[AdamskiUK]

(Original post by A.J10)
Making the CSE equivalent to the A grade at gcse is a little high. Not everyone can get A at the moment, what makes you think that suddenly they'll do better? I know that the current A/A* students could use more room to breathe but seriously, we have A level for the next level up.

Your second paragraph seems to be jumping around. Are you talking about A levels or GCSEs? Does any university ask for multiple A* at gcse? When talking about university applications, GCSEs are largely irrelevant as long as you got a b in maths/english. Then you go about how saying that 3A* under your proposed system will be good enough to get into Kings; surely at this point you're talking about A level, and 3A* is a bloody brilliant result at A level at the moment.

Could yo clarify your second paragraph? You seem to be swinging from GCSE to A level.

If you make the students learn harder material, they'll have to get a grade A at GCSE level because that's what the equivalent will be at O-Level. They'll have to do harder stuff, and so their C at O-Level will be worth an A at GCSE.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. It's known that for difficult courses like Medicine, Universities request/differentiate between you and others based on your GCSE grades. I read in one thread how Birmingham require 7 A*s at GCSE before they allow you in for Medicine.

Naturally, if you make the GCSE harder, you'll make A-Levels harder. They will become more significant. A* at A-Level was only introduced as a way of differentiating between the best. Lots of people could get As but only the best can get A*s. By making the A-Levels more difficult, you wouldn't need an A* in A-Level just like how it used to be. An A used to be valued so much more than it is now. People weren't expected to have A*A*A to study Medicine at Oxbridge.

Resorting to just pushing GCSE students up to A-Level is a poor way of coping imo. It just won't be done under the new system, the O-Levels will be the right difficulty/workload so that you don't need to step up.

[SonnyBeatle]

A student with C's downwards will suffer but If you have all A*-B you will still be considered very academic

[kf289]

(Original post by AdamskiUK)
Controlled Assessments (replaced coursework) are basically jumping through hoops in Science. All you had to do was remember what you were told the day before and draw out a graph and a table you had already practised doing.

Oh don't get me stated on Controlled Assessments...!

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by AdamskiUK)
So recently, The Times uncovered that Michael Gove (the minister of education for the current UK government) intends to scrap the standard GCSE course. There has been outcry by the Left and the supporting unions of the Labour party, who are saying that a return to O-Level qualifications means a return to having a CSE qualification. Before the Tories introduced GCSEs, CSEs existed as a form of lesser O-Level. For instance, if you got a Level 1 (Distinction) grade in your CSE, you had the equivalent of a C in the same subject at O-Level.

Generally, CSEs were very poorly regarded in terms of employment. However, they were the qualifications the masses could attain, so they were needed nonetheless. In my opinion, the Unions who strongly protest against a two-tier system have *clearly* forgotten about the difference between Higher and Foundation papers. In GCSE currently, getting the highest mark in a Foundation paper will give you a C at GCSE. Is this not the same as what we could make the CSE anyway?

Indeed, it would mean an increase of difficultly of both the 'Foundation' (CSE-New) and 'Higher' (O-Level - New), but with the UK falling behind in World education tables, is this not a positive step? The example used in the Media is Singapore. Their students can currently sit an O-Level exam at aged 16 (or younger) that is designed by Cambridge. The course material that is covered reaches well into our A-Level courses for Sciences and Maths which puts the UK in poor stead when trying to compete on the global market.

I suppose you could say that I'm only saying this because I've sat my GCSEs and that this won't have an effect on me. I find this to be a poor argument as if GCSEs change, then A-Levels will, too. I'm about to enter my first year of 6th Form, so again, if these changes take place when they're meant to (2013/2014), my curriculum will be left unchanged. However, I find that improving the British workforce's knowledge to be a *good idea*. Making them learn what our parents could do 30 years ago is a *good idea*. There is the problem that this route will reduce those who work in vocational courses. I am against this, as not everyone should go to University. We still need labourers and manufacturers to create wealth in our society. This must be accounted for in Gove's changes.

What concerns me most is the fact that I am indeed a candidate who will not have been through these new qualifications. What does it mean for me?

For starters, will my GCSEs pale in comparison to those who have done the harder exams? Will they become more employable? The same goes for when A-Levels inevitably become harder. Are their grade As or Bs going to be worth more than mine? If that's the case, then a whole restructuring will take place, and people like me who have worked hard at what we've been set will be displaced in the employment system. This must, again, be accounted for. I think that this will be minimised because the changes will happen at A-Level very gradually. Hopefully, even with the very gradual shift, the government can produce a scheme of work that I can complete to bring my knowledge up to the standards they expect.

