What bets on The Star featuring pictures of tearful pupils holding their results aloft.And some spotty swot headlined" 6 straight A's" or its variants "top of the class" and "didn't they do well".

and what are the bets on "standards are falling" and "a levels are too easy"
anyway - aren't GSCEs out first?

Originally posted by richynomates
and what are the bets on "standards are falling" and "a levels are too easy"
anyway - aren't GSCEs out first?

Ugh, the critics need to drink from a tall cool jug of STFU juice.... Can't they just be happy that the kids are passing their exams without bitching about exams being too easy and all this bourjoi about slipping standards?! :loopy:

Apologies for the swearing, I'm just annoyed that the papers and the Government always have to bleat on about exams obviously being too easy cos more kids are passing and getting good grades etc.... If it went the other way and nobody was passing they'd moan about kids being too dumb or exams being too hard!! For god sake just be thankful for smart kids and appreciate the hard work they've done to pass their exams.

I believe the GCSE results come out on the 26th

moon

Originally posted by Rich

I'm just annoyed that the papers and the Government always have to bleat on about exams obviously being too easy cos more kids are passing and getting good grades etc

Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant but the government actually agrees with you.

From Ananova:

Minister slams A-Level critics

Critics who claimed that A-Levels have been dumbed down were guilty of denigrating hard-working children from Middle England, school standards minister David Miliband has declared.

He condemned those who said that rising pass rates meant that standards were slipping as elitists who wanted to hang on to the "old order".

And he accused them of peddling the "myth" that only a few were brainy enough to do well.

Well I hope that standards are improving (though judging by standards of spelling :roll: )

However... (here comes the nay say)...

The point about grades is to be able to tell clever people from thickies, based on academic standards.

If you have everyone with high grades, how do you differentiate in a situation where you look at grades in say ... ooo... something really uncommon... like a job interview?

Personal experience is that there are a lot of useless people out there with great grades, including graduates. Maybe it was always like that, maybe not. :huh:.

The point being that grades are there for a reason, and it isn't to give 16 / 18 / 21 year old and their parents, and teachers, and Ministers a rosy glow inside.

There is a serious problem with all these A grades - its making it impossible for universities to select the right pupils. If everyone gets a A, what's the point? Nobody is going to stand out.

Originally posted by alchresearch
There is a serious problem with all these A grades - its making it impossible for universities to select the right pupils. If everyone gets a A, what's the point? Nobody is going to stand out.
I think most of the selection is now based on school rather than grades - 2 A-Grades from Eton College will easily outstrip 6 A-Grades from Sheffield College
Problem solved.

Originally posted by richynomates
I think most of the selection is now based on school rather than grades - 2 A-Grades from Eton College will easily outstrip 6 A-Grades from Sheffield College
Problem solved.

So basically it's selected on a system of snobbery :loopy:

Just cos Royalty attend/have attended Eton.

I personally think its a simple of case of modular exams with a high proportion of coursework vs the old school exams which were basically 2 years work in one or two exams.

The old exam system was much harder to get high grades in since everything balanced on an exam, whereas now, you can work as hard as you want on your coursework and get a good grade and there isn't as much pressure on exams which are taken at regular intervals and I believe can be retaken if the score isn't good enough.

This new system to me seems easier. Maybe the level of academia is still the same, hence the argument that they aren't easier, but it's the method that is easier.

Originally posted by Rich
So basically it's selected on a system of snobbery :loopy:

Just cos Royalty attend/have attended Eton.
Not really Rich. I would suggest that in the real world the quality of the education, and therefore the 'A-Grade' would be far better at Eaton than an inner city sink school.. or most others for that matter.

Education isn't about snobbery, but you very often get what you pay for - like health care, and motor cars, and houses.

Originally posted by Foxxx
I personally think its a simple of case of modular exams with a high proportion of coursework vs the old school exams which were basically 2 years work in one or two exams.

The old exam system was much harder to get high grades in since everything balanced on an exam, whereas now, you can work as hard as you want on your coursework and get a good grade and there isn't as much pressure on exams which are taken at regular intervals and I believe can be retaken if the score isn't good enough.

