1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

WJEC A Level Results

Discussion in 'Computing and ICT' started by johnbrown, Aug 19, 2010.

  1. I got a post graduate degree in law from the College of Law, (CPE).

    I know all about the definition of theft and could quote several cases which affect the meaning of each word of that definition - 'dishonesty' - 'ghosh' test (bit of an anachronism) and so on and so forth. Words which cause more problems than you could imagine in that definition include 'property', 'appropriates', 'belonging to another', 'permanently depriving' etc, etc. Hours spent pouring over Smith and Hogan have left me a chastened individual but one with a much greater respect for the upper reaches of the legal profession - we are not worthy.
    Believe me, minds so much greater than yours and mine (well, DEFINITELY yours) have poured over this definition and fought cases to protect the liberty of the acused through the Appeal courts and House of Lords, at the greatest cost.
    As an ex-law student, I can tell you that the most self-indulgent, crusty old farts in the legal profession have never written so much impenetrable, nonsensical, meaningless twaddle as your previous post contained.
    I was too late to say that before - but it needs saying now, I think.
     
  2. OK John do you know this term?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

    you could try making a point...

     
  3. Oh, I know Ad hominem alright - there's party politics, summed up for you.
    You must learn that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
    I made my point, your post was impossible to follow.
    It was you who didn't make a point - you wrote incomprehensible twaddle.
    Why don't you make your point in a way that is possible to understand.
    I'm willing to believe it might be a good one.
     
  4. As I have said before:

    I have not been trained in law it is true, I have no "authority" on the subject, although truth through my authority or yours for that matter is not relevant.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

    As an admitted layman, I believe the section entitled "Theft in English Law" refers to the case

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_v._Moss

    Which established that information (an exam script ironically) could not be deemed intangible property and therefore I assert should not be subject to/equate to, the term theft. There is also a reference to a trade secrets (R v. Absolom, The Times, 14 September 1983) case, although I can't see details of the outcome, it is implied that these also cannot be considered intangible property.

    Now I do agree the issue of intellectual property (and infringements of) versus theft may well be debated at the upper levels of law and indeed regularly comes up as a point of discussion between (for example) free culture advocates and rights holding groups. I fully appreciate that the wikipedia references could be incorrect, outdated, nonsense or that perhaps the use of the legal term "theft" is not the point of the question, but surely the very fact that such great minds debate it (and have done so over time) and in lieu of forth coming, precedential examples or evidence which show that IP infringing (or Hacking/computer misuse) and viruses directly equate to theft and sabotage in the UK, perhaps the board shouldn't rule out those threats to data or information as subsumed?

    P.S. Regardless of being correct or incorrect in the assertions I’m making, your initial responses were in my opinion deliberately “to the man” and not the points. Whilst I accept my first post is somewhat poorly worded (although *** is simply not helpful), my follow up clearly lays out the issue (indeed it’s just repeated at the top of this post in quotes). If after this you still do not understand my issue with the stated list and the exclusion of the other threats which are suggested as subsumed; you are either wilfully ignoring my words or have an issue with simple English.
     
  5. Still not that clear, sdinnage, I'm afraid.
    But there's no need for legal debate; what the mark scheme is saying is that writing 'hacking' or 'planting a virus' doesn't get a mark because neither are in themselves a threat to data.
    'hacking' could be 'for the hell of it' (ooh, nice, an answer to a question about the CMA) and viruses could be planted for other reasons, too. Ok, we all know that neither activity is done for harmless reasons.
    The scheme says that candidates should write ' hacking to steal data' or insering a virus to<font face="Arial"> '</font><font face="Arial" size="2">deliberately destroy data' and I think that's a better answer as far as I am concerned. The OP suggested that 'hacking' and ''planting a virus' are not allowed as answers but they are with the motive stated.</font>
    Having said that and echoing the OP's concern, I would expect all of those answers to have more detail- 'fire, damaging the Network File Server or computer hard disc' etc. At least that's what I'd tell my candidates to try to do.
    Not that I'm saying that answer's right mind...........
     
  6. I'm unsure how much clearer the subject of Theft != Intellectual Property Infringements in the UK can be made.


    As I stated I do not teach this and clearly, if the OP misrepresented the exam boards statement on disallowing threats to data via Hacking and Viruses as they are better represented by simply theft and sabotage we may be talking at cross purpose.


    On your "there's no need for legal debate" I'm not sure what the point was of mentioning your qualification in law and discussion of the greater minds involved in it. Clearly you are not supporting that theft is a catch all for hacking and/or that sabotage includes all viruses. Neither are you suggesting that both hacking (computer misuse) and viruses couldn't both constitute a threat to data/security. Indeed you suggest the board fully accept them within that context, all be it with some detail of the type of hack/virus envisaged? I'd be interested in why the OP didn't think that was the case.


