The importance of a distinction Options

[BerkshireMum]

I can't see what the objection is to pass/merit/distinction - I have far more issues with the somewhat daft idea that only one of the three is worth having.

But I think they are two sides of the same issue. If we did not have pass/merit/distinction then we would not have the present situation where the superb achievement of passing Grade 8 is looked down on by many who think that only a Distinction is worth having (and do not understand that passing grade 8 piano is a far more difficult achievement than, for example, getting an A grade in an A level).

I fail to see why you think that this is the case. Children of junior age regularly pass grade 8 piano because the main requirements for passing are good tuition and sufficient drive from the child to ensure lots of practice. How many juniors pass A-levels (I except Maths from this, as to a large extent being good at Maths is down to how your brain is constructed, and is possible for juniors with good tuition)? I would argue that the amount of reading, writing and understanding required to pass English Lit or History A-level with grade A is way above that required to pass a grade 8 instrumental exam.

Added to which, music students who have grade 8 in 2 or 3 instruments don't always pass Music A-level at grade A despite their obvious interest in music. I think you have overstated your case here.

[JamesK]

Is it not perfectly possible to pass a high grade, without ever having reached a distinction level at a lower one first? I think so...

...I never got a distinction. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif) I only got a merit in grades 1,2,3 with my highest ever mark being grade1@126/150, then the rests were passes (though I got a merit in grade 5 theory, even after turning up an hour late (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) ). My grade 8 was more than 10 marks more than my grade 7. It took me 5 months to get grade 8; 12 months for grade 7. I kick myself that I got the era of a piece in the Aural tests, which may have pushed me to a Merit. I would resit, but it's either get grade 8, or not play for 4 years then pick up piano again. I believe it is far more difficult to pick up where you left off the further acomplished you are, though you are more experienced which helps. *By pick up, I mean after a considerable amount of time >3years*

I applaud anyone who achieves a merit (IMG:style_emoticons/default/clap.gif)

On a different tone, these are exams, not concerts. If you want to see a concert, go to a festival. There are adjudicators of their chosen instrument who give feedback on individual pieces and the program as a whole. In addition, there is an audience filled with musicians enjoying and critising one's playing. The examiner however, is not necessarily there to enjoy the music/ get ideas from the player but more to judge to current aptitute of a musician.
Similarly, if I wanted to have fun with Maths, I'd do a maths show/ competition - not a maths exam (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ill.gif) . Only one really counts, one which is judged by one person alone. I've listened to John O'conor say something like "If there was a different panel, then I would not won the Beethoven competition" which changed his life.

[Chris H]

Festivals and competitions are much more useful than exams in my opinion. My son has had the good luck to twice get adjudicators who are specialists in his instrument and their comments have been very useful indeed.

[VH2]

[Children of junior age regularly pass grade 8 piano because the main requirements for passing are good tuition and sufficient drive from the child to ensure lots of practice. How many juniors pass A-levels (I except Maths from this, as to a large extent being good at Maths is down to how your brain is constructed, and is possible for juniors with good tuition)? I would argue that the amount of reading, writing and understanding required to pass English Lit or History A-level with grade A is way above that required to pass a grade 8 instrumental exam.

Personally, I've done A-levels and I've done piano exams, and I know which required more time, more dedication, and more discipline.

If more junior school children were actually stretched, rather than having much of their time wasted, I see no reason why they could not pass A-levels in sciences, history, geography, languages at age 11 or thereabouts. At least, those that are capable of passing advanced music exams could probably get A-levels too. The humanities would be more difficult than sciences because the kids lack life experience, but they are not so lacking that they could not pass the exams after being well taught, and doing the necessary studying. Junior school children are very much more capable than we think, when their interest is aroused and they are challenged to excel

The differences (between music and regular academic subjects) are:

that many children begin serious study of an instrument at age 5, 6, 7 or 8, whereas it is rare for a child to study a subject in the right way to lead to A-level in another 4 or 5 years until they are in their 3rd year of secondary school at the age of 14 (+/1 a year).

- playing an instrument is a practical skill. You cannot "cram" for an exam, at least not so effectively as for an academic subject. It is "knowing how" rather than "knowing that". You have to practice regularly and often, over a long period of time.

[tonedeafmum]

If more junior school children were actually stretched, rather than having much of their time wasted, I see no reason why they could not pass A-levels in sciences, history, geography, languages at age 11 or thereabouts.

