O.T. Annual A-Level Fiasco

Quelle surprise !
Another record-breaking year for these 'Mickey Mouse' certificates.
According to one newspaper a pre-1988 grade 'E' would be equivalent
to today's grade 'B' A-level.

The only thing to shut old farts like myself up(who had to sit proper
A-Levels)and prove that its the pupils that are improving along with
the results,would be to show a corresponding annual rise in First
Class honours degrees.

As the champions of the 'new,improved' A-Levels fail to do so one can
only conclude that this is because the current students aren't members
of some Genius Generation and that the exams are easy as piddle.

Graham Dean said:

Well, as a 1st Class Honours degree holder

And how many of your classmates also gained a First ?

- it's August, there's no news,

Quoted message said:

it's a
*tradition* to complain about A-levels!

That's because Britain will soon be viewed on par with those great
academic nations like Portugal and Swaziland if this decline in
academic standards continue.

I would care much more about the

Quoted message said:

education of those
who don't go on to do A-levels - that's where our future lies!

There is already a surplus of graduates.Graduate unemployment is the
only figure that keeps pace with the A-Level rise.We don't need more
graduates we need better graduates.Not [censored] Art History or Dance
Philosophy degree holders,but M.D.s and Dentists.

Quoted message said:

Graham

The Nottingham Duck said:

Quelle surprise !
Another record-breaking year for these 'Mickey Mouse' certificates.
According to one newspaper a pre-1988 grade 'E' would be equivalent
to today's grade 'B' A-level.

The only thing to shut old farts like myself up(who had to sit proper
A-Levels)and prove that its the pupils that are improving along with
the results,would be to show a corresponding annual rise in First
Class honours degrees.

In fact, I heard some academics on Radio 4 in the course of the last
couple of weeks complaining about grade inflation at first degree
level. I think they were talking more about the increase in the
numbers of people getting 2:1s, though.

Best wishes,
--
,,
(**)PeeWiglet~~
/ \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk

The Nottingham Duck said:

As the champions of the 'new,improved' A-Levels fail to do so one can
only conclude that this is because the current students aren't members
of some Genius Generation and that the exams are easy as piddle.

So when weren't they? They were certainly *insultingly* trivial when
I did them a quarter of a century ago (the Cambridge entrance exam was,
by contrast, challenging).

--
Not me guv

"Peewiglet" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The Nottingham Duck said:

The only thing to shut old farts like myself up(who had to sit proper
A-Levels)and prove that its the pupils that are improving along with
the results,would be to show a corresponding annual rise in First
Class honours degrees.

In fact, I heard some academics on Radio 4 in the course of the last
couple of weeks complaining about grade inflation at first degree
level. I think they were talking more about the increase in the
numbers of people getting 2:1s, though.

Best wishes,
--

I think it started when I got my degree... ;-)

Graham

Quoted message said:

grade inflation at first degree level

Does this mean that I can apply to have my 3rd (1980 vintage) upgraded
to at least a 2:2?

--
Peter Headland

In message <[email hidden]>, Peter
Headland <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

grade inflation at first degree level

Does this mean that I can apply to have my 3rd (1980 vintage) upgraded
to at least a 2:2?

My 1981 2:2 ought really to have been a 2:1, had I been not been too
distracted by unrequited love to study more.

However, my 1982 2:1 more than made up for that.

--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com

Peter Headland said:

Quoted message said:

grade inflation at first degree level

Does this mean that I can apply to have my 3rd (1980 vintage) upgraded
to at least a 2:2?

Surely the statement that it's getting easier is anecdotal. Just because
more people pass the exam does not mean the exam is easier. Surely the
test would be for those persons who bemoan the exam to actually sit it and
then see how 'easy' it was for them to pass.
Pupils now have completely different challenges to those which we faced and
those who go on to sit A levels are going to be those who are more
motivated to succeed. Whilst the exam may now be structured differently is
it valid to say that the exam is worthless because it does not rely on a
single empirical test but spreads the assessment over a longer period. In
my view the point of exams was not to 'test' the student but to 'prove' the
student could be educated to a given standard. If that standard did not
reflect the true knowledge content of the previous exams then I would agree
but this is not the case as has been put. The case as put is the exam is
to easy because to many are passing. That argument in my point of view is
invalid.

Sniper8052

Sniper8052 said:

Surely the statement that it's getting easier is anecdotal. Just because
more people pass the exam does not mean the exam is easier. Surely the
test would be for those persons who bemoan the exam to actually sit it and
then see how 'easy' it was for them to pass.

There are I think two different aspects. In terms of absolute ability I
do not doubt that more and more people are able to achieve a certain
threshold of knowledge in a subject. The current grading system
reflects that. OTOH in using a qualification to identify who are the
best, it does no good if everyone achieves the top grade. So for
employers a normalised figure, as was used in my day, where say the top
5% get an A etc is far more useful. So the debate should probably be
about what we want the grading to achieve rather than the current debate
about whether exams are getting easier or not.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Quoted message said:

In fact, I heard some academics on Radio 4 in the course of the last
couple of weeks complaining about grade inflation at first degree
level. I think they were talking more about the increase in the
numbers of people getting 2:1s, though.

Yeah, firsts require consistency which is something that not a lot of
students have, on top of doing a really decent bit of work. A bare pass
(40%) is so diabolically awful that I've not heard of anyone getting near
it. Anyone graduating today with a 3rd either handed in quite a lot of
stuff late, failed their final year and took resits and was restricted to a
3rd, or is stupid. 2:2 is a standard but slightly disappointing degree,
2:1 is what you should be getting if you can be bothered and 1st is still
pretty special.

I'm not sure whether it's falling standards or the increased use of 'soft'
examination wossnames, like coursework instead of blind exams. The amount
of work students do has also fallen, which makes things easier.

What /really/ bugs me is the constant blind eye turned to plagarism. All
stems from schools insisting kids "copy stuff out in their own words". Oh,
and people passing business finance without being able to write a balance
sheet (are we sure the economy needs /that/ kind of graduate?)

Disclaimer: Comments don't apply to science type degrees and medicine,
'cos I've only second hand experience of 'em. May not apply to all uni's
either.

Dear Nottingham [censored],

As a student who came through school in the mid sixties and returned to
education in the year 2001, I can speak as someone who has experienced both
the 'old' and the 'new'. It is NOT in anyway easier now than then, what is
different is the standard of teaching. When I was at secondary school there
was not one teacher who deserved the title teacher, they were a disgrace to
the profesion, if at that time it qualified for the title profesion.

Imagine my shock when returning to education I discovered that teachers
actually taught and not just drew their salaries under false pretences. By
the way, you sound as though you may well be one of those teachers from my
old school days who is now fleecing the state by drawing your pension under
false pretencies.

Rant over, so now can I draw your attention the fact that this sight is
'uk.rec cycling' and not the place for your petty witterings.

Dave Chadderton said:

Dear Nottingham [censored],

As a student who came through school in the mid sixties and returned to
education in the year 2001, I can speak as someone who has experienced both
the 'old' and the 'new'. It is NOT in anyway easier now than then, what is
different is the standard of teaching. When I was at secondary school there
was not one teacher who deserved the title teacher, they were a disgrace to
the profesion, if at that time it qualified for the title profesion.

Imagine my shock when returning to education I discovered that teachers
actually taught and not just drew their salaries under false pretences. By
the way, you sound as though you may well be one of those teachers from my
old school days who is now fleecing the state by drawing your pension under
false pretencies.

Rant over, so now can I draw your attention the fact that this sight is
'uk.rec cycling' and not the place for your petty witterings.

The word is 'profession' not profesion,also this is a newsgroup not a
'sight'.

Obviously your "modern" education left you as deficient as the Genius
Generation's

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:14:24 GMT, Sniper8052 <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 18 Aug 2005 11:47:46 -0700, Peter Headland wrote:

Quoted message said:

Surely the statement that it's getting easier is anecdotal. Just because
more people pass the exam does not mean the exam is easier. Surely the
test would be for those persons who bemoan the exam to actually sit it and
then see how 'easy' it was for them to pass.
Pupils now have completely different challenges to those which we faced and
those who go on to sit A levels are going to be those who are more
motivated to succeed. Whilst the exam may now be structured differently is
it valid to say that the exam is worthless because it does not rely on a
single empirical test but spreads the assessment over a longer period. In
my view the point of exams was not to 'test' the student but to 'prove' the
student could be educated to a given standard. If that standard did not
reflect the true knowledge content of the previous exams then I would agree
but this is not the case as has been put. The case as put is the exam is
to easy because to many are passing. That argument in my point of view is
invalid.

