OT : Degree Grades Overhaul - yet more 'dumbing' down ?

  • Thread starter The Nottingham Duck
  • Start date



T

The Nottingham Duck

Guest
It was only a matter of time before they addressed the fact that
whilst 'A' grade A-Level passes have increased - every year - there
hasn't been a corresponding rise in 1st Class degrees.

So now they plan to scrap the current degree classifications because
there won't be a corresponding rise in 1sts - why ? because they
aren't teaching kids properly.

They propose that degrees are classed as "distinction,pass or fail"
which considering the shabby standard of exam marking today doesn't
tell you anything about the student's true academic standing.

Its interesting to note that the champions of this nonsense are
'poliversity' V.C.s.
 
V

vernon

Guest
> So now they plan to scrap the current degree classifications because
> there won't be a corresponding rise in 1sts - why ? because they
> aren't teaching kids properly.


A highly subjective observation.....
>
> They propose that degrees are classed as "distinction,pass or fail"
> which considering the shabby standard of exam marking today doesn't
> tell you anything about the student's true academic standing.


It won't make one jot of difference. Folk have yet to catch up with the
four year masters degrees/three year degree plus one year masters degree
difference. Even fewer can really say what the difference between an upper
and lower second mean apart from the upper being better than the lower.
>
> Its interesting to note that the champions of this nonsense are
> 'poliversity' V.C.s.


I take it that you're the product of a Russell League university ;-)
 
P

p.k.

Guest
vernon wrote:
standing.
>
> Folk have yet to catch up with
> the four year masters degrees/three year degree plus one year masters
> degree difference. Even fewer can really say what the difference
> between an upper and lower second mean apart from the upper being
> better than the lower.



It is a long long time since i looked at univerities and degrees but with a
daughter doing a-s levels I am now!

Help me catch up on the above distinction!

pk
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
The Nottingham Duck wrote:
> It was only a matter of time before they addressed the fact that
> whilst 'A' grade A-Level passes have increased - every year - there
> hasn't been a corresponding rise in 1st Class degrees.
>
> So now they plan to scrap the current degree classifications because
> there won't be a corresponding rise in 1sts - why ? because they
> aren't teaching kids properly.
>
> They propose that degrees are classed as "distinction,pass or fail"
> which considering the shabby standard of exam marking today doesn't
> tell you anything about the student's true academic standing.
>
> Its interesting to note that the champions of this nonsense are
> 'poliversity' V.C.s.


Ahhh. Demonstrating again your much-vaunted contribution to this NG and
showing that you are not just a particularly persistent troll.

Or something!

Jon
 
T

The Nottingham Duck

Guest
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 09:19:03 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:

>The Nottingham Duck wrote:
>> It was only a matter of time before they addressed the fact that
>> whilst 'A' grade A-Level passes have increased - every year - there
>> hasn't been a corresponding rise in 1st Class degrees.
>>
>> So now they plan to scrap the current degree classifications because
>> there won't be a corresponding rise in 1sts - why ? because they
>> aren't teaching kids properly.
>>
>> They propose that degrees are classed as "distinction,pass or fail"
>> which considering the shabby standard of exam marking today doesn't
>> tell you anything about the student's true academic standing.
>>
>> Its interesting to note that the champions of this nonsense are
>> 'poliversity' V.C.s.

>
>Ahhh. Demonstrating again your much-vaunted contribution to this NG and
>showing that you are not just a particularly persistent troll.
>
>Or something!
>
>Jon


Nice try , troll-boy .

Getting them in early doesn't make you less of a troll.

Just because you were too thick to go to Uni it doesn't mean that
other people in this 'group aren't interested.
The response to an earlier post on A-Level results proves that
tertiary education is of interest to many people here.

You also contributed to that post,I seem to remember.

Trying to ****-stir so early on in the thread without addressing the
point tends to highlight your mischievous intent.

Anyway,why haven't you killfiled us if you believe your claim that I
am a troll ?
The obvious thing to do would have been to ignore us,but you choose to
post an inflammatory reply . Why ?

Your actions betray your true nature , troll.
 
D

David Martin

Guest
The Nottingham Duck wrote:
> Just because you were too thick to go to Uni


So you are accusing Jon of faking his degree then?

...d
 
J

Jon Senior

Guest
The Nottingham Duck wrote:
> Nice try , troll-boy .


Ta muchly. That means a lot to me.

> Getting them in early doesn't make you less of a troll.


No... but speaking the truth does.

> Just because you were too thick to go to Uni it doesn't mean that
> other people in this 'group aren't interested.
> The response to an earlier post on A-Level results proves that
> tertiary education is of interest to many people here.
>
> You also contributed to that post,I seem to remember.


Google is your friend.

> Trying to ****-stir so early on in the thread without addressing the
> point tends to highlight your mischievous intent.


