Nat 5 is the most basic formal exam., sat by pupils in Scotland in their fourth year of secondary school, aged 15 or 16. The exams sat a year later, Highers, are the ones that count for university admission.
I think GCSE is taken at a similar age / stage in England.
Thanks to you both. A very different system to what we have in the US, such that I really can’t think of an apt comparison to anything here. I imagine that’s one reason I have such a hard time remembering the meaning and significance of these terms.
I had a quick google, the good schools guide - offering advice for people swapping between systems - suggests that five GCSEs above c grade or current numeric grading, is very roughly equivalent to a high school diploma but not the AP bit of the high school graduation ?
I had a quick google, the good schools guide - offering advice for people swapping between systems - suggests that five GCSEs above c grade or current numeric grading, is very roughly equivalent to a high school diploma but not the AP bit of the high school graduation ?
Ah, that I can make a rough translation with. Thanks!
I had a quick google, the good schools guide - offering advice for people swapping between systems - suggests that five GCSEs above c grade or current numeric grading, is very roughly equivalent to a high school diploma but not the AP bit of the high school graduation ?
That sounds like it might be about right. AP being roughly equivalent to A-Level or Higher / Advanced Higher. Though in functional terms (as a basic employment requirement, for example) those 5 would be expected to include English & Maths.
When I was a gel (which is some time ago now) GCSE = O (ordinary) Levels, taken at age 16, after which you could leave school. Otherwise you stayed on to take A (advanced) level subjects with a view to getting university qualifying grades. This took 2 years, so you left school at 18. Later on there developed the idea of the Gap Year in which you hitch hiked round Latin America or whatever before taking up your uni place.
However, not in my day - I think I spent the summer between school and university doing filing in an office somewhere.
However, not in my day - I think I spent the summer between school and university doing filing in an office somewhere.
"Gap Yahs" have been around for a while for those who can afford them. My summer before university was mostly piecemeal temping in factories, the odd shift in a parcel warehouse and a couple in a hospital kitchen.
Gap years are becoming less fashionable in some specialisms - my older son’s engineering cohort tend to have a year in industry mid-course instead.
( my whole first degree was done part time whilst working full time as a nurse, except the last year when I studied while nursing a new born baby instead 😜).
When I was a gel (which is some time ago now) GCSE = O (ordinary) Levels, taken at age 16, after which you could leave school.
To be even more specific.
GCE - General Certificate of Education was the old 'O' Level taken at 15 or 16 (graded A down to E, with U for ungraded). If you got about five plus 'good' O Levels, you might be able to consider staying on at sixth form to take Advanced Levels (A Levels), and thereafter University, if you wanted.
CSE - Was the reputedly less difficult Certificate of Secondary Education, graded 1-5, I think? Many pupils who went down the O Level route wouldn't be bothered with CSEs; but some schools did the 'double entry' thing of having pupils do both GCEs and CSEs. A mark of Grade 1 at CSE was regarded as a Pass at O Level. But even at schools where CSEs were the main examination element, it was anedcotal amongst the kids that a raft of CSEs was barely worth spit, over and against a couple or three decent O Levels. I don't think that was true, but there was a fair amount of snobbery over what kind of examinations different schools majored in. The schools that took in pupils who passed their 11 Plus were usually O Level only orientated, leaving the lowly CSE to Secondary schools who took the 11 Plus rejects.
That's why there was a stink when the Education Boards appeared to merge the GCE with the CSE, talk of dumbing it down, or losing some of the academic rigour. But there was, I think, a greater emphasis on coursework which meant that five years of studying hard at a subject couldn't be toileted by three hours of a one-off bad exam experience. I'd left school a couple of years prior to the introduction of GSCEs, so was a bit gutted at the thought that I could've had a better resume!
Though, I don't understand why it would be expected that conversation in a pub would change to English if someone who doesn't speak the local language came in. It's not as though anyone would expect to be included in the conversations of groups of people they don't know.
Depends on the pub. Are you going in to a pub with groups of people chatting at tables, or are you taking a perch at the bar? There are plenty of pubs where you can walk in, take a seat at the bar, and join in whatever conversation is going on.
But I wouldn't expect to walk in to a bar in, let's say, Copenhagen, and have everyone switch to English to accommodate me, even though pretty much everyone in a random Copenhagen bar speaks at least reasonable English. The difference is that many English speakers just assume that everyone in the UK has English as a first language, and thinks they're speaking "something else" in order to be awkward.
