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.

As far as dh is concerned though, coursework is the one consistency in the marking system at A level, his department have been plagued by bad/inaccurate marking from examiners and no back up from exam boards when the marks are questioned. There are students getting A grades in all units except one where they get a U grade, when the paper is looked at again in school (after an unchanged re-mark)the comments on the paper bear no resemblance to the mark scheme. His school are now changing exam boards as a result of a 5 year battle.

If coursework is removed then the examiners need to be spot on with their marking - whether they need to be paid more, have better training I'm not sure. Having said that I wouldn't do it!

can you say who he was with lucy?

Only 97%??!! Thought it would have been 100%
A * by now.

There is supposed to be a shake up of the A level in two years time. What is the betting they bring in the A* then?

They were with AQA now going to the Welsh Board - lots of meetings in Cardiff I think!

I've worked on industry exams, where we don't have the political pressure from arts graduates to dumb down "non inclusive" things, indeed we've wanted to keep things "hard".
But there is a known effect that even when you maintain the standard, people get better at teaching to the exams. This is of course not the same as being better at teaching the subject, which may have gone up or down.
A levels were "designed" to provide a mechanism to say that person A was better at a subject than person B. The arts graduates in government see them as a way of "showing that they have achieved this level". This is a fatal flaw in any testing system, be it exams or checking for faults in a dishwasher factory. Any system that "shows", is doomed to let through duds.
The university entrance problem can be solved simply, but not easily.
You assign grades based upon how many people scored this level. Perhaps 20% each for A,B,C,D,E etc. This is of course not "fair". You may be unlucky, with people doing your subject being slightly smarter this year, the biggest effect being on less popular subjects like Chinese.

But you can only do this when everyone in a subject takes exactly the same test.
The hardest bit of course is not the design of exams. I've been working on & off on the design of exams since I was at school (long story), and the fact is that the techniques are mature and reliable, provided you know what it is you want to achieve.
But...
For no good reason, exams are in the hands of people to whom "statistics" are either simplistic numbers that serve their political objectives, of given that they are these horrible "maths" things might as well be in colloquial Kligon.
In the last "upgrade", there were no Chemists involved in setting the chemistry syllabus, and universities have had to add remedial course to try and get people with "A"'s up to a standard where they can actually be taught a hard subject.
This of course doesn't apply to languages or media studies, so that's all right then.

Agree coursework is a problem. Nobody could have foreseen the effect of Internet plagiarism and the pressures on teachers to achieve better and better results means they are under pressure to 'help' their students re-draft their work loads of times. Wish it could be banned.

I agree about the problems with plagiarism & redrafting in coursework - but teaching kids how to research & present a piece of work over time is actually a better preparation for work than exams.

Yep, don't like exams either. Seems so awful to have to condense all your knowledge and understanding into 2 hours writing under pressure. Brings me out in a cold sweat. Coursework should be a fairer and more useful test but now it's often more likely to be a test of teachers' ability or the Internet. Often really hard to spot when a bright student is plagiarising. I've come across at least 3 A students in the last 2 years who have lifted stuff from the Net I can only assume because they panicked or came across some research they didn't know how to put into their own words. Only spotted them because much weaker students had used the same material and I knew they hadn't written it. Made me worry about how many other students slip through the net.

I'll be devil's advocate. What's wrong with just a few going to University. It was supposed to be for the top 5% of students. Why should it have to be changed. Students should be allowed to be competitive it's healthy and you should be allowed to fail and to be told so. We were in O-Level and A-Level day and yes I belong to that elitist society for I went to a Grammar School too. All children cannot be equal in the intelligence stakes. I do not denigrate that children/students work hard for their exams but I did too and only the top 1% got A's at A-level and because the year I did A-levels there were so many students. We all got downgraded to make the statistics right.
But I truly believe that we need more competition it's healthy.

'What's wrong with just a few going to University.'

Everything. People were saying that about schools a hundred years ago - that it should only be for the privileged. If you and me are allowed to go to university and consider it to be a valuable and enriching experience which also enhances our employment prospects and earnign potential (isn't it over 100,000 over a lifetime?) etc etc then so should everyone else.

'It was supposed to be for the top 5% of students.'

What do you mean by 'supposed to'. When the vote was introduced only the elite could use it and certainly no women. Do you think we should go back to that too? If you think only 5% of people should go to university you're also saying only 5% deserve to have the opportunity to carry out the kind of research and develop the skills you can only do there. You're also saying only 5% deserve to be teachers, doctors, lawyers etc and run the country. One of the most gifted teachers I ever met did abominably at her A Levels (she happend to have cancer at the time but also didn't warm to the subjects she took and didn't feel herself to be very academic at that time of her life but the fact is she's an amazing teacher who inspires her students and gets them brilliant results).

