A Level Results....guess what :-)

[Ten Ninety]

Grade inflation is an inevitable consequence of using examination performance to measure the 'quality' of teaching, instead of the ability of students. It started in the 80s (no prizes for remembering who was in government then) and has been responsible for relentlessly driving down 'real' standards ever since.

I did A-Levels in 1990 when only 12% of us got As but plenty thought the rot had set in even then. I remember the 'bell-curve' mob carping on about falling standards, because only 9% of them used to get an A under the old stats-based grading system. They were right, too. Goodness knows what they think now - perhaps they've all died of apoplexy.

For me though, however 'easy' the kids today have it with examinations, I wouldn't want to be their age and facing their future. Not ever. So I'll skip the traditional mealy-mouthed intergenerational denigration of their achievement (however justifiable that may be) and instead say good luck to them all. They're going to need it.

[johnxjsc1985]

isnt part of todays problem that these kids thing they have achieved something outstanding and with an equally outstanding degree course they will expect an outstanding future career.WRONG.They are being conned big time.

[Hooli]

Turnips said:

I don't know what GCSE or A level exams are like now, but I remember sitting my GCSE's back in about '94 or '95...... Now, I'll openly admit to not being a 'model student', I was even suspended right before I was to sit my GCSE's, but we went through loads of old exam papers in normal lessons and they were quite honestly very testing! However, when I came to sit my exams they introduced a wonderful new concept, multiple fking choice!!!!!!!
It was a joke, and bearing in mind I turned up for exams slightly inebriated on more than one occasion I came away with a B and a few C's and D's. Oh, and an F for French!

Rings a bell. The practise papers where hard, yet the actual exam was piece of piss compared to it. I did the suspended thing too, well actually if I'd turned up for the last six weeks of school I'd have been suspended anyway.

[VeeFour]

Nom de ploom said:

an A level used to be the equivalent of three old 'O' levels didn't it?

Show a current GCSE student an old O level paper any they will crumble. gcse's are easier than a levels and gettign easier - i'm sorry but its a fact (if 12 and 13 year olds are doing gcse's then they're easier full stop.)

so what natch does that say about current A levels?

ok I'm all behind making exams more relevant but at the end of the day we still need adults in the work place who "know" stuff not just how things relate to each other.

a generlism but I don't care - I worked basterd hard to get my A levels - are they giving them away these days?

When did you take your A-Levels, then?

I'm guessing fairly recently...

[johnxjsc1985]

The simple fact is that there are so many "A" grades ,they are simply devalued by the sheer quantity of them.
If everyone applying for University or employment has such high grades how can you possibly measure the quality of the candidates.

[g3org3y]

In the olden days, you were taught to learn.

Now you are taught to pass the exam.

The real shock comes when the 'exam passers' get out in the real world and realise that genuine knowledge and common sense is something that can not be gleaned from a Letts Revision Guide.

[Insanity Magnet]

Ten Ninety said:

I did A-Levels in 1990 when only 12% of us got As but plenty thought the rot had set in even then. I remember the 'bell-curve' mob carping on about falling standards, because only 9% of them used to get an A under the old stats-based grading system. They were right, too. Goodness knows what they think now - perhaps they've all died of apoplexy.

I sat A-levels in 1990. I remember doing past papers for physics from the mid-80's and remember thinking that they were utter bds. Electromagnetism seems to have stuck in my memory as being particularly unspeakable.

[ExChrispy Porker]

g3org3y said:

In the olden days, you were taught to learn.

Now you are taught to pass the exam.

The real shock comes when the 'exam passers' get out in the real world and realise that genuine knowledge and common sense is something that can not be gleaned from a Letts Revision Guide.

I took O levels in 1976.
From September to June we did Maths Papers from previous years, to the extent that we could finish a 2 hr paper in an hour or so.
In the real exam it said answer 4 questions from 8 in the second half.
I answered all 8 as I was bored, and got them all right ( I double checked each)
I then walked out with 30 minutes to spare or so.

My point is that teaching to pass the exam is far from new.

