The 2017 Exams thread.

[WankersHacksandThieves]

I think we all found the thread last year useful and supportive so I've set this one up for us all to share our woe, angst and (hopefully) joy for the 2017 exam season. I'm also trying to have something on Scotsnet that isn't politics. I'm trying to avoid that tbh as it just all makes me too angry...

Anyway, I have two going through it this year, DS1 in 5th year sitting 5 Highers and DS2 in 4th year sitting 7 Nat5s.

Studying has been underway since the prelims ended. They are doing 3 x 25 minute Pomodoro sessions on weekdays and 4 sessions each day at the weekend. To be honest it's mainly been used for the coursework up until now but the last piece is due in today for DS1 and DS2s is all in now so proper study can commence.

How is everyone feeling?

readsalotgirl63: DS2 went to an offer day for his firm choice and said it wasn't worth it - nothing much more than the open day and UCAS fair he went to before he applied. He was going to go to his insurance one as well but decided against it.

Imgettingdesparatehere:

I understand your frustrations.

I have 2 good friends with better Highers than me but both ended up with 3rd class degrees. Unconditionals so they didn't work in S6, didn't need to work in first year at uni as they'd done the subjects in S6 and struggled to pick up the work ethic again.

My DSs were never keen on supported study. Both said that they got more done at home and it was only useful if there was a particular topic you didn't get and they were covering it in the session. However I guess that depends on whether you actually do something at home. Last year DS2 was frequently still in bed whilst the supported study sessions were running. When I nagged, he just said its the quality of the studying not the quantity.

My ds doesn't go to supported study either for similar reasons.

Different things work for different characters.

Last night he was saying that his Chemistry teacher had given them various questions on their latest topic and he was struggling to get his head around it. So he downloaded the questions from recent past papers and said that that was much more helpful.

Partly I want them to go as it means they will get up in the morning in the week they are off & I am at work. Yes I am worried about the lack of work ethic, although DS2 was a bit like this about his highest & pulled it out the bag.
On the subject of offer holder days DS2 is doing 2 we are off to Dundee on Saturday. I think they are helpful DS1 went to 2 &
changed his opinion on both & ended up at Edinburgh rather than St Andrews.

I hate it that they are only allowed to do 5 subjects in S5. How do they choose between the arts and sciences so young? It's not a broad education. And no chance to do anything fun, like art or music or drama, I feel they have to focus on hard academics as they have so few subjects.

I remember DS1s friend saying that her opinion of Edinburgh improved after the offer day. The open day talks she'd been to were dominated by large groups of private school kids but the offer day was more mixed.

On the subject of more than 5 Highers I doubt my DSs could have coped with more than 5 and both
had clear preferences for sciences. So much so they would have preferred the english 3 A levels system. However my DD is more of an all rounder and will probably hedge her bets in S5 with 2 sciences, english and 2 non sciences. I think art, music and drama are all on the accepted higher lists for most courses so I can't see why you couldn't do one of these unless you are applying for something that needs top grades and you aren't so strong on these. My DS2 is doing one subject not really relevant for the degree he's applied for and he's had offers including and excluding this subject for the same course so there is the possibility of taking something less seriously in S5 as long as you can achieve high grades in other subjects.

I'm with Boodle on 5 Nat 5s being really limited...and in school that do more (6 or 7) they often have to start in S4 (as I understand it - quite a few of the Nat5s need you to have passed Nat 4 first) so they are cutting their options down, making those choices at the end of S3 -in fact DD was making quite hard choices at the end of S2 (mainly because the timetable is so crowded with subjects they have to do as part of their 'broad education' with no real assessment of capability and that don't really count towards a final academic qualification that they can use to apply for eg university.)
I think the English system of 10 subjects to 16 is better from that pov - you can cut down your choices then when you are more likely to have a better idea of what you want to do - and if you change your mind later on you have a qualification that allows you to more easily pick up a subject again.
I think the 5 Nat 5s would be better if it was enforced in all schools and the universities took the 'broad education' into account more. But I don't think they are really.

Also I think some kind of combined Science Nat 5 might help - with more emphasis on the shared general aspects of science - formation of hypothesis, experimental design and procedures, effective research and investigation etc.

I say that as DD dropped biology at the end of S2 to do chemistry and physics - and then decided she didn't like physics and picked up biology again in S4. The school were really not keen on anyone crashing Nat 5 biology without having done Nat 4 so she went into a Nat 4 class and is doing the Nat 5 this year (in S5).

Anyway .... DD has managed to floor me ... her guidance teacher told her she had done really well in her Maths Nat 5 prelim - considering she hadn't been to lessons etc. It was to boost her confidence in her ability and it has worked!!! - she has decided she can do maths and it isn't that awful. I have just found out she has put HIGHER MATHS as an option for next year.... she obviously has to get a good enough grade this year in her Nat 5 - but I am amazed that she has even considered it as an option.... she still doesn't seem to be doing any extra work towards her Maths Nat 5 ... so it probably won't happen but fingers crossed it pushes her to try harder closer to the time and at least pass it this time.