Just a quick note re O-levels etc. My understanding is that, when GCSEs came in, there wasn't supposed to be a "pass mark", just a succession of grades from A downwards, i.e. you'd say, "I have three GCSEs at Grade B, one at Grade C and one at Grade E". Of course what quickly happened it that employers and others started regarding a C Grade as the "pass level" and this thinking has stuck.
Just a quick note re O-levels etc. My understanding is that, when GCSEs came in, there wasn't supposed to be a "pass mark", just a succession of grades from A downwards, i.e. you'd say, "I have three GCSEs at Grade B, one at Grade C and one at Grade E". Of course what quickly happened it that employers and others started regarding a C Grade as the "pass level" and this thinking has stuck.
Indeed. And the govt. uses the code "Good passes" - grade 4+ - which is interpreted widely as simply "passes".
Given that the "pass", O level C, CSE 1, GCSE 4 was the attainment level expected of Grammar School (top 10% ish) and top of Secondary Modern, so perhaps 15-25% of pupils. Now it's expected of all of them. It's quite a stressor for the less academic.
Just a quick note re O-levels etc. My understanding is that, when GCSEs came in, there wasn't supposed to be a "pass mark", just a succession of grades from A downwards, i.e. you'd say, "I have three GCSEs at Grade B, one at Grade C and one at Grade E". Of course what quickly happened it that employers and others started regarding a C Grade as the "pass level" and this thinking has stuck.
Yeah - I remember a whole load of language in the early days of GCSE about how having studied let's say Chemistry for two years and getting a grade E was still some level of accomplishment, and you'd like to distinguish between that person and per person who has never studied Chemistry.
I've never been convinced that that was useful at all.
To my mind, the usefulness of some kind of qualification or other is to say that this person has some particular competence, and "my body spent two years in a classroom, then I took a test and got most of the questions wrong" doesn't actually tell me anything about what that person can do. It tells me that they're pretty bad at Chemistry, but it's far more useful for me to know what someone actually can do, rather than what they can't do.
Meantime I don't see Sassenach as an insult. I quite accept ,as Leorning Cniht has said , that offence might be taken by usage rather than by etymology but one might just as easily use the word 'English' as an insult. It depends how one says a word. There can be times when one can indicate by the tone of voice that the word is meant to be insulting
Is it an insult to call someone a 'scouser' (from Liverpool) or a 'Geordie' (from Newcastle) ?
Some people would be proud to be recognised as 'scousers' or as 'Geordies'
If a Gaelic speaker uses the word 'Sassenach' then they are just speaking of the 'English' or even' speakers of English'
Alba is the Gaelic word for Scotland (Albannach = a Scot) but it refers originally to the islands where there were the white cliffs (of Dover). From Alba we have 'Albion' which means the 'large Alba' and a word which is accepted by many English people.
The French will sometimes use the term' Albion perfide' or 'perfidious Albion'
Now that is an insult !
If a Gaelic speaker uses the word 'Sassenach' then they are just speaking of the 'English' or even' speakers of English'
I think I'd argue that there's a difference of context between using the word Sasannach in Gaelic, and the word Sassenach in English.
Or in Scots for that matter. I think the spelling is incidental, but I agree that the usage is very different in Gaelic from what it is in, well, beurla shassanach (the language of the English).
In every exchange of words the speaker should indeed think upon the impact of the words used on the listener, is if one is thinking of a courteous exchange of words.
On the other hand the listener should be asking if the speaker was meaning the words used as an insult or not. If the words are not being directed at the listener as an insult then there is no need for the listener immediately to consider that the words used constitute an offence.
A good number of years ago I was part of a team of people charged with taking visitors around the then new Scottish Parliament building. We had a special linguistic expert brought up from London to tell us what words NOT to use when addressing the visitors.
I remember that we were on no account to use 'Ladies and Gentlemen' as 'lady' seemed to be a term of abuse down in London and not every male would want to be classified as a 'gentleman' In the end our expert came down on the term 'folks' as the ideal term which would, according to her, not cause offence to anyone. Personally I found that term a bit 'folksy'
That reminds me of holidays in Europe where waiters have for some reason addressed my wife as "lady." As in putting a plate down in front of her and saying "For you, lady."
At the Dublin World SF Convention, they got round the "ladies and gentlemen" conundrum by saying "Honoured guests" - which I think is a bit better than "folks".
