# Are there really people this uneducated?



## owsnap (12 Oct 2016)

long story short, I need to ask people the area of their rooms from time to time to quote for a job, yet I get a feeling that 70-80% of people I ask to measure & tell me are unable to do this. I mean they just don't know how to calculate a square area of something,usually they just say flat out that they don't know how to or ask to wait to get someone to do it...
I see online/ all around that everything is sold to fit a small/medium/large room, in stores people buy packs of flooring not the actual square metrage they need which really suggests that this is national..

what the hell??? #-o


----------



## lurker (12 Oct 2016)

it would appear to be a sign of "coolness" to be poor at maths.


----------



## RobinBHM (12 Oct 2016)

It is sometimes the case that people want a quote but are too lazy to do any work for it, they want you to come round and do all the work. 

I often get vague enquiries for orangery design/ pricing, joinery etc and I sometimes suggest they email me some photos of the house and some dimensions. Its surprising how often I never hear from them!

In an initial discussion about an orangery or conservatory I tend to ask what size and quite often I get 'Ive no idea' 

Or I get somebody ringing up asking about pricing for an x by x size, and when I suggest a budget they then say, does that include heating? tiles? electrics? etc etc.


----------



## MattRoberts (12 Oct 2016)

Most people these days work in jobs with (or even without) computers that need zero mathematical ability. I've forgotten most of the maths I learned at school, as the majority of it isn't needed in my daily life or job. 

It's a bit sad really.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (12 Oct 2016)

Why would you expect someone whose expertise is in perhaps accounting or medicine to understand conservatory construction?


----------



## owsnap (12 Oct 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":15kazgjk said:


> Why would you expect someone whose expertise is in perhaps accounting or medicine to understand conservatory construction?


 #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o #-o 
how could they even get in to accounting if they didn't even know the 1st thing they teach in maths?
Is ''calculating'' a square area of a basic rectangle really a rocket science?
Could have just said right off the bat that since you got a calculator in your phone why would you need to know what is 2x2 ..
I have forgotten probably 80% of the formulas I was thought because the only time I used them was that one time in class, but how can you not know such a basic thing? #-o


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (12 Oct 2016)

Think you may have slightly missed my point! Robin was talking about prospective customers asking about the inclusion of tiles, heating etc in a conservatory quote. That was what prompted the comment about areas of expertise. It sort of strayed away from the op's lament on poor understanding of basic spatial maths.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (12 Oct 2016)

But to be truthful, I'm stuck in the radiology dept waiting for my sons x Ray so I'm kind of bored and typing rubbish really


----------



## NikNak (12 Oct 2016)

Couldn't agree more with the OP.....the times i've had people look at me in awe at how i worked out what they needed to go and buy :shock: and yet it really is just very simple maths.

My middle sister and her husband have just had flooring laid throughout the downstairs of their _small_ 2 bed modern end terraced house. He calculated what he needed, bought it from the internet (unseen :? ) and got their son's friend to come and lay it. No problem. He then rang me the next day and said was i interested in the left over 'packs' of flooring.... 9sq mtrs of it..!! #-o :shock: the whole job couldn't have been more than 30sq mtrs. "cant you send it back..." i inquired... nahh cant be pineappled was the reply


----------



## RogerP (12 Oct 2016)

For those who really struggle to multiply two numbers together there are many flooring calculators on web and several apps for those with smartphones.


----------



## deema (12 Oct 2016)

I have over the years tutored people for their maths exams, I've also taught at college for a period, and to put this into context I'm at the half century with probably fewer years ahead of me than I have so far enjoyed.

What I have seen is the stunning dumbing down of the maths syllabus from one that gave people a real appreciating of maths at O level to one now where an A* wouldn't register IMO as a 'D' 35 years ago. 'A' levels that now just about cover most of the requirements of the O level 35 years ago. When starting out with would be engineers in employment they need to be taught basic stuff as again the degrees have been watered down to such an extent that they are almost a waste of time. 

It's not I feel that the latest generations are less able, in reality they are probably more able. We have I feel in our desire to drive up standards achieved better results by watering down the syllabus and pass marks. 

In the old system, only a certain percentage of those taking exams would ever get an 'A'. An 'A' meant something, now I think it's just means you have 'A'chieved.

Apologise to all those of younger years with a fist full of A*. The system has alas IMO let you down.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (12 Oct 2016)

My neighbour was a retired maths teacher who always said that the biggest problem with people being reliant upon calculators was that they lost the ability to estimate, and thus decimal point errors were the commonest mistake. In bygone years someone would work out e.g. the amount of 6" boards needed to cover a room, look at the answer for a moment and think hang on a mo that doesn't look right and check it again. Now the calculator is a god - it doesn't make mistakes: but they forget the operator still does.


----------



## Claymore (12 Oct 2016)

lurker":228um7jm said:


> it would appear to be a sign of "coolness" to be poor at maths.



If this is the case then I must be James Dean/Marlon Brando and Elvis all in one!  (in my dreams)

I must agree though when people like Joey Essex earns more per year than highly skilled people who have trained for years get in a lifetime there is something wrong...... good on the lad anyway if people are so daft to pay him then he's probably laughing all the way to the bank.

Brian


----------



## bugbear (12 Oct 2016)

lurker":vadk3lgh said:


> it would appear to be a sign of "coolness" to be poor at maths.



I don't know about "cool", but in Artistic/Creative circles, inability in maths is often seen as a virtue.

This was famously commented on a very long time ago;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Cultures

BugBear


----------



## Bm101 (12 Oct 2016)

That's a great link BB, thanks. 
When I was at school I found certain subjects easy. I read a fair bit as a kid and my language skills were fairly good. But I struggled at subjects where a different type of thinking was involved. Chemistry and maths etc were a real struggle. I've often wondered why the schism occurs. 
Without going down the whole nature / nurture blackhole it still intrigues me. As I grew older I relished the challenge of challenging myself more. I no longer balk at things that would have shut my thought process down as a kid but I have to consciously make an effort. Electrical drawings and such baffle me. I still have to really make an concerted effort to stop the mental block from winning. 
I suppose my point is that it's easier to reduce the flow on the tap rather than deal with a flooded sink. When work, kids and so on wear you out sometimes it's easier to say... I dunno. Do it for me.
Years back I was at a friends house. They had suffered a bit of a washing machine flood and the leccy had blown. Bit of a dodgy one really. I was trying to explain not dying while replacing fuses and to baffled faces started to explain the basics of ring mains and spurs. They were bright people but just went rabbit in the headlights and said no, we don't need to know. But it's your _house._ Why would you _not_ want to know the basics? I guess some people forget they can keep learning. Not sure it makes them stupid. Just they forget to keep trying.
Also I guess some people just have different prorities. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Terry - Somerset (12 Oct 2016)

The trouble is that it is socially acceptable to be dumb about maths - almost something which engenders amused sympathy.

But most would be ashamed to admit to anything approaching full illiteracy, and will contrive to deny and find strategies to avoid it becoming apparent.

The solution may be better education and far less tolerance of innumeracy. It would be unreasonable to expect people to achieve high levels of competence - but an inability to do basic sums and measurement should not be treated so lightly. 

It's no wonder there is so much financial irregularity (PPI etc) when so many customers are so woefully ignorant.


----------



## skipdiver (12 Oct 2016)

"There is more stupidity than hydrogen in the universe, and it has a stronger shelf life"

Frank Zappa.


----------



## rafezetter (13 Oct 2016)

Bm101":1qxr7dnl said:


> Years back I was at a friends house. They had suffered a bit of a washing machine flood and the leccy had blown. Bit of a dodgy one really. I was trying to explain not dying while replacing fuses and to baffled faces started to explain the basics of ring mains and spurs. They were bright people but just went rabbit in the headlights and said no, we don't need to know. But it's your _house._ Why would you _not_ want to know the basics?



I had a similar experience not long back with a long time single lady who owns a house (and has done for 15 years) who didn't know where her mains fuse box was or her gas and water stop taps. The mains fusebox was _in her kitchen_ in a cupboard at the end and seemed totally unbothered by saying "oh is that what that is?".

I know that 5 years previous she managed to flood her bathroom when a tap "malfunctioned" in some way, causing an insurance claim that ran over £10,000 as the bathroom is over the kitchen and front room. She was out of her house for 4 months.

As far as being able to work out or measure sizes of home areas; if I owned a house I'd make sure I knew certain basics, just because, because frankly I think if you don't know the basic dimensions of your home & garden you come across as a bit of an silly person.

And explains why so many people return furniture, especially seating, because it's too big.


