WTF!!!! (4marks)
This is how easy it is to gets marks these days!!
exam
wow that means that chav I nearly punched last night was actually a mensa candidate, and not insulting my missus at all!
WTF!!!! (4marks)
quote:
Originally posted by nib1980
WTF!!!! (4marks)
damn gcse crap
O level used to have a 75% pass mark for a C grade, now it's 44% for a C grade and the course work..............
wimps
no wonder this country is in such a state.
I think I'll re-sit all my exams I took at school - I'm bound to get better grades this time as even though I know a lot less than I did as
a teenager I am a lot better at swearing now 
I know i shouldnt be on here at such a ridiculous time but as someone who has just finished their A level exams..the whole 'exams are getting
easier' is extremely annoying - why are you taking away credit from those who do well?
The truth is they seemingly are in some subjects but not in others - yes if you compare a paper now to one 30 years ago you will find a very different
format - 30 years ago you would have some infomation and some space to work it out, whereas today you are guided through it. But this is where i
refuse to admit a difference in papers. All the guidance means is that it credits what you DO know, and means that if you fail to do one part, usually
you can pick up all remaining marks - because you are demonstrating your knowledge.
A level chemistry is notoriously known as getting harder over the years and if you look at the final paper you will see it is multiple choice. As you
read that you will be thinking "Multiple choice, do I need more proof that exams are getting easier?" well actually a cursary glance at the
paper would see you straight - because they are multiple choice there is only right and wrong, no in between ground - and for the multiple response
questions you can easily drop marks due to this effect.
Now whilst that is one example, I will concede that coursework and modular exams do take some pressure out of the exam, and in that respect you may
think they are easier.
With regards to that story i believe it is a case of an examiner following the rules to the letter - "give credit if an attempt has been
made" - this he did. However i think that in this situation there should have been little credit given to the candidate given the nature of the
response. I also think AQA's response on expletives is a little hard-lined because at the end of the day, as we were taught, an expletive is a
very good grammatical device if used in the correct way, and should be credited.
quote:
Originally posted by Tim 45
I know i shouldnt be on here at such a ridiculous time but as someone who has just finished their A level exams..the whole 'exams are getting easier' is extremely annoying - why are you taking away credit from those who do well?
The truth is they seemingly are in some subjects but not in others - yes if you compare a paper now to one 30 years ago you will find a very different format - 30 years ago you would have some infomation and some space to work it out, whereas today you are guided through it. But this is where i refuse to admit a difference in papers. All the guidance means is that it credits what you DO know, and means that if you fail to do one part, usually you can pick up all remaining marks - because you are demonstrating your knowledge.
A level chemistry is notoriously known as getting harder over the years and if you look at the final paper you will see it is multiple choice. As you read that you will be thinking "Multiple choice, do I need more proof that exams are getting easier?" well actually a cursary glance at the paper would see you straight - because they are multiple choice there is only right and wrong, no in between ground - and for the multiple response questions you can easily drop marks due to this effect.
Now whilst that is one example, I will concede that coursework and modular exams do take some pressure out of the exam, and in that respect you may think they are easier.
With regards to that story i believe it is a case of an examiner following the rules to the letter - "give credit if an attempt has been made" - this he did. However i think that in this situation there should have been little credit given to the candidate given the nature of the response. I also think AQA's response on expletives is a little hard-lined because at the end of the day, as we were taught, an expletive is a very good grammatical device if used in the correct way, and should be credited.
Chemistry does not get harder, its been the same for a while unless the laws of physics have changed fundamentally. Chemistry is just a hard subject as there are lots of concepts and maths. There are more subjects for young people to study these days. But if you want to do chemistry at Uni you'll get in with low grades as nobody wants to do a hard subject. There in lies the problem.
I'm never quite sure when I ever look at a GCSE exam paper whether is seems ridiculously easy because it actually is or if it's because
I'm older with more general knowledge/have obtained much higher qualifications etc etc.
To be fair though I suspect it depends how and what you've been taught - I suspect to people taking GCSEs now they seem just as hard (and
therefore the achievement in passing them is as great) as O levels did to people who sat them because they have been prepared to that level. Perhaps
the argument should be why that level seems a lot lower than it used to be........
