Should the grading of A levels be changed?

I am convinced, as are many senior academics, that A levels have got steadily easier over the last 20 years, but especially since 2000 onwards when the AS level was introduced universally. Does anyone agree that A levels should award grades by raising the grade boundary, (i.e. A = 90%, B = 80%, C = 70%, D = 60%, E = 50%, Pass = 40%). The ''Pass'' would be in effect a new grade. Under this system the A* would be scrapped.

No, that's complete nonsense and it wouldn't change a thing. All that's doing is calling an old A* an A, an old A a B, etc. They still mean the exact same thing, they've just got a different name. On top of that, so much of exam success hinges on exam technique these days that the A boundary would simply be penalising those who can't conform to the rigid, regimented exam game.

There was a time (around 1996) when getting BBB was enough to get into a few medical and dental schools in the UK. Today you need A*AA/AAA just to get into the weakest medical schools, plus the possibility of passing the GMAT exam or equivalent.

Likewise, to get into Oxbridge in 1996 you could get in comfortably with AAB for virtually all courses. Today you need to get A*AA/AAA as a minimum, on top of the interview and possible entrance exam.

I am of the belief that needing to get 90% to get a grade A overall would be a more reliable, and more demanding, challenge to students than having to get an A* in one subject as part of a conditional offer. The grades AAB under the new proposed system would be more difficult to achieve than AAA under the current system. Most competitive courses ask for just one A* as part of the offer, which makes the entry requirements a bit lop-sided.

The A* could potentially be kept for those students who score 90% or higher in every single exam and coursework component they sit at both AS & A2. Personally, I am not keen on this grade, for the reason I gave above, it makes the entry requirements irregular.

So how is A*AA more lopsided and why do you dislike that more than AAB, for both it's two of one grade and one of the other..


Posted from TSR Mobile

I am convinced, as are many senior academics, that A levels have got steadily easier over the last 20 years, but especially since 2000 onwards when the AS level was introduced universally. Does anyone agree that A levels should award grades by raising the grade boundary, (i.e. A = 90%, B = 80%, C = 70%, D = 60%, E = 50%, Pass = 40%). The ''Pass'' would be in effect a new grade. Under this system the A* would be scrapped.

I think the grades should be scrapped all together and you should just be given a percentage. This makes it much easier for universities and employers to compare candidates if two people have AAA, one may have 3 80%s and the other may have 3 89%s.

Surely that isn't the case as the grades are normalised and converted into UMS marks (so a certain proportion of candidates gets each grade)? I'd love to know exactly how the UMS system works. Changing the names of the grades changes nothing though.

I was in the last year group to do the old A levels. The boundary for an A grade in some subjects was around 70% (or around 18/25 on an essay). The problem isn't the grade boundaries. It is that the exams are easier, there is a modular system rather than one set of exams after two years and the possibility to repeat exams to get the desired grade.

The awarding of grades under the old A level grading system worked so that only an X amount of students could be awarded the top grade. I have not heard that this has been used in the last 20 years, nor do I think any government could re-introduce it without fierce opposition.

The A* was introduced to help identify candidates considered top of the class at A2 alone. What I am proposing is making the A grade being as difficult to get as it was 20 years ago, by awarding this grade to those who on average achieve 90% over the AS/A2 course combined. There is a clear distinction here, and I seriously doubt universities would object to this change.

There was a time (around 1996) when getting BBB was enough to get into a few medical and dental schools in the UK. Today you need A*AA/AAA just to get into the weakest medical schools, plus the possibility of passing the GMAT exam or equivalent.

Likewise, to get into Oxbridge in 1996 you could get in comfortably with AAB for virtually all courses. Today you need to get A*AA/AAA as a minimum, on top of the interview and possible entrance exam.

I am of the belief that needing to get 90% to get a grade A overall would be a more reliable, and more demanding, challenge to students than having to get an A* in one subject as part of a conditional offer. The grades AAB under the new proposed system would be more difficult to achieve than AAA under the current system. Most competitive courses ask for just one A* as part of the offer, which makes the entry requirements a bit lop-sided.

The A* could potentially be kept for those students who score 90% or higher in every single exam and coursework component they sit at both AS & A2. Personally, I am not keen on this grade, for the reason I gave above, it makes the entry requirements irregular.

I think the grades should be scrapped all together and you should just be given a percentage. This makes it much easier for universities and employers to compare candidates if two people have AAA, one may have 3 80%s and the other may have 3 89%s.

I am convinced, as are many senior academics, that A levels have got steadily easier over the last 20 years, but especially since 2000 onwards when the AS level was introduced universally. Does anyone agree that A levels should award grades by raising the grade boundary, (i.e. A = 90%, B = 80%, C = 70%, D = 60%, E = 50%, Pass = 40%). The ''Pass'' would be in effect a new grade. Under this system the A* would be scrapped.

But the exams we've got are already broken. There's no way of knowing whether someone with 89% is better than someone with 80%. Using percentages would simply reward those who know how to play the exams game. I completely agree that the current system doesn't differentiate properly between students but the solution is creating a system that does, not trying to fix an inherently flawed fallacy.

Make exams harder? maybe
Raise the boundaries? no

That's no good. And it affects everyone in exactly the same way, which is counter to the point. A levels should have a few questions at the end which are a real step up, so that better students can differentiate themselves. That's off the top of my head.

The reality is A levels will never be made ''harder'' to any significant in the traditional subjects. There are enough people struggling at A level Maths, Physics and Chemistry as it is. My focus has been more on the so called ''soft'' subjects such as Media studies, Psychology, Home Economics etc. In order to make it a fair level playing field, these subjects need to be comparable in difficulty to obtain the top grades as the more demanding subjects. What is happening now is that the top 25 universities (mostly Russell Group) in most cases instantly reject candidates who have done more than one of these easier subjects, regardless of what grade has been achieved.

How does someone scoring 90% show anything about how well they understand a subject?

I agree with what you're saying, but this sentence kind of applies universally to all exams. Are you in favour of better exams or scrapping exams?