How on Earth do a level lower achievers get to uni with the grades that are being asked?

[NCTDN]

If I wanted to go to uni now, I'd have no chance. In my day, I needed three E grades to get into teaching, from which I've had a fabulous career.
DD is very lucky and looking at places asking for 3As (Not teaching) but I'm so shocked at how high everywhere asks for. I went to what was primarily a teacher training college and even that is asking for 3 alleged at grade b.
So my question is, what do teenagers do these days if they get grades C D or E? It must be so disheartening.

Higher percentages of students doing well doesn’t equal grade inflation. When I was at school we weren’t prepared for the exams as such - we did the odd last paper but mostly you walked in with only a vague knowledge of the structure of the paper, how to answer questions, what the mark scheme was. It was sink or swim! Now we make sure we teach exam techniques and we wouldn’t, for example, just shrug our shoulders at a bright kid getting an E in a mock and say “well you should have worked harder”. Every student is tracked and their marks throughout the course scrutinised, and they’re massively better prepared for the exams.

I agree with @Piggywaspushed - I’ve been teaching since 2003 and I can’t see that weaker students are getting high grades at all. More students do get high grades but they work harder! My A* students haven’t fluked into it, they’re writing undergraduate level essays and putting lots of time and effort in.

(Sorry, my So was a follow on from my previous post, not a belligerent So aimed at the original poster re Prince Charles - I assume that they had seen it reported, inaccurately, somewhere).

I stand corrected! I think it must have been BC then. Charles I apologise for giving you a ‘nearly’ as well

Wow those are certainly some interesting stats showing grade inflation Piccadilly. The A component doesn’t look like it was introduced until 2010 so it makes sense that I didn’t know anyone with an A back in the day.

That's a fair point @GravityFalls. Incidentally, it strikes me (I may have misunderstood) that what you're saying is that they're better prepared for the exam itself (structure, etc) now, not that they have better understanding of the content. Do you think that's true, or am I misunderstanding you?

If that is the case, wouldn't that still mean that in order to be well prepared for university, they might need a higher grade than they would have done some years ago, even though they have come by their current grade honestly?

They get EEE at A level, go back packing for a year (pre covid) come back, do a foundation year or access course, get the right equivalent at that point and then go to Uni.
The go through the OU.
A lot more people do get degrees now, but a lot still don't. Or do but much later on.

@twelly

There has been such a huge grade inflation that E grades in the 1980's will be more like B grades today - the numbers sitting A levels have increased in addition to this. The percentage going to university has increased massively - I'm not convinced A level grades reflect ability or suitability for courses at all

Don’t be ridiculous, do you genuinely think that ?! what evidence do you have ? a small inflation perhaps but no way is an E equivalent of a B are you trying to make yourself feel better about your grades by disparaging the young and dismissing their efforts ?. I heard that the syllabus is actually harder than it used to be, no idea, I am not a teacher.

I can only speak about my DC experience and they work a lot harder and revise a lot more than I ever did when I was their age. And have a lot more pressure.
Also our school is not littered with As and Bs and very few get A* or As, in some subjects none at all and it is considered a good school in the area, Do not believe everything you read in the DM..

This year is even worse as they have no idea what’s happening and rumour of some schools spoon feeding students whereas others (ours) examining as a normal exam on full syllabus, so I have the added concern that they are going to be massively disadvantaged as worry some schools are not playing by the ‘rules’.

Cancelling exams this year was a disaster. , it would have been much easier and fairer / transparent just mocks and then the real thing in June imo.

A and O levels are marked differently now. Don't know when the change happened, but I think it was decades ago. Grades used to show how you did relative to everyone else who took that exam, and now they show whether you reached a preset standard, regardless of how everyone else did.

Back in the late 70s when I was at school, the Exam Board might decide that the top 8% of candidates should get A, next 20% B and so on.

So if it was a tough set of papers one year and a candidate got 65%, but that was in the top 8% of candidates, that would result in the award of an A. Next year, if the papers were a bit easier, a candidate who got 65% might not be in the top 8%, so would get a B.

Nowadays, as I understand it, it doesn't matter how the rest of the field performed. Every single candidate could get 65% and if that's judged high enough for an A grade, every single candidate will get an A grade. Alternatively, if the Exam Board has decided that A grades will only go to those who get 70% or over, nobody will get an A.

