Assessment methods at top 10 unis - movement away from traditional exams?

[Springflowers1]

Really interested in getting feedback and experiences on this for humanities/social sciences at top unis as DC2 is in yr12 and I think this is something we should be more aware of when evaluating options and comparing unis. For context DC1 is at Oxbridge doing an exam heavy essay subject with very little scope for coursework or other forms of assessment. First 2 years is all very stressful traditional exams and 3rd year is 3/4 traditional exams plus a dissertation or similar. Uni did do 5hr open book exams for a while after covid but reverted back to exam halls due to concerns about cutting and pasting of old essays and use of AI.

First time around I wasn't fully aware that so many other top unis now employed many diverse ways of assessing students and that often the majority of exams were open book eg 24hr ones?

Those of you with DC doing essay subjects at high ranking unis, how have they found these alternative modes of assessment, particularly 24hr open book exams? Does the removal of the need to memorise everything significantly reduce stress levels? It makes alot of sense to me - nothing in the world of work is about memorisation of vast amounts of information, but I know it's not straightforward because of issues with AI.

My post above was for @mscoach whom I intended to quote.

I apologise for the random formatting marks. I should not attempt to post in trying circs

Thanks. My dc did these types of questions in the 11+.

I'm a bit sick of everyone here glibly stating that all A levels simply require the regurgitation of facts. That is certainly not true for the two that I teach - I spend half my life telling students NOT to do this. It wasn't true for the ones my ds did either - though he did do a language so obviously needed to memorise a lot of vocabulary and grammatical structures. My younger ds is doing A levels now - different ones from those I teach and the ones his brother did. He is doing one which he says is a lot easier that the other two (biology and German) because 'You pretty much just need to learn the content.' He is aiming for A star in that and As in the other two, but that is one A level out of the six or so we know about between us.

I also don't understand why people think exams are 'just a memory test' as if there is no relationship at all between learning, understanding and memory. If I don't understand something, there is not a cat in hell's chance I will remember it, and that becomes more true as the rate of complexity increases in my experience. And the 'wrong kind of intelligence'? People I have known with academic ability (critical thinking skills, able to form interpretations etc) pretty much always have good memories.

In my degree our finals were 3 day long open-book exams, and they nearly killed me. I knew I wasn't supposed to spend three full days on them, but I drove myself mad procrastinating and starting again. I much prefer standard 3 hour exam to that hell.

@pinotnow what subject is it that your DS is just needing to learn the content?

The fact that exams are now typed is good. I did degree 30 years ago and then another degree 2019-21. Exans went online due to covid and became 24 hours. And most students took those 24 hours. (Even me at 48 doing a degree for interest did, though more like 17 hours due to sleep and breaks.)
masters same -24 hours to write exams. So you do spend that extra time to polish and edit to ensure it all makes grammatical sense and flows and is within word count. You probably are only adding 2-3 marks but if you are a 68 and get to 72 it’s worth the time.
later did more professional exams which were online but proctored so closed book bar one official legilslation site. I was exhausted after 3 hours with the memorisation again and typing for so long. But least I didn’t have to worry about word counts!
so exams should keep the element if nothing else as that’s so much better compared to hand writing anything.

If unis go back to exams they may just be facilitating another modern problem:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgz22w4g9zo

It values the wrong type of intelligence

What is 'the wrong type of intelligence'?

I firmly believe GCSEs should be scrapped and A levels should be a minimum of 4, 2 humanities subjects 2 STEM. 6th form starts in year 11.

I ask this every time this comes up on a thread, but no-one has yet come back to me with an answer: my mathematical ability was just enough to get me an O Level. I failed O Level biology. How would it have benefited me, or my teachers, to require me to continue with STEM subjects to A Level, and probably fail them?

Same for pupils whose abilities and interests are in sciences and who have no aptitude for essay writing. How would it benefit them to be required to take Eng lit or history to A Level?

Because general education is important.

Because general education is important.

How am I being educated if I don't understand the curriculum?

That's a separate point (whether or not the curriculum is such that everyone is able to engage with it). But the general point holds: it is poor public policy to allow general education to end at 16.

That's a separate point (whether or not the curriculum is such that everyone is able to engage with it). But the general point holds: it is poor public policy to allow general education to end at 16.

