People who never worked getting medical cards

nesf

Kinski wrote: »

Where was that? I've never seen a grade over 80% for an essay (actually, any of the marking schemes I've seen almost forbid a mark over 80%).

I don't want to get into specifics but I would also know departments where getting 80+ would be extremely rare, as in every couple of years it might happen with one essay. It depends strongly on what level the pass mark is at, if you set a tough pass mark then people are going to really struggle to get over 75, if you set a very easy pass mark then you're going to have trouble justifying marks under 80 in some cases.

nesf

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Well, that would only be a given if the reason why Ireland historically tended to have low participation at 3rd level was based on cognitive ability. If we must resort to anecdotes, I'm sure we all know graduates of Trinity College or the NUIs of the 1960s and 1970s who casually admit that they were not necessarily the brightest in their community, but they could afford a college education.

It is entirely possible to increase access - in fact, guarantee access - to high education without letting the standards of examinations and awards fall correspodingly.

This was achieved most famously in California under its 'Master Plan'. Similar schemes operate today on the Continent. So no, I don't at all agree that falling standards is a necessary consequence of significantly improved access.

Yes, we had, well, not so bright people, in third level back in the 60s and 70s. Talking to anyone who went to college back then will confirm this. (Anecdotal though... )

I agree it's possible to guarantee access and not let standards drop. It requires you fail people ruthlessly if they are below par for the course and don't award high honours easily. That doesn't happen in our system in many departments across the country (there are some that do do this and they have maintained their standards much better). What matters isn't if there were weak students pre-free fees but if there are more of them as a percentage of the student body after free fees. I'd be surprised if there weren't.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is the equivalent of the "my friend told me about immigrants on the medical card" post in the OP and doesn't deserve a serious response.

Well seriously I could dismiss your above point on standards in the 60s and 70s in the same way. The thing is, you don't see the people on this thread saying they work in NUIs for a good number of years disagreeing with me. If I was talking **** here people who are lecturing would be calling me up on it.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

First of all, 'bums on seats' was a factor by which funds were extended to universities under the HEA block grant that preceded free fees. I don't know how old you are, but if you attended University in Ireland 20 years ago, your institution's funding was decided partially (and significantly) on the basis of student numbers.

Looking back on the history of the Irish Universities, especially in light of their block funding, when exactly was it not partially based on bums on seats? When was it ever not in the Irish Universities' financial interests to have greater intake? That was an issue long before free fees.

That's institutional funding not departmental funding which is what I was talking about. Student numbers used to be a much smaller factor in how funding was allocated to departments (mainly because it doesn't actually change how many staff you need if you offer a set range of courses, if you have 20 students or 100 all it changes is the amount of work the lecturer has to do at exam time if it's a subject without a lab component).

Cody Pomeray

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Up until about 2005 it was very rare to see a mark over 80% and these (in the case of 3rd years) would be sent to the extern to validate. Now, although not common place, marks up to 90% are awarded. I have seen dissertations receive 95%.

Have the alternatives to falling grade standards not occurred to you, and if they have, why do you weigh falling standards as more important?

Student textbooks sound like a trivial point but they are a good place to start. Compared to dusty old books you'll find in the bowels of most university libraries, modern publications tend to have far more diagrams, colour coding accompanying CD-roms or online tutorial codes, and enhanced publication standards generally.

More importantly again, a pass mark student several years ago could have had his work cut out for him in tracking down research papers or study notes alone. When he did find his material, it would likely be far more tedious, too stuffed with chaff, with little in the way of explanatory information. Today, course material is designed to be far more digestible, and internet providers like Jstor or google scholar have done a lot in terms of organizing and presenting that more readable material in a seriously efficient manner. Online study groups share information and notes, and online tutorials are a common feature of student life.

The internet, whose importance is growing year on year, is an unprecedented global monument in the history of education.

It would be totally disingenuous to deny that such advances in teaching have improved accessibility and learning. If grades were not rising, I think that would be a massive cause for concern.

As an aside, I'd love to know what you'd all be saying if grades were falling. Evidence of higher standards? Doubtful.

Kinski wrote: »

You only have to look at some of the people they were employing to lecture in the past: for instance, Trinity once turned down acclaimed poet Louis MacNeice for the role of head of English, in favour of some non-entity who was a poor scholar and hung about like a bad smell for several decades.

And we all know how awfully Trinity's English department has been doing ever since!

