There's an interesting discussion going on right now in the harmony thread; I think it deserves a thread of its own so here goes.

This is for the recent music graduates amongst us:

Could you describe your harmony training at uni, and tell us what you can do harmonically as a result? For example, could you work out Baroque-style 4-part harmonies in your head and write them down in exam conditions?

I ask this because we covered it very thoroughly when I did music A-level back in 1969. The skill has proved immensely useful and I use it in all sorts of situations. To name a few: writing arrangements for my band, working out a string quartet score from a CD, writing arrangements for a large string group I run in one of the schools I teach in (1st, 2nd violins, viola, cello, double bass), composing for the band and string quartet, making up a harmony on the spot to play along with pupils in violin lessons, playing a piano part by ear when there's no score.

I don't have a music degree.

Looking back, I now realise the training I got at A-level was far better than I realised at the time.

Two posters have mentioned in the other thread that some A-level music teachers aren't as skilled as they need to be for the job in hand. Another one has said he only had 2 weeks of harmony training (at A-level) and isn't finding the pop and world music parts of the curriculum particularly good, suggesting there's too much content in the syllabus and it's all spread too thin.

I do have one explanation - the A-level curriculum no longer specifies a Grade 6, which opens it up to far more people. While this is a good thing in many ways, it brings other problems in that the students with good instrumental skills who would be perfectly capable of learning complex harmony skills don't get the opportunity. If uni doesn't give them the opportunity to catch up, where does this leave us?

Recent graduates, please fill us in here!

Violinia

i'm not a graduate, but i'm currently doing music AS (edexcel ) and we do quite a bit of harmony work with our teachers - i'm not sure if it's actually on the syllabus but they're teaching us any way well, bach chorales is on the syllabus, but that's not aural, it's just learning all the harmonies and being able to 'finish' the piece (easier said than done - it takes forever!) and we do aural dictation with our other teacher. am i on anything like the right lines?

We did a couple of weeks at AS, but I never understood it. I don't do harmony at uni, beacuse I'm a BA jount student, so don't do those modules.

Actually I'm quite worried that I can't do harmony and won't be able yo by the end of my degree. Is grade 8 theory a suitable substitute? Or at least a start!

I think I'm right in saying you start doing harmony at Grade 6 theory. As to doing it at uni. I'm not a recent graduate but I remember doing harmony at my teacher training college (these were the days when it wasn't compulsory to have a degree to teach - in the late 1960s). I did music as my main subject and we had harmony lessons every week throughout my course.

In my unorthodox musical education, I never did A level music, but was allowed into the BA Music course, for which A-level was usually a prerequisite, because I was a mature student (then aged 60). We had no harmony teaching, but were taught Renaissance and Baroque counterpoint, and pastiche composition. The last started with Corelli trio sonatas, which were compulsory; it continued with choice of Haydn string quartets and Mendelssohn Songs Without Words, which I took, and Chopin and Grieg, which I did not. Some of my fellow students struggled with this, and I think part of their problem was that they had not done enough A-level harmony. What saved me was some decades of listening, ensemble playing, attempts (not very successful) at improvisation, and reading, so that I had acquired something of a harmonic ear. However, the counterpoint that we had learnt was more important than any formal harmony in guiding these compositions.

After the BA, I did some post graduate study of the acoustic foundations of consonance and dissonance, which I found very illuminating and which I was able to tie in with my experiences both in composing and in playing music.

I have recently returned to Piston's "Harmony", with which I struggled 40 years ago, read carefully through the early chapters and skimmed the last half. My feelings about it are that a significant fraction of his writing is needed to give the reader his elaborate nomenclature for chords, which is based on the traditional superposition of thirds. I can see that you need a vocabulary if you are going to discuss harmony to analyse it, and you also need a nomenclature if you are improvising jazz, though there are more than one already current in jazz circles, none of them Piston's, and all more succinct. Much of the rest of Piston was demonstrating the uses to which chord sequences of increasing complexity have been put by composers of the past. The remainder included discussions of the implications of contrapuntal rules for chord sequences and useful indications of the parts of chords to double and in what circumstances.

