This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- GCSE's are too easy.
- AS chemistry paper 2 2022 AQ
- Feeing less disgusting
- Epq
- The 2021-2022 epl season banter(with niz)
- Are edexcel AS levels hard?
- There should be a GCSE in “grade boundaries”
- The Manchester United Thread XXIII
- Are my IGSCEs good enough for Oxford
- English Language WJEC exam theme
- Confused about A Level 'sittings', 'final grades,' and 'final papers'
- how can i access moocs?
- Edexcel GCSE Statistics Paper 2 Higher Tier (1ST0 2H) - 19th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Doing an A-Level a year early?
- Can I take A Levels on seperate years?
- Computer Science and oversaturation in 2024
- how to cover all of gcse maths content in one month
- study blog : self teaching : at 18 years old
- Where to go for investment advice?
- Kc Titration Question
Smug ol' Radio 4 gets experts to sit A Level, get an A* and scoff at how easy it is
Scroll to see replies
Mann18
*Giggling and scoffing at the question...*
"But we all got a B."
Anyone who acts like that on results day, I'd piss myself laughing.
I assumed the presenter meant that a B was a failure in the eyes of the experts, but no, he went on to say that "having a B would make it difficult to get into your local college/university."
Which says something both about the state that grade inflation has caused, and the elitist nature of the presenter, as clearly, AAB/ABB/BBB get you into very decent universities depending on the subject.
"But we all got a B."
Anyone who acts like that on results day, I'd piss myself laughing.
I assumed the presenter meant that a B was a failure in the eyes of the experts, but no, he went on to say that "having a B would make it difficult to get into your local college/university."
Which says something both about the state that grade inflation has caused, and the elitist nature of the presenter, as clearly, AAB/ABB/BBB get you into very decent universities depending on the subject.
You would find it very difficult to get into a fairly good uni for English (which is what the exam was on) with a B.
common_person
On one Lit module I got a U. So I didn't get into uni, so I resat, I studied the mark schemes, assessment objectives and examiner's reports instead of actual literature, and got full marks. I'm not half as proud of my second attempt as I was of my first.
A levels are ****** up, and people get screwed over who don't deserve to be. The programme makes a good point. It's not about how much you know, or about how good you are at writing it down. It's about learning to pass at the expense of learning actual good stuff. Like painting by numbers.
I know it's a pain in the arse to have people dumping on A levels all the time, especially when you're good at them. But whatever.
A levels are ****** up, and people get screwed over who don't deserve to be. The programme makes a good point. It's not about how much you know, or about how good you are at writing it down. It's about learning to pass at the expense of learning actual good stuff. Like painting by numbers.
I know it's a pain in the arse to have people dumping on A levels all the time, especially when you're good at them. But whatever.
I agree, even before I had my exams at school, if I had a test and I didnt study it went by more what fascinated me than actual studying, i,e a class I didnt like or understand the work I would get a low mark, one I enjoyed like English or History I would get at least a C if not a A or very high B, and for every test I had say I bought a revision guide and studied that for a few hours I ALWAYS got an A.
I remember in my English class I got jealous people saying that I shouldnt of got A's and B's for my tests because they only got C's and D's wheras they got better marks in everyday class work like poems I even got accused of cheating!
Good marks in school exams are just a symbol of willingness to learn, base intelligence and interest in the subject.
LurkerintheDark
I think you're missing the point, sweetheart 
The very fact that two Shakespeare experts could only get a B in the exam demonstrates that exams these days are nothing more than a box-ticking, hoop-jumping farce. Because they haven't had 'exam-technique' drilled into them, and because they hadn't had exposure to the 'correct' methods of writing a dull A-Level essay, they never got the higher grades. Never mind that they might have written brilliant and insightful essays; if they never threw in x, y or z or used x amount of quotations, they where doomed to get a B. Kids these days are drilled to pass exams, and not to truly be inspired by or enjoy the literature they study, or rigorously understand the science or mathematics they're coached - I should know, I sat my A-Levels last year.
In fact, I thought the pogramme adressed our loathsome exam-orientated, results-obsessed educational culture quite adequately, but it should have been bold enough to clearly sate that the only reason that results are better theses days is beacuse teachers slavishly teach to the test, and (of course), the exams themsevles are simply easier.
The only thing about the show that pissed me off was that the presenter sent her daughter on holiday because she'd done her exams - some folk have got more money than sense.
