has education funding increased?

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by sheldrake » Fri Jan 03, 2020 7:52 pm

dyqik wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 7:36 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 7:33 pm
dyqik wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 7:26 pm

Whereas you've done no work at all to support this claim. Just made comments based on a superficial understanding of course syllabuses.
I've actually posted more independent sources for my claims about educational standards than anybody else so far.
And you haven't responded to any of the criticisms of these anecdotes.
They're not all anecdotes, but I am happy to look for more papers.

Ken McKenzie
Sindis Poop
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:59 pm

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by Ken McKenzie » Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:44 pm

Hmm.

So, let's first talk specifically about physics. I did some small service to the IoP a little while back on the topic of the true demand for physics degrees, some interesting stuff emerged.

So, there are a number of things that have happened since the 90s that have shaped changes in the way qualifications in the subject (and many others in STEM particularly) are now offered. Three of the most important for this purpose were the Bologna Agreement (1999), the Roberts Review (2002) and the complex process of labour market demand in the UK in STEM in general, and particularly the profound changes to labour structure that came with the advent of mass Internet (a colossally disruptive process whose scope and effects are massively underestimated by the well-educated graduates who largely benefitted from it), and the ongoing process – far from complete in the 90s – whereby the UK transitioned from a manufacturing focus (where specific STEM skills may have been more useful) to a business services focus (where a more generalist degree becomes more valuable). It seems invidious to point out that there are many politically vocal supporters of that industrial change who still seem to struggle with some of the consequences that inevitably had for skills and training (particularly the inevitable and unavoidable need – forseen, btw by one Thatcher, M – for a significant increase in the proportion of the population with formal post-18 education), but I’ve pointed it out anyway because I can’t help myself.

Let's actually start with the third issue. Here is the nasty secret - we don't actually do that much physics in the UK and let's just say it is not immediately obvious that we are undersupplied, in labour market terms, with individuals with a deep subject knowledge of physics. The most common outcome for a physics graduate is to enter the business services industry, and physics PhDs are usually amongst the most likely doctoral graduates to be unemployed. That's not to say the degrees aren't valued - physics graduates able to move out of academia are well-regarded for their skills and generally do well. But that crucial reality of the jobs market is an important reason why subject-related skills are less emphasised than they perhaps were. More on that later, though. The other point to make is that where physics-specific skills are concerned, it's is largely related to an international labour market in R&D and related fields.

Now we turn to Bologna. This is, for the avoidance of doubt, independent of the EU, and is a (ha ha) simple process to harmonise the portability of HE qualifications across Europe, so simple that it's only been going on for 20 years. In the early days, one of the key signatories were a royal pain in the arse and essentially demanded everyone changed their whole HE systems to be more like theirs. Amazingly, they largely succeeded.

Yes, it was us.

Basically, much of Europe wanted degrees to go to 4 years and Masters to 2. We said no, degrees had to be 3 years long, but we agreed we'd switch to 2 year Masters once everyone harmonised their undergrad degrees. Obviously we then didn't change our Masters anyway. tbh I still think it quite amusing, but it didn't come without cost. because where we had international labour markets in skills - engineering and the physical sciences especially - employers rather liked the longer degrees the French, Germans, eastern Europeans etc offered. In the UK, engineering degrees long had the 4 year MEng option leading to eligibility for chartership and this was a model that appealed to STEM providers.

Enter the Roberts Review. Originally designed as an examination of the supply of people with STEM skills, the review conducted by the late Sir Gareth Roberts identified a number of hitherto somewhat hidden but serious issues, most notably in the labour market, and hence training, for doctoral graduates. Roberts was – and still is – one of the most significant Reviews in recent educational history, and the reforms put in place as a consequence are still important. UK STEM was found to be over-reliant on the pharma industry (pause for hollow laughter at what happened in the following decade. Sir G really did know his onions), and doctoral graduates were found to have uncertain career pathways and training that was fundamentally inadequate for the real jobs market awaiting them. One of the most resonant findings was that only 20% of postdocs in some STEM subjects in the UK (physics included) ever even got offered a permanent academic position. Most did not make an academic career and were destined to spend the majority of their careers in other industries. Subsequent follow-up work found that the majority of PhD graduates actually left academia immediately on graduation and went to work in other industries. This obviously had a profound effect on the way PhDs were viewed in career terms.

