Home Politics & Debate
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.

just how do you make A Levels harder?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4702566.stm

this old story coincides with head of QCA saying it should be harder to get As etc

they overlook the simple ways of meaning of actually testing ability which is to provide examination in more challenging ways like removing the modules in the 1st or making the synoptic paper worth more, which is easily the hardest part of any exam at A Level

i just dont see how bringing in more grade separation will actually help the situation, theres only so much a mark of 5% will tell you between students and it will mean even more exam training which is the whole problem

imo the problem isnt A Levels are easier material, it is that for example in maths it would say
1
a. show this result
b. use this information to do this
c. whats the value

whilst they could just say
1. Do this showing your answers and intermediate steps

which is far more mentally challenging and doesnt just mean "remember this section from cramming guide"

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why on earth would you want to?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The only way to make it harder is to prevent people getting one.

    How do you do that? Peer-referencing. Only the top 8% can get As, regardless of how well the others do.

    Sounds like more bollocks from an exam board trying desperately to avoid this years festival of shit-flinging in August.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    this is another reason why state education is so stupid.

    What's the point of exams that merely there to divide people up into (artificial) failures and successes?

    100% passrate should be capable of being achieved, or theres no point teaching anyone.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    this is another reason why state education is so stupid.

    What's the point of exams that merely there to divide people up into (artificial) failures and successes?

    100% passrate should be capable of being achieved, or theres no point teaching anyone.

    because if you have an exam, which some people will do better at, it learns to thinkthat they may be better at that subject than others (admittedly not always the case), which helps anyone who wants the best in the area to work of study for them

    and if you had 100% passrate, it would defeat the idea behind an exam
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    because if you have an exam, which some people will do better at, it learns to thinkthat they may be better at that subject than others (admittedly not always the case), which helps anyone who wants the best in the area to work of study for them

    Then you are teaching too many people.
    and if you had 100% passrate, it would defeat the idea behind an exam

    What a load of crap. So we shoudl start failing set percentages of driving tests just so that we can see who is better at driving?

    The whole point of education is to teach useful things. The whole point of exams is to prove you have learned those useful things.

    Now, "a" levels are obviously just an exercise in seperating the wheat from the chaff so Universities can pick from a huge pool of people, most of whom shouldn't have been doing "a" levels in the first place.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What klintock is saying is that if you have an exam testing ability, then theoretically every single person in the country is capable of reaching that ability, giiven enough tuition. Therefore a 100% pass rate is achievable and desirable.

    But as we know exams are not about testing for ability, they are about dividing people up into groups of "success" and "failure", in order to control things better. And everyone still tags along with the ridiculous notion that they are testing ability in any meaningful way.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Thanks for the translation. :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Cutting micky mouse subjects perhaps. Kids should do real subjects ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    What klintock is saying is that if you have an exam testing ability, then theoretically every single person in the country is capable of reaching that ability, giiven enough tuition. Therefore a 100% pass rate is achievable and desirable.

    Yes and of course that's bullshit. Some people just can't do Math, some people can't do Science or English. And it's not a matter of trying or working hard enough.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Renzo wrote:
    Cutting micky mouse subjects perhaps. Kids should do real subjects ;)

    Like what?

    For me personally, I found the exams I took in January very hard - both of which I failed. And yes, I DID revise quite alot...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Sofie wrote:
    Like what?

    For me personally, I found the exams I took in January very hard - both of which I failed. And yes, I DID revise quite alot...

    yes thats true they are hard however they are extremely forgiving at the same time

    i done particulary well in my A Levels, i got 3 Bs in chemistry physics and maths

    the thing is, as they are generally quite specific units, it is quite easy to revise them as they are so focused little general appliance is needed - this also makes resits quite easy, i resat one chemistry unit, for which i got a B the 1st time round, and when i resat it in 2nd year whilst doing the extention unit i got a easy A

    im not saying A-Cs in A Level are easy,i go to a good university doing okay at a really hard subject, the thing that increases the marks got overall is the technicalities of the papers

    had this been old style A Levels from 20 years ago, only a fixed % get certain grades, that bit i dont like, the killer part was that you only done like 2 exams at the end of your 2nd year, and that was your A Levels done in 2 afternoons basically

    that is extremely difficult, and if you have a bad exam you can be really screwed the rest of your life

    as it currently stands, 1st year exams count 50% and 2nd year 50% each of which has 3 units, imo NOT a fair and good test of whether the information has been learnt and UNDERSTOOD to an extent, understanding of subjects isn't taught and is hard to examine on thats the general problem




    a straightforward change would be to make the 1st year count 35 or 40% and the 2nd year 60 or 65% respectively but keep it in modules, and have part of the 2nd years marks coem from a synoptic exam
    in subjects in like maths, the questions could be less structured and just say "solve this problem showing working out" instead of giving the question in 10 steps - that tests problem solving skills REALLY well
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The fact that you have to weed the wheat from the chaff means you are wasting 80% of "a" level entrants time.

