Yet again this year many the average grades have risen in A-levels (and GCSE's I think)

Now some private schools are stating they will no longer use the GCSE ot A-level (or whatever it icalled now!) system because the exams are too easy. And some universities are also saying they will start making potential students take entrance exams because so many people get A's at A-level that they no longer separate the best students.,

It is certainly true that the old O-level exams were harder than modern a-levels even when I took them 8 years ago. So if they have got even easier since I can see why people regard them as a joke (really they were a joke when I did them). Yet the government insists the exams are not easier, but that people are getting cleverer. But the bottom line is 0-level questions are harder than current a-level ones. (at least in stuff like physics they are).

It is also true that university level exams are substantially easier now than they were 5 years ago even to ensure more students pass.

In short modern exams are not easier.

My mother works to assess exams over several years and on different boards to see if they are consistent. According to her exams are not getting easier.

Just the questions and style may be different. Even though the questions may sound easier, the marking may be more rigorous and what is expected is more. To really establish if exams are getting easier you can't just look at the questions, you must look at the way it is marked as well.

People are achieving a higher standard of education these days. The world is changing and students are just achieving more IMHO. We live in an information age.

Originally posted by Zenmaster
In short modern exams are not easier.

My mother works to assess exams over several years and on different boards to see if they are consistent. According to her exams are not getting easier.

Just the questions and style may be different. Even though the questions may sound easier, the marking may be more rigorous and what is expected is more. To really establish if exams are getting easier you can't just look at the questions, you must look at the way it is marked as well.

People are achieving a higher standard of education these days. The world is changing and students are just achieving more IMHO. We live in an information age.

Its definitly not true that university exams have tougher marking. The questions are easier and you can get a high mark more easily.

I definitly remember a-levels had insanely pedantic marking e.g. in chemistry if you say the anwser is boil some liquid you get zero. If you say reflux (which means boil) you get the marks. Both anwsers are the same though. It doesnt teach a student anything useful to insist on saying reflux. The questions should be testing the ability to apply knowledge in an unfamiliar situation. That would be more useful.

I dont agree the standard of education is higher. If the questions are easier then the students are learning less (regardless of how harsh a marking regime you impose).

*sigh*

The establishment are never satisfied are they? If kids don't pass they moan about exams possibly being too hard or that the kids aren't learning enough.. Yet they're passing all their exams and the powers that be are now moaning that exams are too easy cos obviously too many people are passing... Make yer feckin' minds up ffs! :rant:

Originally posted by nightrider
Its definitly not true that university exams have tougher marking. The questions are easier and you can get a high mark more easily.

I definitly remember a-levels had insanely pedantic marking e.g. in chemistry if you say the anwser is boil some liquid you get zero. If you say reflux (which means boil) you get the marks. Both anwsers are the same though. It doesnt teach a student anything useful to insist on saying reflux. The questions should be testing the ability to apply knowledge in an unfamiliar situation. That would be more useful.

I dont agree the standard of education is higher. If the questions are easier then the students are learning less (regardless of how harsh a marking regime you impose).

Just because the questions may 'appear' easier does not mean you neccessarily get a high mark more easily. By answering a question you can show what you know, and take it further, the next level, that is how top marks are obtained.

I suppose I can't really comment about A-levels as I've never done them. I'm just talking hypothetically and basing it on what I know from people I know who are teachers and examiners.

However what is true is there are more people going to school and staying in school so there are bound to be more A grades.

Just because the questions look easier, does not necessarily mean they are learning less. A question is usually designed to allow a student to show what they have learnt and in answering a question you can take it as deep as you like. This probably applies more to arts/humanities subjects. But I expect at higher levels it may be true for sciences. Not really a science person.

Originally posted by Zenmaster
Just because the questions may 'appear' easier does not mean you neccessarily get a high mark more easily. By answering a question you can show what you know, and take it further, the next level, that is how top marks are obtained.

I suppose I can't really comment about A-levels as I've never done them. I'm just talking hypothetically and basing it on what I know from people I know who are teachers and examiners.

However what is true is there are more people going to school and staying in school so there are bound to be more A grades.

Just because the questions look easier, does not necessarily mean they are learning less. A question is usually designed to allow a student to show what they have learnt and in answering a question you can take it as deep as you like. This probably applies more to arts/humanities subjects. But I expect at higher levels it may be true for sciences. Not really a science person.

I agree the situation may not be the same in an arts subject and science perhaps...