--Ranked only 3rd in Europe and 14th in the World in the QS World University Rankings 2012. Shocking altogether.

nesf wrote: »

I agree it's possible to guarantee access and not let standards drop.

If it is agreed that the link between improved access and corresponding falling standards is neither an automatic nor necessary, then it follows that we must have something more substantial or concrete before your thesis of falling standards as a consequence of the 'free' fees can be acceptable.

What is that concrete - or even semi-cast concrete - evidence?

It requires you fail people ruthlessly if they are below par for the course and don't award high honours easily.

Again, you are falling into the trap of presuming that those who graduated in the past (20, 30, 40 years ago) were graduating on the basis of some exceptional cognitive ability, or that they were even as proportionately up to scratch as students today. I'd be very wary of presuming that a guy born in Ireland in 1930 was as cognitively bright as someone born in 1990.

There are legitimate reasons as to why grades might possibly have improved, some of them as set out above.

That's institutional funding not departmental funding which is what I was talking about.

Department funding is a matter for the University what has it got to do with the free fees scheme payments from the Exchequer? The Exchequer doesn't pay each individual school or Department...

Student numbers used to be a much smaller factor in how funding was allocated to departments

How much smaller? Lets be specific. Because if it is established that funding was always significantly dependent upon student numbers I think it is important to establish the amount by which it has developed. According to you, that gap should be equivalent to massive drops in standards, so it really ought to be very very large.

Bannasidhe

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Have the alternatives to falling grade standards not occurred to you, and if they have, why do you weigh falling standards as more important?

Student textbooks sound like a trivial point but they are a good place to start. Compared to dusty old books you'll find in the bowels of most university libraries, modern publications tend to have far more diagrams, colour coding accompanying CD-roms or online tutorial codes, and enhanced publication standards generally.

More importantly again, a pass mark student several years ago could have had his work cut out for him in tracking down research papers or study notes alone. When he did find his material, it would likely be far more tedious, too stuffed with chaff, with little in the way of explanatory information. Today, course material is designed to be far more digestible, and internet providers like Jstor or google scholar have done a lot in terms of organizing and presenting that more readable material in a seriously efficient manner. Online study groups share information and notes, and online tutorials are a common feature of student life.

The internet, whose importance is growing year on year, is an unprecedented global monument in the history of education.

It would be totally disingenuous to deny that such advances in teaching have improved accessibility and learning. If grades were not rising, I think that would be a massive cause for concern.

As an aside, I'd love to know what you'd all be saying if grades were falling. Evidence of higher standards? Doubtful.


And we all know how awfully Trinity's English department has been doing ever since!

--Ranked only 3rd in Europe and 14th in the World in the QS World University Rankings 2012. Shocking altogether.

If it is agreed that the link between improved access and corresponding falling standards is neither an automatic nor necessary, then it follows that we must have something more substantial or concrete before your thesis of falling standards as a consequence of the 'free' fees can be acceptable.

What is that concrete - or even semi-cast concrete - evidence?


Again, you are falling into the trap of presuming that those who graduated in the past (20, 30, 40 years ago) were graduating on the basis of some exceptional cognitive ability, or that they were even as proportionately up to scratch as students today. I'd be very wary of presuming that a guy born in Ireland in 1930 was as cognitively bright as someone born in 1990.

There are legitimate reasons as to why grades might possibly have improved, some of them as set out above.

Department funding is a matter for the University what has it got to do with the free fees scheme payments from the Exchequer? The Exchequer doesn't pay each individual school or Department...

How much smaller? Lets be specific. Because if it is established that funding was always significantly dependent upon student numbers I think it is important to establish the amount by which it has developed. According to you, that gap should be equivalent to massive drops in standards, so it really ought to be very very large.

Do you think we don't fully utilise every possible resource available to us?

My experience is put the lecture/study notes up on moodle/blackboard and a large proportion of students will not bother attending lectures and simply regurgitate the notes. Technically, what they are saying is correct but it is obvious not a tap of work was done.

The reality is in large depts/schools the 1st year intake is around 450/500 students with around 60% of those who pass continuing on to 2nd year while at the same time part-time teaching contracts have been slashed, tutorial hours for PG's decimated leaving the permanent staff under resourced and stretched too thin as they not only have to teach/correct but also sit on various committees, and publish, publish, publish (which means research, research, research and write, write, write). When staff retire they are not replaced....

The reality is in many Irish universities dept are faced with choices like 'do we photocopy hand-outs for students or pay tutors?