These are just my thoughts, and I hope you forgive me for putting them in a new post, but I'd rather hear your thoughts than lose all of ours in a drowning sea of arguments in the other threads. To make things clear, I support Gove, but he must be careful. What I want to ask you here is what do you think about how the value of our grades will be affected. I also want to know if you support Gove or not, and why/why not?

The answer is no, it wont affect you. If you have a degree that is. Once you get your degree GCSEs and A levels become box tickers for employers not something which will impact an application.

[EckoGecko]

I'm still undecided about the whole idea to be honest.
I can see where he is coming from as a shocking amount of people get so many A &A* grades, just by jumping through hoops during the exams. I'm not saying GCSEs aren't hard, because they are (until you begin a levels...) and how many people actually learn the topics compared to just remembering them for the sake of the exam.
I think we need to think about the weaker candidates as well. Some people at just not good at exams, have no aspirations to go to university and would be perfectly happy to do a practical, hands on course.
I know people who struggle at foundation GCSE, how would they feel doing a much harder exam? It would knock their confidence for sure.
Why is he comparing the UK to other places where the education in general is of a much higher quality? In all the schools I've been to or heard about most of the teachers can't deal with misbehaving children (especially teenagers), and this leads to disrupted lessons.
There should be more options in course type for the less academic people, they are just as crucial as the academics.

I'm sure I'll think of more things to rant about.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-S5830

[restoration]

I don't think we should go back to O-Levels as there is not much point.... However GCSE's are way to easy as they stand they deffinately need toughening up. Scrap the foundation/higher tier thing and make everyone sit the same paper, get rid of modules and make it linear and make some of the questions harder and intellectually stimulating rather than common sense. Job done.

[AdamskiUK]

(Original post by EckoGecko)
I'm still undecided about the whole idea to be honest.
I can see where he is coming from as a shocking amount of people get so many A &A* grades, just by jumping through hoops during the exams. I'm not saying GCSEs aren't hard, because they are (until you begin a levels...) and how many people actually learn the topics compared to just remembering them for the sake of the exam.
I think we need to think about the weaker candidates as well. Some people at just not good at exams, have no aspirations to go to university and would be perfectly happy to do a practical, hands on course.
I know people who struggle at foundation GCSE, how would they feel doing a much harder exam? It would knock their confidence for sure.
Why is he comparing the UK to other places where the education in general is of a much higher quality? In all the schools I've been to or heard about most of the teachers can't deal with misbehaving children (especially teenagers), and this leads to disrupted lessons.
There should be more options in course type for the less academic people, they are just as crucial as the academics.

I'm sure I'll think of more things to rant about.

Vocational, practical courses are brilliant for those who are good at them. They should be encouraged. And I don't know what you're on about with abroad education. You might be talking about other European countries, but US and Asian education rates far top ours. There are more people in India doing a degree than there are people in the UK. They are doing degrees on a par with ours, if not harder. If they're doing harder, more demanding degrees it is because we aren't pushing our best. That means in global economics, we get left behind, as we are and have been doing for the past 50 years.

Those who don't have the aspirations to go to University aren't my problem. If they want to be lazy and/or they're good at other vocational courses, make sure they do well in those. As I stated before, Britain needs weaker candidates to fill these roles as they are the most important part of society.

[Johnsmith-:)]

Ive finished my gcse's (7 days ago). just some points:
1. they are too easy in theoretical subjects; maths,sciencies etc.
2. This whole o-level, gcse rubbish is pointless, neither is worth anything realistically
3. the only reason we did sats (didnt even know what they were when i did them) was so we cud get into secondary school, since everyone can get in anyway and independent schools administer 11+ tests, they were pointless (think theyve been dropped).
4. gcse's pointless as the only real need for them is to get into sixth form, same for a-level and uni.
5. unis look at gcse's only cuz a-levels dont seperate the brightest enough, meaning too many a candidates apply, they know gcses mean nothing
6. these exams are artificial, they do not test intelligence, just regurgitated information, whether its from memory or revision, they exist only to decide who ets in to the next round
7. Years 1 - 9 could easily be condensed and actually taught to 75% of people in 2 years
8. the main problem with improving education is people who have done it and are working dont want to pay higher taxes to pay for education, those studying at uni dont want people working less than they did, those doing gcse a-level do beleive they are rubbish at actually teaching, they dont want to say so because thier future could be in trouble if the year below start doing the same work they do but earlier, those going to do gcse, alevels dont want it to be improved because they dont want to work harder and dont realise that a harder system could be fairer.
9. the reason we dont have a radical change making education harder is because the ones who would suffer are people doing it as they could not compete if people did alevel work by the age of 7 (could be possible if taught properly straight from a young age)
10. the whole thing is pointless because the government will only improve the system enough to get the uk into the top 40% out of oecd max, they will not take the effort to push it to the best worldwide, peoplewould complain as those who are living comfortably thier lives would change and noone wants thier standard of life to degrade.