The very fact that two Shakespeare experts could only get a B in the exam demonstrates that exams these days are nothing more than a box-ticking, hoop-jumping farce. Because they haven't had 'exam-technique' drilled into them, and because they hadn't had exposure to the 'correct' methods of writing a dull A-Level essay, they never got the higher grades. Never mind that they might have written brilliant and insightful essays; if they never threw in x, y or z or used x amount of quotations, they where doomed to get a B. Kids these days are drilled to pass exams, and not to truly be inspired by or enjoy the literature they study, or rigorously understand the science or mathematics they're coached - I should know, I sat my A-Levels last year.
In fact, I thought the pogramme adressed our loathsome exam-orientated, results-obsessed educational culture quite adequately, but it should have been bold enough to clearly sate that the only reason that results are better theses days is beacuse teachers slavishly teach to the test, and (of course), the exams themsevles are simply easier.
The only thing about the show that pissed me off was that the presenter sent her daughter on holiday because she'd done her exams - some folk have got more money than sense.
The snobs of TSR have been outsnobbed. What a glorious moment for humanity.
LurkerintheDark
I think you're missing the point, sweetheart
The very fact that two Shakespeare experts could only get a B in the exam demonstrates that exams these days are nothing more than a box-ticking, hoop-jumping farce. Because they haven't had 'exam-technique' drilled into them, and because they hadn't had exposure to the 'correct' methods of writing a dull A-Level essay, they never got the higher grades. Never mind that they might have written brilliant and insightful essays; if they never threw in x, y or z or used x amount of quotations, they where doomed to get a B. Kids these days are drilled to pass exams, and not to truly be inspired by or enjoy the literature they study, or rigorously understand the science or mathematics they're coached - I should know, I sat my A-Levels last year.
In fact, I thought the pogramme adressed our loathsome exam-orientated, results-obsessed educational culture quite adequately, but it should have been bold enough to clearly sate that the only reason that results are better theses days is beacuse teachers slavishly teach to the test, and (of course), the exams themsevles are simply easier.
The only thing about the show that pissed me off was that the presenter sent her daughter on holiday because she'd done her exams - some folk have got more money than sense.
The very fact that two Shakespeare experts could only get a B in the exam demonstrates that exams these days are nothing more than a box-ticking, hoop-jumping farce. Because they haven't had 'exam-technique' drilled into them, and because they hadn't had exposure to the 'correct' methods of writing a dull A-Level essay, they never got the higher grades. Never mind that they might have written brilliant and insightful essays; if they never threw in x, y or z or used x amount of quotations, they where doomed to get a B. Kids these days are drilled to pass exams, and not to truly be inspired by or enjoy the literature they study, or rigorously understand the science or mathematics they're coached - I should know, I sat my A-Levels last year.
In fact, I thought the pogramme adressed our loathsome exam-orientated, results-obsessed educational culture quite adequately, but it should have been bold enough to clearly sate that the only reason that results are better theses days is beacuse teachers slavishly teach to the test, and (of course), the exams themsevles are simply easier.
The only thing about the show that pissed me off was that the presenter sent her daughter on holiday because she'd done her exams - some folk have got more money than sense.
Exactly this, I completey got blown over because I didn't tick the right box. For example, urea is a waste product but no marks for urine, depolarisation and repolarisation gets you a mark but putting down polarisation (which covers both) doesn't.
+rep
On the contrary I thought the show highlighted how flawed our exam structure is. Someone that knows hamlet inside out was unable to get an A* because he was too wide in his analysis - something he saw as imperative to answering the question. We're too driven by AOs these days!
AnonymousPenguin
I don't see anything wrong with the programme. I don't quite see your point, how an A* by an expert would show that the exam is easy. A bad grade by an expert does on the other hand show that grading is based on arbitrary criteria beyond expertise.
Agreed.
Mann18
I didn't realise that studying English at A-level meant that you had to study it at degree level.
Sorry.
Sorry.
Of course it doesn't- but considering the context, it's fair to assume that that's what the guy was talking about. Or at the very least, the requirements for English Lit are particularly relevant, since that's the A Level taken.
missygeorgia
Of course it doesn't- but considering the context, it's fair to assume that that's what the guy was talking about. Or at the very least, the requirements for English Lit are particularly relevant, since that's the A Level taken.