This matrix of factors meant that the 90s physics degree was essentially equipping graduates for a labour market that didn’t exist. The demand for physics degrees was not where it was believed to be, and if you went onto doctoral research your training did not reflect the realities of what you’d probably experience on leaving academia. The model of the conveyor belt where undergraduates were trained to be potential PhDs with the cream then proceeding into doctoral research and becoming academics was fundamentally broken and at odds with the reality of the jobs market.

This is a reason why when employers of physics graduates were questioned about the degrees their recruits possessed a significant minority of sectorally-important stated that the degrees were clearly high quality but prioritised subject knowledge – which was often of little use to them as employers – over more useful softer, business oriented skills, and this view was particularly pronounced amongst smaller businesses who often needed agile and adaptable individuals with a rounded skill set over subject specialists with a deep but narrow set of aptitudes, as that individual might be called upon to cover a number of functions in the course of their duties rather than specialise deeply in something complex and technical.

So, to ensure that would-be physics researchers could compete in the international labour market, and to differentiate physics undergraduates – who are likely to be leaving physics as a profession on graduating – from PhDs – who are more likely to be entering a physics labour market, a 4 year MPhys model was refined that to some extent shunted research-focused skills (particularly specialisms for which there is demand as researchers but not so much in the general UK labour market) into the fourth year. (MPhys graduates do very well in the jobs market). It’s also worth stressing that internationally one of the UK HE sector's USP is widely recognised as just this kind of broader training in skills and employability and we’re recognised as producing high quality, adaptable all-rounders (and that other countries often follow our lead on training as well) .

PhD training is also very different and mindful that the chances are that even very able researchers will likely leave academia and enter a different labour context.
A 90s-style physics degree is different to the modern physics degree because weaknesses in content and delivery have been examined and issues have been addressed. Comparing content and delivery is not really fair because the broader aim of the degrees has pivoted slightly to better match the reality of what graduates face on leaving university.

If you excelled in an extremely deep physics degree from a research-focused institution in the 90s and went on to a doctorate and a successful academic career then the way degrees have changed may look suspect but you were the exception rather than the rule, and even then the modern path is likely to better equip you with the skills to be a good PI - the skills of PIs being a particular weakness of the old system and a serious factor in the loss of good individuals from the academic route.

This is all, of course, a significant simplification of a complex topic but hopefully useful.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by sheldrake » Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:52 pm

So Physics degrees got watered down because physics wasn't really needed by employers and bits got replaced by wooden classroom training from other nerds on 'soft skills' that they immediately forgot on their path to financial services and IT. Sounds reasonable.

Ken McKenzie
Sindis Poop
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:59 pm

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by Ken McKenzie » Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:01 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:52 pm
So Physics degrees got watered down because physics wasn't really needed by employers and bits got replaced by wooden classroom training from other nerds on 'soft skills' that they immediately forgot on their path to financial services and IT. Sounds reasonable.
Alternatively, business took a bit more control of the way degrees were delivered, out of the hands of a well-meaning but ultimately misguided ivory tower, out-of-touch, self-appointed elite, and made them more practical and useful.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by dyqik » Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:02 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:52 pm
So Physics degrees got watered down because physics wasn't really needed by employers and bits got replaced by wooden classroom training from other nerds on 'soft skills' that they immediately forgot on their path to financial services and IT. Sounds reasonable.
Again, you still haven't said what you think education is for in your diatribe at supposedly declining standards.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by sheldrake » Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:04 pm

Ken McKenzie wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:01 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:52 pm
So Physics degrees got watered down because physics wasn't really needed by employers and bits got replaced by wooden classroom training from other nerds on 'soft skills' that they immediately forgot on their path to financial services and IT. Sounds reasonable.
Alternatively, business took a bit more control of the way degrees were delivered, out of the hands of a well-meaning but ultimately misguided ivory tower, out-of-touch, self-appointed elite, and made them more practical and useful.
Yes that too. I was tweaking your whiskers a bit. (Nobody really notices the soft-skills training much though I'm afraid, we just wish they could turn up before 11am)

