A level results - kids getting brighter for the last 27 years or dumbing down?

[????]

i no wot i fink

[daizie]

Hate to say it but think they ARE getting brighter . 1 of mine did them couple years ago and she said they were bloody hard . She also said she'd like to see someone who sat them years ago , sit them today, and then see what they think !

[Applespider]

I'm sure the kids today work just as hard at them as kids did years ago - but the emphasis on continuous course work and assessment rather than one-off exams, makes it easier to get higher marks since you can simply redo assignments and discard your lower marks. And there's a different focus on the skills required - now you can do Maths with a laptop to draw your graphs rather than a scientific calculator or a slide rule. Plus, I believe some GCSE syllabus have removed things that were standard (e.g. differential equations which can be tricky) and put them into the A level syllabus instead.

You can't really say that we'll put someone with a A grade from years ago up against someone who has just got one though - the old sod won't have studied or looked at the subject from years. When my younger sister did her Maths exam and wanted help, I was useless despite having got a B a few years beforehand.

One thing that has dramatically declined, at least if the new starters at work are anything to go by, is the standard of basic English and arithmetic. I know teachers who can't use apostrophes so heaven help the kids that they're teaching.

[mockney piers]

Agreed. I met an A level examiner the other day who said the standard of English in essays was, and I quote, lamentable.

Innit.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

I recall watching a reality programme (gasp) a few years ago, which took a batch of children who'd all just passed their GCSEs with A and A* grades and put them in a 1950s grammar school setting.

Their first task was to sit an exam. None of them passed it. It was the 11+ exam of the time.

This seems to suggest dumbing down to me.

I can't speak specifically of A Levels, but to bring this up-to-date, my daughter has just completed her fourth year. In exams she was allowed to take in texts (eg, a play) and aide-memoires (eg, hand-drawn pictures to remind her of French and Spanish words). It's not surprising, therefore, if more children pass exams with higher grades.

[toast]

A focused average ability student could get an A easily if they played the game. This does give support to those from nonacademic backgrounds who would otherwise be easily discouraged. Yes dumbed down, but with good intentions.

However for many kids it does not encourage them to really challenge themselves. A lot of kids I teach found GCSE such an easy ride they sit back through their A levels. And GCSE just got way easier (especialy for boys who honestly tend to cock up the coursework by leaving it to the last min).

ps join Eastdulwich Primaryschoolplaces facebook page :))

[indiepanda]

I think it's a mixture of more focused teaching, continuous assessment giving students the chance to resit things and dumbing down of content.

When I took my exams at 16 I was the second year of GCSEs and it was so obvious the GCSE maths had a narrower syllabus than the O level, our class finished the whole GCSE syllabus by November of the 5th form and just spent the 6 months till the exam revising.

When I got to college to do my A levels, I did maths and further maths, and our tutors told me we spent the first term getting our maths up to O level standard, the next two terms doing the A level and the next two terms doing the further maths A level, exams in the final term.

I really don't believe kids these days are so much more hard working - they have a lot more distractions from their study after all. When I was a kid all I had was what TV my parents would allow me to watch because we only had the one TV downstairs and reading. These days loads of kids have computers & TVs in their room so plenty more temptation.

I've interviewed graduates for jobs before with strings of As and firsts in their degrees, and then put them through the same verbal and numeric reasoning tests that I was have been put through when I went for my graduate interview, and plenty did a whole lot worse than me despite their superior grades, so not convinced they were really so much brighter.

Pretty sure I've read stories on the BBC before about universities complaining about the standard of students reaching them despite their top grades, which says it all.

[mockney piers]

It must be pretty disheartening fo the kids having their achievements belittled and undermined. My step brother graduated from uni this year so went through all this three years ago.

The kids do work hard and deserve pride and satisafaction in their achievements, it's not their fault the standards have (deliberately) slipped over the years.

I do find the lack on any emphasis on teaching the core writing skills for essay skills unforgiveable. We'd have been marked down for spelling and grammatical errors, and just find it depressing that we're losing that. If this crop aren't taught it in their teacher training then large swathes of society are going to lose these skills permanently and that depresses me.

[Keef]

They don't get marked down for spelling and grammar? Do they still sit English Language, as well as Lit?

[????]

But not as disheartening as getting them to do a degree, get into debt and then find out that their degree is worthless and they'll end up in McDs or a Call Centre.....universal HE is utopian pie in the sky rubbish, HE should be elitist and competitive.

