Out in 10 hours! Good luck to anyone who has taken them this year!
odds on the results being fiddled with anyone?
or will the pass rate finally flatten out?
Quote from: Daveor will the pass rate finally flatten out?
Joker :twisted:
Still, good luck to anyone waiting on results :)
It was said on the radio 23 years in a row pass rates have gone up. :lol:
Suprise...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4801035.stm
Just saw on welsh news that welsh results:
25% As
50% A or B
What the hell is that!!! A levels are meant to be hard? Surely thats not right?
lol could be the fact that kids who can actually do A Levels are staying on, with the majority of kids who cant but do so any way, dropping out after AS levels.
percentages mean naff all unless quoted with actual figures.
Quote from: M3ta7h3adlol could be the fact that kids who can actually do A Levels are staying on, with the majority of kids who cant but do so any way, dropping out after AS levels.
nope Im afraid they are simply being fiddled with:
QuoteThere was a record number of entries overall at 805,698, 2.8% more than last year.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4801035.stmlittle wonder that plenty of the top private schools have already started to give up on the ALevel system & are offering the IB as an alternative
I did em a few years ago, and I know a lot of people who did them this year, they aint easy!
Quote from: White GiantI did em a few years ago, and I know a lot of people who did them this year, they aint easy!
"easier" might be the better term then - at least for science subjects
not sure about the others but the majority will have had the grade boundaries or marking schemes fiddled with over time & the structure of the questions have been changed in order to aid candidates further - seems to be a lot less emphasis on actually solving problems & applying your knowledge & more emphasis on remembering how a certian type of problem is solved & simply following that same pattern again
put it this way we used an old O-level text book to cover most of the A-level pure maths stuff & that was back in 97-99 - standards have no doubt slipped even further by now
18 year olds covering topics that under O-levels were taught to 16 year olds - they are blatantly easier.
a-levels these days make a mockery of the older ones, and empolyers know that. I actually know people who have done computing a-levels and they cant code freehand. They can tell you all the design and methods, they can do HTML, but present them with something harder and they fall to bits. I started a-levels and switched to a BTEC Nat Diploma in Computer Studies becasue i wanted to do that in the 1st place. The Nat Dip taught us Pascal as per usual at the time, and COBOL with extra classes in C and Oracle.
Quote from: DaveQuote from: White GiantI did em a few years ago, and I know a lot of people who did them this year, they aint easy!
"easier" might be the better term then - at least for science subjects
not sure about the others but the majority will have had the grade boundaries or marking schemes fiddled with over time & the structure of the questions have been changed in order to aid candidates further - seems to be a lot less emphasis on actually solving problems & applying your knowledge & more emphasis on remembering how a certian type of problem is solved & simply following that same pattern again
put it this way we used an old O-level text book to cover most of the A-level pure maths stuff & that was back in 97-99 - standards have no doubt slipped even further by now
18 year olds covering topics that under O-levels were taught to 16 year olds - they are blatantly easier.
Except we were using old A level past paper books for physics to pass A level physics nowerdays in my school.
Can honestly say while I was getting 80% in my A level past paper book, I hit a D grade in my actual synoptic paper.
The practical and the theory was a bastard with more deriviations than anything wed studied for. If science is getting easier then its certain boards that are letting the side down. WJEC was hard as nails.
AQA on the other hand, Chemistry, As an A2 Student we had a look at the new AQA syllabus for AS Chemistry it was piss... covered very very basic organic, and more about the transition metals (boring crap) than anything. WJEC syllabus (what we were on) covered full organic chemistry in the first year, with further organics, and the addition of physical chemistry in the second. Was a whore... an absolute whore.
@M3ta7h3ad That was a nuber of years ago now tho wasnt it, you not 18 now ;)
Another thing I heard, again a welsh statistic (but im guessing its the same all over) is that there is a 97% pass rate!! If only 3% of people fail then the test isnt hard enough! People may be getting smarter or the education system better (as Mr Blair wants us to think) but if 97% of applicants pass then the exam is too easy.
These figures really annoyed me, exams should be a challenge and a fair representation of the nations ability. If 25% of the country have As then how can anyone be expected to distinguish between them? They are not all as capable as eachother and grades should differentiate them from one another.
It does no one any real good to inflate grades, in universities they adjust grade boundries to fit the correct % of people in each grade. This seems a much better way of accounting for differences in exam papers.
Quote from: sexytw@M3ta7h3ad That was a nuber of years ago now tho wasnt it, you not 18 now ;)
Another thing I heard, again a welsh statistic (but im guessing its the same all over) is that there is a 97% pass rate!! If only 3% of people fail then the test isnt hard enough! People may be getting smarter or the education system better (as Mr Blair wants us to think) but if 97% of applicants pass then the exam is too easy.
Things may have changed since I was at school but back then a pass was considered a G or better. So in other words, to fail the exam you have to get a U.
Of course, a G isnt a
good pass but it is a pass nevertheless.
True, it is A-E grades for A level. But looking at the figures on pass rates (from BBC):
2001: 89.6%
2002: 94.3%
2003: 95.4%
2004: 96.0%
2005: 96.2%
a 6.6% increase in 4 years is pretty big, and with more people than ever taking the exams it should be going down if anything.
Quote from: sexytwTrue, it is A-E grades for A level. But looking at the figures on pass rates (from BBC):
2001: 89.6%
2002: 94.3%
2003: 95.4%
2004: 96.0%
2005: 96.2%
a 6.6% increase in 4 years is pretty big, and with more people than ever taking the exams it should be going down if anything.
but remember that in Modern Culture its considered a bad thing for the word "fail" to appear on anything. Personally I think its a good word for people, bloody good motivation word. Nobody wants to be referred to as A Failure, I heard some Do-Gooder talking about "Alternative Pass" when what she meant was the dude she referred to was a failure at everything.