My conclusion is that Harmony is a sort of derived subject - it is part counterpoint, part history and part acoustics - and its value has rested in part on the over-emphasis that is given to it by some sorts of analysis. Moreover, as normally taught, it is simplistic: for example, wider spacing of chords in the bass than in the treble register is often given just as a rule of thumb, but perceptual acoustics gives some understanding of it and reasons for its desirability. Also, consonance and dissonance are usually treated as categories (Hindemith's description of his own methods is a shining exception that puts intervals on a dissonance scale) and I have never seen discussion in a harmony textbook of the effects of instrumental timbre on the degree of dissonance of a chord.

On the other thread, Violinia also asked:
OK, any recent music graduates able to fill us in here? We now know the harmony training at A-level isn't what it used to be; what harmony training did any of you get on your degree courses in recent years?
Already answered previously
Did you have to complete Baroque 4-part harmonies, for example (when given a melody or a bass line).
We did 3-part counterpoint.
And if so, did you have to do them in your head in exam conditions?
Yes
Could you (easily) do this sort of thing if asked to now?
Not as well as I could then (graduated 1998).

I now use Finale for composition, with piano keyboard input, so get immediate feedback and easy recording of ideas. The consequence is that I no longer practise elaboration of compositions in my head. I recently wrote a short piece with mostly conventional late romantic and mid-20th C. jazz harmonies, and for sequences of 4-part chords (the horn section doing a sort of Barbershop close harmony) I played the chords, listened to them, and then put them into a single stave. Finale exploded them onto separate staves and then I reshuffled the contents of the staves, because horn 3 plays a higher part than horn 2. After the piece has had its première in March you will be able to hear it on my web site.

I have a great admiration for composers like Bach, Mozart and Beethoven who could do it all in their heads and write it down when it was needed, but we also have the examples of Haydn and Stravinsky, the first at least as great a composer as Beethoven, and as important an innovator, both of whom composed at the keyboard.

My own conclusion is slightly different but based on the same argument.

To me, Harmony as a 'subject' is the result of this process: great composers did this; lesser musicologists studied what they did and derived from their work these rules of harmony; the rest of us study their work and imbibe the 'rules'.

As I always told 'A' level students, the 'rules' are there to help the rest of us avoid disastrous mistakes. More simplistic than your conclusion, but also more workable for your average 16 year old.

Steve

From friends who are doing music A-level (as I am not), I know they are definitely doing harmonisations of Bach chorales and other pieces (although upon the realisation that Sibelius could do it automatically, they found it a bit easier ). However, there are some people there who struggle significantly with this because they have not achieved particularly high grades and have fairly poor knowledge of music theory (not meaning to generalise, but normally guitarists). While opening up the A-level is important, I feel that certain standards should be kept.

But thinking more generally, the "dumbing-down" of syllabi is not exclusive to Music; it appears that standards are dropping in almost all subjects.

But do you think average educational standards have dropped across the board?

Back in the old days, only 1 in 5 had a 'grammar school' education; the rest failed the 11+, went to secondary modern where they got an inadequate education, took (or didn't take) CSE's and left at 16 (or 15).

Now everybody has the chance to benefit from an education which is probably not as academic as the old grammar school education (where Latin, 2 other languages and history were the norm till at least 16), but is still a darn sight better than what was available in the sec mods.

Because they've realised it's not challenging enough for the top 20% they've now brought in the 'gifted and talented' stream thing. A bit alienating for the other 80% who are going to think 'oh dear, I'm not gifted or talented', but it's a response to a problem. Alternative suggestions on a piece of paper...

Having said all that, a 6-year-old girl came to me in tears recently, having not been picked for the 'gifted and talented' group in her primary class. She said: 'I thought I was bright but now I know I'm stupid'. I was (silently) apoplectic with rage as you can imagine; she is the dearest, dearest child, as bright as a button and one of the most musical I have ever taught. Her mother and all the people around her have had to work incredibly hard to rebuild her self-esteem.

