REMOVE A-Level exams or drop University entry requirements.
Before you smart people that love exams and end up getting 100% every exam start arguing, read my side of the argument.
Summarised points:
1) January exams have been removed - There are only June exams now. Giving students ONE shot at getting the grades they deserve is frustrating and stressful, people were given second chances before while they're only given one chance at their exams this time... Failure rates will probably rise by 50%
2) Exams prove nothing -The only thing they prove is that you know how to read a book and memorise, they don't prove that you're capable of thinking around problems and don't prove that you're ready for the real world, you also don't gain any experience from them.
3) Those doing BTEC courses and those doing A-Level courses have the same shot at getting into university - Completely unfair. BTECs are known to be MUCH easier than full A-Levels, yet top class universities accept students with BTECS for most courses/degrees.
4) You forget most of the stuff you've studied - Most students forget and never use most of the stuff they studied at A-Levels... Also, they practically recap everything you've studied at A-Levels in university (not all courses). This shows that exams aren't effective at all.
5) Physical exams and coursework are better alternatives - Physical exams show that you can apply knowledge and experience to gain real results, not numbers on a paper. Coursework proves that you are capable of completing projects by a deadline, which is most likely what you're going to be doing after graduation. You'll be taking part in projects, not sitting there writing exams.
6) Only a small amount of what you studied comes up in the exam - You study the whole syllabus only to realise that 1/4 of what you learnt comes up in the exam... Why do this? Would you ever tell a prospective civil engineer to learn to build houses then test him by telling him to install a window?
7) We've developed - School exams have been going on for many many years now and they have never proven anything. Thousands of students graduate from top class universities and its always the ones with experience that are hired to work. (Not for Medicine or related courses)... You should obviously have the knowledge, but a student with a 2:2 with heaps of experience will obviously get employed over a student with a 1st and barely any experience. Also, there are hundreds of thousands - millions of graduates who remain unemployed because they don't know how to fully apply their knowledge to real world scenarios.
8) Education develops, knowledge doesn't - Every year they tweak their education system, changing variables and fixing up numbers. The only thing we need is the CORE knowledge. 20 years down the line, the education I received would be completely useless and I would be relying on experience and core knowledge e.g. The basics of Mathematics and the basics of English to get me through. I would never use 80% of the theories and equations I've memorised.
All in All. The British Exam system is failing internationally.
Summarised points:
1) January exams have been removed - There are only June exams now. Giving students ONE shot at getting the grades they deserve is frustrating and stressful, people were given second chances before while they're only given one chance at their exams this time... Failure rates will probably rise by 50%
2) Exams prove nothing -The only thing they prove is that you know how to read a book and memorise, they don't prove that you're capable of thinking around problems and don't prove that you're ready for the real world, you also don't gain any experience from them.
3) Those doing BTEC courses and those doing A-Level courses have the same shot at getting into university - Completely unfair. BTECs are known to be MUCH easier than full A-Levels, yet top class universities accept students with BTECS for most courses/degrees.
4) You forget most of the stuff you've studied - Most students forget and never use most of the stuff they studied at A-Levels... Also, they practically recap everything you've studied at A-Levels in university (not all courses). This shows that exams aren't effective at all.
5) Physical exams and coursework are better alternatives - Physical exams show that you can apply knowledge and experience to gain real results, not numbers on a paper. Coursework proves that you are capable of completing projects by a deadline, which is most likely what you're going to be doing after graduation. You'll be taking part in projects, not sitting there writing exams.
6) Only a small amount of what you studied comes up in the exam - You study the whole syllabus only to realise that 1/4 of what you learnt comes up in the exam... Why do this? Would you ever tell a prospective civil engineer to learn to build houses then test him by telling him to install a window?
7) We've developed - School exams have been going on for many many years now and they have never proven anything. Thousands of students graduate from top class universities and its always the ones with experience that are hired to work. (Not for Medicine or related courses)... You should obviously have the knowledge, but a student with a 2:2 with heaps of experience will obviously get employed over a student with a 1st and barely any experience. Also, there are hundreds of thousands - millions of graduates who remain unemployed because they don't know how to fully apply their knowledge to real world scenarios.
8) Education develops, knowledge doesn't - Every year they tweak their education system, changing variables and fixing up numbers. The only thing we need is the CORE knowledge. 20 years down the line, the education I received would be completely useless and I would be relying on experience and core knowledge e.g. The basics of Mathematics and the basics of English to get me through. I would never use 80% of the theories and equations I've memorised.
All in All. The British Exam system is failing internationally.
(edited 9 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Just a preface, I study Biology/Chemistry/Physics at A-level, so my counter-arguments are based around the experiences I've had in those subjects.
1) January exams have been removed - There are only June exams now. Giving students ONE shot at getting the grades they deserve is frustrating and stressful, people were given second chances before while they're only given one chance at their exams this time... Failure rates will probably rise by 50%
On the other hand, it's weeded out the guys who just think "oh it's fine if I fail January I can resit it in June anyway" - and then go on to fail in June too because they completely underestimated the workload.