But I really think in science learning things to a lower standard makes it easier to understand the syllabus's content. As for the taking it as deep as you like most students will learn what they were taught and are not going to go and teach themselves to a more advanced level. (can you imagine many gcse maths students teaching themselves calculus for the fun of it?)

for example in my degree I took a postgraduate course in my final year of undergraduate. It was very very hard and I didnt get a particularly high mark. In the first year of my phd I knew people who did the course in its new "modern" guise. The content no longer even required the understanding of second year undergraduate concepts - the course explicitly stated the course should not assume knowledge of such material. So the course now churns out people who understand the subject far more superificially. I dont see how that is a good thing really. If they want more people to learn about the subject they should have a second more basic course people can do, but it should be clear people who have done this have a more basic understanding of the subject so that potential employers know what level the person is at.

Originally posted by Rich
*sigh*

The establishment are never satisfied are they? If kids don't pass they moan about exams possibly being too hard or that the kids aren't learning enough.. Yet they're passing all their exams and the powers that be are now moaning that exams are too easy cos obviously too many people are passing... Make yer feckin' minds up ffs! :rant:

actually I think the establishment (i.e government) thinks the exams are ok. It is the schools/universities/employers who are moaning this time. Depends what you meany by the establishment I guess.

Nightrider you may be right about higher education. But I don't know much about it. I have a BA and found it completely lacking in academic stimulation. It didn't really challenge me, and as a result I didn't work at it.

However I did the International Baccalaureate (IB) and found it extremely challenging and stimulating. In order to get the top grades you had to learn things outside the syllabus. So I was reading undergraduate university texts.

I hope they introduce the IB across Britain one day. It really is far better than A-levels. From what I know of A-levels.

I have heard a lot of lecturers complain about the standard of students work at university.

Course titles such as , BA Football Studies ............. Luton and
BSc Football Technology ......... Staffordshire hardly conjure up the challenging world of academia do they?

Exams are definitely getting easier.

Would higher education establishments really be putting on remedial literacy classes for students who aren't bright enough to use the written word correctly? Of course not.

I would love to see an A level student or undergraduate of today sit papers from 25 years ago.

exams aren't getting easier but teachers only make you study what is in the exam. In the oldern days you had to study a wider ranger and try and guess what was in the exam

I think this annual debate is incredibly demoralising for everyone who has worked hard on their GCSEs and A Levels. And the record never changes - it's the same old arguments every year, with no real proof that the qualifications are easier (other than circumstantial evidence of higher pass rates and more A grades - which wouldn't stand up in court!). Not everyone gets straight As at GCSE or A Level. Yes, some schools seem to just churn out students with straight As on a routine basis - but there have always been schools around who have had very high passes for exams and very high level entry into the top universities. There are still a heck of a lot of schools - the majority in a place like Sheffield - where getting 5 Cs at GCSE is a huge achievement. What are we saying to these young people? - "the exams are getting easier, everyone gets As - oh but you've only got a C so you must be really stupid".

We have to also remember one of the main reasons for the pass rates getting better and better and that is the continued improvements in girls performance at both GCSE and A Level. It really isn't that long ago that girls were generally not encouraged or expected to do well in exams. Now they are and they are catching up and over-taking the boys. I think this is a big reason why the number of top grades is increasing - girls taking them now are more likely to work hard and get the high grades that they may not have worked for 30 years ago.

Originally posted by banesmabes
I think this annual debate is incredibly demoralising for everyone who has worked hard on their GCSEs and A Levels. And the record never changes - it's the same old arguments every year, with no real proof that the qualifications are easier (other than circumstantial evidence of higher pass rates and more A grades - which wouldn't stand up in court!).

You only need to look at the syllabus for e.g. maths and you can see the material is easier to understand. O-levels required students understood calculus. They no longer have to and it hasnt been replaced with anything as equally difficult for people to understand.

Originally posted by Mo
Course titles such as , BA Football Studies ............. Luton and
BSc Football Technology ......... Staffordshire hardly conjure up the challenging world of academia do they?

Exams are definitely getting easier.

Would higher education establishments really be putting on remedial literacy classes for students who aren't bright enough to use the written word correctly? Of course not.

I would love to see an A level student or undergraduate of today sit papers from 25 years ago.

