Ask The Chief Examiner, What would your question be? Options

[chopsticks]

I would like to ask why it takes so long to get a result for a practical exam....

I take my exams with Trinity for two reasons, (having had children that went through ABRSM and Trinity)

1. I get the results the minute the examiner leaves the centre, meaning I learn from the feedback, as I can still remember what I have done! This is the most important reason, (as the longer the time the less clearly I remember what happened).

2. Despite the fact that I am learning theory for myself I think the fact they insist on having taken a theory exam before you can take a practical exam is not on. You are marking a practical exam and the ability to play.. (It could penalise people that have real acaedemic problems who can in fact play instinctively brilliantly).

When my Girls took their Trinity exam it took 3 weeks to get the results and 5 months for the certificates to arrive. You've been very lucky!

Can assure you that everybody is notified once the examiner is safely in his car, the mark sheets are then avaliable with comments, I cannot imagine that my centre is acting differently. Ther CERTIFICATES come later. I learn so much from receiving the feedback straight away, not to mention the fact I know the best or worst straight away. Exams are not an end in themselves, they are a marker to help me with my motivation, they are pointers to help me identify strengths and weaknesses... and so feedback... quick is really important.

For that reason there is one exam I did use for ABSRM which I must praise them for and that is the the practical assessment which offers you comments on your playing immediately with no mark. Thank you for that ABSRM you gave me the confidence from that to go on to take exams.

[LadyOrchestra]

I would like to know why they've sent only 1 examiner for my LRSM if it's written that there will be TWO (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif) same happened for DipABRSM...

And yes, the witing for result is terrible!

[AnotherPianist]

Another question actually, inspired by someone else's: why don't the AB publish a list of the pieces on past syllabuses on their website? Is it an issue of having time/resources; or would they rather it wasn't published for some other reason (pieces being on different grades; wanting to sell compilation books)? I'm sure it would be a useful resource for teachers and candidates both in learning and for those who want to remember what they played for their exams when they were young (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)!

As for examiners' comments not matching marks I suspect these arise from the time pressures on the examiners, and the fact that they only get to hear the performance once. I suspect that if I were an examiner I'd find it much easier to listen to a piece and decide what mark it was worth accurately (writing that down at the time, of course) than to write some accurate comments reflecting why it was worth that (often finished at the end of the exam) . I'm also certain that the examiners are asked to try and write something encouraging about the candidate's performance if at all possible; forcing the comments to appear complimentary even if the mark does not. These factors make me suspect that it's more often the case that the marks are correct than the comments are when there is a discrepency. Of course the board can't say this as the official line because that would be admitting a flaw in the system with no comeback; they can do nothing but allow an appeal and I guess in these cases it will be argued that since the examiner obviously didn't get both correct (they contradict) a retake should be allowed. I do, however, suspect that in most cases it's the marks that are correct rather than the comments. Interesting that one rarely hears of complaints/appeals that the marks are too high for the comments (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif).

[CMORRIS]

Hi everyone,

Just a quick note to say what an interesting topic! It's always great to get feedback be it via Libretto or via the forums. Be assured we're following your comments and queries closely.

On another subject - it seems appropriate to raise the fact that some posters are mentioning examiners by name on these forums as part of discussions. Please can I ask you all not to do this out of respect for their privacy?

Many thanks

Christine

[jod]

Thanks for responding Christine.

In light of the changes at TG does the ABRSM have any intention at seriously looking at its exams and revising them.

Personally I prefer the TG syllabus for singing as it is has much more scope in it to cater for pupils young and adult. I also like the fact that technical exercises are compulsory. Having said that I still enter the occasional candidate for AB.

The biggie that I feel needs reform are what TG call supporting tests. I like to feel I'm producing musicians. I like some of the options. I also like what they have done to aural tests and feel that this is far more relevant to a practical musician than the AB options (even though I thrived with these whilst a child).

The changes at TG provide an excellent opportunity for the ABRSM to consider their exams, their content and what they want to assess. If after considerations it is considered the right thing to remain with the status quo then so be it.

[indy]

I fail to understand how an examiner who will specialise in a certain musical instrument can adequately judge all instruments.
I can see it makes sense organisational-wise and no doubt keeps the cost down and enables one exam centre at a given time to cater for all, but I don't agree with it.
This would never happen at music festivals - for a given instrument an adjudicator is chosen who specialises in that field. They tend to know all the pieces for their instrument, they know all the pitfalls and difficulties, they really understand it.
I think you would get a far more accurate mark which reflects the standard attained in an exam if the examiner specialises in that instrument.
In our experience, the comment sheet reflects this - eg, piano grade 4 (ABRSM), the examiner was a piano specialist and the comments written indicated a deep knowlegde of this instrument and technical aspects and didn't miss anything; violin grade 4 (Trinity) the examiner, a harpist, the comments did not indicate an understanding or appreciation of the instrument and were more general, the resulting mark given we felt was not reflective. This harpist had to judge piano, recorder, trumpet, flute, cello and violin from grade 2 to grade 8 in the same day.
One examiner I know is totally obsessed about their instrument and has no interest in other instruments.

