with others or oneself.

Quoted message said:

And it seems to be a bit inconsistent internally, too. :-)

No worse than most English words if you look too closely! ;-)

Jon

Andy Leighton [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

In my worldview that isn't sport - it is recreation and physical exercise.
It is obviously related to sport as these activities can also be sports as
well as recreation. But your view obviously differs so much from mine on
the definition of sport it seems worthless to further debate sport wrt
competition.

Fine. How about the purpose of exams? :-)

Jon

"D.M. Procida" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Andy Leighton said:

Quoted message said:

Why should anyone fail?

So would you be happy with a pass grade of 1%?

Why should anyone pass? What's the point? Are exams to label people as
sheep and goats, or to obtain some kind of genuine assessment of their
abilities?

If you accept a scoring system to measure ability then inevitably you end up
having to deal with the concept of pass or failure. People need measures of
ability for all sorts of reasons, and if you measure it inevitably you will
conclude that some don't have the ability - ie. they fail. Those that do,
pass. Take driving licences for example. Too many people pass those, and
they don't have the ability!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Life is full of situations where there are winners and losers - children
need to learn this, both by participation in sports and in examinations
where there are winners and losers.

What's a bit more important is for children to learn that they can deal
with their lives without it needing to be a struggle against their
fellow human beings in which some will be winners at the expense of
those who are losers.

The idea of 'winners at the expense of losers' is what is wrong. It
suggests somehow those who reach a certain standard achieving it only by
removing something from those don't. If everybody tries their best and some
come out better than others, it doesn't mean that anyone robbed anyone else
of anything. Let everyone fulfill their potential to the full. You will
still not have a society where all are of equal ability in everything.

Quoted message said:

What they need to learn about sport is that it can be a pleasure in
which everyone can participate happily, not that it's a place to
humiliate or be humiliated.

Believe it or not, it is possible to participate happily in competitive
sport and not win. It is possible to beat others without humiliating them,
and to be beaten without feeling humiliated. It is all just a question of
attitude. And the same applies to exams, and to life generally. Of course,
if one fails to achieve something one had hoped for there will be
disappointment. But failure does not equate to worthlessness.

Rich

Richard Goodman [email hidden] opined the following...

Quoted message said:

If you accept a scoring system to measure ability then inevitably you end up
having to deal with the concept of pass or failure.

Why? As others have demonstrated, we have a huge number of gradiated
scales in other areas that do not indicate "pass / fail" (temperature,
volume, distance etc.). Why is it so difficult to extend this to ability
in a given area?

Quoted message said:

People need measures of
ability for all sorts of reasons, and if you measure it inevitably you will
conclude that some don't have the ability - ie. they fail.

Wrong. They don't have the ability. No failure involved. You gain
nothing by labelling the lesser levels of the scale as "failed" and only
demean those for whom that is the limit of their ability. I can't run as
fast as many others (In school, almost everyone seemed to run faster
than me), but I didn't "fail" at running. I just wasn't as good.

Quoted message said:

Those that do,
pass. Take driving licences for example. Too many people pass those, and
they don't have the ability!

Hmm. A good example that. While I don't approve of pass / fail I accept
that in some cases there may be a minimum required standard for some
activities.

My issue is with examinations in general and specifically those in
education. I don't see any advantage to telling a 16 year old that
they're a failure, yet we persist in doing so (Less now than we used
to). To quote Ben Harper "Treat a child like a criminal, from the day
that he is born. And you're gonna reap just what you sow."

Jon

Richard Goodman said:

Quoted message said:

Why should anyone pass? What's the point? Are exams to label people as
sheep and goats, or to obtain some kind of genuine assessment of their
abilities?

If you accept a scoring system to measure ability then inevitably you end up
having to deal with the concept of pass or failure.

No you don't. There are plenty of assessment systems in which you can
measure ability without declaring people to have passed or failed.

Quoted message said:

People need measures of ability for all sorts of reasons, and if you
measure it inevitably you will conclude that some don't have the ability -
ie. they fail. Those that do, pass. Take driving licences for example.
Too many people pass those, and they don't have the ability!

The driving test is completely different from an educational assessment.
It just asks: is this person safe to drive on the roads? The answer is
yes or no.

Quoted message said:

Believe it or not, it is possible to participate happily in competitive
sport and not win. It is possible to beat others without humiliating them,
and to be beaten without feeling humiliated. It is all just a question of
attitude.

