A Levels are Meaningless. Can you honestly Disagree?

The proportion of A grades is higher for the whole A Level than it is for ASs. However, that hides the fact that at the top end of the scale, people who were getting very high marks at AS tend to do worse, because they don't need to do better. So while this idea would help, I don't really see why it is better than just splitting the qualifications anyway.

If A2 grades were more highly weighted surely that wouldnt be harder.
Ok it would be harder if you were a very good student at AS you would need to do well in A2.
But if you were a poorer student at AS, then it gives you a greater chance to get a good grade.

If you split the qualification, then the AS level becomes worthless, as people begin to think what's the point, it doesn't mean anything.

What's wrong with being a poorer student at AS? If you can grasp the subject material at A2 and come out with As, having had Bs at AS, then in my opinion you clearly deserve to get the A at A Level, as it shows you have made the jump over the whole two year period, rather than just at AS where the work is easier. Also the jump between AS and A2 is supposed to be more difficult than that between GCSE and AS, which I would definitely agree with.

Also the whole point of the A Level is that it's supposed to identify the brightest students. I disagree with the fact that students can get stupidly high grades in the first year, and then go onto get As with with low Bs and Cs in exams. I don't think this is helped by the unlimited number of resits that people do in order to get higher marks, and thus take pressure off the second year.

Instead I think it would be better if the AS year is worth less, as it means everyone has to work harder in the second year, as you need to get a decent grade in order to keep your overall mark the same, rather than doing worse and coming out of it better. This way you can identify the students who put the work in over the whole two years, and have a good grasping of the syllabus.

However, I'm beginning to think this whole argument is irrelevant as from next year (or is it a couple years time) i think universities will be able to make offers, based on module scores, so perhaps changes aren't necessary as it's better to see what happens with that first.

That doesn't follow at all. They are the last major exams you take before applying to university, and are therefore CRUCIAL! And a part of your academic record.

If you think that the A2 score is more important, surely you should agree with me that the qualifications should be split? If you do well on the A2 exams, you deserve to do well in the A2 exams, simple as. You are still clinging to the mindset of one overrarching A Level for no apparent reason.

But again, why is this better than just splitting the qualifications? Why not just open up the exams so we can see how well people did in both years? Does there need to be one overrarching grade for each A Level, or is that just what you're used to? You reveal more information simply by stating 'candidate achieved AA* (AS grade followed by A2 grade) than just one grade. If you, or employers, or universities, think the second grade should be more important, they will take action accordingly, be it by making A* at A2 offers or whatever.

Well these changes aren't just for the sake of uni admissions. And besides, you haven't addressed the main proposal which won't be introduced next year - an A* grade for attainment over 90%.

I never said they weren't crucial. I said it makes the AS less meaningful, as being a stand alone qualification, rather than being part of a whole A Level. In addition, it puts even more stress on students as they have to do extremely well in both years in order to get into top universities. Leaving the A Level as one qualification gives students a slight break (as there is some margin for error), where as if it were two separate qualifications there would be no break at all. I accept it could be split into two, I'm just not sure it would be the correct course of action, given the pressure on students to do well in this day and age. If I remember correctly, the first year of A Levels used to be a break and nowadays it is completely the opposite. What you propose would make it worse.

Currently it is thought that most students go down a grade at A2. The reason I personally am against splitting the qualification is that I went up a lot at A2. While my AS grades were on my UCAS form, they were not spectacular, and personally I would not have wanted them as a free standing qualification, especially as I improved leaps and bounds over the A2 year. Yes it would show improvement, however for my pride I prefer to just have the one qualification, rather than two separate ones, which demonstrate my inadequacies. Yes it is a selfish reason, but I know other people would feel the same.

Apart from anything else people develop and learn faster than others - even at our age. That is the reason the A Level is a two year course, as it can't all be learnt in one year. I don't think we should penalise people, just because they don't adapt to the new system or pick up a good exam technique as quickly as others

The reason I don't address the A* grade is that I don't believe it to be a viable option (I was hoping this won't come up, but what can you do) Partly this is because the difference between 80% and 90% is mainly exam technique. Just because you have over 90% does not neccessarily mean you are the best at your subject (although it can do) but at how well you can pass exams. Also I feel that an A* grade would lead to a substantial increase in the number of resits by A grade students in order to achieve the top grade so they can get into the best university possible. This would most likely devalue the A* grade as soon as it is introduced and thus make the A grade have even less value

(However please ignore the last paragraph, as most of it has already been repeated in this thread - and I didn't really feel it necessary to give my opinion on the subject, although I have now)

EDIT: I don't believe A Levels are worthless, meaningless or any of that crap. Nor do i feel the subject content needs to be changed. On the contrary I actually enjoyed taking my A Levels to an extent, and felt suitably challenged by them. I just feel that the way grades are awarded could be modified, in order to restore confidence in the system.

195/200 is high even within the A* boundary. At 97.5% a reasonable number would achieve it, but the majority of A*s would be lower.

In a way. But it seems to me that even the worst students could answer a large proportion of the test. I'd have thought the majority of U students could answer most of the following maths questions and that E students wouldn't even have to think much. Perhaps I'm being unrealistic, but I don't think so - these questions are significantly easier than many GCSE ones. You need some easy questions, but this is a sixth of the test, which I think is too much. In fact the first half of the test looks to me to be about 5 minutes of work - for 36 marks out of 72 and I haven't even started the course. You would expect later modules to be more difficult (this is just C1), but I'd expect D students to be able to answer the first half of this test flawlessly and with plenty of time to try the later questions. This is good for less able students, but more able ones are being punished.


The other 2/3 of questions are either short answer or highly structured though. And from the physics papers I've seen where there are questions where you are given the formula and the numbers and have to rearrange it. Of course maths skills are very important in physics, but they could be tested by more interesting questions where lower ability students can answer some of the earlier sections and the more able students will have to use a bit more insight. I've seen a question (not on an A level paper though) which worked through how Newton derived some of the Laws of Gravitation (I think it was that anyway). It was actually quite interesting and some of the questions were accessible to all students, but only a couple of people I know (who would probably be in the A* band, and quite high up in it at that) could give a complete solution. It wasn't a perfect question, but it was more interesting and challenging than any A level question I've seen, and yet only worked off GCSE knowledge.

Some people are so obviously better that it doesn't matter that the marking is subjective, but others are just not as good. There was one person in my English class last year (GCSE, but it would work the same if it was an A level) who was so obviously better than anyone else that it wouldn't matter how subjective the marking is. However examiners may prefer certain styles or even just be plain wrong. If I used the plural of octopus in an exam the examiner may think it should be "octopi" and mark me down, despite octopi actually being incorrect. I'm not good enough to make up for this and it could easily cost me a grade. The person I mentioned though is far enough above the boundary for it not to matter (if there was an A* grade he would still be far enough above the boundary so that it wouldn't matter, but there are people worse than that).

I can't answer that. This is a problem I can see no obvious answer to (except a system where there is almost no gap between grades e.g. a score out of 100, but that is too complex). As I said I'm warming to your suggestions.

Mainly the affect of health on the result. In one of my GCSE RE exams I was hardly able to write due to a cold and a headache, that's all hopes of an A* gone in that subject. The next day I had two consecutive English Lit exams. Due to the cold I had been blowing my nose so much that it kept on bleeding. I had three nose bleeds in the 2 hours of exams. I spent most of the exams writing while holding a tissue to my nose and not being able to concentrate properly. If these were A level exams I could resit. But without resits I would be stuck with poor results. Of course they can make exceptions due to illness, but if I say I had a cold... Even if I could prove it I doubt I'd be allowed to resit. I'd be able to find the teacher who had to keep on bringing me tissues during the nose bleeds to back me up on that, but would I be allowed to resit due to a nose bleed? I doubt it.

That's the point. People seem to act like it is even though it obviously isn't.

wow that AS paper you attached was sad. I did that kind of math in 9th/10th grade in the US.

7 ****ing hours!!!
thats how long its taken me to read this whole damn thread!

you people have far too much time on your hands (irony)... and you write too much.

im heading to imperial

Actually those questions are 1/4 of the exam, there are 8 questions in section 1 of C1. I do see where you are coming from, but remember, an E grade is a pass. Those questions are the very easiest on the entire maths A Level course, so you should expect E grade students to be able to get them right. Why didn't you post the whole C1 exam so we had a fairer representation of the paper?

Maybe you should have a look at some A2 physics papers - the questions are about 12-15 marks long, and the degree of sophisitication required increases through the questions. I think they are quite interesting. Having said that, the synoptic paper I took this year was way too easy, everyone came out and laughed about it, but the other two papers were pretty interesting.

I have to say I think it is a big big stretch to claim that writing octopuses would cost you a grade.

You can make vague guesses all you like, the facts are different - the proportion of people getting As in full A Levels is MORE than that achieved at AS. Why?

You say you don't think UMS is a great indicator of ability at the top.

No, the easy questions are half the exam (link), I expect you are thinking of a different exam board. You're right, an E grade student should be able to answer some questions. But I imagine (though I can't say for sure) that those questions are easy for E students and that with a bit of preparation they could answer the whole of Section A. They should be able to get some questions, but half of the exam...

And you're right that these questions are the easiest in the maths course (though looking at some of the S1 questions...), but why should they be any easier than C2 questions? The same students do each exam. Or even C3 and C4 questions? The content should be harder in later modules, but I'd have thought that with the compulsory modules it would make more sense to keep the question difficulty the same.

I've only looked at AS Physics questions, but these should be challenging and interesting too. And even if two of the papers were good you've identified a weakness with the synoptic paper.

But not completely impossible.

Because many people drop their weakest subject?

And I just remember why (and it's a very selfish reason). I came 3rd in my science class for physics GCSE (slightly different from A level, but still) in terms of UMS. I don't think anyone at my school would argue that I'm not good enough to come top. The people who beat me are both more intelligent than me in general, far more intelligent in terms of the arts, but in maths and physics I'm better. I did poorly (well, low A*s) in the coursework and multiple choice modules and couldn't make up for it in the terminal exam. I still got a comfortable A*, but I was always a bit annoyed at that. I think I would beat them at A level physics (especially if I revised, which I didn't for GCSE), but I've still had this at the back of my mind. It's completely stupid and selfish to base my views off this, especially as it isn't at A level, but... err...

i think the government should change the way that students apply for places at universities. i think studnets should only apply after they have got their grades and marks of every single papers should be submitted as well.

No what I meant was that those four questions you posted were not all of section 1, and actually, following that link you posted, they aren't even 1/4 of the exam! The remaining questions in section 1 are easy, granted, but not that easy. It just seems you gave a very small sample of the section to prove a point that isn't really fair.

Because in some ways maths is quite similar to languages... you have to understand the basics throughly before you can get better. C1 is called 'Introduction to advanced mathematics', and the point is it gets people comfortable with techniques used at that level. C2 then builds on that and branches out more. Anyway, this is a slight digression, is it not?

The synoptic was an unusually easy paper, the grade boundaries were lower than usual.

Well I would say negligibly so - I think the scale of the problem of students outsmarting examiners is so small as to not matter.

But you still got the A*? Where's the problem? I mean you didn't revise, so you can hardly complain! Is there something about the actual system that you feel prevented you from doing as well as you could?