Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Exams are destroying our education system in the UK

Scroll to see replies

What do you expect from an education system that tests everyone in the same way - obviously this will be in favour for those who learn that way.

Not sure if sarcastic.

Are you advocating that different people should be tested in different ways?

Reply 41

TheClassicsGeek

Original post by iodo345

I also excelled in classics and was surprised in Latin GCSE how there were 4 exams with 2 of them just being a complete and utter waste of time in having to learn pointless sentences in English for Latin literature just to identify a paragraph and regurgitate a translation that was learnt beforehand therefore testing nothing. The same was with Ancient Greek GCSE in the literature section although one of the exams was slightly more interesting but was more focused on classical civilisation.
I also agree they should have separate schools for practical and academic subjects similar to the grammar school and this system is used in Germany as well. It is embarrassing to see how low the UK is at education standards when you see how much money is pointlessly thrown at it.

Exactly! Not to sound conceited but I got full marks in all but one of my Latin papers and I still wasn't anywhere near the standard at which I could read the Aeneid in Latin for example. My teacher gave me an O level paper which I found far more substantial and challenging. It's frustrating in particular that Latin and Greek have become so easy when they have (or had) a reputation as being academically rigorous subjects. Unfortunately now, like almost every other subject, passing a Latin GCSE has become more a test of memory than of skill.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 42

lappong99

It is not the format of examination but the content being examined that cause problems nowadays. Universities in the UK are producing scholars (which in fact is what universities should be) but there shouldn't be too many such institutions since we simply do not need too many scholars (and vast majority of people can't become scholars). The problem lies in the fact that students who have the potential to become scholars are being examined in the same way as those who will, perhaps, work in real world businesses. But nowadays everybody is going to unis so in order to accommodate less academically capable students there are exams like GCSEs and Alevels, which I think is way too easy for potential scholars and useless for practical world at the same time. In my opinion University entrance exams should be like Cambridge STEPs and other students should be educated in a different way, perhaps more project-based, more communication, presentation etc.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 43

lappong99

A successful education system should be responsible for:
1) Identifying future elites
2) Making full use of the vast majority of common people, equip them with practical skills and hard working attitude.

Reply 44

rhiifuu

Original post by chazwomaq

Not sure if sarcastic.

Are you advocating that different people should be tested in different ways?

In a way yes because everyone learns differently. But, it would probably just make matters more confusing I guess.

Reply 45

chazwomaq

Original post by rhiifuu

In a way yes because everyone learns differently. But, it would probably just make matters more confusing I guess.

Should different pilots have different tests for their licenses?

Should different doctors pass different medical tests to be qualified?

Should different accountants have different tests for professional status?

How you learn is irrelevant to how you are tested. By all means learn by the light of the moon to the tune of a thousand dolphins singing in glorious unison...but you still have to pass the same test as everyone else.

Reply 46

Dinaa

Lol, the WHOLE maths department (9 teachers) have decided to leave this term.

Spoiler

Like 4 science teachers have gone too...

So that's my education down the drain. :cry:

Reply 47

BobLoblawLawBlog

Everyone here complaining about exams being memory tests would go absolutely insane if they saw some of my uni maths exams.

Reply 48

sionna

I think some people are saying that people are going to end up with lower grades because the examinations are getting harder for whatever reasons. This is simply not true. Although the exam may be harder, to determine what grade you get the look at everyone's result in the country and then set grade boundaries. The way they do this is by ensuring that they follow a normal distribution curve (or bell curve). So the top 5% of the results (might be lower than 5%) will still get an A regardless of the difficulty of the exam.
This obviously works to a point where they can't lower the boundaries any further.

Reply 49

A level sufferer

I agree there are major weaknesses in the exams system, factors such as being a different grade worth based on which year you were born and the fact that the marking process isn't 100% trustworthy..... People normally have the perception that only idiots or the people that fail are the ones that attack the exams system but in truth the system has some fundamental issues that lead to it losing credibility

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 50

ckfeister

I've seen the new GCSEs there like going back to O-Levels.. I wouldn't want to be doing these new GSCEs...

Reply 51

iodo345

Has anyone else realised that in some subjects the whole of the knowledge your meant to know isn't tested so your grade isn't representative of your whole knowledge on the specification but only a few topics. I found this the case in both psychology and biology AQA exams this year with massive sections of the specification missed out so it was almost pointless revising it.

Reply 52

sionna

I know what your saying but you still have to revise everything because no one knows in advance what areas of your knowledge they are going to test. Each year they pick a different part to focus on.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 53

BrainDrain

Cambridge University has done a lot of research to determine which applicants are best suited to go on and gain good results, so they know a thing or two about the value of exams.

Their research has identified the value of UMS marks at AS level as being the best indicator to determine who will go on to do best at BA level, but they also spend an awful lot of time on interviews to get a more rounded view of each individual, together with quick tests and personal statements.

So yes exams do have a value but need to be looked at in the round, which you would think when you eventually look for a job will happen, the exams results should get you the interview in the first place but getting the job will probably depend on how well the interview went.

I would say just stop meddling with the system we have now apart from doing away with firsts and seconds by instead just printing the actual marks on the degree.

Reply 54

Jodie99

School does become a lot about passing exams and not enough about learning I find. There's a lot of "but I won't go into that because you don't need that for the exam" and "this is kind of a simplified way of looking at it but you go more into this at a level". It's not teachers fault at all, they've just trying to do the best thing for the pupils future and the school but the intense exam focus is quite harmful I think. Obviously we need some form of assessment to judge whether pupils are proficient and whether they can go onto the next stage in the subject but I think it ought to be a lot more holistic. I think the return to linear exams is ridiculous, personally a lot of the things I've learnt have been when I was preparing my controlled assessment pieces and, as someone who does not perform well under time constraints, I think they're much more representative of my ability. The way controlled assessments are moderated is ridiculous but that's another matter.
Another interesting thing is that after my RE GCSE in year 10 we still had to go to lessons. The lessons were quite casual, we mostly just messed around and watched documentaries but I probably learnt as much valuable stuff from the fun lessons as I did from the exam focused ones, even though it was a shorter time frame.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 55

ComputerMaths97

I was going to read it then I realised it was an opinion from the Telegraph so I knew reading it would be pointless :biggrin:

Reply 56

Plagioclase

I'm not sure if abolishing exams is the answer but we definitely need to get away from this idea that anything that isn't exam-based is evil. Particularly with the sciences. At least in my experience, you can get through GCSE and A Level Science without understanding what the scientific method actually is. The entire system is geared towards rote-learning so it's no wonder that there aren't enough students entering STEM fields. Of course you need to learn facts in science but the central tenet of science - the explorative and curiosity-driven scientific method - doesn't receive any real treatment in the natural curriculum and at least in state schools, practicals are often shoved aside as cute extras rather than being something fundamental to science. I think coursework needs to make up a bigger chunk of assessment in the sciences and it should involve students actually taking part in the scientific method, choosing something that interests them to investigate and designing experiments themselves (OCR B does this very well at the moment). We also need this to be introduced earlier on. GCSE Science is excruciatingly dull, the only reason I got through it was because I had done outside reading that showed me there's a light at the end of the tunnel. It is so important to show younger students that there is more to science than just memorising reaction conditions.

Reply 57

German123

Imo some exams just test your memory, i remember sitting my maths exam and after it, all the knowledge went out the window.

Reply 58

BlueSam3

Original post by Drewski

Exams have been used for, what, 2-300 years at least?

Why is it only now they're 'failing'?

Until relatively recently, exams were there as a measure of how well students had learned what they were supposed to learn. More recently, they've begun to be used instead to inform what students should learn, a wholly different (and worse) approach.

Reply 59

llys

The purpose of exams is not to equip students with the skills required for a "functioning society". The purpose of exams is to test if students have learned some of what they were taught, and IMO that's fine.

Also, UK only has national exams at the end of Y6, Y11 and Y13, right? That doesn't really seem like "too much" to me, though I also think one could probably abolish national exams in Y6 and Y11, and only have them at the end of Y13, together with an English and Maths test that could be taken any time from Y10. Think about it. Why would you need a national exam in GCSE Biology, Music, Geography or PE (etc.) at age 16, when the school-leaving age is now 18? These are all good subjects but (IMO) you don't need national assessment in them at GCSE level. Your teachers can tell you if you are any good at them - universities and employers will only care about English, Maths and A-Levels. Everything else can go into a school-leaving certificate with teacher assessment.

Original post by She-Ra

He's argued that project-based learning alongside speaking and presentation skills is important claiming that "the one thing that employers want is good oral communication and yet that is not assessed at all in the system"

This is so true. I think that one big (and perhaps the main) advantage former private school pupils have over state school pupils in the workplace is due to their massively enhanced presentation (and self-presentation) skills. They know how to communicate with adults. This is very attractive to employers.