[James A]

I think it's good they are getting hard, because certain people on this site claim they're smart when they come out with so many A*'s and yet when it comes to A-levels they can barely scrape a C grade.

[lewisbee]

(Original post by Thectan)
Mate seriously? You found them difficult? A levels are hard.. Eg at maths GCSE to get the A* you need about 70%.. To get that at A level you need an overall 80% with 90% in your final year. THAT, is stressful, THAT is difficult. GCSEs are taking a poodle for a walk to the park, A levels are trying to stop an army of rottweilers trying to kill you when all you have is te clothes you stand in. I'm guessing that degrees are even harder..



This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Yeah but that's the whole point of taking further education, did you expect it to get easier or something? Anyway, we are not the slightest concerned about A-Levels (although I will be doing them) because we are talking about a change to GCSE'S!

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by Thectan)
Mate seriously? You found them difficult? A levels are hard.. Eg at maths GCSE to get the A* you need about 70%.. To get that at A level you need an overall 80% with 90% in your final year. THAT, is stressful, THAT is difficult. GCSEs are taking a poodle for a walk to the park, A levels are trying to stop an army of rottweilers trying to kill you when all you have is te clothes you stand in. I'm guessing that degrees are even harder..


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Don't mix up UMS and raw marks,you need 90% UMS at GCSE for an A* in Maths and 80%(overall) and 90% in your final year,for an A8 at A-Level and roughly about 70% raw marks for an A* at GCSE and not to sure about A-Level-what makes A-Level hard is the big step up in content.GCSEs are hard enough though-you can only say they are easy if you get 100% in all subjects,without trying and nobody does that and even the most intelligent won't get all As or A*s without working in class.

Michael Gove even got asked some hard GCSE questions in parliament and couldn't answer them,already showing his incompetence because if they are easy,he should be able to answer all the questions,being at degree level,there is nothing wrong with GCSEs-they are just getting higher pass rates because people are getting cleverer because of evolution meaning smarter children and adults and there is more resources for people to learn from and more experience of the GCSE subject and O-Levels only seem harder because the content was different and the question-styles and questions are different,than what we are use to at GCSE.

[.snowflake.]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
Don't mix up UMS and raw marks,you need 90% UMS at GCSE for an A* in Maths and 80%(overall) and 90% in your final year,for an A8 at A-Level and roughly about 70% raw marks for an A* at GCSE and not to sure about A-Level-what makes A-Level hard is the big step up in content.GCSEs are hard enough though-you can only say they are easy if you get 100% in all subjects,without trying and nobody does that and even the most intelligent won't get all As or A*s without working in class.

Michael Gove even got asked some hard GCSE questions in parliament and couldn't answer them,already showing his incompetence because if they are easy,he should be able to answer all the questions,being at degree level,there is nothing wrong with GCSEs-they are just getting higher pass rates because people are getting cleverer because of evolution meaning smarter children and adults and there is more resources for people to learn from and more experience of the GCSE subject and O-Levels only seem harder because the content was different and the question-styles and questions are different,than what we are use to at GCSE.

O_o. Does anyone understand what he's just said.

[Thectan]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
Don't mix up UMS and raw marks,you need 90% UMS at GCSE for an A* in Maths and 80%(overall) and 90% in your final year,for an A8 at A-Level and roughly about 70% raw marks for an A* at GCSE and not to sure about A-Level-what makes A-Level hard is the big step up in content.GCSEs are hard enough though-you can only say they are easy if you get 100% in all subjects,without trying and nobody does that and even the most intelligent won't get all As or A*s without working in class.

Michael Gove even got asked some hard GCSE questions in parliament and couldn't answer them,already showing his incompetence because if they are easy,he should be able to answer all the questions,being at degree level,there is nothing wrong with GCSEs-they are just getting higher pass rates because people are getting cleverer because of evolution meaning smarter children and adults and there is more resources for people to learn from and more experience of the GCSE subject and O-Levels only seem harder because the content was different and the question-styles and questions are different,than what we are use to at GCSE.