[Edited on 1/7/08 by D Beddows]
Bite the wax tadpole! (5marks)
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
sorry mate but bollocks. ( deux points)
O2GF74 - firstly your job situation, is it that the job in question is not attracting the higher achievers or is it that those applying do not have
the knowledge that you think they should have? (if its the latter, and its a postgraduate job, the issue lies with the universities). As for everyone
getting A's your beign drawn in by media sensationalism - last year the highest percentage of A's in a subject was around 68% in an exam
only 76 sat (modern hebrew). Now whilst this seems high - is it fair to give those who perform well a lower grade just to satisfy statistics?
Obviously not, so a high proportion were allowed to achieve an A grade. Overall the average number of students scoring A's B's and C's
were 22.4%, 23.3%, and 23.4% respectively. As for not being able to distinguish exam boards are being pressured into creating a new, higher grade, the
A* for those scoring 90% or more in their exam.
For most engineering courses now the grade requirements seem to lie within AAA (Cambridge) to around CCC depending on university.
awinter - No the laws of physics havent changed, nor have the chemical reactions that occur in the world. However the bredth of knowledge required now
is significantly more (I am led to believe) than it was 20-30 years ago. As for wanting lower grades for subjects no-one wants to do, that again isnt
quite correct. Manchester University for example want ABC and Nottingham ABB.
[Edited on 1/7/08 by Tim 45]
Those who say it is insulting to the people taking exams at the moment to say they are getting easier are missing one vital point. It is insulting to
those who took them previously to suggest anything else. I went to a Grammar School in a reasonably affluent area with some very intelligent people
and there were very few people who got any grade A A-levels, and not many who got more than 3 or 4 A grade at O-level where A for all seems to be
pretty normal now.
I am currently part was through marking a batch of Post Graduate exam papers and the standard of many is pretty appalling - they do not meet what I
would expect for a much lower level, yet most of the candidates will have University degrees so I wonder what they have learnt so far.
A while ago I was talking to a doctor who taught medicine at a London teaching hospital. He was bemoaning the standard of the students he was seeing
these days, and how so many were dropping out because they couldn't cope - they hadn't been taught how to study, write reports and,
basically, how to learn.
But what REALLY got him going was the way that the education authorities were putting pressure on his university to lower standards so that the
students could cope. His response was "B*ll*cks! Students have managed to keep up for the previous few decades, and did they REALLY want
second-rate doctors in the wards?".
I think that he had a point...
nuff said - so we all agree (except the recent A-level student) that standards are falling generally. What a surprise!! If only the monkeys in charge could see it!!
well maybe its changed since the 5 years i did my A levels but i worked really hard at them! and not many people got A's let alone straight
A's I got 3 B's and was pretty happy with them.
University was easy in the first year i do admit. Ridicously so but it did get much harder. The final year was very difficult especially as i aalso
had a part time job. Most of my course friends were amazed i also had a 20 hour a week job, but i needed it to stay.
So while they are easier than in the past its not that easy!
this sums it up.
UK EXAMS GET EASIER AND EASIER
Despite the continuing denials from certain teaching unions, Examining Boards and government, that exams have not been getting any easier, take it
from someone who has been in the education business for 20 years, THEY HAVE, and they have been getting easier for at least the past 15 years.
In primary schools, performance standards kept plummeting until the Tories introduced the school 'league tables' in the 1990's. This
had the effect of alerting teachers to the necessity of achieving higher academic standards or face the music from any adverse publicity generated by
doing poorly in the league tables compared to other schools. The result was that standards were stopped from dropping further, but there was no really
significant improvement.
Standards did rise, however, with the introduction of the SATS and with the enforcement of the literacy and numeracy hours. Nevertheless, they
haven't risen much.
With regard to the GCSE exams for 16 year olds and the A'levels for 18 year olds, EVERY experienced teacher whom I have spoken to admits that
these exams have become easier in the last 10 years, and this explains the rising number of passes and the higher grades now being obtained both at
GCSE and at A'level. These same teachers, however, also state that they would never openly admit to these facts in public.
