Dumbed down national exams? What do older people think?

[Lucia39]

To get an A* pass for GCSE English Literature now requires a mere 56%!

How do those old enough to have taken 'O' levels feel about this?

Is the Government right and are 16-18 year olds getting brighter year on year? Or have the powers-that-be simply dumbed down the GCSEs and 'A' levels thereby allowing candidates who would have failed 'O' levels (i.e. not gained a grade C) to now believe they are actually competent in their subjects?

some results

This is a school local to me which I know is pretty good - just was interested to have a look - strings of A & A* all over the shop judging by that! Going to see if I can get their results going back a few years...

NB It's not my old school I'm a girl!

Ok that's not going to get us anywhere, I can't find results from say 15 years ago and as far back as I can find they got all As as well...

Strike my previous post from the record!

When I think back to the time of the dinosaurs in the eighties when we were all sitting our Highers, very very few of my classmates got straight A's - and this was one of the top state schools in Scotland. The few that did were exceptionally bright, going onto top universities. Nowadays it appears that straight A's are very common.

Most get all A/A*s' at my DCs 'top' grammar school but I think that gives me a false perspective on what is achieved in an 'average' school but perhaps I am wrong...

But I don't think that most got A/A* at the same schools 20 years ago...

I can't find any tables or graphs or anything, either by school or nationally which is a bit odd. My googling abilities obviously aren't a*!!

But then that's just full circle to where this all started isn't it

I haven't read the entire thread, so apologies for any repetition, but I used to think that exams weren't easier in the olden days However, I found the OCR website and looked at some exam papers. I looked at the papers for GCSE and A Level German and I couldn't believe how damn easy it was, compared to what I'd studied.

www.ocr.org.uk/pastpapermaterials/pastpapers/

Another piece of empirical evidence: my DD (YR7) is apparently working at GCSE level in Science. Now, I know she's a bright kid, but in all fairness, I don't think she'd be capable of a GSCE yet.

Yes, my yr 8 is the same but it is not because he is incredibly bright (he is well above average though but not what I would term 'genius' level....), it is because the GCSEs aren't very hard.

For GCSE music (and i know its the case for other subjects - i think physics was highlighted in the press last week) we get loads of contextual questions nowadays eg "Why is there an introduction in a waltz?", "Why does this music work well for a horror film" (Answer - and yes this really is worth a mark -(Waltz) so people can get together with their partners and (Horror) because it has high stabbing sounds which sounds like someone is being killed).I dug out some CSE papers from 1979 the other day and the questions were about the cadences, analysing melodic lines etc..

bagsforlife. If you wish to make allegations about other members - check your facts first!

Good manners would suggest a private message to the person in order to establish if your suspicions are correct. The fact that I have posted on, and indeed started, other threads is hardly contrary to the rules is it? Or does one require the approbation of particular board users first?

I have dug out an old school magazine of the alma mater that contains the 1980 'O' level results detailed person by person as the total number and the number of 'A's.. This was a highly competative direct grant grammar school (effectively 50% very selective state and 50% independent).

Of a year group of 63, just two got straight 'A's (11 each). 17 got seven or more 'A's. About 10 went on to Oxbridge and the year group was considered to be 'an exceptional year' for the school.

I've checked the 2008 results for the same school (now a fairly high ranked independent) from their website.

40% of grades awarded were As and 74% A or As

The 2008 year group size was 91 and of those:

7 achieved A grades in all their subjects (with the top one getting 12.5 As)

34 gained A* or A grades in all their subjects.

There are a lot of variables here - not least with the school changing status somewhere down the line, but the results have improved a lot, whether due to dumbing down, better teaching or smarter kids or some combination of the three.

I srill think a better question is whether the exams are fit for purpose.

Whether they are harder/easier doesn't really matter if they do what they are supposed to do.

But they don't do they. If everyone has straight As then how do you tell who is truly exceptional. To prove you're truly exceptional now you must have to do loads of extra stuff - wheras in our day a lot of the time the grades spoke for us.

That is a huge amount of additional pressure.

It's fair to say they don't discriminate all that well at the top end of the ability spectrum, but they are far, far better at the mid to lower end than O-levels ever were and so arguably benefit more people than they fail.