im sorry if i have offended anyone or if ive been too blunt, i dont mean to insult,degrade,demean or diminish anyones accomplishments, i only want to point out that EVERYONE could have done better given the opportunity and access to real education.

[Johnsmith-:)]

i think that education could be improved by defining education properly. everyone has the right to education. qualifications are not the same thing. only qualified should have them. if that means that noone in a year gains that standard, then so be it. qualifications and education cannot be standardised, combined or given to anyone who doesnt understand the subject, actually being able to explain why something does it not remembering or knowing it does.

1. Class sizes reduced to 15 max from starting school to 10 max finishing it.
2. subjects should be taught by teachers specialising in those subjects not by teachers teaching all subjects straight from starting school. Teachers should not need a broad education, english teachers do not need to know any maths just english etc...
3. students should not be sepearted by age or ability. subjects should be taught completely independant of each other (ie. someone good at maths could be doing year 10 maths whilst still doing year 5 english etc.., someone could advance to the next level of a subject within any time period but they should have full understanding before advancing)
4. All students should have a basic understanding of core education: english LANGUAGE, maths, physics, biology, chemistry, ICT (not uk ict but more along the standard of japan, proper computing,motherboards etc...)
5. There should be a class teaching everyone about politics, governments, current affairs and so on combined with the morals and ethics of these type of things (re,pshe,sex ed). it should be a general knowledge class that is also a core subject
6. games, pe etc. should be a subject about staying healthy and fit not about sport, competing etc. everyone should have a choice of how they keep active, whether a sport, football,baseball, just running and jogging, even to the extreme of rock climbing, parachuting, if thats what they choose (it should be available within reason)
7. these 8 subjects are the basics no-one should leave education without full knowledge and understanding of these (to a standard level obv.)
8. Along with these 8 students should be able to pick 2 extra subjects of thier choice; ie art, music, history, a second language
7. once someone has advanced to the highest level in each of these 10 subjects (attaining the highest level means basic and the minimum understanding) they should start qualifications for higher education by choosing up to 5 subjects max 3 minimum, as they study they should decide what they want to do depending on what they are good at and so on, eventually they should complete 3 subjects to the highest level with atleast the minimum understanding (dropping the extra subjects as they have decide what to do)
8. once they have done this, they should choose an advanced specific subject (not broad like maths or science along the lines of law, medicine), once they reach the highest level of this subject they should be examined by university, lecturers teachers, professors etc.. directly, whether it be orally, practically, a written paper etc... (they should have a choice)
9. if the examiner believes they know the minimum needed and that they are right for the course, they should be admitted into uni, regardless of age, gender, religion whatever including regardless of the number of people qualifying, there should be enough places in every course to allow everyone who wants to do it and has gained the minimum level of intelligence in that field to do it.
10. a countries greatest exports and value is not its physical resources but its human resources, as such the state should fully fund education and i mean everything from the uniform (mandatory, but casual clothing not blazers or anything standard, there should be choice) to food, trips, stationary, schools should not rely on parents to pick up the slack or do anything, including transport to and from school. people define a countries wealth, someone who is unable to find work due to lack of qualificaions, who wasnt provided with the support they needed to be the best the could be, who did not leave education with a basic understanding of core subjects and how to look after themselves is a failure of the system, the state and everyone citizen, government official alike, not one person should leave it to others to make sure someone gets the basic start they deserve and have a right to.

[shorty.loves.angels]

(Original post by AspiringGenius)
Yes but that is a foundation paper which covers grades C-G. That question is obviously an F/G grade question and that level wouldn't appear in the old O level paper, it would be in the CSE.

If you are going to compare O Levels and GCSE, use higher tier GCSE only.

