In that case, I'd like Jon's permission to extend those wishes to anyone getting their test results today.

Good luck!

And let's chuck in any driving tests that might happen today! Good luck!

What about people applying for a work permit in New Zealand? Thats a tricky one.
All the best folks!

I'd also like to say a big "thanks" to Jon for starting such a positive and friendly thread! Nice one Jon.

And a big hello to all clay ornaments!

Any clay ornaments that are going into the kiln today - good luck!

Sam's right though. We'll have to put some malice or ill-feeling into thsi strand soon, otherwise it'll get automatically deleted by Rob's server...

And anyone who has the misfortune to be in the audience for Ricky Gervaise's new C4 show.


I'd like to wish them particularly good luck.

Nice one! And good luck in wishing them good luck, TJ!

Good luck to the Scottish students.
Hope some of you get your certificates.

Any French postal workers out there, Bonne Chance!

Pearl divers! Maybe today will be the big day!

Good luck to The Corpses. No particular reason, just good luck to 'em.

All you hit-men out there, may your aim be true!

And good luck to the clip of TV's Hilarious Del Boy Falling Through The Bar. I believe it's in the running for a "funniest scene ever in Only Fools And Horses" award, so it needs all the luck it can get...

Chimpanzee behaviourists! That break-through that brings us one step closer to our cousins could be just around the corner!
Oh, and for Christ's sake don't grin if it does happen, though.. they'll probably rip your face off.

Good luck to TV's The Littlesy Hobo.


I have no doubt the loveable dog will be getting into some zany scrapes today!

I thought it was run over, or put down, years ago.

Knowing otherwise cheers me up! Well done!

Good Luck to James Bond III as 'Doc' from The Red Hand Gang, too!

Sorry to break with all the well-wishing (and I realise this is appallingly off-topic, but you're a knowledgable lot...), what's all this nonsense about exam results improving year-on-year since the early 80s?

When I did my 'O'- and 'A'-levels, I remember being informed that the results (perhaps only in certain subjects) were plotted on a graph - resembling a Gaussian distribution I suppose - and only the students who scored in the upper nth percentile would get a grade-A... and so on down to those that failed. I understood this to mean that while the pass marks might go up and down each year, the actual pass *rate* would remain the same.

I recall we did the 1982 JMB paper for our mock Chemistry 'O'-Level - a real bastard of an exam in which everyone struggled - but were told afterwards not to worry as 30-odd percent had been enough for a grade-C that year. Conversely, when I took my Maths 'O'-level, it was a breeze; afterwards we were warned not to be overconfident as a score well into the eighties would be necessary for an 'A'.

Has the system changed? Or was I just misinformed?

Well, good luck in finding the answer, thats all I can say!

Actually, I'm not sure. It certainly sounds familiar, so it may be true. It does seem a ridiculous system if, as long as everyone else is shite at chemistry, you have a good chance of passing.

Sorry, can't be more help.

The theories are spouted by ageing crybaby whingers, more often than not newspaper columnists, who are terrified of the possibility that someone may be as intelligent as them. Simple as that.

>.... though I don't think there are many of you, I mean the survey showed we're all at least 25, didn't it?
If only 22, but obviously I'm not getting any exam results.

>The theories are spouted by ageing crybaby whingers, more often than not newspaper columnists, who are terrified of the possibility that someone may be as intelligent as them. Simple as that.

Well, I'm certainly not going to refute the fact that I'm an ageing crybaby whinger (and fucking proud of it), and obviously I'm overjoyed that, as a nation, we're getting smarter every year... but it's not really a 'theory', just something I remember being told as a 16-year-old.

The pass rate was *fixed*, the grade you got was based on how well you did in relation to everyone else doing the same paper, and so forth. I'm not saying it was a *good* system, mind... Perhaps they just introduced some minimum levels above which you're guaranteed at least a certain grade?

Mike is quite correct, exams have been simplified so that people who wouldn't pass any A-levels 20 years ago can now get into university. Norm-rating (or whatever the term was) was abandoned for A-levels in the late 80s, at the time that GCSEs were introduced without it, and results have risen ever since then.

But good luck to everyone, I say!

> It does seem a ridiculous system if, as long as everyone else is shite at chemistry, you have a good chance of passing.

Why ridiculous? If it's an unusually harsh exam (and perhaps examining boards are a bit more consistent thesedays), the pass mark should be lower, yes? Or should everyone just fail? "Sorry, chaps - no Chemistry 'O'-levels this year. I know some of you were hoping for a position with Glaxo or ICI - still, there's always the re-sits, eh?"

Keep it light, Mike...

And good luck!

Who was that moron the other day who called Media Studies a "trivial" degree?

Ironic that he was speaking to the media at the time...

Er, I think that would Chris Woodhead, Education big cheese.

And good luck to him!

>Mike is quite correct, exams have been simplified so that people who wouldn't pass any A-levels 20 years ago can now get into university. Norm-rating (or whatever the term was) was abandoned for A-levels in the late 80s, at the time that GCSEs were introduced without it, and results have risen ever since then.

Cheers, Jon. I thought I was going mad. I can now rest easy in the notion that my mediocre results of 1986 translate into a double-first at Magdalen College in 2000 terms. I always knew I were clever.

>But good luck to everyone, I say!

Ditto.

>> It does seem a ridiculous system if, as long as everyone else is shite at chemistry, you have a good chance of passing.
>
>Why ridiculous? If it's an unusually harsh exam (and perhaps examining boards are a bit more consistent thesedays), the pass mark should be lower, yes? Or should everyone just fail? "Sorry, chaps - no Chemistry 'O'-levels this year. I know some of you were hoping for a position with Glaxo or ICI - still, there's always the re-sits, eh?"
>


If they wanted to work for Glaxo they should have been better at chemistry, say I. That'll teach 'em. Lazy good for nothing layabouts shirking around on the tax-payers hard earned florin. Go on! Get a job you hippy!

Yeah, fair point Mike, but it seems more sensible to get the examining board to get the difficulty of the exam right in the first place. Of course, everyone always thinks exams were harder when THEY did them, anyway!

Oh, and lets spare a thought for anyone who may be designing the next generation of athletic support truss. All the best!

And just in case anyone misconstrues my "vehemence" in the last posting...
Good luck, hippies!
(but still consider getting a job.. and a haircut)

Yeah, good luck Hippies... I quite enjoyed the first series, maybe the second one will be more widely liked...

Of course everyone thinks exams were harder when they did them. Because after they've done them, they can look up the answers.

Best wishes to examiners...

Blimey!
I just found a fiver I didn't know I had!
If thats not a stroke o' luck, I don't know what is!
maybe its reward for wishing everyone else good fortune!
Best of British to one and all!

Congrats and Best wishes to you and your fiver - and to anyone else who finds a fiver today.

Best wishes to Mike J from everyone at Snakefinger.