% system would be far more useful - just give you a % mark based on where you came compared to everyone else who took the exam
no arguments then tbh.. top 10% will automatically be included in the 90-100% mark & employers & universitys will actually have a way of comapring candidates
Agreed.
Like IQ tests are referenced, you are in the top x percentile. Much more useful to everyone. Then everyone knows whats going on.
Quote from: sexytwAgreed.
Like IQ tests are referenced, you are in the top x percentile. Much more useful to everyone. Then everyone knows whats going on.
Yeah, makes sense to me.
Quote from: Dave% system would be far more useful - just give you a % mark based on where you came compared to everyone else who took the exam
no arguments then tbh.. top 10% will automatically be included in the 90-100% mark & employers & universitys will actually have a way of comapring candidates
Well that is the way they are going - from next year individual module grades will be available to unis as well as overall grades. Wouldnt have been great for me as I had a couple of mediocre 65%s pulled up by a couple of 97% grades in one or two of mine.
I would dispute the statement that the rise in pass rate and A grade pass rate is
only to do with falling standards. In some a-levels certainly the standards are lower in some respects but these are not the only factors. Also you have to remember two other facts
1) The people who are saying a-levels are easier now are people who took them in the past and are perhaps a little annoyed that people seem to be getting top grades more easily these days.
2)Statisticians are bloody liars! Well not quite but stats can be presented in a more favourable light.
For example one point that hasnt been made is that the AS A grade rate is
significantly lower than that of the A2 rate. Something like 17.5% as comapred to 23/24%. This would indicate to me at least that the ability to try more subjects in your first year then stick with your stronger subjects may mean people end up with higher grades as they end up taking exams in their stronger areas where previously students taking 3 A-levels from start to finish were stuck with their choices. (An example from my own experience would be chemistry - learned after the first year that I wasnt bad at it I just couldn;t be bothered as it was bloody boring. As it happens I continued with it as I wanted 5 A-levels not 4)
Some other reasons for and increase in pass rates.
1) The modular nature means that the infiormation is fresh in your mind when you take the test. Now you could argue that taking all your exams at the end of your course ensures you dont just cram an area and then forget about it but actually learn the subject. Possibly, or it may just be that modular teaching helps to learn the subject in a structured way which makes it in turn easier to pass.
At this point though you have to ask yourself - do we want A-levels to be hard enough to keep a circa %10 A pass rate to show who are the brightest or do we award an A grade to everybody who has achieved a certain level of understanding and knowledge of the subject?
From the point of view of a top uni then clearly you want to know about the very best, but from the point of view of a less selective uni then maybe you just want all your students to have a certain understanding of a particular subject.
Then you have to ask do we apply a normal distribution to exam grades and use linear interpolation to assign people into different quotas of grades.
2)Perhaps teaching methods have improved - I personally dont think this is true but it is a point worth considering.
3) Teaching is more geared towards passing exams rather than learning about a subject and receiving a broad education. Now this I agree with, in fact in some courses we spent quite a portion of the the last term in revision classes doing exam questions rather than learning anything new about the course. Now Im not saying this is right or that this is how it should be done, but it would explain a rise in top grade passes. Also the fact that many teachers are assessed on their pass rates and can get better jobs based on this certainly gives them the impetus to persue this method.
4)The fact that there are more "soft option" courses now (media studies, social studies etc. you know what they are) which have enormous A-grade pass rates pushes the overall average up, whereas the more traditional (and increasingly neglected to the point where some courses eg. Physics are being dropped in some schools) retain more realistic grade distribution.
5)Perhaps kids are getting brighter - I certainly dont agree with this but it is a possible reason.
6)In order to standardise testing and make sure that each year has fair balanced course a large amount of repitition and predictability has come in. This combined with the exam focus of teachers means that it is easier to train people to answer predictable questions even if they are theoretically difficult.
Also people keep saying that they used O-level books to teach their A-Level courses, a couple of questions:
1) Did using these books allow people to get the top grades?
2)Could it not also be that instead of A-levels being much easier GCSES are much easier than old O-levels (a statement I really do find hard to dispute) and that we are now having to bring people all the way from below old O-level standard up to that standard and then into A-Level standard.
At the end of the day top unis havent been overly impressed by 3 or more As at A-Level for a number of years. For example 4-5 years ago I was predicted 5 As I think in my A-levels (which I didnt actually get but thats irrelevant with reagrads to my actual uni applications) which got me an interview at Cambridge uni, but then everybody was predicted the same so we were tested by them and put through various interviews to actually assess our abilities (didnt get in btw although I do partly blame the fact that I was tested on material I was to cover just after my cambridge test.)
Also this talk of bringing in extra exams or introducing an A*/A+ level at the top of the stack is all very well but we have actually had a system in place for years, although nobody has heard of it. Assuming it still runs the exams are called S.T.E.P which are Sixth Term Examination Papers, I know a lot of the Oxbridge colleges I looked at either reccomended or required that you take these.
As for the IB system, I imagine it does stretch people more than A-Levels, but I wouldnt have wanted to take it myself as it would have stopped me concentrating entirely on my science course and have forced me to take some amount of english or foreign language or whatever (Can someone confirm what exactly the structure is?) and I really didnt want to do that. Frankly for the sort of uni course and sort of career that I was and am interested in I dont really see the point in me learning a language to A-level/ IB standard as no job ever seems to require this (they either tend to want you fluent in another language or have no requirement). Similarly I think that my level of english is more than adequte and wouldnt really have befited from two years of reading pride and prejudice and sense and sensibility (which are in fact the two major texts that a friend who did english lit at a-level studied and got nothing from unless you count being able to quote such tripe as "oh mr darcy blah blah blah" as useful).
Well didnt mean to come out with quite such a tirade but it does annoy me when people with no statistical knowledge/qaulification and who havent actually looked at a recent A-level paper and actually compared it to an older one (but I read it in the Daily Nazi I mean Daily Mail so it must be true.....) go shooting their mouths off.
