literally a turmoil on the major English newspapers, when it was reported the news that a 16-year old student passed the GCSE (General Certificate of Secondary Examination) with the shocking result of 2/27.
too little? too harsh a correction? how could it be possible that a (supposedly) well-taught adolescent is only able to elaborate on the theme “Describe the room where you are sitting in” up to 2 over 27 points?
FUCK OFF
this was the whole body of his exam essay.
with this important piece of information revealed, the turmoil takes a different, but equally inflamed, turn: why did he not get zero?
a part from the obvious grammatical and synctactic reasons to give a round zero (capital letters? exclamation mark?), there are quite a few of hidden ones: students should not to make use of vulgar language in official and formal situations, should show respect for the established authorities, show comply to the common understanding that the GCSE is an unappropriate arena to test new form of beat-generation language.
why then 2/27 (or the 7.5% of the total score)?
1 because there was at least something written
1 because the sentece was carrying some meaning
1+1 = 2
the corrector added that if only there would have been an exclamation mark, the grade would have skyrocketed to 3.
now, abstracting from the futility of these comments, one may want to wonder whether Mr. Di Pietro will be willing to blame it on his Oxford education if two days ago he referred to Mr. Berlusconi as a “pimp”.
Posted by scratfromscratch 
Posted by scratfromscratch 
scratfromscratch