But Boodle said 5 in S5 not Nat 5. I know very few pupils who would cope with more than 5 Highers and have taught Oxbridge and Harvard applicants. Bilingual students can pick up a Higher in their other language or orchestral musicians a Higher music. Highers are intense and there is always S6 as the majority stay on now.

But if that was a slip for Nat5 or S4 I completely agree and would move school or even house if it was authority policy. And as for the lack of uniformity....

Thanks for the comments on offer/applicant days. I do wonder if they will be not much more than open days but have agreed to go back to Strathclyde and we will also be at Dundee on Saturday.

Edinburgh uni have withdrawn the course Dd wanted to apply for! No new course offered regarding teaching! Back to the drawing board with a stressy Dd. I sort of knew they had told current students the course would no longer be offered and one told her godmother who is a teacher!

Sorry - I did miss that ...I agree 5 in S5 is a lot!
I think it is just my feelings on 5 Nat 5s - I read it and went into rant mode...and I think a lot of the problems are with the whole structure - the schools can only do so much.
And as for swapping schools - it isn't really a choice unless I go private. I'm semi-rural, massive catchment - the high school is more than 10 miles away and DD gets a school bus (with others).
The other nearest high school is also far away but there is no school bus and very limited normal buses (one child who goes there (moved into area) has to get a bus at 7am) - and I have a younger DD to get to primary. Even private school would be a fair distance but there are more buses in that direction...
And moving house is not simple - would be a problem for younger DD (very settled and near end of primary) but also for DP getting to work ...in the opposite direction...and we live in a fantastic area now.

I don't think anything about the nat 5 system is fair. Effectively there is only time in 4th year (when they are meat to start the senior phase) to do 6 Nat 5s and I agree that (and less) is narrowing far too soon. DSs school do 7 but steal a little bit at the end of s3 (they start the new year when exam leave starts so end April/beg May) in order to allow enough time. It's quite tough though especially if they do 7 academic subjects. Other schools offer7/8 but start in S3 which obviously gives a bit more time.

The lower the number they are able to do means that their options for Highers are lowered unless they choose to then crash Highers. All this disparity means that they are not all competing on a level playing field for Uni. The way that the school has set their schedule up means that it can affect the grades that pupils get at Higher and/or their ability to get the grades/exams they need in one session.

At a lower academic level, it also effects those who are looking for jobs/apprenticeships straight from school since some will have less subjects but may have higher grades, some will have more subjects but studied over a longer period and others may have more but studied over a shorter period so have lower grades.

Employers aren't taking account of the new qualifications, where they may in the past have asked for Standard Grade Maths and English, they might have accepted General level or even Foundation level Standard Grades. Now they are asking routinely for Nat 5 which is the equivalent of Credit level standard grade as they either don't understand that Nat 4 is effectively General level or they don't value it as it's internally marked.

None of this is fair on pupils and I do feel really sorry for them.

What concerns me is that at National 5 they only do 6 or 7 subjects, depending on the school. Then they drop 1 or 2 subjects and just do 5 highers in S5. I appreciate that highers are tougher than English GCSEs, but DD's cousins in England each took 12 GCSEs at age 16 (getting top grades in all of them). So they had a really well rounded education, balancing arts, languages, maths, sciences and humanities. And could choose what to specialise in at age 16+, with a further 2 years in 6th form for those 3 (in fact they did 4) subjects at A'level.
My DD has to drop a number of subjects at the end of S3, and more subjects at the end of S4, will do only 5 subjects in S5, and then drop down to 3 advanced highers (may want to try for Oxbridge), assuming they even offer the ones she wants, as many pupils don't take advanced highers. Much less breadth.
There is also no ability setting at all in our school, which doesn't help.
It's not all about getting into a good Scottish university, at least not for me. It's about getting a well rounded education.
In desperation, I've decided to teach DD 2 languages outside of school, and maybe also history. Initially on my own, and later perhaps taking GCSE by correspondence course.

blood, as I understand it GCSEs are lower level than Nat 5s never mind Highers. The other thing to keep in mind is that in the past when O'grades were done, and the standard was 8 subjects over 2 years, Maths and Arithmetic were separate so doing 7 Nat 5s is the equivalent of 8 old style O'grades except that in many cases they are studying for those in one year and not two.

I do agree that a broad education is desirable but I don't think that the shallow GCSE is the way to go. If schools were following the actual model it would mean that pupils were following a broad education until the end of third year. Also you then have pupils dropping from 10 (or whatever) to 3 for 2 years whereas pupils here have 5 subjects studied at a higher level before narrowing that down to 3 (or whatever). I'm not seeing where applying to a Scottish or English uni impacts on that as the brighter pupils will still end up with 3 either AH or A levels if they so desire. It's a lot less common to go to uni at the end of 5th year than it used to be.

Whilst I am sure there are many many other issues with the CfE model. the main problem is the way that it has been implemented with no standard across the board.

Sorry, not paying attention to what I type.

this bit Also you then have pupils dropping from 10 (or whatever) to 3 for 2 years whereas pupils here have 5 subjects studied at a higher level before narrowing that down to 3 (or whatever). is referring to the English system.