One which children don't much opportunity to learn.

Quoted message said:

And the same applies to exams, and to life generally. Of course,
if one fails to achieve something one had hoped for there will be
disappointment. But failure does not equate to worthlessness.

You're quite wrong about that. That is precisely what having children
"fail" examinations does tell them, and why for all its other numerous
shortcomings, the direction that education has taken in this country in
the last 10 or 15 years has done a lot of good by moving towards a way
of classifying ability that doesn't brand children as failures.

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140

On 22/9/04 6:57 pm, in article [email hidden],

Jon Senior' jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk said:

Quoted message said:

Failing one set of exams does
not brand you for life.

That depends greatly on the exams.

Quoted message said:

You can retake them, you can wait and return
to education later in life, you can find something else where you are a
winner and I am a loser (because you are more able at that activity).

But while the "pass or fail" attitude that you show still exists in
society, those who "failed" will not easily get those opportunities.

My brother has just sat some exams. I think you would be extremely pleased
that they are graded as pass/fail rather than a graded measure of ability.
An exercise to the reader to work out why.

I teach at a University so have to set exam questions. For the record, I
went to a selective school, am 'academic' in outlook and ability and have a
higher degree. I also hate exams, preparing for them, sitting them, marking
them and setting them. Wherever possible I like to give students practical
methods to demonstrate knowledge and understanding.

A good exam question will test both knowledge and the application of that
knowledge. It is not about just remembering facts, but about how those facts
are used. It is very hard to demonstrate understanding if you have nothing
with which to demonstrate it.

And yes, I was particularly poor at the traditional sort of exams. Unlike
90% of my contemporaries, when given an exam where there was a choice of a
problem solving question or an essay, I'd do the problem every time.

...d

On 23/9/04 12:26 am, in article [email hidden],

Jon Senior' jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOTco_DOT_uk said:

Quoted message said:

If you accept a scoring system to measure ability then inevitably you end up
having to deal with the concept of pass or failure.

Why? As others have demonstrated, we have a huge number of gradiated
scales in other areas that do not indicate "pass / fail" (temperature,
volume, distance etc.). Why is it so difficult to extend this to ability
in a given area?

Because only temperatures of water above a certain level are suitable for
certain purposes, ie making tea, or heat treating bicycle steel.

So we do have a suitable/unsuitable case, or pass/fail if you want to put it
like that.

...d

David Martin said:

A good exam question will test both knowledge and the application of that
knowledge. It is not about just remembering facts, but about how those facts
are used. It is very hard to demonstrate understanding if you have nothing
with which to demonstrate it.

We try to have a,b,c subquestions where a asks for a simple fact given in
the lectures and c asks for application and further reading and problem
solving.
The best student in my class last year did not that well on the a's but
perfectly at the c's.

Quoted message said:

And yes, I was particularly poor at the traditional sort of exams. Unlike
90% of my contemporaries, when given an exam where there was a choice of a
problem solving question or an essay, I'd do the problem every time.

I once had an exam in multidimensional geometry which consisted of
preparing some problems on paper in advance and then talking about it with
the teacher. I used to hate oral exams but that one was amazing, we just
sat there waving our arms about and my grade kept going up 🙂

In my new course (the one that I'm taking, not teaching) they sem to do a
fair bit of multiple choice questions. Hate them, I can always think of a
loophole in the question which makes the right answer wrong.

Roos

in message <[email hidden]>, Richard Goodman

(') said:

"D.M. Procida" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message

Quoted message said:

Why should anyone pass? What's the point? Are exams to label people
as sheep and goats, or to obtain some kind of genuine assessment of
their abilities?

If you accept a scoring system to measure ability then inevitably you
end up having to deal with the concept of pass or failure. People need
measures of ability for all sorts of reasons, and if you measure it
inevitably you will
conclude that some don't have the ability - ie. they fail. Those that
do,
pass. Take driving licences for example. Too many people pass those,
and they don't have the ability!

Hear, hear!

However, school leaving exams are not - and should not - be like that.
What society - employers, further and higher education establishments
and the individuals themselves need is not a binary categorisation but
a rounded assessment of the persons' abilities as experienced by the
school.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

"D.M. Procida" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Richard Goodman said:

Quoted message said:

Why should anyone pass? What's the point? Are exams to label people as
sheep and goats, or to obtain some kind of genuine assessment of their
abilities?

