1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Mutex
Posts: 1491
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Mutex » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:20 am UTC

orthogon wrote:
Soupspoon wrote:A school I passed the other day had a banner proudly proclaiming "(Offted inspectors) passed this school as Good, all across the board!", or words to that effect.

The scale is "Outstanding" (desired), "Very Good" (above average), "Good" ( :| ), "Satisfactory" (not technically failed) and "Inadequate" (oh dear, Special Measures here we come! Please give the retiring headteacher space to clear their head and their desk. And remember to thank any of the teachers you like before term ends, just in case you don't see them again.). Unless they've rejigged things again, recently.

Did they actually misspell "Ofsted"? That would be truly hilarious.

If I'm not mistaken, "Satisfactory" was renamed "Requires Improvement" a couple of years back, without the meaning actually changing. Prior to that I remember reading a brilliant comment piece that said
... "satisfactory", which, in the Kafkaesque world of Ofsted, means "not good enough".


Pseudo-edit: it might have been Stephen Jones's letter.

Huh. The school I went to for 6th form had an Ofsted inspection, and most of the results were "Satisfactory". The letter the school sent out to us explaining the results claimed that "Satisfactory" actually meant "very good indeed".

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:38 pm UTC

As long as your (A-level?) grades ended up Ok. As I'm sure they told you, A… F and U, stand for Awful, Bad, Creditable, Desirable, Excellent, Fantastic and Unparalleled!

rmsgrey
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:13 pm UTC

So are OFSTED grades based on OWLs or vice versa?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:42 pm UTC

Ah, this needs explaining better, obviously, for the sake of the terminally non-British. ;)

Spoiler:
Ofsted grades are grading the school. They (the Office for Standards in Education) are the national regulatory body trying to keep standards up or (at least) level across all playing fields.

As already gone into, they give out 'grades' like "Good" or "Excellent". They actually do this for various subsets of assessment (quality of education, quality of facilities, student behaviour/attitude) and then somehow produce an aggregate grade. Many schools seem to have gone so far as to get a canvas banner printed, to hang upon their security fencing, proclaiming that Such'N'Such Street Nursery School (i.e. Kindergarten) is rated as "Excellent" or Smalltown Comprehensive (==Secondary) is rated as Good (despite all local expectations). Proudly proclaiming "Satisfactory" is rather making a silk purse out of a sow's ear...

(My old Secondary Modern school was, many years later, put into Special Measures, possibly forcibly Academyised, and then merged with another SM from the next town over, to move into a brand new school complex between the two towns and the old, separate buildings demolished. Last I heard.)



OWLs (Ordinary Wizarding Levels?) are a clear equivalent to the UK's mugglish O-Levels (for "Ordinary", officially known as General Certificate of Education: Ordinary Level/GCEs), that JK would have experienced during Secondary education (or the first five years of it, from 11 to 16ish). They were superseded by GCSEs (General Certificate of Secondary Education), but that was some time in thr '80s. Although it was possible to get no O-Levels (or GCSEs), they inhabited the period of (normally) compulsary education, before the choice might be made to get further schooling, go into vocational training or just legally drop off the radar.

After O-Levels, were (and still are) A-Levels. "General Certificate of Education: Advanced Level". For those who choose to pursue them. Typically taken during the 6th and 7th years of Secondary school (where that school maintains a "sixth form", the years often described as "lower sixth" and "upper sixth"), or upon moving on from the Secondary to a Sixth Form College (often just "Townname College", if not something more fancy/inspirational, and context differentiates these from a University College), which gives those two years (or more, or sometimes less, depending on the student's needs, ability to cram, find further courses to interleave, etc) as a proxy for several Secondary establishments that no longer run their own 6th Forms. They also often act as "night school", as well as day-school for Mature Students coming back to Further Education, mixed in or not with the 16-18 year olds...

(JK informed us that ?Nasty Exhausting Wizarding Tests?, N.E.W.T.S., were the 6th/7th year qualification at Hogwarts, I think.)

A-Levels are considered fairly necessary to gain access to University (there's other ways, but it's generally the A-Level grades that tend to be compared and contrasted accordingly, even if there's an additional Entrance Exam asked, e.g. for prestigious Oxbridge undergrad degrees).

