Record A Level results again
Discussion
bouffy said:
Don said:
el stovey said:
How long before most universities have their own entrance exams?
Already doing it. And, of course, if you go to the right school you get tutored in passing them. It's why Eton has so many Oxbridge graduates...Then you have the genetics aspect: the parents are wealthy and successful. Strong chance the kids got the genes.
Then finally the school is probably really, really really good.
There's a lot stacked in your favour if you went to Eton (et al).
Don said:
Fully accept that. The kids also have parents who obviously care deeply about their education and are willing to pay fortunes to ensure it is a good one. Coupled with parents who obviously care about their kids education and probably do sit with them when they are at home and ask about schoolwork...maybe even help with homework!
Then you have the genetics aspect: the parents are wealthy and successful. Strong chance the kids got the genes.
Then finally the school is probably really, really really good.
There's a lot stacked in your favour if you went to Eton (et al).
they probably also have loads of scholarship places for seriously clever 'poor' kids which will bump up their oxbridge numbers.Then you have the genetics aspect: the parents are wealthy and successful. Strong chance the kids got the genes.
Then finally the school is probably really, really really good.
There's a lot stacked in your favour if you went to Eton (et al).
Edited by fbrs on Thursday 19th August 16:32
Nice to find a website which proves something I've always suspected....
http://sexyalevels.tumblr.com/ (Safe for work)
Lest we forget of course;
http://sexyalevels.tumblr.com/ (Safe for work)
Lest we forget of course;
I'm not sure how applicable this is in England but in Scotland, they structured the Intermediate, Higher and Advanced Higher courses (equivalent of GCSE, AS Level and A Level) in the same way - mainly to reduce the jump from Standard Grades, which took a different approach. A side effect of this is that it is much easier to drop a pupil down a level (the difference is usually looking at a subject in less depth and perhaps only doing 1 essay instead of 2 in the exam for example) if they're struggling - no need to worry about rearranging the syllabus unlike Standard Grade. This means schools might have a single Higher Physics class for S5. As May approaches the teacher determines that one or two struggling pupils will fail the Higher exam. A fail won't look good so the teacher puts them forward for the easier Intermediate exam with the intention of trying again next year. Hence the students left to sit the Higher exam are on average better than before (because you're removed the weaker ones dragging the average down). Meanwhile the poor pupils have a reasonable qualification (passing the lower exam level allows you to quantify the level of ability more precisely than a straightforward <45% = fail approach). The intermediates won't make the headlines (no league tables in Scotland).
So basically the percentage of candidiates getting A improves because you've removed the weaker candidiates and reduced the pool. Obviously that means less absolute number of A passes but that can be countered by the increase in the number of people having to take the exams (rising minimum leaving age, ensuring all pupils have opportunity to sit exam rather than select few etc).
A couple of other observations:
Firstly, there are far more, better resources available to help teachers and pupils today. Textbooks change to match the specific structure of the course and better prepare pupils (e.g. questions in the same format the exam); past papers are much more widely available; revision guides to focus on the key points; mark schemes so teachers know precisely what the examiners are looking for; the use of IT (can be much more effective than an old OHP or slides); improved teaching resources that are much more widely shared compared to teachers making their own notes in the past; purposed built class rooms for science etc. Much of this stems from the economies of scale in having ever more pupils sitting exams and fierce competition between exam boards, publishers, etc. I think this has quite a big effect on performance
Secondly, I don't know anything about the old O Levels but I'd guess there were fewer subjects? Whereas today there are multiple courses for traditional subjects like English (Literature and Language), Maths (Maths, Further Maths, etc) and so on, as well as courses that didn't exist under O Levels. Hence much more likely that someone will find something they're good at or only have to sit the bits of English they like. These all count just the same in the league tables (divide group of B students who get 100% in one area and 0% in another or vice versa in two groups to study only the area they're good at and they all get 100%) - makes for very nice "Record number..." headlines. Decent universities, however, tend to be discerning about combination of subjects they'll accept for different courses.
Lastly, there is the question of modular resits, which I believe are a genuine and shocking dumbing down of the system in England. In Scotland if you do do poorer than expected you school may appeal on your behalf using your classwork (which has to meet standards set by the examiner to be considered). If you're fortunate, you might get your graded bumped up (although the statistics announced a few weeks ago don't take this into account). Otherwise if your appeal fails you have no option but to resit the entire course the next year if you want a better grade. Likewise at University, if you fail the exam and have no mitigating circumstances the best you can usually hope for is the summer resit, which will be 100% of the course assessment (i.e. disregarding any coursework you may have done) and the grade will likely be capped at 40% - no matter how well you do, the university will only you give 40% for it.