This new system to me seems easier. Maybe the level of academia is still the same, hence the argument that they aren't easier, but it's the method that is easier.

The unis are now looking at coursework rather than just the grades.

It's good in one respect, becuase some people just can't handle exams. During my last exam on my degree loads of people got up and walked out after ten minutes because they couldn't do it.

Originally posted by Tony
Not really Rich. I would suggest that in the real world the quality of the education, and therefore the 'A-Grade' would be far better at Eaton than an inner city sink school.. or most others for that matter.

Education isn't about snobbery, but you very often get what you pay for - like health care, and motor cars, and houses.

No. Education's all about snobbery when it comes to antiquated institutions like Oxford/Cambridge/Eton/Harrow – keeping the oiks out is what it's all about (hence the entrance exams of old, which was designed specifically for this purpose). Unfortunately for the traditionalists, the government's trying to stamp this kind of thing out.

Clever kids are clever kids, whether their parents happen to be aristocracy or not, and all should be given an equal chance depending on ability alone. Seems to me like the actual A-Level grades are the best indicator we've got - why bring the whole "inner city sink" thing into the equation?

Whenever A-level results come out, ministers say that questions aren't getting any easier. That may be so, but what has changed is the amount of material to be covered in the syllabus in the first place. Over the years this has been whittled away with anything that kids find too hard being taken out - so the result is that everybody has less to learn, and everybody gets better grades. the downside of course is that when these kids do get to University, they don't know very much. You've only got to look at mathematics teaching... things that most of us oldies did in mid school like logarithms, algebra, calculus etc. have all gone, and consequently students can't cope when they get to University to do maths or science.

Originally posted by Greenback
Seems to me like the actual A-Level grades are the best indicator we've got - why bring the whole "inner city sink" thing into the equation?

Why bring Eaton into the equation?

I still disagree with you. It would be nice to think that 'clever kids' get the same education everywhere, but they just don't.

Paid education is always going to turn out consistantly higher results for lots and lots of reasons.

As for A' Levels... well they are the ONLY academic indicater we have at that age. That's why it's important that they represent the truth and provide a genuine comparison, not a mealy-mouthed fudge to get education stat's to look good.

I've given people jobs who had A' Level maths, yet couldn't do simple mental arithmetic. Is that right? It's becoming the norm, not the exception, just like bad spelling.

Something is very wrong.

Originally posted by Tony
Why bring Eaton into the equation?

I still disagree with you. It would be nice to think that 'clever kids' get the same education everywhere, but they just don't.

Paid education is always going to turn out consistantly higher results for lots and lots of reasons.

As for A' Levels... well they are the ONLY academic indicater we have at that age. That's why it's important that they represent the truth and provide a genuine comparison, not a mealy-mouthed fudge to get education stat's to look good. I've given people jobs who had A'Level maths, yet couldn't do simple mental arithmetic. Is that right? It's becomeign the norm, not the exception, just like bad spelling.

Well first up, it's Eton :D

And I agree, paid-for education will consistently get the better results - more resources, less pressure on teachers due to smaller class sizes, etc etc. But I can't agree that a paid-for A grade is worth more than a normal A grade.

As far as I'm concerned, A-Levels do present the truth and I've never seen any concrete evidence to the contrary. The mental arithmetic argument is easily explained: the use of calculators. Then again, a kid who'd passed through the system 30 years ago wouldn't be able to use a computer. Swings and roundabouts. If spelling is getting worse it's probably because of spellchecking and text messaging - nothing really to do with teaching.

Those who moan about standards slipping should be forced to sit the exams. Bet there'd be a lot less carping next time results day came around!