There's got to be a better way than the 11+ at 11 or these 'gifted and talented' streams - there's got to be..

Violinia

I apologise in advance if this veers a bit off-topic.

I'm in one of those places where the 11+ is still used and so do go to a grammar school and do feel that for a reasonable number of people I know, the standards are a bit low.

The problem is, on the one hand, we want to be able to challenge the best and the brightest, to nurture them, as they may be the important ones in terms of future developments. Yet, we don't want to discourage or ignore the less academically gifted and make them feel less important. But a choice has to be made - do we bundle the kids together and teach at a standard and steady rate, or separate them out and teach each group at a rate according to their ability? So is there a better solution? I really don't know.

GCSEs fall somewhere inbetween CSEs and O-levels (from seeing past papers and what others have told me). While this is advantageous in creating a standardised exam system, I think it's flawed in that those who would have struggled with CSEs, now really struggle with GCSEs, and those who found O-levels within their grasp find GCSEs easy and so there is no differentiation at the very top. A-levels have stayed the same in name, but for the most part have decreased in difficulty.

So which route is best: differentiating and streaming kids causing situations like the one in your story, or using a 'one size fits all' approach at the expense of advancing the best?

I failed my 11+ (aged 11 in 1962). Not by a long way - I was a borderline fail on the written exam and had to attend aqn 'interview'. Now that was an experience that has scarred me for life - I have failed every formal interview since, bar one.

Where I was lucky was that the head of my sec mod refused to accept that his kids should be 'written off'. We received a high quality 'academic' education. My success is obvious and well documented in these forums. My peers included many who went to uni (at a time when a uni student was a creature of awe) and several who now have Doctorates.

All of us failed the 11+. What would have happened to us had we passed and attended the Grammar School?

This is an impossible question to answer. The easy one is; we would have floundered in the high pressure atmosphere of a school for which we were not ready. I ended up doing 'A' levels at that very school; some of the students who would otherwise have been my peers for 5 years, were seriously clever.

Perhaps we would not have struggled so. Maybe we would have 'found our feet'and coped. I doubt it. Most of us were late developers and benefitted from an easier regime where we were 'at the top'.

So:
Do I support the old system?
No. Ludicrous idea.

Do I support the comprehensive idea that one size filts all?
No. Ludicrous idea.

Not easy is it, this education business?

Steve

There used to be a written exam?

And you no longer pass or fail the 11+, you instead go to the school which is most appropriate for someone of your academic ability (or some similar explanation)

You must have been typing your reply whilst I was typing mine.

You are at the 'sharp end', being a student of the system.

Do you feel you have benefitted from being educated in a school where most of your fellow students are also anything fomr reasonably to highly intelligent?

Steve

Simple answer: yes. And I feel it's again beneficial that my school streams within the year. And even given that, I sometimes feel that that the pace can be a bit slow.

But then it's easy for me to say that as I keep making the cuts, so don't know what it's like to miss out.

I understand that. You are frighteningly clever.

Of to bed. Sleep well.

Steve

One more pathetic question, Trebor.

Having worked out the meaning of apparently odd part of your signature, with huge difficulty, why did you decide on it?

Was it simply to wind up old thickoes like me?

Steve

You are much too kind


Well, partly (have you got where the words come from as well?)

But it originally stemmed from a bored conversation I had with a friend encompassing modern art and the precise meaning of the phrase "post-modern" (which has always confused us). Which ended up with us creating it and hoping it was a sort of post-modern modern art...nuff said really.

Edit: More apologies for off-topicness Violinia

No idea.


'Post-modern' baffles me, too.

Come to think of it, most things baffle me.


Likewise.

Steve

There is no precise meaning for 'post-modern'!!! It was invented by sociologists and art critics probably to give themselves role-distance and a shield for their terror of being seen as outmoded fuddy-duddies in the face of some of the stuff that passes off as art today (that might just be rubbish but then again...), or a hindsight reason to abandon "mistakes" made in the 50s 60s last century, like town planners trying to imitate Corbusier out of context with their hi-rise blocks which it became fashionable to decry rather than resolve.

