Just a thought, but when we took our O and A levels (in the dark ages of the mid-eighties), I believe we were marked down for bad spelling, grammar and punctuation. I know for a fact that these days, that is deemed less important, and exams and coursework are not downgraded accordingly.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Congratulations to our kids
Quote by foxylady2209
All the employers I have discussed this with (not many granted) are very clear. Anything less than a C is a fail.
What we need is a way of differentiating the 20% of kids all squashed into A and A*. A few more questions on teh paper - harder ones - wuld do it, you may need to extend the exams - but it's better than facing an employer or college with hundreds of kids with effectively the same result.
In at least one company I have worked for, grade was the first filter, handwriting was the next and spelling/grammar was the next. Not because it was critical to the job, but it was the only way to get through the hordes of applicants before they all gave up waiting and found jobs elsewhere. And could be done without really reading the content of the applications. They knew they were missing out on potentially excellent employees - and getting a good grade and having nice handwriting and good English does not relate to being a good employee.
I screwed up my exams at school. I was part of the first year to take G.C.S.E's- and the best grade I got was an E (I think.) However, it wasn't a lack of ability, just apathy. Five years ago, I took a modular Maths course which I could do at my own pace, and a G.C.S.E in English. My English tutor tried her best to get me to go onto an English degree as she reckoned I was already better than her third years. I left that course with double A*.
I don't think the G.C.S.E was any easier the second time than when I took it in it's inaugral year. There is more coursework, granted, and that makes it easier to cheat...but the work was at a similar level.
The thing that struck me about your post Foxy was the handwriting element. My handwriting has never been nice, or neat and tidy- despite my teachers best efforts. However, after a car accident a few years ago which knackered my right arm, it's now atrocious. I can't draw anymore either. :cry: Being judged on my handwriting would be a nightmare for me. Perhaps I should train as a G.P...
Sex God
I agree, Witchy, mine's never been better than poor. And has got worse over the 'internet-years'. It's a poor way to select people (or more specifically deselect them) but with the landslide of forms that arrive every summer, it's seen as the only way.
We need a better way of judging a person's abilities and suitability for a job.
We need a better way of judging a person's abilities and suitability for a job.
Quote by foxylady2209
I agree, Witchy, mine's never been better than poor. And has got worse over the 'internet-years'. It's a poor way to select people (or more specifically deselect them) but with the landslide of forms that arrive every summer, it's seen as the only way.
We need a better way of judging a person's abilities and suitability for a job.
Now there is the major question.....how do we do that?
Exams HAVE to mean something to an employer, it is the only way sometimes an employer can judge a young persons abilities.
An employer can only judge someone on their degree from uni at times.
We have to get back to the " old days " when kids were ALL given the same exam and the same opportunities. No more easy and hard papers. All kids must sit the SAME exam, take away all coursework from going towards your exam grades. Then make the exams a bit harder and only then will you see a real set of exam figures, not the ones manipulated by Governments for them to bleat how good their education system is....poppycock.
Also NO degree at Uni should be based solely on coursework. The same rule of thumb should apply there as well, where they have to sit exams to gain their degree. I would be seriously concerned if a medical student was allowed to become a doctor, purely on coursework attained from the internet. If that does not apply to doctors then why should it apply to any other Uni degree?
Sorry exams have become easier over the years and until they are made harder and fairer, employers will continue to look at them with scorn, and think that in a lot of cases the exams of today are virtually worthless, which is a huge shame indeed.
Quote by danne-gary
when was the "old days" ?
Pre 70's.
When an O level or an A level REALLY meant something.
When Grammar schools were everywhere, and not little isolated schools which we have now.
In my area there are quite a few Grammar schools and their levels of success far outweigh normal state schools. I did not go to a Grammar school as I failed my 11 plus but...I agree completly with their stance in todays education system. But there are many who hate the idea of Grammar schools being still out there. They hate any kind of selection but when I look at the tables of my local Grammars, there for me lies the proof they work, but unfortunatly for many they have become a target of their own success.
With exams having such huge passes nowadays, are people really saying they are as hard as they were? If that is the case how come so many fail to attain the 3r's? Surely to gain high grades you have to be able to read a write and do maths properly?
Some of the questions I have seen from a English exam paper of 2001 is bloody laughable. The Science ones are even more funny. I have not sat an exam for god knows how many years but I think I could anser a lot of the questions on the exam papers I saw the questions too.
People can think whatever they like but bottom line here is I deal with many employers, and they have all said they would not hire someone pureley on their exam grades, as they think they are far too easy now, to base someones abilty on.
