Why do people get bad grades at GCSE/A level?

Don't blame your poor grades on dyslexia. If you got bad grades, it's because you didn't work hard enough.

ha

you found out you were dyslexic, aptly, a few weeks before your exams, so you use that as a whitewash excuse for your performance.

I really sympathize with your position. I don't think it's fair that teachers see a predicted grade and don't bother to consult with the student with regards the what the student wants out of their course. On so many occasions I've had people tell me that their coursework feedback was really positive, so they assume they'll be good for an A grade and make no alterations, then they get a C, for instance. I normally deduce that their teacher has seen them reach their predicted grade, lavishes them with praise, and moves on to the next person. It doesn't help in terms of providing grade mobility (I think I've just coined that term).



It's a real shame, and I can't help but think it contributes to their concluding they just aren't very bright, so they have no reason to work hard in school. As much as my OP claimed that people use this as an 'excuse' (this is what I used to believe), I think now, people genuinely believe they are incapable. Their parents tell them, "oh, don't worry, you're obviously not an 'academic' person", their teachers praise them for barely passable grades... It's a horrible cycle.



Examples such as these are wholly understandable, but I'd argue they apply to the minority, rather than the majority.

Here's a controversial thread concept that just popped into my head. I'm not sure I agree with it myself, but, admittedly, the thought has arisen in my mind on a couple of occasions in the past. I hope the TSR community will be split on this.

Opening argument:

I can understand when people can't quite make the A/A* grade because of a silly mistake or two during an exam, and slip to a B/A because of it. However, what I can't understand is how people can be content with, or even proclaim they "aspire to reach" a C grade, as if that's some sort of huge achievement.

What I have found with my A levels and GCSEs is that to score an A or above requires a decent amount of effort (more so in some subjects than others), but it is not anything harder than would be expected on a regular basis during one's working life. Why, then, do a good proportion of people simply excuse themselves by claiming they're "just not that clever" and settle for mediocre grades by putting minimal amounts of effort in?

"But some people want to have a life!" I suppose this would be the immediate counter. I'm not arguing that everyone should be aiming for 95+ UMS and practicing to ace their Oxbridge interview as soon as they hit secondary school. All I'm saying is that the vast majority of people are capable of scoring in range of AAA-ABB at A level (one can easily lead a healthy social life with these aspirations) the willingness is simply not there, however. That is what I find so alien.

So yeah, who would agree with that? Who would disagree?

I'd absolutely agree with you on the point about the A*/A grade by using CGP. I didn't learn a thing in my secondary school science lessons (I was at an overcrowded comp-turned-academy), I basically taught myself Biology/Chemistry/Physics by learning the CGP books inside out.

What I think a few were getting at were the expectations that teachers influence. If one is made to believe, from a young age, that they are not all that bright (because they got streamed into a lower set, for instance), then they'll probably take it as truth.

Or apply that knowledge and exam technique
Knowledge is not what seperates A*/A from B/C it is the exam technique that is harder to self teach and memorizing a CGP book does nothing for that.

Not difficult in the slightest huh? I thought that considering at how easy you're making GCSEs out to be, that you'd be able to acknowledge that not everyone is as intelligent as you. What seems easy to you might be very hard to someone else.

People get bad grades due to either poor work ethic, lack of interest, health problems or difficulty of understanding. It is always at least one of three, no matter what. There's no way that difficulty doesn't play a large role in securing what would be considered good grades.

Compared to this country 4 hours a day for a month may seem a lot but in reality its nothing. Unless you started revising consistently a long time before the exams or you really put in the hours the month before the exams (like 8 hours+) then only in my opinion you have worked hard for it. Furthermore it's also about efficiency, there's no point studying for hours if you aren't understanding what you are learning. Granted if you may be suffering from a condition (or social problems) which restricts your ability to learn then you may not do as well as other people, but most students don't suffer from these so why do they not do as well as they could?

With regards to the whole coursework subject, I've never really been shown how to do coursework at A grade level. I got B's in my GCSE sciences and still pulled out an A*,A,A yet this year at AS I went to see my teacher multiple times about how my coursework can be improved, compared it against the markscheme and put a ton of effort in it and in the end I got 22/30 which is less than my friend who doesn't even seem to try - he's given up on revision and is probably only going to get ACC at AS.

Posted from TSR Mobile

There is probably a good deal of truth in this. For me, exam preparation begins as soon as the year begins, it's a question of keeping on top of the syllabus throughout the year. Then, when exams come around, revision is revision rather than relearning the content that you didn't pay attention to earlier in the year. I think quite a good number of people assume that 'revision' is that, and then wonder why their 4 hours a day doesn't 'pay off'.

Exactly my point, though I am someone who tends to start studying a month before the exams like I have done now, the point is that when I study I put in the hours, i.e. 9-10 hours minimum though in reality it tends to be much more, I push myself to the extreme because that's the whole point of working hard imo, not doing 4 hours a day and not challenging yourself to study as much as you can in order to get top grades.

Most people also don't realise that there is a balance between book work and past papers, most people just do the book work and not spend enough time on papers, but in my opinion there should be an even split between the two (though it depends from subject to subject), if everyone did all the available past papers most of them would get decent grades rather easily.

I never understand why some folk drift idly through their course then start doing 10 hour days.

I never understand why some folk drift idly through their course then start doing 10 hour days.

Standard procedure

This, but also because I don't see the point in revising the same thing again and again when you could just start slightly earlier before the exams and learn everything once.