to think the tories are making education elitist?

[ThatVikRinA22]

just watching the news, they are making the A levels harder, saying they are too easy

my boy did maths and physics and trust me - they were not too bloody easy!

my dd is doing GCSEs now, (at 14!! too bloody young imo!) and was doing one science syllabus, the government changed it recently and now, where she would have been awarded a C, she ended up with a D. The science teacher had a rant about the tories at parents evening....

so, now A levels are going to get harder, getting into uni is going to be harder plus more expensive, does this spell and end for opportunities for all to go to uni?

is it going to be the reserve of the very bright and the very rich?

University ought to be the preserve of the very bright. That's kind of the point.

It's about time we had proper educational standards again. I was amazed to see my children's A level practice papers. I recognised them as the standard that I had done at O-level. When I realised this, I went forward and achieved more easy O levels and three easy A Levels which I had done at school as O levels. Bring back evening classes for enjoyment.

Where it comes to GCSEs v O levels, we did French literature and dictation at O level. Now they don't even look at French language books or take French dictation.

VicarInaTutu NO, the new exams (bring them on!) will weeds out the thickos who currently get places in universities but can't write a sentence or spell properly.

I actually think its a good idea to make them harder. It is supposed to be difficult to get into university. IMO it will make good grades and degrees more worthwhile.

I think the A level standard should go back to what it used to be. And yes, universities should be for the academically bright.
I'm left wing btw
What should be done is all schools have the facilities the private ones offer so A levels are taught properly, with the right equipment and in decent buildings. So the academically able wherever in the country stand a more equal chance of getting into university.

you are so correct Vicar - the vocational qualifications that are now not going to be delivered in schools means that the lower ability/struggle with exams students are forced into GCSEs where they will receive low grades.

Prior to this, there were qualifications that they could succeed at (not going to go there with the arguments of the equivalence despite a lot of work needed to achieve these at higher than a pass - I teach both GCSE and BTEC and respect the amount of work needed to achieve Merit/Distinction)

Students are also being forced into subjects that they will not achieve/enjoy to just gain the Ebacc (which is not an actual qualification, just another stick for schools to chase)

We seem to be going back to the 1950s - good for those who are able; forget about those who aren't.......

If we lower and then raise standards, it's going to make it very confusing to judge whether or not the qualifications mean anything. Which years will be deemed to have been below standard, for example? Who makes that decision?

Thickos?

Yes, I think that this is aimed squarely at reinforcing standards in examination awards. And it is important that Universities remain academically rigourous.

Focusing on the needs and wants of universities (and employers?) seems to be the right way of getting/keeping A Levels fit for purpose (might even help redefine the purpose).

Then, perhaps, schools will benefit from more attention on whether they are getting pupils up to that standard, and supporting them to make improvements if and where needed.

They'd bloody better not be thinking of making maths A-level more difficult.

Um university should be for the very bright.

That's who it's for - the brilliant minds of the future. But I do think that these brilliant minds should be coming from all socio-economic groups. Without the worry of tuition fees etc.

It's not supposed to be an opportunity for 50% of the population to gain transferable work place skills and evidence that they can stick at something for 3 years.

My friend's a university lecturer and he said "it's about time".

I think they are too easy (don't know about Physics & Maths though, they are almost impossible to make "easy" unless you have that kind of mind).

There seems to be a feeling at the moment that everyone should go to university - hence why there are so many stupid subjects around these days.

It really should just be for the most academically able and for those training for specific "professions" in my very humble opinion.

And, if not everyone was going, there'd be more money available to support those from poorer backgrounds during their studies.

Hurray, this is one thing Govey is doing that I actually agree with. Let us go back to Uni how it was when I went (1979) - top 6% and that was it! A levels have been dummed down by the modular way they are done. Let us go back to the rigour of nine or ten three hour exams at the end of two years.

Univeristy is for the bright, not 50% of the population studying the likes of Animal Welfare Golfcourse Management.

That said, the tuition fees should be paid...

I think standards have definitely fallen and that's not a good thing, it does need to change.

I feel sorry for the kids taking exams in the future as a lot of employers will not recognise that the bar has changed and compare them unfavourably to past students.