Compare that with the modular A Levels where pupils seem able to resit units several times just to get a better overall mark - sometimes just because just to gain an extra few marks to tip them over the boundary. If you manage to do worse, it doesn't matter as you can just keep your old mark instead or even try again. Plus with January and June exam periods, the former can simply be treated as a practice for the resits during the latter. Since you're testing individual modules, you only need to know the content for those areas rather than the entire course. You can easily chose where to direct your time and effort in knowledge that targetting your better modules will still get you the grade you want. Hence why UCL have started requiring no resits, which I always thought strange considering most Scottish universities have always demanded more Highers if you take more than 1 sitting to get them.
As people say, with the focus on league tables and assessing teachers, it's very easy to game the system, even without changing the system itself.
So basically the percentage of candidiates getting A improves because you've removed the weaker candidiates and reduced the pool. Obviously that means less absolute number of A passes but that can be countered by the increase in the number of people having to take the exams (rising minimum leaving age, ensuring all pupils have opportunity to sit exam rather than select few etc).
A couple of other observations:
Firstly, there are far more, better resources available to help teachers and pupils today. Textbooks change to match the specific structure of the course and better prepare pupils (e.g. questions in the same format the exam); past papers are much more widely available; revision guides to focus on the key points; mark schemes so teachers know precisely what the examiners are looking for; the use of IT (can be much more effective than an old OHP or slides); improved teaching resources that are much more widely shared compared to teachers making their own notes in the past; purposed built class rooms for science etc. Much of this stems from the economies of scale in having ever more pupils sitting exams and fierce competition between exam boards, publishers, etc. I think this has quite a big effect on performance
Secondly, I don't know anything about the old O Levels but I'd guess there were fewer subjects? Whereas today there are multiple courses for traditional subjects like English (Literature and Language), Maths (Maths, Further Maths, etc) and so on, as well as courses that didn't exist under O Levels. Hence much more likely that someone will find something they're good at or only have to sit the bits of English they like. These all count just the same in the league tables (divide group of B students who get 100% in one area and 0% in another or vice versa in two groups to study only the area they're good at and they all get 100%) - makes for very nice "Record number..." headlines. Decent universities, however, tend to be discerning about combination of subjects they'll accept for different courses.
Lastly, there is the question of modular resits, which I believe are a genuine and shocking dumbing down of the system in England. In Scotland if you do do poorer than expected you school may appeal on your behalf using your classwork (which has to meet standards set by the examiner to be considered). If you're fortunate, you might get your graded bumped up (although the statistics announced a few weeks ago don't take this into account). Otherwise if your appeal fails you have no option but to resit the entire course the next year if you want a better grade. Likewise at University, if you fail the exam and have no mitigating circumstances the best you can usually hope for is the summer resit, which will be 100% of the course assessment (i.e. disregarding any coursework you may have done) and the grade will likely be capped at 40% - no matter how well you do, the university will only you give 40% for it.
Compare that with the modular A Levels where pupils seem able to resit units several times just to get a better overall mark - sometimes just because just to gain an extra few marks to tip them over the boundary. If you manage to do worse, it doesn't matter as you can just keep your old mark instead or even try again. Plus with January and June exam periods, the former can simply be treated as a practice for the resits during the latter. Since you're testing individual modules, you only need to know the content for those areas rather than the entire course. You can easily chose where to direct your time and effort in knowledge that targetting your better modules will still get you the grade you want. Hence why UCL have started requiring no resits, which I always thought strange considering most Scottish universities have always demanded more Highers if you take more than 1 sitting to get them.
As people say, with the focus on league tables and assessing teachers, it's very easy to game the system, even without changing the system itself.
Frankeh said:
Fun A-Level result day game for us all.
Go to your favourite news website and look for an article about exam results getting easier.
You lose a point for every picture that has blonde girls opening results or jumping in the air; you gain a point for finding any picture with a boy opening results.
I cheated by going to The Sun...
-6.
I never found a picture of a boy and the title of the article was "Brains & Beauty"...
Found one:Go to your favourite news website and look for an article about exam results getting easier.
You lose a point for every picture that has blonde girls opening results or jumping in the air; you gain a point for finding any picture with a boy opening results.
I cheated by going to The Sun...
-6.
I never found a picture of a boy and the title of the article was "Brains & Beauty"...
colonel c said:
Frankeh said:
Fun A-Level result day game for us all.
Go to your favourite news website and look for an article about exam results getting easier.
You lose a point for every picture that has blonde girls opening results or jumping in the air; you gain a point for finding any picture with a boy opening results.