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by sheldrake » Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:11 pm

dyqik wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:02 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:52 pm
So Physics degrees got watered down because physics wasn't really needed by employers and bits got replaced by wooden classroom training from other nerds on 'soft skills' that they immediately forgot on their path to financial services and IT. Sounds reasonable.
Again, you still haven't said what you think education is for in your diatribe at supposedly declining standards.
I think it should be an opportunity for people to stretch themselves, an adventure. I actually don't like the 'employer centric' stuff most of the time as it often seems like half-hearted lame box-ticking by people who aren't really passionate about it to people who aren't really interested in it, I prefer the old academic 'ivory tower' approach for that reason.

Making it more self-directed and mixing it up to give people a chance to develop renaissance minds, e.g. Physics and Philosophy, (or Maths and Music, Chemistry and French literature etc..), if that's what the student wants no problem, superb. Physics with a side order of 'how to write a business letter'.. or a 'degree' in tourism etc.. meh.

I'd rather people were offered a gymnasium for the mind (with plenty of variety), than training by numbers for specific tasks. A person can learn a lot of the more pragmatic stuff better on the job anyway, best to send them out into the world honed and curious rather than 'trained'.

Ken McKenzie
Sindis Poop
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:59 pm

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by Ken McKenzie » Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:20 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:11 pm
I'd rather people were offered a gymnasium for the mind (with plenty of variety), than training by numbers for specific tasks. A person can learn a lot of the more pragmatic stuff better on the job anyway, best to send them out into the world honed and curious rather than 'trained'.
tbh I think so would many employers and students.

As it happens, inasmuch as that kind of degree delivery is really prevalent, we're as good as anyone in the world at delivering it. Indeed, the way the world outside academia looks I am far from convinced we really need subject-centred degrees at all in most cases and would be better off delivering exactly the 'gymnasium of the mind' you suggest.

Alas, neither the media nor the metrics agenda are compatible with it becoming the norm.

Ironically, outside specialist subjects in which we have a genuine shortage (engineering, nursing, social work, medicine etc) the most employable graduates are those from good social science courses with a decent quant component who learn a broad range of useful data and information handling, interpretation and dissemination skills.
Last edited by Ken McKenzie on Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ken McKenzie
Sindis Poop
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:59 pm

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by Ken McKenzie » Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:21 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:04 pm
Yes that too. I was tweaking your whiskers a bit. (Nobody really notices the soft-skills training much though I'm afraid, we just wish they could turn up before 11am)
Ha ha, yes, I knew you were pulling my leg a bit and couldn't resist yanking back a little.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by sheldrake » Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:34 pm

Ken McKenzie wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:20 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:11 pm
I'd rather people were offered a gymnasium for the mind (with plenty of variety), than training by numbers for specific tasks. A person can learn a lot of the more pragmatic stuff better on the job anyway, best to send them out into the world honed and curious rather than 'trained'.
tbh I think so would many employers and students.

As it happens, inasmuch as that kind of degree delivery is really prevalent, we're as good as anyone in the world at delivering it. Indeed, the way the world outside academia looks I am far from convinced we really need subject-centred degrees at all in most cases and would be better off delivering exactly the 'gymnasium of the mind' you suggest.

Alas, neither the media nor the metrics agenda are compatible with it becoming the norm.

Ironically, outside specialist subjects in which we have a genuine shortage (engineering, nursing, social work, medicine etc) the most employable graduates are those from good social science courses with a decent quant component who learn a broad range of useful data and information handling, interpretation and dissemination skills.
I think the gymnasium of the mind can be subject-centered if that's what the student is really interested in. I just don't like it when the rigour and 'stretch' shows signs of declining. It's not fostering arete

User avatar
jimbob
Light of Blast
Posts: 5276
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:04 pm
Location: High Peak/Manchester

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by jimbob » Sat Jan 04, 2020 3:07 pm