If you accept a scoring system to measure ability then inevitably you end
up
having to deal with the concept of pass or failure.

No you don't. There are plenty of assessment systems in which you can
measure ability without declaring people to have passed or failed.

Quoted message said:

People need measures of ability for all sorts of reasons, and if you
measure it inevitably you will conclude that some don't have the
ability -
ie. they fail. Those that do, pass. Take driving licences for example.
Too many people pass those, and they don't have the ability!

The driving test is completely different from an educational assessment.
It just asks: is this person safe to drive on the roads? The answer is
yes or no.

Quoted message said:

Believe it or not, it is possible to participate happily in competitive
sport and not win. It is possible to beat others without humiliating
them,
and to be beaten without feeling humiliated. It is all just a question
of
attitude.

One which children don't much opportunity to learn.

Quoted message said:

And the same applies to exams, and to life generally. Of course,
if one fails to achieve something one had hoped for there will be
disappointment. But failure does not equate to worthlessness.

You're quite wrong about that. That is precisely what having children
"fail" examinations does tell them, and why for all its other numerous
shortcomings, the direction that education has taken in this country in
the last 10 or 15 years has done a lot of good by moving towards a way
of classifying ability that doesn't brand children as failures.

I think we're talking at cross purposes. You can't remove the concept of
failing at something by making it politically incorrect. Take GCSEs for
example, if you want an educational example. Noone does technically 'fail'
them. You get graded from A-G and if you don't even reach 'G' then you're
'U', which is 'unclassified' - it's not called 'fail'. But the fact is even
getting a 'G' doesn't count for very much. Straight 'G's probably won't get
you into the sixth form of your choice or perhaps even any sixth form at
all. It probably won't be enough to let you pursue a 'G' grade subject at A
level. My younger daughter had to get at least B's to do her chosen
subjects in her chosen school. The school that my elder daughter did her A
levels at required a minimum of 6 'A' grades at GCSE to get in. Anyone who
gets only 5 'A' grade GCSE's can hardly be said to have failed them, but
they would have failed to get into that school if they wanted to.

There is no point in measuring ability if you do not want to take any action
reliant on the level of ability reached. If it's irrelevant then there's no
point in measuring it. If it's relevant, then you will have situations
where some will fail to reach the required standard for the purpose. You
will have 'failure'. It's something we generally all have to learn to accept
on occasions in our lives.

What is wrong is not the idea of pass/fail which inevitably follows from
measuring standards as surely as night follows day, but the stigma which
present-day society often places upon 'failure'. Coming second is being
'first loser' - that's an attitude problem, not a problem about failing to
win, which is just a simple fact. Because you fail at something doesn't
mean you are no good - have no human dignity or worth. But recognising that
fact doesn't turn failure into success, or remove concepts of succcess and
failure, either.

Rich

Richard Goodman said:

Quoted message said:

You're quite wrong about that. That is precisely what having children
"fail" examinations does tell them, and why for all its other numerous
shortcomings, the direction that education has taken in this country in
the last 10 or 15 years has done a lot of good by moving towards a way
of classifying ability that doesn't brand children as failures.

I think we're talking at cross purposes. You can't remove the concept of
failing at something by making it politically incorrect.

You can eliminate the unhelpful, divisive and corrosive concept by
ceasing to use it, and by structuring assessment so that it provides a
useful guide to a person's abilities without setting out a wholly
arbitrary line which declares some people to have failed.

Quoted message said:

Take GCSEs for
example, if you want an educational example. Noone does technically 'fail'
them. You get graded from A-G and if you don't even reach 'G' then you're
'U', which is 'unclassified' - it's not called 'fail'. But the fact is even
getting a 'G' doesn't count for very much. Straight 'G's probably won't get
you into the sixth form of your choice or perhaps even any sixth form at
all.

Of course not, and no-one expects it to. But it's much better than being
marked as a failure. However modest the achievement, it can be
considered an achievement rather than a failure, something that is vital
if people are to be encouraged to think positively about their education
and the things they might achieve in life.

People who dismiss GCSEs because "no-one ever fails them" simply don't
get this.

Quoted message said:

There is no point in measuring ability if you do not want to take any action
reliant on the level of ability reached.

Whoever suggested such a thing?

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140

On 23/9/04 1:06 pm, in article
[email hidden], "D.M.

