Showing posts with label A-level. Show all posts
Showing posts with label A-level. Show all posts

Saturday, 6 April 2019

Solomon’s Code by Olaf Groth and Mark Nitzberg – Book Summary

This is a book about Artificial Intelligence that deliberately poses more questions than it answers. Groth and Nitzberg’s aim is to outline some of the most important multi-disciplinary debates that need to take place if AI ultimately is going to be beneficial to humanity. 
The authors take a fundamentally optimistic (but not utopian) view of AI and how it can benefit society, but this is grounded in the real politik of twenty-first century multi- and inter-national relations. This optimism is seen in the espousal of a model of human-AI symbiosis (Chapter 3) which enhances humanity: 
a “symbiotic relationship between artificial, human and other types of natural intelligence can unlock incredible ways to enhance the capacity of humanity and environment around us.” (p.69) 
This is worked out in a number of ways through discussion of a number of important social debates: justice and fairness, privacy, security, surveillance and changing patterns of work. In the first half of the book, Groth and Nitzberg discuss a range of important philosophical questions thrown up by AI about the nature of what it is to be human: self-consciousness (pp.96ff), human personhood, autonomy and free will; reshaping the sense of the self (p.76) and the ability for humans to change their values and beliefs over time (p.88). 
The second half of the book is a call to arms to put in place a regulatory framework (“guardrails”) for the use of AI which maximises the benefits of AI, whilst mitigating potential harm. They argue that this will include drafting a “Digital Magna Carta” which defines human freedoms in the age of AI (p.232). In so doing, the authors recognise just how difficult this is likely to be. Indeed, about a third of the book is devoted to outlining the complexities of the emerging geopolitical context for these discussions. 
There is an excellent discussion of “the forces that shape the world’s divergent AI journeys” (Chapter 4), which outlines the different attitudes to AI and technology around the world: “the Digital Barons” (Google, Facebook, Amazon, Alibaba and Baidu); “the Cambrian Countries (US and China); “the Castle Countries” (Russian and Western Europe); “the Knights of the Cognitive Era” (military/defence-based AI – US, China and Israel); “the Improv Artists” (other countries developing aspects of AI – Nigeria, Indonesia, India and Barbados); “Astro Boy” (Japan); and “the CERN of AI” (Canada – the open-source concept of an international network of data generators). 
What comes through this discussion is the range of ways that power, trust and values are being played out across societies, often driven by different regional philosophical traditions. For example, the influence of Taoist, Confucian and Communist thought on China; and the social challenges of an ageing population in Japan mean that these countries have fundamentally different attitudes to the West on issues such as privacy and the relationship between humans to machines. The authors rightly point out that this philosophical diversity poses significant challenges for anyone seeking to formulate a universal approach to regulating the use of AI. 
In the authors’ analysis of ‘the race for global AI influence’ (Chapter 5) the battle for control of data and AI is tantamount to a new arms race which has the potential to reshape the political world order (Putin: the country that leads on AI “will become the ruler of the world” p.151) and discuss each of the main protagonists in turn: US, China, Russia and the EU. 
“Philosophies of regulation, influence and social and economic participation will conflict – as they should. Those clashes and their outcomes will coalesce around issues of values, trust and power” (p.163-4). 
The authors close (chapter 8) by discussing possible ways in which the community of nations might establish “a global governance institution with a mutually accepted verification and enforcement capacity” (p.233). In so doing they discuss the lessons learned from other recent multinational treaties and governance models, such as the Montreal Protocol to reduce chloroflurorocarbons, the Paris Agreement on climate change, the Organization of the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), and the UN Global Compact. In light of these, they argue instead for a “new governance” model which draws its legitimacy from “its inclusion and the robustness of the norms and standards it disseminates”, but which is aligned “with existing pillar of global governance such as the United Nations or the World Trade Organization” (p.249) 
The authors conclude that “the Machine can make us better humans” (p.253): 
“Combining the unique contributions of these sensing, feeling and thinking beings we call human with the sheer cognitive power of the artificially intelligent machine will create a symbio-intelligent partnership with the potential to lift us and the world to new heights.” (p.257) 
Surprisingly for a work of this quality and nature, the book has no index and only has limited referencing.

Thursday, 16 August 2012

A-level should not be a political football - it's not fair on the players!

As with the National trend reported in the Press, Berkhamsted's A-level results are down a little on last year.
It is disappointing, but it was no surprise. The jungle drums have been beating for weeks that the Secretary of State wanted the headline that this Government had put an end to grade inflation - and he got it. There is little doubt that there was top-down pressure on chief examiners. Members of the teaching staff who are A-level examiners commented that there were tighter marking directives from Chief Examiners than seen in previous years.
There is a fundamental problem in implementing a "reduce the top grades" policy and that is that AS-level accounts for 50% of the overall A-level grades. By the time a typical Berkhamsted pupil takes their final A2 modules, he or she is often sitting on a high A grade (with marks to spare) that means that he or she only needs a B or in some cases a high C grade to attain an overall A grade. To manipulate the results means moving the A2 goal-posts a long way.
This is not just special pleading from a disappointed Headteacher. Berkhamsted is not alone. Many schools are experiencing the same phenomenon. The Admissions tutor for History at a leading Russell Group university commented in an email today:
“My personal impression is that History seems to have been rather harshly marked across the board (lots of students with glittering GCSEs and AS levels, suddenly falling short at A-level)."
And that brings me on to University Entrance