Ken McKenzie wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 10:01 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Fri Jan 03, 2020 9:52 pm
So Physics degrees got watered down because physics wasn't really needed by employers and bits got replaced by wooden classroom training from other nerds on 'soft skills' that they immediately forgot on their path to financial services and IT. Sounds reasonable.
Alternatively, business took a bit more control of the way degrees were delivered, out of the hands of a well-meaning but ultimately misguided ivory tower, out-of-touch, self-appointed elite, and made them more practical and useful.
I find this quite interesting in context of my job (in the semiconductor industry) as most of my immediate colleagues my age or older (graduated in the mid 1990s) tend to have some form of physics as a first degree, with electronic engineering second and chemistry third. Quite a few of us have applied physics degrees - and I found out that including me, three of the nine people on my course have had desks in the same office, although never at the same time, which is consistent with the idea that British industry has a limited demand for such degrees.

Most of my colleagues tend to have doctorates, and probably about half have doctorates that are directly relevant to the field.

It is pretty difficult to find potential employees with appropriate aptitudes or skillsets, which is also why about half my immediate colleagues are immigrants.
Have you considered stupidity as an explanation

Allo V Psycho
Catbabel
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by Allo V Psycho » Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:07 pm

Earlier, I had asked Sheldrake what he meant by 'fair' and 'objective', with regard to A levels. Having allowed a decent time for response, (and fully acknowledging that there was no requirement for a response!) I thought I'd give my own take on these.

'Objective' is probably more (though far from...) straightforward. It is possible to have objective scoring, but not objective testing. Machine marked multiple-choice questions (MCQs), for instance, are objectively scored, and that is a good thing, because scoring 'free text' is highly subjective. With high-performing students, it may often be the case that assessor variance is greater than candidate variance in free text scoring.

However, even MCQs are not completely objective, because there is subjectivity in setting the MCQs and, even earlier than that, in setting the syllabus.

But there is an even more important source of subjectivity in standard-setting. The raw score on an MCQ tells you very little, and is not a grade - i.e. an indicator of the level of performance. For instance, a score of 84% can represent the grade 'fail' (on the driving test assessment, for instance), and I have known an exam where 5% corresponded to the grade 'pass'. It is setting the score-to-grade boundaries that is important, and this is always a subjective process. Of course, we could go for a norm-referenced system (where, for example, the top 5% are given the highest grade), but that decision is itself a subjective one. More normally, an expert panel is convened, and various methods are used to promote consensus. The cut-score for the grade 'pass' will therefore differ from exam to exam, and even within an exam, if different test forms are used at different points (for instance, if there is a back-up test form for candidates who were unwell on the day of the first test administration).

So one cannot tell if a current exam is 'easier' than a previous version by merely looking at the questions. What matters is the standard-setting. Where exams vary in 'easiness' we would expect the cut-scores for the various grades to change correspondingly - higher for an easy version, lower for a harder version.

Standard-setting is thus always a social construct, dependent on the expert panel. This does not mean it is irrational, and the key thing is whether the set standards correspond to subsequent performance in real-world settings. Often, they do, though it is a very noisy measurement.

'Fair' is a more complex concept, and I have almost certainly been too obscure already. I''ll leave it for another post.

AvP

EDIT: spelling

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by sheldrake » Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:15 pm

Allo V Psycho wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:07 pm
Earlier, I had asked Sheldrake what he meant by 'fair' and 'objective', with regard to A levels. Having allowed a decent time for response, (and fully acknowledging that there was no requirement for a response!) I thought I'd give my own take on these.

'Objective' is probably more (though far from...) straightforward. It is possible to have objective scoring, but not objective testing. Machine marked multiple-choice questions (MCQs), for instance, are objectively scored, and that is a good thing, because scoring 'free text' is highly subjective. With high-performing students, it may often be the case that assessor variance is greater than candidate variance in free text scoring.

However, even MCQs are not completely objective, because there is subjectivity in setting the MCQs and, even earlier than that, in setting the syllabus.

But there is an even more important source of subjectivity in standard-setting. The raw score on an MCQ tells you very little, and is not a grade - i.e. an indicator of the level of performance. For instance, a score of 84% can represent the grade 'fail' (on the driving test assessment, for instance), and I have known an exam where 5% corresponded to the grade 'pass'. It is setting the score-to-grade boundaries that is important, and this is always a subjective process. Of course, we could go for a norm-referenced system (where, for example, the top 5% are given the highest grade), but that decision is itself a subjective one. More normally, an expert panel is convened, and various methods are used to promote consensus. The cut-score for the grade 'pass' will therefore differ from exam to exam, and even within an exam, if different test forms are used at different points (for instance, if there is a back-up test form for candidates who were unwell on the day of the first test administration).

So one cannot tell if a current exam is 'easier' than a previous version by merely looking at the questions. What matters is the standard-setting. Where exams vary in 'easiness' we would expect the cut-scores for the various grades to change correspondingly - higher for an easy version, lower for a harder version.

Standard-setting is thus always a social construct, dependent on the expert panel. This does not mean it is irrational, and the key thing is whether the set standards correspond to subsequent performance in real-world settings. Often, they do, though it is a very noisy measurement.

'Fair' is a more complex concept, and I have almost certainly been too obscure already. I''ll leave it for another post.

AvP

EDIT: spelling
It's nothing personal Allo, but generally speaking I get asked lots of variations on simillar questions in any thread where I try to explain the view that goes against the consensus here. You also probably haven't had time to read all the research posted and therefore don't realise that peer-reviewed research, linked in more than one post in this thread, concludes that A-levels did get easier.

Allo V Psycho
Catbabel
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by Allo V Psycho » Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:38 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:15 pm
Allo V Psycho wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 7:07 pm
Earlier, I had asked Sheldrake what he meant by 'fair' and 'objective', with regard to A levels. Having allowed a decent time for response, (and fully acknowledging that there was no requirement for a response!) I thought I'd give my own take on these.

'Objective' is probably more (though far from...) straightforward. It is possible to have objective scoring, but not objective testing. Machine marked multiple-choice questions (MCQs), for instance, are objectively scored, and that is a good thing, because scoring 'free text' is highly subjective. With high-performing students, it may often be the case that assessor variance is greater than candidate variance in free text scoring.

However, even MCQs are not completely objective, because there is subjectivity in setting the MCQs and, even earlier than that, in setting the syllabus.

But there is an even more important source of subjectivity in standard-setting. The raw score on an MCQ tells you very little, and is not a grade - i.e. an indicator of the level of performance. For instance, a score of 84% can represent the grade 'fail' (on the driving test assessment, for instance), and I have known an exam where 5% corresponded to the grade 'pass'. It is setting the score-to-grade boundaries that is important, and this is always a subjective process. Of course, we could go for a norm-referenced system (where, for example, the top 5% are given the highest grade), but that decision is itself a subjective one. More normally, an expert panel is convened, and various methods are used to promote consensus. The cut-score for the grade 'pass' will therefore differ from exam to exam, and even within an exam, if different test forms are used at different points (for instance, if there is a back-up test form for candidates who were unwell on the day of the first test administration).

So one cannot tell if a current exam is 'easier' than a previous version by merely looking at the questions. What matters is the standard-setting. Where exams vary in 'easiness' we would expect the cut-scores for the various grades to change correspondingly - higher for an easy version, lower for a harder version.

Standard-setting is thus always a social construct, dependent on the expert panel. This does not mean it is irrational, and the key thing is whether the set standards correspond to subsequent performance in real-world settings. Often, they do, though it is a very noisy measurement.

'Fair' is a more complex concept, and I have almost certainly been too obscure already. I''ll leave it for another post.

AvP

EDIT: spelling
It's nothing personal Allo, but generally speaking I get asked lots of variations on simillar questions in any thread where I try to explain the view that goes against the consensus here. You also probably haven't had time to read all the research posted and therefore don't realise that peer-reviewed research, linked in more than one post in this thread, concludes that A-levels did get easier.
Oh, I don't take it personally: firstly, because this is my area of expertise, not yours, and I regard your comments as interesting examples of what lay people might think, rather than data. I carried out a certain amount of the research I rely on for my views, was a member of the Scottish Qualifications Authority, and was editor of the leading journal in the field. Nothing personal, by the way.

