A Levels are Meaningless. Can you honestly Disagree?

Jerby

I think the fact that Oxbridge request essays as well as UMS is quite instructive. It highlights well how the universities clearly have a different set of criteria to the exam boards, otherwise why would they waste their time when they could just quickly look at the marks for a fair analysis? I can only infer that they judge normal mark schemes too unrefined to discern between the brightest candidates. After all, if you're reasonably intelligent, in most subjects you don't have to be naturally talented in them to do well at A-level, just put in genuine effort (at least in my opinion). Anyway, I think you're right on this one. Just need to polish some essays of my own now (and collect my wretched results... :frown:

).

Thats what I was trying to get at. Its perfectly possible to get a worse UMS mark than someone with better quality essays if you haven't jumped through one or two of the grading hoops. Essays not done under the ridiculous time pressures of exams (politics AS gives you about 12 minutes per question on OCR syllabus if i remember correclty) are going to be a better indiciator than UMS marks.Screw up the timing or one question (misreading, slightly misundersandin) which is very easily done and possibilities of high grades are gone, even when the other questions can be conssisntely better than someone elses. The wide range of problems that can potentially come about mean that UMS marks IMO won't be a great indicator

Reply 243

Nutter

14

May I suggest that a few of you actually consolidate every suggestion you've got here and write a proposal which should be forwarded to the Department of Education, instead of letting the suggestions die here. There's little point in having these suggestions if you're not going to take the critical step of bringing them to the attention of the people that actually matter, so go ahead, make a difference, and do yourselves and your juniors a favour. :smile:

Reply 244

Jerby

CamSPSer

politics AS gives you about 12 minutes per question on OCR syllabus if i remember correclty

Don't I know it - that was the most ridiculous exam I've ever done. The course is interesting, and my teacher was amazing, but the way OCR examine it is inane. And it came after 3 hours of philosophy!!! :eek:

BTW Nutter, regarding what I said above, my teacher wrote to "the people that actually matter" and they didn't give a damn - quite depressing really. Not that I was surprised. It's the sort of thing that the NUS should be looking at, if you ask me. We'll have to see what arguments come up for A-level reform after the results are released.

Reply 245

Jerby

Don't I know it - that was the most ridiculous exam I've ever done. The course is interesting, and my teacher was amazing, but the way OCR examine it is inane. And it came after 3 hours of philosophy!!! :eek:

BTW Nutter, regarding what I said above, my teacher wrote to "the people that actually matter" and they didn't give a damn - quite depressing really. Not that I was surprised. It's the sort of thing that the NUS should be looking at, if you ask me. We'll have to see what arguments come up for A-level reform after the results are released.

Its an example of an exam where you can easily be too clever in a sense or at least know too much. And when you look at the marking scheme (reward candidates for writing about x or y event) and you think I could have written about taht, I just didn't have time and why on earth is taht so much more important than that event, it just makes you really annoyed

Reply 246

Jerby

It really did piss me off. I daresay politics at Cambridge is just slightly different!?!?

Reply 247

Yup, I didn't enjoy it as much as I thought I would and in the end have decided not to do it next year but first year is basically a great thinker a week, Hobbes, Kant, Schumpeter, the Federalists, Ghandi, ***uyama, Marx, Weber to name some of them. Though I never did quite understand how they marked them. Next year you get to do some other exciting stuff: Israel/Palestine, CUba Missile Crisis, two long esssays on whatever you feel like, and a history of political though paper which is shared with history

3 hour exam, a question from section a, from from b and then another of your choiuce

Reply 248

CamSPSer

First bit in bold based on, I'm afraid, evidence from here, evidence from college, and admissions tutors making a big point of it at open days and the like. SHould have made that clear

And I'm not denying UMS has an impact, as I stated in my post, but I feel the benefits of UMS marks are being overstated. The context of the thread of the post you quote is that interviews are very important. A bad interview stops you getting into cambridge full stop, an excellent interview will get you in full stop, regardless of UMS marks

i'm fully in favour of UMS marks being given to universities and pushing AEAs but its not the complete godsend its been made out to be. There are still going to be lots of people applying for not many places.