This means it's easier to get an A now than it was back in the 70s and probably much of the 80s.

Also, of course, teachers now teach far more to the test than they did. They and their schools are judged on their exam results, which didn't happen back in the 70s. Teaching standards are undoubtedly higher than they were in some ways. Back in the 70s poor teachers could stay in post for life. No Ofsted, no performance management, no classroom observations, parents kept at arm's length so they would have little idea of what was going on. That's all changed, and a good thing too, but on the flipside teachers have a lot less freedom to teach more than just what the students need to pass exams. It seems to be more about drilling them than teaching them to think. That's a loss.

They won’t get on a competitive foundation year course with EEE! My friends DD did a vet one! Slightly wrong subjects for the degree so did the foundation. The grades she had were all A and A*. EEE will not yet you into any competitive foundation course. How can a foundation year make EEE into a a BBB equivalent student?

Sigh. I mean GCSEs are marked differently to O levels, of course, and modern A levels are marked differently from the A levels of yore.

Better understanding of the exam will bring with it better knowledge of the content, because students are more aware of where their gaps in knowledge are. So my A level class have done, on average, an long exam question a week for their whole course. That’s been my primary method of assessment (it’s an essay based subject). Every time they’ll get written feedback, and I’ll talk to the whole class about what they did well and where their weaknesses are. Then when we come back to the topic I’ll recap “ok, so you’re strong on X but I noticed you’re not so good at talking about Y” - this motivates them to listen more to the revision stuff on Y. I mean, any writing-heavy subject would have been taught in a similar way since time immemorial, but I don’t just set random essays off the top of my head (as my A level teachers did!), I make sure we’re covering all the assessment objectives and pulling up weak areas. It’s not spoonfeeding, it’s maximising their chances of success.

And they most certainly do have the ability to think deeply about their subject and the issues raised! I know it’s fashionable to say schools are just cramming knowledge without understanding but that’s not what I see. Nor do we just teach to the test. Yes of course my syllabus is planned around exam demands but there’s always room for digression and debate.

I was curious so I’ve just looked. I did forensic science in 2002 with CEE at A level. It’s now BBC at same Uni.

I’m off to study Midwifery this September and the grades are ABB for my Uni or 30 Distinctions and 15 Merits on Access.

I think people need to prove they can apply themselves and pass exams before taking on University

@chopc

Back in 1994 you only needed 3B to get into medicine

I teach someone who has a similar grade offer to do medicine this year. She'll quite probably get higher than 3Bs, because she's phenomenal, but it's reduced her stress about it. I believe it's done sort of reduced offer because she's been part of a programme to widen participation.

A lot of our kids get slightly reduced offers because the postcodes they live in are areas of deprivation. So a course that advertised 3Bs often gives these reduced offers of 3Cs, and then might even accept them if they miss that by a grade or two.

I definitely agree that teaching standards have improved overall in the past several decades. There is also a greater emphasis for students to pass exams than in years gone by. I also wonder with the introduction of the Internet if it’s a case of learning/ revision materials being easily accessible? My DD for example can download the mark scheme/ criteria needed for any given subject along with past papers. The answers are also easily accessible. In my day we had a text book and everything had to be learned from the textbook. There wasn’t an awful lot of deviation from this. I don’t even remember being given a past paper for example.

@110APiccadilly

Here's some stats about grades going back to the 90s. www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev.htm

No idea what subject Piggy teaches, but it certainly looks like there's grade inflation on almost all of them to me.

In answer to the OP, I'd imagine the two routes you'd be looking at would be going through clearing and foundation courses.

These are striking stats @110APiccadilly

What is really noticeable is that back in the early 1990s, you've routinely got 7-9% of people walking away with a U in some subjects. If you include grade N (for "Near Miss", I was always told!) as many as 17% failed (eg in History).

Now the proportion who fail is more like 1%.
If that doesn't point to grade inflation, I don't know what does!

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g I completely agree with your description of different marking systems which inevitably skews the comparison. I still don’t quite understand why it was deemed bad to have grades awarded as a comparison against the performance of the white cohort as opposed to saying Juno through X hoops = A, jump through Y hoops = B etc

It’s all about what courses are competitive and which are not. Sciences were easier to into and definitely engineering years ago. Fewer students did it. Midwifery is relatively competitive and forensic science still isn’t. I bet the forensic science course doesn’t have all students with the published grades. They want bums on seats to fill the course. Maybe job prospects should be evaluated too?!