'Students should be allowed to be competitive it's healthy'

And getting into university has never been more competitive. Getting 5 As is no guarantee that you will be get into Oxbridge universities, in fac\t, it's considered just the starting point.

But B&Wcat ther is nothing wrong with there being an 'elite', i.e. some people being more able than others.

O.K. University shouldn't be just for rich people, but I believe that there should be recognition that some people are more academically able than others, and over the last few years it would seem that the line between the very able and the fairly able has been smudged, giving more and more people grade A's.

When my A levels were marked, only so many percent each year were given each grade. So for example, maybe the top 10% in that year were given grade A. So you knew that you were up there with the most able (as did employers and universities). And I honestly think that was a more appropriate way of marking, and I'm not saying that cos I got A's, in fact my A level results were distinctly mediocre (as my boyfriend at the time pointed out. He was 5 years older and had got 5 A's)

I am against the govt initiative that 50% of the population should have a degree. Some careers (such as practical skills like plumbing and bricklaying) don't lend themselves to that style of acacdemic study, and we just can't all be white collar workers, unless you just feel we should all sit in offices while the incoming Latvians etc sweep our streets, empty the bins and pick all our crops.

'What's wrong with just a few going to University.'

I don't really see the point of going to Uni if you've got 3 Ds & Es for example. I thought the whole point of having to get the grades in the first place was to try to ensure that people would be able to cope with what they were undertaking. Maybe people just don't put the effort in because they know they can just catch up by still getting a degree later on? (Eg someone I went to school with got mainly Ds at A-Level but ended up with a 1st from Uni!)

Maybe the increased choice of subjects has led to the improvement of grades - more choice, therefore increased likelihood of finding something you enjoy & actually want to be doing.

I did my A-Levels in 2002. I don't think the AS Level system actually made things any easier - I probably would have found the traditional method easier as I didn't feel that we had enough time to learn & then practice & build upon our learning before sitting each module. Also I was encouraged to do 5 subjects in the first year & then dropped 2 of these - subjects which no-one really takes much notice of now even though I supposedly have a qualification in them!

Coursework was useful although I hated essays. Would pick an exam over them any day! However a decent piece of coursework does take a lot of time so I think it's marks well awarded. I think I totally deserved the A*s I obtained in my geography and statistics GCSE coursework. An exam probably would have taken less time to do.

Plagurism is a problem - I was never tempted to do it as I would feel like a complete failure and fraud. I think if you take pride in your work you wouldn't do it & if you don't take pride in your work then is there much point of doing it in the first place? I can't believe people would actually pay for a piece of work that is likely to be full of errors & used by several hundred others!

Regarding Uni, I went because I wanted to learn more & I felt that this would help me to get into the career I wanted at a higher level. I think many people see it as a way of putting off real work for 3 yrs which is a shame.

I so agree with you clumsymum, nothing else to add!

'I believe that there should be recognition that some people are more academically able than others'

There IS recognition of ability (in so far as any exam is able to do this with any amount of accuracy) - A Level grades run from A-E. It is still only a minority who achieve an A grade. And don't forget that many people don't do A Levels at all and many people don't finish them esp. now that AS levels act as a filter which partially explains the relative increase in the higher grades.

'and over the last few years it would seem that the line between the very able and the fairly able has been smudged, giving more and more people grade A's.'

But why do so many people assume that the increase in A grades is due to a lowering of standards and not more students achieving greater success? Has it become easier to run a mile at a quicker pace? No. Yet times have got better and better over time. Just so, students and teachers have got better at exams for all sorts of reasons. We've got more awareness of how students' learn and how to gain their interest for example. The examination process is more transparent (there are mark schemes which are accessilbe after the exam so teachers and students can see how to meet assessment objectives more easily ratehr than examiners making random decisions in smoke filled rooms without deference to anyone or any system). Arguably students are more motivated because tehre's more competition etc etc Students and teachers have access to more and better resources like the Net.

If your grades at A Level were mediocre then you're actually saying that you shouldn't and probably a lot of your friend shouldn't have gone to university. How bizarre.

'I am against the govt initiative that 50% of the population should have a degree.'

We have the lowest entrance to HE of any European country and America which I believe has about 50%. I really don't think they have a lack of bricklayers. The idea that letting more people into uni will somehow mean we have no one to do manual, low-paid work is a myth.

'Some careers (such as practical skills like plumbing and bricklaying) don't lend themselves to that style of acacdemic study'

I wish some of my plumbers, electricians etc had trained for 3 years and got a degree in their field. Why not?

And what about the shortage of doctors, teachers, scientists, midwives etc? I teach quite a few students who are very able at science but are finding it hard to get accepted at med school because they haven't got a Grade A or B at GCSE for English. How ridiculous.

'and we just can't all be white collar workers'

Increasingly employment in this country requires less manual work and more communication, IT skills etc. Employers bemoan the lack of expertise in these areas.