And they do still get second chances now - I restarted my first year of AS leaving me a year behind after getting poor grades the first time (partly illness-related but partly my fault for not making the most of a bad situation). I pulled it together and got AAB the second time round and am now predicted A*A*A. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone else do the same if they so wish - all I had to do was transfer to another college.
To an extent, this is very true. But surely they are the best guide we have to a person's ability? There are an awful lot of things I would change about the exams but all in all this system is the best we have.
Source, if you don't mind my asking? I have never seen or heard of anyone getting into an RG uni or similar on a course that had A-level students of high calibre.
This is true. But again, I'm not entirely sure how we'd go about circumventing the problem. Unless you plan on retesting the person every 6 months or something that knowledge is not gonna stick for life.
5) Physical exams and coursework are better alternatives - Physical exams show that you can apply knowledge and experience to gain real results, not numbers on a paper. Coursework proves that you are capable of completing projects by a deadline, which is most likely what you're going to be doing after graduation. You'll be taking part in projects, not sitting there writing exams.
Disagree entirely. For sciences at least, the coursework is way too difficult due to every other school just cheating on them and pushing the grade boundaries up. Take for example the AQA Physics ISAs - some are as high as 45/50 for an A. Whereas the AQA Physics EMPAs (externally marked, schools do not see paper or MS until it's been sat) are as low as 35/55 for an A.
I personally think it should be changed to a similar system to Chemistry B (salters) - big individual investigation taking up 30% of the A2 mark. Undertaken over some months, put together by ourselves, and overall a much fairer system. Not just a test for whoever can name the bold underlined word, which the written science courseworks seem to be worse than exams for.
Other points I don't really have any comment on.
Original post by 0xygen
1) January exams have been removed - There are only June exams now. Giving students ONE shot at getting the grades they deserve is frustrating and stressful, people were given second chances before while they're only given one chance at their exams this time... Failure rates will probably rise by 50%
On the other hand, it's weeded out the guys who just think "oh it's fine if I fail January I can resit it in June anyway" - and then go on to fail in June too because they completely underestimated the workload.
And they do still get second chances now - I restarted my first year of AS leaving me a year behind after getting poor grades the first time (partly illness-related but partly my fault for not making the most of a bad situation). I pulled it together and got AAB the second time round and am now predicted A*A*A. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone else do the same if they so wish - all I had to do was transfer to another college.
2) Exams prove nothing -The only thing they prove is that you know how to read a book and memorise, they don't prove that you're capable of thinking around problems and don't prove that you're ready for the real world, you also don't gain any experience from them.
To an extent, this is very true. But surely they are the best guide we have to a person's ability? There are an awful lot of things I would change about the exams but all in all this system is the best we have.
3) Those doing BTEC courses and those doing A-Level courses have the same shot at getting into university - Completely unfair. BTECs are known to be MUCH easier than full A-Levels, yet top class universities accept students with BTECS for most courses/degrees.
Source, if you don't mind my asking? I have never seen or heard of anyone getting into an RG uni or similar on a course that had A-level students of high calibre.
4) You forget most of the stuff you've studied - Most students forget and never use most of the stuff they studied at A-Levels... Also, they practically recap everything you've studied at A-Levels in university (not all courses). This shows that exams aren't effective at all.
This is true. But again, I'm not entirely sure how we'd go about circumventing the problem. Unless you plan on retesting the person every 6 months or something that knowledge is not gonna stick for life.
5) Physical exams and coursework are better alternatives - Physical exams show that you can apply knowledge and experience to gain real results, not numbers on a paper. Coursework proves that you are capable of completing projects by a deadline, which is most likely what you're going to be doing after graduation. You'll be taking part in projects, not sitting there writing exams.
Disagree entirely. For sciences at least, the coursework is way too difficult due to every other school just cheating on them and pushing the grade boundaries up. Take for example the AQA Physics ISAs - some are as high as 45/50 for an A. Whereas the AQA Physics EMPAs (externally marked, schools do not see paper or MS until it's been sat) are as low as 35/55 for an A.
I personally think it should be changed to a similar system to Chemistry B (salters) - big individual investigation taking up 30% of the A2 mark. Undertaken over some months, put together by ourselves, and overall a much fairer system. Not just a test for whoever can name the bold underlined word, which the written science courseworks seem to be worse than exams for.
Other points I don't really have any comment on.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by 0xygen
6) You'll never be that pressured in life - Exam writers usually go by the rule "1 mark per minute", which is completely useless. You'll never be so pressured in your life... When would you ever be so pressured that you'll have less than two hours to complete your work.
Sounds to me like someone thinks they're going to fail their exams and are looking for an escape plan 
Original post by spleenharvester
On the other hand, it's weeded out the guys who just think "oh it's fine if I fail January I can resit it in June anyway" - and then go on to fail in June too because they completely underestimated the workload.