Originally posted by metalman
Whenever A-level results come out, ministers say that questions aren't getting any easier. That may be so, but what has changed is the amount of material to be covered in the syllabus in the first place. Over the years this has been whittled away with anything that kids find too hard being taken out - so the result is that everybody has less to learn, and everybody gets better grades. the downside of course is that when these kids do get to University, they don't know very much. You've only got to look at mathematics teaching... things that most of us oldies did in mid school like logarithms, algebra, calculus etc. have all gone, and consequently students can't cope when they get to University to do maths or science.

i think your wrong here! i left secondary school at 16 in 2000. algebra, logrithms, calculus, square rute is still tought in schools. to my suprise while helping my younger nephew do his home work i find that they are teaching algebra in primary school which is a great thing. from what education i had at school to the education my nephews & younger brother are getting i say that education is getting better, i've never heard of them taking certain subjects out of the sylibus. the only thing i think you are trying to get at here is the type of GCSE you do in certain subjects. math, science, english, lanugage (eg french, german, spanish) all have different GCSE papers you do to your ability. lower tier papers for people who struggle (D-G grade), foundation papers for people of average ability (C-E grade) & higher tier papers of high ability (A-C grade). the people who do the foundation tier exam dont learn as much as the people doing the higher tier exam, the higher tier have much more in terms of the sylabus than those doing other papers. they dont take subjects out of sylabus', they only change the subject & replace it.

I've just seen two kids being interviewed on the news and they said that they have been doing past papers and have seen them get progessively harder the further back they went.

Why not just end grades and go back to the old percentage mark? Since an 'A' can cover from anything between 70 and 100, I would be pretty p*ssed if I got 99% and someone just scraped a 70% and was bragging about it.

Now I'm a bit puzzled here. Back in the day when I did my A-levels, examing boards used bell shaped curves to ascertain the grades. In other words, depending on how well everyone did across the whole country depended on the distribution of grades. So basically a small percentage would get an A, the next group a B, and so on. The bands deciding the grades would depend on how well everyone did, so basically if an exam was really hard one year then perhaps only 2% of pupils (the 2% being fixed number), above a 60% score would get an A. On another exam, if easier then the 2% would have to get about 90% to get an A so the bell shape distribution had shifted etc.
Its seems to me, this system has changed because more people are getting As, rather than a select percentage across the country. So basically maybe a 60% score and above gets an A full stop no matter how many pupils got this mark. Therefore maybe 10% of people might get an A rather than 2 %. This to me seems stupid because it's not a true representation of how you did compared to the rest of the country. More people getting A's seems weird. It used to be, a certain percentage got an A and A's were really hard to get and used to mean you got a place at a really good uni on a reknowned course.

I think we should conduct an experiment. Take a fair sized group of A level students to statistically mean something, randomly selected from different types of school, having different financial backgrounds, from all locations, studying different A'levels and get them all to sit a few old exams each. Grade them according to how there were graded back then. Compare results. Be interesting to see if suddenly a 3 A grade student was scoring e.g. a couple of Bs and a C.

I have to say whats wrong with a bit of elitism? Isn't the idea of universities that you eductate the most academically able rather than trying to funnel everyone into university churning out lots of well educated but relativelyt unskilled people for whom there just aren't jobs available?

Got mine!

I got:

Sociology: B
English Literature: B
English Language: C

I was 7 points off an A in Literature, and 6 off a B in Language.


YAAAAAAAAAAY!

Originally posted by evildrneil
eductate the most academically able rather than trying to funnel everyone into university churning out lots of well educated but relativelyt unskilled people for whom there just aren't jobs available?
You mean like they do at the moment eh? ;)

Originally posted by evildrneil
I have to say whats wrong with a bit of elitism? Isn't the idea of universities that you eductate the most academically able rather than trying to funnel everyone into university churning out lots of well educated but relativelyt unskilled people for whom there just aren't jobs available?

Totally agree.
Some people are academically intelligent and were always destined to go down the route of university, perhaps, MSC, PhD etc.
Some people are not academically intelligent but talented/intelligent in other areas and should be able to have the opportunity to leave school and join a company and get on the job training and work their way up.
Technical colleges where you learn trades seem to be on the decline and A levels and uni's now favoured.
In the old days, you could leave school with no qualifications and start working for a company who were loyal to you if you had ambition you'd learn. e.g. bank teller, to bank manager, to regional manager, to director etc etc which incidently is what happened to my step sister. She didn't go to uni and didn't need to. Trouble is these days, you need a degree to be taken on by a lot of companies who now have graduate fast track schemes. Leaving people in the situation of not getting a foot in the door unless a degree is obtained. In the old days the training scheme would have gone to a school leaver.
Then all the academically intelligent people who want to do degrees to research, or for specific jobs, are left with worthless two a penny degrees.
This country is screwed up!