PS. I after all that in my balanced opinion A-Levels are probably getting easier :P
Edit: Boody hell 1300+ words and I always used to hate writing essays!
Wow, there are certainly a number of valid points there that would lead to a greater number of high A level results.
As you say it is all down to what A levels are meant to do, prove a student can attain a specific level or to provide a method of comparing students to one another.
I guess with so many people going to uni nowadays there are degrees to seperate people now.
I cant see the problem tbh.
Theres a simple way of testing if things are easier. Get someone who knows their stuff to work through a modern A-level paper and an old a-level paper. I think most who have tried will find the old right or wrong system was harder.
I actually suspect the reason grades are going up isnt because the questions themselves are getting easier but rather because the marking standard is gradually giving more points for people who have attempted a question or shown a basic understanding of whats required by the question.
The short version is yes, they are getting easier.
On the other hand, what does it matter? With the older a-levels the universities werent requiring 4 As at a-level to do any semi competent subject whereas now they are.
The government want 50% of people in the UK to go to university and A-levels are just the guide. I really dont see it matters that its getting easier as long as we dont approach the point where >50% of the population are getting straight As.
Quote from: ThrawnAlso people keep saying that they used O-level books to teach their A-Level courses, a couple of questions:
1) Did using these books allow people to get the top grades?
2)Could it not also be that instead of A-levels being much easier GCSES are much easier than old O-levels (a statement I really do find hard to dispute) and that we are now having to bring people all the way from below old O-level standard up to that standard and then into A-Level standard.
1) - yes - pure maths doesnt change much
2) - well both tbh.. the maths GCSE is so much easier than the old O-Level it is a joke - & by definition if youre having to teach stuff that used to be covered at O-level then youd end up missing out a load of stuff that would have been covered in the old A-Level & have to introduce a new one & call it say "further maths" in order to incorporate all the extra pure stuff that should have already been covered & offer some more applied maths.
maths teachers at my old school used to constantly moan about falling standards & so put a lot of us in for the first A-level maths modules at the same time as our GCSEs
Quote from: SteveFI cant see the problem tbh.
the problem is that universitys are taking more time to re-teach subjects that would have previously been well covered & examined by A-levels & also there isnt much differentiation betweent he top students - if the top 24% get an A in a particular subject how can you tell who is in say the top 10% or top 5%?
My sister was among the top 3 in the country for A level chemistry when she did her A-level - she got a nice letter from the examiner congratulating her on this but in the end she has simply got an A on her certificate just like the thousands of others who took the exam.
tis all Criterion-based marking these days too whereas previously there were quotas of As and Bs - the newer system allows politicians to turn round each year & say look how standards have improved when in reality the qualification is being cheapened.
If they are getting above a 50% pass rate then its effectively worthless for unis to find the best performers and the difficulty should be adjusted accordingly. A level exams are a lot easier than they once were.
Quote from: DaveQuote from: SteveFI cant see the problem tbh.
the problem is that universitys are taking more time to re-teach subjects that would have previously been well covered & examined by A-levels & also there isnt much differentiation betweent he top students - if the top 24% get an A in a particular subject how can you tell who is in say the top 10% or top 5%?
My sister was among the top 3 in the country for A level chemistry when she did her A-level - she got a nice letter from the examiner congratulating her on this but in the end she has simply got an A on her certificate just like the thousands of others who took the exam.
you mean top 3 in the country for her examining board, as examining boards dont rank other examining boards students, as the content of A levels is not governed by a national curriculum, but a "suggestion" of what should be covered.
Same with regards to university degrees, you cant say they are reteaching A level stuff in uni, because EVERY uni differs in the way it teaches its courses, and the content within.
I can say that with the majority of my modules in uni I would be lucky if I got a "you should have covered this in the first year but heres a recap" let alone "ah you did this at a level".
Quote from: M3ta7h3adSame with regards to university degrees, you cant say they are reteaching A level stuff in uni, because EVERY uni differs in the way it teaches its courses, and the content within.
yes but they are still recognising the general fall in standards
Quote from: DaveQuote from: SteveFI cant see the problem tbh.
the problem is that universitys are taking more time to re-teach subjects that would have previously been well covered & examined by A-levels & also there isnt much differentiation betweent he top students - if the top 24% get an A in a particular subject how can you tell who is in say the top 10% or top 5%?
Its simple... I did engineering and when I went to uni the entire a-level syllabus RE: integration and differentiation (about the ontl tricky bit of A-level maths and physics) was covered in 2 revision lectures. one month into the first year the work at a-level was obsolete as kids stuff.
Some subjects may have to recover ground but the reality for the technical subjects/sciences is uni just rockets you away from that level of difficulty so fast that you dont catch your breath till mid second year.
Its no issue. A-levels are no longer a true qualification - theyre now just a guide as to those who can probably keep their head above water in university education and those who will fail through either lack of ability or lack of motivation to sit through lectures.
People are making too big a deal about it a-level standards lol. Sure, 5-10 years ago sure Id be all with you but the point where a-level grades actually mean anything was so long ago the people still complaining about it are either out of touch or just bitter that they got lower grades. Just accept a-levels are just the basic entry for 50% of the population to have a degree and move on :)
QuoteI can say that with the majority of my modules in uni I would be lucky if I got a "you should have covered this in the first year but heres a recap" let alone "ah you did this at a level".
And we have a winner - probably because hes in or been through the university system recently. The way it works is they just say you need to know how to do something. If youve done it before great, if you havent then you better get up to speed yourself or in tutorials very fast or you will fail.
Uni teaching in no way depends upion what you know anymore. They work on the basis that you are capable of knowing it so its your responsible to find out how to do things yourselves. With so many exmaining boards, so many countries contributing to the undergraduate recruitment pool and so many levels of ability and age what you did or didnt do in a 6th form at school has almost no bearing whatsoever.