I cheated by going to The Sun...
-6.
I never found a picture of a boy and the title of the article was "Brains & Beauty"...
Found one:Go to your favourite news website and look for an article about exam results getting easier.
You lose a point for every picture that has blonde girls opening results or jumping in the air; you gain a point for finding any picture with a boy opening results.
I cheated by going to The Sun...
-6.
I never found a picture of a boy and the title of the article was "Brains & Beauty"...
clonmult said:
Not sure about the A levels, but I've just looked up some of the GCSE "ICT" papers.
I dropped out of another subject a month or so before my GCSEs. I decided to take ICT (to skive if I am honest) I passed my theory exam with absolutely no lessons on the subject, it was mainly common sense.N e way now I got a propa job, so it all came out ok innit?
The Hypno-Toad said:
Nice to find a website which proves something I've always suspected....
http://sexyalevels.tumblr.com/ (Safe for work)
Lest we forget of course;
Triplets! http://sexyalevels.tumblr.com/ (Safe for work)
Lest we forget of course;
I think that several of my own opinions and gripes have already been voiced or mentioned on here but back in my old days, only a couple of kids got straight As at A-Level. They went to Oxbridge.
Near the start of my A Levels, the Head suggested that I should consider dropping one of my 4 subjects so as to ensure I gave myself a good chance of getting top grades in 3. I obviously ignored him and did OK - not straight As.
These days, there can be no doubt whatsoever that things have been dumbed down. One hears of 3/4/5/6 straight As and this just wasnt possible back in my time (3 or 4 obviously possible as two guys did it)
I now just laugh when the results come out and unless someone tackles this problem soon, we will be even more of a laughing stock than we are no in GB Ltd.
Near the start of my A Levels, the Head suggested that I should consider dropping one of my 4 subjects so as to ensure I gave myself a good chance of getting top grades in 3. I obviously ignored him and did OK - not straight As.
These days, there can be no doubt whatsoever that things have been dumbed down. One hears of 3/4/5/6 straight As and this just wasnt possible back in my time (3 or 4 obviously possible as two guys did it)
I now just laugh when the results come out and unless someone tackles this problem soon, we will be even more of a laughing stock than we are no in GB Ltd.
paulrockliffe said:
When I did GCSEs I was the only person in my year that got A*s in both English and English Literature, the following year there were 3, then 5, now it's not even remarkable. There's no way kids today are just better than me. No way!
When i did GCSEs only about 10% of my year got 2 As (A* didn't exist) in both English and English Literature - and this was in a Grammar school! Easy now innit?!Edited by fido on Friday 20th August 10:25
Ten Ninety said:
7thCircleAcolyte said:
The answer then is fourfold:
Education vouchers to allow failing schools to fail, go bust, and be replaced with better schools. Incapable teachers would then be forced out of the industry.
Abolition of child related benefits (housing, tax credits, cash benefits). Children could be fed at school by extending educational hours to 9-5 thus enabling more parents to work, and removing the need for child based cash subsidy.
The return of some form of corporal punishment administrable by both courts and authorised persons, to instil some discipline across the board.
We must return to a system where grades are awarded on a bell curve. This will include revaluing all qualifications issued since we moved to the current system.
I kind of agree with the sentiment behind much of that, but in reality I think you're only scratching the surface and not tackling the root cause. In fact, by talking about 'failing schools' I'd say you were actually perpetuating the very approach which has got us into this mess in the first place...Education vouchers to allow failing schools to fail, go bust, and be replaced with better schools. Incapable teachers would then be forced out of the industry.
Abolition of child related benefits (housing, tax credits, cash benefits). Children could be fed at school by extending educational hours to 9-5 thus enabling more parents to work, and removing the need for child based cash subsidy.
The return of some form of corporal punishment administrable by both courts and authorised persons, to instil some discipline across the board.
We must return to a system where grades are awarded on a bell curve. This will include revaluing all qualifications issued since we moved to the current system.
The real problem is that since the idiocy of the Thatcher govt's education policy in the late 80s, examinations have become 'dual purpose'. They have become tools to measure the performance of teachers as much as they are used to judge students. This is disastrous. Everything, and I mean everything that is wrong with education today can be attributed to the introduction of league tables and Ofsted.
You simply can't do performance-management by results in education without ending up where we are now. It's a nonsense. Tell me as a teacher that my career depends on the performance of my students and I will choose the easiest course for them and teach them in a manner that just gives them everything on a plate to maximise their grades, instead of in a manner where they might actually learn, attain and retain some useful skills.