----------



## RogerS (13 Oct 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":1imgbq5r said:


> Why would you expect someone whose expertise is in perhaps accounting or medicine to understand conservatory construction?



I wouldn't. But I'd at least expect them to have an idea as to what size they wanted. Or even style and design. 

I'm also with the poster who asks for photos beforehand to filter out the inevitable tyre-kickers AKA time-wasters of which there are far too many.


----------



## RogerS (13 Oct 2016)

Terry - Somerset":3vt48nfm said:


> .....It would be unreasonable to expect people to achieve high levels of competence - but an inability to do basic sums and measurement should not be treated so lightly.
> 
> ....



It's called 'Dumbing Down' and is what our current society excels at.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Oct 2016)

Yes. My daughter got "A"s at GCSE physics, maths and chemistry without understanding how a logarithmic scale worked - and didn't believe me when I told her I had learned it in junior school.


----------



## Eric The Viking (13 Oct 2016)

I proof-read some of a daughter's university essays for her. Some of the poor-quality thought expressed by the sources she quoted was shocking. Coming from an engineering background (although I have an arts degree), the _non sequiturs_ and arguments applying the specific to the general horrified me. 

Yet these are literally the sociologists (or similar) teaching the teachers. She was doing an education degree.

Normally Prof. Laurie Taylor gets right up my nose (correction: L.T. ALWAYS gets up my nose), but I heard yesterday's discussion on "rentier capitalism*" on the bus going home and it was fascinating. Per normal, Prof. Taylor was unable to raise the discussion beyond two smartypants patting each other on the back, but the ideas of his guest, Prof. Guy Standing of SOAS, were very interesting, regarding the global impoverishment of labour.

Point (extrapolated by me) being that in times past, basic education done well--literacy and numeracy, primarily--was highly regarded, as it genuinely contributed to an individual's wellbeing and ability to create wealth. Not so now. 

Prof. Standing's point was that capital (i.e. ownership of resources) now accrues wealth far more than skill does, and that the disparity is increasing. As I said, Taylor didn't attempt to point out some obvious & huge problems with this statement, for example the historically lowest interest rates ever, but it does have some feel of truth about it, _and would help explain why schoolchildren's heads are being filled with rubbish at the expense of rigour in the fundamentals_.

Have a listen and see what you think: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07x5vs1.

E. 

*Marxist term. Taylor loves Marxism (which encourages me to despise him more than I did**), but even so Marx has some value, sociologically speaking.

**ambiguity intentional.


----------



## lurker (13 Oct 2016)

When I was in Infant school/ junior school, we were taught "base 10" using blocks of beech wood
"units, longs, flats & blocks" does anyone remember these ?


----------



## Eric The Viking (13 Oct 2016)

Yes 

Worked for me, too.


----------



## Jacob (13 Oct 2016)

Eric The Viking":23zbyaci said:


> ......
> Prof. Standing's point was that capital (i.e. ownership of resources) now accrues wealth far more than skill does, and that the disparity is increasing. .....


It's down to free-market neo-liberal economics and the complete failure of the very silly 'trickle down" theory. 
Aided by anti union legislation - low-paid workers have little or no negotiating power and are not protected by much legislation, nor sufficiently buffered by the welfare system. 
Accelerated by mechanisation and the de-skilling of work (not a new phenomenon - has been going on since the industrial revolution).

The crude answer is to redistribute wealth - tax and spend - invest in human capital - invest in infrastructure (especially housing currently).

If people are un-educated then blame the government and Department of Education. It'll get worse if they bring back grammar schools - a large number (Secondary Modern or new equivalent) will get lower quality education.

If maths is unused then of course it gets forgotten - just like anything else.

What amazes me is the number of people who make things (especially woodworkers :shock: ) but are completely flummoxed by very basic geometry and would rather calculate (with a calculator - log tables are redundant) instead of using compass, straight edge, dividers etc. A lot can't even work out how to pitch something at 30º and would rather use a jig! :lol:

PS anybody who either "loves" or "hates" Marx, has misunderstood him entirely!


----------



## DiscoStu (13 Oct 2016)

I once ran a big scout even and had a major argument with someone because they insisted there area was too small we had used a figure to calculate space and say it was 10 scouts to 5m sqr he was saying he should have 10m X 10m as he had 20 scouts and therefore needed double the room. I could not explain that 10m sqr was 4 times the size of 5m sqr. 

In the end I drew a diagram. I still think he though I did something to trick him!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## RogerS (13 Oct 2016)

Jacob":1szm1l0a said:


> Eric The Viking":1szm1l0a said:
> 
> 
> > ......
> ...



Yawn......


----------



## lurker (13 Oct 2016)

lurker":3mcegxdp said:


> When I was in Infant school/ junior school, we were taught "base 10" using blocks of beech wood
> "units, longs, flats & blocks" does anyone remember these ?



This also taught you about area (flats) and volume (blocks).
I often wonder if my teacher of 55 years ago would be pleased if they knew I mentally still visualise in those terms whilst calculating safety aspects of safe storage of fissile wastes?


----------



## beech1948 (13 Oct 2016)

Maths Grad here, 68 yrs, upper first, whoohooo.

When I look at Britain I see that 40% are skilled and committed, 40% pretend to be knowledgeable and 20% are chaotic no nothings. I see less efficiency than is needed and that 50% of the people I deal with in business have no idea of how to run a business to deliver on time, quality and cost. I run my business by also running my contracts with 6 others suppliers for their owners....its rubbish.

What is becoming more interesting as I age is that the 1960's skilled trades could run rings round todays grads in maths, application of logic to solve problems and really kept much of the UK functioning and all without computers only a stubby pencil and a notebook.

I now teach math to those who are serious about it. I don't tutor to raise grades I teach only grad level students.

Math is the only common language which exists across the globe. Solutions using math are always clear and relatively easy to implement.

Pupils today are being taught by the ignorant. Teacher training colleges will accept students with 1 A level..what????
PE staff are asked to fill in and teach other subjects..what??????. Why do we not accept that only grads with very good grades are allowed to teach there is actually no shortage of them.

A change would start with insisting on directing grads into teaching jobs until we have an all graduate teaching workforce with no Teacher Training College diplomas allowed. Forgive student debt to create the best types of teacher. It would be worth it.

A return to the syllabus used in the 1960's would be a serious shock to today's pupils and teachers as to level of learning and discipline but that is what the UK desperately needs. 

Teaching? Class sizes are now averaging 32 when in the 60's they averaged 28, achieved grades of A to C are applauded but the rest are ignored as useless also rans why is this waste of talent allowed. Most work today does not require a degree as a start point so why do we let kids waste their time, money and acquire debts to go to uni for a worthless degree in say Football...why? Grades D to F(ail) are given no real suitable training. The Dept of Educations annual published statistics show that 23% of all pupils are illiterate and unable to read and comprehend in any meaningful way. 24% are innumerate and unable to handle numbers at all.

I hope that the best case is that these are the same pupils but worry that its actually 47% (23% + 24%) who are both illiterate and innumerate. How is it possible that today we can not teach a child to see a numer, recognise its value and add, divide,multiply and subtract...how is it even possible???

Teachers whine about money. As you do if you have no idea of the job you are doing yet defend methods now proven to be unsuitable. What go back to primary schools teaching times tables by rote....oh no far to uncool. Until Chinese children are compared to ours and run all over us in maths due to their Victorian teaching methods....just amazing....our teachers talk a good game but any real understanding about how pupils learn, how to motivate, how to drive the pupil towards higher standards. Poor poor teachers; we actually expect them to perform. How sad is that.

Time to sack the 1960/1970 diploma trained teachers and move on.

Over and out. Back to teaching my grandson (14) about Adiabatic Expansion and Log Scales and pattern analysis.


----------



## lurker (13 Oct 2016)

Hope you feel better for that Beech :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Jacob (13 Oct 2016)

beech1948":2zj6peaw said:


> ....
> Time to sack the 1960/1970 diploma trained teachers and move on......


Too easy to blame teachers (or anybody) and just leave it at that. A very modern cop-out.
In fact it's the Dept of Ed who are responsible - and curricula are more tightly controlled and regulated nowadays than they ever were - with massive amounts of assessment and paper work. Ask any teacher - and it's not about money either.
My grandson is learning maths in a fairly traditional way - things haven't changed that much, except for the addition of "new" maths - which is more of a problem for the parents than the kids - hence a lot of the moaning about how things ain't what they used to be! :lol:


----------



## RogerS (13 Oct 2016)

1. Teaching Math In 1950s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price. What is his profit ?

2. Teaching Math In 1960s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is 4/5 of the price, or $80. What is his profit?

3. Teaching Math In 1970s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80. Did he make a profit?

4. Teaching Math In 1980s

A logger sells a truckload of lumber for $100. His cost of production is $80 and his profit is $20. Your assignment: Underline the number 20.

5. Teaching Math In 1990s

A logger cuts down a beautiful forest because he is selfish and inconsiderate and cares nothing for the habitat of animals or the preservation of our woodlands. He does this so he can make a profit of $20. What do you think of this way of making a living? Topic for class participation after answering the question: How did the birds and squirrels feel as the logger cut down their homes? (There are no wrong answers, and if you feel like crying, it's ok.)


----------



## RogerS (13 Oct 2016)

Jacob":1iftvcqc said:


> beech1948":1iftvcqc said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



What was wrong with 'old' maths? Why do we need 'New' maths ? Especially if they can't work out the area of a room.

And Beech, it's not all bad news, thankfully. At least the Govt has seen some sense. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36772954


----------



## Shrubby (13 Oct 2016)

Cuisenaire rods - you can still get them
Matt


----------



## RobinBHM (13 Oct 2016)

I remember my first week of my degree course (furniture production and management), our lecturer gave the class a simple maths test to do, to see what he needed to teach.

Some of the questions were using a mixture of + - x divide () and fractions which everybody got wrong (including me!).

The lecturer said, do none of you remember BODMAS?......eh? we'd never heard of it, it doesnt seem to be taught these days.


----------



## RogerS (13 Oct 2016)

I think this kind of proves your point, Beech.

A paper from 1960







and from 2016


----------



## Jacob (13 Oct 2016)

RobinBHM":399uydd4 said:


> I remember my first week of my degree course (furniture production and management), our lecturer gave the class a simple maths test to do, to see what he needed to teach.
> 
> Some of the questions were using a mixture of + - x divide () and fractions which everybody got wrong (including me!).
> 
> The lecturer said, do none of you remember BODMAS?......eh? we'd never heard of it, it doesnt seem to be taught these days.


It certainly is taught nowadays and quite early on too, otherwise you wouldn't be able to do some quite simple maths. i
It sounds more like basic Maths wasn't a prerequisite for your course and you happened to be in a very innumerate crew!


----------



## Jacob (13 Oct 2016)

RogerS":234ws7g2 said:


> I think this kind of proves your point, Beech.
> 
> A paper from 1960
> 
> ...


Yes but you are only getting 2 mark on the 2nd paper - which means there are another 98 marks to pick up in the rest of the exam (assuming 100 marks available - 50 more pages of same level of difficulty?) whereas the 1st paper is the whole shebang. Different styles of teaching the same stuff.
I take it you'd have no problem with the 2nd paper Roger, if standards really have fallen so low?


----------



## Jacob (13 Oct 2016)

phil.p":2eiaxj7a said:


> Yes. My daughter got "A"s at GCSE physics, maths and chemistry without understanding how a logarithmic scale worked - and didn't believe me when I told her I had learned it in junior school.


Nobody uses logs anymore (unless they have to) so they aren't taught. Calculators are far more efficient and precise. But they'd soon get the logs idea if calculators and computers all packed up.

Similarly nobody uses a sextant or sight reduction tables any more for navigation, unless they have to.


----------



## beech1948 (13 Oct 2016)

Jacob,

I made no mention of blame. I only work in terms of achievement and capability to do the work needed.

Fascinating to read through the scannned pages of a maths exam. 

Log Scales are seldom used today due to calculators taking over I agree but one should at least understand the concept.

As to sextants well I use mine each week, I do enjoy the calculations being done by "hand" but I do have a full electronic nav system with radar to back up my calcs.
Better safe than sorry.


----------



## RobinBHM (13 Oct 2016)

I suppose log books are condemned to the back of the cupboard, with road maps slung on top of them


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (13 Oct 2016)

Jacob":ae5wtu89 said:


> phil.p":ae5wtu89 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes. My daughter got "A"s at GCSE physics, maths and chemistry without understanding how a logarithmic scale worked - and didn't believe me when I told her I had learned it in junior school.
> ...



Alright...what have you done with the "Jacob" we know?? Come on...where is he?? It cant be you Jacob....you're positing that something modern is somehow useful and has made something older somehow redundant....what have you done with him??


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Oct 2016)

No one uses logs? Fine - but if they are not taught them, how can anyone be expected to understand how the decibel, Richter, PH etc. scales work? We still need background knowledge of things, even if we don't directly use them.

My thoughts exactly, R.O.B.


----------



## Stanleymonkey (13 Oct 2016)

Quite interesting to read the comments.

The 'Asian' style methods focus their efforts on arithmetic, arithmetic word problems, more arithmetic, fractions and algebra.

When a leading proponent of this method was questioned about those who struggle with the pure aspects of maths - he replied that's why we have vocational jobs and trades!


----------



## Jacob (13 Oct 2016)

beech1948":inr0zdyo said:


> J...
> Log Scales are seldom used today due to calculators taking over I agree but one should at least understand the concept.


So much to understand - so little time!
Unless you really need to of course.


> As to sextants well I use mine each week, I do enjoy the calculations being done by "hand" but I do have a full electronic nav system with radar to back up my calcs.
> Better safe than sorry.


I've got one too - hardly ever used except for distances off, but I did the RYA Astro nav course years ago without ever going "ocean" enough to use it. Crossed the channel a lot but you don't need astro for that, almanac, paper charts, pencil, instead. Did the maths too but bu*gered if I'd remember any of it now! Haversines and stuff :shock:


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Oct 2016)

Here are some questions from a GCSE maths paper about five years ago -
What is 17 + 14
Write six thousand and eight in figures
How many 50 pences are there in £200
What is 4 x 28
I was invigilating GCSEs at the time. I did write down ten at the time, and I showed them to ten people that I knew that were in one way or another connected with education, then asked them how old they thought the child they were intended for was. The answers I got were a ten, an eight and eight nines. Of course people say yes, but that's a foundation level paper - but if passed high enough it still counts as a GCSE.

I wonder why this goes to the left hand side only of the page when I try to post if there are posts in the interim?


----------



## Jacob (13 Oct 2016)

phil.p":h0026rhr said:


> Here are some questions from a GCSE maths paper about five years ago -
> What is 17 + 14
> Write six thousand and eight in figures
> How many 50 pences are there in £200
> ...


Yebbut I bet there were some harder questions in there too!
I suppose basic level exams have to have some easy questions so that everyone gets a meaningful mark, even if a very low one. At least they'd know where they stood!
Similarly when i did my TOPs C&G course years ago we did a maths test with questions like the above, but ranging as far as volume of a cylinder, area of circle etc. Some got zero marks, some got 100%, a lot were in between.


----------



## Claymore (13 Oct 2016)

Regarding teachers, how do they cope with so many different nationalities in their classrooms...... do they use interpreters or do they separate the classes? just wondered as when I was at school there was only one foreign student but he spoke English so had no problems but today it must be a nightmare with so many foreign students in class.
Also do the schools/colleges have to stock all the library books again in different languages or is it all digital now?
I saw a TV programme yesterday about one school in London and they had 14 nationalities in one class and many didn`t speak English so how do they teach a mixed class?


----------



## RogerS (13 Oct 2016)

Jacob":3ffdf357 said:


> RogerS":3ffdf357 said:
> 
> 
> > I think this kind of proves your point, Beech.
> ...



Less of the Ad Hominem attacks.


----------



## Jacob (13 Oct 2016)

Yawn......

Answer the questions? If you can't answer them how would you know the questions were too easy?

NB I could have answered them a few years back but it's all gone out me 'ed :roll:

PS 'ang on - first one is -2/5? second er, I've forgotten calculus altogether though no doubt it'd come back!


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Oct 2016)

Claymore - my cousin taught in a South London school where nearly sixty languages were spoken. She said they weren't teachers, they were state sponsored babysitters and riot control officers - the better part of her day was spent stopping Pakistanis attacking Indians, Turks attacking Kurds, Kurds from attacking Iraqis, West Africans attacking West Indians, and others (and all vice versa) - a litany of inter racial historic feuds.


----------



## Jacob (13 Oct 2016)

phil.p":1syq5rcn said:


> Claymore - my cousin taught in a South London school where nearly sixty languages were spoken. She said they weren't teachers, they were state sponsored babysitters and riot control officers - the better part of her day was spent stopping Pakistanis attacking Indians, Turks attacking Kurds, Kurds from attacking Iraqis, West Africans attacking West Indians, and others (and all vice versa) - a litany of inter racial historic feuds.