Cody Pomeray

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you think we don't fully utilise every possible resource available to us?

No, that wasn't my point. My point was that the increased and improved and more efficient availability of educational resources - stuffed with content that is more readable and accessible in itself - should, logically, have improved grades.

It would be extremely worrying if, despite all of these advances, students were still only getting grades proportional with the 1980s. That would be a horrific indictment of modern educational resources.

However, on this subject....

My experience is put the lecture/study notes up on moodle/blackboard and a large proportion of students will not bother attending lectures and simply regurgitate the notes.

This strategy is 100% ineffective in my experience.

Students use photocopiers.

Most lecturers don't even print out lecture notes or tutorial sheets these days, so all you're doing is asking them to get the notes from a fellow student instead of blackboard. They will still not attend your lectures.

I wouldn't include lecturers' activities in the educational resources that have, substantially improved over the past 15 years. In fact, it's probably fair to say that teaching input from lecturers has decreased. But it has been replaced - fairly competently, imo - by alternative resources in the University's teaching toolkit, of which teachers are only one tool.

You do not need - say, in a physiology or biochemistry course - a handful of senior, well educated academics or even department tutors to regurgitate the krebs' cycle to whatever handful of sleepy undergraduates who actually turn up. I think that was always a waste of time and money. I'm sure the principle could be extended across most schools and departments.

My original question to you was this:

Have the alternatives to falling grade standards not occurred to you, and if they have, why do you weigh falling standards as more relevant than those improving resources that students now have at hand, compared with resources of the 1980s?

Kinski

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

And we all know how awfully Trinity's English department has been doing ever since!

--Ranked only 3rd in Europe and 14th in the World in the QS World University Rankings 2012. Shocking altogether.

A lot has changed in 70 years, even in 20 - their English program was stuck in the past up until the 1990s. But I wouldn't take rankings too seriously; I don't see much reason to rate the School in Trinity any higher than a York or a Manchester.

Cody Pomeray

What's the reference to 70 years?

It's nice that you don't take rankings seriously, but people in most walks of academic life tend to do so, and rightly so.

Bannasidhe

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

No, that wasn't my point. My point was that the increased and improved and more efficient availability of educational resources - stuffed with content that is more readable and accessible in itself - should, logically, have improved grades.

It would be extremely worrying if, despite all of these advances, students were still only getting grades proportional with the 1980s. That would be a horrific indictment of modern educational resources.

However, on this subject....


This strategy is 100% ineffective in my experience.

Students use photocopiers.

Most lecturers don't even print out lecture notes or tutorial sheets these days, so all you're doing is asking them to get the notes from a fellow student instead of blackboard. They will still not attend your lectures.

I wouldn't include lecturers' activities in the educational resources that have, substantially improved over the past 15 years. In fact, it's probably fair to say that teaching input from lecturers has decreased. But it has been replaced - fairly competently, imo - by alternative resources in the University's teaching toolkit, of which teachers are only one tool.

You do not need - say, in a physiology or biochemistry course - a handful of senior, well educated academics or even department tutors to regurgitate the krebs' cycle to whatever handful of sleepy undergraduates who actually turn up. I think that was always a waste of time and money. I'm sure the principle could be extended across most schools and departments.

My original question to you was this:

Have the alternatives to falling grade standards not occurred to you, and if they have, why do you weigh falling standards as more relevant than those improving resources that students now have at hand, compared with resources of the 1980s?

Cody, I don't think you realise the universities are in crises and encouraging people to return to education to train for non-existent jobs while at the same time cutting the supports that help fund people in while in education is piling on more pressure on students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and the whole 3rd level education sector.

We are scrabbling to retain the best to go on to Post-Grad when we can offer them nothing - no fees paid, no State support, no tutorial hours, as much time as we can spare from undergrad work, committees and our own research/publishing which weigh so heavy on the International rankings.

I cannot count the number of first class graduates from my dept who have gotten scholarships in the UK and US - will they return? Many won't.

We are educating people to emigrate and the taxpayer is funding that. But here we on on a thread started to complain about people on SW getting a medical health card.

GUBU.

Kinski

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What's the reference to 70 years?

It's nice that you don't take rankings seriously, but people in most walks of academic life tend to do so, and rightly so.

70 years is roughly the number of years which have elapsed since the incident I referred to.

