If my own education is anything to go by, today's students jump through hoops to see if figures can be made higher or fairer or whatever. During my GCSE exams (the ones that mattered, not the mock tests) we were on trial for a new exam format and question style, which was scrapped as it didn't produce the results that somebody wanted...We were constantly told we were being taught to pass the test, and not taught to learn the subject too

I think older generations were probably the opposite, being taught the subject more than just to write the correct this on a piece of paper...

Quite. I concur.

This is why testing, by it's very nature is somewhat controversial. Many would argue that someone who had just past their driving test, was only beginning to learn to drive. GCSEs get you into college, A-levels (or equivalent) get you into uni and a degree may get you a job, if you're lucky. It's all shash. I "learnt" more from meeting and talking to interesting older people, watching BBC2 and Channel 4 and reading, than I did from being taught in school.

My science teacher thought it would be fun to teach us about ionic and covalent bond by staging a "chemical blind date". She had the music and everything. Teachers are supposed to engage their students, not bore them. Unfortunately, in my experience, all that stuff you see on the those who can commercials, doesn't happen in real life. All the staff are under pressure to achieve results, like so many of us in our own jobs. So the kids are pushed to get said results and not really "taught" anything.

Maybe I'm just getting cynical at 27 though.....
Maybe Heather can sort all this out in a few years......

To be honest you only get the basics at school. Good parenting and "wider reading" (newspapers, books, factual programmes etc) give you a much broader knowledge base and are far more effective in helping you prepare for later on in life IMO.

This irks me as well, so how's this for an idea?

A lot of forums have +/- rating system, sometimes called 'karma', and at other times, something else.

Why not have a system where we can rate a forumite's post. If a forumite, say bratty, posts a message that is incoherent, it receives a negative mark. If said poster receives sufficient negative marks, it then affects them adversely - hopefully sufficiently to encourage them to alter their posts. Perhaps restrict posts to a maximum of one per twenty-four hour period?

My current favourite is "of" instead of "have".

"You should of seen his face". I see this with alarming regularity, and often have to bite back the urge to correct the author, for fear of being thought a pedantic git.

My grammar isn't fantastic, nor is my education. I do try to give my posts a quick once-over, before submitting, or edit them afterwards. At the very least, people should try to make their contributions reasonably easy to understand.

I was told today that a GCSE maths question on yesterday's exam asked for: "the least common multiple" rather than "the lowest common multiple". A quick google suggests that two expressions are used interchangeably with roughly equal occurrences. Huh? Have I gone mental, or is that seriously wrong? Least what exactly? Surely the "least common" would be the rarest, not the lowest ?!

I often see "I brought a new TV" and "I always loose at bingo". Those two annoy me so much

Peter.

I try, but my spelling and grammar is usually atrocious, just thanks Safari for its spell checker...Lol

quit yer whinging you looser

That could work, but not everyone has the same level of 'English', as in, spelling and grammar. I think it would be cruel to punish someone to that extent purely because they struggle with a language, not everyone is able to do that. I'll use Bratty as an example as well, yeah, sometimes his posts are just a little harder to read than others, but just spend a little bit more time on it, it doesn't take a lot really, just to spend a few extra seconds reading it through. TBH I don't really have a problem with it all as long as I can understand it.

I often see people put "quite" instead of "quiet" too, which annoys the pedant inside.

Can any grammar experts comment on my least v lowest question? I just found this maffs site which says:

Least: Smallest in quantity, size, or degree.

However, all the grammar sites seem to agree with my understanding of the definition. To me "least common" and "lowest common" mean completely different things. Is this an example of language evolution, or am I just being ignorant?



I think that should be "are atrocious".

Told you

Actually, while we're here, can anyone explain WHY?

It's plural.

My mother is poor.
My mother and father are poor.

Gotcha!! Cheers!!!