Norman Ralph

This week saw thousands of teenagers across the UK get the results for the last two years of work they put into their A-Level courses. There has long been a debate about the standards required of students to attain passes in their chosen subjects which has focused on the fact that for the last 29 years more and more students have been passing with better results than in previous years. My friend Chris posted an article on his site today with his views on it and his conclusion are, that yes, exams are getting easier and the best way to handle it is to band results so that 10% get A*, 10% A etc regardless of individual results.

I feel quite strongly that students should be punished due to how well or badly they have faired compared to a completely unrelated group of people. Is it this year’s group of A-Level students’ fault if the previous 28 years worth of students did worse then they did? Absolutely not. Is there soemthing for us to worry about that the number of people passing their A-Levels has increased again? On the face of it, no. It shows that there are improvements in teaching methods, that modern teaching allows more people to do well in exam (and coursework) conditions. There are of course arguments to say that if things keep getting better then it is harder to differentiate between students and that it is impossible to differentiate between students who took their exams in different years. These are of course valid arguments. However, I think that by simply slamming the examinations as being too easy is just as bad as print media’s fascination with good looking teenage girls on results day when it comes to how we debate this matter rationally and without ruining the image of young people.

Chris’s proposed solution of a banded graded system was in fact the way that A-Levels were graded the early 1960s through to the late 1980s. With the massive rise in students staying on for A-Levels from their introduction in 1951, this system was changed for something more closely resembling the current model, i.e. where results are normalised and then graded based on specific criteria. This system has then been modified by the introduction of modular exams to combat the high drop out rate of linear courses (up to 30% in some subjects) and the realisation that the A grade was not neither norm or criteria assessed.

Essentially, my biggest argument against a banded system is one that Chris attempts to combat in his own arguments, the idea that banding prevents all students aiming for the top grades.

You could also argue that everyone deserves the change to get an A* if they achieve the required level. There are two parts to this answer, first of all, they have target just like the current system – except, instead of a specific number of marks, their target is to reach the top ten percentile, but either way they have a set, fixed target to reach. Secondly, you could argue that if everyone in the country all worked really, really hard, they should all deserve to get A*.

This is, quite frankly, a ridiculous argument. Not only is a banding not a target (how does one control their placing in a banded split?) but it doesn’t answer the underlying question of whether it should be possible for all students to attain the highest grades.

I would hope that any educational system allows for the fact that if all students who took an exam achieved 100% they would be all awarded the highest grade. This is not possible under the norm assessed system. Now I realise that this is not something that is likely to happen, which Chris also points out as an argument in favour of his system. I prefer to remain idealistic about our young people and feel that this should never be ruled out.

Chris does make some good points in his piece. He suggests that modern A-Levels are more about teaching individuals to pass exams rather than fostering an ability to pursue independent learning and developing research and critical thinking skills (although many subjects now contain modules covering these very things). I certainly experienced this style of teaching during my own A-Levels where I was regularly lambasted for asking questions beyond the scope of the syllabus and asking for proofs for concepts that outside of our required learning. This is certainly an area of concern for modern examinations. Chris also points out that it is getting harder and harder to differentiate between students. Again, this is a valid point. There should be some ability to compare one student with another. However, I feel that this comparison should only take place within any given year group. or within a few years either way (where the differences are very small, i.e. less than 1%). It is not appropriate to compare my A-Levels (nearly ten years ago) with those of today’s eighteen year olds.

This is something that is practiced, if not preached, in both the academic world and in the real world of job applications and interviews. A-Levels are a means to an end, not and end in themselves. They are used to demonstrate knowledge in a certain subject that then allows an admissions tutor or an employer to make a decision of suitability for a university place or a job. A-Levels are not, as Chris attempts to claim, a measure of intelligence and they never have been. There is certainly a link between the two, but it is not as profound as some would think. One of the best pieces of advice (although I expect it was meant as a dressing down) was from my head of sixth form. Mr Long sat me down one day and explained that A grades at A-Level were attained in one of two ways 90% application and 10% ability or 10% application and 90% ability. He went on to say that those with the 90% application were far more likely to see their A grade that those with 90% ability.

Differentiating between individuals is hard enough at the best of times, this is beyond question, but trying to do so on the basis of exam results is not always a guarantee of picking the best candidates. Their extra-curricular activities, their performance in interview and the statements of support from teachers and employers are key components of this mix too. Intelligence, learning, knowledge and performance are all different things, with different measures. We should not confuse them despite the lines between them blurring somewhat in this information age.

There isn’t a perfect system where everybody gets the grade they deserve. I didn’t get the grades my intelligence and knowledge deserved as didn’t put the effort it. I am sure there are those that didn’t get the grades they deserved despite putting the effort in because of other factors. People can only pass the exams that are put in front of them, with the support of the teaching methods provided bu their teachers and we should get off both their backs.

Yes, the system needs to be looked at. I think exams could be harder to ensure fewer people take places at university which means that a university degree is the epitome of academic achievement and not a useless piece of paper that leave 30% of graduates unemployed with inflated ideas of their career prospects. Yes, we need to make sure we are holding our education system to account for the standards they set.