The lower exam standards certainly make it much easier for the teaching profession to claim that it is achieving its aims - though this is somewhat
offset by the extra difficulties involved in trying to teach ever-more disruptive, increasingly uninterested pupils - with matters made even worse by
the paucity of sanctions that are available with which to deal with them, and by the inability and/or unwillingness of so many parents to bring up
their children properly.
The schools and teaching unions always deny publicly that exams are easier because they do not want to be seen to be producing an inferior
'product'. They would prefer us to believe that teachers are actually achieving more rather than admit to the fact that the exams are
easier.
Examining Boards also deny that they have made their exams easier, but they also have an incentive for covering up the truth. They have to compete
with each other! They sell their syllabuses and marking services to the schools just as any other business sells its wares. And schools are bound to
choose those Examining Boards which give their pupils the best results. Who wouldn't? The net effect, however, is to drive down the standards as
each Examining Board wants to maximise the number of pupils who take their exams. By lowering the standards and making life easier for the pupils and
their teachers, the more the schools choose their services.
Governments of all colours, of course, would never want to be seen to have presided over falling standards. They would all prefer to boast about the
increasing numbers of students achieving more during their period of office. Allowing exams to become easier is one very cheap way of accomplishing
this. But, of course, this is nothing more than a confidence trick.
In short, everyone in the education business has a vested interest in lying about the declining standards. And they would much prefer to be seen as
having produced a better product by using as evidence the fact that more pupils are passing the exams, and with higher grades.
But it really is a sham, and the country does not benefit at all from this. The exams are simply getting easier.
If the younger generations are to support themselves and the ageing population in an adequate manner, then they need to be trained and educated to the
best standards possible. This is important for all of us. And no-one benefits by ignoring the decline in our educational standards - except those in
the education business.
Here's Judith O'Reilly in The Sunday Times (6/8/00) ...
Evidence that examination grades are being devalued and made easier to achieve has been uncovered in one of Britain's biggest studies into
standards. The research, which showed that candidates of similar ability are getting A-level results as much as a grade better than they would have
done three years ago, casts doubt on the government's claim to be improving standards.
The study, based on independent tests of pupils' ability, questionnaires from 900 schools and a vast database of exam results, has been conducted
by Carol Fitz-Gibbon, of Durham University, who advises the government's curriculum watchdog, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
(QCA).
Fitz-Gibbon, Professor of Education at Durham, claims standards in A-levels and GCSEs have been "adjusted downwards" and raises concerns
that standards in national curriculum tests for 11-year-olds may have been "lowered".
"It seems clear in the external examinations at age 16 and 18 that there has been a tendency to easier grades being available, particularly in
mathematics and the sciences," she said.
In her study, Fitz-Gibbon compared the A-level performance of two sets of pupils who sat independent tests in 1996 and 1999 to assess their
intellectual ability. She found that pupils who scored 60% in the test in 1996 got, on average, between a C and a D in A-level applied mechanics, but
in 1999 those with the same score got on average between a B and a C.
(So, this change is evident over a recent period of just three years. If she had looked at the change over the past 15 years my belief is that the
public would be genuinely very shocked.)
In French and geography, students of the same general ability did better by about a grade in 1998 compared with 10 years earlier. In none of the 83
A-level subjects the researchers investigated was there any evidence that the grades became more difficult to attain.
Fitz-Gibbon, whose research will be published next month in a book, rejects suggestions that the improvement in A-level performance can be attributed
entirely to extra effort by candidates. Confidential questionnaires sent out to "hundreds of thousands" of pupils suggested they were not
working harder. In fact, A-level students were being set less homework.
The conclusions, she says, are supported by university lecturers who claim students do not know as much as predecessors did about subjects such a
maths and chemistry.
... The study is also critical of standards in 11-year-old tests. In 1995, in English, 48% of children reached the pass mark but by last year, 70% had
reached the required level. In 1995, in maths, only 44% reached the required level compared with 69% last year. This year, one report has already
predicted the results will go up to 77% in English and 76% in maths.
The research attributed some of the increase to "test technique" as well as improving academic performance by preparing children for the
tests. However, there was also evidence that markers might be being encouraged to be generous.
And here's Amelia Hill in The Observer (13/8/00)
Children taught at home significantly outperform their contemporaries who go to school, the first comparative study has found. It discovered that
home-educated children of working-class parents achieved considerably higher marks in tests than the children of professional, middle-class parents
and that gender differences in exam results disappear among home-taught children.
