A-Level Exam Results.

[Babs]

Like most exams, there is more technique rather than actual intellect.

Even at A-level it's mostly just regurgitating information.

[westerdam2]

Many interesting points raised and all I can say is that I'm glad I don't have to face another examination room! Well done to all who have made the effort and reaped the just rewards!

By way of a little light relief, I heard this morning of someone who phoned his parents to say that his grades were the same as his favourite pop group. His father was delighted 'Well done son, you've got A B B A'.

The son replies: 'Actrually, dad, it's ACDC'.

['daiking']

Pretty much yeah; partial differentials and matrices were covered at O-Grade in Scotland in the 1970s.

And in England in the mid-eighties if my fading memory serves...

Well they sure as hell weren't covered in the mid-90s @ GCSEs. Might have looked at a matrix in passing but no manipulation and Calculus was not even mentioned until A-level. (I got an A* @ GCSE so I'm assuming I knew pretty much everything that was taught to us at the time)

[ultra_joel88]

I got 9 GCSESs all A*-B with 6 A* in 2005

I got AAC at a-level in french, history, english lit in 2007

I have a 2:1 degree in politics and modern history from Cardiff University (NOT UWIC) in 2009

I honestly felt a-levels were harder than a degree.

I worked ****ing hard for all my results. I hate it when people dismiss me and the work I did with "oh theyre getting easier anyway".

I am intelligent and hard working young person if you dismiss the work that me and thousands of others put in then its no wonder there are so many young people unemployed and out of work because all the older generation just write us off no matter how hard we try!

Luckily my most recent employer overlooked my relative lack of experience and gave me a shot because unlike most people they didnt pass off my good results as "because exams are easy anyway"

[BJM]

Well, here goes - let's upset a few people.

A got my A level results in August 1969 - yup, 40 years ago today (give or take a couple of days (I got a B and 2 C's btw)

There is a fundamental difference between the A levels of my era and today, namely the target "audience" As originally formulated the A levels were targetted at the "top" 10% - 15% of pupils, namely those attending Grammar Schools and a few others. As such it was assumed that the then existing educational system (11+, O levels etc.) would have already weeded out those who were simply not intellectually capable of sitting them.

The maximum subjects that any school normally allowed was 3, the intense work and study involved, together with timetable constraints meaning it was almost impossible for anyone to adequately cover any more subjects in the 2 years.

Compare that to today where over 50% of all pupils now sit so-called A levels, with pass rates in some subjects of 97% and over 50% getting Grade A.

Some pupils are credited with 5 or 6 passes.

I simply do not believe that there is any comparison between the exams of 40 years ago and today, particularly having seen my children and (step) grandchildrens question papers. Nor do I believe that any examination which is virtually impossible to fail has any relevance.

I'm sorry, but the whole system has been steadily debased by successive Governments. The only similarity between the A levels of 40 years ago and those of today is the name, and it is about time that this was aknowledged and a new, more honest, naming and grading system introduced.

[seboni121]

Eaton isn't a uni it's a public boys school (collage) for people aged 13 through to 18.

As for goldsmiths WTF are you on about?

While obviously you want to have a moan about oxbridge graduates, I'd suggest that there are a lot of very good uni's (Russell Group Uni's) even though there are a some ex polytechnics that are rubbish.

Hi,a moan don't get me started you know as well as I do the education system here is a farce an utter disgrace how the flying fu** are these young un's are getting these grades good teachers,working harder in class or just dumming down some of these A graders do not know the times tables and spelling and grammer ain't what it used to be as for the etonians and goldsmiths kids what I am trying to say they have it made regardless of what bloody grades they get its the old tie thing they are on the gravy train all the bloody way

Yes there are good uni's but and there is always a but its the uni's where the toffs go they get the plum jobs all the time and I do offer my congrats to all the kids that have done well but lets not forget the fallen with there dreams in tatters!!!!!

[DavidY]

Regardless of whether the average intelligence has gone up or the exams have got easier they are pretty much useless as an assessment tool when a large percentage of people get the top grade.

IMHO it's about time they Went A to E based on the percentile system.

Eg top 10% get an A, next 20% get a B and so on, with a minimum mark required for any pass grade at all.

That's exactly the system we used to have in the UK...

Radio 4's topical Maths programme* (More or Less) had an article about it today (download the podcast from here if you're interested - the bit on A levels is about 19 minutes in),

Apparently before 1987, the system was relative - the top 10% got an A grade, the bottom 30% failed.