Your assertion that "most" people in academic life take rankings seriously is contentious to say the least; I doubt there's a single humanities lecturer I know who gives a s*** about them, other than for the purposes of "selling" the department's courses to fresh-faced school-leavers.

Cody Pomeray

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Cody, I don't think you realise the universities are in crises and encouraging people to return to education to train for non-existent jobs while at the same time cutting the supports that help fund people in while in education is piling on more pressure..

I do realize that. Nobody, anywhere thinks all is rosy in the University garden.

I have no idea what that has to do with grades and falling standards arising from free fees, which was the point I was making.

You claim that standards are falling because grades are rising.

My question to you is this:

What value are you putting on the increased availability of unprecedented improvement in teaching resources which should be increasing the proportional distribution of 1sts and other higher awards for students?

Why are you saying these improved grades are down to falling standards - it seems to me there are other possible explanations.

Kinski wrote: »

70 years is roughly the number of years which have elapsed since the incident I referred to.

70 years? Seriously? It's probably time to let it go kinski.

Kinski

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

70 years? Seriously? It's probably time to let it go kinski.

I actually mentioned that in support of the argument that standards have not necessarily declined since the golden age when only those who could afford a college education got one. I thought that much would be obvious. I certainly don't think that appointments from 70 f***ing years ago represent an indictment of the current system.

Cody Pomeray

I don't think 70 year old problems with University appointments prove anything, nor do things like David Norris' non-possession of a PhD.

If David Norris were starting out today, he would more than likely go on and get a PhD. That's just because it's more important to get a PhD these days - not because David Norris is so stupid that he could qualify for one. Nevertheless, in my own institution (UCD) there are plenty of senior academics - a handful of them world experts in their field - without PhDs.

Similarly, sometimes departments make (what ultimately turn out to be) unwise appointments. 70 years ago or today - I don't think it proves a thing.

Kinski

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I don't think 70 year old problems with University appointments prove anything, nor do things like David Norris' non-possession of a PhD.

If David Norris were starting out today, he would more than likely go on and get a PhD. That's just because it's more important to get a PhD these days - not because David Norris is so stupid that he could qualify for one. Nevertheless, in my own institution (UCD) there are plenty of senior academics - a handful of them world experts in their field - without PhDs.

Similarly, sometimes departments make (what ultimately turn out to be) unwise appointments. 70 years ago or today - I don't think it proves a thing.

Symptoms of a deeper problem. Ireland had a much less "serious" culture of literary criticism back then, which didn't produce much interesting work, unlike today (though that problem was not confined to Ireland, with broader debates about the function of literary scholarship taking place in the academy and beyond.)

nesf

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

More importantly again, a pass mark student several years ago could have had his work cut out for him in tracking down research papers or study notes alone. When he did find his material, it would likely be far more tedious, too stuffed with chaff, with little in the way of explanatory information. Today, course material is designed to be far more digestible, and internet providers like Jstor or google scholar have done a lot in terms of organizing and presenting that more readable material in a seriously efficient manner. Online study groups share information and notes, and online tutorials are a common feature of student life.

The internet, whose importance is growing year on year, is an unprecedented global monument in the history of education.

It would be totally disingenuous to deny that such advances in teaching have improved accessibility and learning. If grades were not rising, I think that would be a massive cause for concern.

However, this reasoning is backwards. Grades should stay relatively static in such an environment because you shouldn't reward someone for finding citations when citations are easier to find and you expect more originality in argument when said resources are available.

There's also the further assumption that all students are motivated, because unmotivated ones won't use these resources.

Cody Pomeray

nesf wrote: »

However, this reasoning is backwards. Grades should stay relatively static in such an environment because you shouldn't reward someone for finding citations when citations are easier to find and you expect more originality in argument when said resources are available.

Why would that possible be so? At this stage you have to go back and ask yourself what a University ought to be rewarding.

It should not be awarding simple ability to withstand the most library hardship, but rather rewarding familiarity with course material and thereafter rewarding as much supplementary information as a student can understand and communicate.

To give an example, the way my department (and most departments, is my assumption) awards its passing grades is roughly thus:

Pass (>50%): Basic awareness of or regurgitation of lecture notes, tutorial sheets, and required reading, with various, but non-mortal, sins.

Second class: Grasps lecture notes and tutorial work more fully. Advanced reading beyond required reading

First class: Full understanding of course material supplemented with advanced reading beyond required reading and awareness of current advances in research and methods.