However places like Staffordshire & Luton only require something like 2 Es at A Level (not sure about the new system of grades - but that's what they asked for under the old system) - it hardly takes a rocket scientist to get two Es now, just as it didn't 20 years ago. It's just that 20 years ago if you got 2 Es you wouldn't have the option to go to university. Please remember that 20 years ago we only had approximately half the number of universities in this country as there are now. The old polys don't have nearly as stringent entry requirements as the traditional universities and they are the main reason why so many more people go to university these days - nothing to do with exams at A level getting easier. And no one treats a degree from Staffordshire the same way as a degree from Cambridge - they're different leagues.

Originally posted by Mo
Course titles such as , BA Football Studies ............. Luton and
BSc Football Technology ......... Staffordshire hardly conjure up the challenging world of academia do they?

Exams are definitely getting easier.

Would higher education establishments really be putting on remedial literacy classes for students who aren't bright enough to use the written word correctly? Of course not.



Some courses that require maths a-level also have to run remedial maths classes to bring the students up to standard.

Originally posted by robbie
exams aren't getting easier but teachers only make you study what is in the exam. In the oldern days you had to study a wider ranger and try and guess what was in the exam

That old way sounds a lot harder to do well in.

Originally posted by nightrider
You only need to look at the syllabus for e.g. maths and you can see the material is easier to understand. O-levels required students understood calculus. They no longer have to and it hasnt been replaced with anything as equally difficult for people to understand.

But this is your personal opinion and one example like this does not prove that exams are easier. Have you not thought that this may have just been a natural change? Throughout history there is a constant change of emphasis in what we believe we should educate our children in, there is constant changing of course content. You could make the same argument for a subject like Latin (rarely taught any more and it's not been replaced by anything similar that is as difficult) but the thing is it is hardly relevant to the modern world, hence why it has been dropped by all but a handful of mainly private schools. Just because the children of today are not doing the same syllybus as was covered 50 years ago does not mean that the exams are easier to pass. I am sure that there are aspects of some subjects that ARE covered today that would have been mind-boggling to the classes of 20 or 30 years ago.

Originally posted by banesmabes
But this is your personal opinion and one example like this does not prove that exams are easier. Have you not thought that this may have just been a natural change? Throughout history there is a constant change of emphasis in what we believe we should educate our children in, there is constant changing of course content. You could make the same argument for a subject like Latin (rarely taught any more and it's not been replaced by anything similar that is as difficult) but the thing is it is hardly relevant to the modern world, hence why it has been dropped by all but a handful of mainly private schools. Just because the children of today are not doing the same syllybus as was covered 50 years ago does not mean that the exams are easier to pass. I am sure that there are aspects of some subjects that ARE covered today that would have been mind-boggling to the classes of 20 or 30 years ago.

You cant make the same argument though. Not teaching a
subject at all isnt the same as making a subjects content easier.

And I think calculus is very relevant to the modern world. It underpins the physical sciences and engineering.

I am sure there are some aspects of subjects that are mind boggling to those of 20 or 30 years ago. I als suspect it is taught in a dumbed down unrigorous way so that they probably would be able to pass the exam quite easily! (because this is the general trend of mdoern education).

I just read you can get a C in GCSE for getting 22%!! In my day you would fail with such a mark. This must also contribute to how many more get high grades nowadays. Please someone tell me this isnt true.

Originally posted by nightrider

I definitly remember a-levels had insanely pedantic marking e.g. in chemistry if you say the anwser is boil some liquid you get zero. If you say reflux (which means boil) you get the marks. Both anwsers are the same though.

Let me be pedantic as well. (Whether I am insane or not is another matter)

Boiling and reflux are not the same thing at all.

Reflux is boiling with a condenser attached above the vessel (usually vertical) so that all the evaporating liquid condenses, falls back into the vessel and continues being boiled.

Boiling without such a condensor is not reflux and ends up with a dry vessel (or burnt pan!)

Originally posted by cgksheff
Let me be pedantic as well. (Whether I am insane or not is another matter)

Boiling and reflux are not the same thing at all.

Reflux is boiling with a condenser attached above the vessel (usually vertical) so that all the evaporating liquid condenses, falls back into the vessel and continues being boiled.

Boiling without such a condensor is not reflux and ends up with a dry vessel (or burnt pan!)

From what you say above reflux involves boiling. It is a form of boiling. Obviously if you did it without the condenser you get a different result, but if I draw a picture of a condenser saying I boiled the liquid and then it condenses I still get no marks even though it is clear I understand what is happening. (at leats you did on whatever exam board we used back in the day) You have to say the magic word. Anyway the teacher said boiling is an acceptable term to use and he is supposedly a professional.