Anyone can invent these 'terms' as long as they have access to the media to anchor them in, upon which persons such as yourselves can spend ages discussing "what exactly do we mean by..." Only the critics and hangers-on do such things - it's all they have to contribute (ie nothing) while the practitioners themselves don't really care unless they're into the nomenclature game too.

The 'modern' era is reckoned to be post-post-war like 50s and 60s, so post-modern is the reaction against that. What reaction? Exactly!


But, this is a music forum and... the term doesn't apply to music except in the way it culturally reflects the post-modern attitude generally, like scrapping sensible music GCEs in favour of giving everyone a piece of paper to say they touched on music at school and got an A for doing so.
Ws

Thank you. I understand now.

Steve

Just a thought on the original topic. I know theory grades are not exactly the same as a school qualification, but roughly which grade is equivalent to GCSE and which grade to A-level? And do you feel that that's right?

When I did O and A level music, grade 5 was roughly equivalent to O level and grade 6 - A level. Until O levels became GCSEs, a pass with a C or above was accepted as an alternative to the grage 5 theory requirement for grades 6 - 8 practical. I don't know what exactly is required now for GCSE/A level music apart from what my students tell me and what I read here, but I know of several university lecturers who have said that Grade 8 theory is a much more useful preparation for a music degree than the current A level.

Absolutely! I went to the local, bog-standard comprehensive. I was easily the best student in my tutor group, and didn't have to try particularly hard in most subjects. Consequently I didn't work very hard and most work probably didn't reflect top effort on my part. I had a lot of time off in GCSE years and yet had to do very little 'catch-up' work, further fuelling my laziness. It was only when I had something to aim for (medicine) that I actually started working hard. The cometitor in me thinks that, if I had been surrounded by other intelligent people, I would have worked much harder as I wouldn't have liked coming in the bottom half. I was frequently bored in lessons - one example that persists in memory is finishing a chapter in maths and being told that as the rest of the class (the top set!) had not even started it yet, I was to spend the rest of the week throwing a drawing pin 500 times and working out the probability of it landing pin-down. As it happened, I spent the remaining maths lessons doing my French homework and helping the other girls on my table; throwing the drawing-pin every five minutes or so. My tutors frequently told me I'd be better off in a school that could stretch me - they simply did not have the time to give what would have been one-to-one tuition.

So would people here who've taken it say that Grade 8 theory would be a very good preparation - to the extent of giving you a headstart - on a music degree?

Violinia

From what I read, it appears that modernism is used for earlier music than that, e.g. 1890s on. Post-modernism seems to start more like the 1950s. If you're going to object to the term "post-modern", why not object to "baroque", "classical", and "romantic" as well. Surely they're equally meaningless!

The other terms describe works with specific features and have rough start and finish dates. Post-modernism (aside from being an oxymoron) is different in that nobody seems able to agree what it is.

This makes me smile with disgust (not at your Trebor, at the concept). GCSE music needing theory? You must be kidding.

Can I say something about the "dumbing down" of education standards in general?
I think school must have been much harder for my parents' generation. I'm actually really scared about the fact that my generation will soon be running the country! There are so many people who can't use grammar correctly (I am probably one of them) or spell simple words (again, guilty). This is because standards are not set in schools, so long as your meaning is correctly inferred, the way in which you write is unimportant. Even in English exams, around 2% of the mark goes to grammar, punctuation and spelling.
I am lucky enough to attend a good private school, with a scholarship, and am in the top divisions for all subjects. However, I cannot do long multiplication, I don't know my 6 or 8 times tables, I've never read a set text in English, I don't know any biological or chemical equations, and I don't know the difference between Hinduism and Sikhism.
Supposedly (sp?) I am smart. But going by my actual knowledge, this is very untrue. Consider the list above of my major educational problems. How have I been in the education system for 10 years and still unaware of very basic facts? How much basic information is missing if you take someone at the bottom of the state school system?
What exactly do we laern at school all day? I certainly don't know.
[/rant]

Violina, I'm sorry for hi-jacking your topic I won't do it again! (By the way, I'm a girl, your opening post made it sound like you thought I was male!)