Procida said:

Richard Goodman said:

Quoted message said:

You're quite wrong about that. That is precisely what having children
"fail" examinations does tell them, and why for all its other numerous
shortcomings, the direction that education has taken in this country in
the last 10 or 15 years has done a lot of good by moving towards a way
of classifying ability that doesn't brand children as failures.

I think we're talking at cross purposes. You can't remove the concept of
failing at something by making it politically incorrect.

You can eliminate the unhelpful, divisive and corrosive concept by
ceasing to use it, and by structuring assessment so that it provides a
useful guide to a person's abilities without setting out a wholly
arbitrary line which declares some people to have failed.

All classifications are arbitrary, just some are more useful than others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Take GCSEs for
example, if you want an educational example. Noone does technically 'fail'
them. You get graded from A-G and if you don't even reach 'G' then you're
'U', which is 'unclassified' - it's not called 'fail'. But the fact is even
getting a 'G' doesn't count for very much. Straight 'G's probably won't get
you into the sixth form of your choice or perhaps even any sixth form at
all.

Of course not, and no-one expects it to. But it's much better than being
marked as a failure. However modest the achievement, it can be
considered an achievement rather than a failure, something that is vital
if people are to be encouraged to think positively about their education
and the things they might achieve in life.

People who dismiss GCSEs because "no-one ever fails them" simply don't
get this.

People don't dismiss GCSE's because "noone ever fails them" but because such
a high proportion get the top grade (grade inflation) (A* or whatever they
have decided to call it now) that it is essentially useless. The shifting of
the boundary between perceived pass and fail to A/A* has so distorted the
distribution of grades that it leads to the pass/fail thing.

IIHMW the grade distribution would look something along the lines of the top
2-3% achieving A*, 15% A or better and the bulk (depending on the shape of
the distribution) B or C (or better - 35%, 60% respectively). Below that
there is obviously smaller proportions. As it is, grade inflation penalises
those who are outstanding (do they not have as much right to be recognised
for their abilities as those at the bottom end of the exam ability scale?)

Exam grades don't match a normal distribution but can be pretty close. The
ideal would be a multimodal distribution where each mode corresponds to a
grade - makes drawing the boundaries easier.

If you lump the large part of the population into the top grades then one
has to ask whether the exams are too easy, or the grading system is wrong.

...d

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There is no point in measuring ability if you do not want to take any action
reliant on the level of ability reached.

Whoever suggested such a thing?

Daniele

David Martin said:

Quoted message said:

You can eliminate the unhelpful, divisive and corrosive concept by
ceasing to use it, and by structuring assessment so that it provides a
useful guide to a person's abilities without setting out a wholly
arbitrary line which declares some people to have failed.

All classifications are arbitrary,

Not quite. <http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/wilkins.html>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

People who dismiss GCSEs because "no-one ever fails them" simply don't
get this.

People don't dismiss GCSE's because "noone ever fails them"

I refer you to the start of this thread.

Quoted message said:

If you lump the large part of the population into the top grades then one
has to ask whether the exams are too easy, or the grading system is wrong.

Well, that's a slightly different matter, but at least it seems to be a
quantitive problem with the grading system (which can easily be tweaked
to correct it), rather than a structural one.

Daniele
--
Apple Juice Ltd
Chapter Arts Centre
Market Road www.apple-juice.co.uk
Cardiff CF5 1QE 029 2019 0140

On 23/9/04 2:20 pm, in article
[email hidden], "D.M.

Procida said:

David Martin said:

Quoted message said:

You can eliminate the unhelpful, divisive and corrosive concept by
ceasing to use it, and by structuring assessment so that it provides a
useful guide to a person's abilities without setting out a wholly
arbitrary line which declares some people to have failed.

All classifications are arbitrary,

Not quite. <http://www.crockford.com/wrrrld/wilkins.html>

That does not stop a classification being arbitrary. It does illustrate the
usefulness of some as opposed to others.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

People who dismiss GCSEs because "no-one ever fails them" simply don't
get this.

People don't dismiss GCSE's because "noone ever fails them"

I refer you to the start of this thread.

<pedant>I refer you to the word All, or lack of it.</pedant>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you lump the large part of the population into the top grades then one
has to ask whether the exams are too easy, or the grading system is wrong.

Well, that's a slightly different matter, but at least it seems to be a
quantitive problem with the grading system (which can easily be tweaked
to correct it), rather than a structural one.

I would submit that it is not a problem with the grading system as it is
with those who manage and influence that system.

...d