Originally posted by nightrider
You cant make the same argument though. Not teaching a
subject at all isnt the same as making a subjects content easier.

And I think calculus is very relevant to the modern world. It underpins the physical sciences and engineering.

I am sure there are some aspects of subjects that are mind boggling to those of 20 or 30 years ago. I als suspect it is taught in a dumbed down unrigorous way so that they probably would be able to pass the exam quite easily! (because this is the general trend of mdoern education).

I just read you can get a C in GCSE for getting 22%!! In my day you would fail with such a mark. This must also contribute to how many more get high grades nowadays. Please someone tell me this isnt true.

Again, the suspicion that all subjects are taught in a dumbed down way is purely personal opinion and is again no proof that exams are easier.

Here is an interesting page:
http://www.qca.org.uk/13195_13263.html

It seems that the percentage of people allowed to pass at each grade was fixed until the mid-80s - so you could never see if standards were improving - and if you were unlucky enough to have been in a year where people have done particularly well then you are less likely to get the grades you deserved (and perhaps would have achieved had you been born a year earlier or later!). This was the same system used for A Levels up until the mid-80s as well. I think this could well be the real answer to why more people are achieving higher grades - because people are actually awarded the grades they deserve rather than lower grades because too many other people have also achieved the same standards!

Originally posted by nightrider
You only need to look at the syllabus for e.g. maths and you can see the material is easier to understand. O-levels required students understood calculus. They no longer have to and it hasnt been replaced with anything as equally difficult for people to understand.
Dear Nightrider.
I passed O-level maths 20 years ago and was in the top stream of 6 streams at my school. We touched on the concept of differentiation, but it wasn't required to understand it. Later on when I did higher and degree level maths at uni, I then had a thorough understanding of much of it..

About 5 years ago. I helped a girl at work, with her studies in a night class at GCSE and I wouldn't say it was much easier than my O-level. Although I was able to help her very greatly to understand all the mathematics subjects, but as it was a long time ago and because I had done applied maths to degree level in electronics I had enough knowledge to be an effective tutor, and she did well and passed I'm pleased to say.

Originally posted by banesmabes
Again, the suspicion that all subjects are taught in a dumbed down way is purely personal opinion and is again no proof that exams are easier.

Here is an interesting page:
http://www.qca.org.uk/13195_13263.html

It seems that the percentage of people allowed to pass at each grade was fixed until the mid-80s - so you could never see if standards were improving - and if you were unlucky enough to have been in a year where people have done particularly well then you are less likely to get the grades you deserved (and perhaps would have achieved had you been born a year earlier or later!). This was the same system used for A Levels up until the mid-80s as well. I think this could well be the real answer to why more people are achieving higher grades - because people are actually awarded the grades they deserve rather than lower grades because too many other people have also achieved the same standards!

I think we are talking at cross-purposes. I wasnt getting at so-called grade inflation which can be done by changes such as above. There is another issue that we have got to a point where universities are introducing remedial courses to train the students to a sufficient standard to do a degree. I cant see any reason for this other than the course content at a-level and gcse is less advanced than it was x years ago. Irrespective of the number of A's,A*'s etc I believe the course content is at a less advanced stage than it has been in the past. ANd having see old o-level papers in physics it is clear the questions required learning physics to a more advanced stage to me.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Dear Nightrider.
I passed O-level maths 20 years ago and was in the top stream of 6 streams at my school. We touched on the concept of differentiation, but it wasn't required to understand it. Later on when I did higher and degree level maths at uni, I then had a thorough understanding of much of it..

About 5 years ago. I helped a girl at work, with her studies in a night class at GCSE and I wouldn't say it was much easier than my O-level. Although I was able to help her very greatly to understand all the mathematics subjects, but as it was a long time ago and because I had done applied maths to degree level in electronics I had enough knowledge to be an effective tutor, and she did well and passed I'm pleased to say.

I havent seen the maths o-level papers. I was told by older people they had to do calculus.

We had to try the physics ones when I did physics a-level and the o-level questions were much harder to solve (than a-level) and required a deeper understanding. So how much dumbing down has occured may well vary from subject to subject then.

In my mid thirties I have just finished taking a Foreign Language subject at GCSE at nightclass. As adults all the class took the subject very seriously, and we all worked extremely hard. Our Lecturer told us we were worrying far too much about getting everything right, and that School Pupils who were taking the same subject would be much more relaxed and lazy about it.