CSE:O originally graded 1 (best) to 5 (worst, but tried) and U (ungraded), then transitioned to A-E (best to worst) and U. When GCSEs took over this became A-G+U (same ordering) and later added A* (A-Star) to differentiate the best-of-the-As. They're just this/next year (I think) changing to 9-1 (best to worst, 9 being essentially A*) and... U still. (Database programmers might have prefered zero, or minus one, I suspect...).

A-Levels are A-E (order as above, Awsome to Eek!, not my "Awful to Excellent" joke) and then U (ungraded) or F (fail), depending on the era. There originally was also O ("would have passed if it was an O-Level") that became an N ("Nearly passed), and there's also now A* (as per GCSE, "the better type of A"). AS-Levels ("Advanced Supplementary") are graded 'starlessly' A-E+U, being (typically) one-year sub-set courses that are "not a full A-Level" but can often fit alongside existing studies to show and develop an interest.

As a rule of thumb, grade A (in relevant O-Level/GCSE and A-Level schemes) was always sought for. A* introduced as (through improvement in learning and/or reduction in examination/coursework standards, depending on who you talk to) grade A was too top-loaded with undifferentiatably successful students.

(Getting 9 A* GCSEs is considered remarkable, still,. It may require clever course-scheduling almost entirely in grade-worthy courses for a prospective high-achiever to get nine grades at all, even at full-time Secondary School... Or home-schooling in a hothouse environment, before rolling up at an agreed-upon school running the various exams.)

Getting a C or better was a good guide as to whether one could/should go for A-Levels in the subject, though I don't think Ds or lower disqualified, merely promoted discouragement. Three or four A-Levels was the norm at my 6FC, or 3 A-levels and an AS/redo-O/GCSE (to rectify a gap in Secondary) maybe, with Tertiary education being more part-time ad-hoc, but qualifications more concentrated to a field (Maths at Secondary, Maths with [Statistics|Mechanics|whatever] as A-Level, for example) as well as advanced.

Getting C+ at A-Level is considered a "Pass" (or D-of-below a fail, psychologically at least). When I was going to university (not Oxbridge!), my "offers" tended to ask for things like "two Cs and a D" as a line in the sand for immediate consideration upon getting the results, but open to discussion if one didn't get that. Prominant Oxbridge courses, like Law, probably demanded AAB(B). These days, four A*s might well be the "minimum" request at the top end (and passing supplementary tests, as well), from what I've heard, but I can't say for sure.


I think that is right. They keep messing with the system.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3653
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby rmsgrey » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:32 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:CSE:O originally graded 1 (best) to 5 (worst, but tried) and U (ungraded), then transitioned to A-E (best to worst) and U. When GCSEs took over this became A-G+U (same ordering) and later added A* (A-Star) to differentiate the best-of-the-As. They're just this/next year (I think) changing to 9-1 (best to worst, 9 being essentially A*) and... U still. (Database programmers might have prefered zero, or minus one, I suspect...).

A-Levels are A-E (order as above, Awsome to Eek) and then U (ungraded) or F (fail), depending on the era. There originally was also O ("would have passed if it was an O-Level") that became an N ("Nearly passed), and there's also now A* (as per GCSE, "the better type of A"). AS-Levels ("Advanced Supplementary") are graded 'starlessly' A-E+U, being (typically) one-year sub-set courses that are "not a full A-Level" but can often fit alongside existing studies to show and develop an interest.


A cynic would suggest that the reason for having 9 as the best grade rather than 1 is to make future grade inflation easier to disguise* - and to postpone the inevitable Spinal Tap references.

Until the latest round of reforms, AS-levels were simply half A-levels - the first half of the course - and the AS-level grades contributed to the final result of the corresponding A-level. Over the past few years, A-levels have been phasing over to the new system, with all subjects in England now offering new students the option to sit AS-levels at the end of the first year, but then ignoring those results for students who go on to complete the A-level and basing their final grade entirely on their final round of exams. Elsewhere in the UK, things are different - in Wales, your AS results are 40% of your final grade; I've not found clear information on Northern Ireland (so I'm guessing they're sticking with AS at 50%); and Scotland has always done its own thing (though individual schools there may offer English A-levels).

*Under the current system, the existence of A* grades is a lasting reminder that a new top grade had to be introduced; in the new system, having people getting a grade of "12" in future is only a visible change if you're aware of the historical range of grades available - and is much more palatable than "A****" would be...

