[ByrneToff]

Hey TSR, I wrote this article for the Indy, and seeing as you're mostly all university or A level students I'd be interested in your thoughts:

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/...a/#dsq-content

Do you support giving control over the content of A levels over to these unis?

[geditor]

Yes, I completely agree; the academic standards of currently A-Levels are atrocious! We are taught mostly how to pass exams rather than actually learning about about subject. It's mostly up to the independent students to go learn for themselves. Personally, I was so disgraced by the way the Maths and Electronics syllabuses were taught in my school, I decided to drop the subjects and study them by myself rather than just learning to pass an exam.

Good article by the way

[Jim-Jam]

(Original post by geditor)
Yes, I completely agree; the academic standards of currently A-Levels are atrocious! We are taught mostly how to pass exams rather than actually learning about about subject. It's mostly up to the independent students to go learn for themselves. Personally, I was so disgraced by the way the Maths and Electronics syllabuses were taught in my school, I decided to drop the subjects and study them by myself rather than just learning to pass an exam.

Good article by the way

This is it. I do **** in exams, probably because I actually know the subject and not how to answer an exam.

It's like those people who get A's but have no common sense and are as thick as pig ****. Makes my blood boil.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Bear in mind this is a Michael Gove proposal. The purpose is to get a headline for being tough or rigorous or whatever, and help him move on to a bigger job.

There's no evidence yet the universities actually want to do this, or that the universities minister is on board fully. Why the Russell Group? Even before the first big expansion of unis (early 90s) most students didn't go to one of them. The Russell Group themselves are by no means the best at every subject or at teaching.

Getting a broader range of unis, paying them for the work properly, that is a good idea.

[Ra Ra Ra]

This is my main problem with GCSEs and A Levels. What really makes me annoyed is the sheer number of people attaining As and A*s who, outside of the respective exam specifications, couldn't tell you anything related to the subject they're studying. One of my friends got an A* in Geography, yet she can't place Spain on a map. Sure, knowing where Spain is isn't a prerequisite for Geography, but for God's sake it's not even on another continent. She's even been to Alicante and Madrid. Surely something is wrong when students can achieve 95 UMS, yet can't locate a nearby country?

Personally I'd love to learn around the subject in lessons, instead of learning the various methods on how to answer the question to receive the highest marks (practically all I'm doing in my lessons at the moment). Exams aren't strictly measured on content for Humanities subjects, merely the specific way you structure the essays. If the Russell Group universities can offer a broader specification and not focus entirely on 'how to word your essay exactly', then I'd be happy to see it change. That said, it's Michael Gove, so I'll refrain from getting my hopes up

Excellent article, by the way.

[Psyk]

(Original post by geditor)
Yes, I completely agree; the academic standards of currently A-Levels are atrocious! We are taught mostly how to pass exams rather than actually learning about about subject. It's mostly up to the independent students to go learn for themselves. Personally, I was so disgraced by the way the Maths and Electronics syllabuses were taught in my school, I decided to drop the subjects and study them by myself rather than just learning to pass an exam.

Good article by the way

I found that there were plenty of exams at uni that were along the same lines. You could pass them from just doing past papers and remembering the questions that will probably come up. I suppose the main difference is that exams are only a part of how you're assessed at uni. The final project was worth 25% of my entire degree, and you wouldn't do very well on that without a decent understanding of the subject.

[Taggart]

(Original post by Psyk)
I found that there were plenty of exams at uni that were along the same lines. You could pass them from just doing past papers and remembering the questions that will probably come up. I suppose the main difference is that exams are only a part of how you're assessed at uni. The final project was worth 25% of my entire degree, and you wouldn't do very well on that without a decent understanding of the subject.

that very much depends on the university though, I'm shocked at how little work some of my friends at other unis have to do, and my final year is worth 70% of my degree which is a bit scary...

but yeah univeristies should set A level curriculum, there was a huge jump in both complexity and the volume of work between A level and university for me and I think this should be changed, unfortunately schools and colleges are never going to stop training you to pass exams instead of teaching you because of the pressure they're under from ofstead etc

[Psyk]

(Original post by Taggart)
that very much depends on the university though, I'm shocked at how little work some of my friends at other unis have to do, and my final year is worth 70% of my degree which is a bit scary...

