i have had an email query about this level, which i do not teach.<P>i imagine you might be able to help, Tuk?<P>can you explain briefly the difference between these two levels; & how the exam can be taken - i believe it can be taken in two parts is that correct? presumably then, if one chooses this divided option, one would usually do pre-inter one year, and inter the next? <P>any info would be appreciated by this young student who has just passed her RAD elementary exam in hong kong.

I can quite understand the confusion about the Royal Academy Pre-Intermediate and Intermediate syllabi and so I hope the following will help to clarify the position. First I will give a brief history of how this situation has come about.<P>When the present Girls Intermediate syllabus was introduced in 1987 it was intended as part of a training programme for the major examinations of six years, the intermediate syllabus covering years three and four. Because of this the notes included a series training and set exercises, covering some 85 pages. For the examination itself the candidate was expected to know up to 101 different settings, including reversals of certain exercises and the final reverence.<P>The weight of this syllabus meant that merely getting through all the exercises in class was a problem. Having taught this version of the intermediate I can say that as a teacher you felt that there was never sufficient time to both cover the set exercises and work on getting the technical elements up to the required standards. For the students themselves it all seemed more of a memory test.<P>To alleviate this the academy introduced an option in 1993 (I believe this is the correct date although I will check up) of taking the examination as a whole or in two separate parts, part 1 and part 2. In both parts certain set exercises were placed although to ensure that a full ballet syllabus was available, particularly in part 1, certain of the training exercises were incorporated. Having completed both parts the candidate was said to have achieved the intermediate examination.<P>However this created certain confusion, which I remember from the time. If part 2 was recognised as being of an intermediate standard what was part 1. At the time I recall being told that both examinations were being examined at the same intermediate level and that the division of the syllabus was to relieve the pressure of the number of exercises rather to create two separate levels. However it did seem that part 1 was beginning to be seen as a pre-intermediate examination, leading up to part 2. This was not helped by the announcement that qualification for the Pyllis Bedells Bursary, which is open to students of a certain age who have gained highly commended or honours at intermediate, was dependent upon the result in the part 2 examination.<P>The situation was settled in 1998 with the replacement of the 1987 syllabus with the present pre-intermediate and intermediate syllabi. Pre-intermediate was based upon the part 1 syllabus whilst intermediate was based on part 2. However a number of adjustments were made, with certain exercises being changed or amalgamated, some removed completely and certain new ones introduced. Also provision was made for a free exercise to be given in the allegro section of each exam.<P>Pre-intermediate can be taken at 13, whilst the age requirement for intermediate is 14. This recognises that there is a difference in the technical level required for the examinations and creates a progressive development within the major syllabi, eliminating the previous confusion. However it should be said that the pre-intermediate is optional and candidates can progress straight from elementary to intermediate. In this sense it is not like the part 1 and part 2 system. The reasoning is that where a student is able to make the considerable technical jump from elementary to intermediate they are not disadvantaged in their progression. For other students the pre-intermediate gives an intermediary target to aim for on their way up to intermediate.<P>The logic of this is that as far as levels are concerned the present intermediate is examined at the full intermediate level, whilst the pre-intermediate can be placed between this and elementary. It is hard to define levels in words but there are several aspects of the examination that I believe give the teacher some idea of the required standard. The first these is the syllabus content. Obviously harder exercises and combinations of exercises are demanded at each stage of the major examinations, making the syllabi progressive. The second is the placement of the examinations within the majors. If it is considered that a good advanced level student is of a standard to become a competent professional performer (arguable I know but I think it gives at least some idea of what we are aiming for) then the progression towards this level through the majors can be assessed.<P>Of course it really helps to be able to work with examiners from the academy who can give the teachers a good idea of the standards that the Academy itself sets for the examinations. The RAD regularly has standardisation sessions to try and maintain consistency of marking worldwide and the examiners are themselves part of an assessment regime. I know that there always seems to be a lot of variation but perhaps that is as much to do with the nature of ballet as any tendency amongst the examiners. It is after all an art form and judgements upon it tend to be subjective. It is not like a sport where it tends to be obvious who is faster, stronger or jump higher. That said it is important both for the sake of fairness and the regard the RAD work is held in to maintain objective standards. It is obviously a very hard balance to strike.<P>I hope the above helps Grace. If there are any further questions please let me know.<P>Best wishes<P>Tuk<BR>

thanks tuk. <P>so, in summary, might it be fair to say that pre-intermediate is to intermediate, what pre-elementary is to elementary?<P>and that, as with pre-elem/elem, one CAN skip the 'pre' stage and just jump up to the following exam, if one is really able to?<P>for the average candidate who might for example manage 'only' a pass at elementary level.....i imagine your advice, then, would be to put the time into a year's work on pre-inter, before being so bold as to attempt intermediate? would that be a fair guess? (given that neither of us can SEE any candidate over the internet!)<P>i get the impression this student is an older teen, and keen to get on with things in a hurry....<P>also, is there the option to take any of these major exams as a teacher, as there used to be....since i think this particular student has that goal (rather than performance)? <P>it used to be that one could take a major exam as a (prospective) teacher, if one was older, without having to do exercises full-out and without having to do pointe, for example - but one had to be able to demonstrate and explain well the full syllabus....

Hi<P>I'm the girl Grace is talking abt. Thanks tuk for ur post. <P>By the way i'm from Singapore not Hong Kong.<P>Ya Grace, u are rite...i'm sort of rushin to finish all the major grades. But i think after reading tuk's post and knowing a bit more abt INter requirements..i think i'd wait another yr to do inter.

Dear Grace<P>I would agree with your assessment of using the pre-intermediate in the way you describe. It is not possible to take the RAD majors as a prospective teacher, although this is an option in the ISTD Advanced 1 and Advanced 2 major syllabi in the various faculties.<P>Best wishes<P>Tuk<BR>

oh, interesting Tuk - so am i understanding you?: that this cannot be done in RAD, but it can still be done in ISTD? - how about Cecchetti?<P>also, what does this mean then, as to the required ballet examination status of the prospective teachers? <P>the old thing was that you had to have passed Elementary as 'a dancer', i think, and you didn't have to have done more than that 'as a dancer candidate'. <P>so if someone wasn't actually very physically able, but had other appropriate qualities for teaching, they might do Intermediate 'as a Teacher' (which required a lower standard of execution, but a higher standard of demonstrable knowledge)....i am not talking any specific syllabus here, just generalities....<P>you seem to know a lot about RAD, so what's their arrangement on this sort of thing now? (if you know..not meaning to suggest you know everything!)