[T Nagler]

*Please read this or at least skimm it*

I do A level PE (don't laugh!) and for the A2 part of the course the school gave us the option of being assessed on the sport of our choice in place of the research project we had to do last year, and to my delight this includes climbing!

My PE teacher read out the criteria we were going to be assessed by for everybody's own individual sports.  Hockey includes tests of: fitness and recovery, specific skills (reverse stick shot etc.), and match performance. As does football. And swimming includes time trails, and technical assessment as well as fitness tests.

What was climbing going to include? Climb F7b+? E5? V9?

NO! The criteria assesses: rope coiling skills, the ability to set up about 20 types of anchor, hold a leader fall, CARE FOR YOUR ENVIROMENT (!), THE HISTORY OF ROCK CLIMBING (!), SETTING UP (AND USING) TOP ROPES, ABSAILING, PUTING ON A HARNESS.... :evil:  The other confounding thing is that you have to have completed a 12 week personal exercise plan in preparation (not a problem as designing and completing this is a coursework), and yet they don't test you physically at all! The nearest they come to doing so is the (small) "use various techniques to overcome climbs of varying difficulty" section.

Who set these criteria! Some rambler / bumbley from cocktalk who happened to read a neil greshem article on the bog?!  There is no other explanation other than that this person is completely unaware of the change in the world-climbing scene over the last 15-20 years! Its nothing to do with the BMC's don't '...actively promote climbing' policy designed to preserve crags and access issues, because this IS actively promoting climbing, and on real rock, and some criteria requires you to top rope and abseil! It's certainly not a safety/liability issue (ha)!

I'm not going to stand for it I'm afraid, I live in London, I cant drive, and when I actually can get to some good rock I'm not going to waste my time faffing around setting up belays and stuff when I could be bouldering/ sport climbing/ DWSing or anything really. So Id have to make journey up to sheff to practice this shit and not climb, while being scowled at (and 'politely' informed) for setting up abseils and top ropes everywhere! At a time when I have lots of revision, coursework, and I have to choose which uni and which course to do, and apply.

PLEASE RESPOND! I will be contacting the exam board! Even if its just 'yeh that's shit', or even better if you have something to add!  I will be using useful posts to back me up! This will help not just me but also future PE students, AND IT WILL HELP TO SOME DEGREE REDUCE THE PERCEPTION THAT US CLIMBERS JUST WALK UP HILLS AND HAVE ACCIDENTS!

[T Nagler]

Cheers, Trev

[T Nagler]

please reply  :puppy:  :crying: this topic has been viewed 30 times now!

[squeek]

yeh that's shit.  At least you can still go do some proper climbing when you're not being assessed, and it still beats swimming in your pyjamas.

[T Nagler]

Cheers for the support!

still beats swimming in your pyjamas

Thats the thing, at A level the assesment for most sports is good, the swimming one involves racing, time trails etc. no swimming in pajamas!

[vivahate]

i assume you do other sports so why don't you do your assessment in something else. I guess its shite because noone does A level PE to rockclimb, they generally do it because they do "school" sports. What is someone who's mainly interested in footy, hockey, netball, cricket and rugby going to know about setting criteria for climbing assessment. Climbing training is also in its scientific infantry, and that lack of knowledge about academically supported training techniques is another reason why they might not be in your syllabus.

its a shit situation and it'd be cool as fuck if you could do all these systems board training, hypergravity training things in school, but it'll be ok, this time next year you'll be able to climb all the time

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

Hating to sound old and boring, but aren't there 'access' issues here? ie. its probably written so you can do the whole thing indoors so as not a exclude students who can't access any rock at all. Football, hockey and the like don't need any 'special' area other than a field/gym. Won't the exam board be done for equal opportunites if they say Rock climbing A-level, but only for people who live within a 15mile radius of a nice safe BMC approved top-roping venue? (Downhill racer anyone?)

Meanwhile, not wanting to sound even older...but don't get too worked up at it. What do you plan to do with it anyway? You don't need a A-level to do a SPSA  (or whatever it is called now..) or an MIA (don't quote me on this) just  a shed load of climbing experience.

An A-level in Rockclimbing (PE whatever) is at best going to get a few smiles, and at worse get you laughed out of the climbing wall. Personally as you are based in London, I'd take an easier option and stick to your own climbing when you do get the chance to touch real rock.