University Entrance
Michael Gove picked a bad year to move the goal posts, for the changes in HE funding meant that universities were pushed into giving offers of at least AAB to qualify for the higher (£9k p.a.) funding. It is quite apparent that Gove’s fiat has caught University Admissions tutors on the hop.
The situation in Berkhamsted at 1800 yesterday was:
  • 67/147 met first choice offer (46%)
  • 46/147 met reserve offer (31%)
  • 34/147 missed both offers and need to use clearing (23%)
The situation at 1300 today was:
  • 109/147 met first choice offer (74%)
  • 23/147 met reserve offer (16%)
  • 15/147 missed both offers and need to use clearing (10%)
42 (28%) pupils missing the the grades for their first choice university being offered places is unprecedented. Again, Berkhamsted is not alone - a number of other independent schools have experienced the same phenomenon.
So, despite all the angst of the past 36 hours we are back to where we should be with a lot of happy pupils and parents who have got into the universities of their choice.
But was it all worthwhile? Mr Gove may have got his headline, but he has gone a long way to undermine the confidence of teachers in the system. Pupils who have worked hard for two years end up with a bitter taste in their mouths as their hard work is not recognised by the examiners.
A-level should not be a political football - it simply isn't fair on the players!

Sunday, 14 August 2011

A level pupils warned not to rely on resits

Sunday Telegraph Sunday 14th August 2011

'Pupils who do not get the A level grades they need to get onto their chosen university course this week have been warned that they may not be able to make up for it by resitting their exams.

'A growing number of universities now refuse to accept the results of resits or give them less weight than those of candidates who take all their exams at once.'
Full Article

Friday, 22 October 2010

Independent Schools still delivering at A-level

Pupils educated in the Independent sector are three times more likely to get at least three A grades at A-level than pupils from maintained sector schools.

Figures published this week by the Department for Education show that only eight per cent of pupils in comprehensive schools gained three As, compared with 27 per cent in selective state grammar schools and 31.4 per cent in the independent sector.

What this means is that last year the numbers of A-level candidates getting 3 A grades were as follows:
  • 11,185 in Independent Schools [41.2%]
  • 10,050 in Comprehensive Schools [37.0%]
  • 5,939 in Selective/Grammar Schools [21.8%]
Sadly the Statistics do not give a breakdown for the three sectors for the percentages of pupils gaining the A*, but the gap is likely to be even greater when these are taken into consideration. [The top Grammar schools were getting about 20% A* as opposed to over 40% in the selective Independent Sector. The national average was 8%]

Given this perhaps it is not surprising that Independent Schools dominate the places awarded at top universities.

Newspaper Coverage:
'Private schools dominate top A-level grades' Daily Telegraph 21/10/10

To view the DfE Statistics:
DfE: GCE/Applied GCE A/AS and Equivalent Examination Results in England, 2009/10 (Provisional) Table 1a

Tuesday, 24 August 2010

Have we got the right A* at A-level?

In an interesting article, Martin Stephen, The High Master of St Paul's, argues that the introduction of the A* at A-level is "the right idea, but dreadfully executed."

Daily Telegraph Article: A-level results: How can we rescue our examination system?

I have a great sympathy with Martin Stephen's argument. As I have argued previously, we desperately need a means of identifying our brightest and best to enable our universities and employers to select the most able. However, I question whether or not the mechanism chosen for doing this - rewarding those who get over 90% on their A2 module - is the right one. Ultimately this system favours those who are most careful and make the fewest mistakes. There is no scope here for taking risks or for developing creativity or flair. Not making mistakes is undoubtedly a useful attribute - we value it greatly in our accountants and medics, but we also need to encourage those who are going to think out of the box and come up with creative solutions to the next generation of problems. Given the propensity of teachers to teach to the test, I am not sure that the A* is fostering this important aspect.

Tuesday, 3 August 2010

A* at A-level: Time for "fair" access?

It was always going to happen. I couldn't believe that the last Government, with its overt social-engineering agenda, introduced it. On the eve of its first award, its likely impact is beginning to dawn. The introduction of the A* at A-level was always going to be divisive. After all, to allow top sixth formers to demonstrate that they are better than most of the 25% of their peers who get A grades, is fundamentally divisive.

To achieve an A* at A-level the candidate has to score over 90% on the A2 [Upper Sixth - Y13] component of the course - almost universally recognised to be the more demanding part of A-level. Thus, the introduction of the A* should make a positive contribution to identifying our Nation's academic elite and thus provide a mechanism by which our most prestigious universities can award places on the basis of merit.

To date, universities have been very cautious about using the A* as part of their offers. This is understandable given that many admissions tutors are primarily concerned with filling their quotas and thus are nervous about the impact of any change to the A-level system lest it flood them with successful candidates, or scare good applicants away. For the 2010 entry only Cambridge, Bristol, Imperial and UCL of the Russell Group universities gave offers that included the A*. The standard offer at Cambridge was A*AA, with the occasional maverick Cambridge admission tutor asking for A*A*A of borderline candidates.

