&quot;Scrap A Levels&quot; says Cambridge

I reckon... you should have exam paper which no one can possibly finish, and give that to the students. And the more able ones would be able to do more than those who are less able and score higher marks. Of course, the questions would be laid out based on difficulty gradients. Test should last something like 3 hours each. I love 3 hour exams, but that's just me.

Reply 3

Squishy

Camford

I reckon... you should have exam paper which no one can possibly finish, and give that to the students. And the more able ones would be able to do more than those who are less able and score higher marks. Of course, the questions would be laid out based on difficulty gradients. Test should last something like 3 hours each. I love 3 hour exams, but that's just me.

Cambridge exams were made for you then, Shuai. :wink:

Edit: Oh yeah, and about the A-levels, I don't really care...I always saw them as a means to an end...if they're no longer allowing universities to pick the best students, then they should get rid of them. Let's face it, A-levels in themselves aren't much use. If you want to do academic work or whatever, you're going to need a degree, and if you want to do a practical job then A-levels are far less useful than spending two years after GCSEs doing apprenticeship work.

Reply 4

shiny

Camford

I reckon... you should have exam paper which no one can possibly finish, and give that to the students. And the more able ones would be able to do more than those who are less able and score higher marks. Of course, the questions would be laid out based on difficulty gradients. Test should last something like 3 hours each. I love 3 hour exams, but that's just me.

Some of my A-Levels were like that and that was only back in 2000. Then everything went modular.

Reply 5

Willa

everything went AS-tastic as well....which in a way i'm thankful for cos it gave me the opportunity to do half my computing a level a couple of years early! But ultimately I do think that it has lowered the standards

Reply 6

JHutcher

I come into the lower end of applicants (someone who would not, if they were there, have any pluses after his grades).

As for replacing the system... well how many times do they want to completely restructure the education system... the situation is that teachers are getting better at getting pupils to pass grades, as such there are more of us... more people are getting a higher level of education, mostly due to a changing culture.

My own feelings is that they should raise the threshhold and vary the exact contents of the exams... more topics with broader questions would allow people to demonstrate jus how much work they have put in... rather than simply fulfulling the examiners criterea.

I am against the IB, because i am crap at maths and langauges. As are grand but bondries need to be put up and examining papers restructured.

Does nobody hink the Oxbridge interviews were a good idea then?

Reply 7

JHutcher

I come into the lower end of applicants (someone who would not, if they were there, have any pluses after his grades).

As for replacing the system... well how many times do they want to completely restructure the education system... the situation is that teachers are getting better at getting pupils to pass grades, as such there are more of us... more people are getting a higher level of education, mostly due to a changing culture.

My own feelings is that they should raise the threshhold and vary the exact contents of the exams... more topics with broader questions would allow people to demonstrate jus how much work they have put in... rather than simply fulfulling the examiners criterea.

I am against the IB, because i am crap at maths and langauges. As are grand but bondries need to be put up and examining papers restructured.

Does nobody hink the Oxbridge interviews were a good idea then?

There is a problem with more topics. You only have a set amount of time to do things. In that time period, it is impossible to learn more than a certain threshold of stuff. Whilst more able students would be able to learn more, there will still be a ceiling somewhere, where it says, you cannot fit in more stuff in with the time you have got. What that left you with is incomplete knowledge in your subject area. For me personally, I'd rather not know something than know not enough about something. Because, if you don't know enough, it probably not worth spending time on learning just 2 or 3 theorems on it. I have been a firm believer that if you want to put something in the syllabus, then you must put in enough to make the learning process worthwhile. Otherwise, you shouldn't bother. GCSE maths has a typical example. There is only a tiny amount of geometry in GCSE. Before that, most kids probably wouldn't have done anything except basic triangle stuff. Now, there are a whole load more to Euclidian geometry than just circles and triangles. If 2 lessons are all you going to spend on teaching people geometry, then I'd rather prefer they teach nothing at all.

Reply 8

Acaila

17

Personally I think scrapping resits would help. That way you would only get an A if you were capable of getting an A first time.

Reply 9

Acaila

Personally I think scrapping resits would help. That way you would only get an A if you were capable of getting an A first time.

Good point. I think Oxbridge don't really like people with resits.

Reply 10

fishpaste

Acaila

Personally I think scrapping resits would help. That way you would only get an A if you were capable of getting an A first time.