Now, 45.2% of A Level Maths students get an A grade. Remember this used to be 10% - that's a huge increase!

Grades have improved every year, for 27 years in a row, too, which is bloomin' unlikely if grades had stayed at the same standard. They talk about a drift of about a grade a decade. You could argue that teaching is better etc. but not that much better.

* I love the fact that the BBC have a topical Maths programme - I'm very tempted to pop over to the Licence Fee thread...

[homedad]

I remember when...... to pass an O-level you had to get a grade C or above, D and E grades didn't count. These days any letter counts as a pass.

In the early 80s i did the first year of A levels at the top Grammar school in my home city. I had 3 subjects and no-one had more than 4. There just wasn't enough time in the day. So how do people manage 5 or 6 subjects unless they have a very thin syllabus?

Despite doing well at O-level i found A-levels very tough and decided to get a job rather than continue at school.

I think the problems these days stem from the fact that at 16 most kids only option is to carry on in education or be unemployed. Where are the apprenticeships? Gone with our manufacturing/industrial base. So they stay on to do A-levels, and the A-levels are made easier for the people who in my day would have left and got a job in an office, or a factory and worked their way up.

The govt has set a target to get 50% of kids in higher education, based on what? where are the jobs at the end of it? Most probably end up in the same jobs as the people who left at 16 did in my day, except thay have a load of debt to show for it.

The system, like most systems in this country, needs a complete overhaul, but it'll never happen.

[ednmra]

I took my A levels in about 1962. Three sciences - to get into the Royal dental school. Our zoology teacher told us that A level would probably be the hardest part of our progression to a degree, because one's time was split between several subjects and over only 2 years. She considered getting 75 to 80% on a class (end of term or end of year) exam paper a really good result, and to get 3 A levels at A grade was fantastic (now it seems almost the norm!)

The point is this. Look at the huge percentage of pupils that get into university these days compared with years ago. Has average IQ gone up that much. Is teaching that much better? It is not surprising so many drop out.

A while ago they gave three students who had just got A level physics at A grade the papers from about 30 years ago. Two failed and one got an E.

When my kids were doing A level maths, a lot of the questions reminded me of our 11+ from the mid 50's !!

I'm not having a moan, but the figures speak for themselves. Oh, and one of my nieces works for one of the Bristol universities, and is quite matter of fact about their acceptance of grade inflation.

'Nuff said?

[swedishskoda]

It's pointless, really, to compare today's exams with the ones that once were, mainly because society as a whole has changed.

When my dad was a kid, 80-90 percent went to school for six years. Then they went into apprenticeship, went to sea, worked on farms, whatever. The rest (not necessarily the brightest, but those whose parents could afford to feed and clothe them) stayed on for a few years, went to polytechnincs (like my dad) or business schools or (1-2 percent) to the uni.

This started to change in the 50's. Partly a necessity, partly a wise choice.

It goes without saying that the content and skill needed today is different from what was needed only 30-40 years ago. Becoming a skilled lathe operator in the 60's depended on experience and the knowledge that you stored in your hands, eyes and ears. Today you need computing skills as well, and reading ability to master the user manual...

We have more physicians, nurses, engineers, scientists, scholars, archaeologists and so on than ever. Are they less skilled than their counterparts 50 years ago? Don't think so. Are PhD theses of today a joke compared to the ones written 50 years ago? No. But how can that be if the school system is so bad as some people tend to think?

Final exams are problematic. What kind of knowledge can be accurately measured through exams? It's easy when questions deals with facts and the answer could be either right or wrong. It's extremely difficult when it comes to thinking skills and capability of reasoning. And if different skills should be measured against each other it's hopeless. Student A masters the source material brilliantly, but lacks in methodological skills, Student B reasons brilliantly on theory and methodology, but misses a few important sources and ought to have read a few more books on the subject. Which of them is best?

Another big problem with exams and grades is that they are used not only for grading the students but for grading schools (and unis) competing with each other which is a strong incentive for grade inflation - and for a teaching/learning culture that consists of coaching towards exams rather than towards relevant and valuable knowledge.

A few notes on Math courses: I left upper secondary in 1972 after taking a program aimed at business administration. In Maths we spent hours and hours on binomial expansion practices. I did pass the math course Since then I have, in a roundabout way, been a bus/tram dirver, a journalist, an accountant, got a PhD degree and (for the last ten years) a uni lecturer. Have I ever done a binomial expansion? No. Have I ever needed to do one? No. Do I remeber how it's done? No. Why, then, did we spent hours and hours practicing? If it's removed from the syllabus of today it must be considered a wise step.