However, vilifying our young people through shrieks of “easy” and “low standards” is not the way to achieve the robust education system we want to see.

Ever since I wrote this article about building an atheist brand back in 2009, and especially following Dan Bye’s comments on the piece, there has been a nagging thought at the back of mind that I have been trying desperately to work out. Namely, what is it that atheist can actually offer under some sort of brand? Is there a service or product that exists that can be commercialised and marketed? These two questions have gone unanswered for the last year and this has obviously weakened my position on this subject. A subject that I still fundamentally see as being central to the progression of a non-religious world view into the popular psyche.

In October of this year, I had the pleasure of being able to attend an audience with the Harvard University humanist chaplain, Greg Epstein, hosted by the British Humanist Association at the Bishopsgate Institute in London. Greg delivered a short lecture on his career to date, focusing primarily on how he became the humanist chaplain at Harvard and then what his ambition was for the humanist brand in the coming years. His views were very similar to mine in that we both feel very strongly that there is a product that non-religious people can market and that product is humanism. Greg felt that there was enough contained within a humanist world view to be able to successfully market its ideas and, ultimately its services, to a very wide audience.

Admittedly, Greg’s idea of humanism is a modern one. It centres around the need to develop a firm and widely accepted philosophy of humanism that can be used to build a formal world view, accepted in general (if not every aspect) by the majority of humanists. Whilst many self-confessed humanists may say that this philosophy exists, it is evident from the relatively wide cross section of humanists I have spoken to about this that actually this is not the case. There is a certain aversion, particularly amongst traditional humanists, to the development of a central philosophy, and what that means practically. This can probably be put down to the route to humanism that many of these traditionalists took, i.e. they chose humanism as an antidote to religion for whatever reason. However, in order to market the idea of humanism and grow its market share, this aversion needs to be overcome.

How do we do this? How do we help make sure that over the next ten years we can really build up the brand of humanism and make sure that those that are not religious say so, and even go as far as unifying the non-religious under one brand umbrella? The current campaign to get non-religious to be made into an answer on the next UK census is one way. The work of young, trendy, rock stars of humanism such as Greg Epstein and Brian Cox is another. A third option is the work and campaigning by organisations such as the BHA in building the profile of humanism. Personally, I would like to see a combination of those factors being used to really market humanism and its world view at young people. This may sound controversial, similar to the practices of some religions in targeting children. However, I mean young people, those in their late teens and early twenties that are naturally looking for world views to subscribe to and who have the tools to be able to rationally choose which one best fits their outlook, ambitions and personality. Work is currently being done in the UK to try and achieve this, organisations such as the AHS are trying to unite and encourage student groups to discuss and debate the very issues I am writing about here. The Chris Worfolk Foundation is another organisation that is trying to engage with young people. The CWF has more practical activities as its main focus, mainly involving volunteering and community work.

The final question is what can we do about this? Personally, I think the answer is a relatively simple one. Contribute. Contribute by calling yourself a humanist. Contribute by acting like a humanist. Contribute by supporting your local and national groups – whichever one best fills your needs. The more people do the following, the more obvious the link between humanists as people and humanism the world view will become. I strongly feel that this organic development will lead to the singularity that will allow a humanist brand to be launched more formally.

I will dispense with the normal “sorry I haven’t posted in ages, I was busy” excuses because even though I have been busy, I have had free time enough to blog but I just have not done so. The main reason has been due to the fact that thinking up articles and getting them posted has not been top of my priority list for the last couple of months and with my Twitter feed syndicating up here every week, it hardly felt worth it to re-hash the mundane activities I partake in on a day to day basis.

Having said all that, I do have a couple of articles I want to put up as soon as I have finished them inspired by the Harvard University humanist chaplain, Greg Epstein (author of Good Without God) whom I got to go and see courtesy of the BHA last month. The focus of these articles are similar to a couple of articles I have published in the past on marketing the humanist brand and developing the non-religious “product”.

I also have the article series I promised back in January to post which was delayed for a number of reasons, not least some issues over the leaking of my blog’s existence to the powers that be as well as the break-up of my relationship.

Regular readers will have noticed a common theme running through my posts recently, namely that of the AHS. Posts on the press launch and the general publicity surrounding the build up have dominated my blog. This is for the veyr good reason that it has been pretty much all I have been thinking about. Sure, I have been involved in a lot of A-Soc stuff like Galileo Day and starting up Perspective but most of my work has been focussed on the AHS.

I have no doubt that the time spent was worth it, you only have to read the coverage the launch got to see how successful everything is proving to be. Check out a few of the pieces here, here and here. The upcoming xchallenge is to ensure that my work with the AHS doesn’t detract too much from my current commitments. I mean I am currently a student, hold down a (not so) part-time job, am president of Leeds Atheist Society and president of the AHS. All of these commitments could and maybe should be full time commitments, but I am sharing my time between them. Thankfully, I have the support of friends and family (big thanks to Liz et al) and a wonderful team working with me both at A-Soc and the AHS.