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:53 pm UTC

rmsgrey wrote:A cynic would suggest that the reason for having 9 as the best grade rather than 1 is to make future grade inflation easier to disguise*
I very nearly did say that, before distracting myself with the database comment.

*Under the current system, the existence of A* grades is a lasting reminder that a new top grade had to be introduced; in the new system, having people getting a grade of "12" in future is only a visible change if you're aware of the historical range of grades available - and is much more palatable than "A****" would be...

I've long advocated (since the A*s were originally mooted) adding a star to the "best 10% of scorers" (it could be that all A grades were A*, and there are some B*s too). Add a second * for top-1%. And maybe further asterisks for 0.1%, 0.01%, until the step at which less than 10 people, total, would be so granted that final star.

But top 10% of who? Presumably not of all historic results (things change year to year, in both ability and 'ease' of exams), so just that year. But the whole country? There's environmental/regional/societal biases. So maybe use *s for "whole country" result, × for region, + for district, ^ for school, ° for class? The latter wouldn't ever get the rights to more than a single mark, but stating C^^° as a grade might help highlight potential more than an A* (no further marks!) from a much more reputable school.

Well, it was an idea... From a long time ago! ;)

User avatar
ggh
Posts: 1952
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:45 am UTC
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby ggh » Sat Aug 05, 2017 5:43 am UTC

Just saw the movie at a drive-in. Enjoyed it.
Requested a magnet? I'm sorry I'm so super-slow, but you will get it
Agatha the Awesomeful

In a Comically Tragic Turn of Events Addams Didn't Die. Please help. (Wait, does that sound like I want you to kill addams?)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Soupspoon » Sat Aug 05, 2017 11:55 am UTC

ggh wrote:Just saw the movie at a drive-in. Enjoyed it.

Makes me wonder if you ever saw (say) The Fast And The Furious on your phone. For total contrast. ;)

User avatar
ggh
Posts: 1952
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:45 am UTC
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby ggh » Sat Aug 05, 2017 4:41 pm UTC

I'm not 100% sure, but I think I've never seen a movie on a phone.
I have seen several of the Fast and Furious movies though, and liked them.

Formats and circumstances do really affect the enjoyment of some movies, perhaps none moreso than the drive-in (though drunk is at least a close second) so I acknowledge that my review comes with a big asterisk in that regard. :)
I remember once seeing Dean Spanley on an airplane, crying my eyes out, and thinking that that was the perfect film to watch whilst in flight.
Requested a magnet? I'm sorry I'm so super-slow, but you will get it
Agatha the Awesomeful

In a Comically Tragic Turn of Events Addams Didn't Die. Please help. (Wait, does that sound like I want you to kill addams?)

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Weeks » Sat Aug 05, 2017 7:49 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
ggh wrote:Just saw the movie at a drive-in. Enjoyed it.

Makes me wonder if you ever saw (say) The Fast And The Furious on your phone. For total contrast. ;)
CRY.jpg
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 2023
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Weeks » Sat Aug 05, 2017 7:50 pm UTC

Flumble wrote:thonk.png
Image
TaintedDeity wrote:Tainted Deity
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Dthen wrote:FUCK CHRISTMAS FUCK EVERYTHING FUCK YOU TOO FUCK OFF

User avatar
somitomi
Posts: 756
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 11:21 pm UTC
Location: can be found in Hungary
Contact:

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby somitomi » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:20 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
ggh wrote:Just saw the movie at a drive-in. Enjoyed it.

Makes me wonder if you ever saw (say) The Fast And The Furious on your phone. For total contrast. ;)

I think I did that in ski camp once, back in the "non-smartphone" times. Why I did that remains a mystery, perhaps I didn't have anything better to do in that couple hours after the ski-lifts closed but before dinner.
Image
―◯‐◯ FG Discord ◯‐◯―

sportember
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2011 6:03 am UTC

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby sportember » Mon Aug 07, 2017 9:11 am UTC

We urgently need a new programming language where all symbols are emojis.

(Wait, we already got that, that's Lisp, isn't it?)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1870: "Emoji Movie Reviews"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Aug 07, 2017 1:29 pm UTC

(Yes)

But also. And a further quick Google suggests that (amongst other listed places) both emoticon and emoji Esolangs on esolang.org, but I'm getting Site Unreachable at the moment for that domain.

It was inevitable. Just needs some Rule 34 adding to it, and it'd be perfect!


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AluisioASG and 51 guests