The above is a synopsis of an explanatory guide which we were given in orientation and to my mind, this method makes complete sense.

If there are more students accessing supplementary material and especially current developments in research, then that's wonderful and that should all be rewarded by an increased proportion of higher grades.

You seem to be suggesting there ought to be some very strictly enforced bell-curve statistical allocation whereby there are only ever, say 1%, of 1sts, regardless of how excellent the class are or how improved their resources are. That makes no sense because you're rewarding a static 1% who slogs the hardest, and not simply rewarding higher learning - which is a core function of the University.

Godge

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/thousands-to-lose-medical-card-as-reilly-seeks-20m-in-savings-28953188.html

The problem with medical cards is quite simple - 40% of the population hold medical cards - a benefit that should be restricted to those at the bottom of society.

We can all come on here and talk about this sick person or that poor person who should have one but at the aggregate level there is no way that the other 60% (many of whom are children) can support the 40% on medical cards indefinitely.

nesf

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Why would that possible be so? At this stage you have to go back and ask yourself what a University ought to be rewarding.

It should not be awarding simple ability to withstand the most library hardship, but rather rewarding familiarity with course material and thereafter rewarding as much supplementary information as a student can understand and communicate.

To give an example, the way my department (and most departments, is my assumption) awards its passing grades is roughly thus:

Pass (>50%): Basic awareness of or regurgitation of lecture notes, tutorial sheets, and required reading, with various, but non-mortal, sins.

Second class: Grasps lecture notes and tutorial work more fully. Advanced reading beyond required reading

First class: Full understanding of course material supplemented with advanced reading beyond required reading and awareness of current advances in research and methods.

The above is a synopsis of an explanatory guide which we were given in orientation and to my mind, this method makes complete sense.

If there are more students accessing supplementary material and especially current developments in research, then that's wonderful and that should all be rewarded by an increased proportion of higher grades.

You seem to be suggesting there ought to be some very strictly enforced bell-curve statistical allocation whereby there are only ever, say 1%, of 1sts, regardless of how excellent the class are or how improved their resources are. That makes no sense because you're rewarding a static 1% who slogs the hardest, and not simply rewarding higher learning - which is a core function of the University.

Two things:

The above marking idea doesn't apply in many departments I know, what you consider good enough for a 2nd would net you a 1st.


The second is, I wasn't saying there should be a grading curve, I disagree with them, I was saying that in a world where it's relatively easy to get your hands on material, and especially, explanations of that material, then things like originality of argument should make up a higher proportion of marks awarded. Otherwise we seriously devalue a First and are just handing it out to people that can read a lot of other people's opinions and regurgitate rather than think for themselves. Combining citations in an interesting way to answer a question should always be rewarded more than simply citing them and not making the link between them.

Cody Pomeray

nesf wrote: »

in a world where it's relatively easy to get your hands on material, and especially, explanations of that material, then things like originality of argument should make up a higher proportion of marks awarded.

Again, we need something more reliable than either my experience of how grades are allocated or your experience of how they are allocated in order to establish that originality of argument (and all the other good stuff we associate with 1st and 2nd honours) is not accorded adequate importance. So far, that just isn't objectively established in a way that can stand up to scrutiny.

Presenting evidence that grades have risen just doesn't establish that.

Heck, presenting evidence that what used to be on a final year syllabus is now on the MPHil/MSc/MA programme doesn't establish that either: curricula evolve and employers can ultimately bear that in mind.

What can, and I think should be agreed, is that any University Department should only base its grade allocations on how excellent, mediocre, or poorly a particular student understands the course material, and his general field of study, without being prejudiced by his wider classmates' grades.

Furthermore, that the proportion of excellent and good students can improve as educational resources improve - sometimes drastically.

nesf

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Furthermore, that the proportion of excellent and good students can improve as educational resources improve - sometimes drastically.

This is the contentious point for me. I don't think you can just claim that. Grades, especially a first, represent ability as well as knowledge. If the general level of knowledge increases does ability rise to match it? We shouldn't be giving out firsts for a given level of knowledge about a field if the difficulty in gaining that knowledge becomes dramatically reduced.

skafish

maryk123 wrote: »

The problem with getting medical cards is that people have to weigh up their options when they get a job because a medical card is worth a lot. Free gp, free medicine, free dentist visit, free extractions and two free fillings, free eye test and free glass in glasses. I am sure there is more. The above is worth a lot. That is why people want to keep them and you can't blame them really can you

And, apparently, if you have a medical card,and a dependent in third level, they get their capitation fees paid, as well as all required reading matter, and free travel to and from their college. Why would anyone give it up?

