[Good bloke]

(Original post by the bear)
Did you have to use your abacus ?

That is mental arithmetic - no need for any artificial aids. Desktop calculators were industrial machines in those days, and took up the whole desk; pocket calculators were several years off and would cost a couple of weeks' pay.

[the bear]

(Original post by Good bloke)
That is mental arithmetic - no need for any artificial aids. Desktop calculators were industrial machines in those days, and took up the whole desk; pocket calculators were several years off and would cost a couple of weeks' pay.

Were you working at Bletchley Park ?

[Good bloke]

(Original post by the bear)
Were you working at Bletchley Park ?

I'm not that old.

[SilverArch]

Right now, the national rate of 5A*-C (including English and Maths) is 58.2%
So, 41.8% are not getting 5 A*-C in the current GCSE's, lamabasted as being a 'waste', and 'not worth the paper they're written on'

And yet, according to the article, the new O Level would be sat by 75% of students, with the bottom 25% doing the alternative qualification

Slight discrepancy in the figures there, Mr Gove. If you toughen up qualifications by a large amount, I guaruntee that 75% will not be sitting the harder exam. If an O-Level really were to become one of the most difficult exams in the world (for 16 year olds) then surely only the top 25-35% of students would sit it? Or you're going to push quite a lot of students into taking an exam they are guarunteed to fail

This really does seem to write off a large amount of students early. Face it, certain schools will not enter any students for O-Level, they will enter them all for the other one. At the age of 13, they will have a ceiling placed on them. Gove wants them to sit an exam testing them on their ability to read a bus timetable?? WTF?! I know so many friends who would fail the hardest GCSE level exam in the world...but they can achieve far more than reading a bus timetable. Not that Gove cares about them....

[rmpr97]

If the exams are so easy then I challenge Mr Gove to sit them and get an A* and if he does fair enough, but I doubt he will.

[rmpr97]

Also if the problem are mickey mouse GCSE's to meet 5A*-C, then why can't he scrap them or just make them BTEC's?

[dada55]

The tests are only slightly harder. The difference between that 1968 O level paper and current GCSES is that it seems you were expected to interpret the questions before answering them. Like the shape questions, first you will probbably draw them out to make it easier to spot what they are asking for and how to solve it.
I'm not sure how you do sin/cos/tan without calculator but only because we have never been taught it as it was not needed (I'm assuming you draw the sin/cos/tan graph and estimate?)
There are also larger numbers which makes it slightly more annoying but I wouldn't say more difficult.

My biggest problem would be "careless work and untidy work will be penalised" My workings out are never tidy...

I mean times are changing, yes GCSEs are easier but everything in the world is getting dubbed down due to technological advancements, people don't bother remembering stuff because google remembers it for them. I'm pretty sure a lot of people knew how to fix certain appliances/cars/building etc while nowdays we just buy new to replace the old.

I think the only thing they should do is make it 1 exam board only to keep the tests as fair as possible. The rest of the changes are unneccesary.

[Lovefoxxx_93]

Just had a look at one of the Spanish past papers on the Cambridge International O Level website and felt quite smug for a bit. Then realised that they were meant to be sat by 15-16 yos not 18 yos.

[yunghamz]

I agree with making the exams harder but the split at the age of 14 is ridiculous, this will definitively only benefit those at higher end schools. At the age of 14, i would have been classed as one of those "CSE students" under this new system because i didn't really pay attention in class and i had no motivation to do well in class. I got my **** together in year 11 and the rest is history but to class a pupil at the age of 14 as an "underachiever" is just mad to be honest.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by EffieFlowers)
Here comes the massive divide in performance between public/ schools in decent areas and poor state schools!

I hate the tories.

here comes?

Could intelligent working class kids have grammar schools back? cheers!

[EffieFlowers]

(Original post by Bonged.)
here comes?

Could intelligent working class kids have grammar schools back? cheers!

What do you mean?

[AlexInWonderland]

(Original post by Bonged.)
here comes?

Could intelligent working class kids have grammar schools back? cheers!

I fail to understand any claim of elitism people have in regard to grammar schools. In working class areas, they have to potential to be an excellent way of pushing bright students in ways that would otherwise be unavailable, thus allowing working class kids to go on to university and the like.

Thus, in these areas, quite the opposite from being an elitist measure of preventing working class people from achieving, they could be excellent in establishing social mobility.

Unfortunately, this does not fit the egalitarian dream some people insist on sticking to.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by AlexInWonderland)
I fail to understand any claim of elitism people have in regard to grammar schools. In working class areas, they have to potential to be an excellent way of pushing bright students in ways that would otherwise be unavailable, thus allowing working class kids to go on to university and the like.

Thus, in these areas, quite the opposite from being an elitist measure of preventing working class people from achieving, they could be excellent in establishing social mobility.

Unfortunately, this does not fit the egalitarian dream some people insist on sticking to.

Totally agree. I hope Gove has a look at bringing them back next. Higher expectations of everyone regardless of background is what is needed. We also need to recognise not all children are suited to academic pursuits, and offer a higher quality of USEFUL (not nail clipping, media courses etc) vocational education like plumbing, bricklaying, mechanics. I know so many people that could have become respectable skilled working men if they had had the opportunity, but instead got a few GCSEs and ended up drifting between the dole office and minimum wage jobs.

[Elderon]

I totally agree with these plans.

I have just recently completed my A levels and GCSE's do NOT prepare you for A levels. I was also talking to my mother about the proposed changes and when she sat O Level History she had to write paragraphs and write as much knowledge down as possible. Nowadays it is more like "forget the history, as long as you can argue a toss about your invalid historical viewpoint, the facts come second". Which in my opinion is wrong. I do believe too that GCSE's are easy to complete regardless and do need to be made difficult so that people (especially on here) whom gloat they are an A/A* pupil can see that going back 30 years they likely would not have been gloating as much struggling to pass an O Level. I love a good challenge and I have seen a paper, they seem like something worthwhile before being thrown into the deep end at A level.

[DJKL]

(Original post by dada55)
The tests are only slightly harder. The difference between that 1968 O level paper and current GCSES is that it seems you were expected to interpret the questions before answering them. Like the shape questions, first you will probbably draw them out to make it easier to spot what they are asking for and how to solve it.
I'm not sure how you do sin/cos/tan without calculator but only because we have never been taught it as it was not needed (I'm assuming you draw the sin/cos/tan graph and estimate?)
There are also larger numbers which makes it slightly more annoying but I wouldn't say more difficult.

My biggest problem would be "careless work and untidy work will be penalised" My workings out are never tidy...

I mean times are changing, yes GCSEs are easier but everything in the world is getting dubbed down due to technological advancements, people don't bother remembering stuff because google remembers it for them. I'm pretty sure a lot of people knew how to fix certain appliances/cars/building etc while nowdays we just buy new to replace the old.

I think the only thing they should do is make it 1 exam board only to keep the tests as fair as possible. The rest of the changes are unneccesary.

As someone who sat the Scottish Exams pre calculator days, you used tables for sine, cosine and tangent calculations. These would give you the resultants and also were I think in reverse in that if you had the resultant you could determine the angle. Logs were also via tables. Calculations were via pen and paper or by using a slide rule. (Which I still have but cannot remember how to use)

[Link96ra]

Well its still very unclear whats going to happen if anything but the only good thing form the "leaked proposals" is the idea of a single exam board which would be very beneficial but tougher exams? it depends in what sense and the splitting up at age 14 is just criminal.

[Link96ra]

Also KS3 and KS2 are the biggest waste of time i have ever seen they do not prepare you in anyway for GCSE's I think KS3 needs to be rethinked its really not affective in anyway and you have to spend 3 academic years on it!

[internetguru]

(Original post by WhatTheFunk)
The only good thing here is the single exam board. This will be a massive backward step in education

What we need is less spoon feeding and assessment thought out the year, not just one big exam at the end of the year that can reward a lazy student in the year and hurt a non lazy one
Removing targets would be good
We don't need ancient exam system, we need 21st century education

If you want to improve schools, improve teaching, make teachers feel valued

I disagree as a lazy student I believe one big exam is a better test of intelligence which is what exams are for after all.