Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Bad Teachers

I sure hope you're joking.

I'm not complaining about transfer students. I'm complaining about bad teachers, hence the title of this thread.

Just curious, how did the student pass the sight reading section of the tests?

You don't have to pass the sight reading portion of the test. You can fail, fall on your face, during the SR portion of the test, and you'll still "pass" if everything else is okay.

That's pretty stupid. What's the point of including sight-reading then? They need to change that policy. There are too many students that cannot sight-read a note to save their lives.

Not stupid at all. If it's anything like the UK exam boards, it is an exam of many parts, for instance the ABRSM marking scheme is as follows:

Piece 1 30 marks (20)
Piece 2 30 marks (20)
Piece 3 30 marks (20)

Scales and Arpeggios 21 marks (14)
Sight Reading 21 marks (14)
Aural tests 18 marks (12)

Total = 150

Pass = 100
Merit = 120
Distinction = 130

Marks in brackets indicate pass mark, but it is not necessary to achieve this mark in all sections.

The above is true for grades 1 through 8. Diplomas are different - all sections must be passed. If you fail a section, for instance the Quick Study (which replaces sight reading), you can retake just that section at a later date.

So, according to your philosophy, polyphonist, the same should be true of the lower exams, am I correct? After all, it wouldn't make sense to single out sight-reading as being the only part of the exam in which a pass is compulsory.

This would not be a good idea, IMO.

That doesn't even add up to 150...


No - you should have to pass everything. That's my point.

And sight-reading and aural tests (I assume that's dictation) are weighted FAR too little. No wonder so many students are clueless in these two areas.

I think Ben means three pieces add up to 90 points, and each other categories is 20 points, so, it add up to 150 points. 150 is the maximum point you can get and 100 is the passing point.

I think Poly means that even though the passing point is 100, the policy should make it to students should pass in every single category to be pass instead of getting points like this and still pass:

Piece 1--30 points
Piece 2--28 points
Piece 3--28 points
Scales and Arpeggios 20 points
Sight Reading 0 points
Aural tests 0 points

If a student has the above result of total 106, he still pass the test even his sight-reading and aural test are only 0 point. That would be unbalance.

Thanks for the maths Corrected!

So, despite having practised adequately for their exam, a problem on the day with in one section out of six means a little kid doesn't pass their exam?

I'm not sure you'd find too many teachers agreeing with you on that one.

Sight-reading is a compulsory test in that particular board - there are others in which it's not. Trinity, for instance, give you the option to choose Musical Knowledge instead.

Does this invalidate the whole qualification? The QCA people certainly don't think so.

Yes. What is a "problem on the day"?

It should be both, as a matter of fact.

Let me give you an example of that myself!

You post in a piano related forum about exams. And you mix up a number! just out of random, on a Sunday evening!

Someone doesn't mind at all, and figures that it's ok. You mind! So, ok...

According to your thinking if this was a math exam, Ben should be disqualified because he mixed up a couple of numbers and failed to check on his math (or memory). According to me it should be fine and it's fairly obvious that it was a mishap, bound to happen in everyone, anyone and any time.

"Problem of a day"



For the record, the National Scholarship Foundation of Greece has the same system: You are allowed to (slightly) not pass one of the four areas you are examined when trying to get a rich, nice, juicy scholarship!

You are turning this into a fairly large straw man. I assume that the math exam would probably have more than one question. You're acting like I said one should have to do perfectly on everything. I didn't - I said everyone should need to PASS everything. If that means getting better than 67%, I'd say it's pretty generous.

Well, like it or not, it's the system that's been accepted by all the major examination boards (each of which is an extension of the academies) for at least the last few decades. The syllabuses have also been approved by the QCA and others, or at least the ones worth using have.

Anyhow - I, for one, would not like to see a change in the direction you propose, polyphonist. I think it would have a negative impact on both the students and the examination system.

Well, it's not really helpful to know a student's examination credentials right now, because the test is so easy to pass. So what's the point of giving it?

You are making a big assumption there. It's not easy to pass.

A lot of work is required to cover the requirements, and full marks are difficult to achieve.

I take it you're not a teacher?

I'm not a teacher involved with this examination system, no.

Maybe a lot of work is required to cover the requirements, but from what you've told me, it's not even necessary to cover the requirements. And we're not talking about full marks; we're talking about just not failing.

So you have no experience entering students for practical music exams?

Anyway, my comment about full marks was a lazy way of trying to communicate that in each section of the exam, marks are likely to be lost. It is amazing how easily this can bring the overall mark down to something pretty average, or even borderline.

The "pass" marks given for each section are for guidance only. The exam is taken as a whole.

Therefore, if someone has a dodgy sight-reading on the day, or maybe gets everything pretty good (including your precious sight-reading test) but has a wobbler on one of the pieces, they can still pass. This does not make it "easy" - it simply means that there is more than one way to achieve a certain result in a practical music exam.

And I don't like that way of running it. Who cares if you have a "wobbler," or whatever? You get to take the test again. The way they should run it: You need to achieve a certain (fairly high) score on EACH PART OF THE TEST SEPARATELY. Then, if you pass each section separately, you pass the whole test. If you fail one of the sections, you have to retake the whole test. That's the way it should work. That's what will pass more well-rounded musicians, and fail the incompetent ones, rather than just trying to get everyone through.

I'm about finished with this argument.

Well, since you're not a music teacher involved in the system...