And one of our classmates was a schoolteacher by day, in related subjects, and he agreed with our class lecturer, that people were getting too panicky [especially some of the women in the class, who were thinking about dropping out, or even moving to foundation level!!]
It turns out that GCSE is marked extremely positively, and you are unlikely to drop many marks if you get most of it right. However to actually get everything 100% right, you would have to be a genius. Even someone at degree level in our subject would be unlikely to get 100% because some of the questions are extremely hard, and of a much higher level.

Well I took all the exams and suffered an inordinate amount of stress in the process. So I don't want to hear anyone saying I passed something that is easy-peasy, even if I do pass.

Originally posted by nightrider
I havent seen the maths o-level papers. I was told by older people they had to do calculus.

We had to try the physics ones when I did physics a-level and the o-level questions were much harder to solve (than a-level) and required a deeper understanding. So how much dumbing down has occured may well vary from subject to subject then.
Well I did do O-level in around 1984 or 5 and extra work to prepare for A Level in the maths classes because we were the top set, and we did very little Calculus.

when i werra lad (1986), a levels were REET hard!

i tried again in 2000 (maths) and it were still REET hard!

but i've still got four in total:clap:

Originally posted by nightrider
I think we are talking at cross-purposes. I wasnt getting at so-called grade inflation which can be done by changes such as above. There is another issue that we have got to a point where universities are introducing remedial courses to train the students to a sufficient standard to do a degree. I cant see any reason for this other than the course content at a-level and gcse is less advanced than it was x years ago. Irrespective of the number of A's,A*'s etc I believe the course content is at a less advanced stage than it has been in the past. ANd having see old o-level papers in physics it is clear the questions required learning physics to a more advanced stage to me.

I'd be interested to see what kind of universities are running these remedial courses. Are they they old polys that don't require particularly high A level grades for entry anyway? As I said earlier, the people going to these kind of universities with these kind of grades would not have had that option 20 years ago - so there would have been no need for universities having to bring students up to standard - because only those with the higher grades would have gone to university. I went to York (graduated a few years ago, so fairly recent), a university that regularly appears in the top ten of various league tables - and there were no such courses in existence there.

Again, saying that you have seen old physics papers and you think they required more advanced learning is purely personal opinion.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Well I did do O-level in around 1984 or 5 and extra work to prepare for A Level in the maths classes because we were the top set, and we did very little Calculus.

In fact I remember several subjects where we went off sylabus and started preparing for beyond the O-level stage.

I bet they don't do that these days.. I bet ever spare minute is used for mock exam practice.

Originally posted by banesmabes
I'd be interested to see what kind of universities are running these remedial courses. Are they they old polys that don't require particularly high A level grades for entry anyway? As I said earlier, the people going to these kind of universities with these kind of grades would not have had that option 20 years ago - so there would have been no need for universities having to bring students up to standard - because only those with the higher grades would have gone to university. I went to York (graduated a few years ago, so fairly recent), a university that regularly appears in the top ten of various league tables - and there were no such courses in existence there.

Again, saying that you have seen old physics papers and you think they required more advanced learning is purely personal opinion.

No it isnt an opinion. Physics is a subject that only gets harder as you learn more advanced aspects. Einsteins theory of gravity is very much harder to grasp than the simple newton inverse square law we all learn at gcse. Thats not an opinion. It is harder. So by strippng out more advanced aspects or removing the more complicated problems students have to solve you do make the subject matter easier.

How do you explain very few a-level students could do o-level questions on topics we were learning about? It isnt because we were stupid. It's because they required a deeper understanding of the subject to anwser (which I got when I went to university).

For example manchester runs remedial maths course for physics undergraduates. So does Sheffield (I think). Someone else said some are now running remedial english too (but you'll have to ask them where). You are right that not all students have to do it. But manchester has always been a big uni, so I dont think it is just because more people attend (though that may be part of it I suppose).

Originally posted by muddycoffee
In fact I remember several subjects where we went off sylabus and started preparing for beyond the O-level stage.

I bet they don't do that these days.. I bet ever spare minute is used for mock exam practice.

That is a problem though. Students are being trained in how to do well in an exam system instead of being taught course content in greater depth. I certainly remember endless mock exams!

I sat my A2 levels last July and I managed to get AAB, but I was the only person in Film Studies to get an A, one of 3 in a class of 35 to get an A in English, and I didn't do so well in Sociology.

