Britblog Roundup #215

Britblog Roundup #215 is up at Is there more to life than shoes?

Regulator admits science GCSEs are dumbed down

No surprises here:

Regulator Ofqual has made exam boards take immediate action after finding science GCSE standards had fallen.

Maths and English literature standards had been maintained but science was “clearly a cause for concern”, it said.

Its evaluations involved not only the new general science GCSEs but also the separate physics GCSE. It is now going to check biology and chemistry.

Do you see with your eyes, ears, nose or mouth?

I’ve written previously about the dumbing down of GCSE science exams. With that in mind, the question below really is an excellent example of the genre:

It’s from the AQA BLY1AP Unit Biology B1a (Human Biology) exam taken on Wednesday 5 March 2008; you can download the whole paper from http://store.aqa.org.uk/qual/gcse/qp-ms/AQA-BLY1AP-W-QP-MAR08.PDF.

Do any readers have better examples of dumbed down science exams (particularly GCSEs)?

Incidently I wonder how long it’ll be before exam authorities stop putting up past papers on their websites, and prevent others from doing so, in order to suppress criticism about how crap the exams are.

(via Libertarian Alliance Blog)

A Digital Rights Agency?

From the Open Rights Group (via Liberal Democrat Voice):

Last Thursday the Open Rights Group along with many others made a submission in response to the Digital Britain Report.

Less than 12 hours later, we found David Lammy and Stephen Carter launching a discussion paper into the shape of the ‘Digital Rights Agency’. It is hard to believe that either minister had processed the responses on exactly this question in the space of twelve hours.

Clearly David Lammy and Stephen Carter had already decided, before reading the responses, what conclusions they would come to.

The discussion paper is available at http://www.ipo.gov.uk/digitalbritain.pdf and it makes interesting reading. For example, on page 3, Carter and Lammy say:

But much of that should be for industry to decide since if it is going to work then fundamentally this has to be an industry owned, industry led and industry run body.

On page 11:

In the longer term education of consumers about the damage that is done by unlawful activity, threatening the health of our creative industries, will be critical.

But on page 20 they add:

The agency will need credibility with consumers – it must not be seen as an industry conspiracy to do things to, and against the interests of, consumers. How should they be represented – and should they have a vote?

Which is in conflict with their statement on page 3. If the proposed DRA is to be run by the content corporations, putting out pro-MPAA and pro-RIAA propaganda, then broadband users will treat it with contempt and derision.

(Incidently, it’s telling the the paper refers to broadband users as “consumers”, as if their only role is to fork out cash to ISPs and content companies. That represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Internet is about. The Internet is not a fancy form of TV where mindless drones sit passively and have content pushed at them; on the contrary Internet users are active, producing their own content. They write emails and blogs; keep in touch with their friends; campaign about the issues of the day and contact their elected representatives; meet like-minded people; contribute to open source / open content projects such as Wikipedia, Open Street Map and Linux; put up pictures and video on Flickr or YouTube; buy and sell things on eBay; they run businesses and find work on the Internet. And yes, some of them are also interested in the content put out by the likes of the MPAA and RIAA, but that is only a very minor part of what the Internet is about. If the net contained no content from the RIAA or MPAA, I would still see it as a vital part of modern life, but I would have zero interest in connecting to a network which only contained the offerings of the content corporations.)

Carter and Lammy also ponder whether the proposed Digital Rights Agency should merely be a talking shop or whether it would have the power to make people do things (specifically the power to force ISPs to take action against alleged illegal downloaders).

If the DRA is to have real power, then broadband users (note not “consumers”, see above why that term is both insulting and wrong) shouldn’t just have “a vote”, they should have the majority of votes on it. The alternative would be for the content corporations to control how people use the Internet. Are we really to see the spectacle of a Labour government — a Labour government! — doing the bidding of foreign multinationals at the expense of British workers and voters?

Jade Goody

Tim Worstall, on Jade Goody:

But I can’t help but have a not so sneaking admiration for the way she played the hand she was dealt

Agreed.

Britblog Roundup #214

Britblog Roundup #214 is up at Suz Blog.

Scottish Political Roundup

Scottish Political Roundup: here.

Guardian/Barclays documents up on Wikileaks

Remember the documents from Barclays Bank, detailing their tax avoidance schemes, that the Guardian wanted to publish but couldn’t? They’re up on Wikileaks (unfortunately overloaded at the moment).

The link to Wikileaks is being published by Liberal Conspiracy, and these other blogs:Andrew Grant-Adamson, newsjiffy, septicisle, John Band, Richard Murphy / Tax Research UK, CharlieMcMenamin / Excuse me whilst I step outside, Rick B / Ten Percent, D-Notice, BenSix / Back towards the Locus, Aaron H / Tygerland, Jamie K / Blood & Treasure, Pickled Politics, Shiraz Socialist, Common Endeavour, FT Alphaville has its own artists’ rendition, Max Dunbar, Andrew Adams / mutantBlog, Index on Censorship, OurKingdom / openDemocracy, Sean / Error Gorilla, Modernityblog, and last but not least Claude / Hagley Road to Ladywood.

There’s even a logo:

Scottish Non-Political Roundup

The Scottish Non-Political Roundup, or NoPoScoBloRo as some want to call it, is now up.

Britblog Roundup #213

Britblog Roundup #213 is over at Mick Fealty’s blog.