Saw this earlier today via MSN:

The pupil, who wrote "f--- off" after being asked in an English exam to "describe the room you are sitting in", got 2 marks out of 27 and would have got more if he had added some punctuation, chief examiner Peter Buckroyd told The Times.

Source. (http://news.uk.msn.com/odd-news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=8752974)

What are your thoughts on the matter? Does the pupil deserve anything for failing to answer the question? While 7.5% obviously isn't a pass mark, getting any marks at all seems rather odd to me.

As long as they follow the grading rubric I'm OK with it.

I would say it solely depends on the mark scheme of the paper. If there were marks allocated on the basis of spelling, punctuation and grammar then the examiner would by definition have no choice but to award the student the marks they did as by definition correct under those categories.

The fact the the student completely failed to answer the question and was offensive is completely by-the-by!

According to German grading standards zero points are to be given when there is insufficient performance, and when it is apparent that there are grave deficiencies in even basic knowledge that cannot be expected to be remedied in a reasonable period.

Here we have a refusal to work, which is insufficient performance, and, with the added insult, a bad attitude, both of which require a consequent and immediate response. To give points for an insult for "accurate spelling (of two words) and effective communication" suggests a sarcastic cynic as the teacher.

You can get a G grade in the UK for just turning up to exams in half the cases :wave:

I've answered maths papers in three bases (without using decimal) and have had to recieve marks for working out even if the examiner cannot figure out the answer despite writing:
A0 in hexadecimal (base 16)

My teachers always know if they give me a writing paper I will inevitably go off on a tangent or respond in a variety of colloquial terms. Many appreciate the change of pace from drudged up wikipedia articles though others simply did not understand a brief injection of humour. :shake:

I've also sworn in exams, tests and essays where it has been appropriate, I ensure it is not execcesive and try to ensure grammar and spelling are as accurate as I can manage without external assistance. Otherwise if a question asks for my personal opinion...

I've used some "colourful" language, albeit sparingly, in evaluated work at the post secondary level. Response has been mixed. Once as part of a quote, and as such there was little alternative to the F-bomb, another was making specific reference to identifying the character as a Dung beetle. Only once was I criticized for choice of diction, but I still got a satisfactory result...

I think the question is what the grading scheme was, yes. If we were looking at ability to describe their surroundings, the big egg would be appropriate. If we're looking for sentence structure, spelling, punctuation and the like, some score is deserved. The response is (we presume) properly spelled, it may have even been capitalized, and it did demonstrate proper syntax. No punctuation is a problem, as is the general lack of a response, but it's better than "off f---".

There is always the escape to Dadaist poetry ....

I have marked Alberta Diploma Exams in the past. When grading these papers, which account for 50% of the student's final mark, it is very important that all of the teachers follow the government's rubric as closely as possible to ensure reliability and dependability in the grades awarded.

Therefore, they go through 2 hours worth of training and explanation on the rubric. One thing that always bothers me when I mark these things is that if the student makes ANY mark on the paper, he gets a grade. Even if the student says

"I hate all you ******* teachers and they can all go and **** themselves because they are all ******* ******* who **** animals because they are too ******* pathetic to get any real action"

the kid gets around 3% for writing that refreshing bit of social commentary. It breaks up the monotony, as some people mentioned, but I still think it deserves a zero and a visit from the Brute Squad. But this is the result of liberal agendas that pat kids on the back for remembering to breath and caring oh so very bloody much about the child's self esteem and reminding us all that every opinion is equally valid and that we shouldn't dare to censor these children and their rights to express themselves :rolleyes:

I agree that any attempt to answer the question deserves SOME credit, but with the caveat that the student is actually making an attempt to answer the question. In the example cited, and the one LKD mentions, he is clearly not.