Every year there are the same topics and the same people say the exams are easier, and I obviously have nothing to base it on because I've never done an O level. But it's horribly degrading for somebody to come on here and tell me what I have is pretty much worthless.

I'm studying at Sheffield, doing English Language and Linguistics, the Entry requirements for the course are BBB, except for some reason Sheffield offered me ABB (I was the only person I know on my course who had to achieve higher than their BBB stated on the website). I worked hard for my results, and I'm slightly gutted that I'm Sheffield because I declined Manchester because I didn't think I'd get AAB, in the end I did.

Certainly most of my friends "passed" their A-Levels, but not all that many people managed to get A's, B's in their subjects, despite much work.

As for so called remedial courses, I obviously know a lot of people across the country at different universities and here in Sheffield, and yet I know of nobody who has to do remedial courses in anything, except some people who didn't do A-Levels directly related to their courses. Some people I know doing Engineering degrees and Science degrees who didn't take Maths at A-Level but who were accepted anyway have to take "remedial" courses to get them up to speed.

You're being incredibly degrading and not incredibly receptive to statistics and other peoples opinions, do you just bear a grudge because you lost a few marks on a science exam because you didn't use the right terminology? My dad's got a phD in BioChemistry, owns a large Biochemical Research company and he didn't get where he is by writing boiling instead of reflux or whatever it was.

(And I know you'll probably jump on my spelling and/or grammar in this post, so before you say it, I'm dyslexic and that makes me even more proud of where I am today.)

Originally posted by nightrider
That is a problem though. Students are being trained in how to do well in an exam system instead of being taught course content in greater depth. I certainly remember endless mock exams!

Surely that's a completely different point to the exams being easy though. It doesn't mean the exams are any easier, in fact surely if there's so much attention to revising, mock preperation then maybe the exams are getting harder and the schools are having to prepare the students much more carefully?

There are definately faults with the system, you can't take anybody but the brightest pupils off syllabus otherwise it damages their exam performance. In English at 6th Form we were split up into two groups, the smart and not so smart. Those who were going on to English at Uni and those who weren't (well roughly anyway...). I was in the "smart/uni" group, and we went well of syllabus covering most of the things I've covered at Uni this year, which has meant a year of pretty much sleeping through lectures and seminars, and allowed to me do reading for next year.

You're basing nearly everything on your personal experiences, yet mine are much different to yours, although I'm sure you'll find a way to discredit them and make yours much more meaningful.

House of Commons debates
Monday, 25 October 2004
University Admissions Policy

During the past couple of years, I have spent some time at four universities: Kingston, Royal Holloway, Bristol and Imperial. Without exception, they report, first, that they have to do remedial work in science when students enter university and, secondly, that they are working exceptionally hard to bring people in. They are building relationships with neighbouring schools and going out around the country. They are especially concerned that the science base is not strong enough and worried about the type of teaching that is taking place. They also all say, without exception, that they do not believe their students are any less bright than previously. They believe their students are as bright, but there is a problem in the teaching and in bringing them up to university level that used not to exist and exists now. That concerns them.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2004-10-25.1144.4

Originally posted by Hook
I sat my A2 levels last July and I managed to get AAB, but I was the only person in Film Studies to get an A, one of 3 in a class of 35 to get an A in English, and I didn't do so well in Sociology.

Every year there are the same topics and the same people say the exams are easier, and I obviously have nothing to base it on because I've never done an O level. But it's horribly degrading for somebody to come on here and tell me what I have is pretty much worthless.

I'm studying at Sheffield, doing English Language and Linguistics, the Entry requirements for the course are BBB, except for some reason Sheffield offered me ABB (I was the only person I know on my course who had to achieve higher than their BBB stated on the website). I worked hard for my results, and I'm slightly gutted that I'm Sheffield because I declined Manchester because I didn't think I'd get AAB, in the end I did.

Certainly most of my friends "passed" their A-Levels, but not all that many people managed to get A's, B's in their subjects, despite much work.


All I said was it is easier in that the material is not taught to the same advanced standard as it once was. Doesnt mean you didnt work hard and it doesnt mean you are stupid. Equally the fact you worked hard and the fact you are clever doesnt mean the exams are neccessarily the same standard or that they mean the same thing anymore as they did in the past.


