Longest Bull run ever?

[0007]

I see the "A level" results are out today - with the 26th year of continuous improvement!

So standards haven't changed then?

 

[Vrothdar]

I'd be concerned if the results hadn't improved - We want our teaching to get better don't we? There's always going to be room for improvement so we should expect results to keep getting better too. Obviously this poses the problem of needed extra grades at the top of the range to separate the brilliant from the exceptional which is something they're dealing with by introducing an A* grade.

That's not to say that standards haven't changed, I'm sure they have, but I doubt they've changed by anywhere near as much as results have.

:edit: Also, I believe they quote the number of As as a percentage of entries rather than the percentage of candidates that got As. Bright pupils have the change to take more than 3-4 A2s which I'm pretty sure hasn't always been the case. I know of two or three people that left 6th form whilst I was at school with between 5 and 7 As. Those guys were amazingly clever but also amazingly inept at socialising with their peers.

 

[0007]

I'd be concerned if the results hadn't improved - We want our teaching to get better don't we? There's always going to be room for improvement so we should expect results to keep getting better too. Obviously this poses the problem of needed extra grades at the top of the range to separate the brilliant from the exceptional which is something they're dealing with by introducing an A* grade.

That's not to say that standards haven't changed, I'm sure they have, but I doubt they've changed by anywhere near as much as results have.

:edit: Also, I believe they quote the number of As as a percentage of entries rather than the percentage of candidates that got As. Bright pupils have the change to take more than 3-4 A2s which I'm pretty sure hasn't always been the case. I know of two or three people that left 6th form whilst I was at school with between 5 and 7 As. Those guys were amazingly clever but also amazingly inept at socialising with their peers.

It's an interesting topic and I'm sure there will be a diversity of views. How about this for an anecdotal squib to toss in:

A couple of years ago when this debate was in the press, I happened to see an example A-level science question. I looked at it and it seemed reminiscent of my schooldays and I thought no more. Co-incidentally, the very next day I was in a s/h bookshop and chanced across a book with reprints of old GCE "O" level Physics papers from the 1960s. I was a bit surprised to see that one of the questions was identical to the yesterday's A level question.

As I say, this is just anecdotal. I do agree however, that teaching standards have improved greatly.

 

[Vrothdar]

Now all that O level stuff is rather beyond my time but would I be right in saying that O levels were the highest level of exam in compulsory education at the time?

:edit:

As I say, this is just anecdotal. I do agree however, that teaching standards have improved greatly.

Personally I think it's improved, and improving, at dealing with students that are either very bright or are not very capable when it comes to academia (for whatever reason) but those that fall in the middle - I'm pretty sure it could do a lot better there. When I was at school (just coming up to 21 so not long ago) I got the feeling that those that fell squarely in the middle were just encouraged to do "what was necessary" and were taught how to pass exams rather than how to understand things. Perhaps I'm just bitter because I was a lazy git who never fulfilled his potential.

 

[0007]

Now all that O level stuff is rather beyond my time but would I be right in saying that O levels were the highest level of exam in compulsory education at the time?

Isn't education still compulsory until 16? - that makes GCSE the current highest level. In the 60s the minimum leaving age was 15 (subsequently raised to 16 to keep the dole queues down?) but we had A levels also for those continuing (as today?). If you were an averagely bright Grammar school pupil you would take 3 A levels, (and these were not soft subjects - a typical science stream candidate would do Pure maths, Applied maths and Physics). The geniuses who were being prepared for Oxford and Cambridge did 4 A levels. No one did 2 A levels - that was considered to be the province of non-grammar school establishments.

Unfortunately, that system left the less academic kids with poorer options and many of the jobs they went into have now gone, so the system had to change. Regrettably, the high standards and opportunities for bright but poor kids, fostered by the Grammar school system, have now been reduced. But that's political progress - (essence of Socialism is to drag everyone down to the same level so that no one is disadvantaged).

Although I had an academic education, the most useful thing I ever did was a year's woodwork (we were allowed art / woodwork for 2 hrs a week as light relief!)

Life goes on ............. nothing can prepare you for trading except yourself

 

[Vrothdar]

Isn't education still compulsory until 16? - that makes GCSE the current highest level.

Yes you're right. I'm clearly not alert enough today. You're right about the only thing that can prepare you for trading being yourself. I'm a believer in education being far more valuable when the student seeks it out him/herself. That's not to say compulsory education isn't very worthwhile but it probably does hint at my dislike of exams.

 

[shadowninja]

O levels = GCSEs. But harder.

