Top GCSE grades for only top pupils - what do you think?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Sloppy Jumpers
The biggest announcement of the day so far is the planned grading system for the new GCSEs. (Have a look here: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26854297).
Scrapping the A*-E system, grades will now be ranked by numbers - with 9 being the highest grade, and 1 being the lowest. For the first time, the English system will be in line with the international systems.
But, the top grade (A*/9) will now only be available to a precious few - 20,000 students! This has never happened before in England!
What do you think about these measures? Is it fair that only a few students will be able to get the top grade? Will the new GCSEs be better or worse than the current GCSEs?
Want to hear your thoughts!
Sloppy J.
Scrapping the A*-E system, grades will now be ranked by numbers - with 9 being the highest grade, and 1 being the lowest. For the first time, the English system will be in line with the international systems.
But, the top grade (A*/9) will now only be available to a precious few - 20,000 students! This has never happened before in England!
What do you think about these measures? Is it fair that only a few students will be able to get the top grade? Will the new GCSEs be better or worse than the current GCSEs?
Want to hear your thoughts!
Sloppy J.
When I initially read the title of this post, I thought you meant is it fair that only the best pupils get the best marks, to which I would have said yes. The fact they're placing a number on the amount of students that will be ALLOWED to be rewarded the highest marks, is quite distressing. What happens if 20,001 deserve the top grade? Who will be sacrificed? It's very weird. You can't place a limit on people's prospects.
Original post by XxSophie01xX
When I initially read the title of this post, I thought you meant is it fair that only the best pupils get the best marks, to which I would have said yes. The fact they're placing a number on the amount of students that will be ALLOWED to be rewarded the highest marks, is quite distressing. What happens if 20,001 deserve the top grade? Who will be sacrificed? It's very weird. You can't place a limit on people's prospects.
They're not capping the number; it's an estimate.
Original post by yl95
They're not capping the number; it's an estimate.
Oh, really? Perhaps I should read articles before I dive in with my comments
In that case, it's fine.Original post by gemsz3
Another way that private schools can get an unfair headstart
How so?
I'm going to leave the finer details to those who fully understand them, but certainly the idea of overhauling the system is a fantastic and long awaited reform.
The year I took my GCSEs (2013), what I believe happened is that Michael Gove decided that the exams needed toughening up. This resulted in a new science syllabus being introduced, that had never been taught before, and certainly at my school, will never be taught again since the government phased out January modules. (I know this happened with science, but may well have done with other subjects, now pupils are taught linear science courses)
Of course what really happened is that exam boards changed the exams very slightly, but blew the grade boundaries totally out of proportion to be able to say to the government that they'd made them more difficult. This really affected my performance in earlier science modules.
My physics teacher showed me afterwards how the UMS boundaries had changed over the years, and there was a huge peak for the modules I was taking. I retook them in the summer and got 100 UMS marks in every science module I retook. Pretty telling don't you think?
Anyway, the point is, by just increasing the difficulty of the GCSEs, there will be a year when grades will drop, which won't be remembered in the future. Employers will look at the grades; they won't care which year they were achieved in, they will just think that those people didn't get very good grades compared to others.
By totally reforming the system, the changes will be instantly recognisable, and it allows totally new standards to be set by which we can fairly grade children's performances.
The other problem with GCSEs at the moment is that getting an A* isn't really that difficult. The A* should be reserved for the most intelligent, academic children who show a genuine interest in that subject. Otherwise, the A* is seriously devalued as an achievement. Hopefully gone will be the days when scores of people get 12+ A*s at GCSE.
There are huge problems with the GCSE system. To name one; the way in which pupils are made to sit an exam over and over again until they achieve an 'acceptable' grade; starting well before they are ready; is a brilliant way to destroy any enthusiasm they may have for the subject.
I do hope and believe that the new system will go a long way towards solving these problems.
There is, of course, the problem of the lower grades being much harder to achieve. However, I have a firm belief that the kinds of people achieving grades at the 'G' end of the scale should not be in school anyway, as it is clearly not the right place for them. In a lot of cases they would be far better off going into apprenticeships or other forms of vocational education where they could even be earning money.
All in all, I am really pleased that the GCSE system is being reformed.
The year I took my GCSEs (2013), what I believe happened is that Michael Gove decided that the exams needed toughening up. This resulted in a new science syllabus being introduced, that had never been taught before, and certainly at my school, will never be taught again since the government phased out January modules. (I know this happened with science, but may well have done with other subjects, now pupils are taught linear science courses)
Of course what really happened is that exam boards changed the exams very slightly, but blew the grade boundaries totally out of proportion to be able to say to the government that they'd made them more difficult. This really affected my performance in earlier science modules.
