The second most self-indulgent rant I've ever written...well, initially it was. The remainder, about exams, is still pertinent and is still my firmly held belief.
I hope you'll indulge me if I begin my rant today on something of a selfish note (selfish? That's most unlike you Stuart....). As you know, and as indeed you are almost certainly sick of me wittering on about, I was booted out of the Law Society a little over a year ago. This was almost certainly the proudest moment of my life, because as far as I can tell I was struck off for having a morality that was uncomfortably close to that of a human being. Candour compels me to admit that it was not couched in quite those terms when they informed me that they didn't want me to be a member of their gang any more. Quite the opposite in fact; I was to be expelled from the Law Society because I was, and I quote, "...a rebellious and unstable young man.... (who is) not of the correct mindset to be a solicitor".
Now, let us leave aside the fact that, if I am honest, that is a pretty accurate description. The only reason I mention their words is because of a news story that you may have caught yesterday. Sally Clark is a corporate solicitor who no longer practices law. She no longer practices because she was convicted of the murder of her two infant sons in 1996 and 1998 when they were aged 11 weeks and 8 weeks respectively. And I say is rather than was a corporate solicitor because yesterday the Law Society decided against striking her off the roll. Instead, she has been given an indefinite suspension, which means that she still has the possibility of practicing in the future.
I'm happy to accept that I may be being rather bitter about my own circumstances, but this to me seems something of...well, an inconsistency to put it mildly. I was declared unfit to be a solicitor because I kept a diary, although apparently if I'd committed a double murder I would have simply been given a slap on the wrist. If killing ones own children is not a sign of instability, what the bloody hell is?!?!
Anyway, that is all by the by and I hope you will forgive me for my exorcising that little pocket of RAGING ANGER AT THE INJUSTICE OF IT ALL!!!!
Erm...*ahem*...right, yes...let's move on shall we?
What I was hoping to talk about as it is a pertinent subject at the moment is exams. At this time of year, literally millions of people aged 16 to 22 are going through what will seem at that moment and without the benefit of later hindsight the most challenging and stressful time of their lives. For some it is GCSE's, others it is A-levels and others still are studying for a degree or diploma. And the reward that awaits them in their brave new world of extra qualifications? Well, I expect that, like all exam graduates of the past 10 years they will have their hard won achievements denigrated and dismissed by a bunch of crusty old farts who will insist that exams are getting easier, standards are slipping, and "it was much harder in my day".
Surely I'm not the only one who is getting sick of these old bastards declaring that because pass rates are up, standards must be down? Is it jealousy on their part perhaps; are they so utterly convinced of their own intellectual superiority that nobody could possibly have achieved a grade better than they did at that stage of their lives? Or could it be that they've seen some of the exam papers and had no difficulty themselves, entirely forgetting that the students do not have the benefit of the experience of actually having done the exams in the first place? Either way, they are wrong wrong WRONG!
Looking back now, my GCSE's were a piece of piss, my A-Levels caused little difficulty, and my degree and postgraduate exams were bearable. That is looking back. At the time they were the most horrendously difficult things in the entire world. GCSE's gave me heartburn, A-Levels made me sick with fear, and I'm amazed that I didn't develop an ulcer when studying for my finals. I struggled through them and was proud of my achievements, and it was genuinely upsetting to be told that I wouldn't have got nearly such grades if I'd done the exam 30 years earlier. How in the name of Beelzebub's fat cock would they have known?
If standards really were falling at the rate that the old guard say, then I estimate that in a little over 10 years we will be able to grow some purple bacteria in a petrie dish and name it Gerald, enter it for a GCSE and it would stand a reasonable chance of passing with a C or above. And actually, whilst we're on the subject, can anyone offer me a plausible explanation as to the purpose of giving an A* grade? Other than making the achievement of getting an A seem that much shittier, I really don't see the point. Doesn't it just make an A the equivalent of a B, B becomes C and so forth? Actually, maybe that's why some people say standards are slipping. Maybe they're just annoyed that they never had the chance to get an A* and the mere existence of that grade belittles their own exam results.
Perhaps I am giving a somewhat skewed view of this issue. I have a few other friends currently undergoing the ordeal of their university finals and I empathise with the panic (or not depending on whether or not your name is Richard...) that they are going through. The only person I know who is currently going through GCSE's is one of the most frighteningly intelligent people I know for any age let alone age 16 (Good luck to all of you by the way). It just annoys me that they are going to be told at the end of it all that they are not as good as the generation before them, no matter how good their grades are.
No comments:
Post a Comment