S. Jones: "... they are using the same algorithm which discriminates against pupils from state schools."Not exactly correct. When assessing teachers' predictions, they tend to downgrade children in large classes, whilst maintaining children in small classes.This is on the basis (a ) small classes make for better exam results, and (b ) teachers with eg 15 pupils are far better placed to know their true capabilities than teachers trying to deal with 25 or 30 pupils.Now you may think that for policy reasons, this is highly unfair, not least because no pupil asks to be in a large class, and I wouldn't argue. But technically, it has some validity.Moreover, those people who argue for smaller class sizes do so on the basis that the children will learn more and so achieve better results.Assuming they are correct, then it is hard for them to argue with an algorithm which is acknowleging/acceding to their position.Anyhow, I personally think the whole process is so difficult, both technically and politically, that they shouldn't even have tried to revise the mock results and teacher predictions etc.Instead they should just have instructed the Universities to make all conditional offers unconditional, so that no-one who was expecting/hoping to go to Uni will be disappointed.And if the universities normally count on a percentage of offers not eventually achieving the grades (like airlines aelling 105% of seats, to allow for "no-shows"), well the bigger-than-expected intake of UK students will help make up for the predicted lower number of overseas students currently enrolling.And if this year's intake should prove up to the mark in 3 or 4 years time at Graduation, then great.While if they prove less talented than usual, then that should force universities to re-assess their procedures for offering places.Either way, it should just be for one year, two at most (vaccine permitting).
Richard Cathcart ● 2267d