When did the monarchy in England lose power? (1 Viewer)

[Cees Alons]

Queen Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen, had no children.
Her line died together with her, thereby losing all power.


Cees

 

[JeremyErwin]

Wikipedia says


But this is uncited.

Incidentally, Bagehot's work is available online.

A long slow steady decline.

 

[Yee-Ming]

No "O" levels at all, IIRC. All the more mind-boggling considering that this morning I just read an article in the paper about a 7-yr old who just earned one in chemistry and is now studying for the A-level...

(For the Americans not familiar with "O" levels, the 'ordinary' levels were standardised tests the Brits used to -- and some Commonwealth students still -- take at around age 16/17, say 10th grade. 'Advanced' levels are taken for entry into university, so that's 12th grade to graduate high school plus SATs, I suppose.)

 

[andrew markworthy]

Yee-Ming, close, but not quite correct. We used to have O levels and CSEs [Certificate of Secondary Education] taken at 16. CSEs were easier than O levels, so top stream pupils took O levels, and other kids took CSEs. In fairness to the CSE system, it also offered qualifications in more applied subjects.

Eventually the politicians and educationalists [i.e. with a few honourable exceptions, 'experts' on teaching who haven't taught kids in years] decided that this was too divisive [err ... they're exams, guys, what the **** did you expect?]. So instead O levels and CSEs were replaced with GCSEs. These are mind-numbingly easy. At the same time, A levels (taken at 18) were also simplified (apologies - made more relevant). The result is that the a ridiculously high proportion of kids pass these exams and with top grades. As a result, many of the elite universities set their own entrance exams because they can no longer trust the GCSE and A level gradings.

 

[Kevin Hewell]

andrew, I've been watching Shameless and the character of Lip is supposed to be taking seven GCSEs. What does that mean?

 

[Yee-Ming]

Ah. I did not know that there was another test available back then, and thought it was a straightfoward matter of O levels having been replaced by the easier GCSEs.

Kevin, taking 7 GCSEs (or 7 O levels) simply means the student is studying 7 different subjects that will be tested by taking the respective GCSE (or O level) examination at the end of the school year. For instance, over 20 years ago I took 8 O levels in English, Chinese, elementary mathematics, additional mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and literature, which was about par for the course, with some bright sparks taking 9. The minimum in the Singapore education system was, I think 5 or 6. Nowadays some kids apparently take 10...

 

[andrew markworthy]

Yee-Ming, your English puts most Brits to shame.

Eight or nine GCSEs is the norm these days. In most parts of the country, some of these are compulsory - e.g. most schools require a pupil to take English, Maths (sorry, that's Math to you guys ) and a foreign language (typically French or less commonly Spanish or German; oriental languages and other european languages are not unheard of, but are rare). There is then usually an expectation that a pupil takes at least one science and one humanities exam. In many schools, 'science' is taken as a general subject (and you can take 1, 2 or 3 units of it). In some schools, it's still divided up into Biology, Physics and Chemistry. If you attend a Welsh school, then Welsh is compulsory and in some areas at least, you are also required to take Religious Studies (nothing to do with religious indoctrination, and everything to do with trying to drill a bit of tolerance and understanding into kids).

FWIW, I took Maths, Further Maths, English Language (basically grammar, creative writing and formal writing styles such as letter writing), English Literature, History, Biology, Chemistry and Physics. I then took English Literature, History, Economics (which usually is only taken as an A level - no, I don't know why) and a curious thing called General Studies (basically a test of all-round knowledge, that a lot of universities I applied to refused to recognise as a valid A level; however, my school insisted we all took it).

 

[Dennis Nicholls]

Here in the US there was no standarized testing in the high schools (grades 9-12) when I attended in the 1960's. I know there is now, but haven't paid much attention since I don't have kids.