But why on earth would you want them to? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

But then - I feel pretty much the same way about higher level Music exams .... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif)

[sbhoa]

If more junior school children were actually stretched, rather than having much of their time wasted, I see no reason why they could not pass A-levels in sciences, history, geography, languages at age 11 or thereabouts.

But why on earth would you want them to? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

But then - I feel pretty much the same way about higher level Music exams .... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif)

At that age isn't it a major part of a child's job to play?

[ansatz496]

Personally, I've done A-levels and I've done piano exams, and I know which required more time, more dedication, and more discipline.

If more junior school children were actually stretched, rather than having much of their time wasted, I see no reason why they could not pass A-levels in sciences, history, geography, languages at age 11 or thereabouts. At least, those that are capable of passing advanced music exams could probably get A-levels too. The humanities would be more difficult than sciences because the kids lack life experience, but they are not so lacking that they could not pass the exams after being well taught, and doing the necessary studying. Junior school children are very much more capable than we think, when their interest is aroused and they are challenged to excel

The differences (between music and regular academic subjects) are:

that many children begin serious study of an instrument at age 5, 6, 7 or 8, whereas it is rare for a child to study a subject in the right way to lead to A-level in another 4 or 5 years until they are in their 3rd year of secondary school at the age of 14 (+/1 a year).

- playing an instrument is a practical skill. You cannot "cram" for an exam, at least not so effectively as for an academic subject. It is "knowing how" rather than "knowing that". You have to practice regularly and often, over a long period of time.

I passed grade 8 piano (with distinction, for what it's worth) when I was 17, and achieved a good pass on DipABRSM the next year, but the time and effort I put into piano was practically insignificant compared to what I was doing in math and physics - piano was basically something I did to blow off steam. Making blanket statements about the difficulty of any field compared to any other is pointless - everyone is different.

[Tixylix]

If more junior school children were actually stretched, rather than having much of their time wasted, I see no reason why they could not pass A-levels in sciences, history, geography, languages at age 11 or thereabouts.

But why on earth would you want them to? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

But then - I feel pretty much the same way about higher level Music exams .... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif)

At that age isn't it a major part of a child's job to play?

I agree, though I don't think it would be too much of a stretch if they were doing one at a time. Maybe one at 11, one at 13 and one at 15? I think a lot of exam stress happens because children are told that they should be stressed, and obviously the teachers are stressed and they pick up on that. There's no reason you can't have time to play and to study as long as you're not expecting them to take on too much at once. My school got a couple of us to take the Key Stage 2 SATs at age 7 and I don't remember being stressed in the slightest, in fact I was excited because they told us we were being allowed to do extra tests because we did so well in the first ones - the way it was phrased made it sound like a privilege rather than the extra stress of doing more tests. I was a lot more stressed when I took exactly the same exam at age 11 even though I'd already done it 4 years earlier, just because they made such a big deal out of it.

[Dulcet]

But if we are to have several sections in the grade exams then I think you should have to show you are up to scratch in all of them.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

[sbhoa]

But if we are to have several sections in the grade exams then I think you should have to show you are up to scratch in all of them.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

Or maybe it's shows the difference between 'amateur' and 'professional' levels of exam.
You do have to pass each section post grade 8.

[sunil]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif) Now a lot of them has Facebook profiles, twitter & Instagram accounts and many things beyond that. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif)

At that age isn't it a major part of a child's job to play?

[VH2]

I passed grade 8 piano (with distinction, for what it's worth) when I was 17,

Me too!!

and achieved a good pass on DipABRSM the next year, but the time and effort I put into piano was practically insignificant compared to what I was doing in math and physics - piano was basically something I did to blow off steam.

My experience was the exact reverse. I messed about for a year and a half, then learned 4 A-levels (including Maths and Physics) in 2 months. I worked hard at the piano but it did not seem like hard work as it was so enjoyable.

Making blanket statements about the difficulty of any field compared to any other is pointless - everyone is different.

Yes you are right. One cannot necessarily generalize from personal experience. I ought to know that by now!

If more junior school children were actually stretched, rather than having much of their time wasted, I see no reason why they could not pass A-levels in sciences, history, geography, languages at age 11 or thereabouts.

But why on earth would you want them to? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

I wouldn't necessarily. I was just making a point about what they are capable of.