And they do still get second chances now - I restarted my first year of AS leaving me a year behind after getting poor grades the first time (partly illness-related but partly my fault for not making the most of a bad situation). I pulled it together and got AAB the second time round and am now predicted A*A*A. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone else do the same if they so wish - all I had to do was transfer to another college.
Not giving people a chance to re-sit exams is completely unfair... No one things about slacking during January exams and then picking it up during June exams. It doesn't work like that... + June retakes are harder than the January exams.
To an extent, this is very true. But surely they are the best guide we have to a person's ability? There are an awful lot of things I would change about the exams but all in all this system is the best we have.
The ability to do what? Memorise formulas and theories? They say that it challenges students minds... No it doesn't, it just differentiates the ones who've memorised the work from the ones who haven't.
Source, if you don't mind my asking? I have never seen or heard of anyone getting into an RG uni or similar on a course that had A-level students of high calibre.
You can check Queen Mary University courses (Not medicine or related courses). Manchester, Leeds etc...
This is true. But again, I'm not entirely sure how we'd go about circumventing the problem. Unless you plan on retesting the person every 6 months or something that knowledge is not gonna stick for life.
Solving the problem is easy... Don't include anything were not going to need to know at University or later on in life. They are completely inefficient.
Disagree entirely. For sciences at least, the coursework is way too difficult due to every other school just cheating on them and pushing the grade boundaries up. Take for example the AQA Physics ISAs - some are as high as 45/50 for an A. Whereas the AQA Physics EMPAs (externally marked, schools do not see paper or MS until it's been sat) are as low as 35/55 for an A.
I personally think it should be changed to a similar system to Chemistry B (salters) - big individual investigation taking up 30% of the A2 mark. Undertaken over some months, put together by ourselves, and overall a much fairer system. Not just a test for whoever can name the bold underlined word, which the written science courseworks seem to be worse than exams for.
Not really. A proper coursework or practical work essay examined properly shows a students capabilities to think outside the box and work on real life examples linked to his/her work. Its hard to talk about Biology since you need to memorise alot, but other subjects like Maths can be linked to real life scenarios, English etc... Also, research you do is likely to stick in your head for a considerably longer period of time.
On the other hand, it's weeded out the guys who just think "oh it's fine if I fail January I can resit it in June anyway" - and then go on to fail in June too because they completely underestimated the workload.
And they do still get second chances now - I restarted my first year of AS leaving me a year behind after getting poor grades the first time (partly illness-related but partly my fault for not making the most of a bad situation). I pulled it together and got AAB the second time round and am now predicted A*A*A. There is absolutely nothing stopping someone else do the same if they so wish - all I had to do was transfer to another college.
Not giving people a chance to re-sit exams is completely unfair... No one things about slacking during January exams and then picking it up during June exams. It doesn't work like that... + June retakes are harder than the January exams.
To an extent, this is very true. But surely they are the best guide we have to a person's ability? There are an awful lot of things I would change about the exams but all in all this system is the best we have.
The ability to do what? Memorise formulas and theories? They say that it challenges students minds... No it doesn't, it just differentiates the ones who've memorised the work from the ones who haven't.
Source, if you don't mind my asking? I have never seen or heard of anyone getting into an RG uni or similar on a course that had A-level students of high calibre.
You can check Queen Mary University courses (Not medicine or related courses). Manchester, Leeds etc...
This is true. But again, I'm not entirely sure how we'd go about circumventing the problem. Unless you plan on retesting the person every 6 months or something that knowledge is not gonna stick for life.
Solving the problem is easy... Don't include anything were not going to need to know at University or later on in life. They are completely inefficient.
Disagree entirely. For sciences at least, the coursework is way too difficult due to every other school just cheating on them and pushing the grade boundaries up. Take for example the AQA Physics ISAs - some are as high as 45/50 for an A. Whereas the AQA Physics EMPAs (externally marked, schools do not see paper or MS until it's been sat) are as low as 35/55 for an A.
I personally think it should be changed to a similar system to Chemistry B (salters) - big individual investigation taking up 30% of the A2 mark. Undertaken over some months, put together by ourselves, and overall a much fairer system. Not just a test for whoever can name the bold underlined word, which the written science courseworks seem to be worse than exams for.
Not really. A proper coursework or practical work essay examined properly shows a students capabilities to think outside the box and work on real life examples linked to his/her work. Its hard to talk about Biology since you need to memorise alot, but other subjects like Maths can be linked to real life scenarios, English etc... Also, research you do is likely to stick in your head for a considerably longer period of time.
Written in blue or "Teal".
Original post by fajitamunch
Sounds to me like someone thinks they're going to fail their exams and are looking for an escape plan
Not necessarily... I just get so stressed out when exam season comes around.
Original post by Ronove
They haven't told you? Why do you think exams are usually 90 minutes long? They give you like 10-15 minutes of extra time to read the questions and think for like 30 seconds a question or a chance to QUICKLY skim over your answers when you've finished... 90 minutes to get 72-80 marks.
