Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (12 Viewers)

Walsgrave · Aug 19, 2020

LastGarrison said:
No.

1) He said was said there were no places left at universities. There’s literally 10’s of thousands.

2) Check the clearing link there are still places at some high ranking universities such as Bristol, Birmingham, Leicester, Liverpool etc.

3) With the lifting of the cap universities can now take on more home students and have been very resourceful re COVID by extending teaching hours across the day and weekend, utilising the space usually taken by professional services as teaching space as they continue to work from home etc.

4) Believe it or not, not everyone gets into a top uni so someone who has just been place at Bedfordshire through clearing could if they meet the grades self release and go to say Worcester, someone who was placed at Worcester as their insurance could technically go and look at an Essex or Nottingham Trent and so on.

I have heard many stories of students who by heir own admission admit they were not going to reach their predicted grades this year stating that they will 'have a go' for Medical schools and other top university courses. It was a catastrophic decision to cancel the exams.

chiefdave said:
Back to the grading fiasco, interesting piece on the BBC site.

A-levels U-turn: Universities facing 'crazy demand' from students

Thousands of students now have the A-level grades to get their first-choice course, but can universities still help them?

www.bbc.co.uk

One line that stood out to me was "the process has been made more difficult because universities themselves have yet to be granted access to upgraded results, so the university has put its admissions process on hold until they receive them".

And another piece from the BBC.

Durham University students offered money to defer after exams U-turn

Durham University says it will struggle to provide sufficient places amid the A-levels grading fiasco.

www.bbc.co.uk

What a mess.

As much as I disagreed with the algorithm, the reversion to teachers' grades is causing much more problems, for years down the line, than the algorithm ever would have.

At least with the non inflated results, there would have been a legitimate basis for students who did not sit the exam to reapply to university, say 'look, it wasn't my fault that the algorithm judged me, give me a chance to prove to you by taking the exam'. The appeals process would have taken a long time, but it would have been much more equitable. Now, we have, at an aggregate level, a cohort that is overqualified (by definition exams level the playing field); who will deny worthy students next year and potentially years to come a place they have earned at university; and who are potentially setting themselves up for failure by being on paper qualified for things they otherwise would not qualify for.

I know of people who by heir own admission have received the predicted grades they would otherwise not have been capable of cramming for. They get the benefit of the doubt, but at the expense of students from next year. I feel sorry for those who remained downgraded by their teachers' predictions - they've not done any less than those who have been handed the top grades, yet they find themselves in a situation where they will probably have to go to some retake centre or FE college (which themselves are likely to be drained of cash in view of the fact that most people will be flocking to sixth forms with their inflated grades). They have been left behind through no fault of their own.

Also, the knock on effect will be massive. Tomorrow's GCSE results will qualify thousands more for sixth forms when they otherwise would not have, and it does no one any favours. Sixth forms are going to be overloaded, in a year where we are meant to be socially distancing.

shmmeee · Aug 19, 2020

Walsgrave said:
I have heard many stories of students who by heir own admission admit they were not going to reach their predicted grades this year stating that they will 'have a go' for Medical schools and other top university courses. It was a catastrophic decision to cancel the exams.

As much as I disagreed with the algorithm, the reversion to teachers' grades is causing much more problems, for years down the line, than the algorithm ever would have.

At least with the non inflated results, there would have been a legitimate basis for students who did not sit the exam to reapply to university, say 'look, it wasn't my fault that the algorithm judged me, give me a chance to prove to you by taking the exam'. The appeals process would have taken a long time, but it would have been much more equitable. Now, we have, at an aggregate level, a cohort that is overqualified (by definition exams level the playing field); who will deny worthy students next year and potentially years to come a place they have earned at university; and who are potentially setting themselves up for failure by being on paper qualified for things they otherwise would not qualify for.

I know of people who by heir own admission have received the predicted grades they would otherwise not have been capable of cramming for. They get the benefit of the doubt, but at the expense of students from next year. I feel sorry for those who remained downgraded by their teachers' predictions - they've not done any less than those who have been handed the top grades, yet they find themselves in a situation where they will probably have to go to some retake centre or FE college (which themselves are likely to be drained of cash in view of the fact that most people will be flocking to sixth forms with their inflated grades). They have been left behind through no fault of their own.

Also, the knock on effect will be massive. Tomorrow's GCSE results will qualify thousands more for sixth forms when they otherwise would not have, and it does no one any favours. Sixth forms are going to be overloaded, in a year where we are meant to be socially distancing.

Doesn’t everyone qualify for sixth form or college anyway now the leaving age is 18? Surely the capacity is there, it’s just the courses? In which case if everyone’s inflated then it all trickles down and you just up the requirements.