The possibility of making work available to universities is something which might be consiedred. oxbridge both ask for it (again demonstrating a slight lack of faith in UMS - if UMS demonstrated how good you are at your work there would be no need for people to send in written work and I imagine written work is far more influential in the applications process than UMS marks). If essays could be made available it might make life easier. Though obviously its a time consuming process to read these things it might be a better indicator of potential and differentiate between candidates. Though obviously this opens a whole new can of worms in terms of how much help you get in writing essays, open to abuse etcetera.

(Un)fortunately at the end of the day there are simply more people willing to put in the effort to do well at the top

I totally agree UMS isn't a godsend! And certainly for entry to Oxbridge, of course interviews ans written work is going to be more instructive. All I think is that right now, candidates for many courses at many universities, and certainly some at Oxbridge, are very difficult to discriminate between, and if one candidate had better As than another candidate, that should be considered. It's just about getting the most information as possible out. AEAs would also help the process, but they need to be taken more by the top candidates to be fair.

Anyway, I think we have done this to death :smile:

good debating with you.

Reply 249

Indeed, we seem to have come to agree on more than we disagree and you've made some very valid points, shame education correspondents and politicans can't do so

Reply 250

I'm sometimes surprised by how much intelligent people disagree on things like this. But I think this demonstrates why high UMS marks are not a great indicator of anything once you get into high As (as demonstrated by Athena) and therefore part of the reason why I believe an A* grade would be a mistake. Intelligent people are often very original and inventive, mark schemes do not encourage this. Although UMS can be an indicator of ability it is not accurate enough as it doesn't correlate well enough with these measures of intelligence, especially at the high end of marks.

I agree completely with kizer Introduce an A* grade at 540/600

If there is an A* grade it is likely that results will rise even faster. Renormalising the results every couple of years (as is done to counter the Flynn effect for IQ tests), possibly by increasing question difficulty, seems to make more sense to me as it makes sure that results remain valuable.

9.5% of A level students get AAA or better. Which means there is no differentiation among the top 10% of candidates

There is differentiation. AAAa is better than AAAb, but they are both included in that 9.5%. There are too many As, but there is more information available to base decisions upon than you suggest. Grades shouldn't be the only important thing anyway, if only the number of As is important then there is a much more serious problem with the system than grade inflation.

One thing that can't be answered though, is the fact that children nowawdays can't spell properly, and also their basic numeracy is worse.

I don't see any proof of that (apart from maybe “nowawdays” - and I'd put money on that being a typing error). Literacy and numeracy have always been poor. Average grades may have risen, but until you can provide evidence that the standard of education has fallen you cannot say that it has.

Reply 251

harr

If there is an A* grade it is likely that results will rise even faster. Renormalising the results every couple of years (as is done to counter the Flynn effect for IQ tests), possibly by increasing question difficulty, seems to make more sense to me as it makes sure that results remain valuable.

There is differentiation. AAAa is better than AAAb, but they are both included in that 9.5%. There are too many As, but there is more information available to base decisions upon than you suggest. Grades shouldn't be the only important thing anyway, if only the number of As is important then there is a much more serious problem with the system than grade inflation.

Ok. As you might expect, I disagree here. I agree that if an A* grade is introduced, more people would get above 540. But that isn't a bad thing! The point is that very bright people will tend to get very high AS UMS. Often above 280, approaching 300. With those kinds of marks, those students are left needing low Cs in their A2 modules to get an A overall. So there is little incentive for those people to push themselves as hard as they could, because right now people only judge in terms of getting an A or not. Someone with very high AS scores will a conditional offer of A A A at A level does not have to do much in A2 year to make the grade, which should be a year to really stretch students, with synoptic papers, nasty courseworks, more challenging concepts etc. I wll generously offer myself as a case in point. At AS history I got 288/300, very very pleased with that obviously as it left me needing only 192/300 to get an A overall, or low C grades. So when it came to doing coursework, I was not disciplined and it ended up being late and not read through by my teacher, result being that I got a B for it. As it turned out, my overall history score was 537/600 - meaning if an A* was in place I would have missed it. If it was in place, I would have been a lot more careful with my coursework, and revising the written papers, to make sure I did as well as I could. In the history mocks (taken in Feb.) I got 70/90 and 107/120. In the real thing I got 72/90 and 108/120. I had no need to push myself much harder than I could do without serious revision for mocks, and I still did fine. It is m opinion that an A* grade will ensure students across the ability range have something worthwhile to aim for in their A2 year to push themselves as hard as they can.