Secondly, because I think you have missed that I made no statement as to whether I think A-levels are 'easier' or not. By the way, what exactly do you think 'easier' means? Would you care to define the term, as you understand it? Then we might move on to discussing it.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by sheldrake » Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:45 pm

So did you read the research I posted? Because I think it answers your questions and also concluded the exams had gotten easier.

Allo V Psycho
Catbabel
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by Allo V Psycho » Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:59 pm

I'll have a go at addressing the idea of 'fair'.

‘Fair’ is not a defined term in assessment, unlike validity and reliability. Validity means that the test measures what it is supposed to test. Reliability, in the technical usage, merely means that the test measures consistently (as opposed to the everyday usage of “can be relied upon”, which is closer to validity). A test can therefore be reliable but invalid.

While ‘fair’ is not consistently defined in technical terms, it is often possible recognise its absence. In my lifetime, there was a quota for female medical students at University – women were only admitted up to 30% of the cohort. This meant that very well qualified females were turned down in favour of less well qualified males (despite the fact that in those times, females did even better at school exams than males). This strikes most people as what they would call unfair.

But there is a common language sense in which fairness relates to justice.

For example, possible meanings of justice include strict, desert (stress on second syllable) and luck egalitarianism. I can give some examples, tied to male/female identities* and applications to medical school.

We can first note that females tend to perform rather better in the medical workplace than males. In general, they are very much less likely to be referred for disciplinary proceedings, which are very expensive for the system, are on average paid less, and there is at least some evidence that they are slightly better at treating patients successfully.

Strict egalitarianism might indicate that males and females should be admitted to medical school in proportions corresponding to those in the population. Desert egalitarianism would indicate that the most deserving candidates should be admitted preferentially (and, as explained above, this would imply that a higher proportion of female students should be admitted). Luck egalitarianism would imply that people should be compensated for mere bad luck (such as a having a disability) unrelated to their merits : and we could consider being born male as being unlucky, and therefore deserving of compensation for it.

So, even where we cannot define fairness, we can often recognise unfairness**. Therefore, we can recognise that, for tests, one meaning of unfair is discriminatory.

But we have already indicated that A levels are discriminatory by the test of performance at medical school (hence, it would be more accurate to say, lacking in validity). Therefore, adopting this logic, it would be possible to say that A levels are to a quantifiable extent, unfair.

Of course, it is obvious that assessments cannot be divided into ‘fair’ and ‘unfair’. If we adopt a definition of fairness based on the rationale above, we might be able to classify assessments by comparatives, as more or less fair. We can even look at the performance of individual questions (‘items’) by Differential Item Functioning (DIF) calculations. However, DIF combines Item Effect and Item Bias, where the former is a real effect, and the latter is a false (‘unfair’) one.

Not easy, is it?


*I’m treating these as dichotomous, which is not the case, of course, but doesn’t affect the essential argument.

**The same is true of professionalism. This is hard to define, though people try hard enough. But an individual piece of behaviour can often be recognised as unprofessional.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by sheldrake » Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:10 pm

I don't recall talking about 'fairness' in this thread Allo. Which post are you responding to?

Allo V Psycho
Catbabel
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by Allo V Psycho » Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:05 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:10 pm
I don't recall talking about 'fairness' in this thread Allo. Which post are you responding to?
I'm afraid you did. You wrote:
"Do you think a fairer but still objective test than A-level results could be devised?"

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by sheldrake » Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:14 pm

Allo V Psycho wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:05 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:10 pm
I don't recall talking about 'fairness' in this thread Allo. Which post are you responding to?
I'm afraid you did. You wrote:
"Do you think a fairer but still objective test than A-level results could be devised?"
I was talking to somebody who felt that medical degree admissions based on a-level results alone were unfair because they would be biased against students who went to state schools I have not suggested that I think A-levels are unfair

Allo V Psycho
Catbabel
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by Allo V Psycho » Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:16 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 8:45 pm
So did you read the research I posted? Because I think it answers your questions and also concluded the exams had gotten easier.
YYes, I followed the links you posted.