As soon as the exams were cancelled there was going to be issues.

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Aug 19, 2020

Walsgrave said:
I have heard many stories of students who by heir own admission admit they were not going to reach their predicted grades this year stating that they will 'have a go' for Medical schools and other top university courses. It was a catastrophic decision to cancel the exams.

As much as I disagreed with the algorithm, the reversion to teachers' grades is causing much more problems, for years down the line, than the algorithm ever would have.

At least with the non inflated results, there would have been a legitimate basis for students who did not sit the exam to reapply to university, say 'look, it wasn't my fault that the algorithm judged me, give me a chance to prove to you by taking the exam'. The appeals process would have taken a long time, but it would have been much more equitable. Now, we have, at an aggregate level, a cohort that is overqualified (by definition exams level the playing field); who will deny worthy students next year and potentially years to come a place they have earned at university; and who are potentially setting themselves up for failure by being on paper qualified for things they otherwise would not qualify for.

I know of people who by heir own admission have received the predicted grades they would otherwise not have been capable of cramming for. They get the benefit of the doubt, but at the expense of students from next year. I feel sorry for those who remained downgraded by their teachers' predictions - they've not done any less than those who have been handed the top grades, yet they find themselves in a situation where they will probably have to go to some retake centre or FE college (which themselves are likely to be drained of cash in view of the fact that most people will be flocking to sixth forms with their inflated grades). They have been left behind through no fault of their own.

Also, the knock on effect will be massive. Tomorrow's GCSE results will qualify thousands more for sixth forms when they otherwise would not have, and it does no one any favours. Sixth forms are going to be overloaded, in a year where we are meant to be socially distancing.

Neither way is ideal but I prefer the one that gives them the opportunity than the one that denies it.

It's not like these people are now just being told "you start as a doctor Monday". They've still got a very long and arduous course to get through to qualify over the next seven years. If they're not good enough they'll be found out on that. But surely that is a much fairer way of separation than saying "you didn't get the necessary grades because computer said no, so you can't even get on the course"

So using the predicted grades as opposed to an algorithm that randomly downgrades people not on their own ability but the school they went seems a much fairer way of dealing with it IMO.

shmmeee · Aug 19, 2020

Wholly. Unsuitable. For government.

Walsgrave · Aug 19, 2020

Sky_Blue_Dreamer said:
Neither way is ideal but I prefer the one that gives them the opportunity than the one that denies it.

It's not like these people are now just being told "you start as a doctor Monday". They've still got a very long and arduous course to get through to qualify over the next seven years. If they're not good enough they'll be found out on that. But surely that is a much fairer way of separation than saying "you didn't get the necessary grades because computer said no, so you can't even get on the course"

So using the predicted grades as opposed to an algorithm that randomly downgrades people not on their own ability but the school they went seems a much fairer way of dealing with it IMO.

Agree completely that if it was done at the outset, teachers' predicted grades was the way to go, with some adjustment to apply to all grades to deflate them back to normality. It would help if there was some kind of grading system that ranked by percentiles rather than arbitrary cutoff. The problem is that university places are fixed whereas the attainment levels have been allowed to rise. So going forward employers/universities will have to look at this year in isolation and hold this year's cohort to a higher standard (which itself is not ideal and is unfair for many groups, especially those whose teachers predicted accurately).
Which takes me back to the idea that the only fair way was to do the exams, which are socially distanced by definition. Individual outcomes achieved, with no one held back by their school etc. Grades in line with before and not devalued, with perhaps a more complex appeals process to account for grievances during the COVID period. What surprises me is how ill-thought the decision to cancel have proved to be, especially given that the decision was announced before lockdown.

Walsgrave · Aug 19, 2020

shmmeee said:
Doesn’t everyone qualify for sixth form or college anyway now the leaving age is 18? Surely the capacity is there, it’s just the courses? In which case if everyone’s inflated then it all trickles down and you just up the requirements.

As soon as the exams were cancelled there was going to be issues.

That's exactly the issue we're seeing with universities. At an aggregate level, the capacity is there. The courses that are unduly frowned upon e.g. vocational will be ditched in favour of, for instance, Maths, and we'll have a situation where there are not enough Maths teachers to meet the demand, to the detriment of those who would have qualified if the exams had taken place.

So they'll have to either raise the entry requirements for individual courses to account for the fact that, for instance, being in the top 40% of the cohort meant that you got at least a B before whereas it now means you must have achieved an A and adjust accordingly. That itself has huge issues, as the universities are seeing that the government is insisting that offers must be honoured with the retrospective change to the grading distribution. And then many courses that are very worthwhile pursuing will take a hit to funding. It's going to be really unsustainable.

fernandopartridge · Aug 19, 2020

shmmeee said:
Wholly. Unsuitable. For government.