Well this was Bristol, which is a Russell Group uni. Although to be fair, it was only a few exams that were like that.

[Hobo389]

Get on with it, let it be done. This is not a proposal for elitism, this is about meritocracy! The enforced equality of modern Alevels have led them to be worthless. What a surprise? Equality doesn't promote society as a whole, it drags it all down to a sub-standard level. Meritocracy is the way forward. With Alevels being dropped in the elitist institutions at a rate of knots then meritocracy can reign within the state sector and Alevels. That is true fairness.

[Besakt]

Most subjects if not all you are taught to pass exams not really understand the subject
Learning mark schemes, where to pick up easy marks, keywords.
It shouldn't be like this.

[Psyk]

One problem with letting unis control A-levels is that they might end up being useless for anything other than getting into uni. I know that if you don't want to go to uni there are other qualifications you can do instead of A-levels, but not everyone will know what they want to do at the age of 16. Or they might go to uni and realise it's not for them. Ideally A-levels should be stand alone qualifications that are useful for the workplace in themselves, not purely a stepping stone for uni.

[Tubby Isaacs]

(Original post by Psyk)
One problem with letting unis control A-levels is that they might end up being useless for anything other than getting into uni. I know that if you don't want to go to uni there are other qualifications you can do instead of A-levels, but not everyone will know what they want to do at the age of 16. Or they might go to uni and realise it's not for them. Ideally A-levels should be stand alone qualifications that are useful for the workplace in themselves, not purely a stepping stone for uni.

Excellent point.

The fact that degrees are going to cost a fortune is very relevant here.

[LysFromParis]

I think the UK will be better of with a baccalaureate system. The current system limit students possibility artificially and ask them to make decision which shape their whole life while they are still to immature to do so. Furthermore, most student lack what would be considered basic education standard in some other countries.

[HighestKungFu]

I see a lot of complaints about subjects being taught to 'pass exams', but the problem is that when it is all said and done it is the final grades that count. These are what go on the CV, enhance a school's/college's reputation, and open access to university. Can you really blame teachers for focusing on grades when they're the only thing that seem to matter in the end?

[DeBushee]

I am so glad that someone has finally mentioned this! It's being said a lot that the A-level standard of education is very lacking, but nobody has worded it better than you have, good sir. I think it is relevant to say that the A-level qualification is also delivered through a very inconvenient and short time span, if the student is not self-teaching their subjects. I am currently an A-level student on my gap year and have decided to pick up an extra A-level (further maths), and I must say, the freedom I have experienced in self-learning a subject I very much enjoy has presented itself as a complete antipode to the learning standards delivered through A-levels. Although this may be down to the fact that I have scooted in a large amount of free time to study in depth something I love, I remember making the decision to not study further maths during my two A-level years so I can enjoy and learn it better on my own. Loads of disagreement and controversy from teachers later, I am finally doing what I wanted, but only because I knew that the education standard offered by schools during your A-level years are very poor. It shouldn't be like this! A student shouldn't have to arbitrarily take out a year of their time to study a subject they enjoy the way they wanted to, even if it was their own choice, and at the same time, it being denounced by many of the teachers that you have been taught by!

We are expected to learn, in depth, a range of subjects within a short time span and FORCED to remember only the convenient parts that will ensure us a passing grade; or a grade compliant with the entry standards of our university of choice. Teachers even ADVISE us to remember only these convenient pieces of information whilst (I kid you not - this has actually happened to me more than once as I am very inquisitive student) recommending us to forget other parts of the course we have learnt by ourselves out of self-interest and curiosity to ensure "minimal confusion" during the exam. Could you believe this!? Surely you'd think that ALL that you have been taught relative to your subject is relevant, so why am I being discouraged to inquire about content that spans beyond the A-level curriculum. I agree with what HighestKungu says about final grades being the only thing that employers and universities can judge by, but I think that even our grading method should be reformed to allow for more room where a student can learn more, and therefore present more in their list of skills more conveniently. Also, despite the fact that employers etc. can't help but judge by our grades does not mean the grading system is reliable. It absolutely is not. Like someone said before, just because someone got a grade A or A* in a subject does not mean they are WHIZZES at it! It means that they knew how to pass the exam, and from what I know, exams are not a good measure of knowledge either. The wording of your answer contributes GREATLY to your final grade, and this may limit someone's ability to present their knowledge about the subject if they are forced to present it in words that don't come naturally to their way of expression. Yes, I think the examiners should be people who are very knowledgeable in their field of study, i.e university professors, etc., so that they can have a stronger attachment to what a student is attempting to deliver in response to a question rather than someone who is reading off a mark scheme and is meticulously yet clumsily trying to grade a student's paper word by word just because they are under the same pressure to mark the student's work correctly as the student is to preform to the examiner. However, although this system might be ideal, I don't know whether it would realistically work since university professors have more important jobs to do than mark school kids' papers. Maybe, maybe not? I don't know, but one thing I do know is that the A-level system has a LOT to account for, and that it's probably going to take some time and thinking before any efficient change will be delivered.

[DeBushee]

(Original post by HighestKungFu)
I see a lot of complaints about subjects being taught to 'pass exams', but the problem is that when it is all said and done it is the final grades that count. These are what go on the CV, enhance a school's/college's reputation, and open access to university. Can you really blame teachers for focusing on grades when they're the only thing that seem to matter in the end?

Yes, but there could be a way to alter the quality of education to account for both exam success and guaranteed in depth/breadth of knowledge in said subject. So the solution might be to alter exams in such a way that, as a teacher is preparing a student to pass an exam, they are also teaching them a lot about their field of study in doing so. At the moment, the increased concern put on passing exams by teachers means that students run the risk of learning less as teachers persistently tailor the content they learn in order to suit the exam's criteria which is, sadly at the moment, not the most ideal one out there.

[Darkphilosopher]

(Original post by LysFromParis)
I think the UK will be better of with a baccalaureate system. The current system limit students possibility artificially and ask them to make decision which shape their whole life while they are still to immature to do so. Furthermore, most student lack what would be considered basic education standard in some other countries.

I disagree. The IB system is very limited in choices and forces the student to take academic subjects.
A-levels allow the student to structure their education on something they may enjoy / will be necessary for university.

[Prince Rhyus]

Some sound points made in the article. I can't help but feel that the country has not had a wide-ranging debate on what the purpose of exams are.

What it boils down to is a measurement of someone's ability in a given field against an arbitrary measure at a given point in time. The score that is given is then used by other people for whatever means:

• Universities to decide who should get in and who should not
• Employers to decide which person to employ, if any
• Parents to boast to each other about how wonderfully their offspring have done

(I half-jest with the last one!)

One of the many problems with the changing standards over the decades is that it brings in uncertainty - which destabilises the whole system. As an employer, I would want to know whether someone with an A-level in Maths gained in say 1998 is the same as someone who had gained it in 2008. The problem also extends to universities. Without a reasonable idea of comparison between the universities, it's very difficult to make a judgement in a short space of time as to which applicant may be preferable. It's one of the reasons why top firms spend a huge amount of resources on their own assessment centres. (I went through the Civil Service one several years ago - they are intense).

As an employer, you have a very limited amount of time and resources to spend on recruitment - you want to concentrate on your day-to-day work. In return for paying taxes, you expect the state (amongst other things) to run a system of assessment at the end of a person's education that allows the former to shorten the cost of recruitment. So if an employer wants an applicant to be reasonably numerate and literate, they can set a standard at requiring C-grades at GCSE for maths and English - rather than testing each applicant themselves. If people with those grades then turn out to be struggling with literacy and numeracy, then the examination system - and the teaching beyond it is then called into question.

Why competitive exam boards?

This for me is where competition did not work. Rather than using competition to drive up standards, it went in the opposite direction - in part because of flawed incentives. School funding from the government is in part dependent on exam results. With that pressure, the incentive on schools is to select the exam boards that are most likely to give the highest number of top grades. The incentive is on the teachers to teach to the test because their pay in part is related to how successful the school is - especially with further decentralisation and independent academies.