90% UMS at A level is 90% raw mark. Sometimes there is variations of about 1 mark, but rarely


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by Thectan)
90% UMS at A level is 90% raw mark. Sometimes there is variations of about 1 mark, but rarely


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

No it isn't-usually there are usually big variations for example-46/60=100% UMS and for example -58/75-100% UMS and this is quite normal,the raw marks usually aren't too close to 90%,sometimes the grade boundaries,for 90% UMS, can be bigger than 90% too.

[James A]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
Don't mix up UMS and raw marks,you need 90% UMS at GCSE for an A* in Maths and 80%(overall) and 90% in your final year,for an A8 at A-Level and roughly about 70% raw marks for an A* at GCSE and not to sure about A-Level-what makes A-Level hard is the big step up in content.GCSEs are hard enough though-you can only say they are easy if you get 100% in all subjects,without trying and nobody does that and even the most intelligent won't get all As or A*s without working in class.

Michael Gove even got asked some hard GCSE questions in parliament and couldn't answer them,already showing his incompetence because if they are easy,he should be able to answer all the questions,being at degree level,there is nothing wrong with GCSEs-they are just getting higher pass rates because people are getting cleverer because of evolution meaning smarter children and adults and there is more resources for people to learn from and more experience of the GCSE subject and O-Levels only seem harder because the content was different and the question-styles and questions are different,than what we are use to at GCSE.

@ the part in bold

Kid, i don't even know where to start with you.

The reason why they are withdrawing GCSE's is because people like you are getting good grades easily. The GCSE papers are easy anyway, stop acting like it's hard.

Wait till you get to A-levels, then you will get a good span**** by the exam papers.

[Dalek1099]

(Original post by James A)
@ the part in bold

Kid, i don't even know where to start with you.

The reason why they are withdrawing GCSE's is because people like you are getting good grades easily. The GCSE papers are easy anyway, stop acting like it's hard.

Wait till you get to A-levels, then you will get a good span**** by the exam papers.

If GCSE papers were harder,then A-Levels would be easier,in the end of the day although A-Levels are really hard,people still end up getting good grades in them after taking GCSEs and I know a lot of work is required in Years 12 and 13-at least it will be in the subjects I enjoy.

[nmr1991]

In my experience, GCSE's had higher grade boundaries than A levels, embarrassingly I got about 79/200 marks in each subject (A-level) which equated to 39-40% (to get E I needed at least 40% so I was just under it but it still is a bad grade for my level of education), GCSE have it a little harder however where I didn't revise so I got low grades, my A-levels could have been better had I revised or had more enjoyable subjects. Sometimes I regret the decisions I have made in the past, I can't do anything to reverse it.

[Jack22031994]

(Original post by nmr1991)
In my experience, GCSE's had higher grade boundaries than A levels, embarrassingly I got about 79/200 marks in each subject (A-level) which equated to 39-40% (to get E I needed at least 40% so I was just under it but it still is a bad grade for my level of education), GCSE have it a little harder however where I didn't revise so I got low grades, my A-levels could have been better had I revised or had more enjoyable subjects. Sometimes I regret the decisions I have made in the past, I can't do anything to reverse it.

Gcses tend to have the same every year but A levels (subjects I do) change all the time depending on the difficulty of the paper and/or harsh the exam board marks


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[Converse Rocker]

(Original post by Dalek1099)
there is nothing wrong with GCSEs-they are just getting higher pass rates because people are getting cleverer because of evolution meaning smarter children and adults

Sorry man, but if there was ever a bad time for a spelling error, it's when discussing how people are naturally becoming more intelligent.

On topic, I heard Gove was facing fierce opposition to the proposed changes. I think I'll hold my breath a little longer than when the Daily Mail have announced it. Not that I'm suggesting anything...

[Harveys]

I am sorry for students that have worked hard to pass exams, but sorry you have been conned and misled.



Exam standards have dropped because boards are competing to offer the easiest papers, a damning year-long inquiry has found.

An influential committee of MPs concluded that the current system allows boards to 'strip out' content from GCSEs and A-levels so they can boast to schools that their exams are 'more accessible'.

The public has been forced to endure years of denials that grade inflation exists even though they can see it 'with their own eyes', they said.

The Commons education select committee today backed the thrust of the reforms but suggested instead devising a single national syllabus for each subject and allowing boards to set question papers against it.

