What were "good" O level results in 1987?

[Tanaqui]

Does anyone have any data on how O level grades back then correlate to GcSE grades now?

I am aware that it obviously isn't a clear comparison, but maybe just in terms on what % of children got an A, B or C?

Year 11 ds wants to know how well I did, compared to how well he might do!

Feel very old as 87 was the last year of O levels!

Have tried google, but get lots of newspaper dumbing down articles and would rather something a bit more accurate.

Thanks.

1969 - 3 As and 5Cs. Bizarrely, The University of London Board only awarded A,C and E grades, no Bs and Ds. The aspiring medics needed to do 9 O Levels at my school due to the way the option choices were offered there. Big arguments with the school occurred when the school announced half way through the course that it would only allow the students to take two science O Levels!
The Oxbridge/medics generally got 5 As, the red brick uni contingent tended to get 1-3 As.
At A Level most good universities offered between BCC and BBC for a popular course. I got ABB plus a merit at S Level and only got a university place by pleading with the only university I didn't receive a rejection from (school wrote scathing personal statement on my academic capabilities). I don't go back for reunions!

sunshield, I agree. Enochroot's post above was very interesting on this point. My school was academically selective but I hadn't appreciated at all what a huge difference that made until I started chatting to the other girls my age at my Saturday job in the mid 70s (busy city centre coffee shop/self-service restaurant). I could see from their work that they were extremely capable young women, quick to learn, dexterous, reliable employees who worked hard, used their common sense and mostly with excellent people skills (as we didn't say back then!). Judged all round, I would have said most of them were much better at our job than I was.

But when we compared noted on our schools, I was genuinely shocked. At my school it was standard to do 9 O levels and stay on to do 3 A or 4 A levels (most people took General Studies as the 4th). There were no CSEs. Around 90 girls started in what we would now call year 7. Most remained for the sixth form and we got a few new girls then, so there were about 85 in each year in the sixth form. Of those, I think about 70 would have gone on to university*, 2 or 3 to polytechnic and maybe 3 or 4 to art college. Most of the rest went into some form of professional training instead: nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, PE teacher training, primary school teacher training.

Meanwhile, my Sat job colleagues at comprehensive schools were being put in for a handful of CSEs. Only the super brainy in their schools were taking O levels. None of them had any thought of staying on for sixth form. What a terrible waste of talent.

*(not much gender stereotyping either - going by degree subject, in my year there were about 10 medics, a vet, a dentist, at least 3 engineers, an astrophysicist, several mathematicians, at least 10 other scientists)

Very interesting post enoch. I'm not sure what's happening with GCSE s atm,but, with the move to a final exam only for A level help boys more than girls, I wonder.
This thread has been reassuring and depressing at the same time. I always thought my O level grades were a disappointment but, actually, they were fine.

Itsraining I double took English Language - O level and CSE (entered at last minute cos they thought I'd fail all my O level)
I was told Grade 1 CSE was equivalent to Grade C O level - I got Grade 1 CSE and B in O level English. (My other B was Maths -I was really lucky)
So the system did need changing ...although don't they do different level exams at GCSE now? So if you do one you can't do better than a certain grade? (Which is the same thing really....)

I double entered myself for maths. Was top set but lost confidence I'd get my O level. Got CSE grade 1 and C at O level in the end

SwedishEdith
It's a bit sweeping to say this but boys' disproportionate success at O level was reckoned to be because a final exam suited them better then girls. The last minute spurt was common amongst boys whereas girls were more consistent workers provided the incentive was there.
Coursework suited girls better than boys in the main. GCSE coursework (and CSE) was, obviously, incorporated into the exam system in the time before essays could be ripped off the internet and submitted in print form. However, to guard against plagiarism, a proportion of coursework had to be done in controlled conditions and it was always easy to spot whether the work done at home was superior in standard.

The improvement in girls' results had a backlash though when there was a reported rise in depression amongst boys which the press blamed on girls' success at GCSE. (The press pretty much had its knife into GCSE from the start.)