In my day, the college-entry scholastic aptitude tests (SAT) came in two flavors: aptitude and achievement. There were "verbal" and "quantitative" aptitude tests which was an "educationalist's" (is that a real word?) expression for Grammar and Math. Then there were a plethora of achievement tests, of which I took Math II, English Composition, and US History. Generally students took the subjects required by the admissions standards of the Universities to which they were making application.

 

[andrew markworthy]

Yep.

We have SATs in the UK as well, these days. Kids are tested at various points throughout their school lives. The school average scores are published annually. The idea is that this gives people a reasonable idea of what the schools are like and where they'd like to send their kids. Neat idea, but hopeless in practice. In the UK, although officially it's different, in practice, you have to live close to the school to stand a chance of getting in. The result is that houses in a good school catchment area can cost 25% more. So only the rich kids get into the good schools. And as an added delight, in many areas of the country, the teachers can't afford to live close to the good schools.

 

[Holadem]

Since we’re happily OT, I have an inquiry for Andrew and Yee-Ming: I want to know if British highschoolers are equipped to handle the kind of stuff I had to deal with:

I graduated from high school in the French curriculum (although not in France). The right of passage is called the Baccalaureat. It is a HUGE deal. Wikipedia does a good job of describing it:


Just for kicks, I looked up the June 2007 Exams. They vary slightly from region to region, but the scope and difficulty is the same.

Just an example:

The History and Geography exam is 4 hours long. This one is from Aix-En-Provence, June 07.

(I am translating from French, please bear with me.)

--

GEOGRAPHY

Choose one of the following:

I - Essay: The United States as a global superpower (that's it. The "question" really is that terse.)
II - Essay: The North-South Divide
III- Document Analysis: What regions are the engines of globalization?
This basically a thematic essay as well, but which must be supported by the set of documents enclosed. They provide a set of questions to guide you thru writing the essay. Here the docs are two maps of the world showing commerce and trading centers, a description of New York city printed from Website of the French Economic Mission in the US, a billboard (targetting French businesses) selling Osaka as business center and and a picture of the Harbour of Singapor


HISTORY

Discussion of a historical document: Choose one of the following:

I - The first doc is an except from a speech by French general George Clemanceau in the National Assembly in 1885. The topic is colonization. It's followed by 4 questions intended to serve as a guides to writing an essay (you're not supposed to just answer 4 bullet points!

II- Same as above, this time an article about the Marshall Plan published in 1965 (but going by the questions, they want you to explore aspects of the Cold War).

--

In another region the exam was exactly the same, except the first essay in Geography something like Russia as a world power.

The exam takes place in a single 4 hour block, with no separation between history and geography. You can spend as much time on either subject as you want. Which meant I always spent more than 2h on the first subject I picked and had to scramble through the second .

So what I want to know is, how would British high school graduates fare with such an exam?

(with some minor provisions for the brits of course e.g. the first history question qould have to be about some Parliement speech while remaining on topic. But the whole exam should remain essentially the same)


--
H - (we already know the answer for Yanks – sorry can’t help it )

 

[andrew markworthy]

Holadem, Brit pupils would cope pretty much as well as French pupils. A level (the equivalent of the Bacc) work is based solidly around essays. I suspect a lot of American pupils would flounder. My experience of American undergraduates (we get a regular stream of American exchange students at my university each year) is that although they're just as bright as Brit students, they have relatively little idea of how to compose essays. Before anyone gets offended by this, I'm only making a comment on methods of assessment.

If there is a difference between the Brit and French systems, I think it's that on the whole French pupils are expected to be more philosophical and address the 'big question'. Brit pupils tend to be expected to attend more to details and specific issues. But having said that, some Brit schools now offer something very similar to the Bacc (though obviously in English!) and there is a move to make it available across the UK at a significant proportion of schools, so that in most parts of the country, pupils would have the choice of going to schools that offer either A levels or the Bacc.

For those wondering about the difference, the Bacc requires a fairly broad knowledge of several subjects, whereas A levels require pupils to specialise in (usually) 3 subjects, generally all arts or all sciences or maths and physics (though other combinations are of course possible).