Then where is the corresponding rise in Firsts ?

Please feel free to furnish us with figures of a corresponding
increase in First Class degrees since 1991.Since it is impossible to
do so - because there hasn't been a significant increase, then one can
only conclude that they are getting easier.

Speak with your old teachers,masters and lecturers - as I have - and
they will confirm that standards have dropped since the late 80's.

Don't forget that these 'Easy-Levels' were a cynical ploy by the
Tories to boost their record on education,and as with most Tory
Policies,were adopted by New Labour.

But when the C.B.I. (New Labour's masters)bemoan the standard of
recent A-Level students and graduates then there must be a problem.

Today's results reveal that nearly 25% of ALL A-Level passes were at
grade A .That's 1 in 4 to all you post 1988 ers.

Tony Raven said:

Sniper8052 said:

Surely the statement that it's getting easier is anecdotal. Just because
more people pass the exam does not mean the exam is easier. Surely the
test would be for those persons who bemoan the exam to actually sit it and
then see how 'easy' it was for them to pass.

There are I think two different aspects. In terms of absolute ability I
do not doubt that more and more people are able to achieve a certain
threshold of knowledge in a subject. The current grading system
reflects that. OTOH in using a qualification to identify who are the
best, it does no good if everyone achieves the top grade. So for
employers a normalised figure, as was used in my day, where say the top
5% get an A etc is far more useful. So the debate should probably be
about what we want the grading to achieve rather than the current debate
about whether exams are getting easier or not.

I agree that the debate should be about what we want the exam to represent
but I disagree that it is fair to band a pupils results by setting a
pre-determined percentage threshold of passes at any level, which is what
used to happen. If a pupil has the correct answer, that answer is correct,
to then modulate the answer by whatever means to artificially normalise the
marking standard seems grossly immoral.
Another fallacy is that all students are getting A grades, in fact about
22% get three A grades. This may still be an increase on previous decades
but shows enough differential for an employer or university to make
reasoned decisions from. Their problem is that there are now more people
who are able to go on to higher education because they have shown their
ability and not been artificially penalized, are now more people who
recognize the value of going on to higher education and fewer quality
places available for those students to go into.
Out of the approx 22% who achieve three grade A passes what percentage
apply for university? Some surly take up careers in the Services or
Business without going further. Is it really possible that those remaining
place such a great strain on the admissions system that they cannot
differentiate who is most able amongst them? Especially as the exam results
are not the only criteria for selection. Clearly those with most A grade
passes should be considered for places before those with a wider banding of
grades, some will not get a place on the course they want at the university
they want, that's life and always has been. The only answer to that would
be more places offering the courses required by the more able and a
co-responding reduction in other courses. The cake can only be so large as
I see it some are always bound to be disappointed, but if 78% have grades B
to E does that not differentiate the ability of the majority?

Sniper8052

The Nottingham Duck said:

On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:14:24 GMT, Sniper8052 <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On 18 Aug 2005 11:47:46 -0700, Peter Headland wrote:

Quoted message said:

Surely the statement that it's getting easier is anecdotal. Just because
more people pass the exam does not mean the exam is easier. Surely the
test would be for those persons who bemoan the exam to actually sit it and
then see how 'easy' it was for them to pass.
Pupils now have completely different challenges to those which we faced and
those who go on to sit A levels are going to be those who are more
motivated to succeed. Whilst the exam may now be structured differently is
it valid to say that the exam is worthless because it does not rely on a
single empirical test but spreads the assessment over a longer period. In
my view the point of exams was not to 'test' the student but to 'prove' the
student could be educated to a given standard. If that standard did not
reflect the true knowledge content of the previous exams then I would agree
but this is not the case as has been put. The case as put is the exam is
to easy because to many are passing. That argument in my point of view is
invalid.

Then where is the corresponding rise in Firsts ?

Please feel free to furnish us with figures of a corresponding
increase in First Class degrees since 1991.Since it is impossible to
do so - because there hasn't been a significant increase, then one can
only conclude that they are getting easier.