So, harmony training in music education, anyone?

Officially, I have had none I'm 15 and taking GCSE music. Funny stuff.

I am currently preparing for both Grade 8 theory and A2 Music (Edexcel) and would say that the grade 8 theory teaches you much more about harmony from Baroque to 20th century than anything in the A Level, in which the 'harmony' paper, aside from listening exams is only worth 15% of the total marks. Grade 8 theory also helps devlop the skill of being able to hear written music in your head under exam conditions, whereas in A Level you are allowed a keyboard to try things out. The figured bass questions in A2 require you to complete only one melody line above a given bass, whereas in Grade 8 you are given a trio sonata and have to complete two voices above the bass.

In addition to being more in-depth, Grade 8 theory also requires a much wider knowledge of styles and composers, terms and expressions, instrumental characteristics, modulations and transposition. These are just some of the things that come up in questions 4 and 5, where you have to answer questions on an extract. With A Level you have 'set works' so it is relatively easy to do well by only focussing on a handful of pieces, thereby limiting an average student's knowledge of repertoire. Of course it is important to study things in depth, I'm just pointing out that grade 8 theory requires a lot of different types of information to be able to apply it to any question.

I have yet to begin a degree course though I have some idea of what's involved as my piano teacher does harmony and aural with BMus students. She is often appalled by their lack of basic harmonic knowledge, eg degrees of the scale, singing intervals and some cannot even read bass clef.

So in answer to your question, yes, I believe that a pass at grade 8 theory would be much more help to a degree student than most current A level syllabi.

This reminds me of the GCSE Music mock listening exam I was forced to endure last year, in which some girl shouted out 'what's a cadence' (pronounced incorrectly). In over 4 years of secondary music education it had never been touched on. People 'composed' by mucking around on Sibelius until they happen to stumble upon something that sounded half-decent. Some were building triads without even knowing what they were doing, they had so little knowledge.

I stopped attending music lessons halfway into the first term of Year 11 because I just found it such a struggle to deal with that I ended up having a nervous breakdown (this kind of dumbing down that frustrated me so much applied to all my subjects, not just music.) I only attended the lessons that I felt were absolutely necessary, such as Science and English. I taught myself almost half the maths syllabus because I couldn't bear to be in such a chaotic room. And that was in top set!

One would think that my grades would suffer as a result of missing so much classroom exposure. On the contrary, I got 9 A*s and an A, as well as taking DipABRSM in the same summer. You tell me that's not dumbing down. Such a thing would never have been possible with the O-Level system.

Well said. Achieving all top grades (or near to) was much rarer when O-levels were used, even among the best, whereas now it can be done by some without too much effort.

I'm not a recent graduate, but we did the 4-part Harmony option for our compostional techniques option for AS-level music last year and our teacher would give us blank examples for us to sit quietly in class and work out in our heads with no piano or anything.

I agree, this is probably the most beneficial exercise I have done since beginning A-level music and it aids composition, aural skills, and also looks very good on the UCAS form when applying to uni!

Hannah -
you're obviously in the same year as me, and I echo your stresses about the 'top-sets' in comprehensive schools... although some will argue that we cannot prejudice against those who are less able or choose not to work and be disruptive, it is highly unfair I believe on all sides to continue with the comprehensive system. Bright people who wan to work can't as others are disruptive, hindering their progress; whereas the other people who choose not to work perhaps choose not to if they are behind in understanding, and need further explanation. It's hard for teachers to spread themselves over the wide spectrum of ability they are faced with.