[ChiChoAndy]

Ah... The annual " it wasn't like that in my day" thread... Brilliant. Remember when I was doing GCSE's and A levels, we had to use a library to collate our info. Time spent photocopying, looking up appropriate chapters, and all that jazz, as well as handwritten essays. Now, it is so much easier to get information to absorb. Online help for subjects, math forums, wikifkingpedia, spellcheckers, blah, blah, blah... Do they have more access to information than I did? Definitely. Would it make a difference? I'm sure it does.

[groak]

My kid spent more time attending Children's Panels for truancy than he did at school. Doesn't seem to hold him back from enjoying life, nor does it appear that dealing with school differently would have been of much benefit to him.

I don't think the academic path is for everybody. To some people it's suffocating.

[jimbo65]

groak said:

My kid spent more time attending Children's Panels for truancy than he did at school. Doesn't seem to hold him back from enjoying life, nor does it appear that dealing with school differently would have been of much benefit to him.

I don't think the academic path is for everybody. To some people it's suffocating.

Could you not manage to get him to school? Of course he was enjoying life, he was a child
and was not at school and at that time that is what we all wanted, but we had to comply
with the law and go to school.
It does not matter whether the academic path is for him, it is the law and it will set him up
for life, as in he can read and write.

[Norbury90]

I did A-Levels a few years ago and my results were utterly terrible. I then went and got a 2:1 from a decent University. It depends highly on which subjects you take, and which school you attend.

I now need to find a job, which is where the fun starts.

[MikeyT]

ExChrispy Porker said:

I took O levels in 1976.
From September to June we did Maths Papers from previous years, to the extent that we could finish a 2 hr paper in an hour or so.
In the real exam it said answer 4 questions from 8 in the second half.
I answered all 8 as I was bored, and got them all right ( I double checked each)
I then walked out with 30 minutes to spare or so.

My point is that teaching to pass the exam is far from new.

So the invigilators allowed you to suddenly stand up, pack the old lucky gonk into your pencil case and stroll out of the gym did they? I call BS! (and I sat mine in '78)

[groak]

jimbo65 said:

Could you not manage to get him to school? Of course he was enjoying life, he was a child
and was not at school and at that time that is what we all wanted, but we had to comply
with the law and go to school.
It does not matter whether the academic path is for him, it is the law and it will set him up
for life, as in he can read and write.

We-ell, suffice it to say his upbringing was somewhat unconventional and from what I can gather he largely brought himself up. School wasn't really part of the upbringing equation, although a form of feral street-education certainly was. 'The Law' has nothing to say about it either to him or to me, and I'm not so sure he enjoyed much of his childhood. But I'm certain he's enjoying his adulthood. I think it's of primary importance that one should enjoy one's life. And just as The Law is really best for transgressors, I sometimes think that academia is of most use to the ignorant.

[Frog Dog]

ChiChoAndy said:

Ah... The annual " it wasn't like that in my day" thread... Brilliant. Remember when I was doing GCSE's and A levels, we had to use a library to collate our info. Time spent photocopying, looking up appropriate chapters, and all that jazz, as well as handwritten essays. Now, it is so much easier to get information to absorb. Online help for subjects, math forums, wikifkingpedia, spellcheckers, blah, blah, blah... Do they have more access to information than I did? Definitely. Would it make a difference? I'm sure it does.

I can't believe you're the only other person in this thread who thinks the same as I.

My 14 year old sister has passed 3 GCSE's already, not because they're easier than they used to be (they're not) but because she now has the complete encyclopedia of everything at the click of s button while she's on Facebook. She's smart beyond her years because she can access any information needed, at any time within seconds.

Just 10 years ago (when I got my GCSE's) we didn't have that. I'd trawl through revision guides, library books, reference books etc etc. The closest I got to the internet was using my science teachers dial-up AOL connection (and being amazed)

Don't write off the youth of today, some are smarter, because they have access to whatever they need whenever they need it. Even the incredibly lazy can Google things on their blackberry.

[Xaero]

Subject choice is a huge difference in this too. I remember my predicted grades (based on GCSE results) for my A level choices (Maths, Physics, Electronics and Computing) were all low as they were difficult subjects, and guess what, I got my predicted grades (including a fail I was predicted in maths, so retook the As level the year after and got a C).

If I took easy subjects like photography, general studies, sociology, I would have got A's I was predicted I'm sure. Maybe they are more wise to this now.