I expect they'll mostly end up as doctors, dentists, lawyers! Especially if they get enough support in those difficult early years - many of them have had sh|t lives previously and there's nothing they want more than to get way from it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HHT_V294Co


----------



## RogerS (13 Oct 2016)

Jacob":1scp417t said:


> Yawn......
> 
> Answer the questions? If you can't answer them how would you know the questions were too easy?
> 
> ...



Have you been drinking again ?


----------



## Jacob (13 Oct 2016)

RogerS":17guoq41 said:


> Jacob":17guoq41 said:
> 
> 
> > Yawn......
> ...


Yep. Afraid so - only a couple of glasses though!



Claymore":17guoq41 said:


> Regarding teachers, how do they cope with so many different nationalities in their classrooms...... do they use interpreters or do they separate the classes? just wondered as when I was at school there was only one foreign student but he spoke English so had no problems but today it must be a nightmare with so many foreign students in class.
> Also do the schools/colleges have to stock all the library books again in different languages or is it all digital now?
> I saw a TV programme yesterday about one school in London and they had 14 nationalities in one class and many didn`t speak English so how do they teach a mixed class?


They learn English very fast - they tend to be very motivated.
If it worries you you could volunteer to help "teaching english as a foreign language" - there are courses for helpers and a lot of back up.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (13 Oct 2016)

"I expect they'll mostly end up as doctors, dentists, lawyers! Especially if they get enough support in those difficult early years - many of them have had sh|t lives previously and there's nothing they want more than to get way from it." - Jacob

No they were illiterate, innumerate 15 and 16 year olds, most of whom were born in this Country or who had lived here for many years.


----------



## Jacob (13 Oct 2016)

A bit of Ukippery emerging here I think.


----------



## SammyQ (13 Oct 2016)

As a practicing teacher, with thirty six years experience, all of it up to and including A level, I have read all the preceeding posts with some mixed emotions.

True, successive governments plural and 'Govements' singular have inflicted a plethora of vote-pleasing nonsense on us over the years. The Three R's: Readin' Writin' and Rithmatic, are invaluable standbys and enable we pre-decimal children to perform 'feats' that 'Mental Maths' (I kid you not) dependent modern children can only gawp at. As to whether Logs are still useful, I remember heaving a sigh of relief when calculators freed us up to embrace MORE interesting facts, rather than bashing away for ages with a curser, anti-logs or, if we were really nice to Mr Brown, a sliderule! When I got to University and had to run Fourier analyses of circadioan rhythms, I was heartilly grateful for Apple's first 8 Megabyte computer - the same size as a 4 drawer filing cabinet. It still took the wee beastie 45 mins to process and then print the first line of analysis...what price hand work there eh?

Just my binary 11 pence worth...

Sam


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Oct 2016)

For some reason the site won't allow me to quote.
Jacob - nothing whatsoever to do with "Ukipery" merely a statement of fact in reply to your bit of politically correct supposition.


----------



## owsnap (14 Oct 2016)

I know I will get A lot of hate for this..and what am I even doing in this country.. but whatever...

The kids here I believe have no motivation whatsoever to go and explore and do something off-the-book or something non-standard and everyone in a class can be a winner, there are no loosers  the Marks have very little meanings, because everyone gets A marks without actually trying that hard. Everyone can be a winner and get a sticker for just eating his plate clean..or just attending the school.

I remember when I was in school (not in UK ) there could only be 1 best student in class, however from what I have seen everyone can be the best here  I had to work hard for my grades and if you didn't ...well... you had to do it or you got really bad marks and were left in that class for a 2nd year and everyone would laugh at you for being such a looser.. It was hard to get 10 for a task, insanely hard, you had to do a hard task just perfect to get a 10 , we had scoring from 1 to 10 not a/b/c... and.. There would be almost no students getting the top marks ever, If you got a 9 or an 8 you already felt super good for doing really good, but everytime you knew you were close enough and you had an actual urge to compete with others and get better at stuff because the 10 mark was almost unachievable by anyone..

The kids were given maybe 1 achievement paper per YEAR, here they give you some kind of achievement paper several times per week, achievement paper even for being a good boy/girl or achievement paper for eating his plate clean, WHAT THE HELL? It just sets the mark so low.. You don't need to do almost anything here to get an achievement reward and again everyone gets one, because otherwise the rest would feel sad..
It's a sad life, only few can be the best, not everyone, if you aren't the best now you can try and be better, but hell no... It would be child abuse over here..


And No the kids didn't really got in a trouble for laughing at others or saying bad words 
It was kinda if you are such a retard than oh well you were thrown under the train and the world would move on.. yes it's harsh and it would be classed as child abuse in UK and everyone would be in shock..But I only now realize that it made everyone achieve so much more...


From the short time I have lived here I realize that people are really discouraged to be a multi-purpose tool and know a lot of things about everything and to be able to do more than 1 task that they have ''trained'' for. Seems like you go to school here, choose your area you want to be in, and that's it- you barely know about anything else than just your 1 task to do. If you get in a non standard situation you are doomed..

Also I went to my sisters school just recently as they had open evening and oh wow, I was simply amazed by how much resources/tech the kids have access to over here, what a world of a difference, I remember we had just some books and that's it.. Kids here are so so so much more lucky to have all this stuff,yet for some reason they are just dumbed-down just to be good at their 1 task.

I'm out, hate all you want, but you can only see these things if you haven't been in this system and have something to compare it with..


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Oct 2016)

Sammy Q - I was unbelievably fortunate to have the most inspiring teacher I ever had for two years, the year I was due to take the 11 plus. They changed the age limit, so I did the same year twice - in a class of 48 (this was doubly irritating, as I'd jumped a year the year before). I still have an exercise book with additions of pounds, shillings and pence and farthings: bushels, pecks and gallons: furlongs, chains and rods; hundredweights, stones and pounds.
By the bye. He taught us to look for the easy way - if we had to multiply 99 x 7, we multiplied 100 x 7 and subtracted the seven, 3 x 19 shillings and eight pence was a shilling short of three pounds and things like that. He taught us how to estimate - If we had to multiply say 2.8 x 2.8 x 2.9 the answer should be not too much less and certainly not more than if it were 3 x 3 x 3 = 27 - this sounds obvious, but it is not to a ten year old. Similarly if we had to add columns of figures you added 67s and 33s, 48s and 52s, 35s an 65s and so on. I was at a pub quiz one night with a friend who is a retired science teacher and a question was which of these numbers (five or six digit) is a prime number? I looked for a moment and said that one. It was correct, and he looked at me quite mystified and said how on earth did you know? I said that's divisible by three, and that's divisible by three, so it must have been the other one. He burst out laughing. Add the digits together, then add them together again - if the result is divisible by three the whole number is. I was taught that when I was ten - he didn't know. I'd put a smilie in now, but the site is all to hell and won't let me.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Oct 2016)

At about 15 I had a friend who brilliant(in the true sense). One day he put in a maths paper that was perfect. He got 99%. He went to complain about the 99% to the master (who was old - it was the sixties and this guy had missed the call up for the second Boer War because he was lame. He had a first from Cambridge). He ruled a bunch of bolshie fifteen year olds with a rod of iron - all he had to do was glower at us. He just looked over his half glasses and said only god is perfect, boy - you might like to think you're god, but you're not.


----------



## NazNomad (14 Oct 2016)

phil.p":3dsgo6ob said:


> ... and said only god is perfect, boy - you might like to think you're god, but you're not.



Sounds like he was also Amish? :-D


There's a myth about the 'imperfecton block' in Amish quilts. Apparently, only god can make something perfect, so they'd deliberately put a mistake in their quilt work.

I now describe all my work as Amish. ;-)


----------



## skipdiver (14 Oct 2016)

I remember seeing something similar in a museum about Roman mosaics, that they deliberately incorporated a mistake as to not offend the gods. I used this as an excuse for years if i made a mistake at work and said i was an adherent of the Romans principle.

Going back to maths. My partners daughter is about to start training to be a maths teacher. They are offering tax free bursaries of £25,000 to try and fill the shortage.


----------



## SammyQ (14 Oct 2016)

phil.p? I concur utterly!! I had a primary teacher, then a Maths teacher in GRAMMAR :twisted: school who both taught us to think laterally like you described, hammered our 'times tables' into us too. Helped me get into MENSA years later. :lol: Long live creative thinking!!

I also believe most older carpenters and joiners were adepts at mental maths, because of the idiosyncratic units we pre-decimal boyos had to use.

Sam


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Oct 2016)

NazNomad":3d1vm3o4 said:


> phil.p":3d1vm3o4 said:
> 
> 
> > ... and said only god is perfect, boy - you might like to think you're god, but you're not.
> ...



