Discussion
A young relative was asking what getting to university etc was like in my day. Tricky because I didn't go straight from school.
Can anyone remember what A levels you needed for a decent uni course in around 1980?
I seem to remember friends getting into Medicine at UCL with something like AAB or even ABB.
Can anyone remember what A levels you needed for a decent uni course in around 1980?
I seem to remember friends getting into Medicine at UCL with something like AAB or even ABB.
Think you are about right there
An A grade was a top percentile achievement.
Most were happy with a C, a B was also considered pretty good.
Also different exam boards had different kudos, Oxbridge was considered a grade above JMB or similar.
I remember recently one of universities complaining that they couldn't tell the difference between students academically anymore as they all turned up with A's
I'm not dumbing down today's students,you only have to watch University challenge to realise there some very very smart people out there.
(even if their knowledge of 80s pop music is piss poor)
An A grade was a top percentile achievement.
Most were happy with a C, a B was also considered pretty good.
Also different exam boards had different kudos, Oxbridge was considered a grade above JMB or similar.
I remember recently one of universities complaining that they couldn't tell the difference between students academically anymore as they all turned up with A's
I'm not dumbing down today's students,you only have to watch University challenge to realise there some very very smart people out there.
(even if their knowledge of 80s pop music is piss poor)
My son's just been through the process and it was a bit disjointed.
He did 3 A levels and each was different
One as spilt into an exam in each year, weighted equally
One had coursework and the top mark was a D1
One was like an old fashioned A level with all exams at the end.
The entry requirements seemed universally very high for decent universities.
He did 3 A levels and each was different
One as spilt into an exam in each year, weighted equally
One had coursework and the top mark was a D1
One was like an old fashioned A level with all exams at the end.
The entry requirements seemed universally very high for decent universities.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 21st August 21:47
bristolracer said:
Think you are about right there
An A grade was a top percentile achievement.
Most were happy with a C, a B was also considered pretty good.
Also different exam boards had different kudos, Oxbridge was considered a grade above JMB or similar.
I remember recently one of universities complaining that they couldn't tell the difference between students academically anymore as they all turned up with A's
I'm not dumbing down today's students,you only have to watch University challenge to realise there some very very smart people out there.
(even if their knowledge of 80s pop music is piss poor)
I left grammar school in 1969 with a C and two Es. I could have got a place at a lesser university with that. I didn't bother.An A grade was a top percentile achievement.
Most were happy with a C, a B was also considered pretty good.
Also different exam boards had different kudos, Oxbridge was considered a grade above JMB or similar.
I remember recently one of universities complaining that they couldn't tell the difference between students academically anymore as they all turned up with A's
I'm not dumbing down today's students,you only have to watch University challenge to realise there some very very smart people out there.
(even if their knowledge of 80s pop music is piss poor)
Getting an A was a big deal back then. My school was highly regarded, yet only a few pupils would have been aiming for an A, it was far more common to get a couple of Bs and a C. Has the need for rating a school by performance been the reason for the "A-stars for everyone!" mentality ?
nicanary said:
I left grammar school in 1969 with a C and two Es. I could have got a place at a lesser university with that. I didn't bother.
Getting an A was a big deal back then. My school was highly regarded, yet only a few pupils would have been aiming for an A, it was far more common to get a couple of Bs and a C. Has the need for rating a school by performance been the reason for the "A-stars for everyone!" mentality ?
My feeling is that both expectation and the quality of teaching in many schools has risen exponentially.Getting an A was a big deal back then. My school was highly regarded, yet only a few pupils would have been aiming for an A, it was far more common to get a couple of Bs and a C. Has the need for rating a school by performance been the reason for the "A-stars for everyone!" mentality ?
Slop said:
Willy Nilly said:
NoddyonNitrous said:
ABC got me a place at 4 Scottish medical schools in 1982
I'm surprised they had the time around promoting Lexicon Of Love. According to my Maths teaching (30 years + experience) friends, A levels used to be on an ‘olympic’ system (top x % got As, next y% Bs etc.) whereas now we’re on ‘driving test’ system (meet the standard and you get an A) so more individuals can get a top grade..
