realistic!!!!!!!!!
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
-
- Posts: 12901
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:51 am
- Location: The Seaside
Re: realistic!!!!!!!!!
yes I am afraid the number of noughts after the name is significant for some schools, being above average (ie 50%+) helps, but lots of kids below 50% go to indies as well.
Re: realistic!!!!!!!!!
That's interesting, "lots of kids below 50% go to indies as well"
Who............Where........... Certainly not within the consortium schools, surely.
Maybe i've been looking in the wrong places, because apart from 1 that i know ( who's exam results are no better than my local comp) i don't know of any. x
Who............Where........... Certainly not within the consortium schools, surely.
Maybe i've been looking in the wrong places, because apart from 1 that i know ( who's exam results are no better than my local comp) i don't know of any. x
-
- Posts: 12901
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:51 am
- Location: The Seaside
Re: realistic!!!!!!!!!
sorry Sandy - which are the consortium schools?
Around the country there are independents, some who do not have sixth forms, who can still manage to get 5 GCSE A-C for all or nearly all their pupils - how do they do that? well limit the number of subjects - choose the subjects carefully ... etc etc
in Nottingham for example there are Hollygirt and Dagfa House - no 6th form and variable GCSE but always popular schools
Around the country there are independents, some who do not have sixth forms, who can still manage to get 5 GCSE A-C for all or nearly all their pupils - how do they do that? well limit the number of subjects - choose the subjects carefully ... etc etc
in Nottingham for example there are Hollygirt and Dagfa House - no 6th form and variable GCSE but always popular schools
Re: realistic!!!!!!!!!
South Hampstead, Channing ,St Albans and St Helens.x
-
- Posts: 269
- Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 2:46 pm
Re: realistic!!!!!!!!!
hi Sandy
have sent you a pm.
good luck to all on Friday and next week
have sent you a pm.
good luck to all on Friday and next week
Re: realistic!!!!!!!!!
Hi Sandy123
I sent you a PM a couple of days ago too
All the best,
Mailme
I sent you a PM a couple of days ago too
All the best,
Mailme
Re: realistic!!!!!!!!!
Erm, just a small correction since I happened to see this. The statement below is the definition of the median, not the average. The two coincide in symmetric distributions but are different otherwise.
good point about "what is average"?
50% will be below average and 50% above average.
sj355
-
- Posts: 12901
- Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 9:51 am
- Location: The Seaside
Re: realistic!!!!!!!!!
Cheers sj355 - appreciate the exact definition, having taught stats for a while. Just felt that people fail to understand what an average is (even if I actually described a median...) and the fact that approx half of people will be above and below that point... assuming a symmetrical distribution.
Have come across situations where people supposedly familiar with the meaning express shock at the "50% below average" headline or fail to appreciate the description of a candidate or trainee as adequate but below average, doesn't mean to say they are no good - just below average.
Have come across situations where people supposedly familiar with the meaning express shock at the "50% below average" headline or fail to appreciate the description of a candidate or trainee as adequate but below average, doesn't mean to say they are no good - just below average.
Re: realistic!!!!!!!!!
Hi Mailme,
I've resent you a PM. Sorry i wasn't aware you didn't receive it.
I've resent you a PM. Sorry i wasn't aware you didn't receive it.
Re: realistic!!!!!!!!!
Thanks Sandy123,
I just sent you one back
Mailme
I just sent you one back
Mailme