You wouldn't believe the coincidence there - his name was Hamish.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Oct 2016)

SammyQ":5bpjlcgp said:


> phil.p? I concur utterly!! I had a primary teacher, then a Maths teacher in GRAMMAR :twisted: school who both taught us to think laterally like you described, hammered our 'times tables' into us too. Helped me get into MENSA years later. :lol: Long live creative thinking!!
> 
> I also believe most older carpenters and joiners were adepts at mental maths, because of the idiosyncratic units we pre-decimal boyos had to use.
> 
> Sam



I jacked in Mensa when one day I wondered why on earth I was so unintelligent as to pay £39 p.a. for a crappy magazine. (that'll show you how long ago it was  )


----------



## bugbear (14 Oct 2016)

phil.p":2t593lv9 said:


> He taught us to look for the easy way - if we had to multiply 99 x 7, we multiplied 100 x 7 and subtracted the seven



That trick can be extended; e.g. 102 * 98 is easy (when you know how) - it's 9996

Algebraically (a + b) * (a - b) = a^2 - b^2

so (100 + 2) * (100 - 2) = 100^2 - 2^2 = 10000 - 4 = 9996. Simples.  

BugBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Oct 2016)

Lost me totally.


----------



## Jacob (14 Oct 2016)

SammyQ":3heubv45 said:


> .....
> I also believe most older carpenters and joiners were adepts at mental maths, because of the idiosyncratic units we pre-decimal boyos had to use.
> 
> Sam


It's the decimal system that's idiosyncratic. 
Duo decimal evolved and works best for makers, measurers, navigators, geometers, astronomers, surveyors, time keepers. 
The units are based on physical things - inch/finger. foot/foot, yard/stride, cwt/biggest practical weight for one man, agricultural rods, poles, furlongs etc 
Makers want to divide by 2, 3, 4 and multiples - hence yards, feet, inches, half/quarter/eighth/sixteenth/thirtysecond

Decimal evolved and works best for counters - accountants etc based on using fingers. And toes - some old systems had base 20, which we retain as a "score". 
It was imposed as modern and rational by Napoleon and others but a rational base 12 system might have served us better.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Oct 2016)

A late friend, a pharmacist, always said that there were far fewer overdoses with imperial measurements - there were no decimal point errors. (Which as I said in another post my neighbour, a maths teacher, always said were the biggest problem with children being dependent on calculators.)


----------



## NazNomad (14 Oct 2016)

phil.p":10hz7v9y said:


> You wouldn't believe the coincidence there - his name was Hamish.



Amish Hamish... Sounds like a Viz character. :-D


----------



## RogerS (14 Oct 2016)

phil.p":fqynrvin said:


> .....(Which as I said in another post my neighbour, a maths teacher, always said were the biggest problem with children being dependent on calculators.)



Children are still complaining about it. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/20 ... -after-be/

_".......The main complaint was they were set 'no whole numbers' to work with in the exam, having to work with decimal points, which takes more time and is more difficult to do without a calculator......"_


----------



## Eric The Viking (14 Oct 2016)

phil.p":34uqn8t4 said:


> I jacked in Mensa when one day I wondered why on earth I was so unintelligent as to pay £39 p.a. for a crappy magazine. (that'll show you how long ago it was  )



Ditto. But if it ever comes up I just say I left because I became really stupid. 

The other half got a couple of points higher than me. I always blamed a week of 16-hour days beforehand, then a mad dash to Bath Uni to take the test. She's simply been smug about it for the last 30 years or so.

Who was that economist with the weird name that used to write about half of every edition? 

Madsen Pirie! You don't hear much about it (or him) these days. I assume he, at least, has gone totally _elite_ now...

What a really weird outfit though.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (14 Oct 2016)

I did my tests after an absolute pig of a night shift and an hour and a half drive, so I was rather surprised. Weird? You're not wrong, there.


----------



## lurker (14 Oct 2016)

In my younger days
I was asked by a farmer to quote to lay a hedge
We stood in the field and I said that looks about x yards and he was so startled about how accurate I was he gave me the job on the spot :lol: 

But it was fairly easy to work out: 
I knew the field was fairly old (200+ years) from the stuff growing in the hedge
I guessed it was originally measured out in chains (22 yards)
As a cricketer I knew the pitch was 22 yards long so that distance was ingrained in my mind after spending seasons running the length . It was just a case of mentally measuring how many cricket pitches long the hedge was and a simple multiplication.


----------



## petermillard (14 Oct 2016)

phil.p":3n2rg5ao said:


> I jacked in Mensa when one day I wondered why on earth I was so unintelligent as to pay £39 p.a. for a crappy magazine. (that'll show you how long ago it was  )


I jacked in Mensa after I met another Mensan... :shock: 



Eric The Viking":3n2rg5ao said:


> What a really weird outfit though.


Yep.


----------



## Jacob (14 Oct 2016)

Eric The Viking":29udrniy said:


> ....
> Who was that economist with the weird name that used to write about half of every edition?
> 
> Madsen Pirie! You don't hear much about it (or him) these days. I assume he, at least, has gone ....


He is a notorious right wing sh|thead. There's a lot of them about!

Mensa: "I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." Groucho Marx,


----------



## RogerS (15 Oct 2016)

Jacob":3tg6wd24 said:


> Eric The Viking":3tg6wd24 said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Almost as many as their are left-wing loonies. That includes those who keep tub-thumping from their little soapboxes on forums where politics are not supposed to be discussed.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (15 Oct 2016)

"I don't care to belong to any club that will have me as a member." Groucho Marx,

I've heard that quote from every single person who has ever mentioned Mensa to me without having done the supervised IQ tests.


----------



## doctor Bob (15 Oct 2016)

I'm educated and bright and yet constantly do daft things I regret............... you would think I'd learn after many years but it just seems to be a merry go round. 
I'm hopeless with money, seem to have the ability to get it quite easily at times and then lose it as quickly. The strangest part is it really doesn't bother me.


----------



## cutting42 (16 Oct 2016)

I have to wonder what experiences most of you are basing much of the nonsense that has been posted. I have two children, one about to take GCSE's next year and the older her A levels (and A2's).

They both fully understand Log's, no they don't use printed tables but they know what they are and how to use them. They have an excellent base knowledge of Maths, English, Sciences, Modern Languages and the Arts. I wish to god that I had the education they are getting. I was at a hideous secondary modern that really did not give a pineapple about me or anyone else at the school. I left with a handful of O levels and CSE's mostly learnt by rote or by beatings.

The current education my kids get (at a comprehensive) is outstanding and I am proud to have schools in my area that can do this. People love to moan, many of them with no kids or basing on what they are told to believe in the Daily Fail or Grauniad.

There are thousands of motivated and engaged kids out there, give them a break and a chance to succeed in what ever they do.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Oct 2016)

You are lucky with your children's school, I am lucky with mine. My daughter got 7 x A's, 5 x B's and a C at GCSE, an A*, an A and a B at a A level, and is in the third year of an honours degree at a top ten University - and apart from her own bloody hard work she has a lot to thank her teachers for. The boy's got B's at chemistry and biology a year early. The secondary school was a shambles up to when an exceptional headmaster took over, unfortunately their junior school has gone the in the opposite direction. Would you like to point out what you consider to be nonsense and why? I would imagine what you consider nonsense is far from nonsense to the person who posted it.


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2016)

cutting42":2bzsyd5i said:


> I have to wonder what experiences most of you are basing much of the nonsense that has been posted. I have two children, one about to take GCSE's next year and the older her A levels (and A2's).
> 
> They both fully understand Log's, no they don't use printed tables but they know what they are and how to use them. They have an excellent base knowledge of Maths, English, Sciences, Modern Languages and the Arts. I wish to god that I had the education they are getting. I was at a hideous secondary modern that really did not give a pineapple about me or anyone else at the school. I left with a handful of O levels and CSE's mostly learnt by rote or by beatings.
> 
> ...


Yes the secondary moderns were terribly divisive; a deliberate decision to give the majority an inferior education. Though of course many succeeded in spite of this and there were a lot of committed teachers doing a good job. It's amazing that the government are contemplating turning the clock back again - a lot of people who support the grammar school idea don't seem to twig that it might be their own kids who won't be given a break.


----------



## DiscoStu (16 Oct 2016)

I find some of the views expressed in this thread interesting. Lots of talk about old school learning tables etc. I get where those views are coming from but you're thinking in the 60's. Today we really don't need our children to know what 6x7 is. You may be thinking that's a ridiculous statement, but let me explain. 

Kids don't need to know this stuff off of their head, this day and age they have access to that answer in their pocket it's called their phone. Or they have a computer etc. Equally who can tell me what 1122 x 7831 is, using only mental arithmetic? Not many, and that proves my point, it's not about knowing the answer, it's about knowing how to solve the problem. 