Now at risk of sounding older than ever  :oldgit: even though they are damn hard when you are doing them, once you are into Uni/college/job etc, A-levels don't matter for shit. No-one will ever ask what you did/what you got again, except for novelty value...which should be the only reason to do an A-level in climbing...but not enough reason to get upset about it.

[T Nagler]

Cheers for your replies

Obi-wan: "An A-level in Rock climbing (PE whatever) is at best going to get a few smiles, and at worse get you laughed out of the climbing wall. Personally as you are based in London, I'd take an easier option and stick to your own climbing when you do get the chance to touch real rock."

It gets me UCAS points which should help me get into a good uni.  PE actually has a worse reputation than it deserves, quite a few meat-heads start the AS, but from my year only 3 made it from the AS to A2 (inc. myself)!  I do biology as well and can honestly say that the biology that crosses over (Krebs cycle, glycolysis, link reaction, energy systems, biological responses during exercise, cardio vascular system, lungs, nervous system....) is covered in quite a bit more detail in PE than it is in bio!

There are no equal opportunities here, it specifies using natural protection! Sports like rowing aren't exactly available to everybody, but most people who row will live near a stretch of water. This is the same for most sports so I suppose it's easy for someone who is (very!) out of touch with the scene to over look this. :roll: This post will probably be useful, cheers.

vivahate: Unfortunately I don't do any other sports to anywhere near the level I climb anymore, I used to when I was younger, but only mainly to regional standard. I did ski nationally, but I haven't done that since I was 13!

I'm told that climbers do work for the exam board, and I have also done some course work on it, which I'm told can be marked. It definitely IS on the syllabus, its just very poorly represented!

The school its self dose what it can, it recently purchased a grip strength Dynomiter (sp) (but it tests isotonic not isometric strength :roll: ) and when I went circuit training with the football team last we did a more upper body orientated circuit on my account.  It's just the exam board.

Again, thanks for the reply!

[T Nagler]

Sorry about that double posting bubba. It was an accident at first, then after putting it in the STS forum I became undecided as to where it should go: its not news and its not shit :?  

I know now though, wont happen again!

[T Nagler]

Moo- Thanks for your post, this certenly appears to be the case.  Although, its unclear as to wether this is deliberate or just the result of employing out of touch staff.

[LucyB]

It's probably fair enough that it concentrates mostly on the safety aspects for climbing, as you are fairly unlikely to kill your training partner if you fuck up playing football, for example. Climbing is primarily an outdoor 'adventure' sport, with serious consequences if you don't know the basics of 'safe' roped climbing. Everyone on this site is obviously mainly motivated by bouldering, as I am (the clues in the name!), but this is quite a new (and minority) aspect of a minority sport.

[T Nagler]

Hmm, Id very much beg to differ about bouldering being a minority aspect, especially in Britain. If you include indoor boulderers then there are probably as many boulderers as trad climbers if not more, and certainly many more than sport climbers.  Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't trad in the minority worldwide?

Climbing is traditionally an adventure sport but with bouldering, sport and indoor competitions well established, it seems odd that their isn't even an option to be assessed in this aria.  Especially as the subject is PE (PHYSICAL education). If it doesn't assess you physically then why is it on the syllabus?

Besides, as far as I can make out there is no actual trad climbing, just setting up anchors!  If trad climbing was involved then surely there should be a physical assessment too, no amount of gear placement technique and rope coiling skills is going to get you up equilibrium!

Rowing is another sport on the syllabus and there is no criteria for safety there, and I would have thought that there was plenty of potential for danger there also.

[LucyB]

Yeah but, no but, yeah but.....

I think it is a minority sport in terms of the general public - most people have an reasonable idea of 'rock climbing' ie they know it involves ropes and stuff but they don't really have a concept of the physical aspects ie grades etc. A lot of people, when they find out that I climb ask 'so what's the biggest thing you've climbed then?' which is kind of an irrelevant question for an ex-routing boulderer.

