To wonder about CSEs v O Levels

I was at a grammar school and took 9 O levels in 1984. My school allowed the bottom set (5) to take CSEs in Maths and science. I don't remember anyone getting all As. Our 6th form allowed some girls to take secretarial qualifications, but most took 3 A levels. Those doing maths took an AO level in L6. It was called an Additional O level, a bit like an AS. A few girls took 4:A levels - one actually got 4 A grades. Which was very unusual. I had several friends who went onto Oxbridge colleges and none had 3 A grades. They all had the standard offer of 2 Es!!

I went to a Grammar School and no one did CSEs (as in, it wasn't an option) so that alters the perspective, percentage-wise) a bit.

I did my GCSE,s in 1990 so we were the third year to go through ,
When I did my nurse training in 1993 the entry requirements was 5 Olevels/ GCSE,s at grade C or above including maths and English or a science ,I failed my maths several times but did have two science GCSE,s at grade C so that got me on the course
I beleive at the time for those who didn't have the entry requirements they could sit something called a DC test which was like an IQ test ( I think) to get on the course.

@wombat15 In my day, 2 A levels was accepted for some degrees. The Polys offered degrees with 2 A level entry. The Red Bricks probably didn't.

I don't think 5 O levels was considered good. I got 6 but no MFL, maths or science. So pretty poor really. Not that I was prevented from doing A levels. Although that didn't go well! As a mature student I found my niche though. Avoided maths and concentrated on work related qualifications. So once I moved away from academic subjects I did really well. I also received much better teaching and leaving my oppressive grammar school made a huge difference to me as well. Many people are intelligent but it's not always obvious at school.

I think most people at universities had at least 8 Olevels as well as 3 A levels.

Really? I'm sure in our school the ones that got cse 3 and 4 were the bottom set crowd. I was also in last year of O levels .

My ex went to a "bad" school and they didn't really offer O level just cse

I wouldn't say 5 I Levels was very good but it was generally viewed as the minimum number to get a job that required O Levels. I can remember most office junior and entry public sector roles advertising with 5 O levels as a requirement.

I did 7 O levels (failed one), 1 CSE, and RSA and Pitman typing qualifications.

In 79 I took 7 and passed 5 plus some typing exams . I came 6th in my year for results and as i said above one of teachers said that 5 o'level passes put you in top 15% in the country.

Taking 9 0levels, 3 ALevels and Alevel general studies as a non revisable exam was the norm at my comprehensive school in the 80s

I did O levels in ‘82 and five O levels would not have been considered good. Not bad, but not good.

Interesting how previous posters have said that 5 O levels was considered very good. I did mine in 86 and never felt academic with my 5 passes which included a GCSE which was trialled on my year.

I have worked with a couple of people who only did CSEs and they were fantastic at their jobs.

I always feel old when I do job applications as CSEs don't feature on drop down choices for qualifications. We were told that a CSE grade 1 was equivalent to o level grade C but I knew not many people would remember that.

A levels at school were to prepare you for Uni - lots of background reading. I did an A level in my 30s just for interest and I found it easy but then I was almost middle aged

CSE grade 1 was a grade C only at O level or a 6 if a numeric. In other wide, the lowest grade. So would be a 4/5 GCSE now.

I mean o level grade a, b and c

They said it was equivalent to gcse grade a, b and c

Well if it was equivalent to a grade C it makes sense that no where requiring at least a grade B would accept it,

I did a mixture of o levels and CSEs but I went to a private school.

CSEs were for people that didn't haven't the ability to do the O level equivalent but I remember being entered for both exams for a subject and the CSE paper was harder than the O level. There was no coursework for CSEs, just an exam

My school used to insist CSE grade 1 was equivalent to an O level grade a to c but we all knew it wasn't. It was usually a different curriculum plus no college/job asking for at least O level grade b would accept it. My school used to make people do CSEs if they thought there was a chance of them failing o level and then would praise themselves for the number of CSE grade 1s. I used to think it was really bad they hadn't given those people a chance to do an o level.

I took O level music, and because we were a small school, the O level and CSE students were taught together. I well remember one lesson, when the teacher needed to do something specific with the CSE students, so sent the 4 of us off to discuss an essay subject, then write it for homework.

The essay title was "The organ fugues of Bach are academic and boring - discuss". We knew what answer the teacher wanted, but felt contrary that day, so we discussed it, and went home and wrote essays that agreed that, yes, they were academic and boring, and gave examples to back up our views. He was not best pleased!

I took O levels, and came acorss this, some pals who achieved CSE grade 1s and discovered unis/colleges wouldn't recognise as equivalent.

The main issue I heard was that the curriculum was completely different... for example the maths was much more practical than the O level syllabus.

I sat my O levels in 1985 and my school just did 16+ in geography and history at that time.

I did an S level as well as A levels - a lot later than that.

Oh I couldn't agree more @Violinist64 My DD trained as a professional dancer and now teaches and both my sons though scientists are reasonably good amateur musicians so I appreciate the value of the arts.
I think the EBacc is a lot of the problem. Whilst it sounds good in principle the effect on the non "core" subjects is appalling. At my DC's school they do 9 GCSEs and more or less everyone does the EBacc qualifying subjects which only leaves them with one genuinely free choice. Of course the numbers choosing the creative and practical subjects are plummeting. My elder son was one of only 7 out of a year of over 180 to choose Music GCSE. With the financial pressures on schools you wonder how sustainable continuing to offer the GCSE and A level courses in such subjects are with very low numbers. Then if you're not offering the exam courses is it worth having specialist music teachers (and would anyone want the job anyway?) So then KS3 music is threatened, no school choirs, orchestras, Carol Services and Summer shows...it doesn't bear thinking about.

@MrsAvocet, I was going by my knowledge of arts based subjects, but it is interesting to read your experiences. Sciences are a very different animal and, yes, science and technology has changed out of all recognition since the 1980s. When I started secondary school, there was one computer for the entire school and the idea was that if you were good at maths, you could learn some computer science in the sixth form. By the time I was in the upper sixth, the computer revolution was in its infancy and beginning to be taught all through the lower school. I think that the sciences have to keep moving and adapting in a way that the arts subjects should do, but often do not. I think that the sciences are vital, of course, but the pushing of the STEM subjects at all costs has meant that the arts subjects have stagnated, if not regressed. We need both arts and sciences for well-rounded people.

Probably a bit different in my areas of expertise @Violinist64 but there has been so many developments in Science since I was at school that there are things on the GCSE syllabi now that were exciting, cutting edge findings when I was at University. And have you looked at a periodic table recently? Looks an awful lot different to when I was doing Chemistry A level!
I actually think my children have had a far better science education than I had at school. There seems to be a lot more thinking and evaluation of evidence and less rote learning. It's a different world. The instant accessibility of information means that it is now less important that things are learned off by heart but far more important that people are able to critically evaluate what they are reading. When my DS tells me about the kind of discussions they've had in his A level classes I'm generally pretty impressed - I think it's a lot more useful than the "memorise and regurgitate" approach I experienced.
I think there was a phase when GCSEs were very dumbed down, particularly when they were modular and largely course work and some schools were putting pupils in for ridiculous numbers of subjects. But the syllabus changes, particularly the most recent ones, seem to have brought things back to a more sensible level, in the subjects I know something about anyway.