Does anyone fail these exams any more (NB)

Re: Remedy is simple, but....

I had a friend who worked in one of the big marking centres for a few summers (around 6 years ago).

His experience was that the marking was very carefully done to maintain standards. Old papers at different grade levels were archived, and compared with the current year in order to maintain parity of grades, especially in borderline cases.

However, when this was complete, the centre would be told that a larger percentage of students should haven higher grades, and the examiners would then have to reclassify the papers.

I think that we need to be careful about saying A levels are getting easier - I can see why it is seen as insulting. I haven't seen any evidence that the courses or exams are getting easier, however I stongly believe that it's easier to get an A than it used to be.

Rich

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Remedy is simple, but....

Indeed - Rich, you have picked up something in the language being used which is confusing a lot of people. Are the exams getting easier?- no, people are still busting a gut and working very, very hard at the A levels. Is the grading system giving higher grades for the same result? -without a doubt - either the human race (in the UK only) is evolving at a phenomenal rate, or higher grades are given for similar work.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Remedy is simple, but....

I'm not sure that is necessarily correct. In the 12 years I have been working for my company it has gone from :
needing a Bachelors degree
to
Won't even look at you unless you have a 2:1 or first in a Bachelors degree, needing a Masters to progress beyond senior engineer level (ideally a PhD if you want to follow the technical path, rather than the managerial path) and a requirement to pass tests in the companies own internal technical education system.

Either they have got very picky or have to continually increase the requirements in order to maintain recruitment standards.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Remedy is simple, but....

I obviously have no idea how easy/difficult exams were 20 years ago but I suspect they were far more difficult. I am taught how to pass the exams I am taking, I am not taught a thing that is not in the exams, if somebody asks a question beginning with WHY we are invariably told that we do not need to know WHY because it is not in the syllabus!
I can guarantee that Geography exams were far more difficult, I got 5 marks in my Geography Coursework for writing a "risk assessment" for a field trip which included warnings about dangerous sheep, sharp points on ranging poles and that I would have to be careful not to fall over on the steep hill (this is not a joke!!!)

I used to enjoy school but I am now totally fed up being taught absolute rubbish and spending 6 hours every night doing homework on said rubbish! I think I learn more by doing CCF once a week and taking part in a Young Enterprise scheme where we run our own business for a year. I probably learn more usefull stuff sitting on the boat/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif





<hr width=100% size=1>I fully understand if you wish to ignore me!!!
 
Re: Remedy is simple, but....

the term "easier" is of course subjective and therefore immeasurable. i can only base my assertions on my own experiences.
As an example of greater ease compare something like a pure maths paper from a 1988 a-level to a present paper. Every time I have seen this done for every exam i have ever taken, as part of the revision process, i have found the earlier paper is simply more rigourous.
whilst it is now argued that the breadth of the syllabus has increased, also contrary to my own experiences, to me it appears the depth has decreased. personally i believe it is easier to learn the basics of a greater range of subjects then explore one rigourously and that is where the new system fails to differentiate those of physically greater intellect. straight A's at a-level once required significant natural intellect and hard work, nowadays i know people with straight As-->firsts who have achieved this by working really hard which is great, and nicely inclusive, but many lack any real ability to offer thoughtful insight. Employers certainly can't rely on grades to indicate exceptional intelligence any more.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Remedy is simple, but....

Indeed, I teach genetics to veterinary students, every single one of which has 4 grade A A-levels. The range of abilities is amazing. There are a few who are remarkably quick to grasp new ideas, but most are pretty average compared to students less rigorously selected. There are always a few who have some astounding misunderstandings about absolutely fundamental aspects of biology.

I have to conclude that A-level performance is a very poor indicator of 'ability', and that improved performance is a result of being better taught to pass exams.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
My son achieved 4 A's in maths, further maths, physics and chemistry. I know what it's like to study but I can honestly say that thetime and effort put in by my son and his school friends has been incredible and I know I could not have worked as hard as they. These guy's know that if they are not successful they may not do as well in life. Their attitude to study and exam results has been very competitive between them and the School (top 10 in Britain) has been excellent in their approach to teaching and devloment.
I wish there was less criticism of the high achievers and more congratulations for them and their teachers.
Regards.

Peter.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I've not heard anyone "critisizing the high achievers" in this context.

In fact, it's the high achiever's cause that is being fought - what's the point of being a high achiever, when the exam system fails to distinguish you from an average achiever?

Unless you take the view that maybe we should give everyone A's, and then by definition they'd all be high achievers. Mr Blair's statistics would look excellent, then!

It's the exam system that's at fault, not the students. And the fault with the exam system is that government has had an input.

Rich

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
By saying that too many A's are given out you are criticising the high achievers by belittling the difficultly of their achievements!


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Wrong .. you are insulting high achievers by giving them the same mark as an average achiever .. which is why Universities and employers are seeking other methods of sorting the wheat from the chaff.. as I understand it there is 30% gap between the top and bottom of the A band. Really it should be worked in % terms ie the top 5% of the exam population get A the next 10% get B, next 20% get C next 30% get D and the rest fail.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
The high proportion of A grades flatters the second tier performers at the expense of the top tier.

In 1982, less than 10% of candidates got A grade, now that is more than 20%.

Competition for jobs / uni places and so on is primarily with people of your own age group. So whereas 20 years ago the top 10% could distinguish themselves from the next 10% by the fact that they got 'A' grades, now they have no such method.

As in many cases these 'PC' notions promote mediocracy at the expense of the elite (not, I hasten to add, that getting an A level even today is "mediocre")

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Is a "high achiever" someone who is particularly talented, or someone who achieves the highest grade? (The problem being that the two are no longer synonymous).

I'm not critisizing or belittling anybody, other than the powers that be. I sympathise strongly with the top few percent of candidates, who can no longer be easily distinguished from their slightly less able peers.

The contrary argument seems to be that students deserve their high grades because they worked hard for them. Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Exams should reflect achievement, not effort.

In fact, I used to feel that students who worked hard should be penalised, so that the exams could more accurately measure talent rather than rewarding those "cheats" that got grades by working hard. But that's 'cos I was a lazy git!

Rich

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: What exactly is a high achiever?

Is a high achiever someone who achieves 99% perfection in A levels, having been coached all their lives and been through a privileged education, had their own bedroom with broadband connection, middle class parents with time to support and teach and with academic results of their own? Or is a high achiever someone who, against all the odds, still manages decent results without all these props? As an employer, I know which one I would choose - because the latter is the actual high achiever. No, not PC, just right. Exam results per se have very little to do with real potential unless you examine other factors.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: What exactly is a high achiever?

Absolutely agree .. but that is a different argument. We've sent our children to the local comprehensive because I feel strongly that it is better training for life.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: What exactly is a high achiever?

I salute your ideals Sir! The problem is though that people use 'high achievement' in the same sentance as A level grades. I'm fed up listening to boring middle class parents (of whom I suppose I am at least one of these adjectives) gushing about their kids' straight As and how clever they are when they actually wouldn't know how to fry an egg unless the au pair showed them first and the little darlings have been nursed through the exam system like a dog learning to sit. I'm not suggesting I am free from hypocracy here but at least I recognise that high grades don't automatically mean high achievement. Whatever happened to Dave Spart anyway!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Perhaps if more worth was placed on

those who educational efforts are of benefit to society,the middle class bunfight over bits of paper would be less fraught.
Have always thought that the rich and clever are well able to take of themselves and need no protection.However if that "degraded and diluted"A level persaudes somebody that they are a useful member of the community and worthy of praise because they tried to better themselves.Good on them.Ignore the doomsayers they belong to an age that was somewhat less than sucessful.Remember the decline of UK Plc that these upholders of the academic standards have presided over.
Far better that the average educational standard for all is improved rather than
putting on a pedastal a favoured few whose contribution to law or banking will only be appreciated by those able to afford their skills.


<hr width=100% size=1>Nastro Azzurro.Hoegaarden.Chang.Tiger.
 
Re: Perhaps if more worth was placed on

erm .. to add long term value to our economy we really need top drawer engineers,scientists etc and our system & values are just not providing them. They're giving us the aforementioned lawyers,bankers etc .. OK for a small niche economy like Luxembourg but for the UK? Small wonder that our GDP / Per Capita is now lower than France, Italy and most of our European neighbours!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Who needs the encouragement to achieve.

Agree we need those peeps but they will rise to top using the manipulation of whatever advantages they where born with ie. driven parents experienced at playing the tired old tunes needed to get on in academia.It is the vast majority of folk further down who need encouraging to look above the academic slot assigned to them by others.Why do I suspect that real breakthroughs in science or medicine or politics are group efforts and not the result of one individual having come top of the a pile in paper pecentage.Until a better method of calculating achievement comes along we are stuck with the one we have,but is must be modified to suit todays needs.Any number of revolutionary ideas that changed our way of looking at the world came from those whose education was not littered with glittering prizes.Who should we appreciate more a Branson or Crick and Watson./forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

<hr width=100% size=1>Nastro Azzurro.Hoegaarden.Chang.Tiger.
 
The CIA disagree with you

GDP per capita - the CIA disagree with your analysis !!!

<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2004.html>http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/fields/2004.html</A>

- we're ahead of France, Italy and Germany

(when it comes to how many Big Macs and Cherry Cokes we can buy?)

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top