The study, to be published by the University of Durham in the autumn, will support a call for the Government to introduce legislation to help the
growing army of parents who are choosing to remove their children from schools.
The numbers of home-educated children in Britain has grown from practically none 20 years ago to about 150,000 today - around 1 per cent of the school
age population. By the end of the decade, the figure is expected to have tripled.
... 'Home-educated children do better in conventional terms and in every other way too,' said Paula Rothermel, a lecturer in learning in
early childhood at the University of Durham, who spent three years conducting the survey.
She said: 'This study is the first evidence we have proving that home education is a huge benefit to large numbers of children. Society just
assumes that school is best but because there have never been any comparative studies before this one, the assumption is baseless.'
Rothermel questioned 100 home-educating families chosen randomly across the UK, conducting face-to-face interviews and detailed appraisals of their
children's academic progress, in line with recognised Government tests. She found that 65 per cent of home-educated children scored more than 75
per cent in a general mathematics and literacy test, compared to a national figure of only 51 per cent.
The average national score for school-educated pupils in the same test was 45 per cent, while that of the home-educated children was 81 per cent.
... Rothermel found that the children of working-class, poorly-educated parents significantly outperformed their middle-class contemporaries.
(This is truly astonishing and a serious indictment of our schools.)
While the five- to six-year old children of professional parents scored only 55.2 per cent in the test, children far lower down the social scale
scored 71 per cent.
And here's John Clare in The Daily Telegraph (15/6/00)
Half the adults in Britain have such poor levels of literacy and numeracy that they cannot cope with the demands of everyday life and work in a
complex, advanced society, according to a study published yesterday.
Only four of the 29 countries belonging to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development that took part in the survey had a lower average
literacy score than Britain. They were Ireland, Hungary, Poland and Portugal.
The most literate countries were Denmark, Finland, Germany, Holland, Norway and Sweden.
In basic numeracy, only Ireland, Poland and Portugal scored lower than Britain.
The survey put Sweden top and Chile at the bottom in three literacy categories - prose, document and quantitative. Britain was ranked in the bottom
half in each category.
Based on tests administered to representative samples of adults aged 16 to 65 in each country, it divided literacy and numeracy skills into five
levels. Those scoring below level three could not say which of four film reviews was the least favourable; work out from a bicycle owner's manual
how to ensure the seat was in the proper position; or convert a recipe for four servings into one for six. They were considered incapable of coping
with the demands of everyday life and work. 51% of Britons were at this level.
Britain had the largest number of adults who watched television more than two hours a day - 60 per cent - of the 20 countries included in that part of
the survey. The report said: "Literacy scores are negatively related to the amount of television people watch."
and if you are still awake, this too.
It really is that bad
After marking GCSE exam papers for the past two weeks, Tom Smith says standards are not only dropping, but they are unbelievably low
Thursday August 25, 2005
guardian.co.uk
It's that time of year again when British newspapers will be reporting on the now annual increase in the number of school pupils getting higher
grades for their GCSE and A-level exams. Yet again, education pundits, employers and parents will be asking themselves whether or not this means
students are getting better at exams or standards are dropping.
As someone who took nine GCSEs in the first year of their introduction, I have always been a bit sensitive to the accusation that they are easier than
their old counterpart the O-level, especially as we used old O-level papers to revise from. However, after marking GSCE exam scripts for a major UK
examining board for the past two weeks, I can honestly say that not only are standards dropping, but also they are unbelievably low.
Although I don't want to belittle anyone's exam results and efforts, it is important that people understand why the current exam system can
no longer be considered a benchmark for knowledge, skills and learning. I offer two reasons for this conclusion: firstly, the dreadfully low standard
of students' written skills and knowledge and secondly, the use of a too basic, vague and unfair marking scheme.
In relation to the GCSE candidates' general standard of writing, as a part-time lecturer at a university, I had already become aware that many
undergraduate students had abysmal reading and writing skills. However, even that did not prepare me for the written skills of your average GCSE
candidate. The handwriting, most of the time, resembled that of a five-year-old toddler or a drunk (grotesquely simple or an illegible scrawl). A lack
of basic punctuation, such as full stops, commas, capital letters etc, was commonplace. There were countless inarticulate, immature sentences, which
did not make any sense to the reader.