This would remove incentives to dumb down courses and 'race to the bottom' while still allowing the benefits of competition, it was claimed.
Committee chairman Graham Stuart said a system of single national syllabuses would prevent exam boards 'making out their syllabus is more accessible than someone else's'.

He added: 'It would get rid of the perverse incentive to strip out content from a syllabus, to strip out the richness of learning from a course in order to make the course supposedly more accessible, in truth to make it easier.'

He highlighted embarrassing undercover filming last year which showed a senior geography examiner for the Edexcel board telling a reporter, posing as a teacher, that 'you don't have to teach a lot' and there was 'a lot less' for pupils to learn than with rival exam boards.

Steph Warren admitted she did not know 'how we got it through' the official regulation system that is supposed to ensure high standards.

Mr Stuart said: 'We conclude that competition between exam boards creates significant pressure to drive down standards in exams, and that the time is right for fundamental reform.

'We have got to stop the dumbing down of the courses young people sit and stop exam boards competing on how accessible their syllabuses are.

'There has been grade inflation. There has been a denial it's going on while the public can see with their own eyes that it's happening.

'If you have people denying obvious truths they see in their own lives they will lose confidence in those who are vouching for that system.'

[Lit teacher]

(Original post by ajp100688)
If we had the German system I would have gone to the equivalent of a Gymnasium, which is what most German students who go to university have to go through

Which confirms my suspicions. I have heard several people argue that university applications should be restricted, and pupils encouraged to take vocational courses, but they are always people who have been to university themselves and they look appalled when I suggest that maybe their child would rather be a carpenter.

(Original post by ajp100688)
you only need to look at stuff like the Only Way Is Essex and the stereotpical chavs you'll see hanging around your town centre

and exactly how representative are they of the current generation of university applicants?

(Original post by ajp100688)
the Labour project of 1997-2010 where politicians put forth the idea that everyone should go to uni and aggressively pushed the idea in the media and in schools to get uni attendence up to around 50%.

Since when has 'everyone' equated to 50%? You have argued for greater social mobility in the same post as criticising a scheme which promoted social mobility. Those who go to university on average earn more, and are more likely to have children who go to university.

(Original post by ajp100688)
although the increase in tutition fees is harsh it ultimately pushes no one out of going to university

Applications in England fell by 10% this year (1.5% in Scotland)

(Original post by ajp100688)
Its hard enough to find a decent graduate job with an arts/humanities degree from a Rusell Group university,

That will change when we get a less financially incompetent government.

(Original post by ajp100688)
That starting salary is distorted because it includes banking, law and medicine which have much higher starting wages.

Now you are distorting the evidence until it fits your hypothesis. What about career prospects? Working conditions?

(Original post by ajp100688)
I started at 8.30am when I was at school and finished at 3.30pm for the vast majority of the time I was there. It's longer hours and yet our schools are still pretty damn inferior to German gymnasiums..

The vast majority of UK state schools do not start at 8.30. You have already stated that the gymnasium is aimed at potential university applicants, so it's not a like for like comparison either.

(Original post by ajp100688)
the whole ethos of treating everyone the same in education rather than pushing the most able is a very left wing associated idea.

Eh? Why shouldn't schools push everyone to do their best? Are we really to return to a time when the top sets were given all the best resources and encouragement, and those judged not clever enough aged 11 spent their time at school making pipe racks and colouring in? Not all pupils will get an A*, but the idea that teachers should not get the best out of every pupil is bizarre.

(Original post by ajp100688)
...and it works. Gymnasiums/Grammar schools are actually a great tool for social mobility

A myth.
I live in an area which still has Grammar schools. With very few exceptions they prevent social mobility. The wealthy parents here send their children to independent schools which do not need to teach the national curriculum, and so have time to coach pupils to pass the Grammar entrance exam. I personally know a boy in year 5 at a fee paying school who has had several lessons a week for the last year focused solely on passing the 11+. The nearby Montessori school starts 11+ coaching in year 3. The state primary teaches pupils to pass their SATs.

Slightly less wealthy parents pay for a private tutor, commonly spending £25 an hour for between 9 months and a year. Children from poorer backgrounds have to hope that their parents are able to coach them. Surveys have shown that although pupils from fee-paying primary schools are disproportionately represented amongst Grammar entries, on average they have lower levels of literacy and numeracy than their state educated peers.

