Oor Nicola Sturgeon thread.

[Bairnardo]

Are you automatically University of Life if you didnt go to actual University, or is there specific qualifiers?

 

 

[NotThePars]

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

Are you automatically University of Life if you didnt go to actual University, or is there specific qualifiers?

 

 

A chip on your shoulder about not having a degree is normally a prerequisite

[Monkey Tennis]

22 hours ago, strichener said:

As stated in my original post, this was on the news last night.  The miracle of Google indicates that this was a report written in 2016 by UCL. https://www.ucu.org.uk/media/8409/Predicted-grades-accuracy-and-impact-Dec-16/pdf/Predicted_grades_report_Dec2016.pdf.

All evidence points to a bias towards over-predicting attainment and the less the academic ability the more the tendency to over-predict.

It's an interesting study, but it's slightly disingenuous to claim that it establishes that only 16% of predictions are accurate.  That implies that 84% of individual predictions are inaccurate and that's not the case.  Rather, 16% are spot on in terms of tariff points over three subjects.  

You also have to recognise what UCAS predictions involve.  They're typically made in about October, and are encouraged to err on the positive.  This makes some sense as it's early days on courses and it's desirable to keep youngsters' options open, and attract offers.  It's seen as a bit of a free hit, particularly in Scotland, where one batch of Highers has usually been sat by the time an application is submitted.   

It's therefore very different in purpose from what was required of teachers more recently.  Clearly, the latest decisions were bound to have immediate and direct impact and consequences in a way that UCAS predictions don't, not in Scotland anyway.  A problem that's arisen though, is that in England, unconditional offers have sometimes been made, simply on the strength of predicted grades.  Clearly, that is a problem if the grades are not reliable.

The study does show interesting trends that do have relevance here though.  The idea that lower performers, get more optimistically predicted does apply here.  That's what we've seen.  The crude nature of the moderation process meant, however, that putting that right, damaged plenty individuals in a way that can only be regarded as unfair.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Monkey Tennis

[Dink]

Not so, from what I can gather gaining a degree, of any standard, in the decade you mention was a distinction and a guarantee of a worthwhile career .
The value nowadays of a degree has lost a lot of credibility to where it was considered back then.
Fact is a plumber can easily earn more over his working life nowadays than an ordinary graduate will over his.
To be honest, intelligence back in the day you mention was rewarded, now it is commonplace and with the burden of student loans and parental cost over the three years not worthwhile.
Before you reply sarcastically as you already did, I have two of my children who have graduated and various grandchildren at Strathclyde, Glasgow and RGU, the one at Strathclyde is working on his Physics Phd. 

Breaking my posting sabbatical to add the attached, which gives a good idea of the value of a degree - from the Longitudinal Education Outcomes report for 2019.

[mizfit]

You know watching the tories try to defend their decision regarding exam results makes me think something.

I think the Scottish Govt found out what the UK govt plans for exams were and decided to just give them their predicted grades and watch The tories repeatedly punch themselves in the face over this.

[bluearmyfaction]

I think one problem with the exam solutions is the media coverage.  Whatever anyone does gets negative coverage.  Negative coverage for taking into account teaching bias; then negative coverage for not taking it into account.  The exam situation is a no-win because the media have decided it is no-win.

 

The original idea of moderating down to take into account teacher bias was probably the best one, even though it does not look good.  But it's better than a ridiculous and statistically impossible 15% jump in one year.  It affects all those kids who deserved their grades and instead will find univs and employers always putting a mental asterisk next to them.

[Paco]

You know watching the tories try to defend their decision regarding exam results makes me think something.

I think the Scottish Govt found out what the UK govt plans for exams were and decided to just give them their predicted grades and watch The tories repeatedly punch themselves in the face over this.

Or, as actually happened, they made a total c**t of it and have caved to a) save losing the entire 16-18 year old vote at next year’s election and b) save the Deputy FM from being booted out his Education Secretary post.

[Gordon EF]

16 hours ago, SandyCromarty said:

Not so, from what I can gather gaining a degree, of any standard, in the decade you mention was a distinction and a guarantee of a worthwhile career .

The value nowadays of a degree has lost a lot of credibility to where it was considered back then.

Fact is a plumber can easily earn more over his working life nowadays than an ordinary graduate will over his.

To be honest, intelligence back in the day you mention was rewarded, now it is commonplace and with the burden of student loans and parental cost over the three years not worthwhile.

Before you reply sarcastically as you already did, I have two of my children who have graduated and various grandchildren at Strathclyde, Glasgow and RGU, the one at Strathclyde is working on his Physics Phd. 

Of course plumbers can earn more than the average graduate. It's always been that way, who on earth doesn't think that?

But the average graduate earns more than the average plumber. And for some degree subjects, that'll be a lot more. For some degrees it'll probably be less.

Of course there is an element of supply and demand with graduates. If only a few thousands people graduate every year, you're going to be in high demand. If a million do, not so much.

[SandyCromarty]

15 minutes ago, Gordon EF said:

Of course plumbers can earn more than the average graduate. It's always been that way, who on earth doesn't think that?

But the average graduate earns more than the average plumber. And for some degree subjects, that'll be a lot more. For some degrees it'll probably be less.

Of course there is an element of supply and demand with graduates. If only a few thousands people graduate every year, you're going to be in high demand. If a million do, not so much.

Your take on the gradute numbers is correct and got me checking it out.