Originally posted by caprice
Got mine!

I got:

Sociology: B
English Literature: B
English Language: C

I was 7 points off an A in Literature, and 6 off a B in Language.


YAAAAAAAAAAY!

Well done :thumbsup:

What do you mean by 7 points off and 6 points off??
We just got a grade and never knew our mark.

Hi Foxxx,
You get a number for each individual paper and you have to work out how many you got out of 300 to see which grade boundry you get into. With AQA you need 240 out of 300 points to get an A, 210 for a B and so on. So basically my results were:

Sociology: 215
English Literature: 233
English Language: 204

So as you can see, I got a comfortable B, was just under the mark for a B in Language and just under an A in Literature.

The reason grades are improving is because there is so much pressure on teachers to get their pupils to pass exams, school leagues tables etc - rather than teach the subject, they teach how to pass an exam in the subject.

They teach only what is necessary to pass exams, rather than a deeper understanding of the subject.

I got an A for my maths A level - even though it was only 6 years ago, I wouldn't have a CLUE how to do ANY of the things I could do on auto-pilot back then! But then maybe that just proves I don't have a good memory!

Originally posted by evildrneil
I have to say whats wrong with a bit of elitism? Isn't the idea of universities that you eductate the most academically able rather than trying to funnel everyone into university churning out lots of well educated but relativelyt unskilled people for whom there just aren't jobs available?

As long as it's elitism based on meritocratic principles. But unfortunately, the institutions that are held up as being what all A-level students shouls aspire to - Oxford, Cambridge and Durham - are more interested in social class than ability.

Perhaps, but not for everybody it seems.

Results (http://tinypic.com/2p9vr)

;)

Originally posted by caprice
Got mine!

I got:

Sociology: B
English Literature: B
English Language: C

I was 7 points off an A in Literature, and 6 off a B in Language.


YAAAAAAAAAAY!

Pleased for you Caprice, congratulations. :)

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
I believe the GCSE results come out on the 26th

moon

I haven't read all of the thread , so you're question may have been answered but yes, Thurs. 26th. Aug. I'm one of them!

Alex


Can't sleep, hence why I'm up!

First of all, congratulations, Caprice!

I've always been annoyed at exam-results time by the constant refrain of "all the good grades are down to easier exams." It belittles students who have just sweated through quite a difficult time, and have had to wait on the edges of their seats to find out their results...

HOWEVER: I did my 'A' Levels in '91/'92 (please don't count the years!). And to the best of my knowledge/memory (which can be a bit faulty, I'll admit) it was really very rare for anyone to do more than 3 'A' Levels. You were allowed to do 4 if you were extremely clever, with the warning that it was a large amount of work, and very difficult, etc, etc. I decided to give myself an easy life, and do the usual 3...I've always been a bit lazy like that. Many people weren't even given the choice.
My point is, if things haven't become any easier...how the heck are people leaving with 4 and 5, even 6 'A' Levels? It's starting to bug me...so people of around the same age, tell me - am I remembering this all wrong? Cos I really don't think I am.
The good (if scary) news would be if we really are churning out loads of Einsteins. World beware!

Cosy,
confused

Leader from the Guardian may put this debate in perspective:

It has become impossible to deny. As many commentators have noted, standards are not what they were. The only conclusion is that the Olympics have been "dumbed down". How else can we explain that, at each Olympic games, more and more medals are handed out? And how else can we explain that at each games, world records are frequently broken? These facts alone suggest that the events have somehow been made easier.
Of course, some officials will attempt to deny it. They will argue using such terms as "level playing field" and point to improved coaching and more intensive training methods, such as steroids. But do they expect us to believe that the so-called "gold standard" of gold medals are worth the metal they are cast upon? At one time, competitors faced far more rigorous tests, in a narrow range of traditional subjects such as Latin and chariot racing. Yet today's young people are spoon-fed at every step, and allowed to opt for easier subjects such as beach volleyball and synchronised media studies.
To make matters worse, some entrants are able to "re-sit" their chosen events if they don't get the result they wanted first time around. Take Ian Thorpe, the Australian swimmer. Last time, in Sydney, he failed to get a top-grade mark in the 200m freestyle. What does he do? He took his finals again - and this time, somewhat predictably, won a gold. Is this fair? How right that Tory spokesman Tim Collins should vow to stop multiple re-sits, saying: "Olympic athletes do not get a second or third go ... if they don't like the result." Except the ones that do.
Things have got so bad, thanks to the glut of top results, that prestigious institutions such as Nike and McDonald's are besieged by applicants for sponsorship deals, all clutching a slew of medals. How are these institutions going to be able to choose the best candidates to front their advertising campaigns? Take the badminton mixed doubles: Britain had failed to pass the semi-finals - until now, when it has gained a silver grade. At this rate of progress, by the 2076 Olympics Britain will win gold in every subject, a clear example of the "all shall have prizes" mentality. It is physical correctness gone mad

every year this discussion takes place. It really undermines all the hard work that we as students put in to get the grades that we deserve.

Perhaps the old exam system put students under pressure, but that doesn't necessarily mean the a levels were harder or better. I just think that the new system of coursework suits students in this day and age better.

as for coming out with 5 or 6 a levels - that is very rare, most students still take 3 a levels, with some taking 4 if they can cope. The new system works in modules and after the first year, the student gets an 'AS' Level, after the second year, this is then converted to an 'A' Level if they continue. If not, the AS remains half an A Level. This makes it easier for students to study more subjects, however, most still end up with the standard 3 A Levels even if they started off by taking 5 or 6 AS Levels.

Could it not also be that the teaching has gotten better? or perhaps that sixth-formers now are simply more intelligent and better prepared for their exams and coursework than in the years before? But of course that would be insulting to past students, so lets just stick with making current students feel worthless.

...er....I seem to remember when doing my A-levels looking at old papers to practice on and they were easier because the area of the subject covered was smaller....

I think it's akin to saying something like...well....reading and writing was much harder in the 1800's because fewer people done it. Now it's got to be easier because more people do it.

A-levels and studying is just a more common thing to do than it was in the past, it's not any easier.

They are easy Im afraid. I know this from experience. They are not challenging in any way what-so-ever and if you dont believe me you should try to do one yourself. Anything below a C is a fail in my opinion.

Originally posted by kittykat
They are easy Im afraid. I know this from experience. They are not challenging in any way what-so-ever and if you dont believe me you should try to do one yourself. Anything below a C is a fail in my opinion.

Maybe if you do 'easy' or mickey mouse subjects.

Try doing the really tough subjects like Computing (where there is a decline in grades due to tougher papers), Maths and Physics.

RPG's right. It all depends on the subject really. Obviously the sciences will be harder as there is so much content to get through and learn, not to mention get your head round it all! English literature is a rigorous subject, far more difficult than English Language. I have tons of books to study for my A2 studies.... Even more than last year! I don't think anyone is in the position to say "A levels are getting easier/harder" unless they themselves have sat them every single year and watched their marks change accordingly.

As I have previously mentioned, I don't think its a case of easier vs harder. Its a case of easier method- modular + coursework vs 100% exam. Plus the fact that nowadays there are clearly defined grade boundaries, hence more As. Or at least you know where to aim to get the desired grade. In the old days, there were no grade boundaries, you never knew what mark you scored in your exam. A certain percentage of pupils across the country got As, next lot Bs and so on. So it was dependent on the performance across the country and if you scored high compared to everyone else across the country then you were in the top X% who got granted an A. Hence nowadays more pupils getting As rather than a set amount. People used to get Us, Ns and Fs also. That was quite normal and common. So in my opinion it is easier to obtain a higher grade if you work hard and do your coursework etc.