Why do people get bad grades at GCSE/A level? Watch

This discussion is closed.
sophgarner
Badges: 5
Rep:
?
#221
Report 1 year ago
#221
Grade boundaries are determined on how well everyone does, so even if everyone were to do well not everyone could get those grades because those grade boundaries are put in place to ensure that too many people don't get As/A*s or even Bs.
0
myblueheaven339
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#222
Report 1 year ago
#222
(Original post by Old_Simon)
Teachers have opted out of their responsibilities for years. They quickly project their own value judgements and expectations onto the pupil instead of asking how to improve the grades and move the kid upwards and forwards. Most D graders acquire that tag aged about 8 or less.
I think that’s inaccurate. Target grades for gcse are produced based on performance at ks2 SATSs. Individual teachers do not get a say in what target grades are for students. Moreover, the pressure to push pupils beyond targets to “add value” in huge.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
Student-95
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#223
Report 1 year ago
#223
Different people have an easier/harder time leaning things. I didn't think it took much effort at all to get A/A*s so you clearly have a harder time learning than me and some people will have a harder time than you. Hence, if they put in the same amount of effort they will get a lower grade. Also some people are more motivated academically than others.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
BenPrince123
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#224
Report 1 year ago
#224
I have attached for your reading pleasure a comprehensive four-page explanation of why your veiws are absurd.

Written and researched for two hours this morning by myself.

Thanks.
0
BenPrince123
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#225
Report 1 year ago
#225
: part 1

I disagree almost entirely with the point. Now, I don't think you've actually made one, but i can pretend that you have because i want to show you how stupid this discussion is.

The opening argument is not an argument. Supplemented with precisely zero pieces of evidence, only an outline of one person's personal experience with a fraction of a single country's educational system, it's more of a *****y set of queries laden with a lack of fore-thought.

Let's take a look.

Assuming I’m correctly outlining the main query in all its ignorant entirety with the phrase "Why do some people excuse themselves from getting good grades when it doesn’t really take much effort?", This can be taken apart and looked at.





Why do some people get bad grades and some not?

It is a common misconception that the trait of intelligence is inherent in every living person, and a sad truth that it is largely predetermined and sparse. I'll start with the obvious case that won't require any explanation for you to understand.

Approximately 1.5 million people in the UK have a learning disability. This includes 905,000 adults aged 18+ (530,000 men and 375,000 women) (Source: People with Learning Disabilities in England 2011). This is just a tragic genetic fact of life. Although I’m sure many of these individuals lead meaningful lives, about 2.5% of the UK's population is immediately off the list and out of the runnings because of the way they prenatally developed.

At this point you may be thinking "Hey, that's not really relevant, and those kids don't go to public schools anyway!" and you'd be right. I just wanted to paint a little intro picture of how this is going to go down for you. So for my next trick, genetic predisposition!

Researchers describe the heritability of intelligence as substantial and incontrovertible. It's now so inextricably linked with genetics through research that anyone in the scientific community (that belongs there) would probably feel uncomfortable pouting the old adage that intelligence is within everyone, is acquirable with time, or is even learned environmentally (while the latter most statement may be true to some unknown degree).

A recent and appropriately titled article "genes don’t just determine you IQ, they determine how well you do in school" does a good job of summarising that the science is clear that intelligence is predominantly an inheritable genetic trait. it goes as far as to show that 62% of the differences between individual students' GCSE scores were attributed to genetic factors.





(http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/...-you-do-school)

https://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v1...mp201185a.html

https://link.springer.com/article/10...439-009-0655-4

https://link.springer.com/article/10...519-006-9131-2

There are myriad articles detailing exactly this phenomenon to the detriment of the long-held paradigms on human intelligence. I've listed just a few that I’d gleaned from a quick Google search but it's further from exhaustive than my nan is from her first birthday, and it DOES NOT INCLUDE studies showing genetic contributions to the size differences in hippocampal cortical space, the area of the brain associated with memory and learning, which would obviously play a huge role in how well someone does or can do at school.

So what does this all mean? For one, it means that you're an arrogant moron, but it also shows quite clearly that people are either born with it, or they’re not. The next question is, to what degree? For the answer, i turn to population wide IQ test results.

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

The average IQ, roughly generalised for a population of approximately 65 million people (the UK) is 100. Mensa's global database indicates that 1 in two people fall precisely in the category of 100 IQ. Now what does that mean?

Pretty bloody dire is what it means from an intellectual perspective.

"Able to learn a trade in a hands-on manner and perform tasks involving decisions. Craftsman, sales, police officer, clerk. Studies involving some theory are possible from this range upward". As Charles Murray said, "with an IQ of 100, a demanding high school curricula takes you as far as your academic talents can reach. Need Structure, Little desire to know, and inefficient information processing."

That is the genetic fate of the greatest volume occupying the Bell curve that depicts intelligence. Everyone who differs by a standard deviation is an outlier, and half of the outliers are going to be more retarded than that.

Are you starting to see why you're viewpoints and those of many others are not only completely unfounded, but also damagingly ignorant as well?

If not, or if you want further convincing, read on. Next stop, social and environmental factors. Choo choo.









: part 2

1) For whatever reason, every 100 minutes a teenager takes their own life. Suicide is the third-leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24. About 20 percent of all teens experience depression before they reach adulthood. Between 10 to 15 percent suffer from symptoms at any one time. I do not think i need to explain to you that depression and anxiety shrink the hippocampus and severely affect a person’s concentration and memory. Roughly 12 million teenagers in the UK at present (2011 Census: Usual resident population by five-year age group and sex, local authorities in the United Kingdom), that's 4 million affected.



2) In 2014, 15 per cent of pupils had ever taken drugs, 10 per cent had taken drugs in the last year and 6 per cent had taken drugs in the last month. The prevalence of drug use increased with age. For example, 6 per cent of 11 year olds said they had tried drugs at least once, compared with 24 per cent of 15 year olds. Drug addictions are very common in teenagers and have a profound effect on the pupil’s ability to do well in education.



3) 70,440 children were in the care of local authorities on 31st March 2016, compared to 69,540 in 2015. This will have a profound impact on those children’s abilities to achieve in education.



4) A study of 11,000 seven-year-old children found that those with parents in professional and managerial jobs were at least eight months ahead academically than pupils from the most socially disadvantaged homes, where parents were often unemployed.



5) A recent study by students at King’s College London shows that the current league tables measure not the best, but the most middle-class schools; and that even the government's "value-added" tables fail to take account of the most crucial factor in educational outcomes - a pupil's address. The report matches almost 1 million pupils with their individual postcode and exam scores at ages 11 and 15. (https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...arenting-study)



I could quite literally keep going all day with socio-economic factors that contribute to a student’s ability to perform because there's an infinite amount of them. If someone gets pooped on by a bird before they go into the exam hall, the panic and lasting anxiety that could potentially ensue could mean the difference between a grade. The world is a complicated place, you know.

Now OP, i don't know who you're quoting with that "opening argument", but it is a disgusting and ignorant thing to think, and it shows that whoever it was is incredibly arrogant, self-centred, and profoundly ignorant to what's going on in the real world.



You have said the thought has arisen in your own mind a few times, so i suggest that the next time it does you dismiss it, and take a long hard look at yourself.

When people say "I’m just not that clever", they're not bloody lying to you. Not everyone is like you. You are incredibly lucky to be gifted with intelligence.

And when people say "I want to have a life!" They're likely covering-up their inability to perform academically so as to prevent the bullying or the emotional abuse that they know will come from the self-righteous cognitively endowed, like yourself and your quotee.

This post took up a couple of hours that I really should have used for revision so please, heed what I’ve written here. The world is a scary place. Most people are not intelligent. Everyone has problems. My nan is pretty old. Think twice next time you accuse someone of "not trying" or "making excuses for themselves” to get out of doing work. And most importantly, MAKE THE MOST OF THE GIFT THAT YOU HAVE.



Thank you.

Ben Prince, out.
0
Pro Crastination
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#226
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#226
(Original post by BenPrince123)
: part 1

I disagree almost entirely with the point. Now, I don't think you've actually made one, but i can pretend that you have because i want to show you how stupid this discussion is.

The opening argument is not an argument. Supplemented with precisely zero pieces of evidence, only an outline of one person's personal experience with a fraction of a single country's educational system, it's more of a *****y set of queries laden with a lack of fore-thought.

Let's take a look.

Assuming I’m correctly outlining the main query in all its ignorant entirety with the phrase "Why do some people excuse themselves from getting good grades when it doesn’t really take much effort?", This can be taken apart and looked at.





Why do some people get bad grades and some not?

It is a common misconception that the trait of intelligence is inherent in every living person, and a sad truth that it is largely predetermined and sparse. I'll start with the obvious case that won't require any explanation for you to understand.

Approximately 1.5 million people in the UK have a learning disability. This includes 905,000 adults aged 18+ (530,000 men and 375,000 women) (Source: People with Learning Disabilities in England 2011). This is just a tragic genetic fact of life. Although I’m sure many of these individuals lead meaningful lives, about 2.5% of the UK's population is immediately off the list and out of the runnings because of the way they prenatally developed.

At this point you may be thinking "Hey, that's not really relevant, and those kids don't go to public schools anyway!" and you'd be right. I just wanted to paint a little intro picture of how this is going to go down for you. So for my next trick, genetic predisposition!

Researchers describe the heritability of intelligence as substantial and incontrovertible. It's now so inextricably linked with genetics through research that anyone in the scientific community (that belongs there) would probably feel uncomfortable pouting the old adage that intelligence is within everyone, is acquirable with time, or is even learned environmentally (while the latter most statement may be true to some unknown degree).

A recent and appropriately titled article "genes don’t just determine you IQ, they determine how well you do in school" does a good job of summarising that the science is clear that intelligence is predominantly an inheritable genetic trait. it goes as far as to show that 62% of the differences between individual students' GCSE scores were attributed to genetic factors.





(http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/...-you-do-school)

https://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v1...mp201185a.html

https://link.springer.com/article/10...439-009-0655-4

https://link.springer.com/article/10...519-006-9131-2

There are myriad articles detailing exactly this phenomenon to the detriment of the long-held paradigms on human intelligence. I've listed just a few that I’d gleaned from a quick Google search but it's further from exhaustive than my nan is from her first birthday, and it DOES NOT INCLUDE studies showing genetic contributions to the size differences in hippocampal cortical space, the area of the brain associated with memory and learning, which would obviously play a huge role in how well someone does or can do at school.

So what does this all mean? For one, it means that you're an arrogant moron, but it also shows quite clearly that people are either born with it, or they’re not. The next question is, to what degree? For the answer, i turn to population wide IQ test results.

https://iq-research.info/en/page/average-iq-by-country

The average IQ, roughly generalised for a population of approximately 65 million people (the UK) is 100. Mensa's global database indicates that 1 in two people fall precisely in the category of 100 IQ. Now what does that mean?

Pretty bloody dire is what it means from an intellectual perspective.

"Able to learn a trade in a hands-on manner and perform tasks involving decisions. Craftsman, sales, police officer, clerk. Studies involving some theory are possible from this range upward". As Charles Murray said, "with an IQ of 100, a demanding high school curricula takes you as far as your academic talents can reach. Need Structure, Little desire to know, and inefficient information processing."

That is the genetic fate of the greatest volume occupying the Bell curve that depicts intelligence. Everyone who differs by a standard deviation is an outlier, and half of the outliers are going to be more retarded than that.

Are you starting to see why you're viewpoints and those of many others are not only completely unfounded, but also damagingly ignorant as well?

If not, or if you want further convincing, read on. Next stop, social and environmental factors. Choo choo.









: part 2

1) For whatever reason, every 100 minutes a teenager takes their own life. Suicide is the third-leading cause of death for young people ages 15 to 24. About 20 percent of all teens experience depression before they reach adulthood. Between 10 to 15 percent suffer from symptoms at any one time. I do not think i need to explain to you that depression and anxiety shrink the hippocampus and severely affect a person’s concentration and memory. Roughly 12 million teenagers in the UK at present (2011 Census: Usual resident population by five-year age group and sex, local authorities in the United Kingdom), that's 4 million affected.



2) In 2014, 15 per cent of pupils had ever taken drugs, 10 per cent had taken drugs in the last year and 6 per cent had taken drugs in the last month. The prevalence of drug use increased with age. For example, 6 per cent of 11 year olds said they had tried drugs at least once, compared with 24 per cent of 15 year olds. Drug addictions are very common in teenagers and have a profound effect on the pupil’s ability to do well in education.



3) 70,440 children were in the care of local authorities on 31st March 2016, compared to 69,540 in 2015. This will have a profound impact on those children’s abilities to achieve in education.



4) A study of 11,000 seven-year-old children found that those with parents in professional and managerial jobs were at least eight months ahead academically than pupils from the most socially disadvantaged homes, where parents were often unemployed.