But this is the result of liberal agendas that pat kids on the back for remembering to breath and caring oh so very bloody much about the child's self esteem and reminding us all that every opinion is equally valid and that we shouldn't dare to censor these children and their rights to express themselvesI know it must seem unfathomable to you, but not everything you dislike stems from a "liberal agenda". If you honestly think giving a kid a 7% on an exam for answering a question with a string of profanity that doesn't even address the issue constitutes rewarding him, you either haven't really thought this out or need some remedial math help. 7%, no matter how you slice it, is a failing grade, and for all practical intents and purposes is the exact same thing as receiving a zero. This is not an issue of liberalism vs conservativism (or any other ism for that matter), and casting it as such is really quite silly.

On the contrary, Drew, I have observed Canada's education system (or at least Alberta's) and I lay many of the ills therein directly at the feet of liberals and their yapping about rights without ever talking about the attendant responsibilities. Teachers walk around on eggshells for fear of possibly denting a child's delicate self esteem, and lawsuits and public humiliation await anyone who tries to teach right and wrong in the classroom. Kids who IMHO were rightly punted out of school for defiance, profanity and flagrant violations of highly reasonable rules now smugly walk the halls, knowing that they can freely tell a teacher to **** off and people will flock to their defense and they won't experience any repercussions at all. The higher ups pat themselves on the backs for higher graduation rates without noticing the fact that the diplomas we've given these kids mean nothing -- so much so that some Canadian universities have upped standards and instituted remedial writing courses for these kids (who the teachers were forced to pass despite knowing that the kid had the academic skill of a ball of yarn) to compensate for our lagging standards.

It's a disgrace and I lay it all at the feet of liberal humanism that cares more about "feelings" than actual academic performance.

As for the math, of course it's a failing grade. It's the principle of the thing that burns me up so much -- giving ANYTHING other than a zero for crap like that is a violation of common sense and principle. I know you're a person of principle, surely you can understand that?

It's hard to see this being anything other than a bored marker deciding to have a bit of fun. It's not clear from the link but I think it's safe to say that the 2 marks he did get didn't alter his final grade for all the questions (which would probably be an abysmal fail). If it's an official exam I'd imagine he would only get his grade and not his percentage mark, although that could be different in the UK.

Oh for the days of a negative score!

Teachers walk around on eggshells for fear of possibly denting a child's delicate self esteem, and lawsuits and public humiliation await anyone who tries to teach right and wrong in the classroom.I have yet to see a lawsuit made when a teacher taught kids that they shouldn't lie, cheat or steal.

Kids who IMHO were rightly punted out of school for defiance, profanity and flagrant violations of highly reasonable rules now smugly walk the halls, knowing that they can freely tell a teacher to **** off and people will flock to their defense and they won't experience any repercussions at all.So you are saying that Canada doesn't expel .06-.08% of its students each year for disciplinary problems? Perhaps less students are now expelled than once before, but you over-simplify the situation. Disciplinary standards have been loosened not because of your so-called liberal humanists caring more about "feelings" than academic performance, but more likely stems from administrators caving into the demands of parents of all political stripes threatening to sue if the needs of their children aren't accommodated.

The reasons for a loosening of academic standards - assuming we've had one - are many and complicated. It can't be reduced to a simple sound bite or laid at the feet of any one person or group.

As for the math, of course it's a failing grade. It's the principle of the thing that burns me up so much -- giving ANYTHING other than a zero for crap like that is a violation of common sense and principle. I know you're a person of principle, surely you can understand that?What I understand is that giving a student 7% for writing a string of expletives works as a funny way to deliver a backhanded insult. If you give him a zero, you imply that he didn't do the work. Giving him a single digit score, on the other hand, implies that he failed. I agree with Ragusa that this is really just an example of a hardened cynic having a little fun.

There is also the question of paperwork. I don't know exactly how it works in the UK but in some countries if you don't want to give any points for a paper which (unfortunately) is not blank you have to fill in a report. So I can understand that giving the lowest mark possible can be considered as an option (especially when you consider that the expectations are rather low).

I guess that it's another one of those things that we have to agree to disagree on, Drew. I've taught high school and the things the kids get away with is astonishing -- though perhaps nauseating would be a better word. I lay the blame for that on permissiveness stemming from a misplaced application of secular humanist principles (were those principles applied properly, we'd see fewer problems.)