Except the rest of us pay through the nose for it.

I'm all in favor of the medical card system, but I think it should be means tested, and anyone on SW who refuses a reasonable job offer should have it taken off them

sunbeam

skafish wrote: »

And, apparently, if you have a medical card,and a dependent in third level, they get their capitation fees paid, as well as all required reading matter, and free travel to and from their college. Why would anyone give it up?

Third level students do not get any of those things automatically by virtue of being a dependent of medical card holder. Perhaps you are thinking of the BTEA book grant, or some VTOS courses (not third level) where participants might get free materials and a small amount towards travel expenses. These have nothing to do with medicals cards, which by the way *are* means tested.

mr.correct

Treehousetim wrote: »

Fair enough. I'm pissed off feeling like a mug.

here here I'm sick to fuke of lookin at these useless fukeers buying more food than me in supermarkets and pushing designer prams and driving big powered cars they do absolutely nothing all day every wk and Im breaking my bollox 46 hours a wk paying rent paying tax CONTRIBUTING TO FUKEEN EVERYTHING AND barely enough to enjoy life these people have NO worries with dole rent allowance child benefit medical cards GIVIN ABSOLUTELY FUKEEEN EVERYTHING TO STOP THEM GOIN OUT WORKING

Cody Pomeray

nesf wrote: »

If the general level of knowledge increases does ability rise to match it?

For that pool of students whose knowledge resources have dramatically increased, yes I would expect their general aptitude for their specific field to have increased.

Anything which makes learning easier should, it follows, enhance proficiency and ability across the grades.

With students expending less of their limited mental energy on chasing to the library for dusty journals after a lecture, they can simply mine unlimited data reserves far more efficiently via the internet and online resources.

The less of this valuable mental energy you expend on inefficient processes, the more of it you will have to enhance your general aptitude and ability in a particular field.

We shouldn't be giving out firsts for a given level of knowledge about a field if the difficulty in gaining that knowledge becomes dramatically reduced.

How is this compatible with your claim that you are opposed to grading curves? The principle of grading curves directs that, inter alia, the top 5% should be given the best rewards, regardless of aggregate performance. While you claim to be opposed to grading curves, you're still advocating the very same principle as such a method: grading students based on criteria that includes criteria outside of the students' control.

This is a method that has absolutely nothing to do with the core function of a university examination: the function of which is to reward students for their aptitude and ability in a specific field without being prejudiced by anything outside of their control (e.g. the grades of other students, or how easy or hard it is to access certain material).

nesf

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

For that pool of students whose knowledge resources have dramatically increased, yes I would expect their general aptitude for their specific field to have increased.

Anything which makes learning easier should, it follows, enhance proficiency and ability across the grades.

With students expending less of their limited mental energy on chasing to the library for dusty journals after a lecture, they can simply mine unlimited data reserves far more efficiently via the internet and online resources.

The less of this valuable mental energy you expend on inefficient processes, the more of it you will have to enhance your general aptitude and ability in a particular field.

I think we mean different things by ability.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

How is this compatible with your claim that you are opposed to grading curves? The principle of grading curves directs that, inter alia, the top 5% should be given the best rewards, regardless of aggregate performance. While you claim to be opposed to grading curves, you're still advocating the very same principle as such a method: grading students based on criteria that includes criteria outside of the students' control.

This is a method that has absolutely nothing to do with the core function of a university examination: the function of which is to reward students for their aptitude and ability in a specific field without being prejudiced by anything outside of their control (e.g. the grades of other students, or how easy or hard it is to access certain material).

A grading curve says there shall be 5% First Class Honours and no more, a tough system that rewards merit hands out as many Firsts as are deserved, it just adjusts the bar to account for changes in the education environment. One can oppose grading curves while still thinking the standards should be tough. The fundamental problem with grading curves outside of very large classes is that you will have sometimes quite dramatic differences in ability from year to year in the students and with a grading curve you could easily find yourself in one year handing out 2.1's to people deserving Firsts and the next year handing out Firsts to people deserving 2.1's.