We have access to a world of information that we have never had before. We need to be educating our children so that they know how to access that information and evaluate it and use it. We have devices that are great for doing maths and robots for repetitive tasks. What we need are people who can solve problems, people who can work out the best way to do things.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Oct 2016)

"Yes the secondary moderns were terribly divisive; a deliberate decision to give the majority an inferior education."
Jacob, we would be fools if we did not admit there were many things wrong with secondary moderns, but to maintain they were bad intentionally is idiocy.

"A lot of people who support the grammar school idea don't seem to twig that it might be their own kids who won't be given a break."

And a lot of people who don't don't seem to twig that it might be their own kids who will be given a break.

Making one school better doesn't need to mean making another worse.


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2016)

phil.p":3zyho9ej said:


> ....but to maintain they were bad intentionally is idiocy.


They were "less good" intentionally, which amounts to the same thing


> ...
> 
> 
> Making one school better doesn't need to mean making another worse.


Of course it does. 
It's relative not absolute. It means one set of kids will get a lower quality of education with less investment, as compared to another, unless they convert them all to "grammar" schools equally (could call them "comprehensive" schools?). It's divisive and is about maintaining privilege.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Oct 2016)

Stu - Kids don't need to know this stuff off of their head, this day and age they have access to that answer in their pocket it's called their phone. Or they have a computer etc.

Yes, but if they have absolutely no idea of mental arithmetic they will have no idea when they have made a mistake. Of course their phone, computer or calculator won't - but they can and will.
As my neighbour used to tell me, it wasn't unusual for one of his pupils to write that 40 x 40 was 16000 - because they were so reliant on machines, they no longer had the ability to quickly look and think hang on, that doesn't look quite right. Similarly, they used to get living room floors of 150 square metres, and so on. If questioned the answer was always the same - that's the answer the computer or calculator gave, it must be right.

Jacob - if we are talking of differing investment, that's another discussion. Why have first class schools in Cornwall less income per capita than anywhere else in the Country?
If one school is 99% percent perfect you cannot say that another at 98% is made worse intentionally because it might be 99% if the other didn't exist.


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2016)

You are a bit confused! You are not alone - a lot of people have their heads in the sand in a similar way.
If the grammar school idea is to give a selected group a better education it also means by sheer logic that the unselected remainder will get a worse one.
If it's about an appropriate education to suit a child's needs it shouldn't be decided by one exam for life at age 11 - it should be an on going process for life, with all doors equally open to all


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Oct 2016)

Out of curiosity -both my children went to a good big comprehensive. Barring subjects that are basically relatively unimportant, they were in top sets, with six or seven sets to a year. They were in a different part of the school, in different rooms with different teachers - so what's the gain for the pupils from being together? On a day to day basis, they only only had contact with their own groups - there might be an economic argument for one large school, but that's it, any thoughts of pupils having role models and getting encouragement from their betters (which for some peculiar reason is a common belief) is pie in the sky thinking. Some people believe in some form of educational osmosis - that if a slow learning child sits next to a quick learning one, he'll get quicker. He might, from cheating - but that's it.
Not at all confused, by the way.


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2016)

phil.p":fnyhlh96 said:


> Out of curiosity -both my children went to a good big comprehensive. Barring subjects that are basically relatively unimportant, they were in top sets, with six or seven sets to a year. They were in a different part of the school, in different rooms with different teachers - so what's the gain for the pupils from being together? ....


Permits movement through the levels according to ability and need. 
The grammar/secondary modern cut off was a boundary which very few could cross - nobody was sent down, a tiny number rose up (13+ exam). Your kids might have failed the 11 plus (it's possible however improbable you think it it) and would be condemned for life to a worse education and be marked for life at age 11 as inferior.


----------



## NazNomad (16 Oct 2016)

I'm of the view that most people are as thick as a whale omelette. It's quite refreshing when I'm occasionally proven wrong. :-D


----------



## Eric The Viking (16 Oct 2016)

DiscoStu":1xwjikst said:


> Kids don't need to know this stuff off of their head, this day and age they have access to that answer in their pocket it's called their phone. Or they have a computer etc. Equally who can tell me what 1122 x 7831 is, using only mental arithmetic? Not many, and that proves my point, it's not about knowing the answer, it's about knowing how to solve the problem.


This isn't true. I'm not picking a fight here but children DO need mental arithmetic, and the better it is the more useful. Of course it's perfectly OK to use a calculator (in school, in exams, and so on), but the issue of decimal drift (putting the point in the wrong place and mucking up by orders of magnitude) has already been mentioned above. It's important that people can work out roughly before they get a precise result from a machine, as a sanity check.

Similarly with language, spelling is very useful, as is grammar, because it means you express ideas unambiguously. Commas change meaning, for example.


> We have access to a world of information that we have never had before. We need to be educating our children so that they know how to access that information and evaluate it and use it. We have devices that are great for doing maths and robots for repetitive tasks. What we need are people who can solve problems, people who can work out the best way to do things.


They won't do this, and in my experience can't do this, unless they develop the mental agility to calculate in their heads. It isn't innate. It has to be learned and, like any skill, practiced. 

Ask my own children, who all went to what were considered good schools in the city (excellent OSTED ratings, consistently), if they now think dad was old-fashioned and anal about their spelling, punctuation and grammar, and silly to try to teach them simple rules (which the schools weren't doing). They've needed that stuff since, and two of them have discovered that they have difficulty explaining complex ideas at degree level. Language - vocab. and grammar - is essential. In the computer industry that's been especially obvious. You can only frame a concept, or a problem to solve, if you have the language to do it.

The other issue is that schools do have a role in calibrating children's expectations of the adult world. In almost all important jobs you _can't_ afford to be slapdash, you _do_ have to attend to detail, you _must_ be precise and exact. And you have to do this all day long, every workday. Children no longer come out of the education system appreciating this, and higher education has very often replaced high standards with an obsession to create a "level" playing field for the 'underpriveleged'. It's a nice idea, but it was Jesus who said, "The poor are always with you." His meaning, I think, was that you will _never_ remove all the world's inequalities, and other things may have a higher priority (he was far from uncharitable, so I'm not making a case for the Trump view of the world!).

I am convinced the three things children need to leave school with are simply these: 

1. a set of core mental skills, in reasoning, arithmetic and language (English), 
2. an appreciation that the adult world they're joining relies on precision and detail, which will be expected of them, too,
3. an enthusiasm and ability to learn whatever specialisms they need.

I agree that information is freely available, more so than ever before, but children by and large aren't leaving school with the critical skills to value it. You can often see evidence of this in the nonsense that bubbles up to popularity on the web (Internet "memes"?). 

What colours were in that badly-snapped stripey dress of last year? The answer was simple - check the colour of the pixels! If one did, the answer was unambiguous, but it didn't stop supposed centres of excellence like the BBC wasting editorial space on it, even on Radio 4 news programmes. Did we learn anything about colour perception? Nope, nothing at all. Yet it was a "mystery" that evidently captivated many. I love optical illusions - Escher, for example - but this definitely was just an example of the gullible being led by the stupid (and depressing to discover where some of the stupid have ended up).

For other good examples read the Huffington Post! It's not the political views I object to but the pathetically weak arguments and subjectivity presented as fact. Of course they can publish/promote whomsoever they wish on their site. What depresses me is the popularity the Huffpost has - apparently people don't read it (as I largely do) for a dose of ironic humour. Again, its an example of a general inability to exercise judgement, which one hopes might have been developed in school.

At a more serious level, you see dreadfully weak thought being applid to really big and expensive policy decisions: wind farms, sending humans to Mars, or at a trivial level, bicycle lanes and 20MPH zones in cities. 

To pick just one of those, a Martian expedition: we've had experiments on the psychological effects of a long space flight, but no consideration of the (probably fatal) radiation belts astronauts will travel through, and solar wind exposure on the Martian surface (as Mars doesn't have a strong enough magnetic field). You can't just clad a spacecraft in lead, as the one thing that's hard/expensive to do is lift mass into space! Then there's ecosystem issues: it's infeasible to take all the food a manned mission would require, but might you grow it there? The biosphere of Earth is staggeringly complex - plants don't just grow in soil, they interact with the soil's ecosystem. So which microbes would you transport to mars, which would you leave behind, and how would you keep both plants and humans healthy? And that's assuming you might use the Martian soil in the first place. What do you do about poisonous trace elements (poisonous either to plants, or humans - it doesn't matter which!). None of this really depends on Elon Musk's ability to land a rocket the rght way up on a barge.