Bohemian -
You're totally right.... although I dont believe that general knowledge is aquired through the education system, it is a product of taking an interest in current affairs and being alive in the moment. Although the majority take A Level General Studies alongside their other courses, perhaps it is time to introduce this into secondary schools? Perhaps a good way to do this would be by drawing on members of the local community e.g. religious leaders, health workers, MPs, or those with more unusual professions, to come into contact with the schools and share their knowledge, even engage in some sort of debate. But the reality is, at the heart of the problem is the slidng standards in discipline and behaviour. People are cut too much slack, and the majority of parents would no longer side with the teachers in punishment, but would prefer to sue them! We need a return to the education system of the 1950s I feel, back to traditional learning methods, where the opinion was - if you don't like it, tough! Life can't be all play!

I know I sound hard nosed and traditionalist - but do we really need to see Britain going down the pan?

And I realise I have said nothing in relation to music...
Well, I agree that standards have slipped, although making it accessible to a wider variety of people with different abilities. At my college, we are very much encouraged to work independently, and the dept provides open access computers with programmes such as Auralia for practicing aural skills, as we;; as books being available in the library. The teachers are also very approachable and willing to give extra coaching, and as a general rule in all subjects you will be taught above A Level standard for some part of the course. However, with music so much is expected to be learned outside of school, perhaps the standards are too high still? For example, someone may come into collge having never studied Psychology or Law before, and come out with a Grade A at A Level. Would this be true of music? I doubt it!

General Studies and Critical Thinking are commonly accepted by independant schools (without being snobbish) as joke subjects which have a great concept beind them, but have become worthless. Universities tend not to count them for UCAS points or as one of their 3 grades. However...

...this is what we need!!! Good careers advice and also real transferrable knowledge. Excellent idea. A bit like the community section of D of E or something. That means volentary service too, which is also a great idea for young people.


Yeah! We should start a revolution, or a new country or something...


That's because music isn't for everyone. There is less homework, less essay writing, less classwork in music so I think we get a pretty good deal. If you want to take an A level, there's always extra involved out of lesson time to get top grades. Politics: read papers daily. Music: learn an instrument. Geography: field trips. But with music you don't need years of academic work behind you, you need years of instrumental lessons instead. You can take the A level without any previous academic lessons. It kinda levels out.

Yes, I agree

No, no, no, no, no!

We can help those who are less able, and we should certainly not ignore then. You could argue they shouldn't be in a top set, but that's another story.... People who deliberately choose to disrupt the learning of others should not be accepted in the classroom as it is unfair on those who do wish to work.

I say this coming from a school that had 32 in every set. Unfortunately, there were not 32 of 'top set' standard, so the group was filled with those who could not do the work. Consequence - some struggled and struggled; some struggled and disrupted the lessons; some didn't try and disrupted the lessons; I and others got on independently as the teacher was busy with the disruption.

Actually, some of the disruptive kids pupils can be those who are very intelligent, but who are bored because the 'one size fits all' doesn't stretch and challenge them enough, and who whizz through the classwork in double quick time while others are struggling with it.... result, they've finished, they've nothing to do, they get bored, they get disruptive.......You could argue that in mixed-ability classes teachers need to cater for all pupils, but it's extremely difficult to do so.
In fact, the term 'special needs', whilst it is generally applied to those who find learning difficult, can also apply to the opposite end of the spectrum, i.e. those of well-above average abilities, who also need to be catered for.

I've done that Even tried to organise a deliberate failure of a test, although I was the only one to carry it out.

Mwahaha. We did that in maths as a protest to the massive class size. We are constantly doing it in English too because our teacher is rubbish so the lessons are dull. Music...less said the better! Let's just say that the whole class getting 100% 1 week and then 0% the next was not a coincidence. No wonder we don't learn any harmony!!

SuzyMac...we have a class of 27 in maths in the top set, the bottom set has 9. So big classes aren't rare.

To answer the original question (from a member of the "Graduate Class of 1994"), yes, I was taught 4 part harmony at A level, which was then revised at university. Could I do it now under exam conditions? Possibly. I assume by 4 part harmony you mean the standard A level Bach chorale harmonisation? Having experienced these for real in the last 11.5 years I know that Bach broke the rules.

