If we still had shillings and pence, then people would be better adders. And dividers. And multipliers. And taker awayers.

 

Everything divides by 10 these days, it doesn't make for an active mathematical mind. IMO.

Ah well. Luckily we can make robotic adding-machines to do it for us now.

Everything except time, computers, angles, and paper. :/ 

I see what you did there...

(and yes, I know what you mean)

I prefer BST really, as I never get up before 10am and end up cycling to work in the dark every night at ruch hour in the winter. It must be soon now, is it? Isn't it?

You really must start putting a coin or summat to give an idea of scale in all your photographed whittlings.

And then I said "Get off me Grandma, I'm done!".

Been dead for a week.
Now this post can finally die.

Not over Manthorp's Cracked Balls (manthorp) 

Well done!

What's an A* ... is that like an A+ ?

ohhhh...

 

nice grades

The grade boundries are Generally

 

A* 90%
A 80%
B 70%
C 60%
D 50%
E 40%
F 30%
G 20%

 

But at his level (GCSE) I'm guessing he took all the Higher tier exams which means the Lowest actual grade you can get is usually a C and after that it is a Fail.

I see. We usually have D = around 65%. Anything lower than that is considered a fail. On the college level they sometimes distinguish a fail because of incomplete course work differently.

 

I had a professor that went to Princeton when they only gave pass or fail for grades. When he tried to do graduate work, the school he was applying for wanted actual grade letters. Not knowing what to do, he told his advisor this and he said, "well, what do you want?" He said, "A's would be nice." And that's how the transcript went out.

 

It was a conversation about how grades are over rated because every teacher will grade differently for the same work.

Yay for sensibility!

All the crap in the UK with passing at 40% and having A*s and Es and stuff is ridiculous.

I think you have better IT courses over there too?
I vaguely remember talking to someone who was at [equiv to GCSE level] in the US and learning C++ on their course - when I did IT the most advanced we got was Excel, and the coursework was barely IT-related at all. :'( 



Aye, especially on a small selection of work at a single point in time.
Which is why exams and shit. And coursework is over-rated, because having just one or two projects is just the same.

But I wont go into a big huge rant on why the whole education system is utter shite, it'll just waste time and wind me up. :S 

I don't know if our IT courses are any better. I think where ever you are in the world, you're going to find some schools have different strong points than others.

It wasn't so much the quality of the school, as the crappy syllabus, which probably at least a quarter of the schools in the country would be following.

(Dunno how things over there work, but over here we have a handful of institutions which write the exams, and essentially say "teach this, don't teach that". I think there are only three main ones, and it was one of them that told the school what the IT course should involve.)

Is this high school level? If so, it works the same here if it's a public funded school.

 

University level is decided upon by the individual school. Even a public funded school the the new york state SUNY system.