Fascinating Archive - were O-Levels really harder?

[HPFA]

This:

www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/our-research/archives-service/past-exam-material/maths/

An archive of old exam papers -the link is to Maths but other subjects to the left.

As 1984 was two years after I did O-Levels this is particularly interesting for me. The paper did bring back memories of how I could sort of do some of it. (Got a C). I'm amazed at how difficult the 1957 paper is - is it just the different measurements and currency used which makes it seem harder? If noble has time to look at it her perspective would be very interesting.

Should provide plenty of scope for discussion. A-Level and GCSE papers also have links.

For A star candidates it was 1.49 out of 3.

And yet every child in the top set of year 6 at my DC's school could do it. (Note that they had been taught algebra as part of preparing for 11+ Common Entrance so were not afraid of expression involving abstract variables. The Common Entrance papers are also quite a lot more challenging that the old L6 maths papers.)

I do think it is revealing that many of the A star candidates could not do what was a fairly simple question. This weakness very much aligns with the weaknesses that we see in many of our university maths students - they know individual topics but they cannot put them together to solve problems they haven't seen before.

The national average score on Hannah's sweets for higher tier candidates was 0.2 out of 3 marks.

Interesting. Does that reflect a significant proportion of children sitting higher rather than foundation to get a C via fewer correct answer etc?

I saw the entire paper and IIRC the only other tricky one was a cylinder-cone solid geometry thing. Do you know what the average was for that?

And yet every child in the top set of year 6 at my DC's school could do it.

DD was in a comp Y7 top set at the time of the 'furore' and she figured it out between probability from primary and algebra from earlier in Y7.

Single-form set-free state primary wouldn't go beyond L6, so she did next to no algebra until secondary. Back in Y5, especially in light of the DfE-commissioned report on L6, it looked like she might have to do L6 topics again at secondary, so anything upstream of it seemed like a bad idea. Secondary were OK though, tested/verified the top set's L6-ness and went from there.

yet every child in the top set of year 6 at my DC's school could do it

How do you know?
I don't have any experience of the common entrance exam but I wonder if the schools that use it are then being presented in Y7 with kids who can do conditional probability, solve quadratic equations, represent problems algebraically and rearrange algebraic fractions, then what exactly do they do with them for the next 5 years?

the only other tricky one was a cylinder-cone solid geometry thing. Do you know what the average was for that?

0.39 out of 5. 2.17 out of 5 for A* candidates. Those two questions where the 3rd and 4th worst answered questions. The worst answered were a single mark question on indices and a single mark transformations of graphs questions.

For my Maths GCSE, do they still get formula sheets for stuff like measuring the volumes of cones and spheres and so on? I was not impressed we got those, on account of being the smug swotty type who knew them all anyway, though these days, it's only 2(pi)r and pi(r)sqrd that I can remember.

(My phone has no mathematical notation on it.)

Nope. No formulas any more.

Yes, there are formulae given, but not as a formula sheet. If the formula for the volume of a cone is needed in a question, it will be given as part of the question.

The formulae which won't be given and need to be learned are here:
qualifications.pearson.com/content/dam/pdf/GCSE/mathematics/2015/misc/gcse-maths-formulae-sheet-a5.pdf

I don't have any experience of the common entrance exam

Likewise, but I just Googled my way to an IESB common entrance 11+ syllabus and a specimen paper. At a glance there's nothing different or obviously more difficult from the SATs L5/6 content that DD had. Algebra is the same very, very basic formula stuff. Couldn't see probability which L6 did have (DD was taught conditional at the same time, but might not have been required for the exam).

Perhaps they were preparing for the 11+ with the 13+.

How do you know?

Because DC was in that set and DC/teacher told me that question had been given to set, all kids could solve it.

Noble, there was no solving of quadratic equations needed to do this question.

Older CE 11+ papers are harder - and this is the ones they practiced on. Newer ones are indeed not particularly different to KS2.

user the full question requires you to solve the quadratic.

A class teacher saying that their whole class could solve a problem is not the same as that class being able to do that question in an exam scenario. Teachers give prompts, kids work together, the kid who doesn't have a clue looks at his neighbour's work and so on.

Alternatively you could acknowledge that these kids have been taught in a way that encourages them to think beyond standard, repetitive questions. (BTW my impression was that the question was done at the end of a test, so under exam conditions, not working together.)

There has been a huge problem with the repetitive nature of maths questions from KS1 through to KS5. It has had a hugely negative effect on maths students entering university over the last decade or so. The fact that so many A star students could not do this question is an illustration of this issue.

BTW since the original thread is about O levels: when I was in prep school, Common Entrance Maths at 13+ was around the same level as O level Maths. The Scholarship papers at 13+ were beyond O level. Top sets in Maths would typically take O level at 14 or 15, and then do A O level at 15/16.

This changed for my cohort, as O levels had been replaced by GCSE and there was no equivalent of A O level (AS wasn't available). We spent our time doing maths that wasn't on the GCSE syllabus e.g. linear algebra, topics in statistics, probability theory, game theory.

what exactly do they do with them for the next 5 years?

Surely you wouldn't expect them to keep things super-slow just so they don't get too far ahead of where the curriculum wants them to be?

At my son's school (state grammar, not super-selective), they finished the GCSE syllabus at the end of year 9 which they started at the start of year 7. (Not to say they were all up to top grades at higher GCSE standard at end of year 9, but they'd had the lessons covering it all).

In year 10, they start to introduce aspects of further maths and A level work. From what I can gather, they concentrate on the A level and further maths topics that are complimentary to the GCSE work, so basically trying to cover all eventualities that may creep into the GCSE, and giving pupils alternative ways of ending up with the same result to broaden their ability. So basically, lots more of the same, but with "twists", so they're compounding their existing knowledge by lots of repetition as you'd expect, but avoiding the boredom factor by finding new angles (pardon the pun) in all kinds of way. One of their favourite test questions is to give a typical GCSE question, but asking for 2 or 3 different methods of working out the answer.

Quite refreshing actually in a time where the system is criticised for teaching to answer exam questions rather teaching subject knowledge, as this school is doing the latter, i.e. letting the pupils explore different angles to really broaden their core knowledge and understanding. Basically, it's got time on its hands so is able to take the subject further and wider than the core curriculum requires.

Then in year 11, the top two sets start further maths lessons in earnest as they take the further maths GCSE alongside the higher GCSE at the end of year 11. (At the moment, that is still the plan even with the changes).

But my school does that too (further maths GCSE in Y11 top 2 sets and so on) and we aren't presented with kids in Y7 who have already been taught A/A* stuff.

I get the idea of enriching at KS4, but to me it seems odd to buy the time to enrich at KS4 by cramming KS4 into in primary. Why not enrich at primary?

Is there more to that Hannah's Sweets question, because the bit posted here is really quite easy. All you have to do is translate the words in to maths and then rearrange the equation. Plus the numbers are really obvious, so you can see where you're headed quite quickly.

I've not done o levels, a levels or GCSEs (grew up abroad) so this is quite fascinating.

There was a part b, but that 3 marks was for the part a in the image that @noble posted.

'Easy' is relative.This is a MN education forum and a thread about differences in exams where you just seriously contemplated a maths question discussed in a few of the posts. That probably puts you above the 90th percentile.

I didn't think it was that easy! I was quite pleased with myself for working it out
I genuinely think most adults I know would struggle with it.

I thought the Hannah's sweets question was badly worded. There was another one about crossing a river which also had people flummoxed.

Are 6th form colleges much better?
Or same behaviour/ lack of teacher problems?
And I mean big state / catholic ones.

Wrong thread. Opps