While this is true, I personally find the whole of foundation level to be a bit disappointing in terms of what they require the students to know. And don't forget that if this is all they are expected to know, then this is all they will be working towards. Additionally (no maths pun intended), harder questions than this can be found primary school papers. While there are some students who find developing their maths skills difficult, I think it is poor that foundation GCSE maths students are not expected to be much more capable than when they finished primary school. What kind of motivation does this give? I would like to see much more of a hard-work attitude, and I don't feel that such low requirements even begin to inspire.

Finally, even the higher papers aren't particularly difficult, and I wonder exactly what sort of maths skills should have been learned during Key Stage 3/ high school, as GCSE grades seem to heavily overlap with primary.

However, I think this merely suggests that a reform of the National Curriculum (or whatever standards are being used at the time) is in need, I'm decided on the overhaul and can see both pros and cons.

[A.J10]

(Original post by shorty.loves.angels)
Finally, even the higher papers aren't particularly difficult, and I wonder exactly what sort of maths skills should have been learned during Key Stage 3/ high school, as GCSE grades seem to heavily overlap with primary.

However, I think this merely suggests that a reform of the National Curriculum (or whatever standards are being used at the time) is in need, I'm decided on the overhaul and can see both pros and cons.

Kind of off topic here, but you've reminded me with your mention of primary schools.

The year 6 sats are level 3-5, with the average being a 4. In the year 9 sats (well, when they still had them, there's no more official exams but it still applies), the expected average is level 5.
Assuming they work on the same grading (which I was told they do), my English, maths and science skills in year 6 were the equivalent to that of your average year 9, which it really wasn't.

[Xhotas]

Generally what it means is, if you have finished GCSE before they were scrapped and are sitting down now in a job interview where you're relying on your GCSEs, you've made some poor choices in life if you think anyone gives a damn about exams you took when you were 16 when you're 21.

[akipid]

(Original post by AishaTara)
well it won't be too much of a difference to us (gcse holders) though. When we apply to uni for instance everyone in our age bracket will have GCSES, secondly with jobs, when applying for your first job-the students who would have done o-levels will be at Uni studying or jumping into work (without a degree) so you'll be competing with people without a degree or with gcses/alevels of the same level. GCSEs won't hold you back forever- especially not when you have higher qualifications, a job, experience etc
people will mostly look at your degree and experience in general so it won't put you at a disadvantage tbh

Yaay! Thanks for that

[AdamskiUK]

(Original post by A.J10)
Kind of off topic here, but you've reminded me with your mention of primary schools.

The year 6 sats are level 3-5, with the average being a 4. In the year 9 sats (well, when they still had them, there's no more official exams but it still applies), the expected average is level 5.
Assuming they work on the same grading (which I was told they do), my English, maths and science skills in year 6 were the equivalent to that of your average year 9, which it really wasn't.

Same here :|

The national curriculum isn't exactly brilliant, is it?

[Kim-x]

It all makes little sense. They want to make it so that a greater proportion of the less able can get a worthwhile qualification, but at the same time current exams are too 'easy.' Can't very easily have it both ways.

It annoys me that they can suddenly imply that the effort we put in was worth nothing because a monkey could apparently be trained to sit the exams. We could only answer the questions they put in front of us but now we get to be known as 'those who had it easy;' if we weren't already because of the rising pass rates.


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

[DarkWhite]

The difference between Higher/Foundation papers in GCSE and CSE/O-Levels is that with GCSEs, regardless of the paper you sit, you come out with a standard grade. You're entered into an exam which reflects your ability, but there is clear overlap and room for you to either exceed expectations to a reasonable extent, or to under-perform similarly.

With CSE/O-Levels, you either come out with a CSE or an O-Level, which does two things. Firstly, it provides a clear segregation when it comes to people looking at your grades, such as employers, colleges, universities, etc. Secondly, it provides a non-standardised grade - exam boards do say, "x CSE grade = y O-Level grade", but that's not how things work in reality, much like BTECs being equated to A-Levels when they're completely different qualifications.

The other reason it's a bad move is that it will undervalue all those pupils currently taking GCSEs. You go for a job with a qualification the government has recently deemed "weak" and "too easy", against somebody with one of those "rigorous" new qualifications; it's not really fair, and not truly reflective of ability.

If Gove really wants to make qualifications more difficult, he could keep the GCSEs name and change the framework.

Alternatively, he could switch to IGCSEs, similar in tier structure to GCSEs, but considered more difficult and rigorous like the content from O-Levels.

But my fear is that Gove doesn't really care about the true education our children receives; he cares about international league tables, results, "grade inflation". These are results of us getting smarter, but kids in other countries getting even smarter.

There's this really frustrating point in secondary education where you start getting taught to an exam, and to that extent, an exam is the ultimatum. We're doing assessment of learning instead of assessment for learning. Jobs aside, exams at GCSE level don't help pupils at all. We should be looking at more continuous, less obtuse, more sustainable assessment, but our education system just doesn't allow that at the moment.

Gove and Willetts need to go before they really do deprive us of a good quality education.

[tubesofthenorth]

Below average comprehensive - 1999 - GCSE - A*, 5 A, 3 B, 1C.

GCSE's... you can't just make them harder because that will distort the value of my 13 year old GCSE's... I'll make the point that we had to achieve above 80% to get an A* and 70% for an A. You could just leave the system the same and increase the grade boundries but give the exam a new name? Perhaps a new start could be a good idea, but there are a few things to take into consideration to make it a level playing field...

1. Quality and access to teaching : As a lad too smart for his school the biggest barrier to achieving higher grades was due to the standard of teaching i received. I didn't achieve my potential and neither did the the handful around me... at least during GCSE anyways, it hasn't stopped us achieving after we left however... I'm not saying the school didn't do their best, but even using stream lining in a class of 30, the teachers could only really teach to the upper middle of the class missing the lower and upper achievers... In schools like this there are/were only a few top 10% smart kids and the numbers won't be large enough to commit a specific O-level teacher to a subject and so kids won't even get the opportunity to do the O-level. Retraining staff? And how much of the new system will be weighted to the ability of and quality of teacher? These factors will further widen the elitist gap.

2. Coursework is important : Course work shouldn't be devalued but rather wider reading rewarded. The foundation of degree standards comes from wider reading and study, not memory tests. A good memory doesn't make you smart - a parrot? Why shouldn't hard work and determination be rewarded? If you want smart people use IQ tests... they are no worse than creating exams that only the top 10% can take anyways.

3. A wide education : Reducing subjects makes them easier to pass at a higher standard, but a wide education is more important. Even getting 10 d's means you have achieved a standard education? right. why no certificate for that? i know the measure is 5 A-C.
If you don't get the opportunity to explore an area of study then that will reduce your future choices. That includes exploration of multi-faiths not just what the one who runs the school thinks they can force it down your throat (Christianity included). Faith has no place in education anyways. Along with Darwinism should be taught "Dawkins-ism".
With regard to choice, personally i think the number of choices is already too restrictive and the future career options of kids is not really explored with them. Kids that don't care - are actually kids that don't understand/comprehend the opportunities available. its important that the lower achievers reach a basic standard in core subjects at the very least.

4. The suggestion that vocational employment is for the "lower cast" : Arrogant public school poppy-cock! few things have annoyed me like that sentence. Plumbers and builders are some of the most well off people i know, always busy, always happy! Accountants and other carbon copy suits are also well off, but a glum sort. And when did engineering becoming the job of the working class? You need to be very smart! as smart at least as a doctor if not smarter, it requires advanced Mathematics, Physics, I.T. and have extreme attention to detail and procedure to a level that puts most kids off even looking at it as a career path... One of Britians leading exports is its engineering prowess, yet schools and some "educated know-it-alls" on this thread naively over look it. Infact i actually think that the school system already fails to prepare the general population for the vast number of employment opportunities available to them. I do think there should be more opportunity in school to follow these paths and that there should be equivalent qualifications available alongside GCSE which are available to kids and that education needs to even more vocational, especially at the lower end if it helps to get kids out of the benefit trap.

5. League tables : What a bore. The priority needs to shift from the success of the school to providing the best for the pupil. The measure of the school should be based on the increase from potential grade from level 3 sat to GCSE rather than just the latter. You start with A's and end with A's doesn't mean your a better school.

6. Rigorous testing : Is it right to have kids in school from 3 and start testing kids at 7 years? If we are going to put teenagers under more pressure to be adult before their time, should we allow them to be kids for longer?

I'm happy for change, but not if it is solely to advance the perceived "upper echelons" further, especially in a difficult jobs market. And considering the state of some schools atm, how much is this gonna cost?

[tackthecack]

i will actually laugh my head off if they end up calling them O levels. Typical old man tory guff

[SonnyBeatle]

Just because something is old doesn't mean that it is automatically bad.
Anyway, I hate coursework and reckon I'd have done better with just an exam as that's what suits me as a student.

[Lovefoxxx_93]

Why can't they just make the curriculum and GCSEs harder? If they feel something has to change.