Dumbing down of A levels?

[Happygardening]

My DH went to St Paul's boys a long time ago admittedly but it has always been very very selective. He reckons when he was there out of 150 boys only about 15 (10%) got three A's at A level and those boys were considered to be unbelievably bright often boarding on the dysfunctional. Allowing for poor memory on his part lets say 25 got three A's so how can this be accounted for; FT Secondary School 2011 Percentage A/S you will need to search it as I don't know how to link it directly on here! Apparently 94% of the boys got A/A's although their web site states its only a mere 89%. No one is going to convince me that a levels have not been dumbed down.

And the fact that I was responding to pushydad's comment has been entirely overlooked.

I really hate it when people pick something entirely out of context and then start arguing with something that no-one has actually said.

noble I think the increasing modularity has a lot to do with the drop out rate too. Maths was the first modular A-level at my school and although I started it as a full A level I dropped it to an AS after the first year as I had other things to do (driving test, D of E leader, cadets, scouting, multiple music things etc etc - pretty normal teen!) and by that point I knew it wouldn't count towards my offer for medical school.

FWIW my offer was ABB not including general studies (all to be taken in one sitting) and I got it, exactly (plus gen studies and maths AS). I left school in 1997; there is no medical school making that offer now, but I am involved in teaching the students coming through. Specific subject wise their knowledge is fine, but lacking in gumption.

well for a scientist SQ your arguments aren't very rigorous.

It's not wildly unlikely that children today are much brighter, it's documented that they are a little brighter, and probably caused by a mechanism you ignored, so of course people are going to say so.

Your degree example isn't really comparing like with like. OU degree (designed to be accessible to someone with no previous quals and studied part time) isn't the same as a bricks university degree either from years ago or today. Also, doing something with years more experience behind you is bound to skew your perceptions a little. Ds did some Physics modules with OU last year and while in some respects they were easy compared to my Oxbridge physics degree from back in the day, in other respects they weren't. I was very impressed with the quality of materials (the presentation itself made the subject material easier to learn in fact), breadth of the course and the fact that every aspect of it was assessed in some way (which wasn't true for my degree at all). I'm told it's only at L3 where the modules begin to be of comparable difficulty.

gelatinous, pushydad said that in his opinion children now are much brighter than they were 30 years ago. I was responding that I thought that was not true.

You are really taking issue with that?

I just took issue with that particular sentence SQ because it was extremely strongly worded and seems to be very sensible and obvious but there's a load of evidence that strongly suggests that it's not actually true, and that the children of today have (on average) brains that can do certain things noticeably better than their grandparents could. The effect is such that our grandparents cohort would have been classified as mentally defective, and I know that sounds mad, and I know that Darwinian evolution doesn't work at that speed, but just saying it can't be true regardless of the number of experiments that say so is not an acceptable answer.

I didn't take issue with the rest of your post because I don't object to any of it, I suspect that there has been grade inflation and dumbing down (though I don't have enough experience to make a judgement either way) but you can't completely dismiss the possibility that children now are also more intelligent than they used to be unless you have a good way to explain away the evidence that they are - not without surrendering any claim on the scientific mindset.

Yellowstone agreed that my DH premise that only 10% got A's is possibly incorrect but I think 15- 20% is the maximum who got A's, I am not just relying on his memeory but mine as well as we have been together since we were teenagers. A's were definitely the exception and not the rule.
St Pauls has always has a long history or academic excellence I remember when league tables first started being published St Pauls was at the top then and has a history of vying with Westminster for the top slot. It lacked/lacks the social cachet of Eton, Westminster and maybe Win Coll and made its reputation on academic excellence instead. Reading all the fascinating posting I wonder if its expectations both parental and from the school as much as anything else. I'm sure all who send their children to St Pauls etc are assuming that their children will get A;s as a minimum as are the school. When you combine this with the changes in teaching style exam format text books and all the other factors mentioned above perhaps it is not surprising that schools like St Pauls with its history facilities, teaching staff small classes and pushy parents are achieving what they are.

One particular sentence which could have been worded better and was clearly talking about pushydad's ideas about children being noticeably and obviously brighter than they were 30 years ago.

If people are evolving to be cleverer then 30 years is not the right timescale for it.

OK SQ, how do you explain the Flynn effect then?

(and three exclamation marks are not just careless wording, it's clearly a key assertion)

FGS this is what I was talking about

" It is wildly unlikely that children now are far brighter than when we were young! "

Do you think that it is not wildly unlikely?

I am really not sure why the bit deal about this. If people think that children are far brighter now than 30 years ago that's fine, come out and say it. The tone of my post was clearly conversational - hence all the exclamation marks!!!!!!!! I have said that it could have been worded better but the whole point of what I was saying was that I simply do not believe that children today are far brighter than they were 30 years ago. And I do not think that anyone is actually disagreeing with that - or are they?

I think the change to AS/A2 with retakes available has made a difference, too. When I did my A levels it was one exam, at the end of two years. Now, there is the potential to retake, plus the modular aspects of the course mean you don't have to retain so much information at once (although there are synoptic questions at A2).

I'm disappointed at some of the things they've removed from the syllabus - I liked teaching the kidney at A level, and dihybrid crosses in genetics - both gone.

Yes SQ, it's wildly unlikely, it's hugely hugely implausible. But there's a shedload of evidence that it's true. So why is that?

What evidence is there to show that children today are far brighter than they were 30 years ago?

I've just briefly read a little about the Flynn effect it would appear that the improvement of approx. three points a decade is primarily concentrated in the lower scoring categories and negligible in the higher scores. So if an A* is a true indicator of academic ability (i'm no saying it necessarily is by the way) and only achieved by those with high IQ scores then it would appear that the Flynn effect is not the cause.

not taking issue with that - just the evolution bit. As Dilys said it sounds plausible, but it seems it's not the main mechanism for IQ increase.

For what it's worth I suspect exams are easier these days (though I think increased grades these days depends on far more contributary factors than just that and that people tend to overstate the degree of dumbing down), but I'd like to see hard evidence for it and not anecdotal examples or gut reactions.

I have to go out now.

Also this statement is a bit odd

"The effect is such that our grandparents cohort would have been classified as mentally defective"

Measured how, exactly? Taking into account maternal nutrition, childhood disease, loads of children not going to school or leaving very young, different education methods, childhood nutrition etc etc etc and all the rest of it.

Yes SQ all the reasons you stated are probable mechanisms - that's the point - IQ is not determined at birth by genetics, hence noticeable improvements at population level can happen within very short timescales.

MrsJAP universities are tracking the progress of those awarded A* in 2010 and that cohort won't graduate until 2013.

There's been a marked increase in universities making A offers for entry in 2012 but I think a great deal of thought is also being given to how A offers will affect the progress made in relation to inclusivity.

I personally think that demands for A in a specific Arts subject (such as Durham's new stipulation for A in History for its History course) could backfire and lose departments very talented students.

Happygardening would anyone on these boards characterise the parent body of St. Paul's, Westminster, Winchester and the few other schools with similar scores as anything other than ruthlessly competitive? It's the nature of the beast, surely?

Yes I suspect many parents are "ruthlessly competitive" and for schools like St Paul's most will have been like this since their DC were at pre prep. This must be an influencing factor in explaining their extraordinary results but it is not the whole picture.

No, the single most important factor is the level of selectivity at entry stage. Same with SPGS and Westminster. Hence the slightly less stellar results at Winchester and Eton. It's not rocket science :)

I really can't believe that St Paul's school is in any way driving national statistics. It would surely be more useful to focus on what happens in a "bog standard" comprehensive school or sixth form college?

Its not driving it but I was interested in people views on dumbing down of A levels.
Yellowstone the chap in charge of admissions at St Pauls told us that those who were academically suitable for Win Coll were suitable for St Pauls. Some boys I spoke to a few years ago at Win Coll thought that the boys at St Pauls were expected to work harder particularly in their holidays. I'm not sure what they would say now but maybe thats one of the factors.

The A is probably going to end up being a disaster for social mobility: independent schools are going to hog an even higher proportion of Sutton Trust 13 university places, if more universities ask for A in their offer.

agree with the better teaching suggestion
My ds1 is doing A level Maths and Physics etc and is woring bloody hard thorughout the holidays inorder to achieve an A grade
He can however, retake his ealrier modules as well and I think this helps.
The students today do exams in year 12 and 13 and if they need to retake a modle they can. It is not an all or nothing schinario like it was when I was doing mine

Are students in independent schools cleverer than state school pupils?