97 % pass rate for A-Levels ; how did that happen?

[m1m1rie]

I took my A-levels in 1989 and passed all three, and was in the minority amongst my peers. Most people failed at least one and only the really, really clever ones could achieve A-grades. Now, with so many passing and record numbers achieving A-grades how do we differentiate between those who are genuinely talented and those who are not? A girl I know has just passed 3 A-levels. She spends her days chatting on her mobile, obsessing about herself and often didn't bother going into college if she didn't feel like it. She even turned up late for one of her exams. As far as being 'clever' is concerned, she couldn't hold a conversation with you unless it was about celebrities or herself, and yet she has managed to pass all three A-levels. I am dumbstruck. I find it demeans those who do put effort into learning as they will all just be lumped in together now and treated with disdain by those who think that all kids are thick and only have A-levels because the exams are easier to pass now. Whatever is going on with the current system, it's not doing anyone any favours, it only serves to make Government stats look good.

My OH has the best job out of everyone I know and he doesn't have a degree. (Although he does want to get one at some stage - more for learning a bit more about what he's interested in rather than having one for the sake of it or because he feels he has to have one).

I however wanted a degree before starting work as it would let me start my professional training at a higher level than without. I was looking for jobs for about 3 or 4 months before I got my job - I probably could have got one quicker but was enjoying the chance of a long summer with my LO.

I'm two posts behind you again mb!

the vocational science sounds really good. it sounds like it just needs a bit of good pr then in fact.

and have you been at the computer all day today or what?

But the thing was, b&W his parents wanted him to be academic, and he wasn't.

There are a zillion things in life that I can't do. It doesn't make me a bad person, but I'd be bloody unhappy if I had to spend all day doing them (MFL spring to mind for one!)

Why is it that as a society we only value the academic? His parents saw it as 'better', I didn't.If my kids are not cut out for book work, fine, I want them to be happy at what they are good at and enjoy.

SP, I have gone out shopping and also took the kids for a swim!

The vocational science GCSE is stpping, as there has been a re-write of the courses (Again!). We will now be doing a Btech in App Sci, which has no exams at all, and is all portfolio work. It has the potential to be highly motivational for students who don't enjoy 'traditional' GCSEs

my neice and nephew have just done their a levels and both have courses to go onto. their teachers have really encouraged them, they are not academic and have both chosen 'arty' type courses. neither are that interested in university but are interested in what they will be doing.

I think it seems so much better now - I am correct in thinking you can do more vocational GCSEs in most schools now?

I think a major part of it is children feeling that they have to do something - my observation of people I know is that they all did better at the things that they actually wanted to be doing rather than the compulsory ones.

But I would never say that anyone should be forced into FE or HE against their will. Ideally 50% of more of our kids would want to go into HE and be encouraged to do so and have the opportunties to do so. And you're starting to sound slightly contradictory now (perhaps I am too). You're the one who doesn't want to see degree courses in pet grooming or plumbing with all the benefits this would offer pet groomers and plumbers and society in general but you're the one moaning that we only value the academic. Hmmm...

I think the vocational and the academic are different and equal. One is not better than the other. I think that both require training but not the same training.

FWIW I feel that teaching is largly a vocational area, and thus can be covered euqaly well with at GTP or a PGCE. ( I can't really comment on the BEd, as that seems to be aimed more at the primary teacher and I do think that their needs are different....they have to teach a shed load more 'stuff' for starters)

But a degree has to have a level of academic rigor, a depth of analysis, and while fine art has a wealth of tradition and history to call upon for academic study, painting and decorating do not. Both require skill (that I don't have) but one is suited to an academic study and the other is not, or at least , not in the same way.

During an argument with DP about this I remembered that there was an increase in grades in Ireland from when my sister left school in 1976 and when I left school in 1985. Nobody ever suggested it was grade inflation or the exams were getting easier, In fact it was widely believed the exams were getting harder. In the Irish system we did anything from 7-9 subjects and could do a higher level or ordinary level in each one. In my sisters day the highest achieving students would get about 5 subjects at grade C or above in the Higher papers. By the time I left the highest achieving students would be aiming for and getting 8 or 9 at grade A (Higher Level).

In my year I knew a kid who did a full day at school finishing at 16.15 and then would study for 5 maybe 6 hrs and then get up early in the morning to do a bit more. She was the most extreme but there were others doing similar amounts of study. The increase in grades were largely due to very high unemployment and very tough competition for the few university places and even fewer jobs. I knew one girl who I recall got the highest grades in the Country and was studying medicine but left to take up a Executive Officer join in the Civil Service such was the level of unemployment.

