DID UK ASSIGN NUMBER TO KATE'S GENIUS? SHOCK MYSTERY SAGA CONTINUES!

[IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]

 To: Love-Hounds@EDDIE.MIT.EDU
 From: Andrew Marvick (IED)
 Subject: DID UK ASSIGN NUMBER TO KATE'S GENIUS? SHOCK MYSTERY SAGA CONTINUES!

 >Recently there has been a programme on Radio 4 where "celebrities" have
 >been discussing their old school reports with an interviewer. Perhaps
 >one day Kate will appear on such a show and reveal all (exams-wise that is).
 >
 >-- Neil.

     Since the subject has come up in Love-Hounds, IED
has taken the liberty of reproducing a recent exchange of
letters between Geoff and IED concerning Kate's secondary
education. Many thanks to both Geoff and Neil for their
explanations--especially Geoff, for his patience.

-- Andrew Marvick

 From: Geoff Clare <mcvax!root.co.uk!gwc@UUNET.UU.NET>
 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 88 11:37:20 GMT
 To: IED0DXM
 Subject: Re: Mailbag

 In article <8812010248.AA15969@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> you write:
 >
 >Perhaps the reason for this conflict of information is that Kate _left_school
 >before ever taking her final year. In other words, she took all of her
 >"O"s a year before most people would have taken more than two--according
 >to your own report as IED understood it. Now, even if her grades on
 >those exams weren't particularly high, wouldn't such an early
 >completion of 10 "O"s be pretty exceptional?

      Wow!  Amazing!
      (Translation: Yes, that _is_ exceptional)

 To: Geoff Clare <gwc@root.co.uk>
 From: Andrew Marvick
 Subject: Your message

Hi, Geoff.
     I'm happy to learn that the O-level business wasn't
an exaggeration of Kate's achievement, though one can look at it
either way. After all, she _did_ leave school before ever
taking her 'A'-levels, which would have been a wise thing
to do just for general living purposes, no? By the way,
she returned to school during the summer before the
last year (the year she skipped) in order to take "mock-'A'-levels".
Unfortunately, no one has ever divulged what her scores were in
any of these exams (not, of course, that it's any of my business!)

-- Andy

 From: Geoff Clare <mcvax!root.co.uk!gwc@UUNET.UU.NET>
 Date: Tue, 6 Dec 88 09:34:15 GMT
 To: ied0dxm
 Subject: Re: Your message

 > she returned to school during the summer before the
 > last year (the year she skipped) in order to take "mock-'A'-levels".

     This doesn't sound right at all.  "Mocks" were taken in February/March
in preparation for the real exams in June.  Also 'A'-levels were
taken two years after 'O'-levels, whereas "the summer before the year
she skipped" would be immediately after she took her 'O'-levels.
There's nothing I can think of that she might have gone back for at
that time.
     Is this from an interview with Kate or just a bit of hearsay?

-- Geoff.
   gwc@root.co.uk..!mcvax!ukc!root44!gwc +44-1-606-7799  FAX: +44-1-726-2750

 To: gwc@root.co.uk
 To: gwc@UUNET.UU.NET>
 From: Andrew Marvick
 Subject: A-levels, O-levels: my level best ha-ha

Hi, Geoff.
     Oh, it's not hearsay. As a matter of fact, I just
watched the interview again last night. It's from the 1980 programme
_Nationwide_ (BBC). Kate is being interviewed, and explains
that she had originally thought of becoming a veterinarian or
psychiatrist, and so had gone through the motions.

     "I got some 'O'-levels, and--"
      Oh? How many?
     "(With evident embarassment)...Ten..."
      (With obvious surprise and respect) Ten! Did you take your 'A'-levels?
     "Well, I took my 'mock-A's..."

     I don't remember where the earliest source is about Kate's
leaving before the "last" year of secondary school, but I've read
it in three or four different places. I'm pretty sure it's
been admitted to by Kate herself in a number of places. It's
implied in the letter to Frances Byrne that appeared in the
new Juby book. She entered the first form in 1969, and left in 1975, I
believe--that would have been the sixth form. Is that the last of
your school-years, or isn't there a seventh?
     Given these bits of information, can you come up with a
likely chronology for me? I'd really like to understand this better.
     Thanks for your interest, Geoff.