Students don’t get Us because there’s zero chance they’d get entered for the exam at all if you thought they’d get a U. They’d be off the course before the first Christmas if it looked likely. No good comes from putting a student through a course they can’t do!

I've taught kids who've got into uni with all kinds of grades over the years. There was a spate of unconditional offers for a while, which was great for students, but not for teachers judged on students' performances.

I am always wary of kids on ds and es who want to go to uni, as they're usually the ones who struggle academically already, even with myriad interventions, or they lack motivation. Which begs the question: why are you signing up for 3 more years of study, when you don't actually like doing any work?

@110APicadilly
I have just looked at your link, what jumps out at me is the 2020 figures. That’s interesting thank you

@GravityFalls

Better understanding of the exam will bring with it better knowledge of the content, because students are more aware of where their gaps in knowledge are. So my A level class have done, on average, an long exam question a week for their whole course. That’s been my primary method of assessment (it’s an essay based subject). Every time they’ll get written feedback, and I’ll talk to the whole class about what they did well and where their weaknesses are. Then when we come back to the topic I’ll recap “ok, so you’re strong on X but I noticed you’re not so good at talking about Y” - this motivates them to listen more to the revision stuff on Y. I mean, any writing-heavy subject would have been taught in a similar way since time immemorial, but I don’t just set random essays off the top of my head (as my A level teachers did!), I make sure we’re covering all the assessment objectives and pulling up weak areas. It’s not spoonfeeding, it’s maximising their chances of success.

And they most certainly do have the ability to think deeply about their subject and the issues raised! I know it’s fashionable to say schools are just cramming knowledge without understanding but that’s not what I see. Nor do we just teach to the test. Yes of course my syllabus is planned around exam demands but there’s always room for digression and debate.

That sounds like a good approach. My school was unusual back in the late 70s because we did know about the exam syllabuses. The teacher used to bring them into class to show us (maybe that was just my subjects). I also remember standing in a bookshop reading through the printed syllabus out of interest (yes, I was a nerd ). We did past papers and questions in class and for our mock exams.

Which begs the question: why are you signing up for 3 more years of study, when you don't actually like doing any work? I have taught students in the past who seem to specifically dislike my subject, who then apply to do the subject they really, really dislike at uni. Including a foundation year because they aren't going to get the grades for starting in first year. So 4 years of a maths degree, when you don't like maths, and are likely to get an E (but Cs in the other 2 subjects) seems like a spectacularly bad decision. But what do I know?

I often think this. Both DH and I got rubbish A levels. In his case he had a poor experience of teaching in a deprived school/area with no family support or encouragement in my case I chose the wrong subjects and found them hard to engage with and poured my energy into other things...

Both went to uni, both have been employed ever since in professional jobs. Both have been back to uni and gained post grad qualifications.

My grades weren't an indicator of intelligence or aprittide. I loved uni and the style of teaching. I nearly died of boredom during my a level classes.

I'm so glad I'm not a sixth former now!

Surely if you are only getting C, D or E grades then you aren't really bright enough to go to university and study at degree level.

Interesting subject! I'm feeling rather proud now of my ABB in 1986, although I always say that the E in Pure Maths was my best achievement given that in one 3 hour exam, I had done as much as I could and checked it all after 15 minutes. Sadly we weren't allowed to leave the room so I went to sleep.

I also agree with @Piggywaspushed. Students really do work much harder than I ever did. One of my DDs got 12 A* at GCSE; she was so motivated and determined and was given excellent guidance and encouragement from her teachers.

I did my PGCE in 1993 after 4 years in industry. Some of my course colleagues were straight out of "uni", their course being in something very specific/niche within Music at a former HE college which had attained university status the previous year. Their own A level grades in Music were D or E, yet they expected to go on to teach the subject at A level, yet their degree had little of what we would now call academic rigour. I also remember students on the parallel BEd course, specialising in Music who could barely read staff notation - I'm talking about flautists not drummers or guitar players who could be excellent readers of tab/drum notation. My year 10s now could do a better job. Is that grade inflation? I'm not sure. I suspect that because everyone can access the syllabus now, schools are judged on results and student tracking is better, so teachers know that they need to cover the entire specification in a normal year.