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

[daizie]

Jeremy Wrote:

>

> 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...

In my opinion, it is because younger people today are far more aware . Speak to a 15/16 yr old doing GCSE's and they will be far more switched on, brighter and aware than a 15/16 yr old 20 or 30 years ago .

[Robyn0312]

I think there are some good and some bad points made here. I sat my A levels 6 years ago now and whilst I had to so some work I walked through them with very little effort and still achieved top grades. Whilst this may be because I am academic I think it also is a reflection of todays youth's ability to sit exams. From the age of 12 I was taught the correct way to answer questions - which formats to use for which subjects and exam bodies and which buzzwords to always include - you were literally groomed to pass exams. Whilst this ensured top grades were achieved it did very little for application of this knowledge to actual situations outside of exams. I also agree that the majority of people would benefit from a more vocational based approach and that too many people are going to university to study for degrees which send them down indefinate career paths.

I ended up taking 3 years out after school after studying medicine for one term only - bright students are often pushed to take certain options with little consideration for how they will actually enjoy it. After leaving I spent time working in a variety of jobs and really found out what I wanted to do and came back to uni at 21. By this time I was going because I really wanted to learn - and chose a very applied subject - geology. I think a lot of students would make better choices and would be more likely to choose applied subjects if they weren't going simply for want of something better. As it is I did not have a 'party' experience and spent 3 years working extremely hard, which paid off in recieveing a first last month.

I think a lot of students recognise that a degree is becoming common-place and therefore a lot more people are taking masters courses than in the past - although the danger is that this will then become the norm. However I do feel that the level of commitment required in undertaking a post-grad qualification sorts out the dossers from the workers.

Sorry for the long post - just something I feel a lot about.

[mockney piers]

Interesting points Robyn (and welcome to the drawing room btw always lovely to see a new face in this quiet corner) and whilst there is an important debate to be had about the purpose of education, this is nothing new and certainly existed as issues in my day (same academic year as Indiepanda)this does sugges to me that the bar is being set lower, again no disrespect intended to anyone, you still have to work for those results.

For my part ve oft considered going back to uni, but apart from my own satisfaction there is nothing to be gained in it for me. I had a word with my old professor who had expressed a wish in sponsoring me for a masters and doctorate. He said that I'm too old at 36 to be considered by any university as I'd be too expensive to hire in a teaching position, so I'm stuck banging out code forever sadly.

I digress and can't remember my pont. Congratulations on your first though.

[sophiesofa]

I think a lot of students recognise that a degree is becoming common-place and therefore a lot more people are taking masters courses than in the past - although the danger is that this will then become the norm. However I do feel that the level of commitment required in undertaking a post-grad qualification sorts out the dossers from the workers.

I'd never thought of post-grads like that and I do agree. But I think it also goes the other way too. My incredibly intelligent sister walked a 1st in Maths, didn't want to get a job so did an MA in astronomy, didn't want to get a job so did a PHD in Cosmology and the early universe then eventually became a maths teacher.

I don't regret going to uni but if i had the chance to chose again the subject/university I would have chosen differently because at the age of 18 I had no clue what to do.

Congratulations to everyone who just got their A-level results (I think they're hard but in a different way).

[louisiana]

daizie Wrote:

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

> 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 !

I couldn't agree less.

I have taught third year undergrads recently, and I've been amazed at how truly awful some/many of them have been. Okay, this was a third-rate uni (but they pay the bills!). If in a class of 20 you have just one student who is reasonably competent/able, there is a problem on admissions (A levels etc.). I'm not talking about brilliance, I'm talking about (a) being able to turn up for class and (b) being able to contribute something to class and © being able to submit some work sometime after the class and (d) being able to turn up and participate in assessment sessions.

I even had kids who got others to appeal against fail marks *who had not turned up to the major assessment session and who did not submit any work for it* (or for anything else, come to that). The sense of entitlement (something for nothing) is bizarre.

My experience as a postgrad student at a first-rate university seven-eight years ago was that a few students were good, and others had difficulty stringing sentences together or even reading stuff or participating in seminars. I came out with a top-rated degree classification that frankly I felt I did not altogether deserve, though I had done miles better than some others in the department. Some should have failed, but none did. Similarly, I've had top-rated exam classifications from other institutions in recent years...

But, and for the sake of comparison, I did a similar amount of work thirty years ago at another top uni, and got a 2:2. Which was exactly what I deserved.

That kind of says it all.

[Townleygreen]

Another reason why A level marks have risen is that since 2000 all A levels have been modular, and so if you get a poor mark on a certain module, you can resit it a number of times. Before then, people sat all their papers together at the end, and if you messed up a paper you got a bad grade. The only way of trying to improve was to take them all again next time. So - ipso facto - modules make it easier to get higher marks.

Also (A level teacher friends tell me) nowadays the exam boards give massive amounts of help and advice to teachers who are preparing kids for their exams. They lay on courses which give teachers tips as to how to teach a certain topic, there are detailed mark schemes given out (not the case back in the old days!) and they get copies of A grade answers so they can see what the examiners are looking for.

My personal opinion is that the questions they ask are harder now than when I took my A levels. That is only for history, I can't speak about any other subject! My kids showed me their papers and I certainly found them more demanding than the papers I sat back in 1968!

[daizie]

So many people can run the four minute mile now, do we say that running a mile is getting easier?

Or do we say that the training is getting better?

I think the latter. Even if the running shoes are better, and track surface improved - it's still a massive achievement.

[????]

but if the mile's reduced to a kilometre it's less of an achievement

[paragon]

Suprised that no-one has mentioned the political tool that literacy levels and attendence at University can be. It is in the interest of the governement to get as many people through A Levels with good grades and into Uni to show progress.

Ultimately there will be to be a standard bell-curve of ability which won't have changed since 0-Levels migrated into A-Levels. The schools job is to try and push that bell-curve as far to the right as possible. The governments job is to try and change the Axis so the bell curve appears further to the right.

I also don't think that there is anything wrong with a modular based system of marking. I don't see the benefit of doing all your exams in one go at the end of the year as this encourages cramming of information and little or no anaylsis of the texts/information that you are commenting.

[Jeremy]

paragon Wrote:

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

> I also don't think that there is anything wrong

> with a modular based system of marking. I don't

> see the benefit of doing all your exams in one go

> at the end of the year as this encourages cramming

Absolutely right, there's nothing inherently wrong with modular courses.

But it does make it easier, without doubt.

[womanofdulwich]

Give the kids a break, life is hard enough as it is. They need so many more life skills than the older generation. Parents of current teenagers had the best chance for social mobility, free further education etc. Now we have swung back to more of a who you and your parents are and who do you know culture IMHO. Not to mention who will fund your masters as a straight degree is not enough...........

[????]

So giving many of them worthless qualifictions, potential student debts and unrealistic job expectations is some kind of break?

edited to add 'un'

[Timster]

I have been involved in my firm's graduate recruitment process recently and, whilst I have seen some very able candidates, there are others who are much less able. This is particular marked when we test them on their ability to produce written work under pressure. What bothers me is that there is no distinction between the A-level results (traditionally law firms look more to A-level than degree results to distinguish candidates because pretty much every applicant that wants to be taken seriously will have to have a 2.1 from a decent university) of those who perform well against those who are, basically, rubbish - at least in terms of the skills they would need for a career in law.

That may be because A levels are easier now and so don't enable you to distinguish between very good candidates and fairly average candidates who have put the hours in. Or it may be because there is less focus on testing candidates to produce written work under pressure.

My point is that, if applicants are less able to distinguish themselves by their A-level results, candidates have to impress by other means. This can mean that students with a state school education, who have achieved what they think are great exam results which will open doors for them, are overlooked for candidates from a public/private school background with the same A-level results but whose CV and contacts appear more impressive and/or open more doors for them. I have to say we see a lot of jolly nice chaps with good A-level results but not much upstairs. And there is no doubt that some recruiters in law firms are still taken in by interviewees who sound more polished and confident just because of their background and education.

