24% get A grades at A level
- Thread starter trashpony
- Start date
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
trashpony said:How can they say they're not any easier than they used to be when a quarter get what's supposed to be the top mark for the very brightest and 96% are passing?
Surely statistically they can't mean much?
Part of the issue is that colleges are coming under ever increasing pressure to improve results - this happened later than in schools, now you MUST gain a teaching qualification to work in a college (never the case before) and increasingly the mentality of teaching to the exam is king. When colleges were under less pressure, lecturers could get away with teaching good courses that didn't necacarily focus on exam criteria every week. That is no longer the case.
Exams aren't getting easier, the type of questions aren't getting easier, certainly not in my area but students do better. I don't think what I say above is the whole answer, but it's part of it - Education at post 16 is growing to become increasingly cynical and results driven. The introduction of two part a-levels makes that easier as more exams make it easier to predict what will be on each exam and teach smaller chunks. I'd be happier if the a/s level was optional, for students who wanted to leave at the end of the first year.
Perhaps something else is the increasing competition to get to 'good' universities makes students more desperate to succeed?
The a-level system is being overhauled anyway, to include less coursework and less exams, for me this is a good thing as if you think about it, the life of a 16 to 18 year old in education is horribly pressured, consisting of GCSE's, then A/S coursework, then AS levels, then A2 coursework, then A2 levels - for the average student, that means somewhere arround 50 individual exams in 2 years. (not to mention coursework)
Do we really need to make young people sit 50 exams in 24 months to assess their ability? I think we don't.
Agent Sparrow
AGENT TRAITOR; fools 8 year olds
Well, I think it's because the people who take the hard paper don't get asked the easy stuff - it's just assumed that they know how to do it. I assume/hope with good reason from teachers. I guess it's based on their performance over the last 5 years at school.WouldBe said:
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
trashpony said:How can they say they're not any easier than they used to be when a quarter get what's supposed to be the top mark for the very brightest and 96% are passing?
Surely statistically they can't mean much?
Does the fact that more and more people people are climbing Mount Everest each year mean that the mountain is getting easier to climb, or does it show that people are better prepared for the ascent and descent?
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Everest can be shown to be the same height. One issue is that the exams are getting easier to pass, in effect everest may be shrinking.
Prince Rhyus
Spokesman of King Antonio
WouldBe said:So how does 16% equate to a C grade?
I know I had to re-sit my maths O' level but even I can see that 16% is not >65%.
This was for the most advanced paper - which if I remember at the time of doing my mocks some 11 years ago was a beast of a paper.
But I agree. Such papers should not be set as to gain 16% on any paper does not show sufficient knowledge of what a student should know when taking the exam.
Is such an exam fit for purpose when the whole idea of exams are to test you on what you (should) already know?
trashpony said:In that case, I still maintain it's a crap system.
And how can the overall average for A grades be 24% (with more students getting an A than any other grade in lots of subjects) and the number getting 5 As is 0.1%?
because not everyone takes 5 A-Levels
I do agree though - it is a crap system
I don't like the alternative of the IB though - at least with A Levels students can choose the subjects they want to study/are good at. The IB forces them to do a language & dissertation etc... I was great at physics & maths & crap at english etc... at school - at least with A-Levels I could choose the subjects I enjoyed & did well at.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
I also think there has to be sociological imperatives at work as well, are students valuing education more because of the decline in the 'manual job for life' culture, where skills and training on the job were provided. Now the employment outlook is more fractured and uncertain, education IS more important, therefore more people wish to stay on.
We are reaching the point where people parents are 'post thatcher' (i.e post wholesale decline in industry) and thus give realistic views about the need for education to be competive in a jobs market that is nothing like it used to be. There are less good jobs (i.e, well paid) that people could gain on leaving school and thus more people want to stay on and work harder to ensure they don't end up with no way of earning a living*.
I think, yes everything said on the thread about the decline of 'real' education is true, it is due to drilling as one person called it, but to just dismiss the exams as easy does nothing to actually deal with the fact that education is more important to a wider group of young people than it was say, 40 years ago - which perhaps is also a contributory factor.
*I am of course, not suggesting for ONE SECOND, that without further education, you cannot be a success - I am merely reflecting a perspective that suggests it is a bigger factor in employment in young people than it was once.
We are reaching the point where people parents are 'post thatcher' (i.e post wholesale decline in industry) and thus give realistic views about the need for education to be competive in a jobs market that is nothing like it used to be. There are less good jobs (i.e, well paid) that people could gain on leaving school and thus more people want to stay on and work harder to ensure they don't end up with no way of earning a living*.
I think, yes everything said on the thread about the decline of 'real' education is true, it is due to drilling as one person called it, but to just dismiss the exams as easy does nothing to actually deal with the fact that education is more important to a wider group of young people than it was say, 40 years ago - which perhaps is also a contributory factor.