My point - It's wonderfully romantinc, but it simply ain't gonna happen. There are no magic bullets for this stuff. The popular science press may be full of guff about "missions to Mars", but it's no nearer reality than it was in Jules Verne's day. Yet nobody is calling out the Emperor's tailors... 

... so what are we educating people to do or be, even in our research institutions? Lack of mental arithmetic seems to be just the tip of an iceberg of incompetence in modern life.

E. (Probably just grumpy this morning at having to climb scaffolding in the wet to clean uPVC window frames).


----------



## Eric The Viking (16 Oct 2016)

NazNomad":1gcpm2yu said:


> I'm of the view that most people are as thick as a whale omelette.


That is the expression of the week -- good until at least Thursday, I'd say  



> It's quite refreshing *(but very rare)* when I'm occasionally proven wrong. :-D


Felt the need to tweak the second bit slightly - it's going to be that sort of day - hope you don't mind.

E.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (16 Oct 2016)

One of the best comments was from a junior school head writing in The Times a few years ago, commenting on present day education. He said we have nothing to worry about concerning the intelligence of today's children - he had asked thirty eight year olds if they knew the name of the prime minister and got twenty eight yeses and two noes.


----------



## JandK (16 Oct 2016)

A professor of mathematics was driving past an institution for the mentally insane when one of the wheels from his car fell off. He was scratching his head wondering how to get going again when a patient gave him this advice: "Take one nut off each of the other wheels to fasten the wheel you have lost." 
The professor replied : "my but you are clever." To which the patient replied: " I may be mad but I am not stupid."


----------



## Jacob (16 Oct 2016)

Eric The Viking":3du203x0 said:


> ......
> ... so what are we educating people to do or be, ....


Education is about empowering people so that they can both take control of their own lives, contribute more to society, make more rational decisions when called on to vote etc. 
It's "investment in human capital" - keeping people mentally and physically in good nick is good for all of us.


----------



## DiscoStu (17 Oct 2016)

Just one point regarding the grammar school comments. I'm not sure I have a particularly strong view as to whether or not it's a good idea, however I don't think the by having a grammar school you end up with a two tier system comment is true. We need a reality check here. Some children are more academically gifted than others. Schools already stream students based on ability surely the grammar system is the same thing. Just because a school teaches children with a lower academic ability doesn't make it a bad school or any less capable of educating children than any other school it just means it is educating children of a lower academic ability. I think it could be a huge benefit to children. There is no point in trying to teach a child Fourier transform functions if they are never going to understand it and if they would be better learning how to plumb in a sink. 

Now to put some personal perspective on this I have three children, one who is academically ok and is doing well at school. She should get all C's and above in GCSE. I have one who has severe dyslexia and struggles hugely academically and I have one who is likely to go to red brick university and get a 1st. Is the same school right for all of them? Does my daughter with her learning difficulties need to go to a grammar school where they will be very much in favour of a pure academic route? Maybe just maybe my daughter may thrive in an environment where vocational skills are valued and where she is given the skills that are right for her and will equip her to find an appropriate job outside of School. 

If we don't teach people at the right level for them then we end up with the following situation. 

A large part of the class can't understand what is being taught and will become frustrated and distraught. Another large part of the class will be bored and unchallenged. Only the middle of the class will probably benefit. It's important that children are challenged but they need to be challenged at the right level, what is a huge challenge for some is mundane for others. 

I really do think we shouldn't be trying to make people something that they are not. 

I used to work with a CEO who had a 1st in maths from Cambridge and was a very intelligent educated man. However ask him to put up a shelf or change a wheel and you're asking for trouble. Actually as I type this I remember that the wheel example is a perfect example. He did once change the wheel on his wife's car and it came off the following day. He'd only tightened the nuts finger tight, and meant to tighten them properly but forgot. 

Oh and his communication skills were horrific, his desk was just full of paper and he used to wear clothes with holes in. Not bad for a multi millionaire.


----------



## Jacob (17 Oct 2016)

DiscoStu":2l3xozp6 said:


> ..... Is the same school right for all of them? .....


Yes of course it is (or should be). 
They will have different needs as they progress and a school has to cover all fronts. Streaming them at age 11 is much too soon and too inflexible - children develop at different rates.
My son is also dyslexic and would have failed the 11 plus but luckily he went to the local comprehensive and was not demoted into a second rate school. With the help of computers and sensible teachers he ended up with an upper2nd and an MA is now the highest qualified person in the whole family. So far that is; there's a PhD on the way from daughter who went to the same school.
They've had posh friends over the years who went to grammar or private schools but didn't do half as well.
The worst performing schools of all seem to be the small private ones - in spite of the wealth of the parents, the uniforms, discipline and other nonsense. People pay a lot of money to keep their kids from mixing with riff raff like my lot, but they are the losers. They tend to be underfunded and don't have the facilities - especially the pricier kit for science and technology - and they don't attract the talent - what intelligent teacher would want to work in a school for which the raison d'etre is mere snobbery?


----------



## DiscoStu (17 Oct 2016)

I find it really offensive to teachers that people would say that a non grammar school is a second rate school. I have a friend who is a teacher. She teaches maths. She prefers to teacher the lower set classes as she feels she makes mor rod an impact and a greater difference. She also moved from a high end high achieving school to an inner city school where results were far lower, because she felt she could make more of a difference. That doesn't sound like a second rate teacher to me. To class on a non grammar school as second rate is wholly unfair to the staff and children that go there. Not all children are academically gifted. We all have our own skills and abilities and it's far better to play to our strengths. I'm not suggesting that a non grammar school shouldn't teach maths etc but teach it at a level where pupils will grow and gain from that and not be left behind. Educating children is not about getting A's it's about children developing and growing in their ability. Unfortunately we don't seem to be able to accept that not all children are going to get 10 A*.

In fact I wonder how many people know that it is actually impossible for all children to get A*? 

How many people know that the amount of A* etc are the same percentage each year? For example you take an exam in 2015 and get 75/100 and you get an A. What would you get if you did the same exam in 2016 or 2014 and got the same 75 out of 100? 

The answer might be that you get an A but it might be an A* or B it depends on how many people have got above 75 and how many below. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jacob (17 Oct 2016)

DiscoStu":2pnyz0jt said:


> I find it really offensive to teachers that people would say that a non grammar school is a second rate school.....k


There are some brilliant teachers working at all levels whatever the type of school. 
Not the teachers' fault that secondary moderns were designed and intended as second rate and cheaper.


----------



## RogerS (17 Oct 2016)

Jacob":22ps8y77 said:


> .......
> They've had posh friends over the years who went to grammar or private schools but didn't do half as well.
> The worst performing schools of all seem to be the small private ones - in spite of the wealth of the parents, the uniforms, discipline and other nonsense. People pay a lot of money to keep their kids from mixing with riff raff like my lot, but they are the losers. They tend to be underfunded and don't have the facilities - especially the pricier kit for science and technology - and they don't attract the talent - what intelligent teacher would want to work in a school for which the raison d'etre is mere snobbery?



Oh, please spare us the leftie sweeping generalisation. Where is your evidence ?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Oct 2016)

DiscoStu":1jkhw440 said:


> How many people know that the amount of A* etc are the same percentage each year? For example you take an exam in 2015 and get 75/100 and you get an A. What would you get if you did the same exam in 2016 or 2014 and got the same 75 out of 100?
> 
> The answer might be that you get an A but it might be an A* or B it depends on how many people have got above 75 and how many below.
> 
> ...



Stu, I think you'll find that system of marking was scrapped years ago in the pursuit of ever higher grades. It certainly used to be the case, as it evened out discrepancies between one year's papers and the next - if the paper was easier, you had to get a higher mark for the same grade. As it didn't suit governments to have the same number of high grades every year, there was no political gain from using it.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Oct 2016)

My friend (a GP, so not an silly person) read a very in depth survey which claimed that up to 60% of school leavers are functionally illiterate or innumerate. He said this raises an interesting point - that as 50% of them go to university, up to 20% of people at university could be functionally innumerate or illiterate.


----------



## bugbear (17 Oct 2016)

phil.p":17o4q1av said:


> Stu, I think you'll find that system of marking was scrapped years ago in the pursuit of ever higher grades. It certainly used to be the case, as it evened out discrepancies between one year's papers and the next - if the paper was easier, you had to get a higher mark for the same grade. As it didn't suit governments to have the same number of high grades every year, there was no political gain from using it.



Conversely, if there is a nationwide improvement in education, the old system wouldn't show it...

BugBear


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Oct 2016)

Yes, of course. We need a system that is capable of showing a year on year improvement. How many consecutive years did it improve? 23, I seem to remember. People were amusing themselves by working out the date that more candidates were going to pass than entered.