Back in the 80s girls were disadvantaged in mixed schools. The female staff at my school felt very strongly about this and gathered evidence by sitting in each others' lessons to evaluate the amount of teacher attention was given to each sex. There were national research done on this too. Even allowing for the fact that we were were conscious of being observed, it was found that boys received around 75% of teacher attention simply because they demanded it whereas girls tended to stay quiet and absorb information.
We knew this was going to be a huge problem with the Speaking and Listening element of GCSE and we developed strategies to help us cope.

However there was then the huge mountain to climb convincing male members of staff.

It was amazing how insidious it was. For example, registers always listed the boys then the girls. Merely changing that aspect of daily school life was a hurdle but it was necessary for the whole psychology to slowly turn around.
Careers advice for girls was abysmal too. They were directed towards nursing, secretarial work, child care etc. Even the language of the annual reports needed scrutiny. I once did an analysis of this and was astounded to find boys being described in such terms as 'fine, upstanding young man' and 'pleasant, quiet young girl.' There were more glaring examples which actually caused a 'career change' for a senior member of staff so I'll leave it at that.

Like GaspOde, I went to a selective girls' high school. In primary school we had been setted according to likely 11+ success. I had never mixed with pupils who were not of my ability level until I had a Saturday job. Teaching Practice was 'interesting'!
Experience and reading made me realise how deeply unfair the exam system was and how much talent was being wasted. Change was long overdue by the 80s and the consequent expansion of university places was absolutely necessary. The higher entrance requirements now reflect the sheer amount of competition for university places.

40 years behind me, DD went to a local mixed comp and came out with 11 As at GCSE and 5 As at A level. She has a depth and breadth in the subjects that she studied that I have only acquired in mine in adult life.
It's hard to remember that we spent a hell of a lot of revision time for O level English memorising chunks of text! What real value was that compared to what is expected now for a GCSE A-C grade?

It's all so long ago now, but I seem to remember it being tacitly acknowledged that some exam boards set easier exams at O' and A' level than others...can't remember the details though, maybe someone else can?

Enoch, your posts are really interesting. Thank you!

I agree about the depth and breadth - we just learned from the set texts and didn't go and research AFAICR, which would have obviously required hours in the library, until I went to Uni.

It's also worth noting that the introduction of GCSE coincided with the roll-out of the National Curriculum. It was a radical restructuring of the whole state education edifice but stopped short of A level reform at that time.

It involved a huge amount of re-training, discussions, evaluation of coursework meetings, rewriting of materials, standardisation exercises, feedback........ It was hard work but invigorating.

My own relative lack of success at O Level was largely because of a move aged 12 from one end of the country to another during the 70s. I received no help whatsoever in making up the difference. (I was a year behind in Latin, had been taught French phonetically and the new class could all spell French, I was ahead in geometry but behind in Algebra, and so on.)

The NC made it more likely that a pupil would be taught more or less the same things at more or less the same time. I have the same number of O Levels as A Levels. Not many people can claim that distinction!

Oh, I haven't mentioned the sheer joy and freedom of being able to introduce American texts such as Of Mice and Men & To Kill A Mockingbird, or the challenge of introducing lower ability students to Shakespeare and finding that they liked it!

Forgive me for banging on a bit more.

All this happened under a Conservative government. For that reason the reforms were initially opposed by teachers cosy in their particular schools. It was a sort of knee-jerk.
However, meetings with opposite numbers in other schools soon took place and it quickly became obvious that we could either accept the NC as it was or we could take it by the scruff of the neck and make it work. Here was an opportunity to bring about root and branch reforms which were so much needed after ROSLA.
In a way, a lot of the work we undertook was self-imposed because we then did a line-by-line analysis of each of those fat ring-binder folders' contents and really thought things through. Our suggestions went up the line, were evaluated against other boroughs' and counties' feedback, came back to us, were modified again, until it was something we could really get behind. From the initial discussion stage to end of roll-out it took perhaps a decade.

Things we wanted back then have disappeared.
There was an absolute flat insistence by English teachers, for example, that whole texts must be used, not extracts. I see that has gone.
A differentiated curriculum - reintroduction of tiers - was never envisaged.

We had behind us, and driving the initiative, the County Advisory Services and H.M. Inspectorate of Schools. My HMI said very emphatically, "I work for the Queen, not the government of the day."
A private sector Ofsted system lay in the future as did league tables. I'm glad I had left the profession before that. Don't grudge me my pension!