*I am of course, not suggesting for ONE SECOND, that without further education, you cannot be a success - I am merely reflecting a perspective that suggests it is a bigger factor in employment in young people than it was once.
trashpony said:In that case, I still maintain it's a crap system.
And how can the overall average for A grades be 24% (with more students getting an A than any other grade in lots of subjects) and the number getting 5 As is 0.1%?
Because it is much harder to get more and more A grades.
Bob_the_lost
Elsewhere
Not really, i did maths, physics, electronics and technology a levels, if you pick em right they start to overlap.the B said:
I don't find it so disturbing that more people are getting A grades, because as somebody who recently did A levels and is now at uni I think it can be obvious who is more intelligent. I think when people go for their interviews it can be pretty obvious whether they are learning above and beyond what they need to, or whether they learn to the standards of the paper and regurgitate 'bullet points'. This probably isn't the same for all subjects but mine (fine art) is like that. Also when I was doing my A levels in English, Sociology and art it was a clear divide in class between these two types of student. I did always wish there was a better test though so we didn't just have to hope the person interviewing us would spot our potential.
Also remember being told that I was in some ways 'too clever' for the exam because I wouldn't gain marks as easily because wasn't doing the whole 'textbook answer' type affair, if that makes sense. So obviously the exams aren't too good at showing those different levels of learning, no.
Also remember being told that I was in some ways 'too clever' for the exam because I wouldn't gain marks as easily because wasn't doing the whole 'textbook answer' type affair, if that makes sense. So obviously the exams aren't too good at showing those different levels of learning, no.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
the B said:
Some students (100 or so most 'gifted' at my college) are doing six - It's becoming increasingly a sign the top uni's are looking for, which does suggest a flaw in the system. Students shouldn't have to sit 14/15 exams for three years in a row (eg, gcses plus 2/3 modules for a-level) to prove they are worthy of a place in a top uni - it shouldn't take that many to differentiate.
trashpony
Hag
tangerinedream said:
Well exactly. It seems insane to have a system that relies on a student to take six A levels to demonstrate they've done more than learn by rote. And hoping that unis can differentiate between the merely schooled and the bright at interview isn't ideal either.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
Sean said:
2 of them are 'critical thinking' and 'general studies' which take up less time than a normal a-level. (3 sessions between two, as opposed to 4 sessions per a level for their core subjects), though i agree it is insane.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
the B said:
I have my stupid head on, I can't work out whether you are saying more exams more often is good or their should be longer between exams.....
tangerinedream said:I have my stupid head on, I can't work out whether you are saying more exams more often is good or their should be longer between exams.....
More methods of assessment, be it exams or otherwise. While you don't 'fatten pigs by weighing them', if differentiation really is a issue, do it.
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
the B said:
You don't think about 50 formal exams in two years is enough then? - Surely all you are creating if you increase that is an endurance test - that isn't what education should be like. (even if it is what work is like)
tangerinedream
Density of Sound
the B said:
Why would I discount those? Certainly Universities don't discount critical thinking and use it a key indicator, or factor in differentiation as you would put it - some use general studies also, though yes, some also do discount that.
Did your ten a-level friends do them all at once (a completely impractical notion by the way, no way would many colleges be able to fit more than 6 into a timetable) and if not how long did it take them?
Dissident Junk
picking oakum
Sean said:
Or picking up experiences that they can use to advance their own academic work.
This is what worries me about this turn of events. I can sympathise with employers who say graduates don't have basic literacy; I've had experienced enough interns to know that a first from Cambridge in a Humanities subject does not mean the intern can spell. But these basic skills you can always learn.
No, the thing that bothers me is how you get graduates in a subject that can't actually conduct themselves within that field. At the moment, I edit fiction; I'm hold a couple of MAs in modern fiction, as well as a Lit degree, and have been an editor for the last seven years. Time and time again, I come across young Literature graduates that a) have no idea how to construct a narrative, b) cannot use theory to assess the impact of a work, c) cannot place a new work into a genre, d) cannot review new fiction or practically critique it . . . . I could go on.
I suspect that undergraduates are using the same ways of working for their degrees as they did in their A levels. They pick a question, find what the critics have said, cobble it together, write an intro and a conclusion, and get a good mark. In short, they never pick up a real understanding of literature works, and they never learn to think for themselves.
Interestingly, these kids also think they know it all. But I find fiction written by non-lit grads to be far better than lit grads' work.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I don't understand how someone finds the TIME to do six full A-levels - when I was at 6th form between 89-92 I had enough trouble fitting in all the lessons for 4 subjects (Eng lit, UK Poltics, Sociology and General studies) - I think there was one kid doing 5 cos he wanted to be a vet and he had massive issues with being able to attend all his classes (IIRC he ended up having to take general studies out of hours, and attended one lesson every 2 weeks), so how the fuck kids can squeeze 6 a-levels into a week is beyond me...
Similar threads