Quote by kentswingers777
Some of the questions I have seen from a English exam paper of 2001 is bloody laughable. The Science ones are even more funny. I have not sat an exam for god knows how many years but I think I could anser a lot of the questions on the exam papers I saw the questions too.
Can you (or anyone else) reproduce some of them here? It would be interesting to see a representative selection.
Quote by kentswingers777
Surely to gain high grades you have to be able to read a write and do maths properly?
Out of interest, would you agree that the English taught pre-80s cannot have been that great because many of us older folk cannot spell or use grammar and punctuation correctly?
And - I'd be interested to see what score people in my age group, (mid-forties) who had an "old fashioned" education, would achieve if they did the new Maths test (I can't remember what it's called) that students without GCSE Maths are encouraged to work towards.
I took it when I was working with a class of 16-17 year-olds and I was rubbish compared to them - I didn't even understand some of the questions, let alone know the answers - and I have a 1981 "O" Level grade A.
Grammar schools cherry picked the top 5% of students, those who would get good grades pretty much at any school.
You can't compare their results with schools who perhaps say have 80% of children who don't have English as a first language, or have 70% of kids with special needs. That's like comparing Chelsea FC to Barnet FC and saying "Well, there's no reason Barnet shouldn't be winning the Champions League, therefore they are failing."
Everyone likes to think they were part of a better era than those that follow. That somehow we were superior. I am afraid that is just intangible bollocks for the most part, entirely subjective and smacks more of a desperation for the embittered older generation to put one over these upstart youths and their fake higher grades.
My guess is, "intelligence" levels within the population generally remain the same over time. There will be small peaks and troughs but over a small period of time (say 50 years) the differences will be negligable.
Life isn't a pass or fail, there are always very many shades of grey. So why make children believe this is the case? As has already been said, very few educational establishments or employers will look upon any grade below a C at GCSE level as a "pass", so should we then lump every child below that as "failures" because it was what happened to us? How is that going to improve society, labelling a whole cross section of society as failures, simply so we can say we were better. How sad and petty is that?
There's lots wrong with the exam system in this country and also in education. However very very little of what is wrong is to do with the kids or the teachers. It is the inane bureaucracy from successive governments (starting with the Tories Mr K, before you take this as a chance to bash Labour) and legislative Educational bodies that have made the mess. So why make the kids pay?
As Cherry has pointed out, criticising the English exam results is very dangerous for some on the site. People in glass houses and all that.
You can't compare their results with schools who perhaps say have 80% of children who don't have English as a first language, or have 70% of kids with special needs. That's like comparing Chelsea FC to Barnet FC and saying "Well, there's no reason Barnet shouldn't be winning the Champions League, therefore they are failing."
Everyone likes to think they were part of a better era than those that follow. That somehow we were superior. I am afraid that is just intangible bollocks for the most part, entirely subjective and smacks more of a desperation for the embittered older generation to put one over these upstart youths and their fake higher grades.
My guess is, "intelligence" levels within the population generally remain the same over time. There will be small peaks and troughs but over a small period of time (say 50 years) the differences will be negligable.
Life isn't a pass or fail, there are always very many shades of grey. So why make children believe this is the case? As has already been said, very few educational establishments or employers will look upon any grade below a C at GCSE level as a "pass", so should we then lump every child below that as "failures" because it was what happened to us? How is that going to improve society, labelling a whole cross section of society as failures, simply so we can say we were better. How sad and petty is that?
There's lots wrong with the exam system in this country and also in education. However very very little of what is wrong is to do with the kids or the teachers. It is the inane bureaucracy from successive governments (starting with the Tories Mr K, before you take this as a chance to bash Labour) and legislative Educational bodies that have made the mess. So why make the kids pay?
As Cherry has pointed out, criticising the English exam results is very dangerous for some on the site. People in glass houses and all that.
Right after a very quick Google, as I am at work, I found this very interesting artical.
Now whilst I have always been rubbish at maths, I could answer some of the questions from the 2008 paper. The earlier papers I did not have a clue.
Now I know that maths is taught differently today than it was 40 years ago, but I still cannot fathom out how the heck you are allowed to take a calculator into a maths exam??
This is quite a good artical with some very hard questions at the end.
There are many articals about how exams are much easier now.....give me some time to find a good one.
Now whilst I have always been rubbish at maths, I could answer some of the questions from the 2008 paper. The earlier papers I did not have a clue.