Oh, and I learnt how to use a slide ruler as well. Really valuable

Edited 22 August, 2009 by swedishskoda

[Clunkclick]

I would say people skills and abilities have undoubtedly improved markedly since the 60s - no question, but perhaps not as fast in the UK as other countries - UK has slipped down the international rankings. So what's gone wrong ? - the exams haven't kept pace.

Why ? Vested interest of the educational and political establsihments - more teachers are kept in jobs and politicians get elected by selling as many of the current economically and educationally emerging groups as possible easy attainable aspirational goals - another version of the "Everybody gets a lollipop" syndrome. Sellings an easy job in a highly socially competitive society, the customers do it for you !

Just recall how the educational establishment buried the on-line learning scheme that the Blairmeister proposed. A system which I believe is now thriving in the States. Giving higher edication entrants the chance to get a good qualification, at low-cost, in a manner and timing that suits them and not the educational hierarchy.

Remebering that, at the top end, the utimate control on who is up for what life-wise in the UK is still social background and student loan burdened graduates helps to keep it that way.

Nick

Edited 22 August, 2009 by Clunkclick

[swedishskoda]

I would say people skills and abilities have undoubtedly improved markedly since the 60s - no question...

Hear, hear.

...but perhaps not as fast in the UK as other countries - UK has slipped down the international rankings.

Ah, but you can hear the same said in the US, in Sweden, in Germany... so I don't think there are any specific domestic UK explanations.

So what's gone wrong ? - the exams haven't kept pace.

Why ? Vested interest of the educational and political establsihments - more teachers are kept in jobs and politicians get elected by selling as many of the current economically and educationally emerging groups as possible easy attainable aspirational goals - another version of the "Everybody gets a lollipop" syndrome.

Not sure. IMHO it has more to do with market philosophy. Today politicians must be able to assure voters that they get something for their taxes. 50 yrs ago noone really questioned the NHS or the education system in terms of cost efficiency. Today everyone wants to know if we get what we pay for. Problem with activities like education or health care is that the output is terribly difficult to measure, especially in a short time perspective. You can put together impressive data columns built on surveys or evaluation processes, but what do these data really say? Often next to nothing. But producing them takes a lot of time and money...

Market philosophy also stresses efficient productivity. We expect a car factory to put out more cars with less input (manpower, energy) than 10 yrs ago. But one cannot transfer that line of thought to a hospital operation unit or a symphony orchestra or a school. Still, that's exactly what's demanded of the public services sector.

[seboni121]

On question time 2 day the caller said dont remember his name but he said as a setter of the exams A levels he was told to dumm down the questions and to mark papers for effort regardless if they were wrong ? because the high influx of student they could not let the majority fail because that would make the system look bad and they kept on dumming down!!!!! what a farce if they are not good enough fail them.and further more a proffessor said theu had to get students up to speed on math and grammer before starting the degree what a joke!:(

[expostmanpat]

Open book exams and continual assessment, what a dream, how anyone fails is the prudent question.

[ap0gee1978]

Well Mr Ap0pee Sr is in da house, and he confirms that partial differential equations were on the O Level curriculum in the 60s. Although neither of us do anything related to our degrees, which is perhaps most telling...

['daiking']

Well Mr Ap0pee Sr is in da house, and he confirms that partial differential equations were on the O Level curriculum in the 60s. Although neither of us do anything related to our degrees, which is perhaps most telling...

As I said before, the rot didn't start yesterday...

[ednmra]

It is certainly true that loads of what I learned both at A level and college was never used thereafter. I recall sitting through hours of boring lectures on nutrition (which I why I now believe that it is daft to be a vegan or to fill up on expensive vitamin pills!) It also taught me that Gillian McKeith, she of the fake Ph.D, should have been put away somewhere safe! Try reading a book called "Bad Science" (Dr. Ben Goldacre.)

However, one (non university) friend once remarked to me that with this kind of education you learn how to learn. A good point I think. We live in a rapidly changing world (try reading another book called "Futureshock" - very interesting forecasts made in about 1969).

It is important to be able to keep up with things as well as recall the older stuff.

There was no such thing as course work, with mummy looking over your shoulder at home or grafting in great slices of existing papers as one's own work. As if. The one thing the exam environment does is prove your work is your own, whether practical or written.

