Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

to think that you need to get more than 50% to PASS something?

75 replies

prettybird · 25/08/2011 11:13

The reports of the GCSE results and of the 5 year old who "passed" GCSE Maths with an F reminded me of this. All she has proven is that she has covered some of the curriculum and got the majority of the exam wrong

I know I'm being a grumpy old woman - but is it any wonder that employers perceive that exams are being "dumbed down"?

OP posts:

SardineQueen · 25/08/2011 12:28

YABU the pass mark is set by the examining board

When I did my degree (20 years ago) the pass mark was 40%
On the OU course I have just done the pass mark was 40%

Why do you think it should be 50%? That is just as subjective as the number you are complaining about?

I think it should be 80% OK with you?

noblegiraffe · 25/08/2011 12:33

acsec, while it is nice that you found GCSEs easy and from your lofty position of academic excellence were able to sneer at those who got Fs and Gs, it is not true that everyone can get marks above an F because 'you are spoon fed the info you need'.

I taught a lad a couple of years back who was 16 years old and couldn't add up without counting on his fingers, couldn't remember what had been done from one lesson to the next. He had some one to one support, turned up for every lesson, worked harder than you might expect from someone who was being taught the same stuff at 16 as he had been at primary school. I was so pleased for him when he got a G at GCSE, There had been a real danger of him failing completely and coming away with nothing to show for his work.

chill1243 · 25/08/2011 12:35

You can argue pass percentages till you are blue in the face. It depends how difficult the exam is.

beckybrastraps · 25/08/2011 12:38

If you're going to have a qualification that applies to the whole population, than you have to have some way of recognising the whole spectrum of achievement at that level. There is a huge, huge difference between a D and a G. Do you really think they should all be lumped together as a 'fail', with no way of discriminating between them? If your nephew got a D, then he is in a different category to some of my students who frankly do well to get an F. And that should be recognised. Whether an exam in which they can only get an F at best is the most appropriate route for some students is a whole other issue...

beckybrastraps · 25/08/2011 12:39

Of course when you look back at GCSEs after having done further and higher study they look easy What a ridiculous thing to say.

TheBride · 25/08/2011 12:42

They should just have A,B,C and fail. Employers don't want to know about anything lower than that, so why muddy the waters with these pretend qualifications.

lazylula · 25/08/2011 12:43

Noblegiraffe, I was going back 18 years ! And that system sticks in my memory as I was asked to choose whether to sit the higher or intermediate, which at 15 felt a huge and life changing decision. I decided to sit the higher at the mocks and see the outcome, I got 1 mark off an A so sat the higher for the real thing and got a B!

beckybrastraps · 25/08/2011 12:44

Unless you are suggesting that nobody who achieves less than a C should be employed, then I think employers would do well to look at the lower grades. As I said, big difference between a G and a D. Huge.

lazylula · 25/08/2011 12:46

Also, thank you, I knew lower was not the right term for that level but could not think what it was, now I remember it was foundation!

SiamoFottuti · 25/08/2011 12:47

I did my GCSE's in a pushy school, and anything below a C was deemed to be a FAIL. A C itself was frowned upon. In fact anyone who didn't get A's was thought to be a bit of a dimwit.

My U's went down well then.

CrystalQueen · 25/08/2011 12:49

Depends on the way the exam is structured. When I was doing my degree, in first year a pass was 50%. Then the university changed their regulations, and a pass became 40%. That didn't mean that it was suddenly easier! Under the old system, 50% of the marks for a question were for basic knowledge (straight out of lectures). Under the new system, 40% of the marks were for basic stuff. (That's what they told us anyway). YABU.

poppyknot · 25/08/2011 13:00

SardineQueen - you must be right.

When we did a history exam in the first year of secondary school only one person actually got over 50%. I think the teacher just adjusted the marks at least to over 50% so they didn't look too bad. I have a feeling the teacher was not a natural exam setter.......