The privatised exam boards have an incentive to meet this demand. Make your exams too stringent and fewer schools will choose you. Because you are a profit-making organisation, you need to make a return on your operation. Therefore you 'dumb down' in order to fill your order book. It's big money too. In 2009 secondary schools alone spent £281million on exam fees alone. There is a lot of money to be made out of exams.

You then had the recent scandal exposed in the Telegraph. With such big money in exams and incentives for exam boards to make money, it's not surprising that things have become aggressively commercialised.

The question then is how to rein things back in. For me, taking the profit motive out would be a start. What may be in the interests of shareholders may not be in the interests of the wider economy. As the assessment of exams and awarding of results underpins so much of the economy, shareholder interest where this conflicts (as I have outlined above) means something needs to be done.

This may mean the restriction of who can accredit qualifications and may ultimately mean the nationalisation of exam boards under an executive government agency accountable to ministers.

Coming back to the employers' perspectives, they want to know they can trust the grade attached to the qualification. They don't have time to look into the ins and outs of exam boards and syllabuses. I remember my old geography teacher saying how the syllabus we were following was a damn sight harder than ones at my old school, but that it allowed the 'better' students to shine. That didn't stop me from feeling peeved about having to work into the ground for my grade B versus those from my former school who seemed to have a much easier time of it. A university admissions tutor may be able to make some distinction, but the wider world?

Another perspective from me is that I don't like the idea of "You have to take your GCSEs when you're 16 and A-levels when you're 18". (Or the expectation of). I couldn't help but feel I needed one more term with my A-levels (even though my grades were quite good in the end). I'd prefer to move to a system and a culture of people taking exams when they are ready. Ditto with university and the expectation that 'it is the next thing to go on to' (which was a phrase I often heard from fellow undergrads when I was there - though I expect the stupendously high fees will have changed that expectation significantly now).

At the moment, the system and culture of exams costs too much, is damaging to people who genuinely have a love for the subject by being taught to the test, produces qualifications that employers don't seem to have enough confidence in and seems to lack consistency over time. Yes, there needs to be reform, but I'm not sure the political establishment have the will-power to bring in the reforms that are needed - i.e. taking control of the situation. It sounds like they want 'someone else' (whether universities or otherwise) to do it for them. I am however, open to persuasion that this is not the case.

[Psyk]

(Original post by LysFromParis)
I think the UK will be better of with a baccalaureate system. The current system limit students possibility artificially and ask them to make decision which shape their whole life while they are still to immature to do so. Furthermore, most student lack what would be considered basic education standard in some other countries.

That's a valid point. A lot of people don't know what they want to do when they go to university, let alone when they've finished their GCSEs.

However, some people thrive on having choices so early on. If they know what their strengths and interests are, they can focus on them instead of getting bogged down and demotivated by subjects they don't enjoy.

I think a better way of doing it would be allow a fairly wide choice of A-levels, but encourage students who aren't sure to do a well rounded variety of subjects. At the moment that doesn't happen at all. Instead students are encouraged to do subjects that will get them the best grades, not necessarily the subjects that will get them the best education. People get pushed into quite specialised subjects because they are easier to pass, instead of having a more general education that keeps their options open. For example, if you do maths, a science, english and maybe a foreign language or a humanities subject, you would have a suitable education to do pretty much anything you want at uni. But where can media studies, ICT and photography get you? I'm sure they are decent subjects if that's the area you want to go into (except ICT, that's just plain ****), but you should be damn sure that's what you want to do if you're doing those subjects.

[lsaul95]

(Original post by ByrneToff)
Hey TSR, I wrote this article for the Indy, and seeing as you're mostly all university or A level students I'd be interested in your thoughts:

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/...a/#dsq-content

Do you support giving control over the content of A levels over to these unis?

When will the A level reforms be enforced, if decided upon? I have just started A-levels and I'm happy with the way the course is set out, will this impact the current A-level students at all?