However, going forward, one would expect universities to embrace the A* as a differentiating qualification for their most prestigious, oversubscribed courses. Imperial are reported to be intending to make some A*A*A offers next year, but wider picture is that many top universities are that many are reluctant to use the A*.

Sir Martin Harris, director of the government's Office for Fair Access, said the new grade could strengthen private schools' hold on elite universities.
"Grade inflation in university entry requirements and the fact that A-level A* grades are disproportionately achieved in the independent and selective schools does increase the risk that the brightest disadvantaged young people may be squeezed out of the applicant pool for the most selective universities. Universities need to be aware of this when considering fair access."
[Quoted in Fears for state pupils as top universities insist on A* at A-level Guardian 02/08/2010]
This begs the whole question as to what is, and what is not, "fair access" to university. Whilst it might be "fair" to favour a university applicant from a Maintained sector school over an equally qualified one from an Independent School, I am not sure that it will ever be "fair" to take a less qualified one. At some point we have to recognise that the best are the best regardless of the sector in which they were educated.

If universities are going to persist in social engineering, they need to be open about so doing and their criteria for discriminating between candidates from different educational backgrounds need to be transparent and published. In time, there should be a degree of suspicion over any university that rejects the use of the A* as a discriminator between candidates.

Given that most institutions do not interview candidates and most say that they pay little regard to either the personal statement or the reference, then predicted or actual grades are the most important, if not sole, criterion for selection or rejection. If universities reject good candidates from Independent schools in favour of weaker candidates from the Maintained sector, I can foresee the situation where unsuccessful applicants with top A-level grades make legal challenges against those institutions which reject them. Indeed, I am not sure that we will ever get "fair access" to university until we have "blind" UCAS applications where the educational and social background of the applicant are not known to the institution considering the form.

The introduction of the A* at A-level is an opportunity to move towards an admission system that is based on merit - let us hope that the universities embrace it fully.

Monday, 21 December 2009

So what is so wrong with an elite?

Letter to the Daily Telegraph



Sir,
In nearly every area of life an elite based on quality is taken for granted, even encouraged. The millions who follow Premiership football each week have no problem with "elitism" - it is a given. So why has elitism has become a dirty word when it comes to education [Universities to shun new 'elitist' A* grades - Daily Telegraph 20/12/09]? Surely our top universities should need no encouragement to accept the best students, regardless of their social or educational background. All that the introduction of the A* at A-level is going to achieve is to highlight the injustice of Government intervention in the university entrance system.

Mark S Steed
Principal, Berkhamsted School
Berkhamsted, Herts

See also
Universities dismiss new top A-level as unfair to state pupils Times 20/12/09

Tuesday, 25 August 2009

Minister: independent students’ success due to ‘narrow focus’

Now I've heard it all!

Responding to last week’s A-level results and the subsequent debate over the gap in performance between state and private schools, education minister, Iain Wright has claimed that the reason independent schools achieve such high grades at A-level is the “narrow focus” of their curriculum compared with that of state schools.

“Private schools have a much narrower range; the choice is much narrower.

“There is a much broader suite of subjects and qualifications available in maintained schools and colleges. In that respect, the maintained sector are doing just as well, if not better.”


If narrow focus there be, the recent public examination results would suggest that it is on excellence and top grades, something of which I as the head of an independent school am happy to be criticised.

Mr Wright, "Go and Spin no more!"

Times Online - Minister: independent students’ success due to ‘narrow focus’



Thursday, 19 March 2009

Identifying our academic elite

It is unfashionable to say it, but I believe in elites. We have no problem in having sporting elites and I can see no problem with there being an academic elite. Elites only become a problem if they are not determined on the basis of merit. I believe that the country needs an academic elite.

We have some of the best universities in the world, and this will only remain the case if our brightest and best are able to attend these institutions. Essential to this process is that entrance to top universities should be decided on academic merit; thus the introduction of any mechanism to identify the Nation's brightest and best is to be welcomed. One would expect the top universities all to adopt the A* at A-level as part of their admission process, but this is not the case. The Russell Group Universites are divided with Cambridge, Bristol, Imperial and UCL all deciding to use the new top grade; with 13 universities, including Oxford, Warwick and the London School of Economics disregarding the grade.

The debate, sadly but unsurprisingly, hinges not on whether or not the introduction of the A* will discriminate against applicants from the maintained sector. This is a odd argument: surely at some point we have to recognise that the best are the best regardless of the sector in which they were educated. The data from the pilot studies would appear to be inconclusive at this stage - until the A* is awarded this Summer we will not really know how well the two sectors have performed in relation to each other. Either way, I believe that out acacemic elite should be determined on merit with the best A-level performers should be awarded the places at our top universities regardless of the sector from which they are applying.

Highlights in the press: for an overview:
Universities split over A* Grades [Daily Telegraph]

On State v Independent:
Cambridge insists on new A-level top grade [FT]