Assuming gets no-body anywhere.
Fact is, with a B in English at A-Level, you can still go to a good university, maybe not to study English, but nevertheless a good one.
Had the presenter solely meant English Lit courses, they should have made that clear/ attempted to dial down the level of patronisation so one could read between the lines.
(This is as close to a "You're right" as you're going to get.)
While I agree with what they're saying about learning the exam rather than being inspired by the text, how could they have a problem with the question?! Of course it has something to do with Hamlet; it's simply applying your knowledge of the play to certain themes or ideas that the author would have been trying to bring across. How can they say that English exams aren't testing us when they can't even engage in a simple debate in their specific area? I can't speak for other exams, but in English, to pass we need to be able to look at a book from different audience's viewpoints, taking into consideration context. Surely that does encourage original thinking? And surely an expert on Shakespeare would be able to debate such a question? I'd love to know what kind of question they were expecting if this disappointed them But yes, A-levels do need to be more challenging, if only to shut the media up!
But yes, A-levels do need to be more challenging, if only to shut the media up!
Ok, so the American who took the paper was a bit wild in his answer, and was surprised with the question itself, but it did demonstrate that the AO's don't allow for or sufficiently reward creative answers.
The husband of the presenter, Stubbs or something was just being a snob. Apparently because the question itself was not to his liking the integrity of the exam itself was compromised, not allowing him to fully display his knowledge of Hamlet. Fair enough, but the point still stands that if you don't answer the bloody question, you are not going to do well in the paper - and whatever he thinks, being able to use knowledge of a set text and your own personal interpretation of the question to constuct an arguement that either agrees or disagrees (or both) with the statement is as in depth as it gets.
He definitely has a superior knowlegde of the intracacies of Hamlet than any A-level student: therefore it should be that much easier for him to construct an arguement to support or disprove the statement.
A similar situation in a maths question asking me to integrate a trigonemetric function would be for me to state that the question is ridiculous since it doesnt test the rote learned methods that I shall hereby write down: ... and the indefinate integral of cos(-) is sin(-) etc. etc.
Fine, great! I still havent answered the question though.
The husband of the presenter, Stubbs or something was just being a snob. Apparently because the question itself was not to his liking the integrity of the exam itself was compromised, not allowing him to fully display his knowledge of Hamlet. Fair enough, but the point still stands that if you don't answer the bloody question, you are not going to do well in the paper - and whatever he thinks, being able to use knowledge of a set text and your own personal interpretation of the question to constuct an arguement that either agrees or disagrees (or both) with the statement is as in depth as it gets.
He definitely has a superior knowlegde of the intracacies of Hamlet than any A-level student: therefore it should be that much easier for him to construct an arguement to support or disprove the statement.
A similar situation in a maths question asking me to integrate a trigonemetric function would be for me to state that the question is ridiculous since it doesnt test the rote learned methods that I shall hereby write down: ... and the indefinate integral of cos(-) is sin(-) etc. etc.
Fine, great! I still havent answered the question though.
I didn't actually hear this on the radio but it was also in The Sunday Times.
I must admit, when I first read it I did laugh. How ironic, (I thought smugly) that an undoubtedly very intelligent, well regarded expert failed to get top marks in an exam deemed unsuitable preparation for study by Cambridge University, and other top Unis. (In the paper I think it said he took a theatre studies exam as well).
However I do admit that they have a point. In the article, the wife of the man who took the exam said that her friend had, at A level, taken a French exam and instead of finishing the final essay, wrote a letter to the examiner (in good French) explaining why she thought it was a silly question, and got an A. I don't think anyone in my year (just about to get A2 results) would have dared to do that kind of thing in their exams; nowadays, we know that we have to stick to what the examiner wants to hear.
However, I don't think this crushes originality. I didn't do English A level, but I remember at GCSE we were constantly being told to come up with original responses to literature essays: not deviating from the question, but just answering in a way that others wouldn't.
I was one of the few people in my English class who actually read all of our set texts, but many did just as well as me, and indeed better, without having done this. You could interpret this to mean that exams are learning objective-obsessive, or just that these students focused on the areas that were required of them (e.g., we read Kes and one of the topics was going to be on family, and there were 3 or 4 scenes which would provide the best basis for answering the question). I suppose what I'm trying to say (in a roundabout and waffly way, sorry!) is that knowing the whole of the text, or, in the case of the experts, knowing how to direct a play, and the best way to please an audience with one (amongst other things) would necessarily help with some of the questions asked of them.