As for so called remedial courses, I obviously know a lot of people across the country at different universities and here in Sheffield, and yet I know of nobody who has to do remedial courses in anything, except some people who didn't do A-Levels directly related to their courses. Some people I know doing Engineering degrees and Science degrees who didn't take Maths at A-Level but who were accepted anyway have to take "remedial" courses to get them up to speed.

You're being incredibly degrading and not incredibly receptive to statistics and other peoples opinions, do you just bear a grudge because you lost a few marks on a science exam because you didn't use the right terminology? My dad's got a phD in BioChemistry, owns a large Biochemical Research company and he didn't get where he is by writing boiling instead of reflux or whatever it was.


Thats the point isnt it? He got where he was by understanding the subject at a deep level not by learning it in a superificial way which is the way teaching seems to be going. And no I dont bear a grudge. Thanks to the modular system I retook all the chemistry modules and upgraded to a B. So it doesnt even matter. It was just the one example the teacher gave of ways to get better marks that stuck with me (though it appears from cgksheff he may not have been entirely correct in what he said).

I've just spent the last twenty minutes trying to write a post to this, but I'm so angry about the sweeping, unsubstantiated, nonsensical, damaging statements contained in the thread that i am unable to do so without resorting to crude language.

Maybe it's because I'm uneducated - after all I only got 10 GCSEs, 4 A-Levels and a Degree from one of the best Business Schools in the country. What do I know. My generation (and those that have followed since I graduated in 2001) is stupid. The exams I took were so easy all the certificates I have aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Originally posted by Hook
Surely that's a completely different point to the exams being easy though. It doesn't mean the exams are any easier, in fact surely if there's so much attention to revising, mock preperation then maybe the exams are getting harder and the schools are having to prepare the students much more carefully?

There are definately faults with the system, you can't take anybody but the brightest pupils off syllabus otherwise it damages their exam performance. In English at 6th Form we were split up into two groups, the smart and not so smart. Those who were going on to English at Uni and those who weren't (well roughly anyway...). I was in the "smart/uni" group, and we went well of syllabus covering most of the things I've covered at Uni this year, which has meant a year of pretty much sleeping through lectures and seminars, and allowed to me do reading for next year.

You're basing nearly everything on your personal experiences, yet mine are much different to yours, although I'm sure you'll find a way to discredit them and make yours much more meaningful.

Yes it is a different point. I was just commenting on it since someone mentioned it.

I think we have already agreed that different subjects teaching may well have evolved differently. So of course your experience of english may be different to that of mine in physics.

Originally posted by nightrider
Yes it is a different point. I was just commenting on it since someone mentioned it.

I think we have already agreed that different subjects teaching may well have evolved differently. So of course your experience of english may be different to that of mine in physics.

Guess my girlfriend whose doing Medicine, and did Sciences are A-Level isn't going to be as good as a Doctor as those who trained 20 years ago? Because she doesn't have a good enough, deeper understanding of the subject?

I guess my housemate doing law isn't going to be as good a Lawyer as somebody trained 20 years ago.

etc etc etc.

Guess this country is doomed.

UGH! I really just want to scream, and swear and shout because you are being so demeaning, demoralizing and downright cruel.

Originally posted by Hook
Guess my girlfriend whose doing Medicine, and did Sciences are A-Level isn't going to be as good as a Doctor as those who trained 20 years ago? Because she doesn't have a good enough, deeper understanding of the subject? Guess this country is doomed.

UGH! I really just want to scream, and swear and shout because you are being so demeaning, demoralizing and downright cruel.

But probably the older doctors will teach the newer doctors what they havent been taught at uni in the field? - if it is the case medicine at uni now is easier than it was that is. As I said I thought we all agreed the evolution of teaching may vary from subject to subject. So what has happened in physics may not be the case in medicine. Certainly from what MuddyCoffee posted about maths suggests this may be the case. I also think the link CgkSheff posted bolstered my point about physics.

I am not being cruel at all. I started a debate because this is a topic I genuinly worry about and it is interesting to debate it.

Originally posted by Hook
and yet I know of nobody who has to do remedial courses in anything, except some people who didn't do A-Levels directly related to their courses. Some people I know doing Engineering degrees and Science degrees who didn't take Maths at A-Level but who were accepted anyway have to take "remedial" courses to get them up to speed.

17 years ago when I did electronics, it was exactly the same, the A level students were way behind in all the technical subjects, and the Tech students were way behind in maths.

Nearly 2 decades and exactly the same arguments are being had when there is no difference or slipping of standards, at all.....