The use of text language (such as u instead of you), swearing and inappropriate language and opinions were also prevalent. Spelling was often based on
how a word sounds (for example, 'wimmin' instead of women, suggesting that many pupils had had very little reading experience. Furthermore,
responses to questions often betrayed either, at best, a total lack of knowledge or interest in the subject or, at worst, a startling stupidity and
ignorance. For example, the basic question: What is sexism? regularly received responses such as "being addicted to sex", "a husband
not wanting to have sex with his wife" and "being picked on for your sexuality".
Inarticulate or just inappropriate answers (eg "I don't no [sic], I don't no, I don't know", "only the smarties no the
answer to that", "the planet would have blown up a long time ago if it hadn't been for conversation [sic] groups"
caused much
hilarity amongst the exam markers, albeit not out of any malice, but rather in the case that if you didn't laugh it would have been far too
depressing. Every now and again we'd get a decently written, reasonably intelligent answer, which felt like a welcome breath of fresh air amongst
the dross. Still, there was a spoken about fear among the exam markers that these responses might be subconsciously marked higher than they should,
only because, in comparison with the majority of exam scripts, they appeared much better than they in fact were.
However, it was not just the very poor knowledge and written skills of the students that were at fault. After all, one would think that such poor
responses would be marked accordingly low. Yet, the guidance given in the marking scheme meant that people with very poor knowledge and written skills
were able to get reasonable, if not good, marks.
First, there was the explicit policy and encouragement of 'positive marking'. This was the first time I had heard this phrase but when it
was explained to me in my examiner's training I was horrified that this was an official marking policy. In a nutshell, examiners are told that
candidates should not be marked down or have marks taken off for incorrect answers and should only be awarded marks for what they have answered
correctly. In practice, this meant that a student could write a whole A4 page of inarticulate nonsense or incorrect statements and yet, if there was a
couple of sentences in that response which were correct, the student would be awarded the full mark for that particular question.
We were also advised that marks could not be taken off for poor spelling, writing or punctuation. This marking policy was then further exacerbated by
the extremely basic mark scheme we were provided with. Most questions only had the choice of four different levels of mark (zero, two, three or four)
or at most, five different levels. Combined with the policy of positive marking, this meant that students who gave reasonable responses were getting
the same top mark as those rare students who were giving excellent responses. Conversely, those students who on the whole appeared to have extremely
poor written skills with a little bit of knowledge about the exam subject were getting the same marks as someone who gave an average written
response.
Guidance as to what mark to give a response was minimal and often vague. There was very little, if no, emphasis on making sure candidates were making
correct statements or using correct quotes. As a result, most students could have made things up in their responses without being marked down for it
or even noticed. When more information to help with the marking was sought by the exam markers it was not forthcoming. As I routinely handed out good
marks to both average and excellent students I realised that something was fundamentally unfair about the whole process but that there was nothing I
could do about it.
Halfway through the marking, we were called to a meeting with one of the principal examiners from the examining board, who expressed his concern that
one of the questions we were marking was getting too low marks. When someone expressed their opinion that this was because the level of responses was
pretty poor, the examiner stated that we were supposed to be positive marking (implying that we needed to be more generous with our marking than we
currently were).
There seemed to be some kind of unspoken pressure on the examining board to make sure their exam papers gave schools the results they were after as
opposed to making sure standards were kept high and consistent.
Finally, the reader might be interested to know who actually marks GCSE exam papers. My work environment was a room of graduates (of a variety of ages
and backgrounds) spending over eight hours a day reading scanned exam papers on computer monitor screens. Nothing wrong with that in principle.
However, many of the exam markers who were recent graduates, approached their task with the maturity of a teenager. Loud laughter, talking, messing
around, listening to personal stereos and juvenile behaviour was an almost daily occurrence.
At times, I had the feeling that I myself was back at school. This loud behaviour was not only distracting to other markers but also caused some of us
to worry that exam scripts were not getting the kind of attention (and marks) they deserved. Although several complaints were made to the supervisors
about this distracting behaviour, little was done about it. In fact, someone told me that one of the noisiest offenders had even complained to
management about one of the supervisors who told her to "stop talking".