Cody Pomeray

nesf wrote: »

A grading curve says there shall be 5% First Class Honours and no more, a tough system that rewards merit hands out as many Firsts as are deserved, it just adjusts the bar to account for changes in the education environment. One can oppose grading curves while still thinking the standards should be tough. The fundamental problem with grading curves outside of very large classes is that you will have sometimes quite dramatic differences in ability from year to year in the students and with a grading curve you could easily find yourself in one year handing out 2.1's to people deserving Firsts and the next year handing out Firsts to people deserving 2.1's.

So to clarify, your opposition to grading curves is merely statistical?

Do you agree that it can be appropriate for an examiner to grade a student's ability as communicated in that student's examination responses, using criteria that are totally beyond the student's control?

nesf

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

So to clarify, your opposition to grading curves is merely statistical?

Mostly, for very large numbers of people I wouldn't have as big a problem with it.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Do you agree that it can be appropriate for an examiner to grade a student's ability as communicated in that student's examination responses, using criteria that are totally beyond the student's control?

I'm a bit confused as to what you mean here, I've never sat an exam where the criteria for grading was within my control, and often the criteria were never explained to me explicitly. "Answer this as best you can, you'll get a grade."

firemansam4

I think the whole medical card system is a joke! you can be on a very low income and be Earning barely more than what you would get on sw yet you are then deemed to be able to afford all health care costs?

It is a very unfair system and there should be a gradual insurance payment scheme in its place instead where it goes up in bands depending on your disposable income.

For example:

3 euro per week for sw and earnings up to 20k a year

5 euro per week for 20k - 35k a year

7 euro 35k - 50k

and so on....

size of familys and other factors would have to be taken into account

Cody Pomeray

nesf wrote: »

Originally Posted by Cody Pomeray
So to clarify, your opposition to grading curves is merely statistical?

Mostly, for very large numbers of people I wouldn't have as big a problem with it.

"As big a problem", or any problem with it?

I'm a bit confused as to what you mean here, I've never sat an exam where the criteria for grading was within my control

Perhaps like most University students you sat exams where grading curves were applied to results. Aside from that, I would contest your suggestion. Students are responsible for their own grasp of a field of study. Their ability to communicate their proficiency and excellence in that field, as framed by the course syllabus, should be the only determining factor in awarding their grade.

My point, therefore, is simple:

A student should not have the his individual proficiency or excellence or his complete command of a syllabus prejudiced by how well his fellow students also grasp that syllabus, or how excellent they may also be.

If, due to advances in educational and informational resourcing, students are getting grades that would be unimaginable 40 years ago, there should be no necessary presumption that standards have fallen.

Yes, you may legitimately argue that syllabi ought to evolve and become more complex.

However, what is not reasonable, given the lack of objective analysis, is to simply suggest that standards have fallen. Or, even more tenuously, to link these falling standards directly to the free fees scheme - a point which, in light of how fees have always been tendered to Universities, is still unexplained.

nesf

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

"As big a problem", or any problem with it?

My disagreement with grading curves is primarily that with small classes and inherent variability of quality of students from year to year, they work very poorly. With very large classes of 300+ the quality doesn't change that much from year to year so you should have fewer instances of people being awarded grades unfairly in either direction and the quality of student receiving a particular grade should be pretty reliable. I still prefer other grading methods but with very large classes I think the big problem with grading curves goes away.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Perhaps like most University students you sat exams where grading curves were applied to results. Aside from that, I would contest your suggestion. Students are responsible for their own grasp of a field of study. Their ability to communicate their proficiency and excellence in that field, as framed by the course syllabus, should be the only determining factor in awarding their grade.

My point, therefore, is simple:

A student should not have the his individual proficiency or excellence or his complete command of a syllabus prejudiced by how well his fellow students also grasp that syllabus, or how excellent they may also be.

If, due to advances in educational and informational resourcing, students are getting grades that would be unimaginable 40 years ago, there should be no necessary presumption that standards have fallen.

Yes, you may legitimately argue that syllabi ought to evolve and become more complex.

However, what is not reasonable, given the lack of objective analysis, is to simply suggest that standards have fallen. Or, even more tenuously, to link these falling standards directly to the free fees scheme - a point which, in light of how fees have always been tendered to Universities, is still unexplained.

I've never seen "Criteria for Correction" defined that way. It is simply the layout of the marking scheme and how marks will be allocated a prior to the exams being taken* wherever I've seen it referred to. Students cannot control that, only the Department can. We're speaking about different things here.

*I have seen a marking scheme changed drastically when a lecturer badly misjudged a paper and a class that went from an average of around 55% across the other modules to an average of 40% in his exam.