That reminds me of holidays in Europe where waiters have for some reason addressed my wife as "lady." As in putting a plate down in front of her and saying "For you, lady."
Almost certainly a literal translation from their native language
Some translations of the Bible story of the Wedding at Cana have Jesus addressing his Blessed Mother as *Lady*, rather than *Woman* (as per the Authorised Version), which sounds rather less brusque...
If a Gaelic speaker uses the word 'Sassenach' then they are just speaking of the 'English' or even' speakers of English'
I think I'd argue that there's a difference of context between using the word Sasannach in Gaelic, and the word Sassenach in English.
I'd agree. I've described my lovely son-in-law as a Sassanach to a Gaelic speaker; I would never describe him as a Sassanach to a monoglot English speaker.
It's a bit like the thing of describing Scots as Scotch; Scotch should refer only to dogs, pies and whisky, not people. But there's no point in assuming that anyone using "Scotch" is being deliberately rude, it's just a quirk of language that a lot of people outwith Scotland don't know.
Some translations of the Bible story of the Wedding at Cana have Jesus addressing his Blessed Mother as *Lady*, rather than *Woman* (as per the Authorised Version), which sounds rather less brusque...
I was only thinking the other day, when I was young it was considered rude to call a woman a woman - she was a 'lady'.
Now it is (often) considered patronising (and therefore rude) to call a woman a lady. She is a woman. Hence, for example, Manchester City Ladies FC was changed to Manchester City Women FC.
These are the perils of growing old in changing times.
reminds me of when ( aged 6 or 7) I asked my father what was the difference between a woman and a lady. He replied that a lady would not be seen in public with curlers in her hair ( late 1950s)
It's a bit like the thing of describing Scots as Scotch; Scotch should refer only to dogs, pies and whisky, not people. But there's no point in assuming that anyone using "Scotch" is being deliberately rude, it's just a quirk of language that a lot of people outwith Scotland don't know.
I think it's also an archais, for instance the "Flying Scotsman" train, back in the Victorian era, was known as the "Special Scotch Express".
scotch' is in Belgium a type of beer. A 'weegie' friend of mine (Glaswegian) many years ago was attracted by the price of 'scotch' in a Belgian bar but disappointed when his drink arrived to discover that it was not whisky.
I think some of us still use the word "lady" In one of Rhys Bowen's novels, there is a lovely statement that "if a princess is a good girl, she will grow up to be a lady". Amen!
scotch' is in Belgium a type of beer. A 'weegie' friend of mine (Glaswegian) many years ago was attracted by the price of 'scotch' in a Belgian bar but disappointed when his drink arrived to discover that it was not whisky.
Ah, but how much more of it (by volume) he must have got!
In the end our expert came down on the term 'folks' as the ideal term which would, according to her, not cause offence to anyone. Personally I found that term a bit 'folksy'
There are precisely zero terms at which someone won't take umbrage. "Ladies and Gentlemen", of course, excludes those who identify as neither ladies nor gentlemen. Other terms tend to be read by some people as too informal and lacking politeness, or by others as too fussy, or hoity-toity, or whatever.
For a long time, "Ladies and Gentlemen" had the benefit of being the generally-accepted default, so many people who were inclined to take individual offence at being referred to as a "lady" or "gentleman" would accept it as a group address. But now we have rejected it for excluding non-binary people, there isn't a default any more - every form of address looks like a choice, and someone will get upset with it.
I think that some people these days consider 'guys' to cover all the bases.
Some do, and some read it as exclusively male. It's pretty informal whichever way you read it. "Folks" is usually my informal go-to.
Everybody / everyone / "you are all welcome" etc. are I think a couple of notches more formal than "folks" (or "guys"), but less formal than "Ladies and Gentlemen". I don't think there is a non-binary inclusive honorific that has the same level of formality as "Ladies and Gentlemen". In some contexts, you can get away with something like "honoured guests" or "distinguished guests", but those sorts of constructions are less generally applicable.
Hello,
Just a reminder that there are non binary people here and posting - so if you're not non-binary please listen to what non binary folk have to say and please do seek out things written elsewhere by non binary people for information - and yes any discussion of non binary or genderqueer identities would indeed need a new thread.