Now I know that maths is taught differently today than it was 40 years ago, but I still cannot fathom out how the heck you are allowed to take a calculator into a maths exam??
This is quite a good artical with some very hard questions at the end.
There are many articals about how exams are much easier now.....give me some time to find a good one.
Quote by kentswingers777
I still do not understand how D and E grades are classed as passes, any employer can see straight through that one.
Quote by kentswingers777
Go back to the days of A= excellant....B= very good, a C = average and anything below that is a fail
Just as employers saw through GCE O levels of D and E? Fails started at F when I took O levels, so a D or an E was a pass just as they are today.
Quote by kentswingers777
On the telly the other morning there was a pupil who got an A in media studies,one C and three D's and one E, and that was enough to get her into Uni.
That’s 6 A levels passed. Surely that shows a good level of intelligence and hard work. Possibly she should have been counselled to only take 4 at most and then she might have had all As and Bs. A levels are totted up on a points system with the university asking for a minimum number of points and often a certain grade in one or two subjects. She obviously achieved those requirements.
Quote by kentswingers777
...do you really believe that exams are at the same level of difficulty that they were 20 or 30 years ago? There is apparently 33% of kids that leave school that cannot attain the 3 R's properly, yet manage fantastic grades.
I believe that today’s exams are very different to the exams you took. I have a geography degree. My daughter’s geography coursework for A level needed to be at university level to gain an A. What she had to do at A level was far more than I had to do to get an equivalent A level in the “good old daysâ€.
Today's exams are relevant to today's world. Handwriting and spelling will become more and more irrelevant as the computer revolution continues. I can't remember when I last wrote an important piece of work by hand and ideas are more important than spelling despite what Lynne Truss says.
Good lord Kenty, are you really this naive?
Most maths papers now of any level or sublevel, have differentiated questions, it is how children are able to be marked accurately to their ability.
I can compile a maths paper that very few kids could do and they would all fail. I may feel all smug about it but how would it help them, or me in the long run? How could I differentiate those who know their stuff from those who don't if nobody can answer the questions?
Yes the old tests had some tough questions on (although if you read the first questions on the older papers, they are not particularly taxing) and they are based on a syllabus that reflected what the examiners wanted in 1968 or 1951 or whenever. Times have changed since then. We use calculators in exams because, oddly enough, they are pretty much widely available in the world, same as computers.
I did a driving test theory a few years back, it was ridiculously easy. I did no revision, finished the supposedly rigorous half hour exam within 5 mins and got full marks. This is to allow me to power a vehicle up to god knows Mph on roads where I can be a danger to the public. However it's a disgrace because Darren today doesn't know his Sine and Cosine quite as well as William did in 1951?
The curriculum of 1951 and the 1960's reflected their societies, as does ours today. We lived in a dumbed down society. Exam papers are far more differentiated to account for differing abilities. That means easier questions. It doesn't mean at all that kids are any stupider as testified by the fact that more and more of them are getting things right.
Chris Woodhead is a joke, since he left Ofsted all he has done is politicise his opinions and stick the boot into the Education system, the system he helped devise when he was in charge. If he is so well qualified to fix it, why didn't he do that job in the first place? Ofsted report direct to parliament, not any government, they are impartial (supposedly, though we now see his true colours nailed firmly to the Daily Mail mast). He is right, there's plenty wrong with it, but if he wants someone to blame he could do with taking a long hard look in the mirror.
I've no doubt governments (including your beloved Tories) manipulate the pass rates to suit their own agendas. I've also no doubt that some questions on some exams are ridiculously easy. It has to be that way because there is a directive in Education at the moment called Every Child Matters, which means even those terrible thicko's seemingly so despised by some, have to have a chance to show what they CAN do, and not just what they cannot do. That means easy questions even they, blighted souls that they are, can answer. Perhaps instead we should just leave them to have children and appear on the Jeremy Kyle show for the next 15 years, it will certainly help fill the pages of the Mail on a daily basis.
Mr K, articles are articles and are points of view, they present their evidence often from a biased and skewed viewpoint. Exams have changed, they may have easier questions on them, however that does not take away the achievement of those kids who have worked their fingers to the bone to achieve the grades they have, nor does it reflect declining standards if it allows us to see what level those children who are perhaps not so bright and are struggling are at. In the past they'd have been labelled failures and sent off down the mine. Now they can be helped and hopefully improved. That to me is progress and I'd rather suck a camels rectum to go back to the good old days of caning people for not knowing their times tables and being buggered by the head boy twice a week.