It. Was. Obvious. Last. December.

shmmeee · Aug 19, 2020

Walsgrave said:
That's exactly the issue we're seeing with universities. At an aggregate level, the capacity is there. The courses that are unduly frowned upon e.g. vocational will be ditched in favour of, for instance, Maths, and we'll have a situation where there are not enough Maths teachers to meet the demand, to the detriment of those who would have qualified if the exams had taken place.

So they'll have to either raise the entry requirements for individual courses to account for the fact that, for instance, being in the top 40% of the cohort meant that you got at least a B before whereas it now means you must have achieved an A and adjust accordingly. That itself has huge issues, as the universities are seeing that the government is insisting that offers must be honoured with the retrospective change to the grading distribution. And then many courses that are very worthwhile pursuing will take a hit to funding. It's going to be really unsustainable.

Only way to do it though. I mean entry requirements really are just that anyway in the main, a way to apportion limited resources.

I agree it’s going to be an admin clusterfuck and the government will need to be far more competent than they are to keep institutions and for that matter individual teachers going until it returns to normal.

LastGarrison · Aug 19, 2020

David O'Day said:
pretty much, still he's the "expert"

Unless your source for this comment is from, at the bare minimum, your Uncle Tom then I’m afraid I can’t take it seriously.

Ian1779 · Aug 19, 2020

Walsgrave said:
I have heard many stories of students who by heir own admission admit they were not going to reach their predicted grades this year stating that they will 'have a go' for Medical schools and other top university courses. It was a catastrophic decision to cancel the exams.

As much as I disagreed with the algorithm, the reversion to teachers' grades is causing much more problems, for years down the line, than the algorithm ever would have.

At least with the non inflated results, there would have been a legitimate basis for students who did not sit the exam to reapply to university, say 'look, it wasn't my fault that the algorithm judged me, give me a chance to prove to you by taking the exam'. The appeals process would have taken a long time, but it would have been much more equitable. Now, we have, at an aggregate level, a cohort that is overqualified (by definition exams level the playing field); who will deny worthy students next year and potentially years to come a place they have earned at university; and who are potentially setting themselves up for failure by being on paper qualified for things they otherwise would not qualify for.

I know of people who by heir own admission have received the predicted grades they would otherwise not have been capable of cramming for. They get the benefit of the doubt, but at the expense of students from next year. I feel sorry for those who remained downgraded by their teachers' predictions - they've not done any less than those who have been handed the top grades, yet they find themselves in a situation where they will probably have to go to some retake centre or FE college (which themselves are likely to be drained of cash in view of the fact that most people will be flocking to sixth forms with their inflated grades). They have been left behind through no fault of their own.

Also, the knock on effect will be massive. Tomorrow's GCSE results will qualify thousands more for sixth forms when they otherwise would not have, and it does no one any favours. Sixth forms are going to be overloaded, in a year where we are meant to be socially distancing.

The biggest failing of the algorithm was that it failed to take into account a similar process that had happened in school. Granted that hadn’t been done consistently as it could have been, but schools that tried to do things in the right way were doubly penalised.
As for the GCSE’s - schools already have to find a way to accommodate more and more post-16 as from now students have to be in education until 18 (I think that’s actually the next cohort through to be fair) - suitability for courses in school will still generally be down to teacher discretion unless you have widespread movement in post-16 which varies massively from region to region.

Walsgrave · Aug 19, 2020

Ian1779 said:
The biggest failing of the algorithm was that it failed to take into account a similar process that had happened in school. Granted that hadn’t been done consistently as it could have been, but schools that tried to do things in the right way were doubly penalised.
As for the GCSE’s - schools already have to find a way to accommodate more and more post-16 as from now students have to be in education until 18 (I think that’s actually the next cohort through to be fair) - suitability for courses in school will still generally be down to teacher discretion unless you have widespread movement in post-16 which varies massively from region to region.

Interesting - I originally thought that since 2014 or so all young people have to be in some form of training or education until 18 - is this to make it a full time thing?
I can't see the grade inflation being too much of an issue in schools where teachers know their students well and they won't get that many i from elsewhere. It will be chaos for sixth form colleges etc though, where teachers have less then two years to pick up the pieces - gauging where their students are, and getting them to where they need to be. They also do not have the certainty about whether these students will be up to scratch, what with them not even having taking the exam and all.