I'm with you too Clumsymum. We will end up with a country where no-one is allowed to fail or be better than anyone else and everyone will expect to be in highly paid jobs straight out of university. Educational elitism is not just for the wealthy. In fact in the past scholarships ensured that those for poor families got access to higher education and my mother is one of those lucky recipients and proud of herself and rightly so. And just to really wind people up - Labour voted to bring in Comprehensive schools, ruined the Elitist Grammar school system yet look at Tony Blair's children they go to a very elite school absolutely not in the catchment area for where they lived. But hey do as i say not do as I do isn't it.

Re: shortage of Dr's I seem to remember there are many qualified young doctors unemployed because the trusts cannot afford to give them internships. And why is it ridiculous to need a good grade in English. Universities are already bemoaning the fact that students language skills are appalling. So for this 97% pass rate what are the actual numbers. I'd love to know. And finally when I studied for my A-levels your Headmistress/master's report on your UCCA form counted for a great deal as to whether you'd even get interviews. In the first pass I did not get one interview, because she was very damning. Second pass I got offered a place on my interview technique not my grades. This is how it should be done and thought that was now happening for Oxbridge - so now A grade students cannot understand why they don't get offered places. Personality has to count for a great deal too surely that's not elitism is it?

I'm always interested when people say that Higher Education and sometimes education full stop should be accessible only to a small minority of people because I guess you automatically assume you would be among that minority. But what if you weren't? Or what if your dd or ds got C or D grades at A Level but you know him or her to be very bright and willing to work hard at University. That's the point about elitism isn't it? It's ok if you're one of them but by definition you're not likely to be.

Also, don't make the assumption that good grades at A Level correlate to success at university or degree level. Research suggests that unlike the link between high grades at GCSE and A Level there is no straightforward link. What does that mean? That some students peak at A Level? That some students don't reach their potential at A Level but go on to do so at Uni? Hmmm....

So you think a student who gets A grades in Physics, Maths and Chemistry (because he is hard working and exremely able not because standards have lowered) shouldn't be allowed to train to be a doctor because he got a C at GCSE English (he actually has English as a second language which partly explains this). Right, that sounds really fair!!

Yes, as you say qualified doctors are not getting jobs but this is because the NHS is strapped for cash not because there's not a shortage (have you been to your GP lately? I can't get to see mine without an interrogation and last time I phoned I was offered a prescription without a consultation and don't get me started on midwives and dentists)

You're missing the point about Oxbridge students. When I applied all those years ago, you passed an exam and an interview and if you got in you were given an unconditional offer (so your A Level grades didn't actually count). Now, Universities already have access to your AS Level grades. We only put forward students who have got nine A/As at GCSE and are predicted 5 As at A Level. Only then do they get the shining reference and only THEN do they get teh opporunity to display their A personality and communications skills which can be a bit difficult if you're used to being called a boff if you use words with more than one syllable at your local comp.

it depends what a levels you actually take usually and people take this into account when looking at your results. it is incredibly difficult to get an A in maths or science for example but probably much easier in something like communication studies (my dads a teacher and calls those sort of subjects mickey mouse subjects lol)

I thought a grade C in GCSE English was the minimum for most courses so it would only be a D or less that wouldn't be OK? In any case, reasonable English does matter, even for science-based courses, and being able to communicate clearly and unambiguously can be particularly important in medical fields. I don't think students with English as a second language should be being rejected if they are good in the main subject requirements - 'top up' courses to get their English up to scratch over the summer would make much more sense - but I do think it's reasonable even for science-based courses to have that requirement.

B&wcat

No one here has suggested that education shouldn't be available to all, just that you should get graded on your abilities, and judged against your peers, rather than by some arbitrary standard that is set by an exam board.

In your earlier post you said "If your grades at A Level were mediocre then you're actually saying that you shouldn't and probably a lot of your friend shouldn't have gone to university. How bizarre. "
Not bizarre at all. I didn't actually go to University, I went on to a polytechnic, which had more practically based courses. I got a B.A. in business studies, which meant I had the ability to make up a set of accounts, and partially qualified me towards becoming an accountant if I had wished. But I did that on a practically based sandwich course, which was definately more suited to my academic abilities (or lack of).
And believe me, it brought me down a peg or two, which was no bad thing, seeing as I had held the view that I was pretty clever, up to that point. I realised that I had to put in that bit more effort, and picked up grades at Poly (didn't rise to a first tho').

University applications are now more and more being made online and offers are based on the 'personal statement' and the teacher's reference. There may or may not be an interview - for some subjects they are not common - my DS for instance had 6 offers for History without any interviews - they ranged from AAB from Warwick (which is where he will be going) t)to 240 UCAS points from Coventry which I think equals 2 Cs.
But his results had all his actual marks on - so it really shouldn't be difficult to distinguish more closely if necessary