Scrutable

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:01 am

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/08/13/ga ... same-joke/

Gavin Williamson is quoted as saying that boosting exam grades 'would harm Generation Covid for life' while the words being attributed to him are a paraphrase/joke: https://twitter.com/econbartleby/status ... 2157296643

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:01 am

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/08/13/ga ... same-joke/

Gavin Williamson is quoted as saying that boosting exam grades 'would harm Generation Covid for life' while the words being attributed to him are a paraphrase/joke: https://twitter.com/econbartleby/status ... 2157296643

Little waster wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:15 am

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:01 am

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/08/13/ga ... same-joke/

Gavin Williamson is quoted as saying that boosting exam grades 'would harm Generation Covid for life' while the words being attributed to him are a paraphrase/joke: https://twitter.com/econbartleby/status ... 2157296643

That everyone just took it at face value probably gives too much insight into how the last 4 years of Trump, Brexit then COVID has traumatised our expectations. Even our joke detectors have developed 1000-yard stares.

discovolante wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:13 am

shpalman wrote: ↑

Fri Aug 14, 2020 10:01 am

https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2020/08/13/ga ... same-joke/

Gavin Williamson is quoted as saying that boosting exam grades 'would harm Generation Covid for life' while the words being attributed to him are a paraphrase/joke: https://twitter.com/econbartleby/status ... 2157296643

Boring.

Janey Godley wrote:ABBA are disgusted to find out they are now called DGAF #examshambles

The problem was fundamentally insoluble, from a mathematical point of view. If the system is dependent on exams to allocate the grades, but it can’t have the exams, then it can’t allocate the grades. No statistical method in the world is going to be able to give you good results if the information you’re looking for is fundamentally not there in the dataset that you’re trying to extract it from. (Hollywood is just wrong on this one when it has people looking at grainy CCTV footage and saying “Let’s enhance.”)

But even if, impossibly, all the problems had been solved, the Ofqual report on its own methodology gives the game away with respect to a much more serious issue. If there had been a perfect solution to the problem of a pandemic-hit examination process, so that every candidate was given exactly the grade that they would have got in an exam, how fair would this be? Turn to page 81 to see the answer and weep. In any subject other than maths, physics, chemistry, biology or psychology, there’s no better than a 70% chance that two markers of the same paper would agree on the grade to be assigned. Anecdotally, by the way, “two markers” in this context might mean “the same marker, at two different times”.

Allo V Psycho wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:30 pm

It is a similar problem to that of admissions. The population of students from selective/private schools has an unfair (i.e. not sustained by subsequent University performance) of 2 A level grades.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:08 pm

Why wait until now for the results?


Presumably OFQUAL knew that they would be applying an algorithm based on predicted grades?

Why not tell people 4 months ago, and give them more time to sort it out?

FlammableFlower wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:14 pm

jimbob wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 15, 2020 9:08 pm

Why wait until now for the results?


Presumably OFQUAL knew that they would be applying an algorithm based on predicted grades?

Why not tell people 4 months ago, and give them more time to sort it out?

A bl..dy good question.

I'm trying to figure out just what Williamson has been doing for the last 4 months.

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:57 pm

Allo V Psycho wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:30 pm

It is a similar problem to that of admissions. The population of students from selective/private schools has an unfair (i.e. not sustained by subsequent University performance) of 2 A level grades.

Is that unsustained two grade performance boost at A level a reliably confirmed figure?

It really fits my preconceptions about selective/private schools giving 'meh!' students a boost that can't be sustained through university, so it would be useful to know if it's reflected in real world data.

State school students tend to do better in their degree studies than students from
independent schools with the same prior educational attainment
15. This difference is less marked in women, those with the highest A-level achievement, and
those who study at HEIs with high entry tariffs, but even in these categories it remains
statistically significant.
16. This improved performance is not affected by the type of state school. Students from
community schools, foundation schools, sixth form colleges and voluntary controlled or aided
schools all tend to do better than their independent school counterparts with the same prior
educational attainment.

The other interesting thing is how much is coming out that shows the whole exams system is utterly unfit for purpose. If exam grades bear no resemblance to either mock grades or teacher forecasts, why should we believe that the exams are the true measure?

Allo V Psycho wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:30 pm

There is a fairly common psychometric problem at the root of this: that of the distinction between populations and individuals.

Predicted A level grades have always significantly over-predicted achieved grades. This may represent teacher/school optimism but also 'gaming' the system by selective/private schools. If you over-predict your students performance, then they are more likely to get an interview, especially for high competition subjects like medicine and dentistry, where AAA is the minimum. If/when they fail to achieve these inflated grades, then they still have the possibility of getting in as a near miss, if the course needs to match its desired numbers. A comprehensive school which forecasts its pupils' outcomes as accurately as possible, may also ensure that their pupils don't get the interview in the first place, but unfair advantage is why parents pay for their kids to go to selective/private schools.

