How 'hard' are GCSEs compared with 'O' levels?

[ProperLush]

And yes, how long is a piece of string??!

This is why I ask:

• Obviously because I don't know, or maybe I should say 'am less sure' than I was

• I just finished watching 'Educating Essex' and, tbh, was rather surprised about the number of DCs who appeared to have a limited idea about what their subject was about, yet they were shown passing the GCSE (memorably: 'What is pi? WHERE did it come from?'); and the drifting, troubled truants seem to be getting 5 to 7 GCSEs.

• My slightly aggrieved friend who has 2 x DDs in uni and a struggling Y10 DS (and who herself has 13 'O' levels) was at pains to tell me GCSEs aren't easier, they're 'different' BUT then said there is no need to remember the whole syllabus. You break the subject into small chunks, learn that chunk, sit a module in it, then resit til you get the right mark. That sounds very different to me! For a start in my similarly aged social circle, the non fellow-HCP one, I am often, well, surprised at how few have any 'O' levels or even more than a clutch of GCSEs if they're younger which leads me to believe that 'O' levels were a different beast entirely to GCSEs

This isn't an 'exams were far harder than in my day' rant. But they do appear to be different!

I have been tying myself in knots about my DS2, Y6 who to my mind, is not academic. He 'passed' his KS1 SATS and I'm told should 'pass' his KS2s if he 'keeps progressing as he is now'. In my opinion that either means the school is a bit deluded or the 'pass' level is lamentably low! MY 'target' as his parent was to help him get '5 GCSEs at A-C including Eng and Maths'. Of course, that goal post has now shot off around the pitch; it's now the Eng Bacc. I'd think I was realistic enough to recognise that the MFL component may prove too much for DS2 but then I think, 'Actually, I am comparing the degree of difficulty with an 'O' level, but that may not in fact be the case. Maybe DS2 will 'walk' a reasonable clutch of GCSEs as they are 'easier' if only because of the 'small bit of knowledge then test, and resit if necessary' approach'.

I am wondering if the fact the uninterested, gobby, non attending, slightly gormless, or at least appearing to not have grasped the basics of their subject Y11s are getting a good slew of GCSEs whether I need not fear for my quiet, attentive, well behaved DS2!

WDYT?

GCSEs are marked and the graded according to how well the individual student does.

O Levels were marked and then graded depending on how well everyone else did.

If you get 90% on a GCSE paper you get an A* grade, get 90% in an O Level and you could get anything from an A-C, depending on other peoples' marks.

Only the top 20% of students were entered for O Levels, the next 20% were entered for CSE.

When GCSEs were brought in A-C were the same as A-C O Level with grade 1 CSE being equivelant to a grade C, grades D - G were graddes 2- 5 CSE.

When GCSE was brought in the majority of people left school without any qualifications.

Are they easier - maybe, are they easier to pass, yes.

Aha! Soap box coming up.
GCSEs are structured like KS3 sats, I have lately discovered, at least they certainly are in Maths!
I found quite recently that what I had suspected for a long time was true - a Maths GCSE nowadays is composed of 50% low demand work (level C and D) 20 to 25% mid demand (level B) and only 25 to 30% high demand (A and A*). The mark boundaries do not even follow this - to get an A you only need to have done the low demand and less than half the mid demand and got it right. To get a C (a pass!) you only need to get 23.5% or above right - less than a quarter of the paper, and obviously,only at level D to C level.
I was shocked.
I have found a link to a site called www.xtremepapers.com/
which gives you not just papers, but mark schemes and even how the examiners are supposed to mark questions and their comments!
Thus, I discovered that for french gcse they are allowed to accept all manner of incorrectly spelt and grammatically incorrect answers!

