It is the 11th of JulyOnce de Julio. A date that seems made especially for nostalgia: remember that time there?
Here, the article that I dream of writing would be this: do you remember the last maturity exam? Do you remember how many discussions the following year, the polemics, the intellectuals who talked about the end of culture, how can we evaluate a person if there is no longer the first written test? Songwriters and directors worried about SIAE’s decline? Hoteliers who were about to reset the season, what do we start from in mid-June? Jurists who discovered that they did not even need to change Article 33, since the state exam could also be moved to the beginning of the subsequent courses, and it was like that for a while, until it was then turned off by itself? And then, all the endless amarcorders, the ninety-year-olds who had done it with all the subjects, I boomers and their version of four, viz millennials who had the nightmare like a wise man…
Ok, I’m still young and confident, I hope I have the opportunity to write it. For the time being, however, we must content ourselves with the fact that this quasi-post-pandemic study is finally gone, an organism stowed away like Borges’s myrmiculus.
Let’s see: 50 points for the three-year curriculum, recalculated ex post on previously recalculated values. 15 at the inevitable first test, happily reappeared to the delight of the Italians, all literary critics, now that there is no training for the national team to do. Only 10 to the second, which is still bi-disciplinary, serious and grim, but it was written and then corrected by those who took you to the exam, and if you fall for it, there will be some doubt. Finally, 25 for the oral to be awarded thanks to a detailed and rigorous ministerial grid.
First observation: if you don’t realize that not reaching 60 is almost impossible, then it is right to have enrolled with 2 in math: todos caballeros and go.
Also, the integer taboo is broken for the first time, introducing half points “to be rounded at the end” (a bad precedent). Plus, of course, the bonus from 0 to 5 points, of which we have already talked about it.
For the novice Sudoku reader, let’s go back to the real verbal grid with some examples. Firstly, it is additive. This means that to get to 25 you can only max out on all six indicators and that seems reasonable. But if you lose just one comma on each, you have lost 3 points and a “near perfect” falls to 22. A candidate from the middle of the table, based on the grid, can even with a non-catastrophic exam fall below 15 , which arithmetically would be equal to 6. Fortunately, in the order there is no minimum threshold for passing, perhaps taking into account the mess with the old tests in the 15th, where the adequacy was set at 10, not 9 … Without going further, let’s look at two hypothetical extreme cases.
Commission A uses the web strictly; beyond 20 it is difficult to climb, acceptable candidates stop between 13 and 16 points, an unsuccessful interview sinks below 10. Difficult to reach 90, very difficult to 100, on the other hand, the famous “silent scene” would still bring home not 1 but 3 points.
If commission B instead decided to assign the points in 25th at its own will and then fill the grid so that the sum returns to the desired value, it would have better distributed scores and none too low. Of course, that would be a serious anomaly, but I only quoted it as a hypothesis: it certainly has never happened in any school, and before the reasoning gets out of hand, it is better to close with the solitaires.
I only know that when I had the chance as a commissioner or president, I would have always opposed the use of additive grids, in favor of others with weighted averages, precisely for these arguments, which a middle school boy should understand. But this year it was there, and it had to be used. In all good faith, I hope that I have not contributed to injustices.
Let’s leave the formalisms and move on to the content: An effective and concise analysis is in the Twitter thread of Prof. Marco Bollettino, Rector of Gramsci di Ivrea, which we can find here. It highlights two relevant points. First of all, that the formula adopted by force majeure last year had made it possible for candidates to do a serious job that many had believed in and put all their skills on. [confermo, da parte mia]. The interview set to “materials“Extended, not just one, allowed the candidates to make more sensible and current arguments without limiting themselves to acrobatics to be able to fall back on the little speech they had prepared by heart: I want to see how the commissioners would have done themselves, including myself, with the present formula Yet the Bulletin insists and confines itself to “one” material the candidate’s reasoning derives from an interpretation that forces and distorts the text of the standard (Legislative Decree 62/2017), which instead requests “to analyze texts, documents, experiences, projects, problems to verify the acquisition of content and the methods, that are specific to the individual disciplines” etc. All in the majority. We had come closer in the emergency situation in 2021.
I have read several opinions about how it went this year, also here Subsidiary. I see a paradox in that. They once said that intelligence is knowing how to learn from experience, that is, from your mistakes. Last year, thanks to Covid, the bureaucratic machine got stuck and proposed a solution that, although improvised, worked quite well. This year, from the happy mistake, they didn’t want to learn anything and fell into the absolute worst version of one format which had already shown its faults. Will we learn something for the future while we wait for the great day when it disappears once and for all?
Or will we hear again the litany of how beautiful and real the “first exam they meet”, the “rite of passage”, the excitement of “being all together” is? we are no longer in 1925 and not even in 1970. All the students who take their education seriously have more or less already taken university entrance exams, language certification exams (those that are much more rigorous and controlled scared me too!), or in at least driving school. Or a job interview. Many have done Erasmus, they have worked in pioneering companies, everyone discusses on social networks with strangers near and far… Is aware that if an exam is serious, it can happen that one in five fails, not one in two hundred.
Probably someone is convinced of the opposite, his defense of the Rite is not just rhetoric, but it makes us think about how he perceives what is outside the school, the strange thing they call world. And that it is so much bigger, more tragic and more beautiful than it seems to be, to sit on the ESC committee so many times.
— — –
We need your input to continue to provide you with quality and independent information.
SUPPORT US. DONATE NOW BY CLICKING HERE
© REPRODUCTION RESERVED