Well it's either A Level Maths or it's a curriculum everyone can engage with. Which is it? What should that curriculum contain, that hasn't already been covered in the O Level (in my case) or GCSE curriculum?

And if it's a truly general education, it should include a modern language as well. And maybe some cultural education - art, music, architecture etc. And by the time you've included all of that, it's no longer Advanced Level because you don't have the time to go into any subject in depth. So what are you doing?

There's already a Core Maths qualification that can be taken during sixth form, which is more practical than A-level maths. There's already a shortage of maths teachers though, which would be a barrier currently!

I guess a general education would be something like the baccalaureate, or the American high school qualifications. I think we're an outlier in specialising so much at 16.

Psychology

It’s a stupid suggestion to say everyone should have to study a combination of humanities and STEM subjects. Why study something you have no interest in or aptitude for?

You may disagree but other forms of secondary education and the concomitant qualifications, including the esteemed IB, take this approach. Calling it ‘stupid’ because you disagree says something about your own education, and may speak to the possibility that it should have been broader.

But everyone in the UK studies a combination up to 16, and in many other countries up to 18 or even into university. So presumably that means all countries agree a general education is a good idea, and it's just a question of what age is best to specialise?

There’s always a back and forth about exams. On one hand, they are not good for a subset of students. Female students with heavy periods for example. On the other hand there is a subdued panic about academic integrity. These days there are just so many ways to cheat.

Exams are also incredibly difficult and costly to administer, especially the in person ones. There’s the timetabling, finding rooms that are big enough, finding and paying invigilators, printing papers, instructions and all the myriad of accompanying paperwork. And that’s before you get to the sorting, distributing, checking and storing of the scripts.

if you run them online then there are the considerations of AI. You could use locked down browsers but if you do that you’re back to the room timetabling issues. If the students can take them from home then you encounter the many and varied other ways that things can go wrong from personal device and connectivity failures to students failing to take time zones into account. Each of these can generate an appeal, especially if the students panic, fail to read instructions and either contact nobody or email the entirely wrong person who may not be working that day. Inevitability a rumour will circulate that the platform was “down “ and a flood of speculative appeals will come in from students which then need to be investigated via the logs. And that’s all before mental health based appeals start turning up.

I’m always happy when exam season is over

There is no way we can move to generalising education in the current climate. Behaviour and lack of respect in schools is a massive and ever--increasing problem. The last thing we need to be doing is forcing 16-18 year olds to do (more)subjects they've had enough of for even longer. We can barely contain them until 16 as it is. Whether it would be a good idea or not in principle is a separate issue.

That's a good point. However my impression is that behaviour is far less of an issue in A-level classes, which are the ones that would be affected by a change to IB or similar.

Yes, but I thought PP were advocating for GCSEs to be abolished and all students to be required to keep on a range of subjects until 18. That wouldn't work as things stand. If students were choosing to stay on in academic study until 18 but were told they would need to keep a range of Stem and arts subjects, that might work but I know there was no way I could have kept maths or science on beyond 16. Both my dc would be ok with it but I have known many students with a preference or ability one way or the other who would have hated it. I know it does work in other countries though.

if the students panic, fail to read instructions.....

Not much sympathy for that. They should have had 'read the instructions' dinned into them at school before they got within sniffing distance of a GCSE exam.

That made me laugh. I’m just about to start a PhD. Maybe I should have a rethink. Alternatively maybe you should try being a little less thin skinned.

Fair point. A relative of mine did her higher education abroad and honestly, the time she spent doing maths was pointless. I think a broad education is fine for GCSEs but beyond that, as I said, it’s daft. It’s also ableist for the kids with SpLDs. Making an 18 year old with dyslexia who only wants to specialise to suit their strengths have to continue with English or humanities is absolutely pointless not to say cruel.

Meeting a coursework deadline is performing under pressure. Managing a whole load of deadlines is also a good skill. AI is only a problem of you don’t design coursework which can’t be done without it. It is impossible to score much more than a basic pass in the coursework I set if you rely on AI.

Personally I only state as much background as is relevant to my postings (so, former admissions tutor, high tariff maths intensive STEM discipline, something of a specialisation assessing international qualifications, etc). Am I supposed to be impressed by the fact that you are about to begin a level of study I completed some time ago?

I stand by my comment, without of course conflating one of yours with your academic potential.