It'd be a shame when exams went inexplicably wrong though. My second AS economics paper (which I sat in January) went inexplicably wrong for our entire class (highest grade was a D). Considering most of us went on to study at Oxbridge, I'd like to think it wasn't entirely our faults, anyway we resat without revision and got As, I was very grateful for that opportunity as it probably would have ruined our chances at getting into top unis to not have been allowed to resit. There are measures to stop people resitting frivolously aswell, if you resit twice and get lower marks, then your mark for that module will be reduced to the second lowest one.

Reply 11

Acaila

17

Well I think we have a good system here in Scotland. Major exams at the end of the year rather than modules, meaning that people can't just cram on one topic the night before to get an A. And if you mess up your final exams and deserve to do better the school can appeal to the exam board on your behalf to get your mark raised. However if you appeal you have to have evidence of work at the grade you deserve. Hence the reason our prelim exams are more important than just mocks. Also it means that you should do as well as possible in your prelims, thus motivating people to work all year rather than just around exam time.

Reply 12

fishpaste

It'd be a shame when exams went inexplicably wrong though. My second AS economics paper (which I sat in January) went inexplicably wrong for our entire class (highest grade was a D). Considering most of us went on to study at Oxbridge, I'd like to think it wasn't entirely our faults, anyway we resat without revision and got As, I was very grateful for that opportunity as it probably would have ruined our chances at getting into top unis to not have been allowed to resit. There are measures to stop people resitting frivolously aswell, if you resit twice and get lower marks, then your mark for that module will be reduced to the second lowest one.

You could allow people to resit, but only the latest mark get carried forward. It's probably good to put a limit on how many times people can resit as well... My guess, once should do.

Reply 13

The Albatross

if there was an A* at a level, ie 90%, i would have only got it in one of my subjects (art) so i'm glad they don't... but i think it could help cream off the best. at the moment you can get 80% and be valued the same as someone who got 100%, when there is obviously a huge difference.

Reply 14

Acaila

Well I think we have a good system here in Scotland. Major exams at the end of the year rather than modules, meaning that people can't just cram on one topic the night before to get an A. And if you mess up your final exams and deserve to do better the school can appeal to the exam board on your behalf to get your mark raised. However if you appeal you have to have evidence of work at the grade you deserve. Hence the reason our prelim exams are more important than just mocks. Also it means that you should do as well as possible in your prelims, thus motivating people to work all year rather than just around exam time.

I never had to do that... modules have its advantages. If I was asked to do my A'Levels all over again, I'd probably chosen to do the modular exams again. It's just so much easier to cope with. But having said that, you do have to do more exams which are not long enough...

Reply 15

scarlet ibis

if there was an A* at a level, ie 90%, i would have only got it in one of my subjects (art) so i'm glad they don't... but i think it could help cream off the best. at the moment you can get 80% and be valued the same as someone who got 100%, when there is obviously a huge difference.

No.... You can't use A'Level stuff to cream off the top! The whole point of A'Level is that if you put in enough work, you'll get the grades. If that's the case, you are putting the best, whom don't need to spend a lot of time studying to get an A, in a disadvantaged position. What you really need is something that only those who have talent and put in enough effort into studying can do.

Reply 16

Immortal Wombat

I dont think any admissions procedure which relies on an arbitary 6 hours of examinations in any amount of subjects can really be a good way if choosing the best applicants. Under practically any alternative system of exams at 18, I would have failed to get in here. Increased grade boundaries would probably have knocked me out (I scraped one A, missed another), increased subjects wouldn't have helped me much (foreign languages :frown:

).
I think an IB system would help Cambridge find more of the really bloody annoying brilliant-at-everything candidates, but it might miss the focused genii who know one subject inside out. 3 or 4 subjects seems to be a good compromise between the two, but the interview should be what matters.

Reply 17

PQ

Likes AEAs for example :smile:

But AEAs are still not that... well discriminating. I spent two hours to revise for Chemistry AEA and managed a distinction the next day. No one should be allowed to do that!!

Reply 18

mctcdc0710

1

Camford

I reckon... you should have exam paper which no one can possibly finish, and give that to the students. And the more able ones would be able to do more than those who are less able and score higher marks. Of course, the questions would be laid out based on difficulty gradients. Test should last something like 3 hours each. I love 3 hour exams, but that's just me.

i.e. STEP maths...

Reply 19

JHutcher