    2 years of your youth thrown away just because of a mickey mouse hiring scheme seems fucking stupid to me.

    Wouldn't be a much better idea to only give higher education to those who were guaranteed (or almost guaranteed) success so everyone else could be off doing something that wasn't a complete and utter waste of youth, resources and fair?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    The fact that you have to weed the wheat from the chaff means you are wasting 80% of "a" level entrants time.

    2 years of your youth thrown away just because of a mickey mouse hiring scheme seems fucking stupid to me.

    Wouldn't be a much better idea to only give higher education to those who were guaranteed (or almost guaranteed) success so everyone else could be off doing something that wasn't a complete and utter waste of youth, resources and fair?

    there are A Levels for things which should be learnt from vocational training or on the job, my girlfriend is going to be doing a Btec in september in sound engineering, where she gets taught how to use all sorts of equipment and stuff like that, giving you time to get some work experience at the same time. why anyone would pick the music tech a level makes me think 'why!?'
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    What a load of crap. So we shoudl start failing set percentages of driving tests just so that we can see who is better at driving?

    im sure they do that anyway
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    klintock wrote:
    Wouldn't be a much better idea to only give higher education to those who were guaranteed (or almost guaranteed) success so everyone else could be off doing something that wasn't a complete and utter waste of youth, resources and fair?

    A Levels are Further Education, not Higher Education.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    there are A Levels for things which should be learnt from vocational training or on the job,

    There are NO, zero, nil jobs that require an "a" level. If it's any more complicated you need a degree, and if it's any simpler you have just wasted your time.

    I can think of very, very few jobs that can't be done just by on the job training of someone with half a brain and some time to commit. Like, if you went into the job and did it 5 days a week, learning as you go you'd have the fucker sussed much better than if you did all the theory and then went to apply it afterwards.
    im sure they do that anyway

    It's not policy, you just have to do the right things and you pass. If an examiner does do it it's off his own bat.
    A Levels are Further Education, not Higher Education.

    Nice to see another critical thinker churned out by it, whatever name it goes by.

    Let's try "pointless education" and see how that fits. Yup, pretty well.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    :( I just chose mine today. I'm going to do Art, Psychology, English Language, and a year of R.E., plus two extension courses, Theory of Knowledge, and Political Awareness. If they turn out any harder than my GCSEs are, I'm buggered!

    I have the first half of my 10-hour GCSE art practical tomorrow, continuing Friday. Wish me luck!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    In terms of content...A-levels are definately easier, in History I did 5 modules on the Tudors...my History teacher said in his day, he had to learn all off the Tudors for just one Module. Some difference there. I think A-levels should test more on thinking skills and stuff like that, not just to see who can spend 4 hours a night reading books like.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    In terms of content...A-levels are definately easier, in History I did 5 modules on the Tudors...my History teacher said in his day, he had to learn all off the Tudors for just one Module. Some difference there. I think A-levels should test more on thinking skills and stuff like that, not just to see who can spend 4 hours a night reading books like.


    people ALWAYS think when they done it, that it was harder

    learning more facts doesn't necesserily make things harder, however from my experience of the current a level system, little or no understanding is required to do well, and i got 3 Bs in subjects which have done me far more good than if i got 3 As at psychology, business studies and photography
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    learning more facts doesn't necesserily make things harder

    Yes it does.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    turlough wrote:
    Yes it does.


    okay it doesnt make it more worthwhile i mean


    could make up an a lelvel asking you to remember hundreds of names, more names = higher grade
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The more you have to learn, then the harder the examination, to be fair.

    When I took my A'Levels it was one all-or-nothing three-hour exam- an awful lot to learn. Now with modular examinations, things are easier. Of course they are.

    The point does stand though that you can teach anyone to pass an exam if you spend long enough teaching them, and you are good enough at teaching them. There is no such thing as "can't".
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    The more you have to learn, then the harder the examination, to be fair.

    When I took my A'Levels it was one all-or-nothing three-hour exam- an awful lot to learn. Now with modular examinations, things are easier. Of course they are.

    The point does stand though that you can teach anyone to pass an exam if you spend long enough teaching them, and you are good enough at teaching them. There is no such thing as "can't".

    oh definetly, i think less exams would be a good start, as the same amount of material would need to be recalled and used, however phrasing of questions is extremely lenient in A Level papers, it doesnt require understanding or technique, only the ability to remember direct notes
Sign In or Register to comment.