h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I've just heard an item on Radio4 PM programme, about the possibility of candidates in exams being given extra marks related to stressful events that may have affected their performance. I think they were suggesting a set scale - this might be 2 marks for death of a pet the previous day, 5 marks for death of a parent.

The two people discussing the issue (sorry, didn't catch their names or positions) were quite at odds. One pointed out that special consideration has always been given for adverse conditions reported at the time of the exam. The other obviously thought we should all just get on with exams as best we can, like you have to in life generally.

Any thoughts on this?

The inherent problem with that, though, is that any one event will affect different people in different ways. And there will be many exam takers who are affected by more chronic stressors rather than acute.

It's one thing to say "your father just died, we're going to let you take this exam next month instead of today", but it's another thing to say "oh, your father just died, let me see, that earns you 8 points, ok?"

Evening Teasswill

Only that if you have 250 candidates you will get at least 225 reasons for 'stress marks'. so just get on with it!

Who would set the criteria and who would judge?. Since one person's stress is anothers adrenaline........

Novo

Agreed, just get on with teh exams and stop whinning..... There are already in place, to my knowledge the abilty to take in to account such things as a recent (to the time of the exam) death in teh family etc., so the students can sit the exam later (useually I think during the resit exam period), Some students I've known manage to get a level of stress absolutely brain distoying, without family members dieing, etc., the thought of the exam is sufficient to give them this level of stress; you can't give em extra points because they suffer this level of stress; they should be or should ahve been rather, taught, or taught themselves techniques for dealing with exams; half or more of what an exam tests is your exam technique, and whilst this might not necessiarly be the most useful thing in the world to be testing; it does* have useful aspects to it, such as testing how candidates perform under stress, under certain restrictive conditions, ability to foloow instructions and diliver a certain standard of matterial within time restraints irrelivent of other factos that might be influenceing on them; soon as 'points' are awarded on a student by student basis, then the whole system would flal to bits; as every* student has factors in their life that impinge on their performance, the stress of various things being one aspect; and I can safely say as someone who used* to suffer from terrible hayfever, that having a running nose, blocked nose, running 'misty' eyes and a headache during the exam isn't helpful, but it is more than possible to get on and do the b****y thing rahter than just winging about 'your hard luck'.....

They don't know they're born these kids!!!!

I predict a surge in teh sale of cats and dogs over the next few weeks in readiness to bump them off just before next years exams.

< I can safely say as someone who used* to suffer from terrible hayfever, that having a running nose, blocked nose, running 'misty' eyes and a headache during the exam isn't helpful, but it is more than possible to get on and do the b****y thing rahter than just winging about 'your hard luck'>

Ditto. It's character building.

All this newstory really is showing is that everything has to be proceduralised with SOPs and KPI's and all that guff rather than just common sense. I see students in the future suing the exam oards for not giving them enough percentages on to their exam marks because the student loved their granny like a mother so that is worth more marks.

Here's the story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4527129.stm

Doesn't strike me as a particularly well thought out system going on the arbitraryness of a scale.

I guess I'd do it as if something properly serious has happened to them - someone they're close to dying is a good example - then let them take the exam at another time, its hardly a big deal. If their cat has died, commiserations, but I'm with the 'lump it' party.

Clarification: them taking the exam at another time is not a big deal. Someone close to them dying obviously is. Maybe one day I'll start using this preview button.

This stirs two different emotions.

Firstly, in my role as pure pedagogue, it is pathetic nanny-state education at its worst. The vast majority of kids are already pampered half to death, and those that aren't (which does not necessarily equate with the worst behaved) will probably have either killed the pet or be glad to get rid of the parent. If kids cannot learn the skills they are taught and utilise them in an exam that is their own tough luck, frankly, and they should not be able to blame any circumstance or individual but themselves.

On the flipside, it means a nice easy way to increase our pass rate average, which it seems is all that matters in a school today.

B

Well their is also the point that GSCEs the exams concerned aren't really worth the paper they're written on.

If I was interviewing for a University (which I never will do!) then I would be tempted to ask 'did you work much for your GCSEs?' and only admit those students who hadn't worked at all, therefore were actually bright-ish.

How many points for your period falling during the exams ?

Ok.

I've just thought about the other side of the argument.

GCSEs are actually an incredabily stressful experience, perhaps more so than in the past.

In t'olden days you could still have a decent career without O Levels, nowadays if you don't have GCSEs then you are a lot more limited in life.

There are fewer and fewer jobs that can be trained for 'on the job' and most practical post-16 training courses require GCSEs.

In my exams at medschool we don't get extra marks for our parents dying they day before the exam, we still have to prove we're safe to practice. But if we have mitigating circumstances we are entitled to an extra resit the exam. Mind you, you have to prove the mitigating circumstance.

Now that's fine for us. We're adults who should know how to deal with stress without it affecting our proffessiona lives.

But should we expect the same of our children?

If you're a chap, lots.

"Well their is also the point that GSCEs the exams concerned aren't really worth the paper they're written on. "

No, I'm sorry here Z, but I'm going to go off on one here. You have taken your GCSEs. You've also taken A-Levels and qualified to practice medicine. Of course your GCSEs are worthless. However, this completely and utterly undermines everything I've said to my Year 10 & 11 classes over the last months. We're talking here about kids who have very little further interest in education, beyond GNVQ Health & Social Care (whatever that may be). They too have been brainwashed by cynics like you who have breezed through their GCSEs and are now criticising every change as over-simplification. But the point is, these kids will be relying on good old-fashioned GCSE grades in English, Maths & Science for their future, for their job. Having someone smugly say, "they're not as hard as they were in my day" is doing little - if anything - for these kids' self-esteem, and giving them yet more incentive to put in little effort. It's not just you, but it's been a downward spiral since Maggie Thatcher and the Notional, sorry 'National', Curriculum.

B

And how's that for an ironic simulpost?

B

B - er sorry, yes you're right.

I was just in the process of ranting when I changed my mind.

And believe me, exams are not getting any easier. The most recent GCSE and SATs Science papers have been absolute stinkers. I defy anyone on hootoo to sit down and get full marks on either of them.

B

Last years History paper was a stinker too.

B, would you have a .PDF of a recent Biology paper that I could embarass myself by getting a awfully low mark on?

Your course work's gonna be low for a start.

I just heard an item on the BBC WS about this issue... the man proposing the idea said that the judge of whether such consideration would be necessary should be the local teachers, who know the candidate.