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.

I had a friend who was a university lecturer in charge of undergraduate admissions for his department and he had a (personal, not institutional) policy of filtering out the independent school applications on the grounds that he considered those students to have somehow 'bought' their exam results and so not to deserve them. I'd be amazed actually given the attitudes of some other people I know if this wasn't quite widespread. I'd never assume that a more middle-class sounding student had a better chance of getting in somewhere, all other things being equal - it could just as easily be the other way round.

They'll have to find some official way of distinguishing between students at the top end of the market - maybe more institutions will get their own Oxbridge-style entrance exams, or more probing interviews. Otherwise, by the time mine (6 and 3) are of university age, everyone will be leaving school with 100% grade As, and the "medals for everyone" brigade will finally have completed their mission.

this is also interesting as I think it's the first time this kind of advice has been given.

I suppose alot of this debate hinges on whether you think that a substantial percentage of the population are capable of following a worthwhile degree course/achieving good A-level grades. I would say that given a good education much more than 10% have the capability to study a degree. My only reason for thinking this is that university attendance has been so skewed towards the well off middle classes, and I can't believe that the most intelligent people just happen to be born in well off families. Given that Oxbridge are particularly selective from the privileged sectors of society, why is it not reasonable to expect that given a more level playing field more people would achieve the standards necessary for entrance?

Possibly more than 10%. But probably fewer than the Government target of 50%.

But it's not that easy - for one thing we can't talk about "a degree" as if they were all the same. See Boris in today's Torygraph

If your school had a record of sending people to university - and of putting on extra classes for Oxbridge applicants, as my (state) school did - then you were surely more likely to apply. Not saying it doesn't mean there is any inherent bias in the system - just that some schools are better at preparing people.

"Oxbridge are particularly selective from the privileged sectors of society" - again, misleading. Yes, Oxbridge has a higher independent-school intake than other universities, but then again more apply from independent schools. I think I'm right in saying that, at Oxford at least, the success rate among state-school pupils who apply is now, in percentage terms, higher than it is from the independent schools.

"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?"

actually yes, harriet would stand a better chance, because she's more likely to have the kind of confidence in herself needed to do well at interviews. no matter how much unquietdad's friend thinks that the system is fair, it is not.

and anyway even if claire and harriet did have the same chance, my original point was about poppy and jane - poppy was coached hard at private school (or has really pushy parents) and so has 3 As, where jane went to a comp and got 3 Cs despite being exactly as intelligent as Poppy. who gets the university place then?

Sure, but all the Poppy/Jane comparison proves is that A-Levels are not the perfect measure of "intelligence". Not sure what is. IQ tests? There's an argument that they only prove how good you are at doing IQ tests.

Yes, a lot of it is also about confidence and presentation. That's often the way it is in job interviews too, so if one is unfair then so is the other.

Not saying the system is perfect. Just trying to defend it against accusations of elitism where I feel - and have evidence - that they are unjustified.

you were the one saying standards have dropped. I'm just saying that I don´t think they have and the class distinction thing is one of the explanations for an apparent (but not a real) drop in standards.

I think the answer is positive discrimination as it happens. But that might result in even more kids going to university and what would we do then?

I think we will have to agree to differ on the relevance of the writings of Boris.

I don't think it matters whether Oxbridge have more students from the private sector because more apply or because they prefer independently educated students - I still think that whether through their or the school's failings they are getting too many poppy's and not enough janes (to refer to SP's post below).

OOOOPS please ignore the apostrophe after poppy!

I don't agree that Harriet would stand a better chance - I know many people who do admissions at Oxbridge and other universities and they work very hard at distinguishing confidence and training from ability. With 4 As from a comprehensive the admissions tutors at most colleges would be trying very hard to admit Clare.
(There are probably exceptions though - remember the scandal a few years ago about the Cambridge college that was giving preference to children of benefactors?)

If the grade difference is as great as Poppy and Jane's, however, I have no doubt Senora P is right - it would be very difficult indeed for an oversubscribed college to admit someone with those grades.

but they don't know she'll get 4 As at interview do they?

I know some admissions tutors try very hard not to discriminate, but, well, confidene is confidence and without an officla positive discrimination policy the bias will always be there I think.

MadameP:"I don't think it matters whether Oxbridge have more students from the private sector because more apply or because they prefer independently educated students."

Apologies, but I think it really does matter. All too often Oxford and Cambridge are written off as "elitist" and "snobby" and "only for those who went to posh schools" (not saying you've said those things, but I've had them said to me in my time, and as a state school kid I resent them deeply!).

The fact that they have more independent-school pupils because more apply - as there is more of a tradition of applying - means that there is an issue which can be addressed at application stage.

If they had more because they preferred people from independent schools, that would be an issue at admissions stage - i.e. it would be an institutional bias in the university and there wouldn't be an awful lot that people from state schools could do about it.

The difference, to me, is enormous.

The fact is that Oxford University (I can't speak for Cambridge) has been doing everything in its power in the last few years to try to publicise itself as a viable option for bright kids from all backgrounds. Individual tutors may still have their prejudices, but these are not typical or representative of the University's policy.

Of course, we should add that Oxbridge isn't the best option for everyone - e.g. for engineering, I imagine Brunel is still top dog.

it's a mixture of both, I think uqd.

at least we all know which university you went to now though.

Supporting all that is a student-led intitative called Target Schools which is all about helping more state-school pupils to be informed about applying to Oxford.

My Ex supervisor carries out research at Oxford trying to look for more eqitable ways of testing prospective students. I know her, and know that she is totaly committed to leveling out the playing field when it comes to university admissions. She is particularly keep to remore the advantage that coaching can give applicants.

I think that what a lot of young people going to university don't realise is that a degree won't automatically get you a better job. I think that this is especially the case if you have low A-Level results. I must have looked at hundreds of graduate job adverts last year, those that didn't want a 2.1 as a minimum degree grade mainly seemed to want at least Bs at A-Level.

However nice & willing to learn a person is they won't even get an interview if they don't meet the criteria.

My old boss used to use A level results as a preliminary filter in job applications.

Rather then degree class I mean.

surely you mean a degree won't get you a better job if you have high a level results?

but i disagree. whatever the ads say, a degree will give your application a boost in any job. as an employer I don't specify graduates but they do tend to make better employees in terms of initiative and motivation in particlar.

"The fact that they have more independent-school pupils because more apply - as there is more of a tradition of applying - means that there is an issue which can be addressed at application stage"

I agree, but the reason that I mentioned this was because I think that both the current intake from independent schools and more students from state schools should be going to Oxbridge. I don't think I am anti-elitist - I just think that that alot of potentially 'elite' people haven't realised their true potential.

Everyone who applied was a graduate (teaching). He looked at A level results rather than class of degree.

I meant the specific graduate scheme jobs.

Yes high A-level results and a low degree classification are unlikely to meet their criteria, but in the same way low A-level results and a good degree may not either.

It seems as though now that you can just go somewere whatever grades you get, even Es. Don't really see the point of that. Surely the criteria of grades intially was to select the people who are likely to be able to cope with the degree?

Bondilocks, when I went to oxford you could sit an enterance examonation. If you passed, and they liked what they saw of you at interview you were offered two E grades to get in. They removed the exam, and now I think that almost everyone is offered 3 A grades.

They remored the exam as private school allowed able children to sit the exam after they had done their A levels and would give them special coaching to do well. So removing the exam was a stab at a more equal policy.

I went to a bog standard comp, under the newer 'egalitarian' system I wouldn't have got in, since I didn't get three A grades. The whole system is a lot more fraught with probelms than it seems.

But Blondilocks et al have you not read my previous point that A Level results are not a clear predictor of degree class. It is highly possible to get E grades at A Level and a 2:1 or first at uni and equally A grades at A Level and a 2nd or 3rd class degree. And there are many reasons why this might be the case e.g. students who get high grades at A Level may peak there while students who get low grades may be just slower to reach their academic peak, or be spending every night getting pissed or lack maturity or organisation or be at a shocking school.