And another thing!
At music festivals, the specialist adjudicator will always be given a copy of the music being played. I understand that during practical examinations the (non-specialist) examiner will not have a copy of the exam music being played. I fail to understand this. (They will have a copy of the sight-reading being examined however!)
I can only put the reason down to cost and bulk - the idea of having all the physical music for all instruments is not practical.
However - given the modern age we live in, it would be practical to have an electronic image of the music available to the examiner for all instruments - and while they are at it - they could record the exam using the same hardware which would help resolve disputes as discussed above.

And finally - using the same hardware, they could fill in the comments online, the results could then be available for viewing that evening on the web!!
I asked one examiner recently why it took so long to get the results - the answer - all the paperwork was still in their bag they had with them - hadn't been sent back to the office for processing - 2 weeks after the date of the exams! I'm not surprised we waited 4 weeks for our last ABRSM result! We had almost forgotten we took the exam.

[oboist]

Thanks for responding Christine.

In light of the changes at TG does the ABRSM have any intention at seriously looking at its exams and revising them.

Good question jod. Hopefully ABRSM will review exam requirements. I know the next piano syllabus will have amended scale requirements and sight-reading.

The biggie that I feel needs reform are what TG call supporting tests. I like to feel I'm producing musicians. I like some of the options. I also like what they have done to aural tests and feel that this is far more relevant to a practical musician than the AB options (even though I thrived with these whilst a child).

Please ABRSM, if you can't change the requirements for the aural section, could there not be an option in the form of musicianship type tests?

I don't have any problems with the aural tests to Grade V - I think that they encourage useful development of the ear in very practical ways. Every musician ought to be able to sing a bit IMHO so the minimal amount of singing needed to Grade V seems reasonable to me. However, I do think the tests for 6-8, especially 8, are very, very hard and really don't do anything useful for most of my pupils who have no intention of going on to do formal music study. I like the new TG aural syllabus and would welcome something along similar lines for ABRSM.

[maggiemay]

I don't have any problems with the aural tests to Grade V - I think that they encourage useful development of the ear in very practical ways.

Me too. In general I would agree with this.

[Glass Mountain]

[quote name='oboist' date='Mar 13 2007, 05:29 PM' post='478676']
[quote name='noodle' post='478608' date='Mar 13 2007, 03:06 PM']
[quote name='jod' post='478527' date='Mar 13 2007, 10:17 AM']
Thanks for responding Christine.

In light of the changes at TG does the ABRSM have any intention at seriously looking at its exams and revising them.
[/quote] Good question jod. Hopefully ABRSM will review exam requirements. I know the next piano syllabus will have amended scale requirements and sight-reading.



[quote name='jod' post='478527' date='Mar 13 2007, 10:17 AM']
The biggie that I feel needs reform are what TG call supporting tests. I like to feel I'm producing musicians. I like some of the options. I also like what they have done to aural tests and feel that this is far more relevant to a practical musician than the AB options (even though I thrived with these whilst a child).
[/quote] Please ABRSM, if you can't change the requirements for the aural section, could there not be an option in the form of musicianship type tests?
[/quote]

I don't have any problems with the aural tests to Grade V - I think that they encourage useful development of the ear in very practical ways. Every musician ought to be able to sing a bit IMHO so the minimal amount of singing needed to Grade V seems reasonable to me. However, I do think the tests for 6-8, especially 8, are very, very hard and really don't do anything useful for most of my pupils who have no intention of going on to do formal music study. I like the new TG aural syllabus and would welcome something along similar lines for ABRSM.


HEAR HEAR!! I totally agree and think the Trinity and LCM aural test are much better! When the AB change their aural requirements, my Grades 6-8 pupils may come back to the AB. For the time being, they are at this stage changing to the other boards. Also the sight reading on the other 2 main boards is much more approachable musically. Like I've said before on other posts, when is a pupil expected to sight read boring music? Having said this, I understand the AB is changing their sight reading, but of course we have to wait until the next syllabus. Why wait???