[ajp100688]

(Original post by Lit teacher)
Which confirms my suspicions. I have heard several people argue that university applications should be restricted, and pupils encouraged to take vocational courses, but they are always people who have been to university themselves and they look appalled when I suggest that maybe their child would rather be a carpenter.
and exactly how representative are they of the current generation of university applicants?

I'd have absolutely no problem with my child being a carpenter if they weren't academic. It's a highly skilled well paid job, nothing wrong with being a carpenter at all. In fact my grandfather and his father were carpenters.

Since when has 'everyone' equated to 50%? You have argued for greater social mobility in the same post as criticising a scheme which promoted social mobility. Those who go to university on average earn more, and are more likely to have children who go to university.

Social mobility isn't being improved when people are getting put through university degrees that don't improve their work prospects. A degree from an ex poly university which isn't expressly linked to companies within a specific industry adds negligible benefits to a CV. Hell I have an Arts degree from a (soon) Russell Group university and it's a struggle enough with that, although I'm still glad I did it.

Applications in England fell by 10% this year (1.5% in Scotland)

From what I've experienced it's largely because of a poor grasp of what the new financial system consists of. I've lost track of the amount of people I've spoke to, who have claimed stuff like working class families won't be able to afford uni under the new system and didn't even know that you paid fees after, that repayments don't kick in until a certain margin etc and that there's some decent bursaries out there. Poor Sixth Forms and Secondary Schools where these things aren't properly explained don't help matters either.

Now you are distorting the evidence until it fits your hypothesis. What about career prospects? Working conditions?

I'm not really distorting the evidence, the people who work in those industries are a small minority of graduates each year but because their wages are so high vis the average graduate they do distort the starting salary stats.

The vast majority of UK state schools do not start at 8.30. You have already stated that the gymnasium is aimed at potential university applicants, so it's not a like for like comparison either.

Well yeah that's my point. Bring back Grammars and introduce a school system based upon the same principles as Gymnasiums, so that we can push up standards for the best. Teaching for those not as academically able needs reforming and made better aswell but in other ways.

Eh? Why shouldn't schools push everyone to do their best? Are we really to return to a time when the top sets were given all the best resources and encouragement, and those judged not clever enough aged 11 spent their time at school making pipe racks and colouring in? Not all pupils will get an A*, but the idea that teachers should not get the best out of every pupil is bizarre.

It's not a case of pushing just the most able and leaving the others behind to rot. The point is that the most able can be pushed much harder than the less able and thus an environment which facilitates this helps them fulfill their ability. One size doesn't fit all, you can't push the best to their limits if they're in schools with many others at a different level to them.

A myth.
I live in an area which still has Grammar schools. With very few exceptions they prevent social mobility. The wealthy parents here send their children to independent schools which do not need to teach the national curriculum, and so have time to coach pupils to pass the Grammar entrance exam. I personally know a boy in year 5 at a fee paying school who has had several lessons a week for the last year focused solely on passing the 11+. The nearby Montessori school starts 11+ coaching in year 3. The state primary teaches pupils to pass their SATs.

Slightly less wealthy parents pay for a private tutor, commonly spending £25 an hour for between 9 months and a year. Children from poorer backgrounds have to hope that their parents are able to coach them. Surveys have shown that although pupils from fee-paying primary schools are disproportionately represented amongst Grammar entries, on average they have lower levels of literacy and numeracy than their state educated peers.

After the recent reforms, the vast majority of state run schools are academies now anyways and won't be teaching the national curriculum with the same rigidity as in the past.

And your whole example rests upon the theory that you need professional coaching to pass the 11+. I came from a working class family, I was the first one in my family to go to university, my entire training for the 11+ consisted of one Saturday where I got familiar with those stupid pattern based reasoning exams because I was unfamiliar with them. I passed my 11+ easily. If you have the ability then you don't need coaching. Incidentally I turned down a place at my local Grammar and went to a school that was in OFSTED special measures but that's an entirely different matter.

Andrew Neil actually did a brilliant documentary on the BBC a few months ago about how the decline of grammar schools has seen a massive decrease in the number of working class and state educated people in parliament. Only only a microcosm of the national as a whole, it's pretty telling. I wish it was still on the iPlayer.