I guess some people just revolve. Others evolve.
Most maths papers now of any level or sublevel, have differentiated questions, it is how children are able to be marked accurately to their ability.
I can compile a maths paper that very few kids could do and they would all fail. I may feel all smug about it but how would it help them, or me in the long run? How could I differentiate those who know their stuff from those who don't if nobody can answer the questions?
Yes the old tests had some tough questions on (although if you read the first questions on the older papers, they are not particularly taxing) and they are based on a syllabus that reflected what the examiners wanted in 1968 or 1951 or whenever. Times have changed since then. We use calculators in exams because, oddly enough, they are pretty much widely available in the world, same as computers.
I did a driving test theory a few years back, it was ridiculously easy. I did no revision, finished the supposedly rigorous half hour exam within 5 mins and got full marks. This is to allow me to power a vehicle up to god knows Mph on roads where I can be a danger to the public. However it's a disgrace because Darren today doesn't know his Sine and Cosine quite as well as William did in 1951?
The curriculum of 1951 and the 1960's reflected their societies, as does ours today. We lived in a dumbed down society. Exam papers are far more differentiated to account for differing abilities. That means easier questions. It doesn't mean at all that kids are any stupider as testified by the fact that more and more of them are getting things right.
Chris Woodhead is a joke, since he left Ofsted all he has done is politicise his opinions and stick the boot into the Education system, the system he helped devise when he was in charge. If he is so well qualified to fix it, why didn't he do that job in the first place? Ofsted report direct to parliament, not any government, they are impartial (supposedly, though we now see his true colours nailed firmly to the Daily Mail mast). He is right, there's plenty wrong with it, but if he wants someone to blame he could do with taking a long hard look in the mirror.
I've no doubt governments (including your beloved Tories) manipulate the pass rates to suit their own agendas. I've also no doubt that some questions on some exams are ridiculously easy. It has to be that way because there is a directive in Education at the moment called Every Child Matters, which means even those terrible thicko's seemingly so despised by some, have to have a chance to show what they CAN do, and not just what they cannot do. That means easy questions even they, blighted souls that they are, can answer. Perhaps instead we should just leave them to have children and appear on the Jeremy Kyle show for the next 15 years, it will certainly help fill the pages of the Mail on a daily basis.
Mr K, articles are articles and are points of view, they present their evidence often from a biased and skewed viewpoint. Exams have changed, they may have easier questions on them, however that does not take away the achievement of those kids who have worked their fingers to the bone to achieve the grades they have, nor does it reflect declining standards if it allows us to see what level those children who are perhaps not so bright and are struggling are at. In the past they'd have been labelled failures and sent off down the mine. Now they can be helped and hopefully improved. That to me is progress and I'd rather suck a camels rectum to go back to the good old days of caning people for not knowing their times tables and being buggered by the head boy twice a week.
I guess some people just revolve. Others evolve.
Res IF you looked at my past posts I did congratulate those kids who did well.
Mnay many kids worked bloody hard to get good grades and I salute them. The issue that I have is the pass rate nowadays which almost makes them worthless to a lot of employers.
When you have 98% pass rates it demeans the very basis of that exam.
When coursework is allowed to form a huge basis of a pass, when it can so easily be looked at on the internet and copied, or " modules " can be used also I think that undermines the exam process.
Yes I understand the " every child matters " but that is to the detriment of the kids that would have done well regardless.
You are what you are and kids that are not bright at school get grades that make a bit of a mockery of the whole system, and is very unfair on the kids that work their butts off to get good grades.
Btw......I am not a lover of the Tories as I did vote for Blair and yes I realsie they are all the same in many cases....I just think this particular Government have cheated many kids of today, by making it easier to get better grades than they may have done otherwise. That does not help anyone and certainly will not help those kids when the time has come to meet their future employer.
Mnay many kids worked bloody hard to get good grades and I salute them. The issue that I have is the pass rate nowadays which almost makes them worthless to a lot of employers.
When you have 98% pass rates it demeans the very basis of that exam.
When coursework is allowed to form a huge basis of a pass, when it can so easily be looked at on the internet and copied, or " modules " can be used also I think that undermines the exam process.
Yes I understand the " every child matters " but that is to the detriment of the kids that would have done well regardless.
You are what you are and kids that are not bright at school get grades that make a bit of a mockery of the whole system, and is very unfair on the kids that work their butts off to get good grades.