On the second pararaph, I don't think AAAa and AAAb really are very differentiated. Certainly not like A*A*A*a* and AAAb are anyway. And I am not suggesting unis treat A*s like mana from heaven - it is simply more information to help make their decision process fairer and more meritocratic.

Reply 252

kizer

Ok. As you might expect, I disagree here. I agree that if an A* grade is introduced, more people would get above 540. But that isn't a bad thing!
Yes it is. The problem is currently that too many people get above 480 UMS. Having too many get over a different score won't help. You'll also get many more As and all grades will be devalued.

The point is that very bright people will tend to get very high AS UMS. Often above 280, approaching 300. With those kinds of marks, those students are left needing low Cs in their A2 modules to get an A overall. So there is little incentive for those people to push themselves as hard as they could, because right now people only judge in terms of getting an A or not.

The problem could be solved by just making it harder to get an A. Replace A levels with a similar system (not the IB) with harder exams and fewer people getting the top grades.

Someone with very high AS scores will a conditional offer of A A A at A level does not have to do much in A2 year to make the grade

So the problem is that the best pupils are definitely able to get in instead of it hanging upon the final exams where they might slip up and have other people who were worse but worked harder in year 13 get in instead?

So when it came to doing coursework, I was not disciplined and it ended up being late and not read through by my teacher

I always do that with coursework, as do some other people I know. That doesn't mean they aren't intelligent or interested in the subject, just that the coursework assignment is boring so they don't work at it and end up with worse marks than they should have got.

As it turned out, my overall history score was 537/600 - meaning if an A* was in place I would have missed it.

So you would have missed the grade despite being good enough. Surely that is a weakness of the A* grade? Fair enough you would have worked harder if there was an A* grade, but there are talented yet lazy people who wouldn't.

Edit: Sorry if that is incoherent or poorly structured. I was a bit rushed as I needed to go and find out the results of the Science AS I did (285/300) - I was getting the result in the post to a different house and would have missed the opportunity to be driven there and back if I took any longer posting.

Reply 253

harr

Yes it is. The problem is currently that too many people get above 480 UMS. Having too many get over a different score won't help. You'll also get many more As and all grades will be devalued.

Not that many more people will get over 540, obviously. I am pointing out what is obviously a problem with the current system - that in A2 year, the brightest people have little incentive to push themselves. Another way of dealing with that as I have already said would be to separate AS and A2 years completely so that the slate is clean for A2 year and everyone has to prove themselves on the harder exams, with A* grades in place as well. That would sort the best out at the tougher stuff.

The problem could be solved by just making it harder to get an A. Replace A levels with a similar system (not the IB) with harder exams and fewer people getting the top grades.

Why bother with a radical overhaul when our system only needs tweaking? Stop endless resits, A* grade, separate AS and A2 and make AEAs standard among A and A* student and we would have what you want - harder exams with less people getting the top grades.

So the problem is that the best pupils are definitely able to get in instead of it hanging upon the final exams where they might slip up and have other people who were worse but worked harder in year 13 get in instead?

The problem is that the best students aren't pushed in the year of school that should be the most challenging. If it then turns out that they aren't as good as other students in A2 year, they shouldn't be called 'the best pupils' anymore. Simple. If Oxbridge want people so much they don't want it based on exams which actually push the best people, they can decide. Just like now - some people they give EE offers to (not many granted), and some people have the hideous STEP papers. Let them choose.

I always do that with coursework, as do some other people I know. That doesn't mean they aren't intelligent or interested in the subject, just that the coursework assignment is boring so they don't work at it and end up with worse marks than they should have got.

To be honest this just reads like you and your mates just turn your nose up at the A Level system because you think you're better than it. I actually think the assignments in A2 year in particular are really interesting - once I got into my history, english and physics coursework, I really enjoyed doing them. Practicals and longer essays should be a part of your assessment as a student. I have no problem with the system of coursework as it currently stands, that needs only the most minor changes, perhaps like removing coursework from C3.

So you would have missed the grade despite being good enough. Surely that is a weakness of the A* grade? Fair enough you would have worked harder if there was an A* grade, but there are talented yet lazy people who wouldn't.

Why should talented yet lazy people get the A* grade?? I didn't work that hard in my A2 year and I would have missed the grade, that would have beenm too bad for me. I have no idea why you think that is a weakness of the A* grade?? Because lazy people don't get it? That's a good thing!

Edit: Sorry if that is incoherent or poorly structured. I was a bit rushed as I needed to go and find out the results of the Science AS I did (285/300) - I was getting the result in the post to a different house and would have missed the opportunity to be driven there and back if I took any longer posting.

It will be interesting to see how you approach A2 year with 285 marks in the bag - not as strongly as if you had no marks and an A*grade to get, I'm willing to bet!

Reply 254

kizer

Not that many more people will get over 540, obviously.

Give the system a while to run and you will get more and more people getting A*s. Perhaps it will never reach 10% getting 3A*s, but I'm not certain.

Another way of dealing with that as I have already said would be to separate AS and A2 years completely so that the slate is clean for A2 year and everyone has to prove themselves on the harder exams, with A* grades in place as well. That would sort the best out at the tougher stuff.

I like that idea, but it seems like quite a big change to make to a system which I think is quite good, just with too easy exams.

Why bother with a radical overhaul when our system only needs tweaking? Stop endless resits, A* grade, separate AS and A2 and make AEAs standard among A and A* student and we would have what you want - harder exams with less people getting the top grades.

I shouldn't have said to replace it with a new system. I was rushing through it too much. I just mean there should be harder questions and lower percentages getting As. This presents the problem that it will suddenly be more difficult to get an A, so the grades may have to be renamed (or it at least made clear on CVs and stuff whether the grade was pre- or post-changes), but the system itself could essentially remain.

If the questions are made more challenging I would support the idea of an A* grade, but I don't think UMS is that great an indicator when you are around 85/90+% with the current difficulty of questions. This also means you could keep the percentage of other grades achieved the same (to make up for the exams being harder you would reduce the number of raw marks needed to gain a certain UMS score), so you would not have to rename the grades as you might have to without an A* grade.

Having AEAs as a compulsory level of exams would devalue A levels imo. I think your proposed changes are actually more radical than mine.

The problem is that the best students aren't pushed in the year of school that should be the most challenging.

I just don't think aiming for an A* grade should be what pushes them. Harder exams should push them, not aiming for ridiculous UMS scores on exams which are aimed at people with less ability.

To be honest this just reads like you and your mates just turn your nose up at the A Level system because you think you're better than it. I actually think the assignments in A2 year in particular are really interesting - once I got into my history, english and physics coursework,

I've just done my GCSE year, so I haven't done any A2 coursework. It could be that it is very interesting. If it is then I will work hard at it. But if you found the history coursework interesting why didn't you put much effort into it?

Why should talented yet lazy people get the A* grade?? I didn't work that hard in my A2 year and I would have missed the grade, that would have beenm too bad for me. I have no idea why you think that is a weakness of the A* grade?? Because lazy people don't get it? That's a good thing!

Hard work should of course be rewarded. But many intelligent people are lazy when presented with work they are not interested in. Maybe they want to do languages at university and are doing A levels in French, Spanish and English Lit. They are easily good enough to get in and study a lot for French and Spanish, but find English too boring. They get A*A*A at AS. It's a top uni and all the other applicants have at least A*A*A* at AS (ok, maybe a bit far fetched, but you can imagine a slightly less extreme scenario if you want). They are rejected because their grades are poor compared to others applying to the course and the uni wants to slash the number of applicants remaining for them to consider closely. This person would have been perfect for the course, but don't get in due to being too lazy at completely unrelated things.

Perhaps this wasn't a very strong point (normally if I have time I write down a lot of points and end up deleting the weaker half of my arguments), but I hope you can see where I was coming from. I was talking about being lazy as in not being motivated at things they don't want to do, not as in never doing any work.

It will be interesting to see how you approach A2 year with 285 marks in the bag - not as strongly as if you had no marks and an A*grade to get, I'm willing to bet!

I won't be doing A2. I took the 3 science GCSEs a year early then did AS Science. I'll be doing other A levels next year. And really I need to be able to relax a bit in the second year so that I can put effort into self studying maths modules (I'm doing maths+further maths, but may do some extra modules if I feel I can cope, I don't know how hard I'll find it yet) and maybe STEP if I decide to apply for maths.