-- Andy

From: Geoff Clare <mcvax!root.co.uk!gwc@UUNET.UU.NET>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 88 10:14:28 GMT
Subject: Re: A-levels, O-levels

 >      "I got some 'O'-levels, and--"
 >       Oh? How many?
 >      "(With evident embarassment)...Ten..."
 >       (With evident respect and surprise) Ten! Did you take your 'A'-levels?
 >      "Well, I took my 'mock-A's..."
 >
 >      I don't remember where the earliest source is about Kate's
 > leaving before the "last" year of secondary school, but I've read
 > it in three or four different places. I'm pretty sure it's
 > been admitted to by Kate herself in a number of places. It's
 > implied in the letter to Frances Byrne that appeared in the
 > new Juby book. She entered the first form in 1969, and left in 1975,
 > believe--that would have been the sixth form. Is that the last of
 > your school-years, or isn't there a seventh?

    Ah, now the picture is getting much clearer - the dates give it all
away. First a little background.
     Secondary school consists of five years, normally from age 11 to 16.
It is possible to leave before completing the five years, once the age
of 16 has been reached.  'O'-levels were normally taken at the end of
the fifth year (one or two might be taken in the fourth as I said
before), after which the student could continue to "sixth form" to
study for 'A'-levels.  The "sixth form" is considered separate from
"secondary school" (it can equally well be part of the same school or
a separate "sixth form college") and actually consists of two years -
"lower sixth" and "upper sixth".
     (Apologies for the strange mixture of tenses here - this is because
'O'-levels have now been replaced by the GCSE, so I have to refer to
them in the past tense, whereas the other information is still true,
necessitating the present tense).
     So now it becomes clear that Kate dropped out of the sixth form, as
opposed to "before the last year of secondary school" which really means
before the fifth form.  She stayed long enough to take her mock
'A'-levels, but left before taking the real ones.
     Which brings us back to square one - she probably took one or two
'O'-levels in the fourth form and the remainder of the 10 in the fifth
form, just like a large number of people at the same school and similar
schools all over the country.  So I'm afraid my original comment still
stands: I doubt if Kate's 'O'-level results qualify as "exceptional".
     Now if we could just find out her grades ....

-- Geoff.
   Geoff Clare UniSoft Limited, Saunderson House, Hayne Street, London EC1A 9HH
   gwc@root.co.uk ..!mcvax!ukc!root44!gwc   +44-1-606-7799  FAX: +44-1-726-2750



     Thanks for all the clarifying information, Geoff. I'm sure you've
hit on the explanation. My only reason for not being absolutely
convinced is the attitude that the British interviewer--as well
as Kate's visible sign of embarassment, apparently at the high
number of 'O's--at the number '10'. They both seemed to agree
that it _was_ somehow exceptional. Could it all have been harder
in 1973-4 than it is now? Or were Kate and the interviewer simply
deceiving themselves into thinking it was more impressive than it
really was?
     I promise this is the last time I'll bother you about this
nonsense, but it is interesting. I didn't know anything about
the sixth vs. fifth forms, etc.

-- Andy

 From: Geoff Clare <mcvax!root.co.uk!gwc@UUNET.UU.NET>
 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 88 10:11:47 GMT
 To: IED0DXM
 Subject: Re: Last questions

 > Thanks for all the clarifying information, Geoff. I'm sure you've
 > hit on the explanation. My only reason for not being absolutely
 > convinced is the attitude that the British interviewer--as well
 > as Kate's visible sign of embarassment, apparently at the high
 > number of 'O's--at the number '10'. They both seemed to agree
 > that it _was_ somehow exceptional.

     It seems to me that our difference of opinion arises purely
from the use of the word "exceptional".  I'm not saying 10 'O'-levels
isn't an achievment worthy of the interviewer's evident respect - I
just think calling it "exceptional" is a bit over the top.
     Perhaps some ball-park figures will help illustrate what I mean.
For something to be called "exceptional" I would say it might occur
with a frequency no higher than, say, 1 in 1000.  Judging from the
results at my school and the relative numbers of that type of school
("Grammar") to the other types ("Secondary Modern" and "Comprehensive"),
I would estimate the number of people with 10 'O'-levels lies around
the 1 in 50 mark.  If you still want to call that "exceptional" I won't
argue, but I would only call it "extremely good" or "well above average".

 > Could it all have been harder in 1973-4 than it is now?

     Educational standards have certainly changed in this country over the
last few decades, but they wouldn't have changed much in the short time
between 1974 and 1980.

 > Or were Kate and the interviewer simply
 > deceiving themselves into thinking it was more impressive than it
 > really was?

     No.  I will accept "impressive", it's only "exceptional" I take
 exception to.

-- Geoff