Simply put then if you were in a top performing year you’d find it difficult to get an A; in a mediocre year a better chance of the gold medal. Think the Russian who won the 100m Olympic final when the USA boycotted; not likely if the USA team turned up.
Edited by standards on Thursday 23 August 10:06
standards said:
Excellent!
According to my Maths teaching (30 years + experience) friends, A levels used to be on an ‘olympic’ system (top x % got As, next y% Bs etc.) whereas now we’re on ‘driving test’ system (meet the standard and you get an A) so more individuals can get a top grade..
Simply put then if you were in a top performing year you’d find it difficult to get an A, in a mediocre year a better chance of the gold medal. Think the Russian who won the 100m Olympic final when the USA boycotted; not likely if the USA team turned up.
Alan Wellski? According to my Maths teaching (30 years + experience) friends, A levels used to be on an ‘olympic’ system (top x % got As, next y% Bs etc.) whereas now we’re on ‘driving test’ system (meet the standard and you get an A) so more individuals can get a top grade..
Simply put then if you were in a top performing year you’d find it difficult to get an A, in a mediocre year a better chance of the gold medal. Think the Russian who won the 100m Olympic final when the USA boycotted; not likely if the USA team turned up.
When studying for my maths and physics A levels in 1999 we used O level papers from the 80’s to practise. Further maths then was probably equivalent to A level maths in the same era. I took the physics Special paper and it was consistent with A level material from 15-20 years earlier.
First year at uni (Physics) was a crash course in maths because undergrad entrants just didn’t have the right skill level to be able to take the physics modules.
Wonder which way things have gone in the 19 years since? Does anyone still study physics?
First year at uni (Physics) was a crash course in maths because undergrad entrants just didn’t have the right skill level to be able to take the physics modules.
Wonder which way things have gone in the 19 years since? Does anyone still study physics?
standards said:
According to my Maths teaching (30 years + experience) friends, A levels used to be on an ‘olympic’ system (top x % got As, next y% Bs etc.) whereas now we’re on ‘driving test’ system (meet the standard and you get an A) so more individuals can get a top grade..
Simply put then if you were in a top performing year you’d find it difficult to get an A, in a mediocre year a better chance of the gold medal. Think the Russian who won the 100m Olympic final when the USA boycotted; not likely if the USA team turned up.
Sounds about right. Both styles have merit, but the first option was intended to rebalance the grades in the event of badly-set-up exam (i.e. too easy or too hard), on the assumption that across a significant enough cohort the average level would be broadly equal from one year to the next. Statistically a sensible assumption but certainly not infallible. Second assumes that the exam-setters are infallible and will always make each exam equally easy/difficult to pass. Which from what I'm told is far less realistic!Simply put then if you were in a top performing year you’d find it difficult to get an A, in a mediocre year a better chance of the gold medal. Think the Russian who won the 100m Olympic final when the USA boycotted; not likely if the USA team turned up.
Anyway...
1993 A-levels year - Cambridge wanted straight-A's, for the sciences at least. Warwick wanted AAB for Mathematics and ABB for Economics, other Russell Group unis ranged from there down to BBC for similar courses.
Measured in 'points' (10 for A, 8 for B etc.) nowhere top-rated wanted less than 22/24 points for a 'proper' course (Sciences, Social Sciences, Philosphies, Languages) and the best places insisted on 28/30 points. Ex-polytechnics and the mid-range Unis would take +/- 16/18 points, but don't think anywhere really wanted to know if you'd not even got 1 C and 2 other passes.
Interesting article I saw in the Times a few months ago ref. education / intelligence - suggestion is that average IQ levels have been dropping (slightly, bit-by-bit) for those born after 1974, so combine that with qualifications 'getting easier' and what is an A-Level / a degree now 'worth', in the real-world?!?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff