Top GCSE grades for only top pupils - what do you think?

Scroll to see replies

Look at Nulli Tertius' post - there is not a cap of 20,000. That's simply the predicted number who will achieve this grade.

You can't predict something like that though, it all depends on the day and the amount of effort someone puts in. I have always abhorred and never paid any attention to "predicted grades" and computer can't tell me how well I am going to do!

Reply 41

username878045

Original post by Ripper-Roo

You can definitely predict the outcomes for large numbers of people. That's what the whole of economics and much social science is based on.

Reply 42

Ripper-Roo

Original post by PythianLegume

You can definitely predict the outcomes for large numbers of people. That's what the whole of economics and much social science is based on.

It doesn't mean I agree

Reply 43

Burty123

As much as I agree that this is needed due to too many A*/A grades, to get anywhere in the world in competitive industries you need contacts, well rounded education/extra curricular stuff and a bit of luck. This will only affect the people aiming for top 10 unis in the UK and just serve as greater satisfaction to those who work their butts off.

Reply 44

username878045

Original post by Ripper-Roo

It doesn't mean I agree

You don't think that you can predict trends in large groups of people? Because all the evidence suggests otherwise.

Reply 45

Ripper-Roo

Original post by PythianLegume

You don't think that you can predict trends in large groups of people? Because all the evidence suggests otherwise.

not really. You shouldn't let a computer define you or your capabilities.
that's why I think "predicted grades" should be abolished.

Reply 46

Freyr

Very fair, the top grade should be difficult to achieve, if everyone effra it, it's lost it's value. Making the top grade more difficult to achieve therefore is sensible.

Reply 47

williams.ml

Original post by andrew2209

I wouldn't be surprised if people appealed if they're one mark off, especially in subjects such as English, where it can be hard to accurately mark something. Also, if these "9" grades become sacred, then it would put pressure on schools to get as many as they want, to boost their "league table" position.

To be honest, I just think GCSE exams are becoming more about learning a syllabus than actually understanding the subject at times.

I totally agree with that last bit

Reply 48

username878045

Original post by Ripper-Roo

not really. You shouldn't let a computer define you or your capabilities.
that's why I think "predicted grades" should be abolished.

I'm not saying that you can predict individual capabilities/outcomes. I'm saying that you can predict the outcomes of large groups. Personal predicted grades are completely different to the idea of predicting the grades of large groups.

Reply 49

Namige

Original post by PythianLegume

He only said A*A*A. This is the standard for all science courses at Cambridge now, and has been known to be given out by Imperial for various courses, Manchester for Physics, and probably a few others. 3A*s does happen occasionally for these same courses.

Link me a page that says A*A*A* requirement.

Reply 50

Namige

Original post by PythianLegume

You can definitely predict the outcomes for large numbers of people. That's what the whole of economics and much social science is based on.

Predict meaning "The statistically probable outcome".

Reply 51

Ripper-Roo

Original post by PythianLegume

I know but a computer still predicts the person's grades, I don't think that is right.

You can predict across large groups but don't expect them to reflect it.

Reply 52

username878045

Original post by Namige

Link me a page that says A*A*A* requirement.

It's not a standard offer, but it has been known to happen.

http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/cambridge_applicants_stalking_page_2013

Reply 53

username878045

Original post by Ripper-Roo

I know but a computer still predicts the person's grades, I don't think that is right.

You can predict across large groups but don't expect them to reflect it.

You can absolutely predict across large groups and expect them to reflect those predictions. People are surprisingly predictable on a large scale.

Reply 54

Ripper-Roo

Original post by PythianLegume

You can absolutely predict across large groups and expect them to reflect those predictions. People are surprisingly predictable on a large scale.

How so?

Reply 55

ThatPerson

In other words, Gove's policy is overtesting, and hoping that that will improve education in England. It's completely stupid. The A*-U grades are fine, all that needed to happen was less grade (ie a capped proportion of a cohort getting an A*), and better/more content.

Instead Gove has just moved education back 30 years.

Reply 56

username638250

Original post by Namige

Link me a page that says A*A*A* requirement.

Happens when Cambridge decides to be mean and some Imperial ChemEng offers have been known to be given out as 3A* or 3A* 1A...or even very rarely 4A*s. CBA to find the link but it has happened, especially with Cam.

Reply 57

username878045

Original post by Ripper-Roo

How so?

Just look at virtually any statistic of people across the UK and you'll find that they are remarkably stable year-on-year. The chances of the number of people who take up smoking, the number of people convicted of drunk driving, the number of teenage pregnancies, the number of unemployed people, etc, changing by more than 10% in one year is rather low.

Reply 58

KatsToes

When I left school in the early 2000's no one I know got 11 A*'s and A's, they might have got a handful, even my friend who got A* in maths and sciences got a couple of B's, but now everyone seems to get the top grades, so clearly GCSEs have been dumbed down. I think its a good idea to make the top grades harder to get because then students will have to work harder at them.

HOWEVER, I also have concerns for kids who want to do well but struggle, for example kids with dyslexia.

The proposed new system, correct me kindly if I'm wrong, is similar to the old O level, and children who are not expected / predicted a decent amount of high grades will undertake a different sort of set of exams which are easier and will set them up for apprenticeships and life skills rather than university. This is all well and good but what if a child wants to do the old o level style exams and go to uni but struggle not through laziness but through a learning difficulty or they just don't get the help and motivation they need from their school or parents, why should they be consigned to the 'scrap heap'?

Sorry about the rant! I just feel very strongly. I did not do very well at school and I later found out I have dyslexia and dysphraxia, my teachers put me in bottom set for science and then I got a b in my gcse mocks so they soon moved me back up! It wasn't till I went back into education and got equivalent of AAB at A level from my access course that I actually realised Im not thick, I just wasn't given a chance, like I think this new system won't give some of the children a chance who need it and aspire to do better.

Reply 59

interstitial

TBH, having a cutoff point that high seems like overkill to me.

Even the best and brightest students probably won't get 95% most of the time simply due to stupid mistakes and improper exam technique, not because there is something wrong with their understanding.

The system sounds pretty good though, with clearer distinctions between different grades.

Posted from TSR Mobile