[indiepanda]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But not as disheartening as getting them to do a

> degree, get into debt and then find out that their

> degree is worthless and they'll end up in McDs or

> a Call Centre.....universal HE is utopian pie in

> the sky rubbish, HE should be elitist and

> competitive.

I wouldn't have put it quite as strongly as that.. but I do agree. There are way more people going to university than there are graduate posts available, and that would be ok if students were going into that with their eyes open, but am pretty sure a lot of them still believe a degree gets you a career, otherwise why would they take on all that debt?

These days I think a really vocational degree gets you a career - like nursing, or a good academic degree passed at upper second or first from a well rated university might get you a training post at a good graduate employer in law/accountancy etc.

But a so so course from a so so uni at lower second or third will probably lead to a McJob - and you could well be reporting to someone who left college at 18 and has been working their way up for the last few years, whilst living rent free at home and not getting into debt.

Anyone who thinks employers don't know which the good academic universities are and which are the former polytechnics are is naive.

[mockney piers]

A fair point quids to a degree (baddamtish). A society functions betterthr better educated it's populace. It depends why our children are getting higher eduaction, if it's simply a badge of differetiation then we are indeed working towards the best educated McDonalds workforce in the world.

I happen to think that education is a good thing in and of itself, the very valid point about the burden of debt notwithstanding.

[indiepanda]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I happen to think that education is a good thing

> in and of itself, the very valid point about the

> burden of debt notwithstanding.

I wouldn't disagree with that, am just not convinced the model for delivering education is the best one given the financial burden it puts on people.

Suspect a lot of people would be better served by a model of ongoing learning by day release from a job to learn things relevant to that career, rather than three years full time getting into debt. Things learned for the pleasure and challenge of learning rather than any career goal in mind could still be pursued at night school etc.

[????]

MP - I agree with the idea of a 'better educated populace' for sound economic and social reasons. I question wether universal HE is the best way to deliver this and to me 'lowering the bar' is counterproductive.

[mockney piers]

I'm pretty much with you both. It was my A'level history teacher who taught me about economy and focus in writing and the importance of a sceptical analysis in historical interpretation.

I'm not sure what I learned at university other than how to waste a government grant on cheap booze. I'm something of an autodidact as, I suspect, are the many on here. Education is something that should never cease really.

[indiepanda]

mockney piers Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Education is something that should never cease really.

Oh, I'm with you on that. I get BORED if I am not learning new things, both in work and out of work. Though I haven't done any formal study since finishing my professional exams (and they'd put most people off), I learn through reading outside of work, and am starting to think about doing another A level on my day off, if I can just find a day time class that fits.

[daizie]

toast Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A focused average ability student could get an A

> easily if they played the game. This does give

> support to those from nonacademic backgrounds who

> would otherwise be easily discouraged. Yes dumbed

> down, but with good intentions.

>>

In my experience this is just not true. Daughter very focused high ability student, worked so hard, got a and b's english history politics, was dissapointed with the 2 b's but said they were so hard, 2 friends dropped out, and anyone who says they are easy should really sit them themselves

[Keef]

Lets be honest, lots of 18 year olds go to uni for a laugh, because it's ahalfway house between living at home, and living in the real world. I suspect lots of them really don't give the debt much thought, it doesn't seem real.

I'm not saying that in a patronising way, I am saying that, because that was me.

I shouldn't have gone to uni, I never worked hard in school, and I never did any work at uni, then I dropped out at the end of my final year, one module before finishing my gegree, because I just didn't care. (a regret, but nothing that would have been life changing).

It wasn't until I'd worked for a couple of years in the "real world", that I decided to sort it out, go back to school, and get a career.

Basically, a degree in Music & Psychology was never going to do much for me, BUT, I learnt a lot about life, and it shaped who I am (for better or worse), and for that reason, I don't totally regret it.

I see some students who seem driven, and who belong at uni (TillieTrotter's daughter springs to mind), but I am certain that there are plenty out there who are like I was 13 years ago (OMG!). The problem is, I didn't see any options open to me at 18, other than working in Sainsbury's. Nothing wrong in that, but not how I wanted to spend my life.

[Jeremy]

Yes it's a bit harsh on the kids to belittle their achievements, but at the end of the day they must be getting easier. You can't argue with the statistics. Yes this may partly be down to modular courses, coursework/continuous assesment, etc, but that still counts as "making it easier", as far as I'm concerned. I think it would be better if the results were fitted to a distribution, rather than giving a quarter of all the candidates an A grade.

Kids come from abroad to study in English schools and universities, often because it's actually much easier to get the qualifications here than in their home country. It's a bit embarrassing.

[indiepanda]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think it would be better if the

> results were fitted to a distribution, rather than

> giving a quarter of all the candidates an A

> grade.

I'm inclined to think As shuld be reserved for the top 10% of students, it was much closer to that when I sat mine though. Which was about the time the current crop of students was born. I gather they are introducing an A star grade for A levels next year, which to me seems to be recognising it is too easy to get an A and useless for universities to distinguish who are the academically most capable and will really benefit from a degree.

Also agree with Keef's comments. I wasn't quite the party animal the he was at university, but I defintely did not appreciate how easy life was as a student and relished the chance to escape the clutches of my over protective parents. I think it would be a lot better for most of us to have gone to work for a bit first, would appreciate the experience much more and get more out of it.

I can recall a lecturer telling me he always thought I was bright enough for a first but didn't show any signs of working hard enough to get one, and he was spot on. I got bored of some of the course fairly early on - they didn't push us nearly hard enough. I reckon I put more energy into getting a good job than I did preparing for my finals, which was probably the best choice given we were only just coming out of the last recession and jobs were thin on the ground, but a bit of a waste nonetheless.

[Keef]

I can recall a lecturer telling me he always thought I was bright enough for a first but didn't show any signs of working hard enough to get one

That pretty much sums up every parents evening at school, and every meeting with personal tutors at uni, that I ever had. Bright but lazy, that's me :)-D

[daizie]

It is not easy at all, to get an A or A* . I have witnessed this first hand . The 'kids' today have it 'different' to us oldies , ( I, at first thought, it must be easier, given that they now have the internet, which we didn't ) It is far more competitive , it is not easy by any means . Id like to speak to anyone who has a recent 'A or A* ' who said it was a doddle . Im talking about the Comprehensive school system, not private, as I dont have experience of this .

[SeanMacGabhann]

I'm never sure if I'm glad or sorry I never went to college/uni

I would agree that basic reading/writing/numeracy skills have declined, just from people I have hired or work with

On the other hand many of those same people, with excellent results have been very bright and more skilled in other areas - a broader range of knowledge than older people for example

I have never been comfortable with skimming off the highest scorers - it's too narrow a measurement. If A levels are genuinely "dumbed down" and were restored to previous levels, with fewer students passing with distinction, that would help employers and universities choose.

But I don't believe it helps them choose the "best" people.

[Jeremy]

daizie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It is not easy at all, to get an A or A* . I have

> witnessed this first hand . The 'kids' today have

> it 'different' to us oldies , ( I, at first

> thought, it must be easier, given that they now

> have the internet, which we didn't ) It is far

> more competitive , it is not easy by any means .

> Id like to speak to anyone who has a recent 'A or

> A* ' who said it was a doddle . Im talking about

> the Comprehensive school system, not private, as I

> dont have experience of this .

It's *easier*, not *easy*. I'm sure plenty of kids (or "young adults" if you prefer) find them difficult, but that doesn't mean they're not getting easier.

How else can you explain more and more candidates getting top grades, year after year...

[indiepanda]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But I don't believe it helps them choose the

> "best" people.

Depends what you mean by "best". Some jobs are genuinely quite intellectually demanding, and a good academic background is vital for that, if not the only necessary skill. But for plenty of jobs its more "soft skills" - ability to work in a team and get on with your collegues, plan your work to meet a deadline etc that makes the difference between the good and less good staff. Or practical/technical skills that you wouldn't learn in an A level anyway.

However, it seems to me many A levels are academically focussed, and to be honest I still think of them as a university entrance exam for the academic, and I think they should be scored in such a way the universities can tell who are the best. It's a nonsense when Oxford and Cambridge are rejecting lots of people who get straight As.

I know a lot of people go on to do A levels even if they aren't especially academically minded, and I don't really understand why - perhaps it's some silly stigma about doing more vocational courses. Coming from a more working class background, I don't feel like that.

My sister didn't want to go to university, so she didn't do them, she did a BTEC in business and finance. Many years earlier, my dad left school at 15 and once he was old enough he signed on to do his electrians apprenticeship. And surprise surprise, my sister still works in finance and my dad spent all his working life as an electrician.

I think the governments focus on higher education is completely misguided, it's too narrow and other forms of training should be seen as a valid alternative. I can't see that getting a so so degree and a call centre job is really a better life than getting a trade like being a plumber, electrician etc - and lord knows we all struggle when we try to find a reliable tradesman - often have to wait ages to get the good ones to be free to do a job.