|
|
Post by AnotherPianist on Jul 18, 2006 16:01:30 GMT
I've been meaning to post this topic for a while but have never remembered about it when it wasn't so close to someone having done it recently that they'd think it was personally about them, now I haven't been on TOP for a while (busy thesis writing) no one can be personally offended  . I thought I'd start here though in case it's a bit too controversial. The question then: what do you think of people entering twice for the same exam in the same session (obviously this means paying for two exams without knowing the results of the first)? It seems popular in Hong Kong in particular, and for grade 8 (and even diplomas) to either get the highest mark possible; or, more usually, to get through grade 8 as quickly as possible by being a borderline case and just doing the exam enough times. Some people say it's fair and gives them the best chance of passing if they have a bad day or get a mean examiner. Counter arguments are of course that if the candidate themself (or their teacher) doesn't have faith in their ability to pass the exam and is willing to bet the exam fee for the insurance of failing why should anyone else trust that they are that standard? If it's to do with getting a 'mean' examiner then the candidate clearly doesn't trust the exam board to assess people's playing correctly so why do they want a qualification that isn't reliable, one that simply means one got a 'nice' examiner. The counter argument to having a bad day would be that the examiners can see thought nerves and so-on, a bad day could make a difference on the very borderline but in the case where someone is clearly over the pass mark (and has taken into account the extra security needed for playing under pressure) it's not going to make them suddenly fail. Mean examiners that undermark sometimes no doubt exist but are rare and certainly not so likely as to make it worth betting £50 <or insert other examination cost fee> on the fact that one will get such an examiner and fail.... Are the exam boards allowing people to make a mockery of their system and quality control by letting them enter twice in the same session? It wouldn't look good for them to admit that the same candidate, with the same amount of practise could get vastly different marks from two examiners.... Any thoughts? |
|
|
|
Post by anacrusis on Jul 18, 2006 16:59:15 GMT
I'm pretty sure Trinity doesn't allow it. I think it shows a degree of obsession which is most unhealthy, as well as being a complete waste of money. Teachers should gauge when their pupils are really ready to sit the exams - that argument that it is better to attempt an exam once you have actually reached a standard a little way beyond it, if at all possible. If a pupil is ready then s/he is likely to pass- the issue really ought to be how well. Perhaps the counter-argument to that would be that someone has to fail to make sense of having exams in the first place. I realise I'm writing this after a run of luck with exams, but I have failed music exams before too, and did so because I was inadequately prepared, rather than because it was running an hour late/the examiner was grumpy/whatever. I agree that a board which knowingly allows this practice is open to criticism on two counts - first that of making a mockery of their examiners' training and secondly that it smacks of greed...  |
|
|
|
Post by jod on Jul 18, 2006 19:53:55 GMT
My son did sit his Grade 1 singing twice in one session... but I paid once!
I had already put in a request for the exam to be moved as it clashed with the day of a school trip. My son then developed a migraine. I spoke to the board, they re-arranged it. It was very good of them, but they saw a potential appeal and thought this a better way round.
I wouldn't pay for him to be entered twice. That's folly!
|
|
|
|
Post by princessmoose on Jul 18, 2006 21:56:34 GMT
Definitely should not be allowed to do it twice, defeats the whole point of it really. Also, think what one could do with the money spent on the second exam!!
|
|
|
|
Post by meepmeep on Jul 19, 2006 8:53:10 GMT
I think it's pointless and rather stupid, and I am surprised the AB allow it, good for Trinity if they do not. Waste of money, and as AP says, if one passes only because one lucked out with a soft examiner, it says little for the standards of the board or for the student's solid ability at that level.
|
|
|
|
Post by annc on Jul 19, 2006 8:59:30 GMT
I don't see the point either. If the teacher makes sure that the candidate is at least pass standard AT THE TIME OF ENTERING, there is time to work for those extra marks, and barring unforseen disasters on the day, the outcome should be positive. I have found the AB to be sympathetic to circumstances. They readily agreed to change an appointment after hearing that my poor grade 5 candidate was due to attend the inquest into the suicide of her late ex-partner on the same day...She took it on the day before and got a merit. This after moving twice in six months (single mother of a 5 year old boy whose Dad was the one who hanged himself) - unplanned moves - landlords wanted their houses back, and another partner dying 9 months previous of motor neurone disease. Phew! Currently I'm battling pneumonia and pleurisy but I wouldn't swop! |
|
|
|
Post by anacrusis on Jul 19, 2006 9:10:23 GMT
Ouuuuch. Pleurisy is a sore thing to get, and pneumonia is pretty unpleasant too. I hope you feel better soon, annc. There is a difference between rescheduling exams in extenuating circumstances and entering twice to optimise your chance of doing well, though, isn't there? It is the latter which seems to me to be pointless. The investment of time and effort, especially in the higher grades, is such that it is surely better to be properly prepared. Looking at the statistics for passes, there is a rise in pass rate over the higher grades, so it does look as if more people are putting in the legwork as they progress. Or is it because they're entering twice?!  |
|
|
|
Post by annc on Jul 19, 2006 9:16:16 GMT
Thanks for your good wishes.