The girl that 'passed' ended up with about 96%!

vickibee · 25/08/2011 13:01

I think exams now are diluted. For example in maths you are given all the formlae on the first page of the exam paper, things like Pythagoras and trigonometry (SP) we had to memorise all these. In science we learned how to balance chmical equations and half equations which aren't done now til A'Level.
Also with the modular way you can retake a module as many times as you like til you get the grade you want? Exams are also tiered eg Higher,Intermediate etc and if you sit the Int paper the highest grade you can get is C. It is differentiation the same as O' level & GCSE
I reckon an A* now is equivilent to a C grade twenty years ago

noblegiraffe · 25/08/2011 13:02

About 40% of pupils who sit GCSE maths (which is compulsory) don't get a C or above.

It would be exceptionally unfair to force everyone to sit an exam where nearly half of them would fail and get nothing.

fiveisanawfullybignumber · 25/08/2011 13:05

The Bride Would you like to write off half of society as well?
Those who score lower than C's can still achieve something with their lives you know. They may well go on to college and study hard in their chosen field to become an electrician, plumbers, builder, hairdresser or similar. They will all have to achieve some form of academic excellence in their field, but just because they didn't do so well in the mainsteam subjects doesn't mean they should be written off as failures. bet your plumber knows a hell of a lot more about your central heating system than you do, but did they get more than you at GCSE level, who knows?

vickibee · 25/08/2011 13:08

I am doing a Professional Accountancy Qualification and the pas mark is 50%, in my last sitting only around 40% of students achieved 50 % so 60% failed. It is not that hard in terms of content - it is volume of work and having time to study when you have a demanding family that I find difficult

aliceliddell · 25/08/2011 13:11

vickibee you may be correct. It would be useful to get an experiment of sitting both GCE and GCSE and then comparing what the same students got for each. Then we'd all know instead of the endless speculation.

noblegiraffe · 25/08/2011 13:18

I imagine that getting a GCSE kid to sit an O-level paper to assess whether standards are falling would be completely unfair. In maths, for example, the focus has changed from being able to competently do massive calculations by hand, or use log or trig tables, to being able to quickly and efficiently use a calculator to perform the same task. Of course they'd do worse!

Original poster

prettybird · 25/08/2011 13:26

That's a fair point Triallianastra.

I think there is also a degree of subjectivity - but for Maths subjects I find it that in some years, 20% "right" is considered to be a C pass (this is 6 years ago but illustrates my point: Call for a GCSE shake-up as pass mark sinks to 16%).

Failing an exam is not the same as failing in life. I find it very :( that people think that exams define them.

Even though I have a degree, I think it is absolutely wrong that jobs get advertised as needing a degree or certain exams when they actually add nothing to the ability to do that job. When recruiting, I have made HR take out degree level education required when it is actually irrelevant.

OP posts:

Original poster

prettybird · 25/08/2011 13:31

BTW - I haven't said that I think that 50% of people should fail - I have actually specifically mentioned I am glad that the pass mark is not defined by a standard distribution which means that 50% automatically fail (as was the system in NZ many years ago - think it has changed there too).

OP posts:

vickibee · 25/08/2011 13:35

Giraffe
Surely doing calcs from first priciples shows that you understand the method. Putting numbers into a ac alculator is meaningless
Eg in science yuo may be asked to calc the speed of sound, everyone knows the approx answer so when students write down some ridiculous answer churned out by a calculator and don't even realise that it can't possibly be right? something like 0.182563650 m/s

cardibach · 25/08/2011 13:40

You can't just get the same pupils to do O level papers and GCSE papers as the syllabi have changed. I am not going to say much or I'll rant and swear, but SOME people can not get C or better in GCSE NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY WORK. I know that in ENglish (which I teach) they are asked to do MUCH more than I was at O level.

Why don't some of you have a go. ANd incidentally putting the equations etc on the paper means they can ask harder maths as they don't hgave to facto in time for learning/writing out the equations.

2BoysTooLoud · 25/08/2011 13:41

I'm from the O level/CSE era.
I did do 3 CSEs. I think I would prefer a grade 2 or 3 CSE than a D or E at O level/ GCSE.
Think possibly a simpler system to understand too.

cardibach · 25/08/2011 13:42

Why 2Boys ? Is it just because you don't understand the system? Seems to me that one exam is much simpler.

2BoysTooLoud · 25/08/2011 13:43

Do all employers understand the system now or do they just see grades D,E,F etc as fails?

Flip

1 2 3