Ian1779 · Aug 19, 2020

Walsgrave said:
Interesting - I originally thought that since 2014 or so all young people have to be in some form of training or education until 18 - is this to make it a full time thing?
I can't see the grade inflation being too much of an issue in schools where teachers know their students well and they won't get that many i from elsewhere. It will be chaos for sixth form colleges etc though, where teachers have less then two years to pick up the pieces - gauging where their students are, and getting them to where they need to be. They also do not have the certainty about whether these students will be up to scratch, what with them not even having taking the exam and all.

Of course the guidance is unclear at best - but essentially it’s heading towards a position where this is mandatory. What that will practically look like in a years time is anyone’s guess, with technical colleges going down the T level route, schools and 6th form colleges with have to pick up all the academic routes. Will apprenticeships still be viable options especially in a post Cov-ID economy? Will they have to make allowances for those that just want to go out and work full time at 16 (with or without training) can those employers that will probably be already in financial hardship afford to compensate for a day in college?
Our school has a cohort of 240 a year - there is no way on earth we could keep them into Y12. We don’t have the space or the capacity in terms of staffing to provide courses for them, and I won’t hold my breath in expecting to see an increase in funding to make this happen.

I get your point about 6th form colleges in general - no previous knowledge of kids which will make things harder, but in most cases teachers will have been responsible enough to know that an excessively inflated grade will do even more damage long term if students are then put on courses they lack the capability of accessing.

Deleted member 4439 · Aug 20, 2020

Firm linked to Gove and Cummings hired to work with Ofqual on A-levels

Exclusive: Public First was given communications contract without competitive tender

www.theguardian.com

Bringing mates in to do a (shit) job happens alls the time in the civil service, but not running a tending process to cover one's ass is something only that that gove-cummings axis would have the audacity to do.

clint van damme · Aug 20, 2020

dubed said:
Firm linked to Gove and Cummings hired to work with Ofqual on A-levels

Exclusive: Public First was given communications contract without competitive tender

www.theguardian.com

Bringing mates in to do a (shit) job happens alls the time in the civil service, but not running a tending process to cover one's ass is something only that that gove-cummings axis would have the audacity to do.

Dido Hardings latest appointment needs investigating, unfortunately even if it was the investigation would be lead by her husband!
Lets get that useful idiot Farage on a beach pointing at dinghies - that will distract them.

People in this country won't realise how fucking stupid they've been until they're going bankrupt paying for cancer treatment and then it will be too late.

shmmeee · Aug 20, 2020

clint van damme said:
Dido Hardings latest appointment needs investigating, unfortunately even if it was the investigation would be lead by her husband!
Lets get that useful idiot Farage on a beach pointing at dinghies - that will distract them.

People in this country won't realise how fucking stupid they've been until they're going bankrupt paying for cancer treatment and then it will be too late.

But LIBRULS ARE DESTROYING BRITAIN!!!

chiefdave · Aug 20, 2020

The genius that is Matt Hancock has declared there is no reason not to go back to offices as the track and trace stats show the level of transmission in offices, which have of course been largely closed with people working from home, is relatively low. Oddly it seems there are experts who don't agree with him.

Hancock insists no reason not to go back to work as offices 'low risk'

People have no reason not to go back to workplaces as there is scant evidence that this is where coronavirus is passed on, Matt Hancock has insisted.

www.standard.co.uk

Sky_Blue_Dreamer · Aug 20, 2020

chiefdave said:
The genius that is Matt Hancock has declared there is no reason not to go back to offices as the track and trace stats show the level of transmission in offices, which have of course been largely closed with people working from home, is relatively low. Oddly it seems there are experts who don't agree with him.

Hancock insists no reason not to go back to work as offices 'low risk'

People have no reason not to go back to workplaces as there is scant evidence that this is where coronavirus is passed on, Matt Hancock has insisted.

www.standard.co.uk

When we entered lockdown there was virtually no cars on the roads and people were walking down the middle of the road to social distance and the risk of being run over was negligible. This is therefore proof that you can safely walk in the road.

If the roaring success of our world-leading track and trace came back with those figures I'll take it with just a smidge of salt.

ajsccfc · Aug 20, 2020

There have been absolutely no kitchen fires while restaurants have been closed so we can confirm it is fine to cook your chips with petrol

David O'Day · Aug 21, 2020

Cov cases up to 23 per 100,000 on the latest rolling 7 day average. This needs watching to see what the trend says like as the rolling 7 day average can be push up and then down by clusters.

wingy · Aug 21, 2020

If this is accurate it's a bit bothering.

