In unemotive terms, the controversy over rising GCSE/A-level results...

[ragged]

Could someone persuade me why it matters?
Keeping in mind I have a foreign background.

Since colleges and Unis change their admission standards from year to year, I can't figure out why intra-generational comparisons on O-levels/GCSEs or A-levels are so important. Or why the tests need a fairly consistent proportion of Fail results in order to be credible.

Care to persuade me otherwise?

I think the results used to represent a percentage of the population, ie only 5% would get As now because so many get them they don't really say so much.

I think universities should have their own entrance exams. That would cut out some of the fuss, imho.

As PP says, it used to be a percentage thing, the top 5% of people who took an exam got the A grade, now it's that anyone who gets a certain percentage of questions right gets the A. Which is actually fairer. But hence why the Great Debate. No point comparing between generations when the goalposts have moved - or actually they're probably playing on a different football pitch. I took the last year of O'levels. And now I'm a teacher, so I do understand how both systems work. They are completely different. The press want to cause this fuss every year so their reporting doesn't help matters.

Because it is not purely about college applications. These exam results may matter for job applications too (eg I believe that it is a requirement for teachers to have the equivalent of GCSE A-C in Maths).

Unis and colleges will be judging applicants based on their same-age cohort (or within a year or two from it). But employers may well have applicants of different decades. And more importantly employers themselves may often be older and have certain expectations as to what an A grade should represent.

Because there are now so many top grades that the universities are unable to differentiate between candidates. And those that go to university (even the good universities) are less well educated than in the past, meaning that the universities have to cover more basic-level work.

Are Unis really having that differentiation problem, Acanthus? Do you work in a Uni in a teaching-related capacity yourself?

It is anecdotal that exams are much easier now. I have not come across any proper evidence.

People like to think of themselves as special and clever and talented which means there are a lot of people out there who enjoy anecdotally promoting the idea that their exams were harder, and therefore their qualifications are better.

I think that you just have to compare the syllabus pre 87 and more recently for certain subjects. For maths the difference is huge. And of course universities have had to adapt their courses to compensate, especially in maths. You can't assume that freshers are going to have covered subjects that are no longer in the A level syllabus.

Nope. But I read the broadsheets.

When I was young, exams were difficult. Most people, because they were average, got average results. I remember a girl got 100% in her Maths exam in Y7: this was a one-off, the stuff of ledgends. She was exceptional and eventually went to Cambridge to study Maths. Apart from that, no-one ever got 100% in an exam; it was considered good if you got above 70%.

Now the poor dears frequently get 100% in their exams. They get the absolute best result ... and then find that everyone else is equally as exceptional as them. On the one hand it doesn't distinguish between the best pupils and, on the other hand, it consigns the rest as failures. It used to be that we could say "well done on all your Bs and Cs and really well done on that A Grade". Now the poor kids are faced with "why weren't they all A*?".

Possibly because you hear about University lecturers complaining that their students with 4 As at A Level can't spell etc, which IF TRUE would suggest that the top grade is too easy to get and an A is not the indicator of excellence it ought to be. Note that I have said "if true."

A friend of mine is an English lecturer at a well-regarded university - they have to spend quite a bit of time in the first year brushing up the under-grads' basic literary skills.

My friend was shocked when she started - she'd expected it for science-y types but not English undergraduates ....

When I was studying English at university many aeons ago, it was assumed that we could all string a sentence together correctly, knew not just basic but advanced grammar and could express ourselves well in writing. So something has changed ...

Just to point out that I think what we value has changed and so what is examined has changed. We used to value knowledge and the 'high brow', things have now become more practical.

I gave an example previously about an O'level question from a 1956 English paper: 'put loquacious in a sentence to illustrate its meaning'. You wouldn't find similar questions now but does this mean English GCSE is much easier?

I am struck that very bright 16-18 year olds I know can't spell in the way I would expect. Parachute as 'Parashoot' that sort of thing. Maybe in valuing the practical over the 'high brow' we've thrown the baby out with the bath water to an extent?

Standards are certainly slipping. Whether this matters on an inter-generational basis or not, I don't know. It depends how it is dealt with (i.e. if universities alter entrance criteria or not).

Kids these days are taught to pass exams ("tricks for ticks"), they are not taught a love of learning (after all, all information is out there for copy/paste on wikipaedia anyhow ).