I've got to admit I see your point that people can slack off in the second year, but I don't think introducing a new grade at 90% UMS without making other changes is the way to do it.

Reply 255

Basically the harder question you are talking about are what I mean by making everyone do AEA. The AEA is meant to challenge the top 10% of the population.

So what I envisage is something like this:

At A Level, the top 10% of candidates get an A*, the next 15% get and A, the next 20% get a B, and so on.

Those people who get A*s at AS automatically take the AEA. Those with As can choose to if they wish. The AEA should differentiate then within the current A grade bracket.

Result - much better differentiation at the top, no change to system except introducing A* grade.

I don't think potential grade inflation is a reason to stop the change - let's make the system better now!

Your hypothetical A*A*A student doesn't need to worry - he has exceptional grades! The whole point of the A* is that it becomes someone that is actually very impressive to get, not a new A grade which loads of people get. So someone with A*A*A is in a very strong position.

You say you don't think UMS is a great indicator of ability at the top. I know people have varying views on this, but I think the difference between 570/600 (average A* mark) and 510/600 (what would be the average A mark) is very tangible. Someone with 570 REALLY knows their stuff. Someone with 510 is good, but not exceptional. To put it another way, the 510 person has lost three times as many marks as the 570 person! How is that not significant?

As for your very last point - I don't want the system to stay the same with an A* grade! I want A2 to be separate qualifications, AEAs to be compulsory for the best students and the present endless resits taken out. Then I'd be happy!

Reply 256

TommehR

You took the words right out of my keyboard.

Although I got AAA I should note that in the subjects in which I put more effort I got higher marks (English: 568 / Law: 574 (300/300 for A2)) and in the subject that I put in a bit less effort I got lower marks (History: 519). While I'm sure I could have scraped over the A boundary by not putting in any effort, I get far more satisfaction from knowing that I went quite far over the boundary and that the extra effort did count for something, although in the overall scheme of things, it doesn't as my grades would be the same.

Something I just stumbled across in another thread.

Reply 257

Many of my comments are poorly written and I'm not certain why I'm writing so badly, but I don't want to go through and rewrite the whole post. Sorry for the quality of language and the way it's organised.

kizer

Basically the harder question you are talking about are what I mean by making everyone do AEA. The AEA is meant to challenge the top 10% of the population.

Do we really need even more exams? It might work, but I think we have enough exams at the moment.

So what I envisage is something like this:

At A Level, the top 10% of candidates get an A*, the next 15% get and A, the next 20% get a B, and so on.

You would need to have different percentages for each grade in each subject. There is no way that someone in the 90th percentile of IT ability of people taking IT A level is comparable to someone in the 90th percentile of maths ability out of those taking further maths. There is a reason why further maths currently gets 7 or 8 times as high a proportion of people getting As as IT does. Of course this is rather an extreme example, but there are still big differences between other subjects. You would also have to make exceptions for subjects with only a couple of hundred people, where quality could vary significantly between years.

Your hypothetical A*A*A student doesn't need to worry - he has exceptional grades!

Some courses are exceptionally competitive. You are right that an A*A*A student is unlikely to not get into a course due to their grades, but it is still a possibility. Your AEA idea would improve the situation as it will show the extent of ability in the more important subjects, however AEAs are taken at the end of year 13. Unless this was changed universities would have to give out several offers per place to make up for people failing AEAs.

You say you don't think UMS is a great indicator of ability at the top. I know people have varying views on this, but I think the difference between 570/600 (average A* mark) and 510/600 (what would be the average A mark) is very tangible. Someone with 570 REALLY knows their stuff. Someone with 510 is good, but not exceptional. To put it another way, the 510 person has lost three times as many marks as the 570 person! How is that not significant?

That is a significant difference and I agree that one of those candidates is obviously better. However universities only see AS results, where the difference is only 30 points. 30 points at AS is still a big difference, but smaller differences e.g. 15-20 points at AS could be due to one small slip up. There is a big difference between 520 and 560, but the difference at AS between 260 and 280 is not necessarily such a good indicator of ability.

As for your very last point - I don't want the system to stay the same with an A* grade! I want A2 to be separate qualifications, AEAs to be compulsory for the best students and the present endless resits taken out. Then I'd be happy!