Quote from: SteveFPeople are making too big a deal about it a-level standards lol. Sure, 5-10 years ago sure Id be all with you but the point where a-level grades actually mean anything
which is exactly why people are making a big deal out of them - the qualification is getting dumbed down each year - more and more private school kids are getting to do the IB which universitys look upon very favorably 35/40 in the IB is equivalent to 4 As at ALevel btw...
most people in the state sector are still stuck with A Level qualifications that are going to put them at a dissadvantage as the qualification is continually cheapened.
as far as the job market & university entrance is concerned a bright kid with the IB, scottish highers* or the Irish leaving certificate is known to have better qualifications than the a-level students.
* yeah i know these are more like AS level but are still far supoerior to the equivalent english AS exams
If you accept that the A-levels have now gone to be so meaningless theyre just entry exams for uni then its really not a problem. If the a-level decline was stopped several years ago then fine, now its simply locking the barn door after the horse has bolted.
Quote from: SteveFIf you accept that the A-levels have now gone to be so meaningless theyre just entry exams for uni then its really not a problem. If the a-level decline was stopped several years ago then fine, now its simply locking the barn door after the horse has bolted.
that attitude sucks tbh...
tis like well the kids have been doing sub standard exams for a while so lets do nothing about it - the whole point is that it is now perfectly clear that standards have dropped we ought to be doing something to change that.
theyre not just entry exams for uni- not everyone goes to uni - though Im guessing people who leave school at 18 would prob want to have a qualification that is still valued.
even people who are just using them as entry for uni are getting a raw deal (especially the brightest kids) as there is no differentiation between them and other A graders who might have vastly different abilities. - it isnt just oxford and cambridge who have to choose between students with straight As - quite a few other top unis have to do it now and not all of these have extra papers for students to take
/Disclaimer/ The following opinion is not based or changed on the ever improving A-Level standards results.......
There are lot of options avaialable for school leavers these days, you dont have to go and do A-Levels. It all depends on where you want to go and what you want to achieve. Really if you want to go onto further education and have your heart set on it, A-Levels are the best route. They have allways been the preferance of universities, in some case only accepted qualification.
I think it is fair to say they have allways been less industry recognised, the reason being, it doesnt tell the employer what you are capable of, unlike industry recognised qualifications, which tell the employer exactly what they are getting
On the oposite end of the scale are AVCEs, a type of NVQ. It is an industry recognised qualification., if your set on employment and you know where then great, it can be a real advantage in the workplace. The same as taking any industry qualification, from fork lift licenses to cisco networking certificates.
http://www.aqa.org.uk/qual/avce.html
In the middle of the two you have the middle ground with other NVQ qulifications which typically take place at your local college or traning courses with an apprenticeship/job. IE OND, HNDs, NVQs. These have been both academically recognised by universities and industry recognised by companies for both the theorectical and practical work that takes place as part of the course.
I did an OND in Engineering at my local college, at the time I had no plan of going to university, neither was I interesed in going striaght into employment. But I also wanted to further my qualifications and experiance in what was my interest at the time.
The point is, imho, unless you have your heart set on a degree or other further education, dont go running of to do A-Levels.
Quote from: CypherReally if you want to go onto further education and have your heart set on it, A-Levels are the best route.
aside from say the IB, scottish highers, & the Irish leaving certificate
ok so there arent too many people doing the IB in the UK - mostly private schools - though there are plenty of international students doing it & universitys rate it far higher than A-levels - 35/40 in the IB = 4As at A level
QuoteThe point is, imho, unless you have your heart set on a degree or other further education, dont go running of to do A-Levels.
erm - they are not & were never intended to be *just* a route to uni - plenty of people leave education at 18 & dont go into industrys that require NVQs etc.. - you can train as an accountant with A-Levels btw...
not many jobs actually require a degree - lots of employers are asking for degrees these days for jobs that in the past would have been done by an A-level school leaver
Quote from: DaveQuote from: CypherReally if you want to go onto further education and have your heart set on it, A-Levels are the best route.
aside from say the IB, scottish highers, & the Irish leaving certificate
ok so there arent too many people doing the IB in the UK - mostly private schools - though there are plenty of international students doing it & universitys rate it far higher than A-levels - 35/40 in the IB = 4As at A level
QuoteThe point is, imho, unless you have your heart set on a degree or other further education, dont go running of to do A-Levels.
erm - they are not & were never intended to be *just* a route to uni - plenty of people leave education at 18 & dont go into industrys that require NVQs etc.. - you can train as an accountant with A-Levels btw...
not many jobs actually require a degree - lots of employers are asking for degrees these days for jobs that in the past would have been done by an A-level school leaver
thats because 35/40 is just as difficult as getting bloody 4 As!
If you did an "accountancy" a level it would mean jack sh*te. Unless it has ACCA on it noone is interested, or unless you have a degree in engineering, maths, physics, accountancy.
A levels for the people who actually take them (so scottish highers, and irish leavers is out) are the best option to get into uni. Required grades are still given in terms of A level points, as opposed to grades, so to be honest A level grades mean naff all... not A levels.
IE 360 Points, not 2 As and a C or whatever.
Quotethats because 35/40 is just as difficult as getting bloody 4 As!
exactly - so brighter students doing A-Levels are immediately at a dissadvantage as the exams will not challenge them as much nor reflect the difference between a bright person with an A grade & a very bright person with an A grade.
there are 6 grade categorys - a.b,c,d,e & u - yet 1/4 fall into the top category - the "C" grade was originally intended to represent the average achievement yet this is now mostly represented by the lower end of the "b" grade
QuoteIf you did an "accountancy" a level it would mean jack sh*te. Unless it has ACCA on it noone is interested, or unless you have a degree in engineering, maths, physics, accountancy.
erm re read my post - I said you can train to be an accountant with "A-Levels" I didnt say you needed an accountancy A-Level
QuoteA levels for the people who actually take them (so scottish highers, and irish leavers is out) are the best option to get into uni.
no they arent - the IB is regarded as being a better qualification and is taken by people who would otherwise have done A-levels - this is precisely why more private schools are offering the IB - the universitys prefer it & it ups thier admissions to the top unis
The majority of University goers are state schooled, not private.