5) A recent study by students at King’s College London shows that the current league tables measure not the best, but the most middle-class schools; and that even the government's "value-added" tables fail to take account of the most crucial factor in educational outcomes - a pupil's address. The report matches almost 1 million pupils with their individual postcode and exam scores at ages 11 and 15. (https://www.theguardian.com/educatio...arenting-study)



I could quite literally keep going all day with socio-economic factors that contribute to a student’s ability to perform because there's an infinite amount of them. If someone gets pooped on by a bird before they go into the exam hall, the panic and lasting anxiety that could potentially ensue could mean the difference between a grade. The world is a complicated place, you know.

Now OP, i don't know who you're quoting with that "opening argument", but it is a disgusting and ignorant thing to think, and it shows that whoever it was is incredibly arrogant, self-centred, and profoundly ignorant to what's going on in the real world.



You have said the thought has arisen in your own mind a few times, so i suggest that the next time it does you dismiss it, and take a long hard look at yourself.

When people say "I’m just not that clever", they're not bloody lying to you. Not everyone is like you. You are incredibly lucky to be gifted with intelligence.

And when people say "I want to have a life!" They're likely covering-up their inability to perform academically so as to prevent the bullying or the emotional abuse that they know will come from the self-righteous cognitively endowed, like yourself and your quotee.

This post took up a couple of hours that I really should have used for revision so please, heed what I’ve written here. The world is a scary place. Most people are not intelligent. Everyone has problems. My nan is pretty old. Think twice next time you accuse someone of "not trying" or "making excuses for themselves” to get out of doing work. And most importantly, MAKE THE MOST OF THE GIFT THAT YOU HAVE.



Thank you.

Ben Prince, out.
Yo, thanks for your response. Maybe could do with toning down the ad hominems, but whatever. I've stated on here a few posts back that I've disowned this perspective now, but I still think it's one worth discussing as I'm sure many on TSR may hold it.

I think my earlier critique of what I initially laid out is that it didn't consider varying social backgrounds as limiting others' academic abilities. But you are right to point out that there is likely a genetic factor behind it as well. I think that's something I'm uncomfortable with as I'd like to think we're all born as a blank slate, but what is and what ought to be are not always the same. I think an interesting area of debate is the degree to which intervention to address the social factors (e.g. providing subsidised tutoring for those on free school meals) could counteract the genetic factors.

Good luck with the revision.
0
Anagogic
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#227
Report 1 year ago
#227
As people have stated there's so many variables as to why people achieve the results they do. From mental health issues to anxiety the list goes on and on. People have stated that blaming teachers for poor exam results is a cop out, yet that's what they are being paid for to educate you. Teaching standards will defiantly influence the attainment of what students achieve, some really do kill the desire for students to learn. One teacher who perfectly predicts what questions will come up along with giving you perfect instruction on what examiners are looking for to one who can't control the class and when they finally do they offer very vague knowledge. Again it's up to the students to study but this has a huge impact also. I also think grading needs to be changed into percentages, for instance I was looking at past grade boundaries where out of 100 73+ was an A, 67 was a B and 61 was a C so someone could get 66 a C and 73 an A yet there's only 7 marks between them insane. So the person with a C is being unfairly represented whereas it'd be 67% and 73% which is a minor difference and not worthy of two grade boundaries. Percentages make so much more sense then you wouldn't have the discrepancy between grades.
0
sexilexi
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#228
Report 1 year ago
#228
People r lazy and majority of parents aren’t such good parents as to encourage their kids to do well in school. Mediocrity simply gets passed on and on throughout the generations. The idea that this is somehow genetic is absurd, the simple fact is that most people r lazy to the point where getting a C is alright. If someone actually focused hard on their studies and didn’t look at their phone or tv the whole time they were doing work, they’d easily get aaa
0
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#229
Report 1 year ago
#229
Some people are academically dim.
0
Zoqua
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#230
Report 1 year ago
#230
(Original post by Pro Crastination)
Here's a controversial thread concept that just popped into my head. I'm not sure I agree with it myself, but, admittedly, the thought has arisen in my mind on a couple of occasions in the past. I hope the TSR community will be split on this.

Opening argument:

I can understand when people can't quite make the A/A* grade because of a silly mistake or two during an exam, and slip to a B/A because of it. However, what I can't understand is how people can be content with, or even proclaim they "aspire to reach" a C grade, as if that's some sort of huge achievement.

What I have found with my A levels and GCSEs is that to score an A or above requires a decent amount of effort (more so in some subjects than others), but it is not anything harder than would be expected on a regular basis during one's working life. Why, then, do a good proportion of people simply excuse themselves by claiming they're "just not that clever" and settle for mediocre grades by putting minimal amounts of effort in?