The proof that exams are getting easier: employers send recent school leavers on English and Maths courses because they are sub-standard. A-levels are a waste of time. If that were not the case, then why do school leavers write like cretins?

 

[Vrothdar]

I dunt right leik a crething!

O levels = GCSEs. But harder.

Aye. I thought that perhaps O levels being the last compulsory exam and A levels now being the last compulsory exam might have explained the similar questions. As 0007 pointed out though I was being slow forgetting that A levels aren't compulsory and never have been.

 

[Gumping]

Interesting point to note:

One of my lecturers had been lecturing the same course to new first year undergrads since the 70's. He set an exam paper back then and made everyone sit it in a lecture in the first week of their degree every year since. Plotting the average result each year results in a curve which is inversely proportional to the 'A' Level result curve.

I'm not sure it's standards improving - just optimising teaching wrt to the curriculum - leads to grade improvements, but to students who can recite syllabus items back to front, but don't understand much about their subject.

 

[Vrothdar]

That's very interesting indeed.

I'm not sure it's standards improving - just optimising teaching wrt to the curriculum - leads to grade improvements, but to students who can recite syllabus items back to front, but don't understand much about their subject.

That's exactly how I feel. It frustrated me so much at school and I believe it's the reason I became so lazy with my school work - I prefered to sit and read a textbook, learn and understand what was there than to learn what answer an examiner would expect to a particular question. I think I'm better off for it even if my CV isn't.

 

[0007]

Interesting point to note:

I'm not sure it's standards improving - just optimising teaching wrt to the curriculum - leads to grade improvements, but to students who can recite syllabus items back to front, but don't understand much about their subject.

Also, many courses are now modular so that you only have to study & remember bite-sized chunks. Teachers do a lot of the assessments - I don't know of any turkeys that vote for Christmas! I believe you don't even have to do an oral exam or written dictation for French GCSE - I got a 30 minute verbal grilling (in French) from an examiner who appeared to have the same sort of sense of humour displayed by Driving Test examiners!

The sad thing is that we don't appear to be educating many scientists or engineers (that term's a joke with your average Sun reader who thinks it's a guy who mends your washing machine) while the Chinese and every other race with half a brain cell will make almost any sacrifice for education. Still, I suppose we're safe for another 10-15 years - then we can start assembling circuit boards and toasters for the nouveau riche in China!

 

[Gumping]

Also, many courses are now modular so that you only have to study & remember bite-sized chunks. Teachers do a lot of the assessments - I don't know of any turkeys that vote for Christmas! I believe you don't even have to do an oral exam or written dictation for French GCSE - I got a 30 minute verbal grilling (in French) from an examiner who appeared to have the same sort of sense of humour displayed by Driving Test examiners!

The sad thing is that we don't appear to be educating many scientists or engineers (that term's a joke with your average Sun reader who thinks it's a guy who mends your washing machine) while the Chinese and every other race with half a brain cell will make almost any sacrifice for education. Still, I suppose we're safe for another 10-15 years - then we can start assembling circuit boards and toasters for the nouveau riche in China!

Agreed. I actually work in R&D for a drug firm. I got my marching orders a couple of months back based on the fact that we are outsourcing most of the R&D to China and Eastern Europe. Reason: mainly because the government is funding science education so heavily that the market is absolutely full of science graduates - alot of them trained in Europe + America using Chinese govt loans. And then the govt is handing out massive incentives for the companies to set up shop there. Professors in my subject (chemistry/medicinal chemistry) are paid like secondary school teachers, when in the USA they drive Porsches at the same level. Apparently some of the older lecturers here were approached about moving to Chinese Unis, and were offered more even than the Yanks pay to go over.

But of course that doesn't happen here. We live in a society where everyone, regardless of ability, deserves a good education so we dilute our education system so that anyone can get good grades, and then fill up unis with courses on bland, non-committal subjects that merely commentate on subjects rather than study them becuase doing any technical work is far too expensive and involves actually doing work! Where are these graduates going to work? Cinemas and Shopping Centres?!?

No wonder companies and even universities now are introducing aptitude testing to filter candidates - A's in subjects no longer even reflect basic literacy or numeracy. My prof. told me recently that new students coming in (To Imperial College - the #5 University in the world apparently!) cannot even calculate the concentration of something in solution any more. i.e. most of them can't do simple mental arithmetic.

 

[0007]

NUT hasn't thought of this wheeze (yet)

Now here's an idea for the teaching unions to put to Gordo - inheritor of "education, education,education" -

Mrs 0007 tells me that in Tudor times, Elizabeth 1st was so concerned about the poor standards of education that she exempted schoolmasters from tax!