So, ironically, if we are lowering the standards of A-levels so that more pupils from modest backgrounds get the results they need to get into university, we are building into the system a new hurdle for those same students to overcome when they leave education because their impressive A-level results will count for much less with employers than they once did.

[gwod]

I used to teach at a college for kids doing A level retakes, and the exact same questions appearing on current A level papers could be found on O level (or GCSE) papers from 20 year prior.

[Ann]

Those are interesting points Timster. Does anyone know how much weight is given to traditional subjects? My daughter is entering year 11 and hopes to study modern languages (French) at University. Although the exams may be modular languages must be built on, you can't forget what you did in the last module and continue to get good grades. Arguably you could with humanities and science, which are still good subjects to have at A level.

What would others advise as good subjects to study from as employers' viewpoint?

[macroban]

Pupils taking the hair and beauty diploma will study the history of hairdressing in society, including ancient Egyptian make-up.

This is "worth" 3.5 A Levels. Must be wrong - it's the Daily Mail.

[macroban]

I spent near enough 40 years recruiting staff for clerical and junior executive jobs. Over the course of that period there was a shift from the 1960s when five good O Levels including maths and english was enough to acquire a good clerical job to the state of affairs where a person with a mediocre degree might get not one.

Over this period I built up a "Things they no longer teach in school" list which would be worked through during a new entrant's induction/training period.

[Timster]

I bet that made you popular!

[Brendan]

I graduated 10 years ago and maybe it?s that it was from an education system in another country with higher standards or that I?m just getting old and cantankerous but the overall calibre of the individuals who are apparently ?graduates? is often piss poor.

Not all mind. I work with one or two twenty year olds who are far more capable in their jobs than I was at that age. (Although strangely not particularly intellectual)

But the trend in general is certainly there.

[????]

There are two different aspects here. There are those who, certainly in the past, wouldn't have got 'A'Levels or degrees in the past getting them with good grades and this has devalued qualifications as a measurement.

Then there are the annoying things like having to sit down with clearly bright graduates to teach them how to use an apostrophe as they haven't been taught it!!!! I think this is what Macroban was talking about too.

[daizie]

I dont know where you all know these low quality A Level students and graduates from ? In my experience, the ones I know, come from Goldsmiths and Canterbury and are all very intersting, capable, bright and intellectual .

[SteveT]

I have two who passed maths, ask what's six nines or seven eights and they have not got a clue what the answer is.

They don't know their times tables, yet they have the qualification.

The most important thing I learned at school was my 'tables' I use them every day, I didn't learn to read at school or I would have chosen that.

[dulwichmum]

I have no doubt that the A levels are difficult to pass, but it is incredibly odd that so many students are doing so incredibly well. If it were not the case that the value of these A grades and A* grades are being dumbed down, well why are the universities now using the additional UKCAT and BMAT aptitude/intelligence tests to assess which students to accept and not simply using A-level results?

[Townleygreen]

I don't believe the papers are any easier than when I took mine in 1968.

The difference is, as I have said, that they are far better prepared by their teachers for these reasons:

"nowadays the exam boards give massive amounts of help and advice to teachers who are preparing kids for their exams. They lay on courses which give teachers tips as to how to teach a certain topic, there are detailed mark schemes given out (not the case back in the old days!) and they get copies of A grade answers so they can see what the examiners are looking for. "

PLUS the modular system of today inevitably means higher grades than in the past. For these reasons:

"since 2000 all A levels have been modular, and so if you get a poor mark on a certain module, you can resit it a number of times. Before then, people sat all their papers together at the end, and if you messed up a paper you got a bad grade. The only way of trying to improve was to take them all again next time. So - ipso facto - modules make it easier to get higher marks."

I don't think it is fair on the students to call that "dumbing down", but that is one interpretation, and that is why the new A* grade is being brought in from this year.

[dulwichmum]

You see, I am not convinced that "better prepared" does not equate to "primed", and if the parental involvement that I observe in primary school with regard to "course work" is concerned, how can anyone be sure that the students have actually carried out the work themselves?

Entire essays and dissertations can be purchased online.