    Agreed some context shows greater understanding of the specific issue/threat, I still say it's probably not entirely suitable for a tickbox approach. As for the "Not that I'm saying that answer's right mind" It seems overall you are saying very little with a lot of words too :) Perhaps rather than your "***" you could have just said "I think the OP is wrong, Hacking and Viruses are allowed with some level of description of how they threaten data" which may have saved me a fair bit of time.
     
  7. Thanks for the lesson
     
  8. djphillips1408

    djphillips1408 New commenter

    Have to say that my IT1 results were as expected and very much across the board from A to U but nothing that I would not have predicted on the old AQA spec schemes for the same kids. Guess it's just a matter of getting used to the spec and how to hit the marks, whilst encouraging kids to develop their answers. Strikes me that a while back everyone was wound up about the old AQA marking and history is repeating itself. Personally I can't see any difference and although not happy with some kids grades they were in line with what I would have predicted each of them.
     
  9. Nicely summed up.
     
  10. Yes, jonhbrown. Nicely congratulating djphillips, which is one of your other accounts. You spend a lot of time congratulating yourself, don't you? I know, why not post as mymouse now and planetx and spend the weekend having a master debate with yourself?
     
  11. Hello,
    I was wondering if anyone could tell me if their centres coursework marks were 'adjusted' in any way this year, or if your centres marks remained as had been submitted by your centre to the WJEC?
    We have a query about our coursework and before we look into it any further we were wondering if there was some adjustment we are not aware of.
    Thanks if anyone can help.
     
  12. Khashoggi

    Khashoggi New commenter

    IT4 were not adjusted at all. IT2 were adjusted slightly, but nothing drastic. Have not seen the moderators report yet, so do not know what caused the adjustment.
     
  13. If you are looking at IT2, be careful that you don't confuse raw scores and UMS - both are marked out of 80 but the scaling is not 1-to-1. Caught a lot of people out last year. Message me if you want more info.

    ER
     
  14. Thanks ER and Khashoggi,
    ER, I have messaged you with more details, if you might be able to shed some light.
    Khashoggi, we havent seen the moderators report yet, but phoned the board instead as we were that concerned (a little late with the feedback if you ask me). By marked down a little is there a chance you could be more specific? Ours appear to have had 7 marks knocked off which is nearly a grade, and as a consequence of that and poor exam performance have had many more students failing or getting grades much worse than expected.
    I notice others have said there was little change in their marks, and I wonder what others interpret as a 'little'.
    I am new to this and dont want to get caught out again next year.
    What about anyone else?
     
  15. Tosha

    Tosha New commenter

    Our grades were brought down by around 8 ums marks across the board, compared to last year. This is assuming the regression line is similar.

     
  16. Khashoggi

    Khashoggi New commenter

    This is only rough, because as ER says the Raw marks do not correlate exactly into UMS, but here goes.

    My top end A's (some of which I gave 80/80 raw) have gone down by about 3 UMS.
    My bottom end A's about 2 marks down.
    My Top end B's were ok, but my bottom B went down about 4 (only one student and I'm not surprised).
    My bottom end C went down about 4.
    Overall it didn't affect them too much. Although not too concerned, I did exactly the same as last year and the report said that my marking was spot on. Will be interesting to read this one, but I am confident that the feedback for this one should be spot on.
     
  17. You need to look at the Raw marks and the UMS to see why there is a difference. For example an A grade was taken to be 72/80 Raw which converts down to 64/80 UMS a difference of 8 marks so a student that you marked at around 75/80 would be marked down to about 67 UMS, and this is the figure that will be on the candidates mark sheet from the exam board. The moderators feedback is due to be sent out next week. I tend to work it out that apargt from students who get 80 or 0 the convertor is roughly take away 11% of their Raw mark to get to the UMS.
    If you really want to work out the exact conversion there is a sheet on the OCR page below
    http://community.ocr.org.uk/community_data/docs?community_id=145
     
  18. Both sets of marks stood.
    Wouldn't wait with baited breath for the feedback - it was rubbish last year.
     
  19. Hi everyone,
    Thanks for all your feedback so far. I am beginning to get a grasp of this (I think).
    So am I right in assuming (taking a simplistic view) that the coursework would have scored highly amongst all centres and would have had the marks adjusted to reflect that?
    I struggle to understand why the board would do that to the coursework, and then not apply a corresponding scaling upwards of marks for the exam (if anything exam marks went down ever so slightly too), which by most accounts was quite poorly performed in by many centres. (Maybe this explains the nearly 20% U's?)
    We don't expect 'great' results from our selection of students, but this year we are struggling to see were we went wrong. Last year we saw a totally different scaling apply which just seemed fairer.
    I will have a look at the boards figures again later - see what gives. I don't have access (I'm relatively new to all this) but a colleague does.
    Many many thanks to you all.
     
  20. scruffycat

    scruffycat New commenter

    The unit 2 was externally audited this year. This may explain the adjustments ot bring into line with other boards.
     

Share This Page