In the end our expert came down on the term 'folks' as the ideal term which would, according to her, not cause offence to anyone. Personally I found that term a bit 'folksy'
There are precisely zero terms at which someone won't take umbrage. "Ladies and Gentlemen", of course, excludes those who identify as neither ladies nor gentlemen. Other terms tend to be read by some people as too informal and lacking politeness, or by others as too fussy, or hoity-toity, or whatever.
For a long time, "Ladies and Gentlemen" had the benefit of being the generally-accepted default, so many people who were inclined to take individual offence at being referred to as a "lady" or "gentleman" would accept it as a group address. But now we have rejected it for excluding non-binary people, there isn't a default any more - every form of address looks like a choice, and someone will get upset with it.
Perhaps over time a new default will develop.
How about "everyone" As in "Hello everyone, would you take your seats"
Comments
I think GCSE is taken at a similar age / stage in England.
That sounds like it might be about right. AP being roughly equivalent to A-Level or Higher / Advanced Higher. Though in functional terms (as a basic employment requirement, for example) those 5 would be expected to include English & Maths.
However, not in my day - I think I spent the summer between school and university doing filing in an office somewhere.
"Gap Yahs" have been around for a while for those who can afford them. My summer before university was mostly piecemeal temping in factories, the odd shift in a parcel warehouse and a couple in a hospital kitchen.
( my whole first degree was done part time whilst working full time as a nurse, except the last year when I studied while nursing a new born baby instead 😜).
Always seemed more an arts/humanities thing to me. STEM students were advised against it for fear of maths skills going rusty.
To be even more specific.
GCE - General Certificate of Education was the old 'O' Level taken at 15 or 16 (graded A down to E, with U for ungraded). If you got about five plus 'good' O Levels, you might be able to consider staying on at sixth form to take Advanced Levels (A Levels), and thereafter University, if you wanted.
CSE - Was the reputedly less difficult Certificate of Secondary Education, graded 1-5, I think? Many pupils who went down the O Level route wouldn't be bothered with CSEs; but some schools did the 'double entry' thing of having pupils do both GCEs and CSEs. A mark of Grade 1 at CSE was regarded as a Pass at O Level. But even at schools where CSEs were the main examination element, it was anedcotal amongst the kids that a raft of CSEs was barely worth spit, over and against a couple or three decent O Levels. I don't think that was true, but there was a fair amount of snobbery over what kind of examinations different schools majored in. The schools that took in pupils who passed their 11 Plus were usually O Level only orientated, leaving the lowly CSE to Secondary schools who took the 11 Plus rejects.
That's why there was a stink when the Education Boards appeared to merge the GCE with the CSE, talk of dumbing it down, or losing some of the academic rigour. But there was, I think, a greater emphasis on coursework which meant that five years of studying hard at a subject couldn't be toileted by three hours of a one-off bad exam experience. I'd left school a couple of years prior to the introduction of GSCEs, so was a bit gutted at the thought that I could've had a better resume!
Offense is generally determined by usage, not by etymology.
Depends on the pub. Are you going in to a pub with groups of people chatting at tables, or are you taking a perch at the bar? There are plenty of pubs where you can walk in, take a seat at the bar, and join in whatever conversation is going on.
But I wouldn't expect to walk in to a bar in, let's say, Copenhagen, and have everyone switch to English to accommodate me, even though pretty much everyone in a random Copenhagen bar speaks at least reasonable English. The difference is that many English speakers just assume that everyone in the UK has English as a first language, and thinks they're speaking "something else" in order to be awkward.
Indeed. And the govt. uses the code "Good passes" - grade 4+ - which is interpreted widely as simply "passes".
Given that the "pass", O level C, CSE 1, GCSE 4 was the attainment level expected of Grammar School (top 10% ish) and top of Secondary Modern, so perhaps 15-25% of pupils. Now it's expected of all of them. It's quite a stressor for the less academic.
Yeah - I remember a whole load of language in the early days of GCSE about how having studied let's say Chemistry for two years and getting a grade E was still some level of accomplishment, and you'd like to distinguish between that person and per person who has never studied Chemistry.
I've never been convinced that that was useful at all.
To my mind, the usefulness of some kind of qualification or other is to say that this person has some particular competence, and "my body spent two years in a classroom, then I took a test and got most of the questions wrong" doesn't actually tell me anything about what that person can do. It tells me that they're pretty bad at Chemistry, but it's far more useful for me to know what someone actually can do, rather than what they can't do.