I didin't see their exam scripts, so don't know how true this is, but could it be possible that they included too much of their expertise and failed to really answer the question? I know that 'answering the question' is the whole point of this debate - should originality and knowledge of the texts should come first? - but at the end of the day that was the question set for them and, if they didn't really answer it, or failed to answer it in a succinct manner, maybe they didn't really deserve some of the marks. I did science A2 subjects myself, but I did do History AS, and (as I'm sure you can tell by my post here) I found being precise and to the point with my answers one of the most challenging things about the exam. I found I would often include irrelevant information into my answers, and, though it was (probably) historically accurate, it probably wasn't worth marks. (Again, I didn't hear the show, and no script was given in the article, so they may have given direct, to the point answers).
Finally, didn't they only sit one A level exam question? I'm sure there are many A level students who got one 'mid-B' answer on one essay in their entire A level, and still went on to get an A. Not many A level students get full marks in every paper, and, though many tend to lose points equally over their papers, there's always a subject area that people do worse on.
I must admit, when I first read it I did laugh. How ironic, (I thought smugly) that an undoubtedly very intelligent, well regarded expert failed to get top marks in an exam deemed unsuitable preparation for study by Cambridge University, and other top Unis. (In the paper I think it said he took a theatre studies exam as well).
However I do admit that they have a point. In the article, the wife of the man who took the exam said that her friend had, at A level, taken a French exam and instead of finishing the final essay, wrote a letter to the examiner (in good French) explaining why she thought it was a silly question, and got an A. I don't think anyone in my year (just about to get A2 results) would have dared to do that kind of thing in their exams; nowadays, we know that we have to stick to what the examiner wants to hear.
However, I don't think this crushes originality. I didn't do English A level, but I remember at GCSE we were constantly being told to come up with original responses to literature essays: not deviating from the question, but just answering in a way that others wouldn't.
I was one of the few people in my English class who actually read all of our set texts, but many did just as well as me, and indeed better, without having done this. You could interpret this to mean that exams are learning objective-obsessive, or just that these students focused on the areas that were required of them (e.g., we read Kes and one of the topics was going to be on family, and there were 3 or 4 scenes which would provide the best basis for answering the question). I suppose what I'm trying to say (in a roundabout and waffly way, sorry!) is that knowing the whole of the text, or, in the case of the experts, knowing how to direct a play, and the best way to please an audience with one (amongst other things) would necessarily help with some of the questions asked of them.
I didin't see their exam scripts, so don't know how true this is, but could it be possible that they included too much of their expertise and failed to really answer the question? I know that 'answering the question' is the whole point of this debate - should originality and knowledge of the texts should come first? - but at the end of the day that was the question set for them and, if they didn't really answer it, or failed to answer it in a succinct manner, maybe they didn't really deserve some of the marks. I did science A2 subjects myself, but I did do History AS, and (as I'm sure you can tell by my post here) I found being precise and to the point with my answers one of the most challenging things about the exam. I found I would often include irrelevant information into my answers, and, though it was (probably) historically accurate, it probably wasn't worth marks. (Again, I didn't hear the show, and no script was given in the article, so they may have given direct, to the point answers).
Finally, didn't they only sit one A level exam question? I'm sure there are many A level students who got one 'mid-B' answer on one essay in their entire A level, and still went on to get an A. Not many A level students get full marks in every paper, and, though many tend to lose points equally over their papers, there's always a subject area that people do worse on.
GottaLovePhysics! :)
I wish they had posted their papers so they could explain how they failed to achive the top grade. That would be a hell of alot more usefull.
v. good point!!
I don't really get why people seem to think 'exam coaching' is a ridiculous idea. Doesn't it make sense? If you want to get a certain grade, you need to know HOW to obtain it as well as what knowledge you need. Not many people naturally know that sort of thing, so it gives less naturally gifted students the opportunity to do well through following instructions and doing hard work which will actually go somewhere.
I sat my A-levels two years ago and got reasonable grades (AAC). I had to work hard to learn the material useful for getting the right grades and we were not taught it in lessons. Instead we were taught how best to use it, which makes sense to me.