The majority of admissions to university are A levels.
The only people who will get 4 As are the exceedingly bright people, the same people who will get 35/40. You dont get Jo bloggs getting 4 As.
and A grade is just an A grade in 1 subject. To give that dedication needed to get that A grade in all 4 subjects is insane. Youd not have a social life.
Quote from: Daveerm - they are not & were never intended to be *just* a route to uni - plenty of people leave education at 18 & dont go into industrys that require NVQs etc.. - you can train as an accountant with A-Levels btw...
Im not saying those with A-Levels cant get a job, or go of and do Leisure & Tourism, Finance, Law, whatever. Im saying they would be at a distinct disadvantage.
Say some one applies for a posistion in First Choice for a senior travel assistant or whatever, who would raise more of an eye brow looking at the CVs, mr 4 A levels, or AVCE in Leisure & Tourism.
Yes some one could be trained with any organisation for any posistion. But how many companies are willing to do that, why not just hire some one with the recognised qualification to say what hes/shes studied and done.
I just remembered actually, Ive got a friend working in Coventry who was being trained up in the Finance department for an insurance company, was doing pretty well. Think hes been there since school iirc. Oppurtunities like that are few and far these days.
I agree that the problem with A-Levels is not the award it self, but the grade system and the recognition it gets. It doesnt tell an employer a lot.
Quote from: M3ta7h3adThe majority of University goers are state schooled, not private.
very large portion of the entrants to top unis are private
QuoteThe majority of admissions to university are A levels.
so if the majority of hospitals had poor waiting lists would you say - well never mind its been like this for years - there has been a steady decline in the NHS why bother doing anything about it....
why not actually make the effort to improve something that most people realise has been getting poorer over the past decade or so
QuoteIm not saying those with A-Levels cant get a job, or go of and do Leisure & Tourism, Finance, Law, whatever. Im saying they would be at a distinct disadvantage.
Say some one applies for a posistion in First Choice for a senior travel assistant or whatever, who would raise more of an eye brow looking at the CVs, mr 4 A levels, or AVCE in Leisure & Tourism.
well it depends on the industry - my point is that A-levels are not just for people wanting to go to uni - plenty of people dont want the debt etc.. but dont fancy a trade/vocation - NVQ route - if someone wanted to train as an accountant without a degree or get an entry level position within a big bank etc.. then A-levels would be the way to go tbh... but since the qualification is getting so devalued increasingly some employers are looking for graduates for these positions.
there are about 300,000 people who work in the city of london - most of these people wont have been through the traditional graduate training scheme - but they do have people with 2.1s in history etc.. working in back office roles these days in some investment banks - this is traditionally an A-Level leaver job - the grad starts off being a bit chuffed cos he/she is in the city working for a big bank when in reality they are simply doing a clerical/admin job - plenty of other places still have A-level leavers doing these jobs but it is on the decrease as the quality of entrants is decreasing so they have to recruit people with degrees they will probably never use.
If we had a better standard of A-level & reduced the number of university places then we could probably not only reduce student debt & get rid of micky mouse courses & former polys but also improve the quality of entrants to companies for jobs that really dont require degrees.
I mean they used to give out grants for unis - now all theyve done is lower the standards - expand polys & created loads of devalued courses so that the same job that used to be done by a school leaver is now done by a grad who might as well have not bothered with uni in the first place.
Quote from: DaveQuoteIm not saying those with A-Levels cant get a job, or go of and do Leisure & Tourism, Finance, Law, whatever. Im saying they would be at a distinct disadvantage.
Say some one applies for a posistion in First Choice for a senior travel assistant or whatever, who would raise more of an eye brow looking at the CVs, mr 4 A levels, or AVCE in Leisure & Tourism.
I mean they used to give out grants for unis - now all theyve done is lower the standards - expand polys & created loads of devalued courses so that the same job that used to be done by a school leaver is now done by a grad who might as well have not bothered with uni in the first place.
So now your going off of A levels, and saying that Degrees are "dumbed down" because of A levels. Bollocks mate, Unis do not care what you learnt at A level, if you dont know something on your course, that they think you should know, then you have to go learn it on your own. You dont get a handholding, your lucky if you get the book you need thrown at your head, its normally a case of googling some decent research on it, or heading to the library.
The only thing A level points are used for are entry, and thats it. Lecturers do not waste their time teaching playschool topics to degree students, you get told you know something, if you dont... then your on your own.
Rich is spot on imo.
Jaimz :rock:
Quote from: M3ta7h3adSo now your going off of A levels, and saying that Degrees are "dumbed down" because of A levels. Bollocks mate,
so do you think maths at say Luton is equivalent to maths at a traditional red brick such as say bristol or manchester?
Nah must be the same - A-Levels arent slipping - kids are just getting brighter & all these new universitys that are popping up and handing out degrees are still maintaining the same standards.....
yeah right :roll:
Quote from: DaveQuote from: M3ta7h3adSo now your going off of A levels, and saying that Degrees are "dumbed down" because of A levels. Bollocks mate,
so do you think maths at say Luton is equivalent to maths at a traditional red brick such as say bristol or manchester?
Nah must be the same - A-Levels arent slipping - kids are just getting brighter & all these new universitys that are popping up and handing out degrees are still maintaining the same standards.....
yeah right :roll:
Universities do not have a curriculum to follow, therefore people covering maths in luton and people covering maths at bristol will probably cover different subjects, so to compare them would be comparing apples and oranges. They are both round, both come from a tree, but they are completely different.
The standards of a degree are completely different to what you expect at A level.