To add my few pennies' worth to the debate on educational standards, I sat and passed my 11+, and was offered a place at a very good grammar school, which my parents declined because it was too far away and they didn't want me doing all that travelling by myself each day Fortunately, a year later, I was offered a place at an extremely good, extremely local state school, where the most academic were stretched, and the less able received what looked to be a good education, whilst still made to feel valued members of the school community.

Two years into my time at that school, my parents divorced and both moved from the area. I went to a far less good school in my new area where I wasn't stretched at all (to the extent that I even ended up baking the same things in Home Economics that I'd made a year earlier at my previous school ). It wasn't entirely the school's fault, the whole ethos seemed so different. There were a few really good teachers at my new school, who really seemed to be on the side of all of their pupils, but compare this to the school I'd been at where ALL of the staff seemed to be on the pupils' side.

The more observant of you will be able to work out that I was in the second-ever year to sit GCSEs. They didn't seem particularly challenging, but it was a HUGE step up from GCSE to A level. I don't know for sure whether or not exams have become easier over the years; anecdotal evidence would suggest so, but I suppose the only way to check for sure would be to have some of the current youngsters sit this year's papers as well as papers from several years ago and see i) what they think, and ii) how they do. To loop neatly back to my previous two paragraphs, if they've had good enough teachers throughout, they'll be fine, no matter how academic they are.

One final thought to ponder. My father-in-law taught physics for a while shortly after GCSEs were introduced. The only way they found they could prepare people for A level physics was to teach the old O level syllabus, not the GCSE syllabus.

Ah, that would make sense - we had 32 in all classes. As an example, I was in top set maths. There were about 30 of us, and in total five took the higher paper (about 20 intermediate and 5 foundation). I was the only one to get an A. Imagine my fury when, having been confronted with a question I didn't understand in the final exam, I went to the teacher to find out where I'd gone wrong....his response? Oh, yes that's sine rule - very simple, I'll show you now!!! Grrrr!!!!! NOT useful. Especially not when he'd had me tossing drawing pins for fun! Given, he had to look after the others as well, but I don't know what was stopping him from giving me a book and telling me to work through it, rather than me wasting time. It cost me the A*, as I didn't have the initiative or forethought to research myself to see if there was anything we weren't being taught!

I was often bored, but never disruptive. The most we protested about was the illogical setting - the French and German halves of the year were kept apart, resulting in two 'incomplete' top sets, rather than one where everyone could be pushed a bit more than I was.

This is a topic dear to my heart. First of all, "talented and gifted" SHOULD NOT be based on a one-off IQ test result, or
on a particular achievment, nor should it be decided at any particular age. The typical scenario is for a person's talents to delevop asynchronously, ie to be much better at one thing than another at any particular age, and what they are good at changes as time goes by. For some people, *serious* talent can develop much later in their lives than for other people. The best lesson students can learn is: It's important to be strong, and not worry about what anyone else is doing or what anyone else thinks, but to make sure you are learning what you want in the best way possible for you. And if this means bypassing a poor teacher in school, ignoring standard wisdom about what you "should" achieve when in order to have a great career, etc, etc, etc, so be it.

Loops

Gifted and Talented is a load of (expletive).
I'm not gifted and talented apparently, I only came top in my school for AS music tech 2 years early, came 3rd in the year for GCSE mock results, top in the year in 4 subjects, won public speaking and numerous music competitions in my schools name, got promoted up 2 year groups in rowing, got a scholarship to a really good school for 6th form and was chosen as the school's soloist. I work so hard for all this stuff, I'm not one of those ones who is naturally really good at everything, I literally have no time for anything because I'm always trying to do something and do it well, and evidently I don't do it well enough to be considered Gifted or Talented.

I was in tears when I was told I was not "gifted" nor "talented". A number of my year group are leaving the school because of this new scheme, because it has split up friendship groups and made everyone really competitive, as well as really disspointing some people. I've always had rubbish self-confidence, and hate being complimented because people always think I'm better than I actually am. This whole episode just made it worse, and I've already failed my new year's resolution to be more positive about stuff.