I sat my A-levels two years ago and got reasonable grades (AAC). I had to work hard to learn the material useful for getting the right grades and we were not taught it in lessons. Instead we were taught how best to use it, which makes sense to me.
joshthefro'
However, I don't think this crushes originality. I didn't do English A level, but I remember at GCSE we were constantly being told to come up with original responses to literature essays: not deviating from the question, but just answering in a way that others wouldn't.
I was one of the few people in my English class who actually read all of our set texts, but many did just as well as me, and indeed better, without having done this. .
However, I don't think this crushes originality. I didn't do English A level, but I remember at GCSE we were constantly being told to come up with original responses to literature essays: not deviating from the question, but just answering in a way that others wouldn't.
I was one of the few people in my English class who actually read all of our set texts, but many did just as well as me, and indeed better, without having done this. .
Agreed, I was one of the arrogant idiots who didn't read our set GCSE texts and walked away with an A*.. because we had the text in the exam! I was able to read the chapter and analyse with originality and my natural talent in the subject (I sound smug but english lit was the only A* I received and I'm studying it at uni).
This is the main problem with A Level, I received a B at AS because we didn't have the text with us, for my cw essays in both years I've achieved at least 98% because I had the text! I know people argue that being able to answer a question without the text shows a deeper understanding of a text but I massively disagree. I spent the week before July's exam memorising quote references rather than critical ideas, re-reading the texts/class essays/watching different interpretations - I believe this will stop me receiving an A* x
I remember on a BBC phone in some 12 years ago making the point about how horrible it was for all these pundits to go on about how easy A-Levels were when everyone was getting their results.
Someone from The Guardian a few years ago tried the same trick with a sociology A-Level, started from scratch 3 weeks before the exam, crammed and got an A. Interviewed on the radio he was torn to shreds because:
a) He was not 18
b) There was no pressure on him to do well - from friends, parents or university offers
c) Having been through higher education anyway, he was inevitably dropping back several levels
d) He was not taking lots of other exams at the same time
Personally, I don't think now is the time to be questionning how good A-Levels are. It's a kick in the teeth for people who in the grand scheme of things don't get the open media opportunities to respond.
Someone from The Guardian a few years ago tried the same trick with a sociology A-Level, started from scratch 3 weeks before the exam, crammed and got an A. Interviewed on the radio he was torn to shreds because:
a) He was not 18
b) There was no pressure on him to do well - from friends, parents or university offers
c) Having been through higher education anyway, he was inevitably dropping back several levels
d) He was not taking lots of other exams at the same time
Personally, I don't think now is the time to be questionning how good A-Levels are. It's a kick in the teeth for people who in the grand scheme of things don't get the open media opportunities to respond.
I have learnt nothing new here, I have always known Alevels are ********.
Even if you looked at the markscheme, a small percentage of the course is marked on knowledge, You can study and have all the knowledge in the world about the course but if you do not know the "exam technique" then do not bother. I learnt the hard way, I knew everything about my course(this way backed up by my teacher), but I never got the grade I deserved this was all because I did not know the exam technique.
It is silly, the real working world is not going to care about exam technique. It will care about what you know. So I do not see why the gov with alevels anymore.
Even if you looked at the markscheme, a small percentage of the course is marked on knowledge, You can study and have all the knowledge in the world about the course but if you do not know the "exam technique" then do not bother. I learnt the hard way, I knew everything about my course(this way backed up by my teacher), but I never got the grade I deserved this was all because I did not know the exam technique.
It is silly, the real working world is not going to care about exam technique. It will care about what you know. So I do not see why the gov with alevels anymore.
Related discussions
- GCSE's are too easy.
- AS chemistry paper 2 2022 AQ
- Feeing less disgusting
- Epq
- The 2021-2022 epl season banter(with niz)
- Are edexcel AS levels hard?
- There should be a GCSE in “grade boundaries”
- The Manchester United Thread XXIII
- Are my IGSCEs good enough for Oxford
- English Language WJEC exam theme
- Confused about A Level 'sittings', 'final grades,' and 'final papers'
- how can i access moocs?
- Edexcel GCSE Statistics Paper 2 Higher Tier (1ST0 2H) - 19th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Doing an A-Level a year early?
- Can I take A Levels on seperate years?
- Computer Science and oversaturation in 2024
- how to cover all of gcse maths content in one month
- study blog : self teaching : at 18 years old
- Where to go for investment advice?
- Kc Titration Question
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]
