Top GCSE grades for only top pupils - what do you think?
Scroll to see replies
I'm down for this.
GCSEs are way too easy, especially in sciences. GCSEs are too focused on what is and not why it is, hopefully this will change.
I absolutely hate geography and RE and things like that and I still get A*s in them.
I see people in my school getting A*s at GCSE when they are actually so dumb and have no common sense.
In German, for example, it is so easy to attain a good mark on the speaking if you just memorise a pre-prepared speech - something somebody could've written for you and still get a B or above.
GCSEs are way too easy, especially in sciences. GCSEs are too focused on what is and not why it is, hopefully this will change.
I absolutely hate geography and RE and things like that and I still get A*s in them.
I see people in my school getting A*s at GCSE when they are actually so dumb and have no common sense.
In German, for example, it is so easy to attain a good mark on the speaking if you just memorise a pre-prepared speech - something somebody could've written for you and still get a B or above.
The GCSEs we do today are far too simple, and anyone can agree on this. Most of it is learning based, and I have ZERO problem believing that the ENTIRE country could get A stars if they put in a reasonable amount of effort. It simply isn't that tough, and we shouldn't mistake bad grades for difficulty, but rather for lack of effort.
With this in mind, I'd like to see a tougher paper, rather than a more selective grading system. Differentiating the top marks shouldn't be about careless errors, but application of knowledge, and at the very least, knowledge of the course.
Scoring in the 99th percentile and the 92nd percentile do not distinguish ability, so why should there be a grade differentiating them? Set a really tough paper, where the A star (or 9) mark is at around 70%. Everyone who scores below 40% - give them a blanket grade of unmarkable or something equally bad.
Then watch as suddenly the entire country panics and realizes that in order not to piss away their future, they HAVE to get out of the unmarkable territory.
It will be tough, and students or teachers won't like it. But if it means a country where students actually put in the effort for a solid grade - then I'm all for it.
I envy nations like China and India, where students work their arse off to get the top grade, and in our pathetic country, people screw around all year, waste their time, traumatise their teachers and pass their exams with miserable grades.
With this in mind, I'd like to see a tougher paper, rather than a more selective grading system. Differentiating the top marks shouldn't be about careless errors, but application of knowledge, and at the very least, knowledge of the course.
Scoring in the 99th percentile and the 92nd percentile do not distinguish ability, so why should there be a grade differentiating them? Set a really tough paper, where the A star (or 9) mark is at around 70%. Everyone who scores below 40% - give them a blanket grade of unmarkable or something equally bad.
Then watch as suddenly the entire country panics and realizes that in order not to piss away their future, they HAVE to get out of the unmarkable territory.
It will be tough, and students or teachers won't like it. But if it means a country where students actually put in the effort for a solid grade - then I'm all for it.
I envy nations like China and India, where students work their arse off to get the top grade, and in our pathetic country, people screw around all year, waste their time, traumatise their teachers and pass their exams with miserable grades.
Original post by 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.
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.
I totally get your point, but if you think about it now, too many people are going to university and getting useless degrees. I'm not being a dick or anything but if you get an English or History degree, you're going to simply end up as an English or History teacher - there isn't much you can do with it and so people should really think about this, whereas with a science degree, there is much more to do. Degrees like media studies etc are completely pointless and I think the government are trying to stop people essentially wasting their time on pointless degrees. People generally don't think how the degree would help them in the job market.
Which brings me around to my second point. People should be given the chance to shine, no doubt, which is why I agree with you, but I believe that the new system isn't all that different from the current Higher/Foundation tier system, and personally, I believe everyone should take one tier, one specification, one exam board for each exam, but then I believe that there should be restrictions for who is allowed to do A-levels. For example, someone with a B or a C (now) shouldn't really do a subject at A-level in my opinion because it is unlikely that they'll be able to cope with it. That's not to say it that people with these grades are thick, they're so not, it's just probably practical work is more suited to them, or at least jobs that don't require a-levels. There are really too many people doing higher and further education who shouldn't and I think they're trying to tackle this. People are becoming delusional over their intelligence if they get a good grade at GCSE (now) because they are so easy to get. And that's why there should be more understanding.
Sorry about my rant, but I feel just as passionately. I agree with the new system to an extent, but more needs to be done to tighten it up and I definitely do not agree with 2 tiers as this is what is sort of happening now and those who are capable are being held back.
Original post by WillWalker23
I totally get your point, but if you think about it now, too many people are going to university and getting useless degrees. I'm not being a dick or anything but if you get an English or History degree, you're going to simply end up as an English or History teacher - there isn't much you can do with it and so people should really think about this, whereas with a science degree, there is much more to do. Degrees like media studies etc are completely pointless and I think the government are trying to stop people essentially wasting their time on pointless degrees. People generally don't think how the degree would help them in the job market.
Which brings me around to my second point. People should be given the chance to shine, no doubt, which is why I agree with you, but I believe that the new system isn't all that different from the current Higher/Foundation tier system, and personally, I believe everyone should take one tier, one specification, one exam board for each exam, but then I believe that there should be restrictions for who is allowed to do A-levels. For example, someone with a B or a C (now) shouldn't really do a subject at A-level in my opinion because it is unlikely that they'll be able to cope with it. That's not to say it that people with these grades are thick, they're so not, it's just probably practical work is more suited to them, or at least jobs that don't require a-levels. There are really too many people doing higher and further education who shouldn't and I think they're trying to tackle this. People are becoming delusional over their intelligence if they get a good grade at GCSE (now) because they are so easy to get. And that's why there should be more understanding.
Sorry about my rant, but I feel just as passionately. I agree with the new system to an extent, but more needs to be done to tighten it up and I definitely do not agree with 2 tiers as this is what is sort of happening now and those who are capable are being held back.
Which brings me around to my second point. People should be given the chance to shine, no doubt, which is why I agree with you, but I believe that the new system isn't all that different from the current Higher/Foundation tier system, and personally, I believe everyone should take one tier, one specification, one exam board for each exam, but then I believe that there should be restrictions for who is allowed to do A-levels. For example, someone with a B or a C (now) shouldn't really do a subject at A-level in my opinion because it is unlikely that they'll be able to cope with it. That's not to say it that people with these grades are thick, they're so not, it's just probably practical work is more suited to them, or at least jobs that don't require a-levels. There are really too many people doing higher and further education who shouldn't and I think they're trying to tackle this. People are becoming delusional over their intelligence if they get a good grade at GCSE (now) because they are so easy to get. And that's why there should be more understanding.
Sorry about my rant, but I feel just as passionately. I agree with the new system to an extent, but more needs to be done to tighten it up and I definitely do not agree with 2 tiers as this is what is sort of happening now and those who are capable are being held back.
Um, what. History is a pointless degree? Think about the skills you are taught as a Historian - logical analysis of evidence, as well as spotting bias and constructing arguments. Seems like a pretty brilliant course to me.
And people assume the population to be dumb, but they really, genuinely honestly aren't. Do you seriously believe that for example, Chinese kids are brighter than English ones? Of course not! If the English kids worked as hard as they could, instead of spending their time annoying teachers and wasting taxpayer money, then everyone could do well.
It's time for serious reform, where if you don't work hard, you don't go to university, and you end up at McDonald's. Sure, their might be the few casualties of children who are genuinely thick and try their hardest, but better they know from the beginning what kind of future they are destined for rather than being cheated into false hopes by a ridiculously easy GCSE exam.
Read my previous post if you want more information about my particular beliefs about this issue.
Original post by WillWalker23
I'm not being a dick or anything but if you get an English or History degree, you're going to simply end up as an English or History teacher - there isn't much you can do with it and so people should really think about this, whereas with a science degree, there is much more to do. Degrees like media studies etc are completely pointless and I think the government are trying to stop people essentially wasting their time on pointless degrees. People generally don't think how the degree would help them in the job market.
I'm not sure anyone would accuse you of being a dick. Ignorant, on the other hand...
You do realise that most people's degrees, even those who do science degrees, are completely irrelevant to their eventual career. It's simply having the degree that is important, not what you learn in it. While science degrees obviously have more job prospects (because there's a science industry which requires experts), it's not nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be.
Furthermore, there's more to a degree than simply the job prospects. Many people enjoy the experience of being able to study a subject they enjoy for 3 years, while being around like-minded people.
There's of course a point to be made about people going into degrees for the job prospects when it isn't in their best interest, but you over-simplify the problem, and your post also smacks of arrogance. It seems to me that most of the people happy to belittle those with degrees in subjects like media studies or from ex-polytechnics are lucky enough to not be in that situation themselves (or in your case, likely to end up in that position).
No-one's raised what my initial objection to this was - the additional pressure this puts on teenagers. People at what's currently the C/D boundary wouldn't be affected by it - the people affected would be those already achieving tons of As and A*s. And many of those are coming close to burning out as it is.
Original post by PythianLegume
I'm not sure anyone would accuse you of being a dick. Ignorant, on the other hand...
You do realise that most people's degrees, even those who do science degrees, are completely irrelevant to their eventual career. It's simply having the degree that is important, not what you learn in it. While science degrees obviously have more job prospects (because there's a science industry which requires experts), it's not nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be.
Furthermore, there's more to a degree than simply the job prospects. Many people enjoy the experience of being able to study a subject they enjoy for 3 years, while being around like-minded people.
There's of course a point to be made about people going into degrees for the job prospects when it isn't in their best interest, but you over-simplify the problem, and your post also smacks of arrogance. It seems to me that most of the people happy to belittle those with degrees in subjects like media studies or from ex-polytechnics are lucky enough to not be in that situation themselves (or in your case, likely to end up in that position).
You do realise that most people's degrees, even those who do science degrees, are completely irrelevant to their eventual career. It's simply having the degree that is important, not what you learn in it. While science degrees obviously have more job prospects (because there's a science industry which requires experts), it's not nearly as simplistic as you make it out to be.
Furthermore, there's more to a degree than simply the job prospects. Many people enjoy the experience of being able to study a subject they enjoy for 3 years, while being around like-minded people.
There's of course a point to be made about people going into degrees for the job prospects when it isn't in their best interest, but you over-simplify the problem, and your post also smacks of arrogance. It seems to me that most of the people happy to belittle those with degrees in subjects like media studies or from ex-polytechnics are lucky enough to not be in that situation themselves (or in your case, likely to end up in that position).
Eminently sensible post. PRSOM
Original post by RibenaRockstar
No-one's raised what my initial objection to this was - the additional pressure this puts on teenagers. People at what's currently the C/D boundary wouldn't be affected by it - the people affected would be those already achieving tons of As and A*s. And many of those are coming close to burning out as it is.
I am one of those kids, at an expensive private school which my parents worked extremely hard to pay for, expected to get all A stars. And I assure you, it's a joke. All pressure kids in this country face is nothing compared to what others face, and what my parents had to face.
In other countries, if you fail these exams, you won't have a future. That's real pressure - and that brings out the best in the students, because they just have no choice but to crack it.
Now, I'm not suggesting that that's healthy or some sort of perversely good system, but I do think that by making it too easy, we aren't doing ourselves any favours.
And I am confident when I say this - the reason kids fail today is not due to lack of intelligence but due to lack of effort. When success in GCSEs is predicated on learning things by rote, there is no excuse for failure.
So make it tougher for them, raise the stakes a bit, and watch them squirm. I for one would LOVE to see all the classroom clowns, all the spoilt kids smoking in the school yard freaking out, and knuckling down to some real work.
Original post by 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.
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.
This system is complete BS. A lot of my teachers taught us crap that we didn't need to know. While others I know rigorously worked through past papers and the spec. At least if I have children, I can help them reach the maximum potential. I did pretty okay, mostly As, but imagine if I went to a private school? And so many others also are in the same position. Just go to the med thread lol.
Original post by finnthehuman
This system is complete BS. A lot of my teachers taught us crap that we didn't need to know. While others I know rigorously worked through past papers and the spec. At least if I have children, I can help them reach the maximum potential. I did pretty okay, mostly As, but imagine if I went to a private school? And so many others also are in the same position. Just go to the med thread lol.
I'm not so sure it's so black and white. Think about the GCSE physics course -it's really easy, and a monkey could pass it with an a star - just learn the equations etc. But does that really inspire a generation to become interested in physics?
I was BLESSED to have a teacher last year who didn't just stick to the syllabus and work through past papers. I learned about Relativity, different interpretations of Quantum Theory, and all sorts of other interesting gems of Physics. And now I'm in love with the subject - I would love to take it at A-level.
Similar case with maths - most people hate maths GCSE, and I would be one of them, had it not been for the UKMT maths challenge and Further Maths GCSE. Both of those were much tougher and encouraged me to think about how to solve problems, and use my brain. And I began to really enjoy maths.
If every teacher taught rigorously to the syllabus, many students would hate their school lives even more than they do today. I'm not suggesting that the teacher should just go off on tangents 24/7.
But there is easily enough time to explain everything to the class - and then move on. After that, it is not the teacher's responsibility to make sure you know it, or to constantly baby you and make revision guides etc. That's all on you.
Original post by Damask-
Of course it's fair, in the same was as it's fair that not everyone was (supposedly) able to get an A* or A at GCSE. If everyone were able then it would lose its value straight away. People don't want to be told that they or their children are not going to get the top grade, but not everyone can be in the 95th percentile - that's the point of it.
Personally I think the new GCSE system is going to cause more problems than it solves and I think we'd have been better off adopting a GPA system so it's a more continuous scale, but I see absolutely no problem in giving the best grades to the best students and helping them stand out. It can be hard to stay motivated when constantly surrounded by a group of people who don't recognise the value of the education they're receiving and would rather not be there.
Personally I think the new GCSE system is going to cause more problems than it solves and I think we'd have been better off adopting a GPA system so it's a more continuous scale, but I see absolutely no problem in giving the best grades to the best students and helping them stand out. It can be hard to stay motivated when constantly surrounded by a group of people who don't recognise the value of the education they're receiving and would rather not be there.
I agree with you except on one thing... We should never adapt the GPA system. Purely because it will be harder for kids who've made so much progress to get good grades, since it's an average over the years. I like how out system shows strengths/ weaknesses of students. For instance I wasn't the brightest at the start of secondary (was in one of the lowest classes) but ended up an straight A*-A student at the end of yr11. Besides what really matters is your most recent achievements not who you were 4/5 years ago.
The new system doesn't sound too bad, that's how most countries do it anyway, don't see the fuss. It will just devide people's intelligence more clearly.
Original post by RibenaRockstar
No-one's raised what my initial objection to this was - the additional pressure this puts on teenagers. People at what's currently the C/D boundary wouldn't be affected by it - the people affected would be those already achieving tons of As and A*s. And many of those are coming close to burning out as it is.
Couldn't agree more. I don't think I could have pushed myself much harder at GCSE... it wasn't a lack of motivation that was the issue, it was the lack of resources, any kind of one-to-one attention from the teachers, poor teaching during the year... Making things more competitive does not solve this problem.
Original post by youcanttrackthis
I'm not so sure it's so black and white. Think about the GCSE physics course -it's really easy, and a monkey could pass it with an a star - just learn the equations etc. But does that really inspire a generation to become interested in physics?
I was BLESSED to have a teacher last year who didn't just stick to the syllabus and work through past papers. I learned about Relativity, different interpretations of Quantum Theory, and all sorts of other interesting gems of Physics. And now I'm in love with the subject - I would love to take it at A-level.
Similar case with maths - most people hate maths GCSE, and I would be one of them, had it not been for the UKMT maths challenge and Further Maths GCSE. Both of those were much tougher and encouraged me to think about how to solve problems, and use my brain. And I began to really enjoy maths.
If every teacher taught rigorously to the syllabus, many students would hate their school lives even more than they do today. I'm not suggesting that the teacher should just go off on tangents 24/7.
But there is easily enough time to explain everything to the class - and then move on. After that, it is not the teacher's responsibility to make sure you know it, or to constantly baby you and make revision guides etc. That's all on you.
I was BLESSED to have a teacher last year who didn't just stick to the syllabus and work through past papers. I learned about Relativity, different interpretations of Quantum Theory, and all sorts of other interesting gems of Physics. And now I'm in love with the subject - I would love to take it at A-level.
Similar case with maths - most people hate maths GCSE, and I would be one of them, had it not been for the UKMT maths challenge and Further Maths GCSE. Both of those were much tougher and encouraged me to think about how to solve problems, and use my brain. And I began to really enjoy maths.
If every teacher taught rigorously to the syllabus, many students would hate their school lives even more than they do today. I'm not suggesting that the teacher should just go off on tangents 24/7.
But there is easily enough time to explain everything to the class - and then move on. After that, it is not the teacher's responsibility to make sure you know it, or to constantly baby you and make revision guides etc. That's all on you.
Problematically, this was not the case for me. Psychis was very easy as I scored A* in it both times, scoring full marks once. Yet I didn't even have the proper resources. My parents didn't even know English well and I literally realised the importance of GCSE far too late.
My point is there has to be a mix of teaching for the love of the subject and helping to get the grades. If I went into the exams now, I would know how to revise and the importance of them, something most lower class don't. Then again, most people from here are mid/upper classes. I also loved maths, yet got a B, and was put in a class of fools who didn't even give a crap while I tried to try hard but my lazy teacher couldn't care and now I have left it. 'it is not the teacher's responsibility to make sure you know it'. Yeah I guess it's a 14 year old kids task to make sure they do everything themselves and know about how important the exams are.
I agree with you had the same deal I feel sympathetic to you and was told it's not my teachers fault her name was mrs Jackson people used to terrorise the woman sorry mrs Jackson song saggy tits etc she cried a lot I didn't do well but it's not the teachers responsibility well my question is WTH do they get paid for to teach so I shouldn't have to teach myself which I have done
Original post by finnthehuman
Problematically, this was not the case for me. Psychis was very easy as I scored A* in it both times, scoring full marks once. Yet I didn't even have the proper resources. My parents didn't even know English well and I literally realised the importance of GCSE far too late.
My point is there has to be a mix of teaching for the love of the subject and helping to get the grades. If I went into the exams now, I would know how to revise and the importance of them, something most lower class don't. Then again, most people from here are mid/upper classes. I also loved maths, yet got a B, and was put in a class of fools who didn't even give a crap while I tried to try hard but my lazy teacher couldn't care and now I have left it. 'it is not the teacher's responsibility to make sure you know it'. Yeah I guess it's a 14 year old kids task to make sure they do everything themselves and know about how important the exams are.
My point is there has to be a mix of teaching for the love of the subject and helping to get the grades. If I went into the exams now, I would know how to revise and the importance of them, something most lower class don't. Then again, most people from here are mid/upper classes. I also loved maths, yet got a B, and was put in a class of fools who didn't even give a crap while I tried to try hard but my lazy teacher couldn't care and now I have left it. 'it is not the teacher's responsibility to make sure you know it'. Yeah I guess it's a 14 year old kids task to make sure they do everything themselves and know about how important the exams are.
Original post by finnthehuman
Problematically, this was not the case for me. Psychis was very easy as I scored A* in it both times, scoring full marks once. Yet I didn't even have the proper resources. My parents didn't even know English well and I literally realised the importance of GCSE far too late.
My point is there has to be a mix of teaching for the love of the subject and helping to get the grades. If I went into the exams now, I would know how to revise and the importance of them, something most lower class don't. Then again, most people from here are mid/upper classes. I also loved maths, yet got a B, and was put in a class of fools who didn't even give a crap while I tried to try hard but my lazy teacher couldn't care and now I have left it. 'it is not the teacher's responsibility to make sure you know it'. Yeah I guess it's a 14 year old kids task to make sure they do everything themselves and know about how important the exams are.
My point is there has to be a mix of teaching for the love of the subject and helping to get the grades. If I went into the exams now, I would know how to revise and the importance of them, something most lower class don't. Then again, most people from here are mid/upper classes. I also loved maths, yet got a B, and was put in a class of fools who didn't even give a crap while I tried to try hard but my lazy teacher couldn't care and now I have left it. 'it is not the teacher's responsibility to make sure you know it'. Yeah I guess it's a 14 year old kids task to make sure they do everything themselves and know about how important the exams are.
I'm not saying the kids should be able to do everything on their own, it is the teachers job to help them and and teach them. All I'm saying is that the onus should be on the student, not the teacher. In the ideal world, the syllabus would have some more challenging and interesting material that would really stretch the students. But it doesn't, and it's tough for a teacher to balance all of this together.
I think any fool knows how important their public examinations are, and if you didn't prepare, I cannot for one second believe that that was due to you being unaware of how important public exams are.
I agree with you that there has to be a mix between teaching for the course, and going off syllabus, all I'm saying is that if a teacher by default just went through the syllabus, then that would take all the enjoyment out of the subject.
The key point is that this is a fault of the curriculum, NOT the teacher. There should bea curriculum that is stimulating enough for the most interested student as well as approachable for the least interested one, a curriculum that assumes students will put in the effort to get the top grades.
A teacher shouldn't have to balance off subject topic with on subject topic.
I feel that the education system has been calling out for this for a while now. Every man and his dog gets A*s now a days, there needs to be something to distinguish the top students.