 

[JeremyErwin]

When I was in high school, I took A.P. exams, and most of them had essay portions. We were taught to write in a particular style-- five sections, with a thesis, three main points, and a conclusion. Awfully formulaic, but I suppose it's all about knowing your audience.

 

[King Ghidora]

The ACT is actually a much more popular test in the USA. The SAT is only used in limited areas including the media centers so naturally it gets reported as the test we all use. It isn't. Neither of my kids took the SAT. Neither did my wife and I. It didn't stop any of us from getting a good education. I was a history major btw.

And just for the record anyone who think GB wasn't duly elected has been served too large of a dose of Euro liberal propaganda. Every possible scenario was examined after the first election of W and he won in every single case. Only dirty politics made it seem otherwise. BTW I am no fan of Bush. I just know the facts.

Also isn't it more correct to refer to the United Kingdom than it is Great Britain, Brittannia, Northern Ireland, Scotland or England?

 

[BrianB]

I think it entirely depends what you're refering to, and who you're talking to when you're doing the referring.

BTW, if people want a look into the British election system, there's a good drama series on PBS at the moment - "The Amazing Mrs Pritchard", about a supermarket manager who ends up elected PM.

 

[King Ghidora]

My UK friends generally get upset if I say anything other than the UK when I tell people where they're from. I guess it could be a thing just with them.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Yeah, the ACT test is popular in flyover country. Rumor has it that the ACT tests "what the student knows" and the SAT tests "how clever the student is."

 

[BrianB]

That will depend very much on where they're from in the UK.

 

[andrew markworthy]

To expand on this - a big problem in the UK is the issue of the Celtic Fringe (i.e. Ireland, Wales and Scotland) which to varying degrees don't want to be linked to England. Accordingly, referring to the UK as 'England' is potentially deeply insulting. I must stress the word 'potentially' - we're fairly used to non-Brits making this mistake, and you're unlikely to cause offence. However, if someone English made this comment, it would be a different matter.

 

[BrianB]

Yup. And speaking as a Scot in the US, it's still fairly common to get "England == UK", however I'll happily point out the error

 

[Yee-Ming]

Thank you Andrew.

Looking at Holadem's baccalaureat questions, I wonder if Singaporean students would be able to cope. Then again, I did mostly science subjects, which don't have one-paragraph 4-hr essay exams, so perhaps those who did humanities did face similar questions in their exams -- we also do A levels (physics, chemistry, maths and economics for me, with "General Paper" and Chinese at what they call "AO" level, i.e in-between), so Andrew's experience should be similar. However, the general critique of the Singapore education system is in effect that it 'teaches to the test', making for great grades all around (we apparently post some of the highest percentages of "A" grades in maths and science subjects) but for students that don't (allegedly) think critically, nor have much interest in matters that are not in the curriculum (e.g. general knowledge, current affairs). Those questions do seem to require more tha rote learning.

Jeremy, what's "flyover country"? Sounds like the suburbs or exurbs out by the freeways.

As for England v. UK, those who follow English football (as I do; BTW that's "soccer" to you lot) will never get it mixed up... indeed it is a minor bugbear to the rest of the Europeans that one country, the United Kingdom, has four separate "national" football associations, sends four "national" teams into international competitions, and -- this is the big one -- each association holds one seat on the international rules board that decides the Laws of football, with FIFA holding four seats. In essence, the British collectively hold a veto over any changes to the Laws of football. However, conversely with the Olympics only recognising a single "Great Britain" (don't know why it's not the UK), the British have had to pass on participation in football in the Olympics, even though one would assume they would be reasonably good at it, because fielding a united GB team (with English, Scottish and Welsh players) would be seen as the thin end of the wedge in combining the four national teams, and thereafter the associations.

Wow, this has really gone off topic. BTW, the late Queen Mother was an Arsenal fan, and allegedly HM Elizabeth II is as well... (just to make reference to the monarchy, the original subject...)