Btw......I am not a lover of the Tories as I did vote for Blair and yes I realsie they are all the same in many cases....I just think this particular Government have cheated many kids of today, by making it easier to get better grades than they may have done otherwise. That does not help anyone and certainly will not help those kids when the time has come to meet their future employer.
Fuck a duck.
I wrote a very long eloquent response to this Mr K and then my computer fritzed on me and it bloody well disappeared.
But who cares? We're British! We can cope.
The gist of my point is that surely it is an individuals grades and character that matter to employers, not the "pass rate" which as we know, is neither use to man nor A is still better than a B regardless of how easy or hard an exam is. I think employers can fathom this out.
Now if EVERYONE got A's then it would be worthless. The fact that it is being dressed up as 98% pass rate is neither here nor there in the real world, employees won't look at that, it will be an individuals grades and character that form the basis of their chances of getting employment. Well I think so anyway.
I just feel sorry for the kids sometimes Mr K, every year so many of them must work hard and within a day of the results being published every media outlet is saying how easy they've had it and how the results are not a true reflection on their abilities. If I was 16 and read that, I'd be rightly miffed off.
Anyway, now that you're a married man, no doubt you'll have to cook Mrs 777's tea, so off you pop! ;-)
I wrote a very long eloquent response to this Mr K and then my computer fritzed on me and it bloody well disappeared.
But who cares? We're British! We can cope.
The gist of my point is that surely it is an individuals grades and character that matter to employers, not the "pass rate" which as we know, is neither use to man nor A is still better than a B regardless of how easy or hard an exam is. I think employers can fathom this out.
Now if EVERYONE got A's then it would be worthless. The fact that it is being dressed up as 98% pass rate is neither here nor there in the real world, employees won't look at that, it will be an individuals grades and character that form the basis of their chances of getting employment. Well I think so anyway.
I just feel sorry for the kids sometimes Mr K, every year so many of them must work hard and within a day of the results being published every media outlet is saying how easy they've had it and how the results are not a true reflection on their abilities. If I was 16 and read that, I'd be rightly miffed off.
Anyway, now that you're a married man, no doubt you'll have to cook Mrs 777's tea, so off you pop! ;-)
Res .....yes I do cook mrs777's tea quite a lot.
Yes Res you are quite right in most of what you say.
As I also said earlier the ones I feel REALLY sorry for ARE the ones who would have got A's and B's regardless of the exams difficulty levels.
They are the ones that should be rightly miffed when they hear the media coverage of them.
It is the other grades below a C that are now worthless in the real world, and this or any Government can bleat on about D's and E's being a pass but, we most of us know they are not worth the paper they are written on, in that big bad world out there. They are purely to manipulate their own twisted figures and can sit smugly in their plush offices saying how wonderful they all are.
Now.................where's me pinny.
.....yes I do cook mrs777's tea quite a lot.Yes Res you are quite right in most of what you say.
As I also said earlier the ones I feel REALLY sorry for ARE the ones who would have got A's and B's regardless of the exams difficulty levels.
They are the ones that should be rightly miffed when they hear the media coverage of them.
It is the other grades below a C that are now worthless in the real world, and this or any Government can bleat on about D's and E's being a pass but, we most of us know they are not worth the paper they are written on, in that big bad world out there. They are purely to manipulate their own twisted figures and can sit smugly in their plush offices saying how wonderful they all are.
Now.................where's me pinny.
Sex God
Just a thought but when I did my maths O level in 198...round easter time calculus was considered too difficult for O level students and wasn't tackled until later two of my nieces have done GCSE's in the last couple of years and both have done calculus and other subjects we never covered............so even if the exams are getting easier the syllabus doesn't appear to.
Sex God
P.S. If there's a problem with grades i.e. A, why not give a percentage score
Sex God
I don't think it's the grade sthat are the problem. it's the sheer number of individulas getting one of the grades. We need more grades - with smaller divisions. Exams that stretch everyone - not just the strugglers.
We often had more than 1 exam per subject. You could have 3 exams for maths - basic, intermediate, challenging. So long as kids are put in for a stretching option - even if that is just the basic - we would be able to see what they were made of. But getting an A (no A* would be necessary) should be BLOODY HARD even for the most gifted.
And BTW - it's article, not artical.
We often had more than 1 exam per subject. You could have 3 exams for maths - basic, intermediate, challenging. So long as kids are put in for a stretching option - even if that is just the basic - we would be able to see what they were made of. But getting an A (no A* would be necessary) should be BLOODY HARD even for the most gifted.
And BTW - it's article, not artical.