A friend who's a secondary maths teacher told me re GCSEs that to get a C pupils only have to get 40%, a B is 50% and an A is 60% - A* is 70%. I'm sure in my day for B you had to be 60% or above ... I was astounded by this ...

"Just to point out that I think what we value has changed and so what is examined has changed."

That might be "what they value has changed". The Government, the education system, the examining boards seem to have changed what is valued but they haven't persuaded the public, and they certainly haven't persuaded the Press.

The % is different each year and for each subject.

A decline in UK educational standards actually matters more than ever before because we live in such a globalised economy, so our "best educated" people increasingly have to compete with the best educated from all other countries for university places and jobs.

Therefore, by dumbing down we are shooting ourselves in the foot in terms of global competitiveness.

To add to Senua's point above, critically, the government and the examining boards have not persuaded universities or employers that things like good literacy (spelling and grammar) and numeracy dont matter and they are the people who ultimately get to decide what matters and what doesn't, not some Westminster bureaucrat who wants to make it look as though his continual fiddling with the education system has paid dividends.

I take the point that education needs to go beyond teaching facts by rote, but there's no point in being able to articulate an argument/ apply critical thinking if you can't even spell. All children need to, and deserve to be, taught the basic blocks of education. At the moment we seem to be stuck in a situation where the system fails both the brightest (by failing to stretch them/ allow themselves to differentiate from the pack) and the least academic (by allowing them to leave school unable to spell)

It pees me off that many of the young health care professionals I work with genuinely think they are 'better' than me or those like me with 25 years experience with their 12 GCSEs, 3 'A' levels at A,B,B and B.Sc (hons) degree from an ex-Poly, when they compare my 8 'O' levels and 2 'A' levels (C,D) and Diploma. They genuinely believe I was 'trained' whereas they have been 'educated'.

Then I see their complete inabiliry to string a coherent argument together, their inability to differentiate there, their and they're and I go

Of course an exam broken into tiny modules which you can individually resit and resit is going to intellectually easier than one that requires you to spill 2 years of knowledge in two exams of 3 hours apiece, end of!

I gather there is talk of not allowing resits to count, or of requiring that all the exams be taken within the same year (which was how it was when I was finishing school!). If this is so, the problem is you will have this 'blip' of 10 years or so where these school leavers will be unfairly advantaged over those who came before or who follow.

And I see my inability to spell 'inability'

ampere: 12 GCSEs, 3 'A' levels at A,B,B and B.Sc (hons) degree from an ex-Poly, when they compare my 8 'O' levels

Yep, this is the bit I don't get either. I was the last year of 'O' levels at what was the leading secondary school in our affluent, South East commuter belt area, and we did 8 'O' levels (or 9 if you were super swotty and came in early a couple of times a week to do voluntary Latin, for which you had to be in the top set for French anyway).

As I recall, we had a full timetable. So how on earth are kids now doing 50% as many subjects in the same depth as we did?

I think the whole thing is very complex, although I did find it interesting to read an academic survey the other day which stated that only 50% of 'A' level students actually complete all the A levels they start on at the start of the year. So whilst Exam pass rates are up, the hidden figure of success rates often tell a very different story.

My Mum did the school certificate in 1948, and that was in six subjects, so equivalent to six O Levels.

My Sister did 8 O levels in 1978 Gasps of "How Many? Gosh you must be clever" from elderly family members.

I did 9 O Levels in 1981. Gasps of "How many? etc" . . .

Now 12 is the norm.

Surely it's obvious that the subjects are being studied in less depth the more you can study at one time.

(In 1948 there was probably nothing to DO but study, no telly etc)

Universities really are having problems on multiple levels.

IME, one of the ways in which the rise in results has been achieved is that students are taught to pass exams - they are not taught the subject. This means that when they arrive at university they expect to be taught in the same way and often ask "will this be on the exam". They are entirely exam focused at the expense of acquiring any wider understanding of a subject.

It is definitely harder to differentiate between bright pupils and those who are good at exams and the exam process (and there is a difference).

I am aware that some unis feel that they are required to teach foundation courses in certain subjects to ensure that students have the required skills. They used to require a particular A level, but it no longer provides an adequate base for the subject.

To be credible, A levels need to deliver students with a broad spectrum of results which genuinely reflects the broad spectrum of ability. They also need to focus more on what students have learned rather than what they can churn out in an exam.