As a national average, the 2.2 degree still reigns supreme, a first is still incredibly hard to get unless you really put the effort in, or have a natural aptitude for the specialism of your degree, a 2.1 is what most people who put the effort in, aim for.
A degree is also more specialised than an A level. A level physics for example will cover any topic under the sun from astronomy, to quantum mechanics. A degree in physics starts with a broad range of subjects, but gradually becomes more specialised as you go on through it. Its the same with any degree you take.
Computer Science may teach you everything about hardware, networking, software engineering in the first year, then second year you get a few options, then the 3rd you get more. By the end of my degree Ill have specialised in knowledge based systems and Artificial Intelligence... completely something else when someone else who taking Computer science can choose to specialise in software design, compiler design, and databases.
Same degree title, completely different specialisations.
with regards to the polytechnic -> university route, typically they obtain lecturers who have just completed doctorates, or masters, while they wont have the knowledge or indeed experience of a professor of whatever subject, they sure as hell arent slouches in their fields.
Polytechnics can give great education for Batchelors, would I trust them with a masters... well at that stage most of the work you do is your own, including the research and self learning, so yeah I probably would if they offered one.
They are also a great thing for university leavers, as I already said, new universities will recruit newly decorated doctorates to lecture at their institution... means that more jobs are out there for the rest of us! :)
QuoteAs a national average, the 2.2 degree still reigns supreme,
over 50% of grads get a 2:1 or a 1st btw...
Quote from: M3ta7h3adSame degree title, completely different specialisations.
well that is an optimistic way of putting it - maths at luton (dubbed the worst uni in the UK) is a different specialisation to say maths at bristol - nothing to do with them reteaching A-level maths to the students who barely understood it first time round
unis do not "recap"! ffs.
Quote from: M3ta7h3adunis do not "recap"! ffs.
no - proper unis dont
some sub standard unis that used to be called polytechnics do
Quote from: DaveQuote from: M3ta7h3adunis do not "recap"! ffs.
no - proper unis dont
some sub standard unis that used to be called polytechnics do
any proof?? or are you basing this on completely unfounded speculation??
Metal - a word to the wise...
I stopped debating this stuff to Dave ages ago and should have known better than post in this thread. You just go round in circles as he has a bee in his bonnet about education and universities in general for an as yet undiscovered reason. The specific topic doesnt matter it just ends up the same conversation - you may be better to save your time.
A number like 50% of people who go to university get a 2:1 or first is just meaningless. You know it, I know it and everyone who actually thinks about it knows it.
From people who start uni a ton drop out because they cant do it or end up taking simpler courses. The number of drop outs is so high that the 50% is already clearly nonsense. Now assume he is just talking about those who complete their degree (which is substantially less than started there first degree but lets put that aside) the marking system of universities is not right or wrong but is scaled so the same %age of people get the same grade no matter the number of entrants. Now that has issues in itself with creating a surplus of qualified applicants for a job but thats nothing to do with standards but simply the effect of 10% of a billion people being more than 10% of a million. By the exact same logic theres a even larger number of people failing degrees and getting 3rds and 2:2s.
Each university marks their students relative to one another internally then a board of examiners from other universities comes in and review the universities top students, bottom students and the average level and uses that info to scale every member of the country against one another. this scaling applies to all degrees be it at a poly, oxbridge or any other uni. If youre taking the same subject (or one with same core subjects) then it should make no difference where you do it and a lot of time is spent balancing across the universities.
Now you need to be in the system or marking the system to know this. Now consider how well do you know the university system from your experience (2nd degree right?) and what is Daves background experience with it. You should see why you are coming at it from different angles.
Dave sees more people with high grade degrees around (more people in uni these days) and feels his degree is being devalued and gets grumpy. Youre in the system and know that you have to achieve a good grade to get your 2:1 or 1st (regardless of the number of people you still have to get over that %age).
Neither of you are actually wrong just the logical flow from what dave sees to the explanations he comes up with dont really make sense or at least never have to me. The issues are the number of people going to university and not the grades they got to get in. Falling A-level grades is meaningless as a grading system as they are now a uni entry level in that you either did them or didnt. The government wants degrees to provide transferrable skills rather than pure academic knowledge (my personal bug bear) so its just a can they go to uni or not qualification and the grades dont matter to any university apart from the current top tier who wish to maintain that position by recruiting the highest scoring students to begin with. There are causes behind all these things but just pointing at the end result and saying oh well thats wrong seems a bit futile tbh.
And just as a vague recap... Dave states that good unis dont recap a-level info but polys do. Any basis for this? Been to polys and mid stream and top flight unis? taught at any? marked any student papers from any? Its simply not the case anymore. The polys get more high scoring students by teaching obscure apprentice subjects that cant be balanced properly against the other unis - nothing more. You see tons of people flooding out with degrees in photography, fashion design, animatronics, golf course management etc but a kid at a poly doing biology is the same as one doing it at oxbridge. They will most likely have less of a chance of gettign the top grade because they wont have the teaching and peer pressure to do as well but the course and the qualification are equal. The standards arent dropping just the polys teach subjects the top flight dont so can only be balanced against the other polys. Theyre effectively exploiting the %age system so they dont have to compete against everyone but this is a very different issue from the one being described. The problem actually goes away through commone sense because when you see a graduate with a 2:1 in media + event planning you know what it means compared to a student with a 2:1 in a subject like maths that every uni does. To simply dismiss poly students totally in that way is not really on - dismissing people by subject might work but not by university even though were all guilty of it in joking conversation.
I havent read through everything in this thread cause theyre are quite a few rather long replies. I work in Pennywell School in Sunderland, last few years theyve been 18 out of 18 schools in Sunderland.
People keep on saying that GCSEs and A-levels are getting easier and yeah alright they probably are but lets not forget about what passing a few exams gives people other than a bit of paper, confidence.
