![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
The A level results came out today amidst the usual accusations that they've been dumbed down and that the qualifications aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Sadly I think this isn't all that far off the mark - although I do feel sorry for all those kids who've worked hard for their exams only to hear all day long that the exams are much easier than they used to be.
Again - I think that's true, but it's not the students' fault, and they should be allowed to feel proud of their achievements.
The trouble is, of course, that universities and employers are now finding it difficult to distinguish between those who are well-educated and those who are well-schooled in the art of passing tests. As one commenter to one of the Times articles says, we need to distinguish between those pupils who work hard and A levels being hard - the kids do work hard, but they're just not expected to reach the same standards.
I don't want to sound like a moany old bag, but A levels today are easier than they were twenty years ago. For example - when I took mine in 1982, A grades were pretty rare. And to get three or more As, you had to be a very exceptional student. And the mark scheme was roughly akin to that used for degrees - to get an A or a first, you'd need about 70% overall, for a B or a 2,i, 60%, for a C or 2,ii about 50% etc.
A couple of years ago, before I went back to work, I decided to do A level English Literature - I love reading "the classics" and had wanted to do English at school, but wasn't able to because of a timetable clash with A level Maths. For me, now, the current "modular" system employed is ideal, because it meant I was able to study as and when I wanted and take the units in more or less whatever order suited me. I took a couple of papers at a time, and have done four of the six required - I don't know if I'll ever get around to completing it! But on the last two papers I took - neither of them incidentally texts with which I was familiar before I studied them (one was a restoration comedy, the other poetry by Philip Larkin) I achieved a mark of well over 90%. I was gobsmacked - so much so that I rang the exam board to check they hadn't made a mistake. Okay, so I was about twenty years older than the majority of the candidates and I can actually write and express myself properly, but "in my day", a mark like that was unheard of.
So on the one hand, we have headlines touting the soaring grades and trumpeting the fact that, for the first time in years, there are more kids taking Maths and Science - and on the other, we have reports telling us that A levels are to get tougher after another year of top results.
Um... if the A levels we have now are 'fit for purpose', as many in the first article claim - why do they need to be made harder?
To me, this looks like just another band-aid in yet another ridiculous attempt to fix something which requires major surgery. Until we get rid of all the unecessary testing we now have in the education system and start teaching kids things they need to know, and - more importantly - how to think for themselves, instead of just teaching them how to pass tests, this situation isn't going to improve. We'll continue to hear about falling standards, and the kids who have worked hard, nonetheless will continue to feel that they're being moaned at unfairly.
Round 2 next week when the GCSE results come out.
Sadly I think this isn't all that far off the mark - although I do feel sorry for all those kids who've worked hard for their exams only to hear all day long that the exams are much easier than they used to be.
Again - I think that's true, but it's not the students' fault, and they should be allowed to feel proud of their achievements.
The trouble is, of course, that universities and employers are now finding it difficult to distinguish between those who are well-educated and those who are well-schooled in the art of passing tests. As one commenter to one of the Times articles says, we need to distinguish between those pupils who work hard and A levels being hard - the kids do work hard, but they're just not expected to reach the same standards.
I don't want to sound like a moany old bag, but A levels today are easier than they were twenty years ago. For example - when I took mine in 1982, A grades were pretty rare. And to get three or more As, you had to be a very exceptional student. And the mark scheme was roughly akin to that used for degrees - to get an A or a first, you'd need about 70% overall, for a B or a 2,i, 60%, for a C or 2,ii about 50% etc.
A couple of years ago, before I went back to work, I decided to do A level English Literature - I love reading "the classics" and had wanted to do English at school, but wasn't able to because of a timetable clash with A level Maths. For me, now, the current "modular" system employed is ideal, because it meant I was able to study as and when I wanted and take the units in more or less whatever order suited me. I took a couple of papers at a time, and have done four of the six required - I don't know if I'll ever get around to completing it! But on the last two papers I took - neither of them incidentally texts with which I was familiar before I studied them (one was a restoration comedy, the other poetry by Philip Larkin) I achieved a mark of well over 90%. I was gobsmacked - so much so that I rang the exam board to check they hadn't made a mistake. Okay, so I was about twenty years older than the majority of the candidates and I can actually write and express myself properly, but "in my day", a mark like that was unheard of.
So on the one hand, we have headlines touting the soaring grades and trumpeting the fact that, for the first time in years, there are more kids taking Maths and Science - and on the other, we have reports telling us that A levels are to get tougher after another year of top results.
Um... if the A levels we have now are 'fit for purpose', as many in the first article claim - why do they need to be made harder?
To me, this looks like just another band-aid in yet another ridiculous attempt to fix something which requires major surgery. Until we get rid of all the unecessary testing we now have in the education system and start teaching kids things they need to know, and - more importantly - how to think for themselves, instead of just teaching them how to pass tests, this situation isn't going to improve. We'll continue to hear about falling standards, and the kids who have worked hard, nonetheless will continue to feel that they're being moaned at unfairly.
Round 2 next week when the GCSE results come out.
no subject
They interviewed a bunch of kids who all said they had retaken various modules 2 or 3 times and upped their grades from E to C or better.
We had one go. At the end of 2 years. Yes, you could go back and do retakes for a year, but it was still a single series of exams at the end, not individual modules. This is the bit that makes me think that although the current students may have put more sustained effort in over a longer period than the mad cramming a lot of us did, they wouldn't stand a chance in one off exams.
So, you can get any number of As at A level, but when you go on to university, or take professional accounting or medical or legal exams, do you have any idea how much effort it takes to pass on the first go? Accounting firms went through a phase of chucking juniors out if they failed exams at the first attempt. I wonder if they still do.
Another comment on PM was that A levels are just so completely different now than they were 10 years ago that it's really not possible to compare them. AFAIC, "It's like when they did that thing with the SAT scores and I got dumber twenty years after I went to college."
no subject
I can only comment on music A level - having done it myself and taught it recently, and there really is no comparison in terms of difficulty. I was reading this (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article4481222.ece) earlier (could you hear me grinding my teeth?) and oddly, the O level exam from 1978 that's mentioned must have been similar to the one I did, because I did AEB music in 1980 (and I probably did it as a practice paper!) And it reminded me of just how much there was in the syllabus back then compared to now. The A level I was teaching really was a similar standard to the O level I took.
It's a mess. Employers are saying so, Universities are saying so. If the govt doesn't start taking some notice of them, God knows where we'll be in another twenty years.
no subject
This comment just about sums it up:
Music education in this country is pathetic.
Syllabus is designed for pupils who are not doing well in sciences and consequently signed up for Music to make up the numbers of their GCSE's.
no subject