Also, quite apart from the never ending debate about which grading system to use (what would you expect the exam board to use?) and the debate about how hard actual problems are, even indoors - would Percy's crazy grades be equivalent to climbing walls in London? How would the Matrix's use of 'easy, medium, hard, v. hard' combined with vague English technical grades be able to quantify specific aims or goals for a course such as yours? How would you define what level a person should climb at in order to pass? The levels (grades) of what people climb, particularly boulder, seem to be going up all the time. I've been competing for about 5 years now at national and international level (bouldering) and the levels in this country have increased incredibly over that period of time. I've got loads better in line with that, but the youngsters coming up whip my ass!

I agree that the criteria about anchors and stuff seems a bit naff, although necessary if you do climb routes. What would you suggest should be tested on your syllabus instead though?
Interesting thought, is there any way you could use a discussion of that for another piece of coursework - how you could define the criteria of 'success' in climbing?

[dave]

Hmm, Id very much beg to differ about bouldering being a minority aspect, especially in Britain. If you include indoor boulderers then there are probably as many boulderers as trad climbers if not more,

depends. if you get dived everyone up into "people who do some bouldering" and "people who only do trad" then yeah there probably are as many. However is you divide it into "people who only boulder" and "people who do some trad" then you're looking at a much small population who only boulder to the exclusion of everything else.

I can think of very few if any people who i know who exclusivley boulder, and basically none who have never done trad. and i'm not talking about punters neither in either discipline. you can't divide the UK climbers up into bouldering or trad, and theres a massive overlap.

so yes, bouldering is very much a minority facet of climbing in the UK.

P.S. if by "indoor boulderers" you mean someone who NEVER climbs outside, then i'd not consider them climbers.
 :saythat:

[AndyR]

Have to say, I think 'caring for your environment' and general ropework would be pretty central to being a rock climber in the UK (or Ireland) these days.  Also don't think there's too much wrong with learning a bit about the history of the pastime as well - you may be well informed and know much of what there is to learn about rock climbing in the UK, but many of the people taking that option might be virtual beginners and *need* to know that stuff.

I'd take the easy stroll through a mickey mouse A level if I were you

[T Nagler]

Hmm, Id very much beg to differ about bouldering being a minority aspect, especially in Britain. If you include indoor boulderers then there are probably as many boulderers as trad climbers if not more,

depends. if you get dived everyone up into "people who do some bouldering" and "people who only do trad" then yeah there probably are as many. However is you divide it into "people who only boulder" and "people who do some trad" then you're looking at a much small population who only boulder to the exclusion of everything else.

I can think of very few if any people who i know who exclusivley boulder, and basically none who have never done trad. and i'm not talking about punters neither in either discipline. you can't divide the UK climbers up into bouldering or trad, and theres a massive overlap.

Of course their is an overlap, but to me (a Londoner that travels when I can) bouldering seems at least as popular as trad if you divide it into how many people: mainly climb trad and do a bit of bouldering, and how many people mainly boulder and do a bit of trad. I don't know anybody that exclusively does trad, but I know plenty that exclusively boulders. Its got to be more popular than sport climbing?

so yes, bouldering is very much a minority facet of climbing in the UK.

Dosn't seem that way to me, but you may be right.

P.S. if by "indoor boulderers" you mean someone who NEVER climbs outside, then i'd not consider them climbers.
 :saythat:

I mean people who mainly boulder indoors, whether or not people who only boulder indoors are climbers is a different debate.

[T Nagler]

yes, but no but....

I think it is a minority sport in terms of the general public

Of course it is a minority sport in terms of the general public, I was talking about bouldering in relation to trad.  Sport and comps are more in the minority, but they certainly aren't negligible!

- most people have an reasonable idea of 'rock climbing' ie they know it involves ropes and stuff but they don't really have a concept of the physical aspects ie grades etc. A lot of people, when they find out that I climb ask 'so what's the biggest thing you've climbed then?' which is kind of an irrelevant question for an ex-routing boulderer.

Do you call that a reasonable idea?  Most people don't know that it's at all physical (i.e. they think that once you have learnt the basics everybody climbs to the same standard).  They think it's pointless and dangerous, and that were stupid for doing it!

Also, quite apart from the never ending debate about which grading system to use (what would you expect the exam board to use?)

Doesn't matter really for bouldering, most are comparable (i.e. V9 translates roughly to eaysyish 7C), sport would usually be French, trad would be E grades.

and the debate about how hard actual problems are, even indoors - would Percy's crazy grades be equivalent to climbing walls in London?

It may be subjective, but more subjective than marking your rope coiling out of 6? How much you care about your environment out of 6? Your anchor placing skills out of 6? I don't think so!

How would you define what level a person should climb at in order to pass? The levels (grades) of what people climb, particularly boulder, seem to be going up all the time.

Most sports just pick a standard that would be equivalent to a good regional or a (poorish) national standard i.e. 50m front crawl is about 31 seconds for full marks.

Having seen the standards set for other sports id say about V9 and F7c+ would probably be more than tough enough for full marks?  You are supposed to be a good regional to national standard, and for a 17 or 18 year old I'd say that's about right.

I've been competing for about 5 years now at national and international level (bouldering) and the levels in this country have increased incredibly over that period of time.

And the standard would go up over time too.

I agree that the criteria about anchors and stuff seems a bit naff, although necessary if you do climb routes. What would you suggest should be tested on your syllabus instead though?

Fitness, strength and recovery in addition to the above.  Im not against their being a trady rope work option, I just think the sporty side of climbing is more deserving of being on the PHYSICAL education syllabus.

[T Nagler]

Have to say, I think 'caring for your environment' and general ropework would be pretty central to being a rock climber in the UK (or Ireland) these days.  Also don't think there's too much wrong with learning a bit about the history of the pastime as well - you may be well informed and know much of what there is to learn about rock climbing in the UK, but many of the people taking that option might be virtual beginners and *need* to know that stuff.

I think my post to Lucy A covers this, If not say so.

I'd take the easy stroll through a mickey mouse A level if I were you

Oi! What did I say (

dont' lagh

). Note:

It gets me UCAS points which should help me get into a good uni. PE actually has a worse reputation than it deserves, quite a few meat-heads start the AS, but from my year only 3 made it from the AS to A2 (inc. myself)! I do biology as well and can honestly say that the biology that crosses over (Krebs cycle, glycolysis, link reaction, energy systems, biological responses during exercise, cardio vascular system, lungs, nervous system....) is covered in quite a bit more detail in PE than it is in bio!

[bob]

i had a similar problem when i wanted to do climbimg for gcse pe. Although i seem to rememner part of the assessment was to be assessed at climbing performance by a someone qualified. unfortunately my teachers said that person also needed to be a teacher. ended up showing off my (lack of) footy skills instead and got a b

[T Nagler]

My teachers never told me that I had to be assessed by another teacher :s. Was that a b overall or for football? cos b ( for football is supposed to be quite hard, on the exam board I did anyway.

[account_inactive]

Doesn't matter really for bouldering, most are comparable (i.e. V9 translates roughly to eaysyish 7C), sport would usually be French, trad would be E grades.

In that case Trev you would get a D
Where would this be set? Outdoors? On what type of rock? If it was inside then we are talking about a small number of climbers who just climb indoors and just boulder.

To be honest you ar very lucky that you can get an A-level in sport anyway.  You should be glad that they even have a climbing section!

Of course it is a minority sport in terms of the general public, I was talking about bouldering in relation to trad. Sport and comps are more in the minority, but they certainly aren't negligible!

Bouldering is part of the bigger picture.  So yes it is a minority section in our sport. Competition (which is what you want to be examined in) is an even smaller % (especially if you are looking at bouldering)

It may be subjective, but more subjective than marking your rope coiling out of 6? How much you care about your environment out of 6? Your anchor placing skills out of 6? I don't think so!

That's a rather flippent comment.  You are being assessed at you DEPTH of knowledge.  Many things on the list are right or wrong so it is the application of a technique to a situation.  What rope coil for what situation.  What anchor for which directional pull.

How would you feel if you were and accomplished trad climber at 17 trying to compete with a gym monkey like yourself?  It is possible to climb upto E7 and  have never climbed V9 or 7c.  

Climbing is about the outdoors.  It is about the environment and it is more about rope coiling than it ever will be about climbing on plastic.

I'm not having a go Trev but most other people have said the same thing on this site but you have chosen not to listen.

[T Nagler]

Doesn't matter really for bouldering, most are comparable (i.e. V9 translates roughly to eaysyish 7C), sport would usually be French, trad would be E grades.

In that case Trev you would get a D

Dont make me burn you off!  :wink:

Where would this be set? Outdoors? On what type of rock? If it was inside then we are talking about a small number of climbers who just climb indoors and just boulder.

Why would that matter? These are just small details.  It could be on any type of rock (inc indoors) or a specific type of rock, or just indoors. Most people climb similar (within one or two) grades on all types of rock (and indoors). I don't see this as a major problem.

To be honest you ar very lucky that you can get an A-level in sport anyway.  You should be glad that they even have a climbing section!

Why am I very lucky? Everybody elce can do it if they want too!
As you can see from my origional post: I was glad that climbing was on the sylibus, untill I realised how different it was to my day-to-day experience of rock climbing.

Of course it is a minority sport in terms of the general public, I was talking about bouldering in relation to trad. Sport and comps are more in the minority, but they certainly aren't negligible!

Bouldering is part of the bigger picture.  So yes it is a minority section in our sport. Competition (which is what you want to be examined in) is an even smaller % (especially if you are looking at bouldering)

When I learned to trad lead the guy that taught me told me to remember that rock climbing (inc trad) is just part of mountaineering (the bigger picture), just as walking/orienteering and ice climbing is! I consider all of the above sports in their own right, just as I consider bouldering, sport, trad etc. sports or at least sporting  disciplines in their own right. I dont just want to be assesed at comps, I think that there should be an assesment for all physical aspects of climbing (inc bouldering, comps, and sport)I was talking about participation before anyway.

It may be subjective, but more subjective than marking your rope coiling out of 6? How much you care about your environment out of 6? Your anchor placing skills out of 6? I don't think so!

That's a rather flippent comment.  You are being assessed at you DEPTH of knowledge.  Many things on the list are right or wrong so it is the application of a technique to a situation.  What rope coil for what situation.  What anchor for which directional pull.

You seem to think the A level is softer than it is, how can selecting the correct type of rope coil for the situation warrant an A at A level? How well you coil the rope must be inspected too (therefore introducing the subjective element). Its PHYSICAL education, not HEALTH and SAFETY education anyway, surely the physical element should be emphasised!

How would you feel if you were and accomplished trad climber at 17 trying to compete with a gym monkey like yourself?  It is possible to climb upto E7 and  have never climbed V9 or 7c.  

I'm not proposing to necessarily irradiate the old syllabus (although I don't see what place it has on the PHYSICAL education syllabus, considering that it involves no actual trad climbing!), just to introduce a new one that concentrates on the physical/performance side of climbing in line with participation, or at least incorporate these elements into the old syllabus.

Climbing is about the outdoors.  It is about the environment

That is PART of what climbing is about, it may be the be all and end all for you, but to many people this ('just') is an element to what makes up climbing! You can't just tell people that they are wrong on this! Just the same as I don't have the right to tell you that you are wrong (not that I think this: I love climbing outdoors and being in and among nature, but to me there is more to climbing than that).

and it is more about rope coiling than it ever will be about climbing on plastic.

Not to me. Thats fair enough to think that, but if I could coil a rope better than malc smith or andy earl (not that I probably could) I would not expect any respect from this or consider myself better climbers than them (not that I'm implying that climbing is all about eliteism and gaining respect)!  

I'm not having a go Trev but most other people have said the same thing on this site but you have chosen not to listen.

Don't try to make it look like I have no support on this: you are the 4th person to post negatively, and I've had 5 people post positively on this forum (I've had 2 more positive posts on another forum, and a few more in person).  I'm afraid that it does look like you're having a go at me! It sounds like you're telling me how I should enjoy climbing!

[Nigel]

I did loads of A-Levels me. So I speak from a position of some authority.  :wink:  My chemistry A-Level had very little to do with my day-to-day experience of chemical processes (like when I cook my tea then digest it). My physics A-Level didn't really correlate with my everyday experiences of throwing balls and moving things; lets face it I still don't do the sums before I take the penalty. I don't think you can feel too hard done by that the climbing one isn't really geared to your day-to-day experience of going bouldering :!:

And by the look of this sentence:

I'm not proposing to necessarily irradiate the old syllabus

Its your English that you need to worry about!

[Fingers of a Martyr]

And by the look of this sentence:

I'm not proposing to necessarily irradiate the old syllabus

Its your English that you need to worry about!

that's u told trev :wink:

[T Nagler]

that's u told trev :wink:

Not really! I was typing quite fast and it was nearly 5am! Surely I'm allowed a few mistakes?