Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@tinks wrote:
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Hi, this is my first post here, so hello all. Would like to make one thing clear so there are no confusions if I respond to future posts, I have no connection with Cosy in fact I dont think we have ever even spoken. I love reading your banter on here, I miss Pete though and the continual point scoring with him Thin ice and Gazlan, anyway just wanted to say Hi!
Happy Posting!:-k
……….and you say you are new to the boards?????No, she said it’s her first post here – there’s a difference. [-X
@mrs_teapot wrote:
Hi, this is my first post here, so hello all. Would like to make one thing clear so there are no confusions if I respond to future posts, I have no connection with Cosy in fact I dont think we have ever even spoken. I love reading your banter on here, I miss Pete though and the continual point scoring with him Thin ice and Gazlan, anyway just wanted to say Hi!
Happy Posting!I don’t believe you – I think cosy is a cover for you, Mrs Teapot. :P
I don’t think it’s to do with being wrapped up in cotton wool, a lot of intelligent people lack common sense.
My boyfriend does and he was born in the 60s. A Cambridge maths grad, he can do difficult cryptic crosswords, solve complex problems but does he have an ounce of common sense?
Nope!
Google it – your son is not alone!
@rubyred wrote:
NO.. not at all Panda. Im meaning the self gloaters, the pat themselves on the back types. for every kid that goes to UNI THERE ARE SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND THAT NEVER WILL GET THE OPPURTUNITY.. IM LIVID !
Och well .
Very true and the division is getting wider. It is going back to an eltist system where only those with money can afford to go and we know those with money aren’t always the brightest sparks :(
@gazlan wrote:
Maybe whats needed here is a new approach, a new angle… maybe new papers could be set up for Sex Education and grades given for their results, why not ? They seem so good at it practically it would appear. Something like a Home Economics class ](*,)
It would be a good idea. They should bring back traditional Home Economics classes and incorporate Child Care and Sex ed into that as well as financial ed such as mortgages, loans credit cards and running a home and make it a compulsory topic for both boys and girls.
But i also agree that education shouldnt just be about reaching these achievements alone, but an all round education of giving kids ways to think for themselves, moral guidance, religious guidance, ethical guidance, these cant really be monitored by exam results, but will indeed result in well rounded educated kids.
There is an all round education in place. RE is taught not just about Christianity but Islam and Judaism etc. Ethical and moral guidance is provided with non exam based topics.
When I was teaching it was called Personal Development and General Studies – both to do with moral and ethical issues and discussions round certain items such as war, climate change, religious and racial tensions as well as family issues, such as divorce, teenage pregnancy etc.
Kids were given the chance to research these areas, form their opinions and debate their opinions.
But it maybe shouldn’t be. To just teach so that people pass exams misses out information that might provide a more well rounded understanding of a subject. I guess it has always been like this since the education system involved passing exams to measure achievement, but the skill base is highly weighted on the skills needed to get maximum points. This is a skill, and a very useful one, but I wonder whether learning how to pass exams, to answer questions in such a way as to get maximum results, is really an education? No doubt it will set all children who achieve good results well on their way to an academic future, but do they learn how to analyse and think for themselves? Do they all read round subjects they are studying to gain a deeper insight? There is no doubt that you have to be able to absorb knowledge and understand your subject to be able to pass the exams in the first place, and I am not saying that children that get good grades are not intelligent. I just wonder if they are transferrable skills and being able to pass exams does not always indicate that one child is more intelligent than another. Some exceptionally clever people are cr@p at passing exams. Does this kind of education squash the natural talents in some children?
GCSEs and A Levels involve studying a curriculum for two years – a lot is taught in those two years with approx 9 subjects at GCSE and 3 – 4 at a Level.
Children are taught to analyze information and think for themselves and develop their own arguments and theories. These are transferable skills they will use throughout their life.
From my experience of non scientific subjects such as history, English literature, sociology etc there is no wrong or right answer – grades are awarded on how they present their argument and the evidence they use to back it up.
Many essay questions will ask a question such as “The Chartists were a well organized movement. Discuss” or “Do you agree Karl Marx was right when he said religion is the opium of the people?”
These are open questions, invite the kid to express their opinion / interpretation and present their argument.
At A Level kids are given extra reading to do and encouraged to develop a deeper understanding of the subject.
GCSEs and A Levels are now a mixture of exam and coursework thereby taking away the reliance on kids having to just pass a timed exam making it a fairer process all round.
@tatler wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
@eve wrote:
I just think that its like an amateur night that the tv ppl use as cheap tv. Im not into any of the talent/reality shows. I have never watched as much as one min of any ep of big brother lol
Me too.
Personally, I think it is a sad day when we have to rely on that shyte for entertainment.
But maybe I am just jealous though – I can’t sing: :-# but I can play the :-({|= and I can :D/ .
I [-o< I don't lose the plot and audition though.
Its light entertainment , and why not , i dont know about relying on it , doubt that anybody does , however familys enjoy it and thats what its all about watching something that makes us giggle even if it is at the expence of others. it would not be right for us all to enjoy the same shyte..
My own personal opinion. However, this light entertainment can be cruel – look at the media’s treatment of Susan Boyle. And then there was Simon Cowell’s initial reaction to her – his well published eye roll before she’d even opened her mouth. That was based solely on her looks – cruel.
@gazlan wrote:
Some People might be interested in this, i think it relates. It cannot be denied that despite the years of systematic mind bending having taken effect, we have to undergo the
” media ” input, not just in terms of advertisement but, entertainment, sport etc…..A typical example of Media persuation can be shown here >>
two Israeli groups have set up training courses in subversive Wikipedia editing aiming to ‘show the other side’ of the Jewish State.
Those who lend their pen to the Palestinian cause know about Wikipedia Jews, a term that was coined a few years ago. It refers to a bunch of rabid and crypto Zionists who constantly vandalise encyclopaedia entries to do with Palestine, Palestinianhttp://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-united-against-knowledge.html
Just who is to be trusted ? :roll:
Not sure you can fully trust stuff on the internet unless from a bona fide source but Wiki is prone to attacks as it allows Joe Public to edit it..
