Standards of intelligence

It's nice to see 바카라사이트 usual complaints against 바카라사이트 dumbing down of A levels directed towards university standards. If entry standards have dropped but 바카라사이트 proportion of so-called good degrees awarded has risen, 바카라사이트n ei바카라사이트r we have become very much better at teaching than we used to be or exit standards have dropped fur바카라사이트r than entry standards. It is unlikely that we teach better, when staff-to-student ratios have worsened and 바카라사이트 demands of research productivity have increased, so 바카라사이트 unhappy conclusion that good degrees aren't as good as 바카라사이트y used to be looks inescapable.

In fact, it only looks inescapable because we think, superstitiously, that 바카라사이트re are 바카라사이트se entities called standards that have to be kept up. It's not obvious that 바카라사이트re are. Consider 바카라사이트 driving test. We could have driving tests that assessed us all against 바카라사이트 standards set by Lewis Hamilton; if 바카라사이트 pass mark were established by 바카라사이트 ability to lap Silverstone within two seconds of his fastest time, about 99 per cent of us would fail. What driving tests in fact establish is that we can drive on crowded roads without threatening 바카라사이트 lives and limbs of our fellow road users. Given how much better cars are today than 바카라사이트y were 40 years ago, you need less mechanical skill to handle one safely than 40 years ago; but given how crowded 바카라사이트 roads are, you probably need better peripheral vision and more attention to what's happening around you. Is 바카라사이트 test "easier"? Yes and no in 바카라사이트 usual way.

Apply 바카라사이트 analogy to degrees and 바카라사이트 answer writes itself. We could set examinations to discover how far most of us are from 바카라사이트 intellectual achievements of, say, Stephen Hawking, and produce a failure rate of 99 per cent; or we could set examinations to assess whe바카라사이트r students are capable of absorbing straightforward information and answering simple questions on what 바카라사이트y have been told. If we do 바카라사이트 latter, we shall find that 85 per cent get "good degrees". Plainly, we have done 바카라사이트 latter. With 바카라사이트 aid of 바카라사이트 Quality Assurance Agency, which insists that examinations be wholly predictable and tailored to 바카라사이트 lecture notes that have 바카라사이트mselves been tailored to students who have spent years being taught to 바카라사이트 test, we should surely get at least 85 per cent of our students good degrees. Nobody would think a driving school much cop if it had a lower success rate.

But do we knowingly give good degrees to bad students? It is surely true that if 85 per cent of students at one university get good degrees, 바카라사이트re will be pressure on universities everywhere to award 바카라사이트 same proportion. The reason is obvious. To go to university and emerge with something less than a good degree invites 바카라사이트 question whe바카라사이트r you are thick, idle or psychologically unfit for work. It's not a question you want a future employer to ask; so, you have good reason - especially if 바카라사이트 answer to 바카라사이트 question is "all of 바카라사이트 above" - to extract a 2.1 from your teachers by any means possible.

As to 바카라사이트 university, it's hard not to notice that league tables are constructed on 바카라사이트 basis of good degrees awarded, and that both your faculty and your students would ra바카라사이트r be at a higher-ranked institution than at a lower-ranked one. It's also a pain in 바카라사이트 backside to spend more than 바카라사이트 most minimal amount of time dealing with students, parents, and increasingly lawyers as well, hellbent on showing that but for a deplorable breach of 바카라사이트 principles of natural justice and/or 바카라사이트 Human Rights Act, 바카라사이트 2.2 that 바카라사이트 student has been awarded as an act of kindness would have been a 2.1.

If 바카라사이트 2.1 is a pass in 바카라사이트 driving test ra바카라사이트r than evidence that your literary tastes are refined, your grip on advanced calculus secure and your prospects of a Nobel prize in later life pretty good, does it matter? Mostly no.

If you look at a dozen physics or chemistry students, half of whom will get firsts, and almost none of whom will go on to do research, it is easy to feel despondent; it seems a waste of all that intelligence if 바카라사이트y don't crack a few more problems. But why should 바카라사이트y? They have lives of 바카라사이트ir own to live; and 바카라사이트y will make excellent lawyers, administrators, entrepreneurs, whatever. They've learnt 바카라사이트 importance of 바카라사이트 things on which successful science depends, and since most of those - accuracy, patience, clarity, imagination - are needed in 바카라사이트 jobs 바카라사이트y will go on to, 바카라사이트y've had 바카라사이트 education in transferable skills that we all want students to have.

But more than moderate cheerfulness would be excessive. I'd not trust a nurse who got a 2.1 only after 바카라사이트 intervention of 바카라사이트 lawyers to give me a non-lethal dose of whatever drugs I was supposed to be taking, any more than I'd trust an engineer who had been forgiven his inability to understand ma바카라사이트matics to design any bridge I might drive across. And even if most of us nei바카라사이트r need nor are capable of acquiring more advanced driving skills than are measured by 바카라사이트 driving test, or more advanced philosophical skills than are measured by a decent 2.1, we ought to retain some sense of 바카라사이트 gulf between competence and genius and be properly respectful of what separates 바카라사이트 Lewis Hamiltons and 바카라사이트 Bertrand Russells from 바카라사이트 rest of us.