Ofcourse this varies from person to person. I know people that wizz through their exam as if they're writing their 2 times tables out.
Original post by 0xygen
Not giving people a chance to re-sit exams is completely unfair... No one things about slacking during January exams and then picking it up during June exams. It doesn't work like that... + June retakes are harder than the January exams.
They still do have the chance though - just not until the next June, which in my opinion is more than fair (probably easier if anything as that candidate can work on that exam during the holidays before they come back).
I knew plenty of people who thought like that at my old college. It's more of a "screw it I can try again later" when they realise they haven't started revising nearly soon enough.
The ability to do what? Memorise formulas and theories? They say that it challenges students minds... No it doesn't, it just differentiates the ones who've memorised the work from the ones who haven't.
Their ability in that subject field - I see what you mean entirely and it is a problem, because ability to pass exams often does not translate to real world intelligence. But as before, there just isn't a better system in place than the one we currently have.
You can check Queen Mary University courses (Not medicine or related courses). Manchester, Leeds etc...
They always list them on their site - but I've never actually heard of anyone doing BTECs receiving offers for a "high tier" course at a "high tier uni". I'd be interested to know if anyone actually does - because I just presumed they put it on their entry requirements because they're required to or something.
Solving the problem is easy... Don't include anything were not going to need to know at University or later on in life. They are completely inefficient.
Pretty much the entirety of the course comes in handy in some degrees - just not all of it in one degree simultaneously. Same later on in life. People don't know what they want to do until it comes to UCAS applications, so the course specifications will cover a broad range of things that may be required for certain degrees.
For example - if someone chooses to study ecology at degree level. Should we remove any study of animal behaviour from all Biology courses? Nope, because that same person might instead choose to study animal behaviour at degree level. It's narrowed down in the same way the GCSE to A level jump is.
Not really. A proper coursework or practical work essay examined properly shows a students capabilities to think outside the box and work on real life examples linked to his/her work. Its hard to talk about Biology since you need to memorise alot, but other subjects like Maths can be linked to real life scenarios, English etc... Also, research you do is likely to stick in your head for a considerably longer period of time.
This is what is assessed in the Chemistry B coursework, which is why I like it so much. You're marked on various skills including "demand" (how hard the investigation you've undertaken is and if you've really "pushed the boat out" with anything in particular, such as processing your data from experiments in new or more useful ways, etc). That's how it should be imo. York actually designed the specification as they were tired of getting people studying chemistry who can't even do basic things like a titration, or so I'm told.
The standard coursework structure for sciences at least is pretty broken. I think like you say - it would be far better if coursework was assessed as a larger part of the A-level than it currently is.
Unfortunately, the standard structure is just too full of holes in its current state (as per last post) so unless some major changes were made to it it would just be detrimental (schools cheating will have a far greater outcome on the grades of people who do it fair and square).
EDIT - added colour.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by spleenharvester
They still do have the chance though - just not until the next June, which in my opinion is more than fair (probably easier if anything as that candidate can work on that exam during the holidays before they come back).
I knew plenty of people who thought like that at my old college. It's more of a "screw it I can try again later" when they realise they haven't started revising nearly soon enough.
I knew plenty of people who thought like that at my old college. It's more of a "screw it I can try again later" when they realise they haven't started revising nearly soon enough.
At the end of the day, they made it harder to succeed so it would be fair to decrease the grade boundaries.
Original post by spleenharvester
Their ability in that subject field - I see what you mean entirely and it is a problem, because ability to pass exams often does not translate to real world intelligence. But as before, there just isn't a better system in place than the one we currently have.
Their ability in that subject field - I see what you mean entirely and it is a problem, because ability to pass exams often does not translate to real world intelligence. But as before, there just isn't a better system in place than the one we currently have.
Yes they can and there are many available. They just prefer the old way since that's the only way they've tried. Also, they're making money and couldn't care less about what happens to students.
Original post by spleenharvester
They always list them on their site - but I've never actually heard of anyone doing BTECs receiving offers for a "high tier" course at a "high tier uni". I'd be interested to know if anyone actually does - because I just presumed they put it on their entry requirements because they're required to or something.
They always list them on their site - but I've never actually heard of anyone doing BTECs receiving offers for a "high tier" course at a "high tier uni". I'd be interested to know if anyone actually does - because I just presumed they put it on their entry requirements because they're required to or something.
They're legally not allowed to write it on their site and not accept a student that meets their requirements. Many students get accepted to study Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Architecture, with BTECs and A-Levels. I know a few who got into QMUL with BTECs.
Original post by spleenharvester
Pretty much the entirety of the course comes in handy in some degrees - just not all of it in one degree simultaneously. Same later on in life. People don't know what they want to do until it comes to UCAS applications, so the course specifications will cover a broad range of things that may be required for certain degrees.
For example - if someone chooses to study ecology at degree level. Should we remove any study of animal behaviour from all Biology courses? Nope, because that same person might instead choose to study animal behaviour at degree level. It's narrowed down in the same way the GCSE to A level jump is.
Pretty much the entirety of the course comes in handy in some degrees - just not all of it in one degree simultaneously. Same later on in life. People don't know what they want to do until it comes to UCAS applications, so the course specifications will cover a broad range of things that may be required for certain degrees.
For example - if someone chooses to study ecology at degree level. Should we remove any study of animal behaviour from all Biology courses? Nope, because that same person might instead choose to study animal behaviour at degree level. It's narrowed down in the same way the GCSE to A level jump is.
There is no point in studying the rest though. They should make two different exams and should prepare students for university during their first year, not when they start their UCAS applications. Based on your example, I would say that they should split Biology into different sections or exams.
Original post by spleenharvester
This is what is assessed in the Chemistry B coursework, which is why I like it so much. You're marked on various skills including "demand" (how hard the investigation you've undertaken is and if you've really "pushed the boat out" with anything in particular, such as processing your data from experiments in new or more useful ways, etc). That's how it should be imo. York actually designed the specification as they were tired of getting people studying chemistry who can't even do basic things like a titration, or so I'm told.
The standard coursework structure for sciences at least is pretty broken. I think like you say - it would be far better if coursework was assessed as a larger part of the A-level than it currently is.
Unfortunately, the standard structure is just too full of holes in my current state (as per last post) so unless some major changes were made to it it would just be detrimental (schools cheating will have a far greater outcome on the grades of people who do it fair and square).
EDIT - added colour.
This is what is assessed in the Chemistry B coursework, which is why I like it so much. You're marked on various skills including "demand" (how hard the investigation you've undertaken is and if you've really "pushed the boat out" with anything in particular, such as processing your data from experiments in new or more useful ways, etc). That's how it should be imo. York actually designed the specification as they were tired of getting people studying chemistry who can't even do basic things like a titration, or so I'm told.
The standard coursework structure for sciences at least is pretty broken. I think like you say - it would be far better if coursework was assessed as a larger part of the A-level than it currently is.
Unfortunately, the standard structure is just too full of holes in my current state (as per last post) so unless some major changes were made to it it would just be detrimental (schools cheating will have a far greater outcome on the grades of people who do it fair and square).
EDIT - added colour.
I agree, and I told you that if they find a way to properly examine and monitor the coursework, it would be 100x more effective on students than typical exams.
Original post by 0xygen
At the end of the day, they made it harder to succeed so it would be fair to decrease the grade boundaries.
And here is the thing - the grade boundaries will probably drop wonderfully this year
people who leave it too late are more screwed than they have been in previous years, and even the people who have worked damn hard - me and just about all the others I've spoken to about it - have struggled balancing the workload for the number of exams we have this year.I think/hope most of them will be lower than they ever have been, only time will tell.
Yes they can and there are many available. They just prefer the old way since that's the only way they've tried. Also, they're making money and couldn't care less about what happens to students.
Examples? The problem is, as well, is that completely overhauling the system will be a complete shock to all the upcoming students, and if it's ineffective a lot of perfectly capable people may end up being screwed out of a university place. It's not something they have much room to play around with.
They're legally not allowed to write it on their site and not accept a student that meets their requirements. Many students get accepted to study Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science, Architecture, with BTECs and A-Levels. I know a few who got into QMUL with BTECs.
Fair do's, I haven't seen it myself at all but I guess it varies from uni to uni.
There is no point in studying the rest though. They should make two different exams and should prepare students for university during their first year, not when they start their UCAS applications. Based on your example, I would say that they should split Biology into different sections or exams.
But then you're forcing people into making a huge decision at a point in their life when they likely won't be able to. A levels are a huge step up from anything else and someone might find the subject they loved at GCSE is something they hate now.
I switched my degree choice before sending off my UCAS about 5 times - and that was not long before I turned 19. A lot of other people will be the same.
I see your point though - they actually had everything in separate exams on the older specification, for the record.
Original post by 0xygen
Before you smart people that love exams and end up getting 100% every exam start arguing, read my side of the argument.
Summarised points:
1) January exams have been removed - There are only June exams now. Giving students ONE shot at getting the grades they deserve is frustrating and stressful, people were given second chances before while they're only given one chance at their exams this time... Failure rates will probably rise by 50%
2) Exams prove nothing -The only thing they prove is that you know how to read a book and memorise, they don't prove that you're capable of thinking around problems and don't prove that you're ready for the real world, you also don't gain any experience from them.
3) Those doing BTEC courses and those doing A-Level courses have the same shot at getting into university - Completely unfair. BTECs are known to be MUCH easier than full A-Levels, yet top class universities accept students with BTECS for most courses/degrees.
4) You forget most of the stuff you've studied - Most students forget and never use most of the stuff they studied at A-Levels... Also, they practically recap everything you've studied at A-Levels in university (not all courses). This shows that exams aren't effective at all.
5) Physical exams and coursework are better alternatives - Physical exams show that you can apply knowledge and experience to gain real results, not numbers on a paper. Coursework proves that you are capable of completing projects by a deadline, which is most likely what you're going to be doing after graduation. You'll be taking part in projects, not sitting there writing exams.
6) You'll never be that pressured in life - Exam writers usually go by the rule "1 mark per minute", which is completely useless. You'll never be so pressured in your life... When would you ever be so pressured that you'll have less than two hours to complete your work. Example: When would you ever be asked to shout out the answer to "15x7" in 3 seconds? And how is the student that shouts the answer out quickest, a better student? It only proves that he memorised his times tables.
7) We've developed - School exams have been going on for many many years now and they have never proven anything. Thousands of students graduate from top class universities and its always the ones with experience that are hired to work. (Not for Medicine or related courses)... You should obviously have the knowledge, but a student with a 2:2 with heaps of experience will obviously get employed over a student with a 1st and barely any experience. Also, there are hundreds of thousands - millions of graduates who remain unemployed because they don't know how to fully apply their knowledge to real world scenarios.
8) Education develops, knowledge doesn't - Every year they tweak their education system, changing variables and fixing up numbers. The only thing we need is the CORE knowledge. 20 years down the line, the education I received would be completely useless and I would be relying on experience and core knowledge e.g. The basics of Mathematics and the basics of English to get me through. I would never use 80% of the theories and equations I've memorised.
All in All. The British Exam system is failing internationally.
Summarised points:
1) January exams have been removed - There are only June exams now. Giving students ONE shot at getting the grades they deserve is frustrating and stressful, people were given second chances before while they're only given one chance at their exams this time... Failure rates will probably rise by 50%
2) Exams prove nothing -The only thing they prove is that you know how to read a book and memorise, they don't prove that you're capable of thinking around problems and don't prove that you're ready for the real world, you also don't gain any experience from them.
3) Those doing BTEC courses and those doing A-Level courses have the same shot at getting into university - Completely unfair. BTECs are known to be MUCH easier than full A-Levels, yet top class universities accept students with BTECS for most courses/degrees.
4) You forget most of the stuff you've studied - Most students forget and never use most of the stuff they studied at A-Levels... Also, they practically recap everything you've studied at A-Levels in university (not all courses). This shows that exams aren't effective at all.
5) Physical exams and coursework are better alternatives - Physical exams show that you can apply knowledge and experience to gain real results, not numbers on a paper. Coursework proves that you are capable of completing projects by a deadline, which is most likely what you're going to be doing after graduation. You'll be taking part in projects, not sitting there writing exams.
6) You'll never be that pressured in life - Exam writers usually go by the rule "1 mark per minute", which is completely useless. You'll never be so pressured in your life... When would you ever be so pressured that you'll have less than two hours to complete your work. Example: When would you ever be asked to shout out the answer to "15x7" in 3 seconds? And how is the student that shouts the answer out quickest, a better student? It only proves that he memorised his times tables.
7) We've developed - School exams have been going on for many many years now and they have never proven anything. Thousands of students graduate from top class universities and its always the ones with experience that are hired to work. (Not for Medicine or related courses)... You should obviously have the knowledge, but a student with a 2:2 with heaps of experience will obviously get employed over a student with a 1st and barely any experience. Also, there are hundreds of thousands - millions of graduates who remain unemployed because they don't know how to fully apply their knowledge to real world scenarios.
8) Education develops, knowledge doesn't - Every year they tweak their education system, changing variables and fixing up numbers. The only thing we need is the CORE knowledge. 20 years down the line, the education I received would be completely useless and I would be relying on experience and core knowledge e.g. The basics of Mathematics and the basics of English to get me through. I would never use 80% of the theories and equations I've memorised.
All in All. The British Exam system is failing internationally.
1 - Depends on your system. Scottish system hasn't had them for at least 15 years (I don't think it did before, but I don't know). Resits were the unfair thing IMO.
2 - Disagree. Easy exams that's true for certainly, but take STEP and see if you still think that.
3 - Whatever. BTECs being easier than A levels might be true, but I've not seen what I would call a top course listing them as acceptable.
4 - A level can be covered in about 3 days at uni. Again, all this shows is that A levels are too easy, and should be made tougher.
5 - And yet so much easier to cheat.
6 - Yes you will. If you think pressured working will never happen in full time work, one feels you haven't been there.
7 - First sentence is a totally unjustified claim. Second is just wrong (so many schemes auto-reject 2:2s, and I know of many places that prefer grades to experience).
8 - This doesn't even seem to be a point. Of course knowledge develops. And I take it you're opposed to all forms of research then?
Wrong. I agree the English system is, but it's not the British system. Make it a bit harder and you're on the right lines though.
This is in a sense flawed logic because University itself is all about exams! You leatb to pass exams of which most content you'll never use after you graduate.
Itsnthe most effective way of testing peoples knowledge. Coursework is good to some extent but is harder to monitor, easier to cheat on and also harder to set boundaries for especially at uni.
Get a grip, deal with it, life isn't fair!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Itsnthe most effective way of testing peoples knowledge. Coursework is good to some extent but is harder to monitor, easier to cheat on and also harder to set boundaries for especially at uni.
Get a grip, deal with it, life isn't fair!
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Slumpy
1 - Depends on your system. Scottish system hasn't had them for at least 15 years (I don't think it did before, but I don't know). Resits were the unfair thing IMO.
2 - Disagree. Easy exams that's true for certainly, but take STEP and see if you still think that.
3 - Whatever. BTECs being easier than A levels might be true, but I've not seen what I would call a top course listing them as acceptable.
4 - A level can be covered in about 3 days at uni. Again, all this shows is that A levels are too easy, and should be made tougher.
5 - And yet so much easier to cheat.
6 - Yes you will. If you think pressured working will never happen in full time work, one feels you haven't been there.
7 - First sentence is a totally unjustified claim. Second is just wrong (so many schemes auto-reject 2:2s, and I know of many places that prefer grades to experience).
8 - This doesn't even seem to be a point. Of course knowledge develops. And I take it you're opposed to all forms of research then?
Wrong. I agree the English system is, but it's not the British system. Make it a bit harder and you're on the right lines though.
2 - Disagree. Easy exams that's true for certainly, but take STEP and see if you still think that.
3 - Whatever. BTECs being easier than A levels might be true, but I've not seen what I would call a top course listing them as acceptable.
4 - A level can be covered in about 3 days at uni. Again, all this shows is that A levels are too easy, and should be made tougher.
5 - And yet so much easier to cheat.
6 - Yes you will. If you think pressured working will never happen in full time work, one feels you haven't been there.
7 - First sentence is a totally unjustified claim. Second is just wrong (so many schemes auto-reject 2:2s, and I know of many places that prefer grades to experience).
8 - This doesn't even seem to be a point. Of course knowledge develops. And I take it you're opposed to all forms of research then?
Wrong. I agree the English system is, but it's not the British system. Make it a bit harder and you're on the right lines though.
You can't really compare a student that has studied the subject for 6 years, going into his PhD's and writing a thesis based on Mathematic principals to an A-Level student. You can't compare a Computer Scientist to an ICT student or a GP to a Biology student. Make exams any harder and % of success will drop drastically.
"Its easy to cheat on coursework" - Yep, which is why they make it harder for students to cheat... Which is already hard enough.
I have worked before, but I wasn't given 90 minutes to complete my part of a project. I was given days -> weeks.
I know many students who've done BTECs and got into good universities...
School exams have never proven anything other than the capability to memorise and regurgitate everything that you've read hundreds of times. "So many schemes auto-reject 2:2s" may be correct, but you can't really base your "many" on 3-4 that you've seen. Also, I can guarantee that many companies will employ a guy that doesn't have a degree but can do exactly what their current employees are capable of doing. This is stated in a few job descriptions or person specs.... Even Google asks for experience > grades.
Original post by 0xygen
You can't really compare a student that has studied the subject for 6 years, going into his PhD's and writing a thesis based on Mathematic principals to an A-Level student. You can't compare a Computer Scientist to an ICT student or a GP to a Biology student. Make exams any harder and % of success will drop drastically.
"Its easy to cheat on coursework" - Yep, which is why they make it harder for students to cheat... Which is already hard enough.
I have worked before, but I wasn't given 90 minutes to complete my part of a project. I was given days -> weeks.
I know many students who've done BTECs and got into good universities...
School exams have never proven anything other than the capability to memorise and regurgitate everything that you've read hundreds of times. "So many schemes auto-reject 2:2s" may be correct, but you can't really base your "many" on 3-4 that you've seen. Also, I can guarantee that many companies will employ a guy that doesn't have a degree but can do exactly what their current employees are capable of doing. This is stated in a few job descriptions or person specs.... Even Google asks for experience > grades.
"Its easy to cheat on coursework" - Yep, which is why they make it harder for students to cheat... Which is already hard enough.
I have worked before, but I wasn't given 90 minutes to complete my part of a project. I was given days -> weeks.
I know many students who've done BTECs and got into good universities...
School exams have never proven anything other than the capability to memorise and regurgitate everything that you've read hundreds of times. "So many schemes auto-reject 2:2s" may be correct, but you can't really base your "many" on 3-4 that you've seen. Also, I can guarantee that many companies will employ a guy that doesn't have a degree but can do exactly what their current employees are capable of doing. This is stated in a few job descriptions or person specs.... Even Google asks for experience > grades.
Don't know why you've decided to go off on a tangent at the start there. A levels have been drastically too easy for many years. This was as much unfair to the people doing them (no discrimination existed) as to the people getting mildly shafted now.
Again, look at STEP. School exam which doesn't even come close to what you think. The same is true for the majority of science exams.
Lol. 3-4 I've seen? I'm talking about practically every company at every employment thing I went to at uni (hint: This is a lot of companies).
Google asks for intelligence over all. Jobs tend to ask for what they need. For some, this is people who have shown they can do fairly mind-numbing tasks. For others (in my experience, pretty much all prop shops fit here) want people who can think above having any experience.
Exams are the best system we currently have to judge one's willingness to work hard for a certain objective. No, they don't directly reward natural intellect, and neither should they. Typically, those willing to commit more so to their studies are those that will commit more so to their career when they are older, so by allowing for them to be streamed into a better form of education (elite universities) is an efficient allocation of resources if you're looking for return on investment.
Original post by Slumpy
Don't know why you've decided to go off on a tangent at the start there. A levels have been drastically too easy for many years. This was as much unfair to the people doing them (no discrimination existed) as to the people getting mildly shafted now.
Again, look at STEP. School exam which doesn't even come close to what you think. The same is true for the majority of science exams.
Lol. 3-4 I've seen? I'm talking about practically every company at every employment thing I went to at uni (hint: This is a lot of companies).
Google asks for intelligence over all. Jobs tend to ask for what they need. For some, this is people who have shown they can do fairly mind-numbing tasks. For others (in my experience, pretty much all prop shops fit here) want people who can think above having any experience.
Again, look at STEP. School exam which doesn't even come close to what you think. The same is true for the majority of science exams.
Lol. 3-4 I've seen? I'm talking about practically every company at every employment thing I went to at uni (hint: This is a lot of companies).
Google asks for intelligence over all. Jobs tend to ask for what they need. For some, this is people who have shown they can do fairly mind-numbing tasks. For others (in my experience, pretty much all prop shops fit here) want people who can think above having any experience.
Let's assume that they make exams harder, what do you think that's gonna do? It's still proving the same point, that this person knows how to memorise and re-write all he can remember... The only people that actually fail are those that don't put the effort into their studies till the last minute. That alone should show how terrible the system is.
I've never heard of STEP exams but I'm guessing that you're given the option to choose them or not.
Original post by Pro Crastination
Exams are the best system we currently have to judge one's willingness to work hard for a certain objective. No, they don't directly reward natural intellect, and neither should they. Typically, those willing to commit more so to their studies are those that will commit more so to their career when they are older, so by allowing for them to be streamed into a better form of education (elite universities) is an efficient allocation of resources if you're looking for return on investment.
So spending more time memorising content at A-Levels would have a direct affect on their work life and show how willing they are to work? I'm sorry but, if you haven't realised, over 50% of students change their mind on their career path between A2 and graduation, some even after graduation. The students don't even know what they want to do, they just assume that keeping the memorised content in their head is the key to success.
A-Levels don't ease the transition between school and university at all, or help students study more effectively at university... Most students find university much more challenging and completely different from A-Levels, then tell you that "I feel like my A-levels barely helped me with anything".
Also, I've worked multiple jobs and never had to memorise in order to work. I had to have core knowledge and know basic principles and through experience I was able to outperform graduates.
Coursework and piratical hands on exams are much better than written exams on a piece of paper.
Original post by Namige
You're obviously doing rubbish in your exams and you're blaming your intellectual inferiority on the education system.
This, this, this.
OP it looks like you are so desperate to belittle the A-Level system because it's not favouring your strengths.
Original post by James A
This, this, this.
OP it looks like you are so desperate to belittle the A-Level system because it's not favouring your strengths.
OP it looks like you are so desperate to belittle the A-Level system because it's not favouring your strengths.
So you think that I'm trying to gain the support of all TSR users, destroy the educational system in order to feel like I passed? That's a childish thing to think... Also, I've belittled exams ever since I was 13. I've hated them and have hated our educational system and our under qualified teachers that get advice from students on how to teach.
Just wanna chip In on the btec point. They are not much easier! you have to produce approximately 54 pieces of high calibre coursework over a two year period. Most btecs also have exams and practical assesments throughout both years. Only really rubbish colleges let their students upgrade work constantly. You get one shot at it most of the time. There is still a snooty attitude about btecs in some of the older universities. This is changing now though, universities are realising the advantages of taking on btec students and even oxford has changed its policy to allow btec students onto the courses. They even recognised it as an equivalent to a levels for the first time. Check out oxford admissions if you don't believe me!
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Newham Collegiate sixth form
- Considering 4 A Levels
- Do universities care about this ?
- applying to UK uni without going to US high school?
- I'm so confused
- I am an international Student from USA. What is AAA grades?
- Are my chosen alevel subjects ok for taking architecture at uni?
- Unconditional offers and applying abroad
- Is it bad to finish a-levels at the age of 20 but
- Oxbridge
- I did bad in my iGCSE's.
- can i do med without bio a level
- Queen Marys Uni Clearing Economics
- 5 in gcse maths can i do medicine?
- Computer Science Entry Requirements
- What should I study with psychology and economics
- Entry requirements
- Do I need 4 A-levels to apply to medicine in the Republic of Ireland?
- Can I pull out of resitting an A-level if the University doesn't need it ?
- chemical engineering
Latest
Trending
Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 6 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 6 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 ?