You had to be there really. However, the next time you read that headline as to whether or not standards in exams are dropping, you can take it from
me that they most definitely have and it's getting worse.
· Tom Smith is a pseudonym. The author is a marker for GCSEs
phew, my fingers hurt now 
here is the example I referred to
(it is 3-4-5 triangle by the way)
ooh, sorry, you are still busy reading all that!! ^^^^
I think you set a new World Record for the longest post on LocostBuilders!!
Anyone know a longer one?? 
It really pi55es me off when people start going on about how easy exams are now. I worked incredibly hard to get my four A's at a level (physics,
maths, chemistry and design tech) and my first clss hons at Uni. I was awarded the Rolls Royce engineering student award in 2006 for recognition of my
'contribution and commitment to engineering' and the IET Manufacturing Student award in 2007. A total of 5 people get the RR award every
year, and we all worked bloody hard for it.
Some subjects have got easier, and are of little worth (e.g. general studies, social studies etc) but the core sciences (the ones that really matter)
certainly arent easy. Some of my mates at uni doing arty subjects had less than 10 hours lectures per week, I had between 25 and 30.
If you think its easy, I can find my a-level papers out, scan them and you can have a go, same with the uni papers. The way questions are asked has
changed over the years, and the level of support from teachers has improved immesurably in the past 20 years hence the reason for generally improved
grades in subjects such as english, history and geography. If you look at grades in maths and science they havent improved that much over the
years.
Stop whining about how easy it is, unless you are prepared to go back and sit the papers.
David 
[Edited on 2/7/08 by flak monkey]
deffo agree with that, would appreciate all the people who go on about the exams and courses getting easier to sit the exams and pass. I recently got
rid of all my handwritten notes from A level, it completely filled one of those blue paper recycling bins that we have nowadays!
I am impressed with flakmonkeys first degree, i only managed a 2.1 masters which was pretty hard work.
A first is something else you have to be seriously dedicated.
quote:
Originally posted by flak monkey
It really pi55es me off when people start going on about how easy exams are now. I worked incredibly hard to get my four A's at a level (physics, maths, chemistry and design tech) and my first clss hons at Uni. I was awarded the Rolls Royce engineering student award in 2006 for recognition of my 'contribution and commitment to engineering' and the IET Manufacturing Student award in 2007. A total of 5 people get the RR award every year, and we all worked bloody hard for it.
Some subjects have got easier, and are of little worth (e.g. general studies, social studies etc) but the core sciences (the ones that really matter) certainly arent easy. Some of my mates at uni doing arty subjects had less than 10 hours lectures per week, I had between 25 and 30.
If you think its easy, I can find my a-level papers out, scan them and you can have a go, same with the uni papers. The way questions are asked has changed over the years, and the level of support from teachers has improved immesurably in the past 20 years hence the reason for generally improved grades in subjects such as english, history and geography. If you look at grades in maths and science they havent improved that much over the years.
Stop whining about how easy it is, unless you are prepared to go back and sit the papers.
David
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
so you worked hard and got good grades - how exactly does that relate to exams being harder/easier/the same?
we dont need to do them - i'm happy to take the word of the majority of teaching professionals who say its getting easier. Thats taking nothing away from those genuinely hard working students at all who are undoubtedly exceptionally bright - in fact i think if anything, if you are genuinely capable of getting A's at what some of us would call much harder exams of old, then i'd be annoyed that so many other less bright students are getting a stack of A's too!!! How can you prove you really are a cut above others to prospective employers if more and more are getting A's??
quote:
Originally posted by Tim 45
quote:
Originally posted by 02GF74
so you worked hard and got good grades - how exactly does that relate to exams being harder/easier/the same?
Errm, isnt that the exact point, your effectively saying everyone gets good grades because exams have gotten easier.
Well no, only those that work hard get them. So as have been said by Trogdor and Flak, try doing them yourself if your standards are so high - they are freely available from AQA and other exam boards.
The amusing thing about this is that in 10 or 20 years time Tim 45 and Flak Monkey will be saying exactly the same things about how exams aren't
as hard as they were in their day to people who've just finished their A levels etc 
the sad thing is is that they will probably be right