The point was barely worthy of recognition. I'm sure it will have the DM
readers up in arms, but in the grand scheme of things it counts for
nothing. Check the job ads in the national press sometime, you'll notice
that experience is still the deciding factor in most jobs. But if it
allows Disgusted of Middle Britain to get worked up then it must be
worthy of comment. ;-)

> Anyway,why haven't you killfiled us if you believe your claim that I
> am a troll ?


"us"? Multiple personality disorder or just the wrong word? As for the
killfiling... I prefer not to. There is a vague hope that you might
contribute something useful. It's easier to just ignore threads that are
of no interest as this does not run the risk of missing something.

> The obvious thing to do would have been to ignore us,but you choose to
> post an inflammatory reply . Why ?


Two reasons:

1) Altruism. I have a hopeless optimism that if it is pointed out to you
enough you might take notice and think a little more carefully about
what you say and why you say it.

2) To prompt others to look back at your posting history before taking
you at face value[1].

> Your actions betray your true nature , troll.


I'm not sure that my post was a troll, but it was certainly
inflammatory. As stated above, I harbour a strange hope that it may make
you think a little. The less optimistic part of me is not holding out
much hope!

Jon Senior BSc (Hons)

[1] In the interests of verifying my reaction to your posts I searched
Googles archive of your postings to this group. Of the 57 threads to
which you have in some way contributed, I'd estimate that at least 25%
were inflammatory, derogatory or in some way insulting and of little
relevance to the thread. They include accusations of paedophilia (I hope
you don't throw accusations around like that in the real world). The
majority show that you have a strong interest in the racing aspect of
the sport as you contribute to discussions of current results (Usually
coursely deriding those riders you dislike) and of sporting promotion or
viewing. One had no content at all. One or two appear to be relevant.
 
T

The Nottingham Duck

Guest
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 02:09:13 +0100, Jon Senior
<jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:

>The Nottingham Duck wrote:
>> Nice try , troll-boy .

>
>Ta muchly. That means a lot to me.


That's just what some other trolls said !
>
>> Getting them in early doesn't make you less of a troll.

>
>No... but speaking the truth does.


What truth ?

Please post examples of my alleged trolling
>
>> Just because you were too thick to go to Uni it doesn't mean that
>> other people in this 'group aren't interested.
>> The response to an earlier post on A-Level results proves that
>> tertiary education is of interest to many people here.
>>
>> You also contributed to that post,I seem to remember.

>
>Google is your friend.


No, 6 month retention of urc,actually .
>
>> Trying to ****-stir so early on in the thread without addressing the
>> point tends to highlight your mischievous intent.

>
>The point was barely worthy of recognition.


Why , because you didn't post it ?

Then why reply ?

See,you admit that you had no interest in addressing the point I
made,which makes your post a 'troll'

>I'm sure it will have the DM
>readers up in arms, but in the grand scheme of things it counts for
>nothing.


A real graduate would be offended by such a drop in standards.It
cheapens our efforts,and the qualifications we strove to gain.

>Check the job ads in the national press sometime, you'll notice
>that experience is still the deciding factor in most jobs.


I'm afraid I wouldn't know about job ads.I was 'head-hunted' whilst
still a graduand.

>But if it
>allows Disgusted of Middle Britain to get worked up then it must be
>worthy of comment. ;-)
>
>> Anyway,why haven't you killfiled us if you believe your claim that I
>> am a troll ?

>
>"us"? Multiple personality disorder or just the wrong word?


A charming North country affectation.As any northerner is seen to be
superior to the'Queen' they adopt the Royal 'We' in normal parlance.

>As for the
>killfiling... I prefer not to.


No,you wouldn't be able to follow the poster to other threads and
troll them there too.

>There is a vague hope that you might
>contribute something useful.


Useful for the purpose of trolling,perhaps ?

>It's easier to just ignore threads that are
>of no interest as this does not run the risk of missing something.
>
>> The obvious thing to do would have been to ignore us,but you choose to
>> post an inflammatory reply . Why ?

>
>Two reasons:
>
>1) Altruism. I have a hopeless optimism that if it is pointed out to you
>enough you might take notice and think a little more carefully about
>what you say and why you say it.


"pointed out to you enough" ?
Are you admitting membership to some troll-ring that's embarked on a
campaign to 'educate' me ?

>
>2) To prompt others to look back at your posting history before taking
>you at face value[1].
>

Why go to the trouble,unless you feel threatened by 'us' somehow.

You seem to be trying to defend the flotsam who inhabit this 'group
and have unsuccessfully atacked us in previous posts.

What's up, couldn't get a word in edgeways then so you thought you'd
strike in this thread ?

>> Your actions betray your true nature , troll.

>
>I'm not sure that my post was a troll, but it was certainly
>inflammatory.


Inflammatory post that fails to address the point of the post,but
attacks the poster ? Yep , that's a troll.

>As stated above, I harbour a strange hope that it may make
>you think a little.


Think that you're a troll ?, yes !