Doublethink (Temporary Hosting)
Is it an insult to call someone a 'scouser' (from Liverpool) or a 'Geordie' (from Newcastle) ?
Some people would be proud to be recognised as 'scousers' or as 'Geordies'
If a Gaelic speaker uses the word 'Sassenach' then they are just speaking of the 'English' or even' speakers of English'
Alba is the Gaelic word for Scotland (Albannach = a Scot) but it refers originally to the islands where there were the white cliffs (of Dover). From Alba we have 'Albion' which means the 'large Alba' and a word which is accepted by many English people.
The French will sometimes use the term' Albion perfide' or 'perfidious Albion'
Now that is an insult !
I think I'd argue that there's a difference of context between using the word Sasannach in Gaelic, and the word Sassenach in English.
Or in Scots for that matter. I think the spelling is incidental, but I agree that the usage is very different in Gaelic from what it is in, well, beurla shassanach (the language of the English).
On the other hand the listener should be asking if the speaker was meaning the words used as an insult or not. If the words are not being directed at the listener as an insult then there is no need for the listener immediately to consider that the words used constitute an offence.
A good number of years ago I was part of a team of people charged with taking visitors around the then new Scottish Parliament building. We had a special linguistic expert brought up from London to tell us what words NOT to use when addressing the visitors.
I remember that we were on no account to use 'Ladies and Gentlemen' as 'lady' seemed to be a term of abuse down in London and not every male would want to be classified as a 'gentleman' In the end our expert came down on the term 'folks' as the ideal term which would, according to her, not cause offence to anyone. Personally I found that term a bit 'folksy'
Almost certainly a literal translation from their native language
I'd agree. I've described my lovely son-in-law as a Sassanach to a Gaelic speaker; I would never describe him as a Sassanach to a monoglot English speaker.
It's a bit like the thing of describing Scots as Scotch; Scotch should refer only to dogs, pies and whisky, not people. But there's no point in assuming that anyone using "Scotch" is being deliberately rude, it's just a quirk of language that a lot of people outwith Scotland don't know.
I was only thinking the other day, when I was young it was considered rude to call a woman a woman - she was a 'lady'.
Now it is (often) considered patronising (and therefore rude) to call a woman a lady. She is a woman. Hence, for example, Manchester City Ladies FC was changed to Manchester City Women FC.
These are the perils of growing old in changing times.
reminds me of when ( aged 6 or 7) I asked my father what was the difference between a woman and a lady. He replied that a lady would not be seen in public with curlers in her hair ( late 1950s)
Ah, but how much more of it (by volume) he must have got!
There are precisely zero terms at which someone won't take umbrage. "Ladies and Gentlemen", of course, excludes those who identify as neither ladies nor gentlemen. Other terms tend to be read by some people as too informal and lacking politeness, or by others as too fussy, or hoity-toity, or whatever.
For a long time, "Ladies and Gentlemen" had the benefit of being the generally-accepted default, so many people who were inclined to take individual offence at being referred to as a "lady" or "gentleman" would accept it as a group address. But now we have rejected it for excluding non-binary people, there isn't a default any more - every form of address looks like a choice, and someone will get upset with it.
Perhaps over time a new default will develop.
Welcome everybody, we are here to talk about x, y, z etc. would be my preferred inclusive option I think.
I think that some people these days consider 'guys' to cover all the bases.
My preferred option would be 'good morning,everyone ,and welcome !'
And might we not say that non binary individuals are both 'ladies and gentlemen' ?
No.
Some do, and some read it as exclusively male. It's pretty informal whichever way you read it. "Folks" is usually my informal go-to.
Everybody / everyone / "you are all welcome" etc. are I think a couple of notches more formal than "folks" (or "guys"), but less formal than "Ladies and Gentlemen". I don't think there is a non-binary inclusive honorific that has the same level of formality as "Ladies and Gentlemen". In some contexts, you can get away with something like "honoured guests" or "distinguished guests", but those sorts of constructions are less generally applicable.
Yes, apologies for the typo.
No. But I think we maybe straying into a topic that really deserves its own thread.
Just a reminder that there are non binary people here and posting - so if you're not non-binary please listen to what non binary folk have to say and please do seek out things written elsewhere by non binary people for information - and yes any discussion of non binary or genderqueer identities would indeed need a new thread.
Thanks very much!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
How about "everyone" As in "Hello everyone, would you take your seats"