No wonder children get GCSEs in languages when they can't speak a word of it!
I had known for ages that KS3 sats were like this, as I downloaded them all from another website.
Whatever level your child does, there are the same questions - ie, level six in a 4-6 paper is the same as level 6 in a 6-8 paper.
Now I know this is how the Maths GCSE works to a certain extent - ie the Higher Tier paper consists of more than half lower tier work!
It is possible for a child who knows up to level 6 in Maths, for example, really well, to be able to be awarded a level 7 without having even attempted the work for it, if put in to a Level 5 to 7 or 6 to 8 test.
So a child that knows up to level C work in Maths could do the Higher Tier paper instead of the Foundation Tier, and if he or she knows the work inside out, be awarded a B without having done any B level questions or work.
I am pretty sure this is not just in Maths. It must be the pattern throughout.
So, I would say that yes, to get an A* probably still requires your child to be fairly competent (although the Maths questions at that level don't seem to be quite so long and complicated as I remember my O level ones being) and has to get above 81%, but any grade below that seems hardly worth the paper it's written on.
Sorry, but I think that's a fact.
I only had a grade 4 O level for Maths (when 1 to 6 was a pass as I am THAT old) but I would have absolutely NO trouble with a Higher Tier Maths GCSE now, and I am CERTAIN I would get an A*.
I home educate my son, we are at year 8 level now, about to move onto the Year 9 books, so I haven't done everything yet, but I have looked at the papers, and to be honest, HE could get a level C right now. If not a B. So it can't be THAT hard!
How many kids did we hear about in the days of O levels that got Maths O levels at age eleven? We hear about them all the time nowadays.
ARe they cleverer than we were? I don't think so.
ARe the exams easier? Take a look at them.

There was no grade 4 level for o'level maths, it was CSEs that were graded numerically . O'levels were graded A-E.

I apologize I found out that pre 1975 it was numerical

I am pretty sure this is not just in Maths. It must be the pattern throughout.

Maths is fairly unique in how it is levelled. Each topic in maths is graded, so solving a basic quadratic by factorising is grade B, solving a more complicated quadratic which requires the quadratic formula or completing the square is A*. So in maths, the questions are graded whereas in something like history, it's the answers (e.g. in history an open question can give an answer which is C grade, to get an A more historical detail needs to be given or a comparison to another situation - I'm guessing as I don't teach history, but in maths an answer is correct or not - to go up a grade you need to answer a harder question).

Maths is also a spiral curriculum, each year builds on the previous knowledge. Yes your DS could get a C in Y8/9 (roughly level 7). He needs to be of that standard if he wants to get an A/A* in Y11.

I've just googled the entry requirements for my old university course.
1986 I was asked for BBc
Now they want AAA

My old Uni, for the easiest similar degree to mine want ABB; in my day it was CCC, and I got in with BCE!

Bruffin, YES, I am THAT old! My sister did her O levels in 1976 and was graded A to C, but I was graded 1 to 6 (9 for my latin O level, but I didn't care about that much).
noblegiraffe - my DS is Year 6. He has already done several GCSE papers. He has no trouble whatsoever with the Foundation Papers and can work quite a way through the Higher Tier ones. I don't let him attempt topics he has not yet covered, but he is definitely already into B territory.
He is bright, but he's not THAT bright. I don't think he SHOULD be able to do Higher Tier Maths at age just eleven. The fact that he can, and he is NOT a child genius by any means, indicates to me that the level is pathetically low.
I would LOVE to be able to say that my child IS a genius, but I am not that deluded.

What I will say is that when a class of eleven year olds in Wales can sit GCSE Maths in Year 6 (no idea if this was just Foundation or not) then we should be getting seriously worried about our standards. Maybe one child in a few hundred should be able to do that, not six (I think it was) in one small welsh school.
BTW DS got nearly 100% on the Foundation Paper.
He should NOT be able to do that at age eleven.

He has no trouble whatsoever with the Foundation Papers and can work quite a way through the Higher Tier ones.

There is an overlap between foundation and higher papers so you would expect someone who can do the foundation paper to be able to do a lot of the higher paper.

A lot of maths teachers would agree with you about the amount of low-level content on the higher paper. Maths used to be three tier, foundation (up to a D) Intermediate (up to a B) and Higher (up to A). The old higher paper could be more rigorous as it didn't have to contain the lower level questions the new higher paper does so you were faced with more of the difficult content. The system was scrapped because people thought it unfair to cap foundation students at a level below a C. It was also suspected that A candidates could solve quadratic equations but not find percentages because they'd left that easy content behind years ago, and so that content needed to be assessed too. When the new tiering was introduced, students were losing their A* not because they got the hard stuff wrong, but because they got the easy stuff wrong.

Incidentally, your DS might be able to get 100% on the foundation paper at age 11, but this, (despite your opinion of him) is exceptional. I am teaching sixth formers now, some of whom are now sitting their third attempt at GCSE maths having failed to get a C twice previously on the foundation paper (roughly 75%). There needs to be a maths exam at Y11 which caters to their ability as well as to the ability of your DS. At the moment, I agree that the upper end are being short-changed, but not, IMO because the content isn't challenging enough, (there will always be those who go beyond that by Y11) but because there isn't enough of this challenging content on their exam.

My son is sitting mainly IGCSEs because many of his teachers believe there is too big a gap between GCSE and A level. No modules. Pretty well everything is examined at the end of year 11. More stress around then, but at least he's not constantly being examined.

I think we have done all our DCs a serious disservice with how we grade their academic success- and all success, really. I mean, that's why 'golf course management' became a degree course, fgs, because someone decided that it was unfair/unequal/degrading/whatevs to force a poor child to labour through life struggling beneath the shame and opprobrium of only having an HNC, or a City and Guilds. Shudder. Yes. I know, How can they be expected to shoulder that failure?.... And imagine having to admit to a Polytechnic degree!

You get my drift.

I also come from an era (O levels in 1978) where a 'C' grade at 'O' level meant you were understood to have a working, solid grasp of that subject, and everyone knew that you hadn't in any way, shape or form, 'cheated'. All externally marked, all get-it-right-on-the-day. No coursework, let alone homework done by mum! My uni A level requirements were BCC (Leeds).

Now anything less than an 'A' is seen as failure and the universities have no idea whether they're taking on a genuinely able student or not, and the students don't know if that course will stretch them or destroy them. Hence the ridiculous drop-out rates.

I agree with what muckingaround says re the standard of GCSE Maths if entire classes (albeit of 6 DCs) are passing it so young. OOI, my DS is in Y8 at a comp where 2 boys in his year have got an 'A' at A level maths.

Having now learned a lot more about GCSEs and having actually looked at the level of the work my work-colleagues DCs who are of the age are studying, I am also a tiny bit when parents tell us how their DD (it's practically always a DD!) is working far harder than they ever did at their GCSEs. I think they are mistaking 'hard' as in 'difficult, mind stretching, challenging, testing' work for 'transcribing today's lesson's sound-bite onto paper or a spell-checked laptop'. We are told they don't just learn the facts, they have to be able to make intelligent commentary regarding the facts. But then we note the facts around the topic they have had to actually 'learn' are minimal and that they have spent a lesson or even module being taught what to 'think' about those facts. The fact that the DCs spend night after night being trained, rather than 'educated' in this way is not to be mistaken for the graft of 'proper' learning.

ANYWAY, that is all by-the-by. I am 'encouraged' to feel my less academically able DS2 may get some GCSEs as they are not 'O' levels. I was beginning to believe that he stood 'no chance' even though he 'passed' his KS1 SATS and is apparently on track to pass his KS2 SATS (cf: the standards cannot be that high!).

We are doing the rounds of the 6th forms last night as DS is year 11. We were told that there is a very big step between GCSE and A level.
I wouldn't say my DS is working hard at all outside of school, but he apparently does work hard in class and nobody seems to notice that he doesn't do much revision and seems to be on track for his A/A* in every thing but MFL, but he has an spld and he struggles with learning long passages of text.

Do you think there'll be less so called lower worth degrees being done with the higher tuition fees coming in?
My son thinks the fees should be higher for the less intellectual subjects (an intellectual's opinion of course!) and lower for the degree subjects the country really needs - like maths and science I suppose!

Deffo easier no doubt about it

Absolutely, mucking. My hope is that other qualification providers, the one who were pushed out in Blair's Degrees for All push will step back in. I was encouraged to see quite widespread advertising for an apprenticeship expo in London a few weeks ago. Funnily enough a couple of months ago I asked this question (whether the fee increases will see a dramatic fall in applicants in the next couple of years) on here and the consensus was 'no'. I think that was for several reasons: Many parents on here hail from the 10 GCSEs each/ 'degrees for all' generation. Many are not at all debt averse with eye-watering mortgages and every credit card maxed out. Most wouldn't recognise a HND or a College of FE if they fell over it! It's degree, NVQ, BTec or nuffink. Sorry, I know I sound like the cynic I am... but I guess I come from a different generation (as having 'O' levels attests!) where only the academically very clever if not gifted went to university. Others went to Polytechnics to do Applied degrees, many did HND and Cs, lots went into banks to do in-house banking training (for which you needed A levels) and a goodly swag did a City and Guilds Apprenticeship.

My hope is that more groups will step into the breach and we will see 2 year, full time degrees (6 weeks holidays a year), more Technical colleges expanding their apprenticeship course provision and so forth. Companies will not be able to demand the qualification that is currently called 'a degree' for entry level as the number of degree holders will plummet.

Fees don't need to be 'higher' for 'less intellectual subjects'- supply and demand will make them disappear in time, to be studied at Tech where they belong. As for degree subjects the country really needs- well, the NHS already pays the tuition fees for many degree courses for HCPs- but I guess the feeling will be that the maths and science degree holders will already be able to step into better paid jobs to pay off their debt.

And the step from GCSE to A level does bother me. I wish my DS1 had the chance of doing some if not all IGCSEs Or is it IGCEs? Which may happen (though maybe not for his year group) if they are now going to include those in League tables as the private schools have kicked up such a stink!

I'm very proud of my profession not falling into the 'only degree route available' sales pitch. You can still become a qualified accountant through many routes, including degree and professional exams, but also through AAT and work routes coupled with the professional exams.

Indeed, Kez. Mine went from a professional diploma to a degree 12 odd years ago..

Some IGCSE's in this house, some gcse's. Having looked at both papers, the IGCSE Higher includes such topics as 'calculus' which is required at A level so a good IGCSE result would stand you in good stead at the start of A levels.

Also I think it proves a greter knowledge of a subject, because with exam only (lots of pressure to perform on the day) you don't have all this coursework going back and to until you get the A* for it, whihalthough good for some who are not exam minded, it does say you had alot of chances to get it right.

In Maths, in the above post

"Companies will not be able to demand the qualification that is currently called 'a degree' for entry level as the number of degree holders will plummet."

Some companies are getting ridiculous with their requirements nowadays.

Have two friends who children just graduated

1. A friends DC got a first in business from Kingston as well as worked in a marketing capacity during her degree. She got as far as a telephone interview (after 500 words online application)
   Interview was going well, then she was asked about her A'level results which were an A,B,C. She was then told that they had to terminate the interview as they required ABB

2. another who again got as far as a telephone interview, suddenly had his interview terminated as Exeter University was not good enough.

3. Fully qualified accountant got as far as a face to face interview. She was in her late 30s and years of experience, got asked in the middle of the interview what University she went to as it wasn't on her cv. She told them she hadn't been to university and they terminated the interview because "they only emply graduates"

DH did a proper old fashioned apprenticeship from the age of 15 and is now a qualified engineer, nowadays he would need to have a degree to have the same letters after his name.

I have one son doing a physics degree, and the other who left school at 16. The one who left school hasbeen working for years and is working his way up his chosen profession without even A levels, carried on by his own enthusiasm for the job, and by his inate intelligence.
Maybe DS2 will have a chance at a better job, but he'll also have a massive debt.
I have a friend whose daughter has a law degree. She applied for and got a job - out of TWO THOUSAND applicants. So, even with a good degree, it looks like jobs will be few and far between.
DS1 did think about going to university as a mature student, but changed his mind (luckily) as what would it have given him but a huge debt? He's better off staying in his job.

Bruffin, your stories are very dispiriting, and they suggest that some people have no idea how to recruit the best staff.

You'd have thought that recruiters would only bother with a telephone interview if the qualifications on the CV have passed muster.

And in what universe is Exeter not good enough? What on earth type of job was friend b) applying for?

Yes, employers are going to have to 'get real'. FWIW, it was always so: I left school in 1980 with 3 'A' levels and, having failed to get into my uni of choice ('Geography and Politics', anyone? ) and having a year up my sleeve, (I was 17) I decided to take a year out of education. It was the start of Maggie's Millions so I wasn't alone when I had to 'sign on' in a grotty office behind the bus station whilst I was waiting for a job to start, chamber-maiding and au-pairing in Germany (yes, that was back in the days when the Germans employed English girls to do their cleaning!)- I was sent for an 'interview' at the Polly Tea Rooms in Salisbury to be a waitress as they'd only consider 'grammar school girls with A levels'.

We may well not even go down the uni route with ours as sotries like Bruffins are the norm around here.

Apprenticeships or starting at the bottom and working your way up seems to be the better way these days.

(of course you still need to get that job at the bottom in the first place)