>The less optimistic part of me is not holding out
>much hope!
>
>Jon Senior BSc (Hons)
>
>[1] In the interests of verifying my reaction to your posts I searched
>Googles archive of your postings to this group.
>Of the 57 threads to
>which you have in some way contributed, I'd estimate that at least 25%
>were inflammatory, derogatory or in some way insulting and of little
>relevance to the thread.


Please reproduce them.

> They include accusations of paedophilia (I hope
>you don't throw accusations around like that in the real world).


Read them again, idiot , there are no direct accusations of
paedophilia.That would be libel ,if there was no evidence to back them
up.
Your claim,on the other hand, is libellous.

You should have read Law,dear troll, not Star Trek.

> The
>majority show that you have a strong interest in the racing aspect of
>the sport as you contribute to discussions of current results (Usually
>coursely deriding those riders you dislike)


So you admit they are relevant ? Sing hosanna ! I am validated by
the glory that is Jon 'the troll' senior !

>and of sporting promotion or
>viewing. One had no content at all. One or two appear to be relevant.


What a nice attempt at a balanced appraisal of my offerings.
Not an attempt to wriggle out of your little troll earlier on .Course
not.
 
J

Just zis Guy, you know?

Guest
I submit that on or about Sat, 01 Oct 2005 02:09:13 +0100, the person
known to the court as Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk>
made a statement (<[email protected]> in Your
Honour's bundle) to the following effect:

>> Nice try , troll-boy .

>Ta muchly. That means a lot to me.


Welcome to the Society of People Duck Calls Trolls :)

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken
 
N

Nobody Here

Guest
Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:
> 1) Altruism. I have a hopeless optimism that if it is pointed out to you
> enough you might take notice and think a little more carefully about
> what you say and why you say it.


LOL. You've been suckered into it like me and several other posters
over the past few weeks. It's pointless, though, He doesn't have
discussions, conversations or even arguments. Interaction with him
is either you agreeing wiht something he's said (which seems to be
fairly rare here), or enduring a monologue of his accusations of
your own trolling. In normal English, the most frequently used word is
"the", followed by "of" and "and". In Duckish it's "troll". To add
insult to injury, he posts in exactly the style he accuses aother of
trolling in, and just for the icing on the cake there is hardly
ever any logical connection between one sentence and the next.
It's the drugs he takes, I'm sure his posts make perfect sense to
him when he posts, and I bet he never reads them when he's straight.

I'm one of those he accused of being a paedophile :) Apparently
I defended Ian Huntley, because I corrected Duck's interpretation
of someone else's post. I think I ended up the paedophile in chief.

--
Nobby
 
T

The Nottingham Duck

Guest
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 10:32:58 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I submit that on or about Sat, 01 Oct 2005 02:09:13 +0100, the person
>known to the court as Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk>
>made a statement (<[email protected]> in Your
>Honour's bundle) to the following effect:
>
>>> Nice try , troll-boy .

>>Ta muchly. That means a lot to me.

>
>Welcome to the Society of People Duck Calls Trolls :)
>
>Guy


Shouldn't that read Society of Trolls ?

This post proves , yet again, your trollishness.

How brave of you to dive in after someone else started the troll.
What's up ? Don't have the balls to troll directly ?
 
T

The Nottingham Duck

Guest
On 01 Oct 2005 10:59:18 GMT, Nobody Here <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Jon Senior <jon_AT_restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk> wrote:
>> 1) Altruism. I have a hopeless optimism that if it is pointed out to you
>> enough you might take notice and think a little more carefully about
>> what you say and why you say it.

>
>LOL. You've been suckered into it like me and several other posters
>over the past few weeks. It's pointless, though, He doesn't have
>discussions, conversations or even arguments.


I think you'll find that you are describing yourself.

>Interaction with him
>is either you agreeing wiht something he's said (which seems to be
>fairly rare here), or enduring a monologue of his accusations of
>your own trolling. In normal English, the most frequently used word is
>"the", followed by "of" and "and". In Duckish it's "troll". To add
>insult to injury, he posts in exactly the style he accuses aother of
>trolling in, and just for the icing on the cake there is hardly
>ever any logical connection between one sentence and the next.


Feel free to read "Clarkson" to see evidence of this fool'
self-confessed trolling and evidence of previous trolling suffered by
another poster.

>It's the drugs he takes


libel !

>, I'm sure his posts make perfect sense to
>him when he posts, and I bet he never reads them when he's straight.
>
>I'm one of those he accused of being a paedophile :)


Try reading it again , you idiot fool . Only an ******** publishes a
directly libellous statement, like yours , in a public newsgroup
knowing that the published material can lead to a civil action.
>Apparently
>I defended Ian Huntley, because I corrected Duck's interpretation
>of someone else's post. I think I ended up the paedophile in chief.



Ho ho , trying to make yourself look respectable , even though this is
the 4th seperate thread you've followed me onto ,to troll.

I wish you trolls would make up your minds .Admitting to being
trolls,and then trying to deny your affliction when another of your
species is exposed is quite sad.

p.s. I don't think you qualify for Legal Aid even if your offspring
were born here.
 

Similar threads