Some of the kids in here have no confidence at all, they think they wont get jobs and are gonna live on the dole their entire lives so they dont try. You give them a few GCSEs and suddenly things change, they know that employers might actually take an interest or maybe now they can go off and go to college and eventually uni.
So maybe its not all to do with just the bits of paper.
QuoteA number like 50% of people who go to university get a 2:1 or first is just meaningless. You know it, I know it and everyone who actually thinks about it knows it.
it was in response to the assumtion that 2:2 was average - 2:1 is pretty much the norm these days - & often the minimum requirement for most grad schemes
Quote from: SteveFDave sees more people with high grade degrees around (more people in uni these days) and feels his degree is being devalued and gets grumpy. Youre in the system and know that you have to achieve a good grade to get your 2:1 or 1st (regardless of the number of people you still have to get over that %age).
sorry but you know nothing about me tbh..
my rant about polys & lower A-level standards is nothing to do with and perceved devaluation of my CV - I doubt Ill be applying for any new jobs anytime soon as Im pretty happy where I am now & Im also sure that if I was to move in the distant future then academic qualifications wouldnt really matter for me compared with experience & track record.
I also think A-levels were devalued when i did them btw - at least the maths one was as it was the modular - if you dont get the grade first time round take it again - system. (though chemistry was still 3 hour practical, 3 hour structured questions & 3 hour written paper) - still I reckon compared to say people in the early 90s ours were worth a bit less - especially when looking back at the past papers while revising.
as for the polys - I really dont see your point there - some of these places will offer courses to people with with 2*Es etc...
the reteaching a-levels stuff came from a sunday times article published a few years back about Luton being the worst university in the UK - they quoted a maths student complaining about his course & how a lot of the students barely passed a-level so a lot of lectures consisted of re-capping basics. - IIRC Luton no longer has a proper maths dept - or has at least scaled back on it
my main gripe with this is pretty much political - I totally disagree with the new labour dream of 50% of the population going to university - If university attendance was scaled back to pre 1992 levels then kids would probably not have to have tuition fees & run up huge debt.
New courses are being invented all the time & the govt likes to chuck money at them when IMO they arent doing much good -Im not totally against polys (yes we did used to have a lot of banter with the shef hallam students)- I mean for vocational courses they are very useful- however we are going to have a large protion of grads in the future in fairly mundane jobs who will have had no requirement to go to university int he first place - I do think that some courses need to be rethought & others need to be scrapped or cut back - too many people doing sociology & media studies tbh...
I think it is unfair on both the kids doing both vocational quals at polys & the medics, engineers, & people doing traditional subjects etc.. at red brick institutions as the money could be better spent by getting rid of tuition fees - not introducing top up fees & reducing student debt.
It is also unfair on the kids doing worthless courses - great someone could get a 2:2 in media studies from a poly - they will have racked up a load of debt & if they decided they wanted to carry on with a career in media then theyd probably have to go and get an entry level position & work thier way up just like any school lever - or alternatively they could get an admin job & end up like one of the characters from the office.
Im basically against the whole political push in this country towards paying kids to go to 6th form college, push more & more kids to do A-levels/further education , - lower the standards in A-levels so politicians can stand up & say how great theyve done & then chuck loads of cash at institutions to come up with more corses so that 50% of the population can get "degrees"
Just like the 80k per year plumbers we had a few years back there is a real shortage in trades these days - the way to slove this is to get more people doing apprentiships - no doubt someone in the future will invent a vocational plumbing degree where someone can get into 20k debt learning something that you can also get paid a salary to learn if youd gone the apprentice route.
As an aside my dad is a medical physicist - some "universitys" offer medical physics degrees - he has tried recruiting a few people with these degrees and found they had very little understanding of the subject - he now tends to recruit straight physics grads & they work towards a masters then phd while working for him.
Quote from: Davemy main gripe with this is pretty much political - I totally disagree with the new labour dream of 50% of the population going to university - If university attendance was scaled back to pre 1992 levels then kids would probably not have to have tuition fees & run up huge debt.
This is one area where I agree with dave, universities should only take in those who get the top 10% of results free, anyone else should have to pay for theirs. Far too many people with degrees are going into jobs their qualifications have nothing to do with. Some skills are transferable but even so if a person spends four or five years doing a degree and ends up doing the same job that another employee who has never done the same level of education is doing then they have wasted their time and money as well as that of the Uni.
QuoteNew courses are being invented all the time & the govt likes to chuck money at them when IMO they arent doing much good -Im not totally against polys (yes we did used to have a lot of banter with the shef hallam students)- I mean for vocational courses they are very useful- however we are going to have a large protion of grads in the future in fairly mundane jobs who will have had no requirement to go to university int he first place - I do think that some courses need to be rethought & others need to be scrapped or cut back - too many people doing sociology & media studies tbh...
Polys are technical colledges, as Unis are to theory they are to practical. Unfortunately it never did work properly and while they are trained to do stuff they are often nowhere near as capable as people who went straight into their job. Building contractors in particular know that brickies arent going to be up to speed.
QuoteI think it is unfair on both the kids doing both vocational quals at polys & the medics, engineers, & people doing traditional subjects etc.. at red brick institutions as the money could be better spent by getting rid of tuition fees - not introducing top up fees & reducing student debt.
They need to look at the courses available, what is required in the UK workforce and adjust peoples direction accordingly. That would mean less waste and useless qualifications.
Quote from: SeriousQuote from: Davemy main gripe with this is pretty much political - I totally disagree with the new labour dream of 50% of the population going to university - If university attendance was scaled back to pre 1992 levels then kids would probably not have to have tuition fees & run up huge debt.
This is one area where I agree with dave, universities should only take in those who get the top 10% of results free, anyone else should have to pay for theirs. Far too many people with degrees are going into jobs their qualifications have nothing to do with. Some skills are transferable but even so if a person spends four or five years doing a degree and ends up doing the same job that another employee who has never done the same level of education is doing then they have wasted their time and money as well as that of the Uni.