I still think I'd favour harder questions. It may cause troubles for current D/E students, but I think higher education is becoming too common. Degrees are devalued and people who might be better suited to more vocational training or working their way up through the ranks of a company are getting into large student debts and may not gain anything at the end of it.

Your ideas seem workable, but forcing all A* students taking an extra exam seems like an unnecessary layer to me. I quite like the idea of separating AS and A2, but then you have three stages of exams which is a lot. Resits are a problem, but what happens if a student is ill during an exam? Should they be punished for that? And if you give them one resit per exam they could be ill during both.

Reply 258

harr

Many of my comments are poorly written and I'm not certain why I'm writing so badly, but I don't want to go through and rewrite the whole post. Sorry for the quality of language and the way it's organised.

Not at all, but the reason I disagree isn't how you are presenting your arguments, it's the content.

Do we really need even more exams? It might work, but I think we have enough exams at the moment.

There are no more exams in my system, taking AEAs is fairly common. Anyway, there are plans to reduce the average number of exam hours students take per subject from 10.5 to 7, so there won't be that many exams soon.

You would need to have different percentages for each grade in each subject. There is no way that someone in the 90th percentile of IT ability of people taking IT A level is comparable to someone in the 90th percentile of maths ability out of those taking further maths. There is a reason why further maths currently gets 7 or 8 times as high a proportion of people getting As as IT does. Of course this is rather an extreme example, but there are still big differences between other subjects. You would also have to make exceptions for subjects with only a couple of hundred people, where quality could vary significantly between years.

I agree completely, I was talking about the average. Naturally further maths will still have way more As and A*s than other exams, and I am fine with that for the reasons you have said. But over all papers in all subjects, that is what my figures referred to.

Some courses are exceptionally competitive. You are right that an A*A*A student is unlikely to not get into a course due to their grades, but it is still a possibility. Your AEA idea would improve the situation as it will show the extent of ability in the more important subjects, however AEAs are taken at the end of year 13. Unless this was changed universities would have to give out several offers per place to make up for people failing AEAs.

Well take Cambridge maths for example - right now they overoffer by a long way, and then the STEP papers sort out who makes the cut. What's wrong with that? Besides, as I have said before I don't think my system means that interviews, written work etc would be less important, but it enables admissions tutors to make more informed decisions about candidates.

That is a significant difference and I agree that one of those candidates is obviously better. However universities only see AS results, where the difference is only 30 points. 30 points at AS is still a big difference, but smaller differences e.g. 15-20 points at AS could be due to one small slip up. There is a big difference between 520 and 560, but the difference at AS between 260 and 280 is not necessarily such a good indicator of ability.

Well we have to have a cut off somewhere. By your logic, someone with 230 at AS isn't that much worse than someone with 250 - but right now we call one a B and one an A, and nobody complains. Why should it be different for A*?

still think I'd favour harder questions. It may cause troubles for current D/E students, but I think higher education is becoming too common. Degrees are devalued and people who might be better suited to more vocational training or working their way up through the ranks of a company are getting into large student debts and may not gain anything at the end of it.

Only 1/3 students go on to take A Levels. I think those people that have chosen to continue their education should be allowed to do so. At the top end, AEAs will come in to be the harder questions. Besides, you make it sound like A2 questions are a doddle - I don't think that's really true. English A2 involves detailed analysis of works you don't have in front of you, History A2 involves essays based on over 100 years of history in 45 minutes. It is tough. But the A grade bracket is too wide. There is a clear difference between excellent essays that get 30/30 and good essays that get 24/30. I just think it needs to be recognised officially.

Your ideas seem workable, but forcing all A* students taking an extra exam seems like an unnecessary layer to me. I quite like the idea of separating AS and A2, but then you have three stages of exams which is a lot. Resits are a problem, but what happens if a student is ill during an exam? Should they be punished for that? And if you give them one resit per exam they could be ill during both.

Well we could make AEA optional, as now, but the problem is that means a lot of people who could take them don't because they aren't encouraged to. We already have three straight years of public exams, and my opinion is that is a good thing because it spreads the workload, and gives people clear exit points from the system when they have had enough, while giving them the qualifications for the work they have done. And of course resits would be allowed in exceptional circumstances, just as they are for GCSEs now. The point is people shouldn't be able to keep taking an exam until they luckily do better than they deserve.

Reply 259