You first raised the issue of a decline in standards on page 6 of this thread, I think. Correct me if I am wrong.
On page 8, you gave these three sources.
https://thetab.com/uk/cambridge/2015/09 ... exam-56978

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/e ... rades.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3150189.stm

All three of these are media sources. The first and third summarise opinions: the second is paywalled, but feel free to direct me to the original research.
The fourth link is:
https://www.lboro.ac.uk/media-centre/pr ... dards.html

This was a press release. I have indeed read the original research paper on which it was based. There are a number of challenges with it. The number of papers reviewed was small: 66 per time point. The number of time points was also limited, to 1964, 1968, 1996 and 2012. The assessment was carried out by maths PhD students, not examiners. Crucially, and inevitably, the standard of judgement was that of the present, not those operating at the time. As the authors say:
“there is no objective way in which comparisons over time are possible (Cresswell, 1996). Therefore all statements of changes in examination performance must be seen through the lens of contemporary, if expert, value judgements”.
I do not the paper’s conclusions as summarised in the press release overwhelmingly convincing, but if you read the original research differently, please summarise why.
The fifth link is also a newspaper article.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... ays-ofqual

This relates to an OFQUAL review in 2012, but there is no link to the review itself. I cannot trace it of the Gov.UK site, so cannot comment on it in detail. Presumably you have read it, and I would therefore be grateful for your link. A review is not the same as research.
However, the quotes from the article suggest that the conclusions were based, not on psychometric analysis, but on considerations of item format. For example:
“The papers from 2008 and 2010 were far more likely to demand less of teenagers than those from 2001 and 2003, the regulator found, as they had more multiple-choice questions and fewer essay questions”.
This is not a justifiable conclusion: item format is not the same as difficulty.
You describe these as ‘ multiple objective data sources’. This is not the case. If this is what you have drawn your conclusions on, they are so far unwarranted.

Allo V Psycho
Catbabel
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by Allo V Psycho » Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:23 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:14 pm
Allo V Psycho wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:05 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 9:10 pm
I don't recall talking about 'fairness' in this thread Allo. Which post are you responding to?
I'm afraid you did. You wrote:
"Do you think a fairer but still objective test than A-level results could be devised?"
I was talking to somebody who felt that medical degree admissions based on a-level results alone were unfair because they would be biased against students who went to state schools I have not suggested that I think A-levels are unfair
Nor have I suggested at any point that you think A Levels are unfair, so I am puzzled as to what you mean by this.

You raised the issue of fairness with respect to A levels: I invited you to expand on what you meant by 'fair': you declined so far to say (as you are perfectly entitled to do): I provided some reflections of fairness, hoping it might be of interest to the general community.

Have you misread something somewhere?

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by sheldrake » Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:55 pm

Have you? I was using the definition of 'fair' described in the post I was responding to.

Allo V Psycho
Catbabel
Posts: 734
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by Allo V Psycho » Mon Jan 06, 2020 8:41 am

sheldrake wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:55 pm
Have you? I was using the definition of 'fair' described in the post I was responding to.
Were you? OK, good to make even a small advance in understanding your thought processes, and thank you for finally sharing your take on what the word might mean. However, you will note that (quite deliberately) I did not actually define 'fair' at all. Instead, I gave an instance of 'unfair'. To repeat something I said above, we can recognise 'unfair', like 'unprofessional', even when we cannot define 'fair' or 'professional'.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by sheldrake » Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:27 am

Allo V Psycho wrote:
Mon Jan 06, 2020 8:41 am
sheldrake wrote:
Sun Jan 05, 2020 10:55 pm
Have you? I was using the definition of 'fair' described in the post I was responding to.
Were you? OK, good to make even a small advance in understanding your thought processes, and thank you for finally sharing your take on what the word might mean. However, you will note that (quite deliberately) I did not actually define 'fair' at all. Instead, I gave an instance of 'unfair'. To repeat something I said above, we can recognise 'unfair', like 'unprofessional', even when we cannot define 'fair' or 'professional'.
I'm not clear on the point you're trying to make now.

plodder
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2981
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: has education funding increased?

Post by plodder » Mon Jan 06, 2020 12:12 pm

I can guess. Perhaps AvP is simply trying to understand what you're actually trying to say based on what you've written, which is how internet forums work.

Post Reply