But you can't have, or believe in, a system where "everybody wins" - down that road lies serious disappointment for a lot of people who seem to have been told they will make great brain surgeons or nuclear physicists, whereas they'd be far better off excelling at a practical vocational career, and equally much needed in the UK.

['daiking']

Another big problem with exams and grades is that they are used not only for grading the students but for grading schools (and unis) competing with each other which is a strong incentive for grade inflation - and for a teaching/learning culture that consists of coaching towards exams rather than towards relevant and valuable knowledge.

Not only that but the exam organisations offering the syllabuses (pl?) are competing with each other to get schools/colleges to 'consume' their 'product'. Back in 1996 I was told by my Maths teacher that we were studying the 'lightest' A-level maths syllabus available at the time to give the school the best chance of good grades and presumably lower exam costs.

Not my fault, not my maths teacher's fault but what are kids supposed to do? I thought I went to a good school? Are 16 year-olds supposed to start assessing the quality of the qualifications they want? How would this do this.

As I keep saying this isn't a new problem so why the surprise all of a sudden?

It goes without saying that the content and skill needed today is different from what was needed only 30-40 years ago. Becoming a skilled lathe operator in the 60's depended on experience and the knowledge that you stored in your hands, eyes and ears. Today you need computing skills as well, and reading ability to master the user manual...

The trouble is that it feels like the teaching establishment think that only the computer skills are needed nowadays. The problem comes when, as you well know, you can drive the CNC but the product dropping out of the other end isn't what you expect. What skills and knowledge do you have to work out what is going wrong?

Its typical of yours and other comments about the difference between being taught stuff and learning how to think for yourself and solve problems methodically. In the Information Age where so much data is avaialble at our fingertips, the problem solving skills have never been more important yet it seems that only google skills are taught. Its no use finding information if you don't know what it means.

This is all moot anyway, neo-liberalism and globalisation will ensure we're more worried about finding our next meal than bits of paper.

Edited 23 August, 2009 by daiking

[swedishskoda]

This is all moot anyway, neo-liberalism and globalisation will ensure we're more worried about finding our next meal than bits of paper.

Too true :(

In his book Liquid Modernity sociologist Zygmunt Bauman quoted a job seeker ad where the central qualification mentioned was

"Have car. Can travel."

That pretty much sums it up. The most important today is being able to instant adaptation to anything. Old (outdated) factual knowledge won't help you, and as to thinking for yourself and solve problems methodically - great stuff, but it takes too long, we can't afford it, sorry.

[Clunkclick]

Hear, hear.

Market philosophy also stresses efficient productivity. We expect a car factory to put out more cars with less input (manpower, energy) than 10 yrs ago. But one cannot transfer that line of thought to a hospital operation unit or a symphony orchestra or a school. Still, that's exactly what's demanded of the public services sector.

Oh contraire.! Having spent 12 years in the NHS as an "junior Efficiency expert" prior to 1990 attempting to improve productivity and efficiency, I can say, that an attempt was made to implement change and control costs of the in-house ancillary staff labour force using the techniques of the factory floor. This commenced in 1968 in response to the labour shortages and increasing industrial miliatncy and wage inflation which commenced then. It continued until 1990 and covered all the UK.

Operations like, the Central Sterile Services Department, portering, catering, cleaning (domestic), transport were subject to rigorous examination and recording across the country using conventional Work Study techniques i.e. Time study,

The ultimate effect of this was limited because of the strong Trades union presence which meant that any change was heavily negotiated point by point and the fact that the management were reluctant to implement deep change. So most the measures that my colleagues recommended were implemented watered down.

Needless to say, post 1990, with the deep economic downturn and depressed employment and wages, the emphasis moved from negotiated in-house cost control to using the disciplines of the external commercial market by the further extension of competitive tendering of in-house services to reduce costs - a strategy which continues to today and into future until such point where labour shortages may occur again ?

Nick

[Clunkclick]

Too true :(

In his book Liquid Modernity sociologist Zygmunt Bauman quoted a job seeker ad where the central qualification mentioned was

"Have car. Can travel."

That pretty much sums it up. The most important today is being able to instant adaptation to anything. Old (outdated) factual knowledge won't help you, and as to thinking for yourself and solve problems methodically - great stuff, but it takes too long, we can't afford it, sorry.

Sorry Swedish, I have to say that's "********".