7 academic Nat 5s is a stretch in one year. 5 Academic Highers in one year is also stretching even for able pupils.

We are fortunate in that ds' school does 8 Nat 5s for those that are capable, by starting at the end of S2, but I acknowledge it adds to the postcode lottery . He also got a Nat 4 in RME (from his "core" subject) , and if he hadn't studied PE as one of his Nat 5s, would've got a Nat 4 for PE from his core PE. Given that in England, English is split into two subjects iirc (English Language and English Literature), it's not that far off the number that bright kids would do in England.

I agree that there are definitely problems with expectations of potential employers, not properly recognising Nat 4 in English/Maths - and ds was mentioning last night the problems that his teachers say they have in keeping those only doing Nat 4 motivated as they've got no exams (he is grateful that this year, doing Highers, he is only in classes with those who'll be doing exams).

I understand the one of the justifications for the full BGE (Broad General Education) to the end of S3 and only starting the Nat 5 curriculum in S4 (which I've heard a depute at a school that does this describe) is that they've studied a broader range of subjects to a higher level so that if they want to crash them at Higher in S6, or even just do them as supplemental Nat 5s, it's easier I wasn't totally convinced though but I could sort of see his point

5 Highers are much broader than the 3 A Levels done in England - with only having to "specialise" if you stay on to S6 and do Advanced Highers.

The 6 Highers that I (and a group of friends) did in S5 was unusual even back then a long time ago - I deliberately kept my options open by doing half Arts and half Sciences (English, French, Latin, Maths, Physics, Chemistry). But ds is going to be ending up leaving school with 6 Highers as well, as he's going to do a crash Higher in Modern Studies (in his own words - to broaden his education out of interest in the subject) alongside his Advanced Highers in Maths and Physics (and probably a coaching qualification). He's choosing to only do 2 Advanced Highers as he is confident about the field he wants to study at Uni (Maths/Physics/Astrophysics)

On of his friends is going to be doing four Advanced Highers next year - one a crash Advanced Higher in Graphic Design! He was apparently going to just want to do a crash Higher but did a module as part of his PSE and the teacher has said he may as well do the Advanced Higher (This kid is precociously clever: has done his Maths exams a year ahead of the rest of the class and is doing Advanced Higher Maths this year so will leave school with five Advanced Highers! )

Doing a 6th year seems to be much more common nowadays than it was when I was at school, so that gives the pupils of today the opportunity to broaden the range of subjects studied.

Wankershacksandthieves - cross posted but I think we were actually arguing similar things from different angles

Yes, I think so. The systems are clearly different and I'm sure it's swings and roundabouts as to which is overall better for DC depending on your viewpoint, but the issues with the Scottish system at the moment are unique to it and don't necessarily impact on the difference between the Scottish and E&W system as such. It's just the lack of consistency for the children who have gone through the Scottish system who stay in the Scottish system but end before 6th year that are really impacted. If you use AH and A level to compare, I'm not sure that there is really any impact.

If you look at English Uni entry and they want to look below what A levels an applicant has then they are looking at what GCSE passes pupils gained at age 16 (ish), that seems too far a stretch, if looking at lower level passes for a Scottish pupil then they have Higher passes to look at and to an extent I should imagine that Nat 5s passed at also age 16 ish will be broadly irrelevant.

I think that saying that National 4s or National 5s are higher level than GCSEs is unrealistic. And there is no comparison between Highers and A'level. Anyone who thinks that 16 year olds or even 17 year olds in Scotland are working at the same level as 18 year olds in England is misguided IMO.
We moved from England to supposedly a very good school in Scotland, and have been very struck by how much lower the standards are. They are miles behind in maths, for instance. The whole atmosphere is very relaxed, no homework to speak of, no ability setting, no problem if you want to take holiday in term time, children shouldn't be tested or judged on their results because it demoralises them, etc etc. I've heard the same from other parents who've moved their children into the Scottish system. And Scotland is well below England in the international league tables.

I don't want my DD to study broadly only up to S3 level. She won't learn much in that length of time. I want her to study broadly up to age 16. We are doing it by taking languages out of the mix. Languages are so badly taught in the UK anyway, she can learn them much more effectively at home. I can also teach her the history that I think is most important. So in those subjects there is added value to learning at home. It's hard work though.

No one is comparing higher to A level. They are comparing AH to A level.

boodle - with every post you seem more and more confused or just bloody minded.

No-one has compared Nat 4s to GCSE.

Can I suggest that if you are really so unhappy with the Scottish system that you go private in Scotland since some of the private schools run on the English system or return to england or return your daughter to relatives in England?

You have the choice of bigger variety at a lower level in England to age 16 and then narrowed completely between 16 and 18 or in Scotland, broad education to 15, narrowed down for 16, narrowed again at 17 (so wider than english 17 year old) and then narrowed to the same for 18.

Do you actually understand the levels at all?

Thought this was meant to be a support thread Last years one was really helpful!

I agree Groovee - sorry for the arguing. We all know that there are issues with the CfE but the system is what it is and we just need to support our DC through it.

I'm not arguing that one system is better than the other btw, just trying to explain how it works.