h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm not sure an ultra-high-flying student is the best one to cast judgement on relative exam standards, since they'd probably find most exams relatively easy.

Given that much of the debate is over marking standards and grade boundaries, it isn't always easy to tell how things have changed just from exam papers - if the A-grade boundary is lower than one than another, the questions may be equally *hard*, but the standard required for an A student may be rather different.

The old A-level marking scheme (banded so that X% got As, Y% got Bs, etc) seems to have been pretty well designed to me for at least one function - it certainly enabled universities to rank the students in their potential intake, who would almost all come from a particular year of exam-takers, and after all, university (or polytechnic) access seemed the main purpose of A-levels for many (most?) people.

Maybe a modern system is fairer in some ways, *if* it really reflects actual absolute skills, rather than relative ones, and can therefore be used for rating school performance if people actually believe it is objective.

It's pretty unlikely that genetic or environmental changes have made students something like an average A-level grade per subject *more intelligent* in a generation, so even if the new grades *do* honestly reflect actual absolute skills, if there are larger numbers of students with top grades, the grades are demonstrably less useful for ranking relative ability within a group (and hence likely *educability* by a university), which the old exams were well suited to do, particularly at the high end of the scale.

Though it may well be that not every university lecturer does think A-level standards have slipped, I don't recall hearing any recently saying they think standards have increased, or that they need to do *less* remedial education in basic science or maths compared to 20 years ago, or that their students are much brighter (or more literate) than they used to be.

should have been
>>"is lower *ON* one than another..."

Getting back to the matter of stress for a moment......

Another factor to consider is that students should have been preparing for their exams for some time in advance. Although a traumatic incident near to the exam may hamper their concentration on the day, I wonder whether in fact trauma earlier on may be just as(if not more) harmful in affecting their work over a longer period?

I certainly didn't like the idea of set points - as the opposer commented, people may go to all sorts of lengths to achieve a pass. You could get the ludicrous situation of someone in theory getting more than 100%.

If an event is severe enough to be worth taking into a account, the variation in effect between students seems quite likely enough to make any kind of compensation scale useless, and a delayed examination possibly the fairer option (or possibly, an optional no-fault resit if the student tries anyway and doesn't get anything like their expected grade).

If there is continual assessment these days, presumably it should be easier to work out if a suspected affected exam grade really is below expectations?

I've heard a lot of teachers say that they think the teaching is better these days, but they would say that wouldn't they?

Quote:
I've heard a lot of teachers say that they think the teaching is better these days, but they would say that wouldn't they?
Unquote

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not if MY primary school teacher was anything to go by. An absolute dragon, we all hated her, but by God was she good. All 39, yes 39! of her kids passed their 11+. Most of them were from a sink council estate.
But I have also recently heard teachers who have said that, because no one in their class actually wanted to learn ANYTHING AT ALL, they have effectively been working as little more than childminders. Given up on the kids completely, and in some cases maybe understandably so.
Respect for the teacher from the kids has gone, and so has the framework around which the teachers could wrap some sort control. Getting back things once lost is so very much harder than retaining them in the first place.


Nao


Nao

Potholer,

>If an event is severe enough to be worth taking into a account, the variation in >effect between students seems quite likely enough to make any kind of compensation >scale useless, and a delayed examination possibly the fairer option (or possibly, an >optional no-fault resit if the student tries anyway and doesn't get anything like >their expected grade).
--snipped--

This is a valid point --- who is to say/determine that a death of [something] will definitely mean your performance in exam X will be decreased by 5%? If I were to be facetious for a moment, is the death of the family cat worth more than the death of the family fish? And would the death of five obscure aunts equate to your brother? Is a grandparent worth half your parents, and would 6 weeks of glandular fever then equate to 2 weeks of gastroenteritis?

I'm rapidly heading towards my finals, and yes - I'm in the same position as Z (yep - I now have a job!). I know people who have lost parents, grandparents and other loved ones close to exam season --- all have reacted in different ways.

--

To those who say 'grades aren't what they used to be blah blah blah',

If you feel that people are being accepted into higher education who are not capable then unless you interview the candidates, you can be rest assured that those who can't, will either be:

1. Leaving of their own accord
2. Thrown out after failing the first year.

Just because they get in the door, doesn't mean that they will be leaving with a degree. For those who are the David Blaines of higher education, they will rapidly find out that the job choices which they have made will not be for them. Though you may not nab them at the first attempt, it does not mean that their own [lack of] ability will catch them out later in life. Natural selection has a rather neat way of rearing its bejewelled head in life...

Stay ,
WD

Its been 34 years since I sat my O Levels, so things have changed LOTS, however as I recall we only sat 6 O Levels. My daughters have all sat at least 11 GCSEs.

My friends sat CSE's and it was felt that unless you got a grade 1 they merely indicated you'd been educated.

Of course in those days we needed lots of not too imaginative people to work the production lines, nowadays......

As my eldest was home-educated from 8 - 16, and actually sat IGSE exams (no course work) I have the curious situation of having trained my daughter to a higher grade than I achieved in several subjects - I can only assume this proves the old adage - those who can do, etc.