1988 - First year of GCSE'S - 7 A's & 3 B's considered fairly average at selective top girls' independent. 1990 - A' Levels - ABBC (Compulsory General Studies!) LLB at a redbrick uni and a MSc a few years later. Now a SAHM with primary aged DC.

DH passed 2 O'Levels first time round in 1985. Retook and passed another 5 more a year later. He took 3 A' Levels and got E,N and U!

However, more to do with coming from a middle class background from a family of academics (FIL was a uni professor) and the fact that his great uncle just happened to be Dean of a certain poly, he managed to get a place on a HND course which was then followed by going straight onto the 2nd year of a BEng course at a redbrick uni where he met me. He is now the CEO of a tech company and his LinkedIn profile only mentions his MBA cos he's still a tad embarrassed with his crap results due to his idle youth.

I personally don't like coursework ...(because I never did any -would have failed everything!) -and because I have DD1 with ADHD. She is very bright but getting her to do any work outside lessons is a battle...she lacks organisation but objects if you 'help' her too much ...if you push her she pushes back, digs her heels in etc. What she does produce is nothing like the level she is capable of. (I also can't get her to revise...but she so far she manages to do ok in tests - she could obviously do better..) if anything coursework will bring her grades down...
But more importantly I think it depends on the purpose of GCSEs.
Are they solely to test the depth of knowledge in a particular subject?
Or to assess overall intellect?
If it is the former than when in life will we again need in depth knowledge of all the subjects we covered at GCSE? (eg I got German O level - I can remember very little...I have never needed it)
But if you only took the 'relevant' exams you would only cover a few in an area of interest - similar to A levels - and you would be judged (as less intelligent) if you only managed to get 3 GCSEs ...
I don't think churning out a good piece of course work (with varying amounts of guidance provided by parents/teachers) is as intellectually demanding as an exam situation ...it does prove you can apply yourself more than anything else. But not sure how helpful that is.
Whereas the ability to retain and recall facts and present those facts in a concise and logical manner on a broad range of subjects without time to reflect and revise is more intellectually difficult. (However I also know my sister always under performs in exams, due to nerves).

(Apparently (this was something that I was surprised about) children (and adults) with ADHD can actually concentrate - but only on things they find interesting, in fact they can become obsessive to the exclusion of everything else. But then that doesn't make them an unsuitable candidate for a degree or employment - both of which they (hopefully) will find interesting.)

I don't know if I have explained myself very well ...
I guess the current system ( a mixture of both ) is on balance probably a good thing. Although maybe a series of short 'exams' where work is produced in a class situation followed by a main exam may be a better approach???? (But then I guess the class work would be dependent on the teacher or who was sat next to you....)

About 8 O-levels with a handful of As was considered good. I was pretty much top of my year with 5 As 2 Bs and 2 Cs.

I got 9 As at O level in 1984 but took RE and History early. ABBC at A level got me into Manchester for a Science based course. Missed the grades for Cambridge though. Had a blast at Manchester so no regrets.

I did 10 O Levels in 1985 and 2 in 1984 and got 6 As and 6 Bs (highly selective independent girls' school). This was about average or slightly above average for the school I think, but 50% of the year got into Oxbridge, so obviously not average country-wide. I remember one girl crying because she was the only person in the year to get a C in Eng Lang (which we had taken a year early).

Our compulsory subjects were Maths, English Language, English Lit, French, Latin, Physics and Chemistry. Then we got to choose three from Biology, History, Geography, German, Russian, Ancient Greek, Art, RE, Music. I think those were literally all the options there were. They were in blocks, so you couldn't do Art and Music or German and Russian. Those who had done French or Maths early did French or Maths AO and everyone did General Studies AO.

My university offers ranged from EE at Oxford to BBC at Bristol. The other three I applied to (all RG universities) offered me CCC.

I did O Levels in 1987 - I wasn't especially clever but I managed 7 Bs and 3 Cs. I got crap A levels in 1989 - BDE - (as a result of a difficult home situation, DV) but managed to get into an Institute of Higher Education affiliated to a Uni and got a double Honours BSc. I was the first person in my family ever to go to University.

