The Student Room Group

A* is the new A

Scroll to see replies

Original post by The Clockwork Apple
If you think that a 'smart student' who decided to be lazy and achieved 'BBB' should be considered better than a hard-working, 'not so smart student' who achieved AAA, you need to check over what is more important - intelligence or hard-work?


Great post! Thank you for your contribution; it's greatly appreciated.

Surely a combination of the two is preferable?
Original post by johnabdul
'Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard'


Hard work and talent equals success. :wink:
Reply 62
Original post by Chlorophile
Regardless, I think exams need to get more rigorous. I can't talk for the humanities but definitely for the sciences and maths, I would fully support more difficult examinations. In physics for exams, you can currently get away pretty much with sub-GCSE standard mathematics which is an absolute joke given that maths is at the very heart of physics. Personally, I'd be in favour of papers that are more similar in style to Olympiad papers which test understanding rather than regurgitation of the specification. That would obviously be very unpopular since lots of people wouldn't be able to cope, but my argument would be that those people shouldn't be sitting those exams in the first place. So to conclude, I don't necessarily think grade inflation is the result of easier exams, but I definitely do think that more difficult exams are needed. This isn't going to be achieved by raising grade boundaries, it will only be achieved firstly by more challenging examination styles (which test understanding and ability rather than memory and exam technique) but also by stopping this absurd concept in the UK that everyone should be sitting academic qualifications. Academia is not for everyone, so we need to stop this ridiculous idea that if you've not taken academic qualifications, you must be a failure.


Oh, nice. In my perfect examination system there would be two exams for each subject: Paper 1 to show that you are reasonably intelligent and worked hard (similar to current exams), and Paper 2 to show that you are highly intelligent and fairly creative (similar to AEA, Step or as you say Olympiad papers). Paper 1 would be graded B-C-D-Fail. Paper 2 would be graded A-B-Fail. You would have to pass Paper 1 (minimum C) to be allowed to sit Paper 2. And then, like you say, 90% of students would fail Paper 2 completely, and only very few would score highly enough for an A. I'd rather like that, because it would allow you to spot genuine talent immediately, while not completely discarding the need for hard work.
Original post by Asexual Demigod
Great post! Thank you for your contribution; it's greatly appreciated.

Surely a combination of the two is preferable?

Thanks. And yes, obviously!
Original post by johnabdul
'Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work hard'

Yes!!
Original post by llys
Oh, nice. In my perfect examination system there would be two exams for each subject: Paper 1 to show that you are reasonably intelligent and worked hard (similar to current exams), and Paper 2 to show that you are highly intelligent and fairly creative (similar to AEA, Step or as you say Olympiad papers). Paper 1 would be graded B-C-D-Fail. Paper 2 would be graded A-B-Fail. You would have to pass Paper 1 (minimum C) to be allowed to sit Paper 2. And then, like you say, 90% of students would fail Paper 2 completely, and only very few would score highly enough for an A. I'd rather like that, because it would allow you to spot genuine talent immediately, while not completely discarding the need for hard work.


I like the sound of that system, though I think our PC government and pussy society wouldn't take to it too kindly. And yes, I'd fail spectacularly.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by johnabdul
I bet the majority of people who are undermining the current A level system are the older generation who are just incredibly jealous of the younger generation. Exams have not gone easier. During my revision for A level maths i was doing past papers in 2005 and found them MUCH MUCH easier than math exams in 2012-2014!


Your time horizon is far too short. Most of the critics of examination grades are not 27 year olds (those who would have been doing your 2005 papers) but people in their 40s and upwards.

Why should we be jealous of the educational achievements of the younger generation? We had it a lot easier than you have.
Reply 67
Original post by Asexual Demigod
I like the sound of that system, though I think our PC government and pussy society wouldn't take to it too kindly.


Thanks. :wink: TBH, while I really do like my system, I can see why it would never be implemented. In reality you do not need to be a genius to function perfectly well in 99% of jobs out there, so there is no real need for my "Paper 2" exams.
Original post by llys
Thanks. :wink: TBH, while I really do like my system, I can see why it would never be implemented. In reality you do not need to be a genius to function perfectly well in 99% of jobs out there, so there is no real need for my "Paper 2" exams.


But they may be key differentiating factor that our education system desperately needs!
Original post by The Clockwork Apple
Overall, exams are not getting easier


Maths is always the very easy one to do comparisons on as there are so many past papers available on the internet.

Here you are. Two years work to be examined in six hours.

http://www.slideshare.net/telescoper/a-level-mathematics-1981
Original post by Chlorophile
Regardless, I think exams need to get more rigorous. I can't talk for the humanities but definitely for the sciences and maths, I would fully support more difficult examinations. In physics for exams, you can currently get away pretty much with sub-GCSE standard mathematics which is an absolute joke given that maths is at the very heart of physics. Personally, I'd be in favour of papers that are more similar in style to Olympiad papers which test understanding rather than regurgitation of the specification. That would obviously be very unpopular since lots of people wouldn't be able to cope, but my argument would be that those people shouldn't be sitting those exams in the first place. So to conclude, I don't necessarily think grade inflation is the result of easier exams, but I definitely do think that more difficult exams are needed. This isn't going to be achieved by raising grade boundaries, it will only be achieved firstly by more challenging examination styles (which test understanding and ability rather than memory and exam technique) but also by stopping this absurd concept in the UK that everyone should be sitting academic qualifications. Academia is not for everyone, so we need to stop this ridiculous idea that if you've not taken academic qualifications, you must be a failure.


I don't think that tests are a good discriminator for the average A-Level population when you reach Olympiad-level difficulty, because your average score will be too low and most scores will be grouped quite low. We have moved to a situation where taking A-Levels are quite commonplace, and so they have to cater to a greater ability range than they did in the 60s and 70s. Creating alternative routes to secure jobs would alleviate this.

I do agree with you though that there needs to be more Maths in Physics and Chemistry A-Level. At least a basic level of calculus.
Original post by johnabdul
I did well in my A levels(A*AA) and would like to think that i'm intelligent. Although i did work like 6 hours a day to achieve these grades.


Likewise. I just grinded out 24/7 to achieve my A*A*A. Although, I know here are other people who achieved like ABB - BBB who are most probably naturally smarter than I am.

I personally think grades aren't a good indicator of overall competency.
Original post by Anonynous
Likewise. I just grinded out 24/7 to achieve my A*A*A. Although, I know here are other people who achieved like ABB - BBB who are most probably naturally smarter than I am.

I personally think grades aren't a good indicator of overall competency.


I didn't try that hard and achieved A*A*A*. What does that mean?
Original post by Asexual Demigod
I didn't try that hard and achieved A*A*A*. What does that mean?


It could mean anything. Could mean you're lying, it could mean you're smart, it could mean you just got lucky. That's why not grades alone can determine your future. Alot of people have A*s and they'll be competing for the same jobs... what else do you have that makes you stand out is the deciding factor. So internships, extra-currics, connections yadayada unless you go into medicine and auto get a job.
Original post by Anonynous
It could mean anything. Could mean you're lying, it could mean you're smart, it could mean you just got lucky. That's why not grades alone can determine your future. Alot of people have A*s and they'll be competing for the same jobs... what else do you have that makes you stand out is the deciding factor. So internships, extra-currics, connections yadayada unless you go into medicine and auto get a job.


No one gets the highest grade in all three of their subjects based on sheer dumb luck. :rolleyes:
bump
Original post by Asexual Demigod
bump

Hi Asexual Demigod. I'm back from my pony ride.

How have you been? :smile:
Original post by President Putin
Hi Asexual Demigod. I'm back from my pony ride.

How have you been? :smile:


I love you, Putin. Can we get married? At least let me marry your humour. <3

This song reminded me of you:

[video="youtube;lyFaIXvVInI"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyFaIXvVInI[/video]
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ThatPerson
I don't think that tests are a good discriminator for the average A-Level population when you reach Olympiad-level difficulty, because your average score will be too low and most scores will be grouped quite low. We have moved to a situation where taking A-Levels are quite commonplace, and so they have to cater to a greater ability range than they did in the 60s and 70s. Creating alternative routes to secure jobs would alleviate this.

I do agree with you though that there needs to be more Maths in Physics and Chemistry A-Level. At least a basic level of calculus.


The average score will be too low because many of the people current taking A Levels shouldn't be taking them. If you create more appropriate qualification pathways for these people, they won't have to take A Levels. I'm not saying they should necessarily be at Olympiad difficulty, but certainly that kind of question style. Questions that demand scientific ingenuity and creativity.
Original post by Asexual Demigod
I love you, Putin. Can we get married? At least let me marry your humour. <3

This song reminded me of you:

[video="youtube;lyFaIXvVInI"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyFaIXvVInI[/video]

You know I don't do homosexuality, Asexual. :tongue:

And if you posted that video in Russian territory, you'd probably get lynched. :grin:

Although that is a pretty cool song...

Quick Reply

Latest