Monday, 27 April 2009

Why have teachers when you can make the exams easy

A levels are just as hard today as they were 20 years ago. It is New Labour's commitment to education, and that 60 percent increase in spending, that produced such wonderful exam results.

Back in 1991, around 20 percent of boys and girls managed to achieve two A levels. In 2007, over half of girls managed to reach this standard. The proportion of boys was less than 40 percent of boys. So are boys suffering discrimination or are they just thicker than girls?

Judging by the 17 year old boys I know, my money is on the latter explanation.


Anonymous said...

Teenage boys have always been thick.

Chris said...

The difference between boys and girls on standardized tests has been noted in educational academics in the US for a decade or more now. No one seems to be sure as to what is exactly going on here.

AntiCitizenOne said...

The "tests" are designed for girls.

The test called real life shows higher wages for males.

Rick said...

There's probably a lot of questions about menstruation or something!

AntiCitizenOne said...

Bleedin' Exams.

powerman said...

I think this is the first example I've seen of you trolling outright Alice. Bravo!

I won't bite though.

wildgoose said...

Peaks and troughs.

A lot of intelligence genes must be on the X-chromosome which girls have 2 copies of, and then average out.

Boys have only one copy and then get the full effect with no averaging.

This is why males are many more times more likely to have sub-normal intelligence and perhaps need institutionalising than females are.

The "average" female is also slightly more intelligent than the "average" male.

However, the Bell Curve works at both ends. Just as there are far more males with sub-normal intelligence than females, there are also far more males with much higher intelligence as well.

In other words, on average females are more intelligent, but men have more both below and above intelligence individuals.

So it's not sexist discrimination when the top scientists, businessmen and the likes are male, it is discrimination on the grounds that they are actually better than their female competition.

Hope this helps...

K T Cat said...

Hmm, taking your previous post along with this one, I'd suggest that the UK has invested in ringers for the tests. Instead of hiring teachers to teach the kids, they've hired geniuses to take the classes for them!

Barry said...

Alice, part of the problem is related to a weak disciplinary and learning environment along with the preponderance of female staff. There is little in this that generates male enthusiasm for learning, no bite of competition or subject material that stimulates their interest. This inevitably allows girls to shine, which of course is the intention. None of this should be confusing.