Yes, I agree. (Dons devil's advocate hat.) I can only think that entering twice has something to do with exam nerves - maybe the second would be easier - if you were fairly sure you had passed you could take more risks in the second? Maybe the marks are important for UCAS points?
(Takes hat off.) I really can't see the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by janexxx on Jul 19, 2006 9:17:59 GMT
Maybe the AB allow it as it means more money for them if people are foolish enough to pay for more than one. At the risk of having my wrists slapped (if abrown is reading this forum) I think the extra dosh might go towards funding the forums!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deborah on Jul 19, 2006 9:46:31 GMT
Do we have any statistics on how many candidates actually enter for the same exam during the same session? The only one's I've noticed on TOP seem to be in the Far East, where there seems to be something of an obsession with taking and passing exams, but I recognise that there may be a few elsewhere. It seems to me to be a crazy thing to do, especially for multiple diploma entries - just think of the cost, if nothing else! If you're not ready, either delay a term, or put in the effort  I don't buy the "I might have a harsh examiner" argument. If you're performing professionally, you might have a harsh critic. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on Jul 19, 2006 12:34:27 GMT
I don't see anything wrong with doing this from a moral point of view. Those of us who perform regularly know that we can practice pieces until they are so good; further practice will not make them any better. The only thing that will improve them substantially is performing them live. Don't ask me why cos any answer I gave would be pure speculation; it just does. Back in the days when I did a lot of music club recitals, I would make one programme do a whole season. The programme was purring along by the time it received its third outing. In theory, anybody taking the same exam two or three times in the same session should enjoy the same effect. OK, so we all know there are better ways to give an exam programme the performance practice it needs. Others might not be thus aware. If a candidate is insane enough to want to take the exam 2\3 times, repeating all the rubbish that surrounds the performance, and has parents insane enough to pay, then so be it. This is merely an extension of the other free choices candidates make - programme, centre, session etc. Still think these people are bonkers, mind Steve PS. Go on AP, post this TOP. They will go berserk. I might even read the thread myself ;D |
|
|
|
Post by princessmoose on Jul 19, 2006 15:46:37 GMT
At the risk of having my wrists slapped (if abrown is reading this forum) I think the extra dosh might go towards funding the forums!! Well, the Associated Board have about 5 ish odd accounts on this forum, so it wouldn't surprise me. Keeping an eye on things here apparantly to check that nothing bad is being said against them. So having 5/6 accounts really helps  , even though they don't want to be linked to here . Poor souls, no wonder they ignored my perfectly honest email. They actually think I want their whole forum to be deleted. Bless, if they believe that, then they'll believe anything . |
|
|
|
Post by janexxx on Jul 19, 2006 16:30:14 GMT
At the risk of having my wrists slapped (if abrown is reading this forum) I think the extra dosh might go towards funding the forums!! Well, the Associated Board have about 5 ish odd accounts on this forum, so it wouldn't surprise me. Keeping an eye on things here apparantly to check that nothing bad is being said against them. So having 5/6 accounts really helps , even though they don't want to be linked to here . Poor souls, no wonder they ignored my perfectly honest email. They actually think I want their whole forum to be deleted. Bless, if they believe that, then they'll believe anything . In which case .... ...All I meant was that the the extra dosh could be very useful for funding extra curricular activities...honest...  |
|
|
|
Post by meepmeep on Jul 19, 2006 20:39:39 GMT
There is a difference between rescheduling exams in extenuating circumstances and entering twice to optimise your chance of doing well, though, isn't there? Definitely (IMO). One is sensible and understandable - the other is a waste of money and basically an attempt to "cheat the system" and something that suggests a candidate is not up to standard in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve Hopwood on Jul 19, 2006 22:00:03 GMT
There is a difference between rescheduling exams in extenuating circumstances and entering twice to optimise your chance of doing well, though, isn't there? Definitely (IMO). One is sensible and understandable - the other is a waste of money and basically an attempt to "cheat the system" and something that suggests a candidate is not up to standard in the first place. In what way is this 'cheating the system' when the system allows for this? Steve |
|