I found that there were massive differences in graduate numbers between the 1960's and now, for instance in the 1960's 4% of school leavers went to university, nowadays this has risen to 40% school leavers attending university with unfortunately many of them leaving Uni with massive thousands of pounds of debt hanging around their necks to pay back over their working lives before they even begin to earn a salary, and then because of the supply and demand you mentioned and unless their degree is in medicine or sciences then finding  meaningful employment for the average three year graduate will always be a struggle and there hard work at Uni is devalued.

While nobody wants to see a brake on the young attending higher education the system is in need of a serious overhaul before it becomes swamped and any degree becomes just a piece of paper.

Apprenticeships are an alternative and from a technical background myself and having worked with French and Danish systems it was different to note that in some areas students were not strictly tied down to Uni over their degree course but would be government sponsored seconded into the field for months as part of their course which gave them a balanced outlook of not only what to expect on graduation but a good feel of a 'hands on' life.

Unfortunately in our system working in the field means picking berries or waiting tables in the summer.

Nicola has quoted that education is her main priority and it's time that other systems were considered. 

 

 

[HTG]

On 13/08/2020 at 07:32, mizfit said:

You know watching the tories try to defend their decision regarding exam results makes me think something.

I think the Scottish Govt found out what the UK govt plans for exams were and decided to just give them their predicted grades and watch The tories repeatedly punch themselves in the face over this.

I think it now appears that the Scottish Govt used the same approach as rUK and reached a conclusion that it wasn't sustainable to argue in its favour. The longer the tories run with this, the more out of shape their nose will become. 

On 13/08/2020 at 09:03, Paco said:

 

Or, as actually happened, they made a total c**t of it and have caved to a) save losing the entire 16-18 year old vote at next year’s election and b) save the Deputy FM from being booted out his Education Secretary post.

 

You'd think with the benefit of a week watching Scotland struggle with this, the English and Welsh would learn a lesson. This seems to be a repeating issue for those in favour of retaining the UK. No matter how badly Scotland fucks something up, you only need to wait 5 minutes to look moderately competent again in the face of what the neighbours do in government. 

Nicola Sturgeon took a reasonably early decision to apologise and accept that in the absence of anything better, teachers estimates needed to be the benchmark. Everyone knows they're not a great measure but as more is understood about the actual measure, it's the least worst option. 

England seems determined to continue to make a roaring c**t of itself. They may ultimately go down the road of taking individual appeals but if they do, they'll probably need to do likewise for GCSEs and, unless they only pay lip service to the appeal by just nodding it through, may take an eternity to resolve. And, when resolved, they may well end up close to the position they'd have reached by accepting teacher estimates.

I'm reasonably confident that when the who did what and when of the pandemic handling is properly understood, we'll find that Scotland's handling improves immeasurably from the point where we diverge from the 4 nation approach. 

[HTG]

No UK government u-turn is about to change to remove the word "no" apparently. 

[Detournement]

On 13/08/2020 at 07:32, mizfit said:

You know watching the tories try to defend their decision regarding exam results makes me think something.

I think the Scottish Govt found out what the UK govt plans for exams were and decided to just give them their predicted grades and watch The tories repeatedly punch themselves in the face over this.

Or they realised that even the brainless drones that thought questioning these exam results was "SNP BAD" would stop defending them when the shitshow inevitably kicked off in England. 

The reaction in England has been very different to up here. Tory voters have an extremely transactional relationship with the party whereas the SNP has a far larger fanboy supporter base who treat it like a favourite football team. 

 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Detournement

[Antlion]

4 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Or they realised that even the brainless drones that thought questioning these exam results was "SNP BAD" would stop defending them when the shitshow inevitably kicked off in England. 

The reaction in England has been very different to up here. Tory voters have an extremely transactional relationship with the party whereas the SNP has a far larger fanboy supporter base who treat it like a favourite football team. 

 

Aye Scotland’s fucking shit, isn’t it? Thank God for that paradise of socialism, Tory England, where folk are just plain smarter.

[Detournement]

Just now, Antlion said:

Aye Scotland’s fucking shit, isn’t it? Thank God for that paradise of socialism, Tory England, where folk are just plain smarter.

I'm just pointing out a difference in the support of the two dominant nationalist parties in the UK. 

[Antlion]

5 minutes ago, Detournement said:

I'm just pointing out a difference in the support of the two dominant nationalist parties in the UK. 

Inventing, rather.

[NotThePars]

2 hours ago, ThatBoyRonaldo said:

What is the evidence/rationale for this? England and in particular southern/non-urban England has been voting Tory pretty reliably for decades now. Also isn't the preferred line for labour left people like you that Scottish people stopped voting Labour because under Blair the party didn't do anything for its voters? Which would suggest the opposite of what you say. 

Also ignores that the last two elections proved there is a solid 40% of the country who will reliably back the Conservatives regardless of the shite they put out

[Gordon EF]

It's all those cyberNats fault. God damn cyberNats!

[peternapper]

Who actually came up with the offending algorithm & is it the same one used throughout the UK

[Detournement]

11 hours ago, NotThePars said:

Also ignores that the last two elections proved there is a solid 40% of the country who will reliably back the Conservatives regardless of the shite they put out

I'm talking about how the voters relate to the party outside the polling booth. 

Both parties have mass electoral support but the SNP are genuinely popular with lots of their voters while the Tories have far fewer enthusiasts. Their voters mainly vote for their bottom line/ house price / class privileges / racism. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Detournement

[NotThePars]

1 minute ago, MixuFruit said:

No idea on the numbers but I think the 'SNP till indy but not because of SNP policy' voting bloc is probably quite substantial.

Yea, have noticed a marked drop in the number of diehards who'll log on and defend the increasingly indefensible.