I did my A levels 20 odd years ago and got Cs that was considered pretty good back then but now anything below a B isn't really respected.

University should be for very bright people - not everyone.

OP - why should ALL have the opportunity to go to University? Even if you are a Labour supporter, surely you agree that doesn't make sense?

If everyone goes to University all that happens is that you need a Masters for tough jobs. That is just more money and time. Educate everyone so that they can function (read, write and decent maths at least) and the very bright can go to university, be they rich or poor. Why should everyone go to university?

well luckily my son has a brilliant mind - he has aspergers and is doing a computer science degree, but the suggestion that his A levels were easy is incorrect and a tad insulting tbh.

i just wish the government would wait to tinker with exams until one generation have finished - to change things mid was through GCSEs is really throwing my DD.

fwiw i do not think that university should be the preserve of the very rich, which is what it is becoming, DS fees have tripled from year 2 to year 3.

Just to add - universities now have to run "remedial" English and maths classes at the beginning of the year to get some of their new students up to standard. Some of them show up barely literate, apparently.

The school leaving age is being raised to 18. Now A-levels are to be made inaccessible to large numbers of students because apparently their only value is as preparation for university. What the bloody hell will all these other students be doing?

I think that it is a good thing, in theory. However, if the point of making these examinations more difficult is to specifically screen out the most bright to attend university, then less emphasis needs to be paid them in the classroom (so we don't go neglecting everyone who won't achieve good marks). We need to see them as a consequence of years of study, and not a goal.
We need to focus more on making sure that the primary aged students are learning all the fundamental skills and knowledge they need, and the secondary aged students are learning about critical thinking and applying knowledge so they can learn for themselves. Then they will be more prepared for life after A levels, be that in university, a trade or the workforce.

I can vouch for the fact that my physics, chemistry and biology a levels 40 years ago were not 'difficult'. It was just a matter of revising all the dictated notes for a week or so, regurgitating them in the exam and then promptly forgetting everything (half of which I hadn't understood in the first place ). They did not prepare me for university at all - I was suddenly thrust into a situation where I was required to use my brain and think! It took me a year to rummage around for a creative thought and to find the courage to join in a discussion, so wasted a significant amount of time at uni.

As it was, I came out with pretty good A level grades (helped by a good short term memory), but these would have been even better today because modules, retakes and a different marking system would all have worked to my advantage (even less to remember in a short time!).

It is interesting that the RG universities are offering to provide the exam papers. I wonder how much income that will generate? I bet in a few years you get a tiered A level system (e.g. Liverpool A levels are harder than Leeds), just like 40 years ago when people chose between Oxford, Cambridge or Joint matriculation Board......oh..... wait a minute.... weren't they universities providing the A level papers?

It also makes me really angry when I hear people dissing A levels such as art, photography and design. My ds did both art and design for a level and had to do a tremendous amount of work - hours and hours and hours of it. These subjects are not easy options.

University should be for the brightest, regardless of their background. It should not be "pay for place/degree".
I do believe that the way ALevels are taught, they are too easy. How on earth can over 98% pass an exam (BBC News at 6, tonight)? An exam is there to find the true strengths, not give a grade to anyone that turned up.

As a college teacher, I'm interested to know more. I wouldn't say the A levels I teach are easy, to be honest (English Literature, Language and combined).

I suppose it's fairly easy to pass them (i.e. at an E grade), but to get an A, or even a B, is not easy, by my standards.

I'm also not sure about the premise of letting universities decide. That suggests that A levels are merely a stepping stone to university. Perhaps they are, but I feel there should be a recognised step between getting 5 or 6 Cs at GCSE and being a 'brilliant mind'. For those, say, top 30% or so.

Also, it does seem on MN that almost everyone thinks that Too Many People go to university, but almost everyone expects their own children to go...

I went to university as a mature student.

Before applying, I did an A level in my chosen subject because I hadn't written an essay in so long.

The exam consisted of 4 equally weighted essays. I didn't answer one of them because I was desperate for a wee and didn't feel very well. I didn't write anything at all for it.

I got an A.

Now it's possible that the 3 essays I did write were sheer genius. However, it shouldn't be possible to get an A when the absolute maximum I could have gained was 75%.