[Aquarelle]

I may be wrong but I get the impression from many of these posts that they are from a UK point of view. Some of the things suggested might be quite impracticable on a worldwide scale. The examiner I met yesterday had done tours in New Zealand, Hong Kong, the USA, Scandinavia and Europe. We talked about some of the practicalities of this world wide examining. He said, among other things, that an examiner's nighmare is losing his luggage. He said in particular that if this happened in, say, China, and the wrong sort of person got hold of it, photocopies of the tests would be reaching thousands of candidates! And of course, an examiner can lose his luggage through no fault of his own as airline customers know. He had actually chosen to fly with a company that didn't limit hand baggage but not all companies do that. I cetainly think the cost and work involved in recording exams on a worldwide scale would be enormous.

Someone suggested putting up the fees by about seven pounds to allow examiners to have more time to write their reports. The fees are already very high for some countries. Parental income is not the same the world over, the pound is sometimes strong against the local currency. If you are in competition with subsidised rates you cannot charge more for lessons. Private music teachers can't survive here. I teach for a cultural association and bring home about 800 euros a month and my pupils pay more for an exam than for a term's lessons.

I would like to ask if there is any way exam fees could at least be held at their present level for a few years - if not in the UK or the richer countries, at least in those places where the number of candidates is comparatively low.

[Skintchick]

I hope I manage to explain this question properly!

I am the first of my teacher’s pupils to get to grade four theory as she has only been a teacher for a few years (although is very talented) and as a result she isn’t always sure of how things should be marked. This has been made easier with the answers now being available but I still have a question on the rhythm writing.

I always pick writing a rhythm to words, and have noticed it says to write the syllable under the ‘note or notes’ to which itbelongs. My teacher has told me to stick to one note per syllable, but the instructions seem to be saying it is OK to write on syllable to use more than one note (which in songs they so often do).

So, I was wondering what the examiners are looking for? Is it marked on how interesting the rhythm is or just whether you pick an appropriate time signature and make it add up right?

And how do I write the words underneath is I make on syllable go over more than one note?

I don’t want to lose any marks as I want to get another distinction on Nov 6 but I also want to do better at rhythm-writing as it is my worst question, and my teacher doesn’t seem to be able to help me on this one.

Thanks.

[maggiemay]

Skintchick, I've had a go at answering your question on the theory forum.

[kh123]

I fail to understand how an examiner who will specialise in a certain musical instrument can adequately judge all instruments.
I can see it makes sense organisational-wise and no doubt keeps the cost down and enables one exam centre at a given time to cater for all, but I don't agree with it.
This would never happen at music festivals - for a given instrument an adjudicator is chosen who specialises in that field. They tend to know all the pieces for their instrument, they know all the pitfalls and difficulties, they really understand it.
I think you would get a far more accurate mark which reflects the standard attained in an exam if the examiner specialises in that instrument.
In our experience, the comment sheet reflects this - eg, piano grade 4 (ABRSM), the examiner was a piano specialist and the comments written indicated a deep knowlegde of this instrument and technical aspects and didn't miss anything; violin grade 4 (Trinity) the examiner, a harpist, the comments did not indicate an understanding or appreciation of the instrument and were more general, the resulting mark given we felt was not reflective. This harpist had to judge piano, recorder, trumpet, flute, cello and violin from grade 2 to grade 8 in the same day.
One examiner I know is totally obsessed about their instrument and has no interest in other instruments.

And another thing!
At music festivals, the specialist adjudicator will always be given a copy of the music being played. I understand that during practical examinations the (non-specialist) examiner will not have a copy of the exam music being played. I fail to understand this. (They will have a copy of the sight-reading being examined however!)
I can only put the reason down to cost and bulk - the idea of having all the physical music for all instruments is not practical.
However - given the modern age we live in, it would be practical to have an electronic image of the music available to the examiner for all instruments - and while they are at it - they could record the exam using the same hardware which would help resolve disputes as discussed above.

And finally - using the same hardware, they could fill in the comments online, the results could then be available for viewing that evening on the web!!
I asked one examiner recently why it took so long to get the results - the answer - all the paperwork was still in their bag they had with them - hadn't been sent back to the office for processing - 2 weeks after the date of the exams! I'm not surprised we waited 4 weeks for our last ABRSM result! We had almost forgotten we took the exam.

My students do singing exams and you can tell when they are judged by a singer as the comments have much more meaning. We had an organist recently. All he said was they should sing louder and were taking too many breaths. The children are 8-10 so he wouldnt realise that their lung capacity prevents them doing massive phrases sometimes. I also had a girl who had a massive brace on her very protruding teeth and he moaned about her diction!!! Common sense is sometimes called for.

[piano-star]

Why is the sigthreading always so hard ??????? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)