My point in that grades do improve and it is not always because standards are slipping. Interestingly this in the first year in Ireland that there are more University places that applicants except in Medicine.

Also, are Surgeons trained?

'If my kids are not cut out for book work, fine, I want them to be happy at what they are good at and enjoy. '

I've been thinking about this one. Of course my priority for my kids is their happiness over qualifications, money etc BUT I'd be extremely concerned if my kids didn't go to uni and even more so if they didn't want to do A Levels.

Because ... I think they'd be missing out on all the advantages I mentioned earlier. I think they'd be jeopardising their future happiness. But then again my kids probably will be academically successful. Not because they were born geniuses but because they've got 2 teachers for parents who have fostered a love of learning in them from the day they were born. They're privileged as I was and they won't have to fight the odds or university admissions (I hope) for success the way many othe kids would.

I want my kids to be happy, healthy and honest.

Anything else is jam.

I would take nice over clever everyday and twice on a Sunday. If I can have both , great, it makes for an interesting life with more choices. But nice over clever if I have to choose.

Interestingly MIL's family consists of three siblings. Mil was a teacher, next brother was a plumber, youngest brother is a doctor. All happy, all sucessfull, all delightful, fulfilled people. The richest is the plumber. They all love a good wine, a good book and some good music.

Martian, I don't know how far we can go with the academic/ vocational debate. I don't think it's very easy to define 'academic rigor' or 'depth of analysis'. As I've said I think there's room for all degree courses to merge the practical and theoretical much more than they do currently. But this is all getting away from the starting point which is that students who want to go to university should have the opportunity to do so without getting A*, B or even C grades. IMO 50% of the population going to university can only be a good thing and actually this leaves ample room for those who want to go off and be plumbers or whatever without getting a degree if that's what they want to do. Saying that university should only be for those who get top grades at A Level is a very conservative stand point and will not help eradicate poverty, remove class barriers or help kids from deprived families.

tell me where I said university should only be available for those with top grades? You are mistaking me for someone else I think.

Don't be so touchy Martian . I said this was the starting point of the debate.

Given that I don't feel that I have a 'conservative' attitude to education I feel that it is helpful for me to clarify my point of view. since we are the only people left in the discussion I naturaly felt that you thought that I held those views.

off to bed now.

Night

Night Martian. Actually I agree with quite a lot of what you say. Of course, it's possible both to promote vocational courses and encourage more people to university either separately or by combining the two.

UnquietDad

"I've always said people of all classes and all backgrounds and from all types of school should have the chance to go to university if they match up academically. It's nothing at all to do with preserving old-fashioned class distinctions."

oh hear hear unietdad I cannot stand all this class bollocks, it has no standing whatsoever on what you will acheive in life and what you are capable of. i know alot of timnicebutdim types, we are hardly saying educational setting = intelligence and success as that is just ludicrous

but fio and unquietdad, the problem is that middle class kids can seem more able because they have been trained better either at a good school or by their parents. universities have never openly said "we will give more places to middle class children" but that is what happens.

and fio, sadly in a lot of cases educational setting really does =success (if not intelligence)

so if Clare from Whitby Comprhensive applied to Oxford with 4 A's and Harriet from Longmole Prep applied with 4 A's, would Harriet stand a better chance?

because I will be completely honest with you SP, I never even considered this before I joined mumsnet. I didn't realise this kind of prejudice existed at all.

Also has the success got more to do with money than education?

Not read whole thread so may be repeating.

I did my A levels in 1991 and to be fair even at my very average comp most people did pass with an E or above. Yes, some got Us and Ns, but not many.

The system has changed a lot to make passes at S2 level more likely. If pupils don't pass their AS level, or are not doing so well -they drop that subject, choosing only their better subjects. And pupils can resit modules to improve marks.

I do think some aspects, like these, make it more real life. The old system of one exam at the end does not reflect the skills students need ti real jobs, let's face it.

"so if Clare from Whitby Comprhensive applied to Oxford with 4 A's and Harriet from Longmole Prep applied with 4 A's, would Harriet stand a better chance?"

My lecturer friend has conducted numerous Oxbridge entrance interviews and he says not. He insists it's done entirely on ability.

thank god UnquietDad!!!