----------



## Ian down london way (17 Oct 2016)

phil.p said:


> My friend (a GP, so not an silly person) read a very in depth survey which claimed that up to 60% of school leavers are functionally illiterate or innumerate. He said this raises an interesting point - that as 50% of them go to university, up to 20% of people at university could be functionally innumerate or illiterate.




I think your doc friend is right.

Assume 100 kids.
60% are illiterate, so that's 60 of them, and 40 are literate.
50% go to Uni, that's 50 of them. 

So all the literate ones go (40), plus 10 illiterate to make up the numbers. 

So, of the 50 going to Uni, 10 are illiterate, that's 20%


----------



## Jacob (17 Oct 2016)

Ian down london way":rqkdflnb said:


> phil.p":rqkdflnb said:
> 
> 
> > My friend (a GP, so not an silly person) read a very in depth survey which claimed that up to 60% of school leavers are functionally illiterate or innumerate. He said this raises an interesting point - that as 50% of them go to university, up to 20% of people at university could be functionally innumerate or illiterate.
> ...


On the other hand the GP could be an silly person. 
What is "functionally" illiterate/innumerate as distinct from normally illiterate/innumerate?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (17 Oct 2016)

"Less than one per cent of adults in England would be described as completely illiterate, although this absolute definition is not often used.
More common is the use of the term "functionally literate". Around 16 per cent, or 5.2 million adults in England, can be described as "functionally illiterate". They would not pass an English GCSE and have literacy levels at or below those expected of an 11-year-old. They can understand short straightforward texts on familiar topics accurately and independently, and obtain information from everyday sources, but reading information from unfamiliar sources, or on unfamiliar topics, could cause problems.
Many areas of employment would not be open to them with this level of literacy and they may also struggle to support their children with reading and homework, or perform other everyday tasks."


----------



## RogerS (17 Oct 2016)

OK chaps...let's see how we do on a numeracy and literacy test !!

http://perception5.essex.ac.uk/percepti ... &NAME=NULL


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Oct 2016)

The best you can do is tell them to take the measurements and then go online, to use a search engine to do the maths! They might manage that. If the room isn't a simple square or rectangle, then it might take too long to explain to them how to calculate. Sign of the times I'm afraid! Duuhhh!

If functionally illiterate or innumerate means they can't function (Get along in life) because of their 'impairment'. then does being 'normally illiterate or innumerate' mean they are okay? :shock: I agree with Jacob! In modern living, you are at a disadvantage, period, if you can't read, write or do simple maths. I don't think I could 'get along' in such circumstances.


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Oct 2016)

RogerS":2mjrjncn said:


> OK chaps...let's see how we do on a numeracy and literacy test !!
> 
> http://perception5.essex.ac.uk/percepti ... &NAME=NULL



Dead link Roger. 

I get the blue, URL, but it's not responding. 

:x


----------



## RogerP (18 Oct 2016)

If you click on "Next Question" at the bottom it works through the test.


----------



## RobinBHM (18 Oct 2016)

Ian down london way":262r1t5l said:


> phil.p":262r1t5l said:
> 
> 
> > My friend (a GP, so not an silly person) read a very in depth survey which claimed that up to 60% of school leavers are functionally illiterate or innumerate. He said this raises an interesting point - that as 50% of them go to university, up to 20% of people at university could be functionally innumerate or illiterate.
> ...



Although 100% own and can operate a smart phone  

and a surprising percentage will be suffering 'anxiety' and will be on prescription as they have a phobia of attending lectures, especially morning ones


----------



## Jacob (18 Oct 2016)

I'd say a surprising percentage of contributors to this thread seem be suffering from 'anxiety' - especially in the mornings and express this in a low opinion and phobia of other people and and the world in general.
A bit sad really. Pull yerselves together - get out and enjoy a bit of fine autumn weather before you die! :lol: :lol:

PS and stop reading the Daily Mail - it's an addictive anxiety generator encouraging pessimism and a miserable attitude towards the world.


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Oct 2016)

Thanks Roger. 

I was okay until the graphs and bar charts came along. I could have worked it out maybe, but I got bored with it. I think this was a test in some specialist field, and hardly shows the raw intelligence of persons taking it! 

(I skipped some questions as I really couldn't be bothered with the verbal dysentery displayed in the questions.)

(45% BTW) :roll: 

John


----------



## Benchwayze (18 Oct 2016)

Jacob":1z09bzlt said:


> I
> PS and stop reading the Daily Mail -


 :roll: 

Politics again Jacob! 

Tut-Tut! :lol:


----------



## Jacob (18 Oct 2016)

Benchwayze":1ys711ui said:


> Jacob":1ys711ui said:
> 
> 
> > I
> ...


Not politics. More like psychology than politics


----------



## whiskywill (19 Oct 2016)

Jacob":y10i2rlm said:


> My son is also dyslexic and would have failed the 11 plus but luckily he went to the local comprehensive and was not demoted into a second rate school. With the help of computers and sensible teachers he ended up with an upper2nd and an MA is now the highest qualified person in the whole family. So far that is; there's a PhD on the way from daughter who went to the same school.
> They've had posh friends over the years who went to grammar or private schools but didn't do half as well.



Doesn't that contradict your argument against the promotion of grammar school education? Your children were given a, supposedly, poorer education but performed better than those with a grammar, or private, school education.


----------



## Jacob (19 Oct 2016)

whiskywill":7huro1ky said:


> Jacob":7huro1ky said:
> 
> 
> > My son is also dyslexic and would have failed the 11 plus but luckily he went to the local comprehensive and was not demoted into a second rate school. With the help of computers and sensible teachers he ended up with an upper2nd and an MA is now the highest qualified person in the whole family. So far that is; there's a PhD on the way from daughter who went to the same school.
> ...


No it doesn't. The point is my son would not have passed the eleven plus and would have done worse - being held back in a secondary modern.
Comprehensives are supposed to cover all abilities and by and large they have been a great success. it's the old secondary moderns which were inferior in various ways - which presumably would be reintroduced with grammar schools if it goes ahead - though this looks unlikely.


----------



## Mark-numbers (19 Oct 2016)

I think we are missing the obvious here and thats most people can't read a tape measure or even own one!!


----------



## Benchwayze (20 Oct 2016)

I failed the eleven-plus in the 1940s/50s. I was going to be a 'blue-collar' worker then. A disappointment, but I got on with it. I passed an exam later for the 'Technical School'. what you might call a polytech. (Since promoted to Uni :roll: in Brum.) 

I didn't go into engineering though; I joined the RN as a Boy Seaman at 15 and a half. 
I had to take an educational grading test, which I passed and was then classed as 'AC' Boy (Advanced Class). When I started my training proper, I was the only member of my class who had NOT been to Grammar school. So I must have learned something. I can't say I ever felt deprived; even if I was. 

Something happened between failing the eleven-plus and joining the RN. I think it was just that along with thousands of other kids, I had been a 'slow-developer'; and that was what was wrong with the idea of the eleven-plus. It didn't take into account slow developing children. Thankfully I caught up! All I lost was a lot of my precious youth to the RN, spending most of it rolling around in minesweepers, and leaning over the side, calling for 'Billl'!  

My children went to a comp. They both did well, but neither wanted to go to university, even though they could have done so. That upset me, but at the end of the day, it is their life; not mine.


----------



## mbartlett99 (20 Oct 2016)

Ian down london way":17jsehjp said:


> phil.p":17jsehjp said:
> 
> 
> > My friend (a GP, so not an silly person) read a very in depth survey which claimed that up to 60% of school leavers are functionally illiterate or innumerate. He said this raises an interesting point - that as 50% of them go to university, up to 20% of people at university could be functionally innumerate or illiterate.
> ...




They're called Arts students. The medics can't read because they're too pineappled.


----------



## DTR (20 Oct 2016)




----------



## RobinBHM (20 Oct 2016)

Hey DTR

Your avatar was recently seen loose around London zoo


----------



## DTR (20 Oct 2016)

I just popped out to get a bit of exercise (followed by some light refreshment)


----------



## RobinBHM (20 Oct 2016)

DTR":30kqcns9 said:


> I just popped out to get a bit of exercise (followed by some light refreshment)



Yes, I heard you drank 5 litres of undiluted blackcurrant squash -you want to be careful with that, all that sugar'll make you hyperactive


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Oct 2016)

RobinBHM":f1kj6prh said:


> DTR":f1kj6prh said:
> 
> 
> > I just popped out to get a bit of exercise (followed by some light refreshment)
> ...



The sugar couldn't have done him too much harm - at least he managed to find 'x'.


----------