Original post by youcanttrackthis
I'm not saying the kids should be able to do everything on their own, it is the teachers job to help them and and teach them. All I'm saying is that the onus should be on the student, not the teacher. In the ideal world, the syllabus would have some more challenging and interesting material that would really stretch the students. But it doesn't, and it's tough for a teacher to balance all of this together.
I think any fool knows how important their public examinations are, and if you didn't prepare, I cannot for one second believe that that was due to you being unaware of how important public exams are.
I agree with you that there has to be a mix between teaching for the course, and going off syllabus, all I'm saying is that if a teacher by default just went through the syllabus, then that would take all the enjoyment out of the subject.
The key point is that this is a fault of the curriculum, NOT the teacher. There should bea curriculum that is stimulating enough for the most interested student as well as approachable for the least interested one, a curriculum that assumes students will put in the effort to get the top grades.
A teacher shouldn't have to balance off subject topic with on subject topic.
I think any fool knows how important their public examinations are, and if you didn't prepare, I cannot for one second believe that that was due to you being unaware of how important public exams are.
I agree with you that there has to be a mix between teaching for the course, and going off syllabus, all I'm saying is that if a teacher by default just went through the syllabus, then that would take all the enjoyment out of the subject.
The key point is that this is a fault of the curriculum, NOT the teacher. There should bea curriculum that is stimulating enough for the most interested student as well as approachable for the least interested one, a curriculum that assumes students will put in the effort to get the top grades.
A teacher shouldn't have to balance off subject topic with on subject topic.
How would someone know how important exams are when no told them how important they would be? I, for hell, never knew that becoming a doctor required so many A* until it was late. But I do agree with you.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by vickie89uk
I agree with you had the same deal I feel sympathetic to you and was told it's not my teachers fault her name was mrs Jackson people used to terrorise the woman sorry mrs Jackson song saggy tits etc she cried a lot I didn't do well but it's not the teachers responsibility well my question is WTH do they get paid for to teach so I shouldn't have to teach myself which I have done
So many are in the position we are in because the rich get the best while the poor get the crap, and only people who live in a fantasy world don't believe this.
Many of my teachers just ended up becoming teachers and barely know how to teach anything, there are some that are great but they are few.
I want to be a doctor as well and I was told GCSE are not important you can make up for it at college that was the standard at my school needless to say they have been closed down now because the school was useless
Thankfully a university will still consider me due to very high profile extenuating circumstances and public criminal case that happened as I was at school I'm lucky in thag sense but many don't accept resits I have cps letters and doctor letter etc to back me up many dont have this.
I feel for anyone who goes through this because in the end I stopped taking a pen because it was so mad that the table would be flipped before your pen touches the table crazy is all I can sun my school as crazy and dysfunctional
Thankfully a university will still consider me due to very high profile extenuating circumstances and public criminal case that happened as I was at school I'm lucky in thag sense but many don't accept resits I have cps letters and doctor letter etc to back me up many dont have this.
I feel for anyone who goes through this because in the end I stopped taking a pen because it was so mad that the table would be flipped before your pen touches the table crazy is all I can sun my school as crazy and dysfunctional
Original post by finnthehuman
How would someone know how important exams are when no told them how important they would be? I for hell, never knew, that becoming a doctor so many A* until it was late. But I do agree with you.
Couldn't agree more
Original post by finnthehuman
So many are in the position we are in because the rich get the best while the poor get the crap, and only people who live in a fantasy world don't believe this.
Many of my teachers just ended up becoming teachers and barely know how to teach anything, there are some that are great but they are few.
Many of my teachers just ended up becoming teachers and barely know how to teach anything, there are some that are great but they are few.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Year 9
- Aren’t exams cruel?
- Looking for some guidance
- How many Sixth Forms should I go for?
- Two languages and Triple Science?
- oxbridge grades
- one day exclusion in year 10 please help im going crazy
- The struggles of convincing my Family to let me go to Uni
- school saying you cant get an A* if you got grade 7-8
- Is the Ebacc useful/needed to get into uni?
- GCSEs result
- Are Latin and Ancient Greek GCSE more desirable to top uni's than other subjects?
- How to get on teachers good side
- worth applying to LSE?
- 3 or 4 a-levels for maths at Cambridge imperial or Warwick
- just moved into uk curriculum from American..starting year 12 super confused
- Gap year before applying to medicine
- cs at ucl without fm
- Do gcse grades matter?
- self study further maths worth it?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