I like the way that today's children do more GCSEs, AS levels & A levels than we used to which presumably is really only possible as they are easier. I think it's good to have a broader range of subjects for longer.

It's also good to do 'extra stuff' as you put it. I think it's excellent that more children are doing things like community service, musical instruments and sport etc. rather than just work, work, work.

I know this makes me seem as though I'm very pro todays exams, but I'm really just playing devils advocate and trying to see some positives. I'm not at all impressed with what's happened to science & think it will not do the nation any favours in terms of generating top quality scientists for the future - languages are quite depressing too, although, because as a nation we've never been too great at generating linguists, it doesn't bother me as much.

As far as universities not being able to discriminate between applicants goes, I don't think the problems are insurmountable. Back in the 'old days' Oxford & Cambridge had separate entrance exams and almost all universities interviewed candidates so they didn't rely on just grades even then.

But these days it's simply impossible to interview all the university candidates, I think. There are simply so very many more of them. I know that Oxford and Cambridge still interview a lot of people but loads of others don't or can't.

That's true snorkle I suppose I was only really thinking about the top end of the scale, and how it must be enormous pressure to have to get straight A/A* and excel at an instrument and be tri-lingual and be able to debate pholosophical points etc etc. Of course it's nice to do extra stuff but if it's simply to differentiate yourself from the crowd it becomes even more work and pressure.

I would have thought they could have a marking system which acknowledged all levels of achievement without this sort of getting everyone squished towards the top effect that we are seeing.

Well, I think those students who are truly outstanding do tend to do all those extra things anyway because they need to stretch themselves and want to learn more! They don't find it a 'chore'. They also show their true colours at interview being able to discuss subjects at a higher level with no trouble etc. They are just naturally inquisitive and bright and it shows through I would think.

There must be a problem with the universities that don't interview with a huge range in ability between the straight A grades at A level (and GCSE).

I don't know - the middle class pushing doesn't stop really. Turored for this and that, having to do these activities and do the exams for them etc. Yes the truly exceptional will always shine, but the merely very good might need to put in a hell of a lot more work than they used to.

Just a feeling though - no firsthand experience of any of this!

But I think it should only be the truly exceptional who DO get to go to the very top universities, but that doesn't mean I think only the 'pushy middle classes' for want of a better word!

That's a whole new discussion though, and there are plenty of admissions tutors who will tell us that they can spot tutored/coached students a mile off which is brilliant and fair.

If the exams were harder, only the best would get the top grades. Many mediocre students who now get As as their schools have perfected the exam technique would not get the top grade. You should have to be exceptional to get the top grade as it was in the Olden Days.

There aren't enough truly exceptional people to fill the top universities though!

My cousins went to cambridge and so did my dad and yes they are all bright but I wouldn't say exceptional. The cousins certainly did the activities thing like billy-o and were more or less locked away from the outside world.

In my time at university I wouldn't say I met anyone truly exceptional...

Maybe i have very high standards

I didn't get any A-levels but got a 1st OU degree?

Is that exceptional?

Forgot to add, I got it in 3yrs whilst working full time.

My DH went to Oxford. He says at undergraduate level you get spoon fed.

He now lectures in one of the top 5, and says he spoon feeds and gets told to give out firsts to student he thinks don't have a clue because it counts against the uni if he doesn't.

You didn't get spoonfed at Oxford when I was there; you were left to get on with it and a lot of undergraduates were completely at sea. It was a harsh system, perhaps too harsh.

No wonder the Chinese will take over the world--no coddling there!

There are too many multiple choice 'exams'.

There are too many results based on course work.

Excellence is no longer valued.

Students do not 'read around the subject'. they read what they need to to pass the exam.

Maths papers are shockingly easy.

There are too many 'soft' subjects being taken - no issues with students being able to take art or drama, but when DS was doing his GSCE's several of his friends were taking art and drama and film studies, but no sciences, no languages, obviously opting for the easy subjects. And yes, GCSE drama is easier than GCSE physics.

Gahhhh

Perhaps it depended on the tutor abraid. DH has studied at LOTS of universities and he said undergraduate Oxford was the least hard work.

Apart from the fact that parents do it, surely coursework, or regular assessment is a much better way of learning and marking than a one-off exam that you can know nothing about until 2 days before sitting it and then sit up all of the night before, pass the exam and then instantly forget everything?