Speak with your old teachers,masters and lecturers - as I have - and
they will confirm that standards have dropped since the late 80's.

Don't forget that these 'Easy-Levels' were a cynical ploy by the
Tories to boost their record on education,and as with most Tory
Policies,were adopted by New Labour.

But when the C.B.I. (New Labour's masters)bemoan the standard of
recent A-Level students and graduates then there must be a problem.

Today's results reveal that nearly 25% of ALL A-Level passes were at
grade A .That's 1 in 4 to all you post 1988 ers.

A large amount of the problem with business not getting what it requires
from A level students has to be the type/s of courses which are on offer
that qualify as an A level. True academic A levels now form the minority
of A levels with the bulk being made up from lifestyle choices.
Universities have not helped either by allowing pretty much any A level to
qualify for a course provided it is at the right grade, instead of
insisting the A level be relevant to the course applied for. That alone
could account for the lack of a rise in Firsts but married with the
lifestyle A levels it is probably only part of the equation. Oh yes and
don't forget that a BSC counts a three A levels!

Sniper8052

Quoted message said:

Oh yes and don't forget that a BSC counts a three A levels!

I hope not - they certainly didn't 25 years ago.

When I went to Cambridge in 1977, most people there had found A-levels
rather easy (they pretty much had to have done, since Oxbridge and the
other top tier universities generally required 3 A grades + Use of
English, often + an S-level back then, where most other universities
required far less). We were in for a rude shock! The 1st year
undergraduate courses were at a whole different level to A-level or
even S-level material.

I grant you that some of the 3rd tier universities courses were far,
far easier (I should have gone to one - might even have got a 1st). I
once read a Phd thesis from one of those places and thought it would
have been graded as a bad dissertation for an MA at Cambridge, London,
etc.

If c. 25% are getting 3 A grades now, something is wrong. You had to be
seriously smart to do that 25 years ago (at least for the subjects I
took - maths, physics & engineering). I was at a really good grammar
school with excellent teaching and facilities that specialised in
cramming people for Oxbridge, and even there very few pupils got 3 As.

--
Peter Headland

Sniper8052 said:

Another fallacy is that all students are getting A grades, in fact about
22% get three A grades. This may still be an increase on previous decades
but shows enough differential for an employer or university to make
reasoned decisions from.

I strongly doubt that such a level of "discrimination" is remotely
adequate
to separate out the talented from the merely adequate. Of course, for
some jobs and courses, it might not matter too much. But when you have
an application/places ratio of about 4:1 for some universities (much
higher for some individual courses), what use is it for almost all
candidates have AAA?

James

Dave Kahn said:

Simon, I think you've just been suckered by a troll. :-)

A somewhat inebriated troll at that; now rather regretful of its drunken
and ill-considered response.

The troll remembers how hard its daughter worked over the last couple of
years for her A-levels, and is just a little tired of this annual ritual
which involves belittling the successes of hard-working eighteen year olds.

The troll will retire now to consider its hangover, and the advantages
of sobriety.

--
A Troll.

Peter Headland said:

If c. 25% are getting 3 A grades now, something is wrong. You had to be
seriously smart to do that 25 years ago (at least for the subjects I
took - maths, physics & engineering). I was at a really good grammar
school with excellent teaching and facilities that specialised in
cramming people for Oxbridge, and even there very few pupils got 3 As.

As others have mentioned, A-levels were (IIRC) graded by expected
boundaries (5% at the top etc) rather than by ability. To downgrade a
student who has demonstrated a high understanding of their subject
because 5% of their colleagues got a little better does not adequately
reflect the candidate.

There is a dichotomy in what selection for employment and university
requires and what A-level supplies, but that's not a good reason for
making A-levels reflect a percieved value rather than actual ability.
Perhaps its time for the universities to come up with their own
discriminatory methods rather than eexpecting the state to sort
candidates for them.

And WRT to the "ease" of A-levels, while I'm sure that some may be
"easier" than those that were available (Art History?) I know from
personal experience that in my A-level maths course I was learning
techniques that were not taught 'til university in my father's day.

It takes a very simple mind to look at a basic result table and say
"they've got easier". The same mind would (And does) look at the
hospital league tables without taking into account the nature of the
patients.

Rant over.

Jon