Registered On: September 7, 2015
I hope she’s happy with that; it seems unfair that the child’s first choice is gone because of an algorithm which has many flaws. This is what stinks. Those defending it say that it’s based on statistical analysis on what’s likely to occur in an exam scenario. Maybe; not every child predicted to achieve a grade will get that grade, but it stinks when this is because of an estimate, not because the child underachieved in an exam. Exams are not perfect, but at least you can get over flunking through the assumption that they are fair. This is based heavily on assumptions that the child would flunk and that is harder to take, especially when private schools see a 4% increase in grades, compared to a 40% decrease in state schools. It reeks of bias within the system.
It’s an awful predicament the government have put 18 year olds in because they’re too lazy and incompetent to have foresight for exam results day. They made righteous talk about getting children back to school, which isn’t to be sniffed at as it is important, but any concern they have over this feels hollow when they didn’t bother to think of a satisfactory solution for a grading system in the absence of exams.
In France they have graded children based on expected grades. I don’t get why they couldn’t have done that here. Yes, there’s the risk of higher than average high grades, but it’s been an extremely tough year for those trying to make something of their A levels, and we should cut them some slack with the hardness of the situation. I don’t think it would be grossly unfair to judge their capabilities based on this, certainly when the algorithm has caused some problematic outcomes for students who may have been on course for better than what they achieved.
I also think the universities, in many cases, could have been more understanding. I find it ridiculous that the majority of Oxford and Cambridge colleges have withdrawn offers from students who were on course for Oxbridge when they would have been interviewed by now! If they have interviewed them and seen their predicted outcomes then surely they have an idea as to their capability which goes beyond an algorithm?