"But some people want to have a life!" I suppose this would be the immediate counter. I'm not arguing that everyone should be aiming for 95+ UMS and practicing to ace their Oxbridge interview as soon as they hit secondary school. All I'm saying is that the vast majority of people are capable of scoring in range of AAA-ABB at A level (one can easily lead a healthy social life with these aspirations) the willingness is simply not there, however. That is what I find so alien.

So yeah, who would agree with that? Who would disagree?
I don't know about A level, but I totally agree with you for GCSE's, most subjects at GCSE are really not that difficult, like STEM subjects, or Geography, I don't know why people don't put in effort and then complain that they get low grades.... It's really not difficult. Just a question though, why shouldn't people plan ahead for University?
0
Pro Crastination
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#231
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#231
(Original post by Zoqua)
I don't know about A level, but I totally agree with you for GCSE's, most subjects at GCSE are really not that difficult, like STEM subjects, or Geography, I don't know why people don't put in effort and then complain that they get low grades.... It's really not difficult. Just a question though, why shouldn't people plan ahead for University?
I wasn't suggesting they shouldn't consider it. I was just trying to distance my argument from the idea that it's right to obsess over which uni you'll go to when you are years away from applying.
0
jelly1000
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#232
Report 1 year ago
#232
GCSE's and A-Level exams are largely a memory test so if you have problems with your memory as I do then you are less likely to do as well as you should.
1
sophia13
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#233
Report 1 year ago
#233
(Original post by HollyHamill)
I feel personally, that my teachers put a cap on what they thought I could achieve and that really did affect how well I thought I could do. They told me I was expected DDC, however I've so far achieved As and Bs in both my coursework and my practice papers. I'm not a massively negative person but I'm not full of confidence and therefore when teachers told me that was what I was capable of I accepted it.


Posted from TSR Mobile
That happens a lot and students predicted low grades come out with great grades. It's just not giving up and working hard i guess, because if you do that you can get the grades you want. Well done for your grades, they are great!
0
Crazysue1
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#234
Report 1 year ago
#234
My youngest son did relatively poorly at GCSE but he is not unintelligent nor was he lazy. He unfortunately has disabilities and as part of that a report was written when he was around 5 or 6 which stated he would never go to a mainstream high school or be able to cope with GCSEs (his year 6 SATS were spent either under the table or running from the room)

That report formed the basis of where he was streamed when after lots of hard work, he did manage to attend a mainstream high school and was entered into exams (mostly foundation...argh, hate that restriction) and unfortunately he was pretty much left to fester in the lowest groups with the most disruptive of students and as he is very sensitive to noise, he became extremely distressed, stressed and unable to learn.

I still remember results day when his teachers were congratulating themselves for his results because of that earlier report yet youngest son was absolutely distraught, he knew he was better than the results showed.

A move to a completely different 6th form college to that attached to the school made the difference, they ignored the report that had blighted his life (and had been the scene of many battles between me and the school) and preferred to let him find his own level......it just so happened it was at the top of his year group.

He is now at university after leaving college with 3 x A* at A level and is currently working at a First in a STEM subject.
0
jonathanemptage
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#235
Report 1 year ago
#235
(Original post by Pro Crastination)
Here's a controversial thread concept that just popped into my head. I'm not sure I agree with it myself, but, admittedly, the thought has arisen in my mind on a couple of occasions in the past. I hope the TSR community will be split on this.

Opening argument:

I can understand when people can't quite make the A/A* grade because of a silly mistake or two during an exam, and slip to a B/A because of it. However, what I can't understand is how people can be content with, or even proclaim they "aspire to reach" a C grade, as if that's some sort of huge achievement.

What I have found with my A levels and GCSEs is that to score an A or above requires a decent amount of effort (more so in some subjects than others), but it is not anything harder than would be expected on a regular basis during one's working life. Why, then, do a good proportion of people simply excuse themselves by claiming they're "just not that clever" and settle for mediocre grades by putting minimal amounts of effort in?

"But some people want to have a life!" I suppose this would be the immediate counter. I'm not arguing that everyone should be aiming for 95+ UMS and practicing to ace their Oxbridge interview as soon as they hit secondary school. All I'm saying is that the vast majority of people are capable of scoring in range of AAA-ABB at A level (one can easily lead a healthy social life with these aspirations) the willingness is simply not there, however. That is what I find so alien.

