in thinking that in a few years time it'll be impossible to fail an 'A' level?

[BarmyArmy]

A level pass rate up

"The pass rate for A-levels rose for the 28th year in a row, with 97.6% of entries gaining an E or above, up from 97.5% in 2009."

The problem (for I see it as that, rather than evidence of increasing 'hard work') began under the Tories, when they introduced the GCSE in 1986.

Traditional 'bell curve' grade allocation was replaced with marks awarded to a particular 'standard', meaning it is perfectly possible for everyone to pass, or indeed everyone to gain the same grade - depending on where the grade boundaries lie.

Under the old bell curve system, grades were allocated according to the percentile bands in which you lay - i.e. the top 20% of any given intake received an A, the next a B and so on.

What do people think?

Please, please, please look at the rest. For no other reason than that only looking at the first couple of questions is [takes deep breath] incredibly poor sampling technique!

yes that is the type of thing, but there are slightly harder questions than that e.g.

which of these is the smallest
5/9, 4/7, 3/5, 2/3, 6/11

which is as hard, if not harder, than number 1 of the GCSE paper for 16 year olds, which says

Which of the following fractions is nearest to 1/2 ?
3/5, 7/10, 11/20

yes there are some harder questions later on, but I still don't think it compares to the 1968 paper

When I took my A levels 25 'cough cough' years ago. We certainly were taught how to pass an exam, how to write good essays, the best ways to answer questions, and we went through old exam papers to try to work out what questions might come up. Nothing wrong with that.
My oldest ds got better grades than I did and he definately worked alot harder, and is alot brighter than me. There is alot of pressure to get higher grades....
.All those 18 year olds acheiving 'A' grades deserved them. Well done all you youngsters and it is good to see so many of you working so hard. I was a lazy shite at your age. Good for you!

That's still the first question, though. I don't contest that the first few questions are easy. All GCSE papers are structured to give the candidate a easy beginning. But they do get harder.

Do the 11 + papers? For example, quadratic equations? I only saw linear equations in the 11 + sample paper.

It's always said that teaching teenagers to pass exams is a bad thing - taking them through exam marking schemes etc.
There is an argument that doing this narrows a child's education, focussing too much on the exam.
But teaching in this way gives children a far more useful and important skill imo - the skill of being able to work the system.
An awareness that in todays world there will almost always be a written set of criteria for you to meet - very similar to marking schemes for exams.
While my colleagues floundered around trying to figure out how to write an essay worthy of a first at uni I took the awareness gained from my excellent A-level teaching and decided there must be a marking scheme somewhere. It took some digging around but I found it, and I then proceeded to get firsts on every one of my essays. I wasn't any more able, but I knew exactly how they wanted me to apply my ability and so by working the system I got my first.
When I applied for funding for my MA I searched the funding body's website for their aims/objectives/examples of who they'd previously given money to and why. I used this information in writing my application and I got the funding.
When I fill in job applications I carefully consult the person specification/job description and address every point on it if possible.
Learning that there is a system to be worked and showing the way to do it is one of the most important things a teenager can learn imo... hurrah for "spoon feeding"

no there are no quadratic equations. I'm not saying that the 11+ is harder than the current GCSE maths, but on browsing that paper, a large proportion of it is not a great advance on some of the questions asked.

do they get 2 hours to answer those 25 questions?

Just to add to the horror on mumsnet, I'm now going to link to the examiners' reports for those papers.

Higher paper 1 report

Higher paper 2 report

An extra detail for anyone wondering. GCSE candidates are streamed before the exams, and take either the Foundation papers, or the Higher papers.

The difference is the highest grade possible on Foundation is a C, and the lowest something like an F. On Higher papers, you may gain an A*, but the lowest grade possible is a C. If you miss out on the C, you will receive a U. So, a large chunk of Higher papers is aimed at separating the C-students from the ones who will receive an Ungraded letter.

You decide whether you think that makes things easier or not.

I think they both say two hours at the top.

do you know what percentage get a U?

www.burtongrammar.co.uk/?cat=19

above is the 1968 paper, there are less questions to answer, as they are harder.
Compare question 1 of the 1968 paper to question 1 of the GCSE (or even to the first 5 or 6 of the GCSE). It doesn't look like the 1968 serves any underarm balls.

I'm not sure I can find that specific data, but I'll have a go. Interesting story: in my day, nearly a decade ago, when Maths (and Maths alone) was divided into Foundation, Intermediate, and Higher, my school only risked entering one person out of 20-30 for Higher maths.

I can find a cumulative graph, although that's not quite what you asked.

Oh, I must apologise profusely. Looks like the lowest grade possible is now an E. [blushes]

Specification Entry A* A B C D E F G U
4306 MATHEMATICS A 56699 4.7 15.0 29.0 53.3 72.1 84.8 93.0 98.0 100.0

store.aqa.org.uk/over/stat_pdf/AQA-GCSE-FC-STATS-JUNE09.PDF

Here are the grade boundaries for GCSE Maths that year, with AQA. (The scores from each paper are added together.)

Subject Maximum Scaled Mark Grade Boundaries
Code Subject Title Scaled Mark A* A B C D E
4306H MATHEMATICS A TIER H 200 166 131 95 59 42 33

store.aqa.org.uk/over/stat_pdf/AQA-GCSE-GDE-BOUND-JUNE09.PDF

*those data, I think

thanks for the data. It's a bit late at night to get my head around the figures now, will try and give it a shot tomorrow

Have just realised I deleted part of a post before I submitted it.

Given that I initially gave you false information which you based your question on, I think that
In 2009 for that AQA Higher syllabus, 46.7% got a D or below (so D,E,U).
In 2009 for that AQA Higher syllabus, 2% got a U. I think the examiners' report said they thought this suggested good streaming from teachers. As opposed to chucking mathematically-weak students into the Higher course on the offchance they could get a B, IYSWIM.

thanks for the info, very interesting