Samuel Shiro

GCSE Changes, for Better or for Worse?

Recently, there have been a number of changes within the education establishment. The most prominent one is, obviously, the scrapping of GCSEs in favour of a new system. A lot of people don’t understand exactly what these changes are and what they mean for people. It’s partly because of misunderstanding and partly because of the vitriol that’s being thrown around by politicians at the moment. This article aims to clear all that up, though.

Politicians

What Does it Mean?

The removal of modular exams. One exam will be taken at the end of the course, which will last for three hours.
There will be a tier system within the paper where students can earn more marks by choosing the harder questions.
Grade boundaries will be much higher so fewer students will be awarded the top grades.
One exam board to reduce competition.
Harder questions, such as full essays instead of smaller answers in English exams.

Modular Exams

Take a look at modular exams and you will think that removing them is a good idea. Of course, why should students just get to redo their exams until they get the right mark? Surely that would be something like issuing a referendum until the right answer is given, oh wait! In principle, this is a good idea, but not in the way that they have decided to put it forward.

Little Jimmy is a model student. He hates PE, he gets beaten up by the big kids, yet ultimately he’s on course to run a multi-national company where he will earn more in a week than they earn in a lifetime. Now, little Jimmy has got his exams coming up. The problem is that his mother just died, he’s just recovering from heart surgery, and he’s got a cold. Hard life, eh? Well now he’s going to fail his exams because he’s not up to his normal standard through no fault of his own. That’s unfair.

What needs to happen is that modular exams need to be taken with limits on how many times they can be redone. How about this? Allow every student to take one exam each year. If a student fails their exam in year 10 then they can do it again in year 11. That’s fair. A one-year limit is sufficient enough to eliminate excessive retakes.

Tier System and Boundaries

There are no issues with the tier system change. It gives students control over what they do. It’s merely the combining together of the current tiers into one stronger paper. That’s not making things more difficult and it’s not unfair, that’s called streamlining.

Too many people are being given the top grades and the boundaries are in need of a desperate change. It’s not because the exams are necessarily getting easier, it’s because these quotas that the exam boards have to meet are getting bigger. The government wants a certain number of people to be getting a specific grade every year. Schools are being leaned on. Unsurprisingly, they go to the exam board that gives out the highest grades more often, and then the exam board is more successful. Great change.

A small note on difficulty, I believe that the difficulty moves with the boundaries so it’s all about increasing and decreasing the amount of students getting certain grades. Nothing special about that, it’s been done for years.

One Exam Board

Leading on from my previous point, schools are going to choose the easier exam board. The unpopular exam boards are going to make their exams easier to get more schools to choose from. And thus the cycle continues. It’s, as the papers say, a ‘race to the bottom’. I’ve never understood why there wasn’t one exam board to start with.

Or if you want to have multiple exam boards make them specialise. Allow no competition. AQA can handle History, WJEC can handle English, and Edexcel can handle Maths. What’s hard about that?

Is it Good?

In my opinion it is. It does have its flaws, but I think the main issue is that people fear change. Critics say that some students are going to suffer because of these changes. I would argue back, however, that some students are suffering now. No system can please everybody. Sooner or later you just have to put your foot down and admit that people will suffer. Deal with it.

A grade

Total War in Syria

Nawaf Fares, who was once Syria’s ambassador to Iraq and President Assad’s close friend, has claimed that the regime will opt for chemical weapons if the civil war begins to swing against them. I don’t think anybody is arguing against this. The only thing I’m happy about is that they don’t have weapons of mass destruction as I believe that they would use them if the regime began to crumble.

At the moment there are a large number of chemical weapons within the regime’s weapons cache. There have already been unconfirmed reports that these weapons have come into use in the artillery-ravaged city of Homs. However, it does have to be stressed that this could just be a lie by the opposition. Just because people have rebelled against President Assad doesn’t mean that they wouldn’t be just as bad if they got into power. All you have to do to confirm that is look at Egypt. You have a hardcore Islamic party fighting with the military overlords of the country. It’s not exactly the best combination for a peaceful life.

Russia also said a few days ago that they were been blackmailed by the West into launching sanctions against their ally Syria. I’m not really sure where the blackmail is, but even if there is blackmail I would applaud it. The fact is that no matter which way the Russians want to spin it they are still supporting a criminal regime. Everybody knows that the only reason Western troops haven’t intervened is because of the likes of Russia and China. They need Syria or they lose a foothold in the region. Then it gives the locals and the Americans a free hand to practically do what they want.

Furthermore, what we have to remember is that Russia makes a lot of money from selling its weapons to countries like Syria. It’s how they made a lot of money during the Cold War and its how they are doing it today. I would even go as far to argue that their economy would be in dire straits in these tough economic times if they weren’t able to see President Assad use chemical weapons and continue to buy Russian weapons. If being blackmailed is what it takes to convince Russia to stop supporting scum then I really don’t see anything wrong with it. The political arena is morally and ethically grey. The political arena is not black and it’s not white.

Do I think the regime will collapse?

Oh hell yes. No way will that regime survive into the future. It might take a while since the West can’t intervene, but I think that sooner or later it will collapse. It’s already well-known that Russia is funding the regime so it will only be a matter of time before we start funding the rebels; and that’s assuming we aren’t already funding them, which I have a feeling we are doing.

Military Called for Olympic Duty

It was announced that 3,500 additional military personnel have had to be called in for the London Olympic Games after revelations that the private security firm G4S couldn’t supply the required number of people. But now there’s a big storm in the media and people are honestly complaining about this.

G4S isn’t under the control of anyone. They are essentially just mercenaries on the government payroll. If we have to use more of our armed forces to protect London 2012 then what’s the issue? I would feel safer having my own men keeping me safe than a random security firm who couldn’t care less whether you live or die. They get paid no matter what happens. More importantly, I’d like to think that bringing the military in costs a lot less as we are already paying for their upkeep.

Oh but what about dragging the military away from their duties outside of the London Olympic Games? Well that’s true. You are dragging them away from their normal duties, but those normal duties are nothing special. If we are whining because we have to use the armed forces for protection in our own country then can somebody tell me the point of them? If they are not there for protection then they have no purpose. If that’s the case then surely the cuts to the armed forces that will eliminate 20,000 people are justified as they don’t have a purpose?

Back to the point, though, I’m surprised we didn’t use the military from the very beginning. We have all of those troops based at home just sat around scratching their arses or waiting to go and get blown up in Afghanistan. So surely the best place for them is at London 2012 because they are getting real world experience in an actual operation? What’s more, they are situated in the capital which is the heart of all of the military intelligence, so it’s really the best place for them.

I know we don’t know much about the cost of G4S and their private security services, but I would still opt for the military even if it happens to be more expensive. Look at G4S, they are not military men, they are just private security personnel. The military are going to be better trained and better able to deal with any threat. If we used the military exclusively then operations would be simplified as well due to the fact that you’re not coordinating with multiple bodies. All you have to do then is run it past yourself.

So I’m really not seeing the problem with bringing more of our own forces in to protect the London Olympic Games. They are going to be better trained, better organised, and the chances are they are going to be cheaper than bringing in an outsider.

The Unstealable Object

There have been many people who have wondered whether it’s possible to find an object that can’t be stolen. This object is safe and you don’t have to go out of your way to keep it safe. As technology levels increase we are undoubtedly getting closer to the time when thieves actually become good people, but will it be a day that will ever come?

In my opinion no. Let’s look at it like this. Yes, technology is increasing and we are now getting stories where stolen laptops, iPads, and iPhones have anti-theft software that can tell the owner where it is and even who stole it by taking remote photographs. Most thieves are generally morons so they usually don’t notice or take into account software like this. So it will certainly increase the number of items that are returned to the owner.

Going back to my point about the thief community being made up of mainly idiots who couldn’t exist in a real job, it’s a certainty that more of these will be caught. However, if they are stupid then they are still going to try to steal it as they will believe, wrongly, that they will get away with it. This is not an unstealable object. Just because the object happens to be returned doesn’t really mean anything. That means that your iPads and your iPhones are still at risk. All you are doing is giving yourself a better shot of catching the individual who did it in the first place.

Will it reduce the levels of people trying it? I think it will as some thieves are smart enough to not go for high-risk objects. And if everything becomes a high-risk objects then they’ll give the game up and just go back to leaching off of state benefits instead. So there’s a point in introducing all of this anti-theft software as it will reduce the levels of people who are stealing.

But there’s also a risk. Thieves have existed since humanity began and they will exist until humanity ends. So that tells us that they are more than capable of moving along with the times. If we move into a world where technology protects everything from sticky fingers then they will just move with the times again. In the beginning there will be a reduction in crime as they struggle to adapt to the new world of anti-theft tools, but eventually they’ll adapt.

Personally, I think we will see a world with a smarter criminal. You will still have your petty thieves who try to steal a packet of cigarettes from the local shop, but I think that the large majority will simply move online. It’s a well-known fact that as more people become connected to the internet the levels of cyber crime just increase. So in the future it will be the thieves acting from a remote base who will be the biggest threat. It will create a smarter thief. And I daresay that it will create more of them because if you steal from home then it takes less courage and less bravado than it does to walk into a store and take something off of the shelves.

News in Briefs 08/07/12

Wow I didn’t know hell had frozen over in the past week. Somebody actually decided to open up criminal investigations over the recent banking scandal and Andy Murray didn’t continue to be a massive disappointment by being knocked out of a Wimbledon Semi-Final, yet again. Maybe I’ll actually have nothing to talk about this week as everything is all right and well with the world? Nah just joking, apart from that stuff nothing has really changed. George Osborne is still a slime ball, Nick Clegg is still spineless, and we are still fighting a worthless conflict in Afghanistan. Ho-hum!

Political Oops of the Week

Some of you may not have heard about this as it wasn’t something that made the news in the face of Bob Diamond and his antics. But George Osborne is expected to defend the banks’ rights to provide multi-million pound bonuses for its employees. This is in the face of EU proposals that are proposing that bonuses should be kept down to a 1:1 salary to bonus ratio. Now tell me how is this right?

Ok, let’s look at the main argument for it. If we stop paying the bankers those big bonuses then they will simply move to somewhere like Switzerland or Monaco and thus cause financial destruction of the UK. I agree with him, but only if it wasn’t the whole of Europe doing that. If we did it on our own then it would be a genuine concern, however it’s everybody who is considering this. If it happens on an international basis then it doesn’t matter what the banks do because they won’t get more money if they simply move to another country. And it’s not as if they will ever completely leave Europe, so there’s no threat there.

What gets me is that George Osborne looks like a guy who would stab you in the back, and now he obviously has done that. And this is just days after he claimed that he was going to take the bankers to the cleaners with all that new legislation too. Poor show, George!

The Painful…

When people get desperate they can do really silly things. One of those situations happened this week when a man set himself on fire outside of a job centre in Birmingham. He came in at about 9:00am that morning and started threatening people with a can of petrol over a benefit payment that hadn’t been made. The building was evacuated and he tied himself to the railings outside. He then dropped his trousers, doused himself in petrol, and set himself on fire. But since the police had already been called he was put out quite quickly.

Now I can empathise with the fact that going to a job centre in Birmingham must be one of the most degrading experiences known to man, but talk about an extreme reaction. I’m not sure whether this shows he was just nuts or whether we have really driven people that far. I’m siding with the latter as the cuts made by the government and the fact that there are few jobs means that many people now have no hope at all. In an effort to either get attention or find a way out they are committing very public acts like this.

But we all know that nothing will change as the government couldn’t care less about these people. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if you all forget about this within five minutes.

…And the Pointless

Does anyone remember the story of King Midas who gained the power to turn anything he wanted into gold by just touching it? Well Barak Obama evidently decided to gain the power to do something similar because after he hugged one of his supporters who served him breakfast she fell over and died.

70-year-old Josephine Harris who served the president in Ohio during a campaign trail felt strange, apparently, when serving the president. But she apparently ignored the symptoms, according to her daughter. And yet a few hours later she died of natural causes. Either this was due to over excitement or Barak Obama now has the power to kill old people by hugging them. I’d like to think that it isn’t the latter, but if he can become the first black president then who said that he can’t have some extra tricks up his sleeve?

The So Outrageous that it’s Borderline Hilarious

A man called Stephen Birch is the subject of this part of the News in Briefs column this week. All you need to know is that he’s a South African property developer. This week he shocked the world by going public with the view that he had found the grave of Madeline McCann. Yes, we are back to that old chestnut again (sigh).

Anyway, whilst he was carrying out scans on an area of land he owned he claimed that a grave was present with human bones. Ok, that’s believable as finding a grave site on derelict land is not unheard of. But what gets me is that even before digging them up he’s already claiming that it must be Madeline McCann. Really, Stephen? Of all the people who have died since humanity began you are assuming that this grave has to be of a specific person? To me it sounds like somebody just wants lots of rewards and a chance to get on TV. Well he might manage the latter, but it certainly won’t be as heroic as he’s wishing it to be.

Anyway, enough of that, maybe next week won’t be as bleak and irritating after all…

The Difficulty of Being a Graduate

There was once a time when being a graduate was all the rage. You had the world at your feet and you could march through any door and scream: “I have a first-class degree in engineering, now give me a job!” Admittedly, this is a little bit of an exaggeration, but the point is if you did that then they would actually give you a job. It’s not like that anymore, though.

A study from the Higher Education Statistics Agency revealed that 10,000 new UK graduates are now working in basic jobs; which to you and me means jobs that can be done by anybody without seeds for brains. This has actually doubled in the past five years. So it shows that we are on an upward trend, and it certainly can’t be blamed on the recession.

The recession caused many people to lose their jobs and for fewer jobs to become available, but it’s not something that would have seen such a dramatic increase. Yes, young people could now find themselves competing with people with years and years of experience, but it still shouldn’t account for everything. There are other reasons, and one of these reasons could be put down to the impact that more graduates are having on the system.

There’s no getting away from the fact that there are now more graduates than ever before. The more and more people go to university the more competitive it will get. And even though the number of new university students hasn’t surged in the past few years, we have to remember that these graduates are from three years ago. That’s where there were a lot of new university students entering university. Only now are we seeing the dramatic impact of what the last government did with their silly idea of having ‘50% of all young people going to university’ targets.

So more graduates equals more competition and fewer jobs equal more competition, but is there another contributing factor? There is. And that is the number of people who lack the ‘soft’ skills required to effectively function at work. It’s great to have those academic skills, but they apply very little to the real world. University students often lack experience, which means they are forced into these jobs. And what’s more, we have to take into account the fact that a lot of these degrees are completely pointless to start with. Why would anyone other than a theatre care less about the fact you got a degree in theatre? And why would a theatre care when all they want is talented people, not those with academic qualifications?

janitor — What graduate jobs are made of!

A surge in graduates, more pointless degrees, a lack of skills applicable to the real world, and fewer jobs are all contributing to the toxic mix that we have today. At the moment there doesn’t look as if there’s a solution. All I could ever say to graduates is to keep doing those basic jobs to get the skills needed, take up some voluntary work, and never act as if your degree entitles you to anything.