I've been looking at starting a bachelor degree and the requirement for some universities here in simply '3 A levels' Grade and subject doesn't matter. It's quite sad when you pour your life into a subject like Physics knowing you're going to get a crap grade when you could have taken photography and breezed a high grade and be rated higher for it. Because it is ultimately results that matter. I'd advise anyone to go for the easy subjects as it makes life easier in the future. It's not how education should be, but it is the way it's done now.

[Bing o]

Because copying and pasting from the internets is going to create a generation of intelekchual geniuses isn't it?

[cuneus]

Percentage distribution of A level grades for Biology

[turbobloke]

Bing o said:

Because copying and pasting from the internets is going to create a generation of intelekchual geniuses isn't it?

Sure is

How people who presumably have passed these exams sometime recently - perhaps that's the thing - can say that A-levels (and GCSEs) haven't got easier, when in the past the exams were only suitbale for small and able percentages of the school poopulation of which only a small percentage got top grades, is bizarre. It also flies in the face of senior exam board officer comment.

Tim Oates, head of research at Cambridge Assessment, the parent company of OCR, has acknowledged that A-levels and GCSEs have got easier. There can be no other reason for so many students being suited to the courses and then getting top grades. Looking at subject syllabus content particularly in maths and the sciences, method of assessment ('modular') also question format and content it's not difficult to spot the changes.

The main objection to stating the obvious is that it seems to be an insult to students and teachers when it's no such thing. It's fair to say that students have near enough the same distribution of ability and the same propensity for hard work as before, also teachers are probably harder working than ever when not on strike. The situation is in reality an indictment of politicians, and most exam boards which remain complicit, and it's a travesty for students because it misleads them and fails to reward high performance adequately since everybody is now up there.

Beyond that universities cannot distinguish adequately between applicants on the basis of A-level results, by 2008 over 18 universities had introduced their own entrance tests and by 2009 it was 1 in 5 unis. Sir Richard Sykes, as Rector of Imperial College London, confirmed that A-level grade inflation had destroyed its ability to discriminate between bright and average students.

What can be done now...virtually nothing in spite of noises from the Gove-ernment. Seeing standards 'plummet' i.e. remain unchanged by resetting the exam compass would be political high stakes poker, possibly political suicide and there must still be a sizeable group who believe that they really are geniuses within an entire quarter of the student population that gets an A or A* or just the 1 in 12 with an A*. How many of these would need counselling and of course compensation?

[Ten Ninety]

Frog Dog said:

Don't write off the youth of today, some are smarter, because they have access to whatever they need whenever they need it. Even the incredibly lazy can Google things on their blackberry.

You make an interesting point but sadly the majority of 'the youth of today' are utterly hopeless at making effective use of the internet as a learning tool. It's both comical and sad watching them flounder round in a world that they are supposed to own. The thing is, without a solid grounding in literacy and a good understanding of traditional research skills, the internet isn't a source of information - it's a source of confusion and contradiction.

It's also true that the nature of learning from the internet does not translate well into a traditional closed-book pen-and-paper examination. Research suggests that regular internet use has a negative impact on memory capacity and recall which are both vital to success in a traditional examination. So I don't think your idea of the internet being the explanation for higher grades holds true. If anything it's a handicap for most kids, not a help.

It is unequivocally the case that examination questions are more accessible (i.e. 'easier') than they were, and that the depth of knowledge required to achieve a specific grade is lower than it was. It is also the case that teachers are much more effective at boosting the grades of children they teach, often working exceptionally hard to help a child overcome learning barriers which, in the 80s, would have proved insurmountable. And, of course, occasionally just doing their coursework for them as well...

You are, however, absolutely right that we shouldn't 'write off' today's youth. Bright children today are just as bright as they ever have been; it's just more difficult for us to work out who they are purely by looking at their examination grades.

To some extent, depth of knowledge has been replaced by breadth - in some situations this might even be preferable. But most importantly, kids today have to cope with doing far more individual exams and assessments during their school career than I ever had to do. And they have to do this whilst battling the mind-bogglingly immense social stresses of an always-connected life; stresses that I, as a child of the 70s and 80s, couldn't even have imagined let alone coped with. They deserve some credit for that.