"Why are the winners of the Olympiads sometimes fall on the exam"

We talked with Elena Vigdorova, a well -known teacher of literature, who worked for many years at the Faculty of Vosovuzovskoy training of the Russian State University, and now - one of the participants in the Arzamas project, about which schoolchildren’s Olympiads to participate. They also asked: what is the reason that the winners and prize -winners of high -level olympiads cannot always confirm their successes with the necessary 75 exam points.

I am for the exam with a human face

- Elena Isaakovna, how do you feel about the choice between the exam and the Olympiads? Which children are better off concentrating only on the exam, and which - also at the Olympiads? And in general: the exam is evil (as many people believe) or good?

- The exam, with all its shortcomings, defeated corruption in the main Moscow prestigious universities. Its structure is well thought out. Of course, when checking this exam, the requirements are formalized in nature. But, probably, it is difficult to avoid subjectivity in assessments. Especially formalism concerns the exam in the Russian language. Essays are written according to strict rules. However, we will talk about the USE in literature, which to build and evaluate, of course, more difficult. To your question - evil go good - I will answer this way. Good. I am for the exam. But ... how to say it ... for the exam with a human face.

- How is a single examination exam built?

- There are 12 questions in the USE in literature that require a clear answer. They are checked by a computer. Test questions, such as “what color was the dress of Natasha Rostova at the first ball” (guess from three options) no longer. Questions can concern the genre of a work, an excerpt from which a student, the name of the hero, mentioned in the passage, the artistic means that the author uses, the composition of the work. Questions and not too simplified, but not God the news that are difficult.

And then five works go to the exam, four of them are small. This is a detailed answer to the question, but the requirements for it are as a miniature composition: introduction, conclusion, two theses, and to each - arguments. Another type of small essay is such, albeit simplified, but a kind of intertextual analysis: we must answer the question where such problems and heroes are still found.

And at the finish - one big essay. The topic can be selected from three options. They are absolutely traditional. The first question about the epic, the second in the lyrics and the third in drama. For example: what is the meaning of the name of the Pushkin’s “Captain's daughter”. Or: the motive of something in the lyrics of someone. Small works are written for 20-25 minutes, and large-one and a half to two hours. So there is no such special fingering of schoolchildren on the exam in literature.

- Ways to prepare for the exam and for the Olympiads are different or approximately the same?

- I am convinced: you need to prepare for the exam as a whole, no matter what form it takes place. And the teacher should initially be so configured. In the 11th grade, with a good teacher, strong children can do without a Tutor for the exam. The same goes for the Olympiads. For philologically oriented schoolchildren, it is not worth it to hide on the structure of the USE earlier than in the second half of the 11th grade. Children “Simple” should be able to write serious, big works.

Olympiads also teach

- It is for such philologically oriented guys that the Olympiads are extremely relevant?

- That's right. The exam in literature does not imply. And for the children who enter the phillers, the Olympics seem to me a lot of help. In addition to the fact that their winners and prize -winners use benefits for admission to universities, the Olympiads also have a training property.

They almost always consist of two rounds. One correspondence and the other full -time. So, on the absentee round of the Olympiads “Fowns the Vorobyovy Gory” and “Lomonosov”, children should write essays, and they are offered serious philological topics that have always been to entrance exams for the philological faculty of Moscow State University. They require the knowledge of texts, and the ability to navigate in cultural and historical space, and the possession of philological instruments. This year, at the correspondence round of the Olympiad “Fools of the Vorobyovy Gory” there was a topic: “The techniques of the comic in the“ Fathers and Children ”of Turgenev. Notice, not at Gogol (which would be ordinary), but by Turgenev. Filologists are terribly interesting for children. Such works write at home, several days. And here you can consult, re -read the texts. The Lomonosov Olympiad is built on a similar principle. Only the choice of topics is much larger. At the Higher Sample Olympics, the first tour is also in absentia: there, in the online mode, you need quick answers to questions. And then, in March, as at the Olympiads of Moscow State University, a full -time tour. There are topics of a different nature, but also very interesting and, most importantly, different. For example, “The image of the forest in Russian poetry”, a comparison of the poem of Mandelstam and Pasternak, analysis and commentary of the poem. This year was Pasternak Hamlet. Or such a topic: anti -utopia in Russian and world literature (there are topics in the “higher sample” that can be written according to foreign literature).

There is a second -level Olympiad Lomonosov. I really like her. On the first round, you need to compose something (for example, guess the charad, come up with your own), figure out, show erudition. The second round is a traditional essay (for example, the image of Hamlet in Russian literature). The winners and prize -winners of Turgloma Higher School of Economics gives 100 points for the exam. Moscow State University and the RSU - no.

The All -Russian Olympiad is good in that it has many levels. And for each stage, 5 hours are allocated. But the all -Russian qualities require fighting qualities - the highest competition obliges. And during the school year (and some Olympiads and in the 10th grade work), children write quite a lot of different works. And I like this in itself. And yet. It’s not as scary to the Olympics as on the exam - it is not so fateful. He did not win one, there is a chance to win on the other.

The winners and prize -winners of all Olympiads, except for all Russia, should confirm their high results with 75 points for the exam in literature. But it would be possible - if it is necessary to prove that it was not by chance that you received a prize, then confirm one Olympics of another, or, for example, you can - points of the exam, or you can - another Olympiad.

Talented children are cramped by the USE framework

- I know that not everyone succeeds in confirming the Olympics on the exam. Why?

- To begin with, I note that this year the exam in literature made a good impression on me: I saw 35 scans of different works, and the estimates were adequate. And the first days of appeal were quite human. After all, there is a rule that all controversial cases should be decided in favor of the child. So they decided. But on the last of three days, the experts either ended with points or polite words. Not only did not add points, but also offended (asked: why are you going to a philological university even?).

This year I really did not like the story with the boy Sasha Z., the winner of the Lomonosov Olympiad, who could not get the necessary 75 points for the exam.

-How could this happen?

- Well, actually such stories are. On the one hand, talented children are cramped by the exam framework. They begin to dig too deep, sometimes complicate simple questions, to understand them somehow not in the same way, in their own way to analyze the poem. On the other hand, it seems to me a strange system for recalculating points on the exam. We have 100 points instead of “5”, and, it would seem, this allows you to take into account the nuances. But in reality, everything is wrong. There are primary points, but there are those that are obtained after their recalculation. Look: according to the primary points, the applicant receives the maximum of 12 for the first 12 questions, then - 4 for each small essay and 14 for large. That is, in total - 42 points. Which after recalculation corresponds to 100.

- How is the recalculation?

- The first 12 points seem to be doubled. Further-only when you got 35 points, they begin to double-torture. But the loss of even one point when recounting can lead to the fact that you will not gain 75 points. He said, for example, that the “thunderstorm” is not a drama, but the tragedy, answering the question of how Ostrovsky identified the Glorus genre, lost one primary score. But this is not a rude mistake at all. Or - I received not four, but three points for small works, and even lost two points on a large essay, and in the end, when recounting, you get 71 or 73 points. And you need 75!

For Okudzhava - zero, for "February" - zero

- Let's get back to our boy.

-Let's. In small works on the exam of this year, one of the topics was the poem by Bulat Okudzhava "Midnight trolley". The question was asked there: what symbolizes this “trolley”. The boy, for whom the Blue Tollaibus is only a poetic image (he simply cannot remember that trolleybuses in the 60s were blue) writes that this poem is about creativity. And argues in this channel. Further - more. In the next task, it is required to cite the poem of other poets about longing in the next task. And this boy who writes about creativity, and gives examples too - about creativity. Here is the Pushkin’s “genius of pure beauty” (and did not forget Zhukovsky with his “Lall Hands”, where this “genius of pure beauty” appeared as a symbol of poetry), and Pasternak - “February. Get ink and cry. ” And another fatal mistake occurs: he calls this poem “February”, and not on the first line. And this example does not count him. As a result, for Okudzhava - zero, for the "February" - zero. At the appeal, he is raised only 1 point. This, despite the fact that he brings a review of his essay the author of the monograph on the work of Okudzhava Olga Rosenbum, who writes there that his interpretation is good. He also refers to an article by Pasternak Konstantin Polivanov’s famous researcher “Pasternak’s poem“ February ”(it would seem, Polivanov, the author of the literature of the twentieth century, experts should know). The appeal does not pass. There are 12 experts who declare to the boy: the specialists to whom he refers are not experts on the exam and did not take special courses (!?!) . A speech mistake was also counted (to prove his innocence, the boy referred to a specialist from the Institute of the Russian Language and the author of the line textbook in the Russian language Elena Shmelev). I must say that the boy’s mother, who was present, did not come to terms with what had happened. She filed complaints with higher organizations - in particular, to Rosobrnadzor, received an absolutely empty answer, achieved admission in a conflict commission ... And you know how the matter ended? The members of the new commission also agreed that everything is in order with the “Midnight Tollaibus”, and that the speech error that Shmeleva disputes is not a mistake, and that Pasternak’s poem “February. Get ink and cry ... ”As the boy called him in an essay and pyvanov in the article, does not deserve a decline. In other words, neither with Shmeleva, nor with Polivanov, nor with Rosenblum that they completed experts in the exam, they will not demand, and their authority is enough to remove these mistakes.

“Why didn’t they raise points then?”

- But the fact is that the new expert commission found another speech mistake (which, however, is also easy to challenge, but a specialist from the institute of the Russian language, of course, is not worth it next to my mother). As for the task, which mentioned Pasternak’s poem, the commission said that, despite the lack of errors, the text sounds unconvincing. They, however, gave one score for poverty. And there were 73 of them. And, if one more was added, then it would be - when counting - 78!

This is the only such story in the work of the 2016 commission that I know. Maybe there are more of them, or maybe she really is alone. But, you know, the “golden stigma” and on one young face would not want to see.

- What conclusion can be made?

The exam should be checked by professionals who are not fixed on purely formal requirements and are not afraid to correct their mistakes. Just, in my opinion, it is worth remembering that we are dealing with adolescents who are not still 18 years old, that injustice can unsettle them, that we, adults, are better off to admit our mistake than erect insurmountable barricades between experts (teachers!) And graduate schools.