I don't like gifted and talented schemes

I would say you are **definitely** gifted : the only important gifts are the ones for being determined, for tenacity in your practice and for singlemindedly figuring out what you want to achieve and how to do it. Forget the silly label: not too many of those who are labelled as gifted actually go on to do anything much. I'm barracking for you!! Loops

I actually agree with that. Although I do well academically, I don't feel like I deserve it. I just naturally find a lot of it very easy to do, and so can sit back and coast through without having to put much effort in. Consequently, if (more likely when) a time comes when I do have to put the effort in, I have no idea whether I can. Meanwhile there's other people I know who work their socks off, much much more than I ever would, yet don't do as well. So it would seem unfair if I then got the special attention, considering I haven't really earnt it.

There was no gifted and talented while I was at school, but I can see how pointless it is. There was a group of year 10's in the french office in my last term of 6th form who were learning things that I couldn't do! They weren't getting it much, they were just ebcoming demoralised. They didn't even include a bilingual french/english girl in this scheme, which doesn't say much! What's the point in having a set 1, if there's another extreme to it?

I don't think that GCSEs have necessarily got easier, I think we've just gotten more smart at the way we do exams. There's still a huge jump from GCSE to A-level, and there's still the people who would achieve low marks at both. I didn't really have to reivse for GCSE coz a lot was done in school. We do a lot of exam technique in schools now, so we know our stuff, and we know how to pass the exam. It's like learning to drive-you see a small picture til you pass your test, and then you learn to drive. Doesn't mean you didn't have the makings of being good before, just means you keep learnign afterwards.

I think General studies is a stupid waste of time. I got a B overall but failed the science and maths papers. I don't need maths and science, I'm not going to do it in the future, I can do enough to get by. Same with people doing the lanaguage section. There's a reason why we drop things after GCSE.

I can't comment on music education ( never having had any) only with regard to the general "dumbing down " of exams today. I attended a VERY good academically selective school. In order to be able to cope with the horrific workload only an exceptional student-a real egghead-took 4 A levels ( I did 3 ). Usually there was 1 pupil every 3 or 4 years considered clever enough to cope. Nowadays it doesn't seem unusual to see students taking 5 A levels & getting A* in them all! I leave you to draw your own conclusions. I in no way mean to belittle the achievements of todays students, merely to suggest that perhaps the depth of topic coverage & knowledge required per subject is less than it was in my day therefore enabling more exams to be taken. I pass no comment on whether this is a good thing or a bad thing.

I've never seen that happen (A-level grades only go up to A )

I can't comment on any particular "Gifted and Talented" scheme, but I don't condemn them in principle. They are not meant for people who know how to work hard. Perhaps a reason that our Gifted and Talented don't make more of an impression on the world is that so many of them idle away their time at school. What they need is the competition of others like themselves.

Some gifted and talented children have made a tremendous impact. The names of Felix Mendelssohn, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Erich Wolfgang Korngold come to mind. I don't know about Korngold, but I don't think it is a coincidence that neither Mozart nor Mendelssohn was educated in a school. Mozart learnt much from his father; I don't know how he learnt his languages. Mendelssohn had private tutors.

In mathematics, there were, inter alia, Gauss, Gallois and Bertrand Russell, all of whom exhibited great talent as children.

Clarissa-a lot of people have General Studies as one of their 5 A-levels, something which is seen as an easy subject, and guaranteed way of getting at least one high graded A-level.We get made to do it because the government pays the school for each student who takes it. They're also mainly people from an Asian background (I say moslty, but from what I've read that seems to be true, although there must be some gifted white British who acn do it). These people are really clever beacuse of the sheer volume of work they do throughout their life, not just at A-level.
There are a few people in our school who do 4, one being my friend whp's doing hers this year and applied to cambridge, and I can safely say that she has no life besides school.

You were fortunate in the sense that yours was a 2 year course. I hated having exams after AS, because you loose out on around a month's worth of teaching. Like I've said before, you learn to pass the exam now, and if you really love your subject and work for it, do learn a bit about what's happening.