The recent collapse on the World financial markets proves that constant blagging, with no knowledge or ability to back it up, eventually leads to collapse - in this case caused by a few individuals saying the "King has got no clothes" - even though it may have been deliberately said in order to initiate a "Profit-taking event" - untrustworthy t*sspots given a perceived tactical weakness in their competitors will eventually break ranks for greed and **** on each others doorsteps.

I would have thought that the "Haven't got time to train anyone or take a future view of business" and the subtext to MHT's period of rule "What ever happens its your fault" syndrome can't be sustained without societal collapse and economic descaling in the long-term. And a scale of descaling would even adversely effect the "Mover and shaker class" for a long-time.

And if there is any thing I have learnt over the last 20 years, is that while the financial establishment are more than happy to cause any amount of unwarranted grief to the financially and economic illiterate through their deliberate manipulations and distortions of the UK economy, they will always ensure that their core followers are never disadvantaged. Win in a boom, win in a slump.

They need us at the moment and in the near future to pay the debt charge that Mervyn and Gordon have incurred bailing out their mates.

Surely this type of corporate behaviour only occurs at the end of the boom times when unregulated market operators are hunting profits in a cash bloated economy, to exclusion of all other behaviours, in totally speculative way . And look what it leads, people blagging their heads off - "I can do brain surgery" .

Unless the labour market totally collapses due to extreme shortage of skills, then any shortages due to lack of investment in training in the past will result in improved wage rates and T & Cs for employees as employers compete for the scarce resource. After a while the employers will get p*ssed off with paying over the odds, one will break ranks and start training people properly. And the other thing to remember is that consistent balagging about skills and capabilities across an industry sector will lead to reduced productivity, increased professional indemnity claims and utlimately economic collapse.

Nick

[swedishskoda]

Sorry Swedish, I have to say that's "********".

The recent collapse on the World financial markets proves that constant blagging, with no knowledge or ability to back it up, eventually leads to collapse...

I'm with you there. But I'm not sure that those who call the shots are I doubt that the current collapse will lead to more careful (and time-consuming) analyses or that demand for instant profit from investments will cease to be.

And even if there are gains to be made from slimming some parts of the public sector they are limited. How can a symphony orchestra make a 2 percent productivity raise when playing Elgar's Enigma variations? Playing it 2 percent faster, or with 2 percent less violins? How can a Math teacher improve productivity in class? More pupils? Or lower the grade limit so that the number of pupils that pass goes up 2 percent?

[KenONeill]

Back to the point about "is this skill actually of any use?" - I learnt to do mental arithmetic at primary school, and by the time I reached O-Grade (1978) we were allowed the use of calculators in exams. These days I will often use a computer or pocket calculator to carry out a calculation, so clearly metal is "of no use".

Or is it? If I make a keying mistake inputting the figures or formula, I spot it almost every time before proceeding, which is almost certainly down to knowing more or less what the answer should be, at least as an order of magnitude and the first 2 or 3 SF.

[ednmra]

But going back to exams and dumbing down or not, I don't recall universities ever having to spend their intakes' first year making sure they could "reed, rite 'n ad upp".

A student who has gained 3 or 4 A levels at decent grades should not need emergency remedial education.

How did they cope with their text books?

[ultra_joel88]

But going back to exams and dumbing down or not, I don't recall universities ever having to spend their intakes' first year making sure they could "reed, rite 'n ad upp".

A student who has gained 3 or 4 A levels at decent grades should not need emergency remedial education.

How did they cope with their text books?

This might be true at "fake" universities which shouldn't exist (ex-polytechnics) but it most certainly was NOT the case at the University I attended and have just graduated from.

The first year did not count towards the degree but the reason for this was to get everyone up to the same level as some had done politics A-Level and some had not. It also served to get rid of anyone at the end of the first year who really shouldn't be there at all.

Personally I think some, most certainly not all, but some of this grade/ university/ a-level/ young people bashing comes from sections of the older generation who are simply jealous that they were not able to go on to higher education, whatever the reason.

In my time at university most people I met were well-rounded, intelligent and hardworking young people, most did some sort of volunteer or paid work whilst at university.

I find this whole picture of university and university students as bums who go out get drunk and never do any work quite frankly insulting.

To me its no wonder that the highest unemployment is amongst 16-25 year olds when everything they achieve is either ridiculed or written off as "chance" or "the system" :thumbdwn:

Edited 24 August, 2009 by ultra_joel88