Researchers show children are silent spreaders of SARS-CoV-2

In the most comprehensive study of COVID-19 pediatric patients to date, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Mass General Hospital for Children (MGHfC) researchers provide critical data showing that children play a larger role in the community spread of COVID-19 than previously thought. In a...

medicalxpress.com

.

fernandopartridge · Aug 21, 2020

wingy said:
If this is accurate it's a bit bothering.

Researchers show children are silent spreaders of SARS-CoV-2

In the most comprehensive study of COVID-19 pediatric patients to date, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Mass General Hospital for Children (MGHfC) researchers provide critical data showing that children play a larger role in the community spread of COVID-19 than previously thought. In a...

medicalxpress.com

.

I saw a thread on twitter about it, not good at all.

ajsccfc · Aug 21, 2020

Great to hear as ours just starts nursery

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 21, 2020

ajsccfc said:
Great to hear as ours just starts nursery

Don't quite know the right 'like' to use for that!

wingy · Aug 21, 2020

Yeah something like ten days away from returning home to shielding parents

What a Hobson's choice.

fernandopartridge · Aug 21, 2020

ajsccfc said:
Great to hear as ours just starts nursery

My little boy has been back at nursery a few weeks, it's been fine tbh. They're keeping them in bubbles etc. I am worried for when the kids go back to school but no problems so far.

ajsccfc · Aug 21, 2020

I'm not really all that worried about it to be honest, mainly because I'm fairly sure we've all had it. Literally the first day she went though she brought me back a stinking cold the next day, someone warned me to take a week off work when she starts but I thought they were joking!

Skybluefaz · Aug 21, 2020

CV6 has potential for a local lockdown

Brighton Sky Blue · Aug 21, 2020

wingy said:
If this is accurate it's a bit bothering.

Researchers show children are silent spreaders of SARS-CoV-2

In the most comprehensive study of COVID-19 pediatric patients to date, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Mass General Hospital for Children (MGHfC) researchers provide critical data showing that children play a larger role in the community spread of COVID-19 than previously thought. In a...

medicalxpress.com

.

It would make sense as I imagine the huge majority are asymptomatic to an even greater extent than adults.

fernandopartridge · Aug 21, 2020

Brighton Sky Blue said:
It would make sense as I imagine the huge majority are asymptomatic to an even greater extent than adults.

Yeah, that's it. They're saying kids can have an equivalent viral load to a very sick adult yet be asymptomatic or pretty mild.

Saddlebrains · Aug 21, 2020

Skybluefaz said:
CV6 has potential for a local lockdown

I live in CV6 and will bet you 1 english pound that fuck all happens

Skybluefaz · Aug 21, 2020

Saddlebrains said:
I live in CV6 and will bet you 1 english pound that fuck all happens

1 day of Boylesports and look at the state of you. Just passing on second hand info from my wife who teaches there.

David O'Day · Aug 21, 2020

If they did try and lock down CV6 how would it work as on loads of street next door neighbours are either cv2 or cv6

chiefdave · Aug 21, 2020

Another u-turn incoming. Having insisted the eviction ban wouldn't be extended past this weekend guess what.

Coronavirus: Eviction ban to be extended by four weeks

The ban for England and Wales now runs until 20 September after fears thousands could lose their homes.

www.bbc.co.uk

Deleted member 5849 · Aug 21, 2020

chiefdave said:
Another u-turn incoming. Having insisted the eviction ban wouldn't be extended past this weekend guess what.

Coronavirus: Eviction ban to be extended by four weeks

The ban for England and Wales now runs until 20 September after fears thousands could lose their homes.

www.bbc.co.uk

Athough tbf, that may not be a bad thing?

Out of interest, what happens if you as landlord can't afford to keep the property anymore? You tend not to be able to sell them easily with a sit-in tenant, especially one who's not paying rent...

chiefdave · Aug 21, 2020

Deleted member 5849 said:
Athough tbf, that may not be a bad thing?

Out of interest, what happens if you as landlord can't afford to keep the property anymore? You tend not to be able to sell them easily with a sit-in tenant, especially one who's not paying rent...

Not a bad thing but why does everything need a campaign and a last minute u-turn. A lot of unnecessary stress for people who are struggling at the moment and thought the eviction process would start up next week.

The advise for landlords seems to be the same as that for homeowners. Speak to your lender and apply for a mortgage holiday.

Don't think anything was ever put in place to ensure lenders gave holidays, think you just had to follow the normal process and hope for the best. Of course most lenders allow a maximum of three months for a mortgage holiday so there's an obvious issue that doesn't seem to have been addressed.

Coronavirus Thread (Off Topic, Politics) (12 Viewers)

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 4439

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Deleted member 5849

Guest

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency