Calls for A-levels to be tougher
Discussion
From BBC website
:readit:
Calls for A-levels to be tougher
A-level results have improved dramatically in recent years
The government is facing calls to make A-levels harder amid predictions that a record number of students will gain top grades this year.
More than 260,000 students get their results this week and experts predict the pass rate will rise to nearly 97%.
Tory education spokesman, David Cameron, told the BBC the exam system needed to be "sufficiently rigorous".
But a spokeswoman for the Department for Education and Skills said results showed standards were being maintained.
In 1982 only 8.9% of students scored grade A at A-level but last year 22.4% achieved it, research has shown.
Professor Alan Smithers, director of the University of Buckingham's Centre for Education and Employment Research, said the A-level pass rate last year was 96%, compared to 68.2% in 1982.
'Tremendous boost'
"It would be reasonable to suppose that we are going to get quite close to 96.5% this year," he said.
One explanation was that pupils took AS-levels in their first year of A-levels, allowing them to identify their best subjects for the next year, Prof Smithers said.
Those changes had given "a tremendous boost" to pass rates but "it probably means we need to put some more difficult questions in," he said.
We have to make sure that exams do the job they are meant to do
David Cameron
Tory education spokesman
"The tremendously high proportion getting these top grades in these subjects underlines the need for tougher questions so that the really talented distinguish themselves from the very able."
Mr Cameron told BBC News 24 young people were "working incredibly hard" and nothing should be done to undermine that.
"But I think we do need to look at the exam system, all the exam systems, and make sure they are sufficiently rigorous," he said.
Diploma debate
"We have to make sure that exams do the job they are meant to do.
"There is a worry in my mind that as the results get better each year, partly reflecting the very hard work that people have put in, that we are going to need to look at the exam system over the long term and work out how to make sure it is rigorous."
David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said more schools were abandoning A-levels in favour of the International Baccalaureate diploma.
Education Secretary Ruth Kelly has promised to look at introducing a new diploma covering A-levels in 2008 following recommendations from former Ofsted chief Sir Mike Tomlinson.
But Mr Hart said there was not time to "sit about" and this week's results would reopen the debate.
The DfES spokeswoman said A-levels were "here to stay" but added: "We recognise that we need to increase the stretch and challenge within A-level for our brightest students.
"We have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to come forward with proposals for introducing tougher questions to stretch our most able, and the introduction of an extended project."
:shout:
This 97 % pass rate is a really good con to get more votes from the gullible. It goes like this. Announce that you intend to raise standards and then move the exam pass mark down. Result: instant improvement in "standards" and an announcement that your wonderful policy on education has had an amazing effect as witnessed by the ever expanding number of pupils with better grades.
The trouble is they don't know when to stop. first O Levels had to go as their credibility was slowly eroded, then when CSEs were laughed at the exam that mattered became the A Level. Convinced that no one would ever notice that the emperor had no clothes they did the same there too. Result: A levels are laughed at. I'm not sure what they were thinking at this point, perhaps they didn't realise that they needed to back track fast, perhaps they really thought that we were idiots but they started on degrees. It used to be only the top 3% that went to university and got a degree. The target, all down to their "improvements" if you believe a word they say, is now 50%. They currently manage 30ish%.
The situation is now so bad that many employers, who would have taken someone on with a few O Levels 30 years ago, or a reference from your headmaster 60 years ago, now insist on setting their own exams, often called assessment days or some such, to graduates.
Soon people will start to question why the education system is churning out thousands of virtually unemployable graduates that are required to sit further tests just to be employable while being 20 thousand pounds in the red.
97% pass rate... All down to their "improvements" no doubt.:wobble:
:readit:
Calls for A-levels to be tougher
A-level results have improved dramatically in recent years
The government is facing calls to make A-levels harder amid predictions that a record number of students will gain top grades this year.
More than 260,000 students get their results this week and experts predict the pass rate will rise to nearly 97%.
Tory education spokesman, David Cameron, told the BBC the exam system needed to be "sufficiently rigorous".
But a spokeswoman for the Department for Education and Skills said results showed standards were being maintained.
In 1982 only 8.9% of students scored grade A at A-level but last year 22.4% achieved it, research has shown.
Professor Alan Smithers, director of the University of Buckingham's Centre for Education and Employment Research, said the A-level pass rate last year was 96%, compared to 68.2% in 1982.
'Tremendous boost'
"It would be reasonable to suppose that we are going to get quite close to 96.5% this year," he said.
One explanation was that pupils took AS-levels in their first year of A-levels, allowing them to identify their best subjects for the next year, Prof Smithers said.
Those changes had given "a tremendous boost" to pass rates but "it probably means we need to put some more difficult questions in," he said.
We have to make sure that exams do the job they are meant to do
David Cameron
Tory education spokesman
"The tremendously high proportion getting these top grades in these subjects underlines the need for tougher questions so that the really talented distinguish themselves from the very able."
Mr Cameron told BBC News 24 young people were "working incredibly hard" and nothing should be done to undermine that.
"But I think we do need to look at the exam system, all the exam systems, and make sure they are sufficiently rigorous," he said.
Diploma debate
"We have to make sure that exams do the job they are meant to do.
"There is a worry in my mind that as the results get better each year, partly reflecting the very hard work that people have put in, that we are going to need to look at the exam system over the long term and work out how to make sure it is rigorous."
David Hart, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said more schools were abandoning A-levels in favour of the International Baccalaureate diploma.
Education Secretary Ruth Kelly has promised to look at introducing a new diploma covering A-levels in 2008 following recommendations from former Ofsted chief Sir Mike Tomlinson.
But Mr Hart said there was not time to "sit about" and this week's results would reopen the debate.
The DfES spokeswoman said A-levels were "here to stay" but added: "We recognise that we need to increase the stretch and challenge within A-level for our brightest students.
"We have asked the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to come forward with proposals for introducing tougher questions to stretch our most able, and the introduction of an extended project."
:shout:
This 97 % pass rate is a really good con to get more votes from the gullible. It goes like this. Announce that you intend to raise standards and then move the exam pass mark down. Result: instant improvement in "standards" and an announcement that your wonderful policy on education has had an amazing effect as witnessed by the ever expanding number of pupils with better grades.
The trouble is they don't know when to stop. first O Levels had to go as their credibility was slowly eroded, then when CSEs were laughed at the exam that mattered became the A Level. Convinced that no one would ever notice that the emperor had no clothes they did the same there too. Result: A levels are laughed at. I'm not sure what they were thinking at this point, perhaps they didn't realise that they needed to back track fast, perhaps they really thought that we were idiots but they started on degrees. It used to be only the top 3% that went to university and got a degree. The target, all down to their "improvements" if you believe a word they say, is now 50%. They currently manage 30ish%.
The situation is now so bad that many employers, who would have taken someone on with a few O Levels 30 years ago, or a reference from your headmaster 60 years ago, now insist on setting their own exams, often called assessment days or some such, to graduates.
Soon people will start to question why the education system is churning out thousands of virtually unemployable graduates that are required to sit further tests just to be employable while being 20 thousand pounds in the red.
97% pass rate... All down to their "improvements" no doubt.:wobble:
or maybe if I'd have spent less time in the pub/asleep/at work.... [old fart mode]
Judging by the quality of some of the graduates we are getting these days, the whole system from GCSE's right through to Degree level needs toughening up.
We're getting graduates whose basic literacy is so poor that they can't be trusted even to write simple letters and reports without supervision.
I don't know if you still have to have decent passes in English and Maths to matriculate for a degree, as you did when I were a lad, but I guess even that wouldn't help - I've seen the GCSE Maths and English syllabus' for my g/f's son, and they are little short of a joke.
[/old fart mode]
Judging by the quality of some of the graduates we are getting these days, the whole system from GCSE's right through to Degree level needs toughening up.
We're getting graduates whose basic literacy is so poor that they can't be trusted even to write simple letters and reports without supervision.
I don't know if you still have to have decent passes in English and Maths to matriculate for a degree, as you did when I were a lad, but I guess even that wouldn't help - I've seen the GCSE Maths and English syllabus' for my g/f's son, and they are little short of a joke.
[/old fart mode]
The general standard of education in this country has fallen sharply in the past ten years. I have witnessed an alarming decline in the quality of FE and HE students. When I first started teaching Photography A level ten years ago I nearly died when I saw some past exam papers because they were so tough. It would be much harder to fail now.
When I last taught BA students two years ago I was appalled at the general lack of enthusiasm, interest and ability. It has reached the point now where I could almost believe that anyone with a pulse could get accepted onto a degree course. I think that this is incredibly sad and must, to a certain extent, reflect an overall drop in educational standards.
When I last taught BA students two years ago I was appalled at the general lack of enthusiasm, interest and ability. It has reached the point now where I could almost believe that anyone with a pulse could get accepted onto a degree course. I think that this is incredibly sad and must, to a certain extent, reflect an overall drop in educational standards.
with it to be honest. The thing is that it is the kids that will bear the brunt of any changes. One year you have an A in your a-levels, and the next, you may get a c, or something. You are the same level, but because it has been changed, you are getting a worse grade. I'm not sure how they would do it. Hell.. When I took A-levels 12 or so years ago people were saying they were to easy. They are still saying it...
Real world ability is, in my opinion, a much better measure of an individuals intelligence than a qualification on a piece of paper. All qualifications generally show is somebody's ability to absorb and regurgitate facts. Obviously certain exceptions can be made with regard to certain areas of study; science, medicine, law...
But true intelligence is the ability to take initiative, adapt, and react to real life situations as they happen, not after you've had three months to prepare your response.
>> Edited by DanBoy on Sunday 14th August 22:40
But true intelligence is the ability to take initiative, adapt, and react to real life situations as they happen, not after you've had three months to prepare your response.
>> Edited by DanBoy on Sunday 14th August 22:40
DanBoy said:
Real world ability is, in my opinion, a much better measure of an individuals intelligence than a qualification on a piece of paper. All qualifications generally show is somebody's ability to absorb and regurgitate facts.
True intelligence is the ability to take initiative, adapt, and react to real life situations.
Only partly true, I fear.
In the old days, you couldn't have passed an English O-level without a good level of literacy and grammar...neither of which is the sort of thing you can 'cram' in a couple of day's revision, then forget immediately.
Same with maths - if the exam is stiff enough you simply won't pass it unless you understand the mathematics you are being tested on.
I agree that some other subjects (History, for example) lend themselves to memorising the syllabus and regurgitating it for two hours onto an exam paper, but even then it should be possible to phrased questions in such a way that understanding is tested, not mere recollection of data.
I also agree that initiative and common sense are more valuable in the long run, but we need these to be underpinned with sound ability in language, communication and logic.
You have to balance a number of different issues here.
The breadth of knowlege required just to function in the modern world has expanded greatly. Since 1982 the PC and the internet have been invented, together with a massive increase in general knowlege about a wide range of subjects, some of which of course, like climate change are just smoke and mirrors. This puts a greater burden on all students and by definition lowers and broadens academic standards.
Since the dawn of the British education system its roots lie in the delivery of latin grammer via vicarious use of bullying, beatings and buggary. The driving forces that led the expansion of industry and commerce have for the past 200 years dictated the growth in education for the masses in order to provide for the needs of the economy. It is for this reason that America surpassed the British economy as the world leader.
The resultant drop in ultimate difficulty of A levels is needed to provide a larger entrance formula for Universities. In 1982 only about 3% of the pop went to university and a further 3% to Polytechnic. Now around 40% attend. (This is perhaps too high and could be reduced by introducing a shoot to kill policy for anyone over 40 wearing a cardigan and sandals). In additon some of the degrees being awarded and verified by the CNAA are probably now of a lower academic standard than science A levels of the early 80s. Considering that some of these degrees in counselling, media studies, tree psychology and Posh and Becks studies are soon to include practical work elements such as "Would you like fries with that" and "Have a nice day" in order to equip graduates for future employment opportunities. It is clear that the increased use of HE is for some completely tragic.
In conclusion the lowering of standards is running concurrently with the broadening of knowlege and is a requirement of the commercial world that both public and private sector jobs and future careers must perform in. Unfortunately the civil service and the government collude to provide the co-ordination of what is needed. This means that naturally they consult with the commercially bewildered, those that have never participated and the totally non involved. The result is as usual a complete cock up.
The breadth of knowlege required just to function in the modern world has expanded greatly. Since 1982 the PC and the internet have been invented, together with a massive increase in general knowlege about a wide range of subjects, some of which of course, like climate change are just smoke and mirrors. This puts a greater burden on all students and by definition lowers and broadens academic standards.
Since the dawn of the British education system its roots lie in the delivery of latin grammer via vicarious use of bullying, beatings and buggary. The driving forces that led the expansion of industry and commerce have for the past 200 years dictated the growth in education for the masses in order to provide for the needs of the economy. It is for this reason that America surpassed the British economy as the world leader.
The resultant drop in ultimate difficulty of A levels is needed to provide a larger entrance formula for Universities. In 1982 only about 3% of the pop went to university and a further 3% to Polytechnic. Now around 40% attend. (This is perhaps too high and could be reduced by introducing a shoot to kill policy for anyone over 40 wearing a cardigan and sandals). In additon some of the degrees being awarded and verified by the CNAA are probably now of a lower academic standard than science A levels of the early 80s. Considering that some of these degrees in counselling, media studies, tree psychology and Posh and Becks studies are soon to include practical work elements such as "Would you like fries with that" and "Have a nice day" in order to equip graduates for future employment opportunities. It is clear that the increased use of HE is for some completely tragic.
In conclusion the lowering of standards is running concurrently with the broadening of knowlege and is a requirement of the commercial world that both public and private sector jobs and future careers must perform in. Unfortunately the civil service and the government collude to provide the co-ordination of what is needed. This means that naturally they consult with the commercially bewildered, those that have never participated and the totally non involved. The result is as usual a complete cock up.
Mutant Rat said:
[old fart mode]
Judging by the quality of some of the graduates we are getting these days, the whole system from GCSE's right through to Degree level needs toughening up.
We're getting graduates whose basic literacy is so poor that they can't be trusted even to write simple letters and reports without supervision.
I have a copy of a Railtrack internal report. It's all very flash and stylish, on thick glossy paper with text printed on top of images so you can't read it, you know the sort of thing. It is so stuffed with spelling, punctuation and grammatical howlers that if I had handed in anything like it at school I would have been in utter disgrace.
Mutant Rat said:
I don't know if you still have to have decent passes in English and Maths to matriculate for a degree, as you did when I were a lad, but I guess even that wouldn't help - I've seen the GCSE Maths and English syllabus' for my g/f's son, and they are little short of a joke.
[/old fart mode]
satch said:
totally agree.
I interview finance/accountancy graduates regularly wanting study packages and 15/16k starting salary and they don't know their debits from their credits but can tell you about Porter or Maslow etc
I'm all for vocational education but the current crop of gcse, A level and graduates just don't know anything. about the real world i mean.
They never have known anything about the real world AFAICT. The thing is that nowadays they don't know anything about their supposed speciality either... There was a letter in Electronics World a few years back from an engineering admissions tutor. One of his favourite interview questions was "Given two spheres of identical mass and appearance, one made of aluminium with a lead core and the other of lead with an aluminium core, how would you tell which was which?" Apparently people with A-level maths can no longer answer this
Mutant Rat said:
Real world ability is, in my opinion, a much better measure of an individuals intelligence than a qualification on a piece of paper. All qualifications generally show is somebody's ability to absorb and regurgitate facts.
True intelligence is the ability to take initiative, adapt, and react to real life situations.
Only partly true, I fear.
In the old days, you couldn't have passed an English O-level without a good level of literacy and grammar...neither of which is the sort of thing you can 'cram' in a couple of day's revision, then forget immediately.
Same with maths - if the exam is stiff enough you simply won't pass it unless you understand the mathematics you are being tested on.
I agree that some other subjects (History, for example) lend themselves to memorising the syllabus and regurgitating it for two hours onto an exam paper, but even then it should be possible to phrased questions in such a way that understanding is tested, not mere recollection of data.
I also agree that initiative and common sense are more valuable in the long run, but we need these to be underpinned with sound ability in language, communication and logic.
Surely these are the fundamentals that are taught during primary and secondary school though?
I have an A level in English language and yet I learnt absolutely nothing at college! Everything I needed to know, I already knew by the age of fifteen.
The thing is that at the moment kids aren't taught a subject then examined on it, but instead taught how to pass an exam in a subject. This is a critical difference in how the approach to teaching has changed and is a key factor in why kids are getting better marks, when infact they know less about the subject. For instance i know bugger all about accountancy in this, my first year of my degree (Business Economics at Exeter so not a mickey mouse degree or uni) but i knew exactly how to pass it. So i got 74%, without any real knowledge. So much emphasis is based on exam technique, revision sessions and examining past exams that it matters at least as much or more than the actual subject itself. It's time we looked at a whole new way of assessing knowledge on a subject, not just making things harder because more people are passing - and this comes from someone who can get thru' exams without knowing anything, so I should be defending the current system if anything!
Cheers,
Rob.
Cheers,
Rob.
I've been part of the 'guinea pig year' for every change since 1988 and I've worked at AQA for the past three summers, and I can honestly say two things:
1. GCSEs aren't too hard or too easy, but there are too many of them. Some things just don't need exams, but should lead into apprenticeships instead. Perhaps some GCSE subjects that are more technical should lead into longer, more thorough and practical courses rather than exams. I mean, I had to mark, among other things 'food technology' exams this year - since when did the likes of Ramsey, Stein and Worral-Thomson have to take an exam to prove they could cook?
2. A-Levels aren't 'too easy', but the grades you need to pass them are too low. It's not that easy to get an A or a B at A-Level, but the problem is that we've got this 'kids party' attitude towards them, where 'no-one goes away empty-handed'. As a result, you get students with what really should be 'fail' grades going through clearing, then doing a useless degree at some hopeless ex-poly and finding themselves unemployable three years later, but with £15k or debt.
In many ways, this 'no losers' society that Phony Tony has tried to create has just prolonged the pain of the losers. And as a result, we have to bring in foreign workers because we have a generation not good enough to do the jobs they think they can do, but overqualified for the jobs they'd be better off doing.
There is no shame in not being academic. Unfortunately we're run by a bunch of academics who can't comprehend the usefulness of anything else. Forcing 50% through university will only serve to cripple the country.
1. GCSEs aren't too hard or too easy, but there are too many of them. Some things just don't need exams, but should lead into apprenticeships instead. Perhaps some GCSE subjects that are more technical should lead into longer, more thorough and practical courses rather than exams. I mean, I had to mark, among other things 'food technology' exams this year - since when did the likes of Ramsey, Stein and Worral-Thomson have to take an exam to prove they could cook?
2. A-Levels aren't 'too easy', but the grades you need to pass them are too low. It's not that easy to get an A or a B at A-Level, but the problem is that we've got this 'kids party' attitude towards them, where 'no-one goes away empty-handed'. As a result, you get students with what really should be 'fail' grades going through clearing, then doing a useless degree at some hopeless ex-poly and finding themselves unemployable three years later, but with £15k or debt.
In many ways, this 'no losers' society that Phony Tony has tried to create has just prolonged the pain of the losers. And as a result, we have to bring in foreign workers because we have a generation not good enough to do the jobs they think they can do, but overqualified for the jobs they'd be better off doing.
There is no shame in not being academic. Unfortunately we're run by a bunch of academics who can't comprehend the usefulness of anything else. Forcing 50% through university will only serve to cripple the country.
DanBoy said:
Surely these are the fundamentals that are taught during primary and secondary school though?
I have an A level in English language and yet I learnt absolutely nothing at college! Everything I needed to know, I already knew by the age of fifteen.
Yes, I agree that they should be.
That used to be the whole point of matriculation. Dunno if it is still the case, but (if my memorys serves me correctly) you couldn't even be considered for any degree unless you had O-level English and Maths at Grade B or above, plus a minimum of 5 O-levels overall, plus the appropriate points for A-levels.
The idea was that no matter what degree you did, you had literacy and numeracy and a suitably broad basic education as a foundation.
You can then go off and learn your specialist subject (Architecture, in my case). Admittedly, it was generally acknowledged that the hard bit was acheiving the A-level grades to get you into Uni in the first place. The actual degree, whilst reasonably challenging, was intended to give plenty of slack for drinking, chasing women and indulging in sports, pastimes and hobbies in order that you came out at the other end as a 'fully rounded individual'.
I wouldn't say I learnt nothing at Uni, though - if you'd asked me at the age of 15 to calculate the stresses in a spaceframe, heat loss from a building, or detail a typical eaves construction for a house, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have known where to start.
andy mac said:
Just for a wee look.. here are some mock GCSE papers...
Just out of curiosity, how are they so different from the old O-levels?
That's worse than I thought! I only looked at the maths paper, 'cos I didn't take Geog or Biology at O-level, but the maths is much, much easier.
I don't use anything but basic maths these days, but I'd be very disappointed to score less than 90% on that maths paper, without revision and without any refresher tuition. I'd be secretly hoping for 100%, in fact - there doesn't seem to be anything complex or challenging there, so it would be a matter of careful error checking.
I'm assuming that isn't a full paper and that the allowable time isn't really 2 hours? I'd have said that it would be OK to cover perhaps 50% of the marks on an exam and be given an hour?
Very obvious differences are that calculators are allowed and that a number of formulae are given that we would have been expected to know from memory in my day...in fact, I still know all the ones given off by heart, apart from the one for quadratic equations (though, to be fair, I do still use basic geometry at work).
The only item I don't recognise is 'box plots' (question 11), so I guess I'd lose 4% there unless someone explained to me what the diagrams represent.
The paper seems to be fairly geometry-heavy, which would suit me well.
In terms of difficulty of the maths covered, the best benchmark I can give is that the syllabus for O-level maths, when I sat it, covered up to and including basic calculus, which is noticeable by its absence on the example paper on your link.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff