Old letter and new number GCSEs

[lljkk]

DD was told today that the new grade 7 will correspond to the current/ old A* (in science, anyway).

Now I know someone will say the 2 exams are different, apples and pears, but as much as you can find rough equivalents, is that about right? Future 7 = today's A*?

However, I don't think we currently struggle to find high achievers as we also routinely receive raw scores in AS and set pre tests and ask for essays and interview...

I think using admission to Cambridge as a driver for the requirements in the GCSE system is the very small tail wagging the very large dog. The GCSE system does not exist for the benefit of two universities who have special provision in UCAS timelines in order to do their own completely different admission process.

It seems mad that we're ever pushing. Surely the fact they've received a general education (aka australia/america) be enough. Why keep on pushing like this?!

Especially when half the students aren't managing a grade c - why the obsession wtih the top few percent in an exam.

ricardian I didn't say that Oxbridge admissions should drive anything .

In fact I was saying the opposite. That Oxbridge manages okay at present.

New, more well defined grading might help further. But as I say, I have concerns that some students will be disadvanatged by schools not covering the grade 8/9 material (which will be an internal decision).

Sorry Moves I didn't mean to imply you did: you were pointing out how you solve the problem, and I was agreeing with you.

But admission to selective universities was trailed by Gove as being a key driver for this, but as you say, you (and we in the RG) manage just fine with the current system.

And any university which asks for 8/9 will be having a conversation with Sir Les, anyway, for the reasons you do.

for the reasons you do.

for the reasons you say.

Fair dos .

I've git to be honest, I've got a sinking feeling about the changes to GCSE coupled with the decoupling of AS.

I can see the potential to disadvantage a lot of students. Not taught to 8/9 grade and no AS to offer...None of it remotely related to their ability.

I can see the potential to disadvantage a lot of students.

Indeed. It'll be like BTEC: students in smoother schools study the qualifications selective universities want, while students elsewhere are excluded from even applying by factors they can't control.

Currently, IELTS uses the 1-9 scale.

Cambridge University asks for at least 7.5 in IELTS. RG universities mostly ask for 7.0. It's really quite difficult to get higher than 7.5. People aren't getting all worked up about this. I think that in the UK we have got to a situation where far, far too many students get "top" grades and we need a culture shift to a situation where top grades are only ever awarded to the truly exceptional student.

People aren't getting all worked up about this.

There is no access issue whatsoever around IELTS: Les Ebdon is not tasking universities with ensuring widening opportunities amongst overseas students. It's completely different when government funding (because without the underlying crown guarantee the SLC would collapse immediately) is being used to provide educational opportunities. Were places in RG universities become skewed towards small subsets (demographically) of UK taxpayers' children then overall legitimacy of government funding of higher education would be called into serious question. Any university which runs a significant number of courses which are not accessible by students in the mainstream state system risks serious questions being asked, questions which impact on their ability to charge fees.

Fair enough, but that's an entirely different point to the one I was making ;)

Currently 3.1% of students get an A in English Language. If the 9 is awarded to the top 3%, then pretty much everyone who would have got an A will get a 9.

But in Additional Maths, currently 24.8% of entries get an A, so only an eighth of people who would have got an A will get a 9. This isn't because Additional Maths is easy, but because it is hard. Only a small pool of the brightest candidates will even sit the exam.

How can a 9 therefore mean anything when its value is dependent on the ability of the cohort who sit the exam?

As an even more dramatic example of your "what about subjects with very low rates of high grades", 0.6% of those taking Single Award Science got A*, and 5.6% got an A. If you can get a 9 for being in the top 3%, that would cover down to probably a third of the people that got A. The same's true, pretty much, for Leisure and Tourism, Manufacturing, Hospitality, Engineering, Health and Social care and the rest of the GCSEs taken by a much weaker cohort where, for perfectly good reasons, the rate of top grades is very low.

At the other extreme, Latin and Greek together have other 60% of the cohort getting A or above, with 37% getting A*.

Yes, grading on the curve, in the manner of 1970s A Levels, will prove to be rather tricky if you want to maintain even the semblance of grades having equivalent demand over subjects.

noblegiraffe - won't the 1-9 scale do away entirely with the need for a separate Additional Maths exam?

I don't know, Bobo. The new GCSE is harder, but it doesn't replace additional maths- there's no calculus for example.

And the A-level will be getting harder too so there may still be a gap that will need bridging.

Oh, OK.