My physics teacher showed me afterwards how the UMS boundaries had changed over the years, and there was a huge peak for the modules I was taking. I retook them in the summer and got 100 UMS marks in every science module I retook. Pretty telling don't you think?
Anyway, the point is, by just increasing the difficulty of the GCSEs, there will be a year when grades will drop, which won't be remembered in the future. Employers will look at the grades; they won't care which year they were achieved in, they will just think that those people didn't get very good grades compared to others.
By totally reforming the system, the changes will be instantly recognisable, and it allows totally new standards to be set by which we can fairly grade children's performances.
The other problem with GCSEs at the moment is that getting an A* isn't really that difficult. The A* should be reserved for the most intelligent, academic children who show a genuine interest in that subject. Otherwise, the A* is seriously devalued as an achievement. Hopefully gone will be the days when scores of people get 12+ A*s at GCSE.
There are huge problems with the GCSE system. To name one; the way in which pupils are made to sit an exam over and over again until they achieve an 'acceptable' grade; starting well before they are ready; is a brilliant way to destroy any enthusiasm they may have for the subject.
I do hope and believe that the new system will go a long way towards solving these problems.
There is, of course, the problem of the lower grades being much harder to achieve. However, I have a firm belief that the kinds of people achieving grades at the 'G' end of the scale should not be in school anyway, as it is clearly not the right place for them. In a lot of cases they would be far better off going into apprenticeships or other forms of vocational education where they could even be earning money.
All in all, I am really pleased that the GCSE system is being reformed.
Original post by Sloppy Jumpers
The biggest announcement of the day so far is the planned grading system for the new GCSEs. (Have a look here: http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26854297).
Scrapping the A*-E system, grades will now be ranked by numbers - with 9 being the highest grade, and 1 being the lowest. For the first time, the English system will be in line with the international systems.
But, the top grade (A*/9) will now only be available to a precious few - 20,000 students! This has never happened before in England!
What do you think about these measures? Is it fair that only a few students will be able to get the top grade? Will the new GCSEs be better or worse than the current GCSEs?
Want to hear your thoughts!
Sloppy J.
Scrapping the A*-E system, grades will now be ranked by numbers - with 9 being the highest grade, and 1 being the lowest. For the first time, the English system will be in line with the international systems.
But, the top grade (A*/9) will now only be available to a precious few - 20,000 students! This has never happened before in England!
What do you think about these measures? Is it fair that only a few students will be able to get the top grade? Will the new GCSEs be better or worse than the current GCSEs?
Want to hear your thoughts!
Sloppy J.
Personally I think they should take it a step further - scrap grades altogether, and simply provide a UMS mark for the subject overall. They calculate your UMS mark anyway, so I don't really see the need to turn it into a "grade", which is less informative.
I don't really like the idea of reducing a person's achievement to a grade or stratified band, because it distorts the entire system. Suppose you need 80% for an A, and 70% for a B. Suddenly, the gap between 79% and 80% is extremely large - much larger than the gap between 70% and 79%.
Original post by tazarooni89
Personally I think they should take it a step further - scrap grades altogether, and simply provide a UMS mark for the subject overall. They calculate your UMS mark anyway, so I don't really see the need to turn it into a "grade", which is less informative.
I don't really like the idea of reducing a person's achievement to a grade or stratified band, because it distorts the entire system. Suppose you need 80% for an A, and 70% for a B. Suddenly, the gap between 79% and 80% is extremely large - much larger than the gap between 70% and 79%.
I don't really like the idea of reducing a person's achievement to a grade or stratified band, because it distorts the entire system. Suppose you need 80% for an A, and 70% for a B. Suddenly, the gap between 79% and 80% is extremely large - much larger than the gap between 70% and 79%.
Would +1 if I were on the laptop.
Posted from TSR Mobile
I think the most crucial point for this to be a good idea is to make the top end of GCSE material significantly harder. Otherwise, you're likely going to be giving different grades to two individuals with the same ability but one of whom made 1 less calculation error on the day.
In any case, the current material in GCSE bores competent kids to tears, and it's the same with much of A Level. Shifting the material forward by 1 or 2 years may be the way to go - as I understand it, UK schools are about 2 years behind their equivalent grade in East Asian schools anyway.
This may sound harsh on kids with average or below average competence, but without this change I think the UK will see more and more STEM masters/PhD spots go to international students (already happens a heck of a lot). Also the triviality of the material taught at school has a knock on effect all the way through university - there are a huge number of seriously well paid software developer roles out there for grads which employers simply can't fill locally because a) not enough people do computer science or related degrees and b) of those who do, employers say that grads from many of the lower ranked unis - and even some from ostensibly 'good' unis - simply don't know enough to do the job.
Oh, and some good news for those worrying about the changes to the GCSEs affecting their career: no one gives a damn about your GCSE grades after university anyway.
In any case, the current material in GCSE bores competent kids to tears, and it's the same with much of A Level. Shifting the material forward by 1 or 2 years may be the way to go - as I understand it, UK schools are about 2 years behind their equivalent grade in East Asian schools anyway.
This may sound harsh on kids with average or below average competence, but without this change I think the UK will see more and more STEM masters/PhD spots go to international students (already happens a heck of a lot). Also the triviality of the material taught at school has a knock on effect all the way through university - there are a huge number of seriously well paid software developer roles out there for grads which employers simply can't fill locally because a) not enough people do computer science or related degrees and b) of those who do, employers say that grads from many of the lower ranked unis - and even some from ostensibly 'good' unis - simply don't know enough to do the job.
Oh, and some good news for those worrying about the changes to the GCSEs affecting their career: no one gives a damn about your GCSE grades after university anyway
.
No i think it's a bad system.
Say if you only have 20,000 student for the top grade... what if 22,000 people get in that grade band?
Well most people would say simply get rid of those 2,000 with the lowest score, but what if 4,000 got the precise same lower score. How would you decide who was in that highest grade band and who would not?
Say if you only have 20,000 student for the top grade... what if 22,000 people get in that grade band?
Well most people would say simply get rid of those 2,000 with the lowest score, but what if 4,000 got the precise same lower score. How would you decide who was in that highest grade band and who would not?
Original post by JizzaStanger
The other problem with GCSEs at the moment is that getting an A* isn't really that difficult. The A* should be reserved for the most intelligent, academic children who show a genuine interest in that subject. Otherwise, the A* is seriously devalued as an achievement. Hopefully gone will be the days when scores of people get 12+ A*s at GCSE..
This is a major problem in people's perception.
The amount of people getting 12+ top end grades has hardly changed even when you look at O levels. All those people with 12+ A* still tend to be top set students. Myself I was in the top 75% of my school with an 1 A, 4 B's, 4 C's, 1 D and a E.
The vast majority of modules have not even changed in the last 20-30 years in terms of content needed. They physical answer may be slightly difference due to technical advances, but the answer needed for the number of marks is hardly different.
The main difference these days is instead of having loads of high mark questions, you have loads of lower marked questions. The main reason being back when my parent's did O levels and GCE's you could loose a high proportion of marks for very minor mistakes. It resulted in a situation where you could answer more correctly, have a better answer, but get fewer marks.
Also due to the amount of time teachers have been teaching GCSE's they no longer teach things that will not be used in the exam. These days they will only teach things that will at least have a slight chance of turning up in a exam due to the fact, if anything, we technically have more content now.
We now have a system where those at the lower end or middle get similar grades than in the past, however those at the top are given tricks by teachers to maximize marks.
Original post by ClickItBack
Oh, and some good news for those worrying about the changes to the GCSEs affecting their career: no one gives a damn about your GCSE grades after university anyway .
.You will be surprised how many jobs still require GCSE's in English, Maths or Science. English is one that has cropped up constantly for me at least.
Original post by youcanttrackthis
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.
Wouldn't want their teen suicide stats though.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by myblueheaven339
Especially South Korea's.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by vickie89uk
Maybe kids that don't give a crap should be put it a tent in the garden so those that do can learn this is why I fell short of c grades I missed by 1 2 marks in English 5 marks in maths and 8 marks in science which I could have made up with my coursework if people had a bit of respect I had to resit and that really pissed me off and that's not my fault we ended up with supply teachers because my teacher had a nervous breakdown hardly a wonder why people smashing windows punching people screaming chucking food everywhere throwing coke so peoples books got sticky that's hardly my fault but I still did crap I got A* in my resits goes to show huh
No, you failed English because you can't use goddam punctuation!
Original post by SoggyTractor
Ok so the thread-starter means that the least intelligent won't be able to reach the top grades because they're the least intelligent, not because they're segregated? Isn't that how it works now? What's different?
The only difference is that they swapped letters for numbers
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Pocalypse
No, you failed English because you can't use goddam punctuation!
Oof...
I think it'll definitely lead to greater competitiveness, which Grammar /indep schools thrive on , so this is made for them.
I agree with whoever aid that it hurt those with special needs, but hey once again they' neglected. lso for those who aren't bright, I'm not sure how much provision there is
Nonetheless Im sure its not long before they intro a 10
I agree with whoever aid that it hurt those with special needs, but hey once again they' neglected. lso for those who aren't bright, I'm not sure how much provision there is
Nonetheless Im sure its not long before they intro a 10
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 ?