Allow multiple exam boards to compete for schools' business by offering ever-easier specifications and you've got a guaranteed escalator to the bottom in terms of real learning and achievement. Quite how anyone ever thought it would be any different is utterly beyond me but the Tories started it, New Labour perpetuated it and sadly that buffoon Gove is still clueless on this issue.
I do agree about the bell curve. Going back to that may be 'unfair' but it would at least rid us of that all-pervading, insidious, pernicious notion that every child can somehow achieve anything if only they have a good enough teacher. It would rid us of the idea that every school could get 30% of its students 5 GCSE passes irrespective of its intake, if only the teachers were 'better'. And it would actually give our children a realistic picture of their ability and what sort of life choices they should make, instead of propagating the ridiculous fantasy that they are all capable of going to University.
In fact, with the bell curve there'd be no more 'failing' schools. No more grade inflation. No more struggling to determine which of the thousands of 'A grade' candidates actually have what it takes. Just like it used to be before Thatcher's mob f
ked it all up in fact. Schools with more 'challenging' intakes could provide an appropriate education without fear of being shut down by Ofsted just because they're not meeting some spurious, utterly inappropriate statistical target.And dealing with the useless teachers? Easy. Forget judging by results. Forget ridiculous targets for pass rates. Just abolish the teaching unions. Allow senior leaders in schools to judge a teacher's effectiveness based on the quality of classroom experience that they offer their students, and fire those few who aren't delivering...
Sadly, none of that will ever happen. And we'll continue to see the majority of our children misled and duped into thinking they have done well when in reality their ability to compete in an international employment market is ever-more diminished.
groucho said:
The Hypno-Toad said:
Nice to find a website which proves something I've always suspected....
http://sexyalevels.tumblr.com/ (Safe for work)
Lest we forget of course;
Triplets! http://sexyalevels.tumblr.com/ (Safe for work)
Lest we forget of course;
Total Recall said:
Babe, you make me wish I had 3 hands.....
Ten Ninety said:
Lots of sensible stuff
Yes - Ten Ninety is spot on.The irony of performance management by student grades is that it is still nigh on impossible to sack a crap teacher even if the grades can be shown to be unacceptable.
It is never the teacher's fault and the school either has to support the teacher by putting them through "capability" procedures which rarely fails or pass them off to another school with a OK reference if they leave quietly.
League tables assume you as a school are in complete control of the education process and as a school can make decisions as to how to improve.
But (as a LA controlled state school) can you:
select who you admit? - No
select what is the best curriculum? - largely No
easily get rid of under performing staff? No
reward excellent staff to retain them? - largely No
easy to remove those not engaged with education? No
We have no control over the inputs, the required outputs and little influence on the process.
So HTF can a school be measured on performance of exam results?
Ask those same questions about independent schools and all of the answers become yes. Any wonder they produce a better education experience?
Not rocket science.
Frankeh said:
All the college courses I did were pointless.
In e-media I knew more about the software we were using than the teachers did. So much so that they found it hard to mark my work since they didn't know how I did it.
All my work was distinction level but I found it tedious writing up a step by step process for everything I did (Hundreds of actions). I'd been doing it for 2 years before I got to college. Talk about boring me stless.
As such I scraped a pass even though all my finished products were double distinctions.
In computing I was taught pretty pointless access database bks so I just stopped turning up.
Visual basic? Lol. I'd done that 3 years before reaching college and already figured out how much of a steaming pile of turd it is.
I'm quite certain that further education as a whole is a joke.
I doubt there's much you can't learn using the internet and a library (And with google books, soon just the internet.)
Have you ever done speedway?In e-media I knew more about the software we were using than the teachers did. So much so that they found it hard to mark my work since they didn't know how I did it.
All my work was distinction level but I found it tedious writing up a step by step process for everything I did (Hundreds of actions). I'd been doing it for 2 years before I got to college. Talk about boring me s
tless. As such I scraped a pass even though all my finished products were double distinctions.
In computing I was taught pretty pointless access database b
ks so I just stopped turning up. Visual basic? Lol. I'd done that 3 years before reaching college and already figured out how much of a steaming pile of turd it is.
I'm quite certain that further education as a whole is a joke.
I doubt there's much you can't learn using the internet and a library (And with google books, soon just the internet.)
The BBC headline story yesterday made me laugh,
It was reported that a chap with great A Level results didn't get a place at Oxford or his second choice. Seemed quite bad really until you read the footnote that teh chap was german only spent a year in this country and had no a level results!
Bloody BBC!!!
It was reported that a chap with great A Level results didn't get a place at Oxford or his second choice. Seemed quite bad really until you read the footnote that teh chap was german only spent a year in this country and had no a level results!
Bloody BBC!!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff