..

http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/go-higher-not-quite-so-easy-as-abc-1120427.html

good ol' days of 1999 where all medicine courses were AAB-ABB or less* It's worth pointing out that grades have deflated from that point, so even AAB was easier to achieve then, not to mention january resits and where natural science subjects were lower in general than humanities. Clearing was also solely based of mediocre universities, with nothing like the number of quality courses available now.

No fees either, smh.

*Cambridge was AAA

Easier to achieve then? A levels have become harder?
When was A* introduced?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/638400/A_level_results_days_2017.pdf

With the new A Levels, A*/A attainment rates are dropping.

http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev.htm

Add up A*/A from the above link and you'll see they're a) identical or less to A grades in the 90s.

So everything has become a lot more competitive basically.
It's curious that a lot of top unis were asking for AAB-ABB in sciences or law and now ask for A*AA which is of a fair way higher standard - it may imply that grade inflation in degrees is caused by a more able/competitive cohort as a result of the competition.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwoxacuk/localsites/gazette/documents/statisticalinformation/admissions-1990.pdf

It's even more funny when you realise Oxford was letting in many with ABB and below - predominately making offers in this region too- like why ffs. People thought this was a myth, obviously not. Also, these acceptance rates are pretty high, you could make a case that the vast majority of courses were giving offers to most applicants.

@JohanGRK, @Notoriety think you'll find this of interest. Makes you think how smart all our Oxbridge politicians really are.

If you're having a Google of politicians' Wikis, people who attended Oxbridge in the 80s, you will see people got in with ABB or AAB and be wholly shocked. David Miliband got BBBD (approx. 1985). He then took a first in PPE, and an MSc in PolSci from MIT as a Kennedy Scholar. BBBD must have been at least respectable and furthermore a challenge if that is what a great mind could best achieve.

I think your retrospective approach overlooks the socio-economic reality that further education simply was not as common back in the 80s and 90s as it is today. If further education were the domain of the wealthy/academically able, there seems good reason to think that a higher percentage of further ed students in the 90s were academically able than the percentage today. That higher percentage of A attainment, even though A-Level was harder back then, could be explained by the fact the proportion of good students was higher.

However people with straight grade As at A level were not common. I think there were two in my year group - linear A levels and norm-referenced grading system then too.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/638400/A_level_results_days_2017.pdf

With the new A Levels, A*/A attainment rates are dropping.

http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev.htm

Add up A*/A from the above link and you'll see they're a) identical or less to A grades in the 90s.

So everything has become a lot more competitive basically.
It's curious that a lot of top unis were asking for AAB-ABB in sciences or law and now ask for A*AA which is of a fair way higher standard - it may imply that grade inflation in degrees is caused by a more able/competitive cohort as a result of the competition.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwoxacuk/localsites/gazette/documents/statisticalinformation/admissions-1990.pdf

It's even more funny when you realise Oxford was letting in many with ABB and below - predominately making offers in this region too- like why ffs. People thought this was a myth, obviously not. Also, these acceptance rates are pretty high, you could make a case that the vast majority of courses were giving offers to most applicants.

@JohanGRK, @Notoriety think you'll find this of interest. Makes you think how smart all our Oxbridge politicians really are.

According to stats, they're as common as they are now? Do you think they were restricted more to private schools than they are now?

A level grades are falling? Wouldnt that be misleading as historically they are at record levels and I would think before 1996 the % of grades As were a lot lower.




It's curious that a lot of top unis were asking for AAB-ABB in sciences or law and now ask for A*AA which is of a fair way higher standard - it may

Only if you accept they are of the same standard and pupils were less intelligent in previous years. They didnt have the internet and they werent force fed exam techniques.

There was also a lot of acceptance from private schools where acceptances were different. Not the same for state schools.

If anything I believe there has been significant grade inflation at all levels.

How far are you going back? There was a time when they were norm-referenced; do you understand what that means? Only a small % got grade A ...

What evidence is there that it was harder in the 90s? Researchers gave their opinion that between 90s and now, there's no meaningful difference. I remember doing some chemistry papers from the 90s (our teacher was a 60 year old), and they were identical in difficulty. It's a small sample size but still.

MIT was no where near as competitive as it is now either, believe their offer rate was high 30s for undergrad, so maybe 40s for MSc degrees. Harvard also accepted most people around the 80s period. http://tech.mit.edu/V105/N54/caltek.54n.html

You'd have a much harder time getting in to Imperial or LSE today, I mean come on 70% ACCEPTANCE RATE for Harvard, with barely any prerequisites? Does a higher ability group really account for that? I know College wasn't required for a higher paying job then, but that doesn't mean it wasn't easier.

Ol' boy Milliband could've just tried harder on his degree too. He was wealthy no? Given the people with CCD are being admitted on that list maybe implies status still had some value to Oxford

Tell me, do you think Oxford is easier to get into now or then?

Also, that **** Trump also boasts about going to UPenn, even though he had to buy himself into to a college where most are accepted in the first place?

Overall, I don't think a slightly more able group accounts for the deficit

@Kyber Ninja

You need @nulli tertius and @PQ for this

I'm sure it's been discussed before...

(Thread moved to Educational debate )

Read this: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmeduski/153/15304.htm

PS OP I repped your post by mistake.

Made a blunder of interpreting bstubbs results by looking at Art and thinking they were comparable :/

Today's results are comparable to 2005-2006.

Past 90s, I believe there's a +1 grade inflation.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3458830/Pupils-B-grade-level-maths-today-scored-E-50-years-ago-study-shows-exams-got-easier.html

These Loughborough scientists state "no evidence past 20 years, meaning 96.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/global/wwwoxacuk/localsites/gazette/documents/statisticalinformation/admissions-1997.pdf

Despite that, still looks easier.

No, I think there has been a change in attitude towards education. People are a lot more educationally minded and admission reflects that. I think it was Mary Beard who said a few years ago (when I was applying to unis, I looked) that she would not get in to Oxford today were she to apply. That sentiment was shared by one of my old mates who has a BA in PPE and a BPhil in philosophy -- in the 60s, she sat an entrance exam at 16 without any other quals and got in. It was a different world.

Doesnt reflect the underlyng factors that schools became a lot more geared towards exams.
Structure of exams like AS changed everything.
Loads of other socio and economic reasons.
Internet.