If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Consider also that the % needed to get an A at A-level was something like 80% whereas that required for a first at degree is 'only' 70%, something that does not suggest easiness.........
70% is seriously hard to gey, and many get it, and that normally means 70% over 3 years which is very hard indeed
only reason exam results have gone up is cause some people are shallow enough to base their decision of whether to take you for uni on how mnay As you get, and how well the school the students are attending are doing in the elague tables, such that parents and teachers are encouraged to teach the kids the exams, not the subject as such.....
I think JImV's link shows that the older exams were harder, because they were a memory test not a knowledge test. But that isn't something that is desirable.
The problem tends to be that the people claiming that the exams are easier are older. I would find a current GCSE a piece of piss because I have a degree education- it doesn't mean the GCSEs have got easier, it means I know more.
i done really old papers simply because to a relatively good degree of accuracy, what will be asked by looking at what has been asked where the syllabus hasnt changed
i dont want to see money wasted on an enquiry when exam training is the answer, i want to see an end to almost all national exams for kids up to 14 so they can be really taught, not just the exam material
Agree with the general p[oint about memory vs knowledge but those GEography exams definately look easier..........
I was lucky enough to be part of the pilot scheme for GCSE.
All my subjects, apart from History, were O Level. For them I had one exam, after two years of lessons. Two hours to assess two years work.
With History I had six coursework assignments and a final exam. It made things so much easier because I was assessed over both years and not just a couple of very stressful hours in my life.
So, it may not be that the exams are easier, but that the method of assessment is better for the pupil.
I have a different issue about the number of passes. If so many people pass, doesn't that devalue the examination? If more people get Grade A, isn't it time to reconsider what the exams are telling us?
You see I think that's the main part of the problem.
The exams and classes and all that other shit are supposed to be about teaching people relevant facts in their discipline so they can operate usefully within it.
What a lot of people want is to use exams as a kind of social grading experiment, making sure that a certain percentage always fail. The exam shouldn't change ever, it should be nice and lenghty (not just a couple of hours of tension) and cover all major aspects of the field. Pass rates should be able to be 100% otherwise what's the fucking point?
How would it be if the highway code kept changing to "catch people out"?
On a side note, I did 6 a levels and they were a piece of piss.
if less emphisis was based upon the grades recieved, less emphisis would be based upon getting good exam results, you can get a good mark on an exam without knowing much, like you can know loads of the subject and fail the exam
thankfully my deptartment isn't inundated with applications so they have the time to interview students to find out how good they really are, as that's the real test quite often
Before I get slated for dissing state schools, I sadly think that this is the case and obviously, I can only draw from personal experience.
However, the amount of red tape that clogs modern bureacracy means that the letter you acheived in your exams is valued far more highly than how well rounded a person you are. Lamentable but true.
From This
Thats a dumb idea if I ever heard one. Its not fair on someone who gets 70% one year and gets an A then next year someone gets the same marks and gets a B.
But then what do the Conservatives know about education. :rolleyes:
"I'm sorry you got 50% but because so many people passed you've actually failed" That would work wouldnt it....cunts.
We already have something which isn't hugely removed form this- the grade boundaries are often decided by pass rates. If everyone does well then the exam was easy, and the amount of marks required to get a grade increases corresponingly.
Having said that, I wouldn't expect intelligence levels to change much year-on-year, and they would be pretty stable.
then you'd love the scottish merit system
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4146504.stm
im a fan of current system but in applications to uni for example more emphisis should be on how the student comes across in their personal statement etc etc
too much emphisis is placed on grades personally i dont knw how you could remove a bit of of it though. i think what you could do is provide universities with entry exams, but at academia level exam performance isnt necesserily the most important thing, but understanding so you dont crack under the wrath of information
you could provide universities with the ability to interview more students and find out what they're like which i think is the most important thing
there is not too much wrong with A-Levels personally and as a whole we have a system that puts people through their education quicker than anywhere else, which in an odd way prepares them for the real world and it teaches them to learn quickly, so any changes will be taken up quickly
one thing is for sure, tihs country needs to raise the overall skill level of its workforce
yup. shifting grade boundaries according to the spread of marks isn't unfair at all. it's just common sense. if everyone gets over 80%, it doesn't mean they're all A grade students. it means the exam was a piece of piss. if the same questions were asked year after year then it would be fair to keep the pass marks the same. as they obviously aren't, i don't think it's unreasonable to shift them so a balance of people get the appropriate grades.
exactly! if the exams were the same level as they had always been, you would expect the pass rate to be around the same every year. one year might be especially bright, and have a higher rate. the next might struggle, and get lower marks. but generally it would be around the same. the fact that it grows, year on year suggests that this isn't the case.
and i've found that the only people who tend to argue that the exams aren't getting easier are the people who have just done them.
Intelligence and teaching has not improved as much as the results whatever. People have got better at taking exams, I mean by A-levels you’re pretty experienced at taking exams and teachers place a lot more emphasis on the exams and probably teach more closely to exactly what’s likely to come up. Either way confidence in the exams from employers and universities has slipped which is bad for everyone concerned, hence the probable need for some reform at some point.
Because its a horrible horrible thing to be told that your exams were 'easy' after you've just worked your arse off for 2 years in order to get into the university you wanted to.
Given that level of intelligence, why can't they see something suspect in the FACT that the pass rate has increased for each of the last 23 years?
Or do they seriously believe that they are the most intelligent generation in 23 years?
It's not like a majority of teenagers go on to do A levels though...is it?
So, more people sit them, higher pass rate. Either we have the most intelligent generation for quarter of a century, or someone is playing politics with your results.
As I am from the generation who sat their exams 18 years ago, I figure that you are more likely to have the answers than me
This isn't just because the exams are more tailored to passing, it is also because people are taught much mjore how to pass exams rather than anything about the subject.
I don't think exams are easier per se, but I do think they are easier to pass. The change from the old A'Level system made the exams far easier to pass, as was illustrated by the fact the Government had to diddle the results in 2002 in order to prevent everyone getting 19 As.
I don't think exams are hard at all... I didn't revise one bit, didn't do a single piece of homework and had a lot of absences due to stress and still did OK. I think anybody can pass their A levels these days.