So yeah, who would agree with that? Who would disagree?
It's possibly down to choosing the wrong subjects or subjects they don't like like choosing business if your not good at maths I know thats why my marks were not too good that and because i couldn't get higher than a C.
0
Pro Crastination
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#236
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#236
(Original post by jonathanemptage)
It's possibly down to choosing the wrong subjects or subjects they don't like like choosing business if your not good at maths I know thats why my marks were not too good that and because i couldn't get higher than a C.
I think this is a really valid point. Definitely I feel I could be doing better academically if I was doing a degree that 100% aligned with my strengths, as opposed to one that reasonably aligns with my strengths.

It would be good if students were given the data about this before they chose their A levels. E.g. a website where they could plug in their GCSE results in particular subjects, then get a list of subjects that previous students who'd studied the same subjects and performed the same in them did best at.

Obviously it shouldn't 100% guide people's choices, but I do feel that some people work a lot harder than others and still end up with similar/worse grades just due to natural aptitude.
0
A-Yellow-Spring
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#237
Report 2 months ago
#237
(Original post by Zoelle)
Hmm to be honest i understand what you mean, for me i feel that if i ever get a C or sometimes even a low B in some subjects I feel like i "failed" which i know might seem really irritating or ungrateful to some people but it is my own aspirational grade that I am hoping to achieve so if i fail to do so then i feel like i failed it..hope that makes sense. However, I have friends who are doing higher and foundation paper and i clearly feel that people doing higher..get more opprunities and are treated much better. For example, I have a friend who used moved to this country from Poland I think and she is actually pretty smart but has been placed in for foundation tiers in everything, it makes her not want to try as hard anymore because she knows the maximum she can get is a C and she needs to get the majority of the questions right..i think that is kinda unfair..or they get told in class "try to aim for a C or you have to retake" which is not exactly good motivation..and also seeing as I am like in higher sets for my classes we get the best teachers, :/ We can head of departments teaching us whereas they get the other teacher..my friend is in one of the lower sets and she always complains how she never gets any homework, the teacher doesnt chase them up and although they are doing there GCSE's there teacher is still behind the lesson scheme and they feel like they are doing worse..i mean i personally feel that you need to look after your education but teachers ans schools are means to help a lot..you know what i mean? or did i just ramble on and not make any sense??
They do that for every kid with a second language. The chavs of the chavs got better prediction grades than most Eastern European kids in our school purely because they were English. Lo and behold, the chavs failed save like 2 of their GCSES.
0
A-Yellow-Spring
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#238
Report 2 months ago
#238
(Original post by historyandlanz)
Attachment 285166
Most people in this country can't tell a retard from a person with common sense so they must show off something order to prove that they have anything in that thick skull. General civilised conversations don't cut it anymore.
Last edited by A-Yellow-Spring; 2 months ago
0
A-Yellow-Spring
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#239
Report 2 months ago
#239
(Original post by JoshZ)
I managed to attain mediocre GCSE results:

D - 1 (French)
C - 0
B - 5
A - 3

The reason for my bad GCSE's was simply down to the fact that I did not care whatsoever. I started sixth form with the same attitude I had in GCSE, not doing homework or any revision whatsoever. As a result of this, i was left getting C's/D's in all of my subjects. About 4/5 months ago I decided to change, for the better. I managed to get a very high A in my English and Biology coursework and a low A in chemistry coursework (still an A though ). Now I am on track to get A's in all 3 of these subjects along with a B/A in Psychology (this is getting dropped, as I think I'd rather scratch my eyes out than endure one more lesson)... So basically all it comes down to is how much you want it. I literally went from failing the whole of F321 (Chemistry), I got two U's in my mock tests. Within one week I had learnt the whole of F321 up to a solid A-Grade. At the end of the day it all boils down to how much you want it. I honestly wish I could turn back time and do my GCSE's all over again because there is literally no chance of me getting into any of the top universities anymore... . My advice to anyone who is failing their subjects is just to watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwfhH8yDZQo

If that doesn't motivate you then I don't know what will.
You call those mediocre you ****ing madman?!?!?!
1
X
new posts

All the exam results help you need

1,809

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (221)
12.46%
Excited (166)
9.36%
Worried (309)
17.43%
Terrified (390)
22%
Meh (186)
10.49%
Confused (39)
2.2%
Putting on a brave face (244)
13.76%
Impatient (218)
12.3%

Watched Threads

View All