Noone gets free courses. Except for impoverished students, and we are talking students whos combined parental income is under 14 thousand a year.
QuoteQuoteNew courses are being invented all the time & the govt likes to chuck money at them when IMO they arent doing much good -Im not totally against polys (yes we did used to have a lot of banter with the shef hallam students)- I mean for vocational courses they are very useful- however we are going to have a large protion of grads in the future in fairly mundane jobs who will have had no requirement to go to university int he first place - I do think that some courses need to be rethought & others need to be scrapped or cut back - too many people doing sociology & media studies tbh...
Polys are technical colledges, as Unis are to theory they are to practical. Unfortunately it never did work properly and while they are trained to do stuff they are often nowhere near as capable as people who went straight into their job. Building contractors in particular know that brickies arent going to be up to speed.
Polys dont exist anymore, to my knowledge.
QuoteQuoteI think it is unfair on both the kids doing both vocational quals at polys & the medics, engineers, & people doing traditional subjects etc.. at red brick institutions as the money could be better spent by getting rid of tuition fees - not introducing top up fees & reducing student debt.
They need to look at the courses available, what is required in the UK workforce and adjust peoples direction accordingly. That would mean less waste and useless qualifications.
You mean similar to NHS bursary schemes, Teaching Bursary Schemes, and the bursarys operated by various other companies for specialists in certain fields.
And after saying "only the top 10% should get free courses" your now talking about abolshing tuition fees?! Make your mind up.
just make them all take the NI board exams :p
Quotemy main gripe with this is pretty much political - I totally disagree with the new labour dream of 50% of the population going to university - If university attendance was scaled back to pre 1992 levels then kids would probably not have to have tuition fees & run up huge debt.
And in this we are in 100% agreement.
If youd said your argument was that too many people are going to uni and that A-level grades should go back to a final qualification again then Im totally with you. Thats the root of all the nonsense but has been going on for so long now its become a joke. Unless people state clearly this is the issue then theres no point in them complaining about ever rising A-level grades in the current system.
The cycle is unavoidable now too as theres so many graduates that anyone wanting a job (even relatively crappy ones is expected to have a degree so has to pick something they know they can get a good grade in).
Quote from: M3ta7h3adQuote from: SeriousQuote from: Davemy main gripe with this is pretty much political - I totally disagree with the new labour dream of 50% of the population going to university - If university attendance was scaled back to pre 1992 levels then kids would probably not have to have tuition fees & run up huge debt.
This is one area where I agree with dave, universities should only take in those who get the top 10% of results free, anyone else should have to pay for theirs. Far too many people with degrees are going into jobs their qualifications have nothing to do with. Some skills are transferable but even so if a person spends four or five years doing a degree and ends up doing the same job that another employee who has never done the same level of education is doing then they have wasted their time and money as well as that of the Uni.
Noone gets free courses. Except for impoverished students, and we are talking students whos combined parental income is under 14 thousand a year.
but it was the case and it could be again, lots of people are taking totally irrelivant courses when they might as well not bother
QuoteQuoteQuoteNew courses are being invented all the time & the govt likes to chuck money at them when IMO they arent doing much good -Im not totally against polys (yes we did used to have a lot of banter with the shef hallam students)- I mean for vocational courses they are very useful- however we are going to have a large protion of grads in the future in fairly mundane jobs who will have had no requirement to go to university int he first place - I do think that some courses need to be rethought & others need to be scrapped or cut back - too many people doing sociology & media studies tbh...
Polys are technical colledges, as Unis are to theory they are to practical. Unfortunately it never did work properly and while they are trained to do stuff they are often nowhere near as capable as people who went straight into their job. Building contractors in particular know that brickies arent going to be up to speed.
Polys dont exist anymore, to my knowledge.
You can call a lion a zebra but it will still chase animals and eat meat. Underneath very little has changed and they still fulfil the same purpose.
QuoteQuoteQuoteI think it is unfair on both the kids doing both vocational quals at polys & the medics, engineers, & people doing traditional subjects etc.. at red brick institutions as the money could be better spent by getting rid of tuition fees - not introducing top up fees & reducing student debt.
They need to look at the courses available, what is required in the UK workforce and adjust peoples direction accordingly. That would mean less waste and useless qualifications.
You mean similar to NHS bursary schemes, Teaching Bursary Schemes, and the bursarys operated by various other companies for specialists in certain fields.
And after saying "only the top 10% should get free courses" your now talking about abolshing tuition fees?! Make your mind up.
[/quote]
Top 10 get free tuition fees, anyone else has to pay unless its a proven area where skills are in short supply. You need doctors and other medical staff.
Personally with the money available you could stretch free to the top 20% and make sure the rich have to pay by stating those whos parents earn over Ã,£100K have to pay too.
Quote from: SteveFIf youd said your argument was that too many people are going to uni and that A-level grades should go back to a final qualification again then Im totally with you. Thats the root of all the nonsense but has been going on for so long now its become a joke. Unless people state clearly this is the issue then theres no point in them complaining about ever rising A-level grades in the current system.
Well that is my "argument"/POV - I think there are/will be too many people at uni - I also think A-levels shouldnt have to be an entry to uni & am pointing out that we need to address this by both getting standards back up in A-Levels so that they are taken more seriously by employers & also rethinking parts of our university system - atm they seem to be chucking money in areas that dont need to be expanded & then getting students to help pay towards courses that ought to be offered free.
Quote from: SeriousTop 10 get free tuition fees, anyone else has to pay unless its a proven area where skills are in short supply. You need doctors and other medical staff.
Personally with the money available you could stretch free to the top 20% and make sure the rich have to pay by stating those whos parents earn over Ã,£100K have to pay too.
Id agree with that - if someone wants to do media studies at XYZ poly then they can pay for it.
If someone wants to do say medcine at Imperial & are good enough to get in then the course should be free.