So: the original COVID system was designed to reduce the population of predicted grades to the distribution of previous actual grades. In that it is quite successful. The problem is that this population strategy then impacts on individuals. So, for instance, matching the historical proportion of grades in a comprehensive school to the current predictions, does not work for the unusually gifted individual in a generally poorly performing school - which is the common situation in many comprehensives.

It is a similar problem to that of admissions. The population of students from selective/private schools has an unfair (i.e. not sustained by subsequent University performance) of 2 A level grades. So I could in theory subtract 2 A level grades from all selective/private school applicants to medicine. But I can't say that this is true of the individual applicant - Jemima for the private school might deserve her three As - and applications are made by individuals, not populations. SO if I turn Jemima down, I can be sued for discrimination.

So, for kids from comprehensive schools with a poor record, the population algorithm downgrades them as individuals, and they are rightly miffed, just like the example posted above in this thread.

Allo V Psycho wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 16, 2020 7:20 am

Yes.

Replying to
@ParkinJim

@GavinWilliamson
and
@ofqual
I've been told that no ties were allowed. That's unbelievably silly, IMO

Allo V Psycho wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:30 pm

There is a fairly common psychometric problem at the root of this: that of the distinction between populations and individuals.

Predicted A level grades have always significantly over-predicted achieved grades. This may represent teacher/school optimism but also 'gaming' the system by selective/private schools. If you over-predict your students performance, then they are more likely to get an interview, especially for high competition subjects like medicine and dentistry, where AAA is the minimum. If/when they fail to achieve these inflated grades, then they still have the possibility of getting in as a near miss, if the course needs to match its desired numbers. A comprehensive school which forecasts its pupils' outcomes as accurately as possible, may also ensure that their pupils don't get the interview in the first place, but unfair advantage is why parents pay for their kids to go to selective/private schools.

So: the original COVID system was designed to reduce the population of predicted grades to the distribution of previous actual grades. In that it is quite successful. The problem is that this population strategy then impacts on individuals. So, for instance, matching the historical proportion of grades in a comprehensive school to the current predictions, does not work for the unusually gifted individual in a generally poorly performing school - which is the common situation in many comprehensives.

It is a similar problem to that of admissions. The population of students from selective/private schools has an unfair (i.e. not sustained by subsequent University performance) of 2 A level grades. So I could in theory subtract 2 A level grades from all selective/private school applicants to medicine. But I can't say that this is true of the individual applicant - Jemima for the private school might deserve her three As - and applications are made by individuals, not populations. SO if I turn Jemima down, I can be sued for discrimination.

So, for kids from comprehensive schools with a poor record, the population algorithm downgrades them as individuals, and they are rightly miffed, just like the example posted above in this thread.

‘Ah Gavin, please sit down. I’m going to begin your appraisal by looking back over the last few years.’
‘Few years? I’ve only been doing the job for a year.’
‘Yes, but we need to look at your predecessors.’
‘Why? That doesn’t affect how I do my job.’
‘I’m afraid it does. Let’s start with Damian. He didn’t do much to be honest. Basically kept the seat warm for you. Now Justine. We had very high hopes for her. Lots of enthusiasm but she was too friendly with the teachers. Sadly, she had to go. What to say about Nicky? Made the mistake of thinking she could do the job in the same way as the previous minister. No originality. Something you can’t accuse Michael of. Totally overhauled the system. Of course, it did annoy quite a few people - teachers, unions, parents and pupils. Quite a lot to live up to there, eh Gavin?’
‘Yes but I think I’ve managed the last one.’
‘Annoy teachers, unions, parents and pupils? Yes, I think you’ve managed that. But overall, based on all your predecessors, I’m going to have to mark you down.’
‘But that’s not fair? What about the work I’ve done this year?’
‘Doesn’t count for much. You see we have to base your appraisal on how others have done the job.’
‘That makes no sense whatsoever.’
‘No, it doesn’t. Now you know how the years’ exam students feel.’

mediocrity511 wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 16, 2020 1:13 pm

Allo V Psycho wrote: ↑

Sat Aug 15, 2020 7:30 pm

There is a fairly common psychometric problem at the root of this: that of the distinction between populations and individuals.

[...]

So: the original COVID system was designed to reduce the population of predicted grades to the distribution of previous actual grades. In that it is quite successful. The problem is that this population strategy then impacts on individuals. So, for instance, matching the historical proportion of grades in a comprehensive school to the current predictions, does not work for the unusually gifted individual in a generally poorly performing school - which is the common situation in many comprehensives.

What they submitted for the A level results weren't UCAS predictions, they were much more realistic and evidence based and they took into account previous achievement data for both the school and individual pupils.