DD1 is currently doing her GCSEs. She's bright and is doing lots of subjects - I don't even know how many actual GCSEs she'll come out with but she has 21 exams and has already done elements of Music and Drama. I think the GCSE way of ongoing Controlled Assessment and exam is far better than the old GCEs where everything hinged on your performance in final exams.

unlucky83. That's an interesting question. We spent time on it in training. What are exams for?

Well, cynically, I think it's true to say that CSE was introduced to keep the - forgive my terminology - bottom end out of mischief when the school leaving age was raised. It was talked up as giving them a goal but in the days of pretty low unemployment the need to gain a few qualifications to get a blue-collar job was not an imperative. Believe it or not, there was even a special CSE for the really low achievers. I forget what it was called.

As someone above pointed out, the civil service required 5 grade Cs as, I believe, did nursing. Students going on to A levels and university obviously needed that all-important certificate. (It was desirable to have them all listed on the same certificate from the same exam board, unlike today when I needed DD to interpret her plethora of pieces of paper for me.)

Coursework done under exam conditions is, I believe, a true reflection of a student's real ability. It differs from a final exam taken in rows in the gym only in that the stress and group-panic is removed and there are more pieces completed in controlled conditions than are actually needed for final submission so poor work can be discarded.

You might say that the work therefore becomes easier, that standards are eroded from the outset and that teachers could nudge their pupils in the right direction in the classroom.
That was never the case. As I said earlier, we were extremely conscious that GCSE would lose credibility if we couldn't maintain the standard expected of an equivalent GCE grade. The work was not easier. It was actually far more varied and intellectually demanding than anything required for O Level. Pupils were being stretched all the time over 5 terms, we expected them to show progression during the course and class size for GCSE then for a compulsory subject like mine was typically 20 to 25 so there was no hiding place. Progress was monitored and predictions submitted to ensure we couldn't over mark. We checked each other's marking within the department and externally with other schools. I assume any coursework that is done today is similarly carefully assessed though I fear it might be computer marked half a world away.

Moreover, imagine the outcry if one of us had broken the rules of supervision in a controlled test? If I had leaned over and whispered to a pupil or given guidance in any way it would have been noticed and a parental complaint would have followed. It simply would not have been worth it.

There could have been a Hawthorne effect. We were fired up, we fired up our students, the new freedom of choice of texts and scope for innovation made us sharp. Yet the improvement continued year on year.

I can't speak for any other subject than my own. I wasn't better at English simply because I memorised chunks of Macbeth and Keats when I was 16. I would have been better if I had been allowed to worry less about that and had been enthused by the actual meaning. I won't dispute the need for facts in other subjects.

I did 9 O levels in 1983 , with 3As,3Bs and 3 Cs.I did 2 MFL but only one science ; Biology which seems mad now.

I got ABC at Alevel which got me into Durham , offer was I think BBC , got 5 offers ranging from BBC to CCD fron Leicester for Economics.

What subject did you teach, enochroot?

Mid 80s - got 8 As and 2Bs in O Levels at a decent but not super selective grammar school. I was towards the top end but beaten by a handful of others. Bs and Cs were very common - and a reasonable number of Ds - across the year group. A Levels in 1987 - got three As (one of only two pupils and none else was that close). Again Bs and Cs the norm - you get into a decent degree at a good Uni (obviously not Oxbridge) with BBC or the like.

Sounds like my school, MLP -- also a goodish grammar, mid-80s, and just a couple of girls in the year got straight As (though everyone did General Studies A level as well as the three chosen subjects, so it was 4As rather than 3).

1 A, 6 B's, 3 C's and a D. All in 1983.

Though one B was an AO level.

1986, last year of O'levels 7As and 2Bs - not outstanding but top half of top sets London Independent. Downhill after that - CCC at A level (too much socialising) - still good enough for my offer at a solid red brick.

1987 O levels -3A 7B 3C. Two people did better than me by getting 14 with a few more at grade A. Those results got me a scholarship to private school for 6th form. I got ABC & an S level which meant I comfortably achieved my EE offer for university.

I have rather an embarrassing number of A-levels, but I'm frankly terrified by the relative amount of work my son has had to put in for his. Quite a bit of it looked degree-level to me.