In other news, it is now only 7 weeks until Rationalist Week 2009!

I joined the micro-blogging site Twitter just before Christmas so I could utilise its API and have it syndicate on my site, giving me a Facebook style status section – its on the top of the menu bar on the right of the screen for those that haven’t noticed.

While I had no plans to actually use Twitter for anything other than a platform to make my site a little more interactive I have started to find that I am visting more and more regularly to check on other people’s tweets (the slang for updates). There are loads of interestign people using the site, like Stephen Fry, Brent Spiner etc, and because it is all public you can read what they are doing, saying, thinking.

You can check me out on my Twitter page here.

The eagle eyed amongst you will have noticed a couple of cosmetic changes to emerge from yesterday’s decision to revamp the site.

I have finally gotten round to adding tags to the posts – currently all new posts and the archives up to December 2007 have had them added, will get round to the rest of the archives this week hopefully. this should make things gel a little easier and hopefully add a new dimension to the site.

The other addition is the calendar feature, that currently lists all upcoming events for the next 14 days. the final settings for this feature will be sorted out today ideally. Thanks to Kieran for his plug-in calendar app.

I will be adding some more features in the coming weeks and hope to introduce a few surprises in terms of appearence and usability too.

If you haven’t had chance to check out Chris’s new podcasts then you really should!

They are seriosuly funny and so unproffessional that it just makes them even funnier!

Check them out!

It has been a while since my last post and usually I would offer some flimsy excuse, blaming work or revision or illness. This time, however, I don’t really have an excuse except a slight apathy towards blogging recently. I cannot explain why that would be except maybe that with the last few weeks the idea of sitting down and writing a few paragraphs more than I need to has turned me off somewhat. Anyway, here I am, blogging again!

First things first, I am now the president of A-Soc, which means you can rest assured that there will be a plethora of A-Soc related psots appearing here and I will be linking to far more over at our offical website (shameless plugging for the win) and the new national site currently based at SecularPortal.com. The A-Soc AGM went really well, we now have a good sized committee with hopefully enough enthusiastic members that we can really grow up this year and develop into the society that we should be. Our aim is to be the third biggest, by numbers and attendence, faith and cultiral society by the end of 2009/2010 which is quite ambitious, but achievable I think if we work hard and putt the effort in.

Next on the list is moving house. After three very good years here, we are looking to move onwards and upwards – mainly down to the fact that Chris, Sarann and Michelle are graduating and want a better house with more space and generally something more resembling a real life house. We have got as far as generating a shortlist and narrowing down our search criteria, but I think the bulk of the work will be carried out after this round of exams (the last round of exams for our graduates). Watch this space!

Talking of exams, I have a few this time round. I managed a lot of revision whilst at home this week, but I’m still only 80% confidant. It seems the older I get the less good at winging exams I get. This is a little bit of a worry as I have always relied on my adaptability and ability to get to the answer without necessarily knowing the answer. I suppose it just means that I will have to really knuckle down this time round.

This post could be a long one if I included everything that happened at Atheist Society’s Rationalist Week 2008. A pretty good run down of everything that went wrong for us can be found here so I won’t include them in this account. I want to focus on the positive sides and more of the human interest aspects of the week.

Chris, the retiring president, wrote this account of the week, well worth checking out. My version of the week follows here.

The week got off to a bad start, the tent was late and the generator needed fetching, and we were late starting. There were hiccups during the rest of the week, not least of them me being ill, but in general the week got better. A lot better.

We signed up a lot of people, didn’t lose too much money and our events ran smoothly for an A-Soc event but the ultimate success came from within the society. We finally got people involved, found leaders from within our ranks, something we have been sorely lacking the past two years.

We reached a lot of people during the week, I would estimate that we probably developed our brand to over a thousand staff, students and members of the public during the week and that we physically spoke to well over a hundred (excluding all night debate) and signed up a quarter of those that came into the tent. The membership numbers now rival our competitors and should hopefully mean we can start playing with the big boys in terms of politics and campaigning as well as securing some decent funding for the year!

The highlights for me included the CU debate, where again we out argued the opposition and should have come away with the victory had the crowd not been partisan, and the internal debate on the Flying Spaghetti Monster where the key flaws in religious argument were highlighted and exposed. In fact, most of the events went well – especially the evening ones. Once again Mike Lake was excellent and converted some fence sitters.

My personal highlight however, was the friends and friendships that I forged and strengthened during the week. The improved ties we developed with the CU and other societies. The fact that I think our message got across. Atheist Society is not about religion bashing or telling people they are wrong, but to offer an alternative that wasn’t available.

It was a success that didn’t kill us financially.

We finally pulled off an event that was worthy of the work that went into it.

Well done all!

As Chris mentioned here, Si has finally joined the ranks of the bloggers. Check him out here, it is good to see that the last few members of the circle are succumbing to the lure of the blogosphere.

Only Sarann, MC and B left now!