Exams are easy?

[Overdriven]

school exams | easier | GCSE | leicester | this is leicestershire

Great read.

 

[Bugz]

A nice read and very well written too.

Maybe it'll open the eyes of the older generations who seem to think things are getting easier and easier. Not only do children take a larger amount of exams in today's world, but they have to deal with extended pressure of knowing more and more unis are giving out offers of AAB/ABB. It only takes one bad paper; one brain freeze; one mis-reading of the question etc. to drop a grade and force you to take a gap year.

More children are getting A/B grades because a) the teaching is tailored to beating the exam, and b) there are simply more resources on offer. I have on my computer about 150 past papers purely for the a-levels maths and further maths syllabus. I suspect others are the same too.

I can tell you now - sitting 15-20 exams (4-5 subjects) over 3 weeks is not easy stuff and it is very much needed to guarantee you places in the top universities where the success rate for entry can be anything from 5 to 10%.

 

[Garaen]

Wait until you hit the real world Bugz, GCSEs/A levels will seem like nothing.

 

[tris-]

You can get in to a lot unis these days without a levels.

 

[Bugz]

Wait until you hit the real world Bugz, GCSEs/A levels will seem like nothing.

Two graduates coming out of university; both with minimal experiance; grades through the years, assuming they are the same in other respects, will be the difference between them.

 

[JingleBells]

school exams | easier | GCSE | leicester | this is leicestershire

Great read.

Just a thick journalist I think.

I'm pretty sure x³+8x-33 should be x²+8x-33 which would be (x+11)(x-3) for a start

 

[Overdriven]

Two graduates coming out of university; both with minimal experiance; grades through the years, assuming they are the same in other respects, will be the difference between them.

Not from what I've heard speaking with people who may eventually hire me. They take a lot of other personal skills into consideration too. See, I've had to become more social/more relaxed so I have some sort of chance.

But, if you base it on that, I have a better chance than most other people coming out of A level (IT based) as I have Bx3 (A-Level IT), Ax3 (IT GCSE redone at college) and CCNA stuff and will have the uni degree (for my course anyway).. The only thing that matters for me will be the uni degree and my people/group skills. You learn nothing about group work (really) in A-Levels, which you NEED to pick up in HE to help you in the future.

 

[tris-]

What he said, its not only about the qualifications. If the person hiring doesnt like the cut of your jib the other guy will still get it

Just because 5 years ago you got a B and he got a C in the same A-level, it doesnt automatically make you a better candidate.

 

[Bugz]

I never said it was only about the qualifications.

People are dummies if they think adding all the support you can to your CV/application is a bad thing.

 

[Garaen]

Two graduates coming out of university; both with minimal experiance; grades through the years, assuming they are the same in other respects, will be the difference between them.

A levels are used purely for a benchmark in some of the larger companies as a way to limit the amount of applications they receive, and you generally only require 280 UCAS points. In the situation you described I agree, A levels will be the deciding factor, but the fact is that situation will never occur because when it comes to an interview social skills/intelligence will be the ultimate deciding factor over A levels.

 

[tris-]

I never said it was only about the qualifications.

.

will be the difference between them.

??? Just to show how much they care, I have put AVCE (worth 2 A levels apparently) on my CV and presented certificates to employers with that on it. However, I only did a year and they have never questioned it. Im not talking going to corner shops for a job either, this has been many local government departments around the country for a qualified position!

 

[Bugz]

assuming they are the same in other respects

Ceteris Paribus.

Just for the record, I agree personality, attitude, experiance > grades.

 

[Scouse]

Lol. What a piece of shit!

In the interests of scientific objectivity, I've prepared for this one the same way I prepared 20 years ago – in front of the telly eating crisps

I wonder if, like 20 years ago, he'd been in continuous education for ten years in an effort to prepare him for that moment, regardless of revision? Either way, getting an E after 20 years with no study is still respecatable IMHO.

To throw forward my $0.02, I did the comprehension portion of a spanish GCSE two years ago and passed with flying colours. I don't speak a word of Spanish. However, I won't be passing it off as "Science"

 

[Krazeh]

So man who's not been near the education system for 20 years takes exam and finds it a bit tricky?? Well that's a shocker, clearly that leads to the conclusion that exams these days are far harder than they used to be and have not been dumbed down in any way at all!

 

[DaGaffer]

Lol. What a piece of shit!



I wonder if, like 20 years ago, he'd been in continuous education for ten years in an effort to prepare him for that moment, regardless of revision? Either way, getting an E after 20 years with no study is still respecatable IMHO.

To throw forward my $0.02, I did the comprehension portion of a spanish GCSE two years ago and passed with flying colours. I don't speak a word of Spanish. However, I won't be passing it off as "Science"

It was a pathetic article tbh. And funnily enough, it did show exams have been dumbed down; those questions wouldn't have been in a higher paper 20 years ago, they'd have been in the basic paper.

Radio 1 did this exercise with a bunch of DJs doing papers last year and put the questions up online; piece of piss tbh, but unlike some local journalist I've actually used maths a bit over the last 20 years.

Funnily enough in the last week, I've been looking at some Leaving Cert papers over here in Ireland (Irish equivalent of A Levels), they look quite challenging. Education system over here seems quite good (maybe its the fear of being bummed to death by a Christian Brother if you step out of line).

 

[Bugz]

One of my English teachers discussed this with us a while back.

When he took exams everything was different. You had to memorise the books; even whole soliloquies or portions to recite if need be. Now-a-days that isn't the case at all - you get open books. He actually believed it was a good thing; you actually had to understand and use the text, as opposed to knowing it.

The same could be said with some oldschool maths paper. The syllabus now-a-days is designed for usability at GCSE. Some of the stuff covered in gcse/a-level 30-40 years ago would only be used by the most specialist of subjects. How many people on this forum have used imaginary numbers in their job or have solved trigonometric quadratics/polynomials between limits? That is mostly featured on the further maths syllabus because that's what it is - further maths. Personally I thought GCSE Maths had it just right; factorization, quadratic formula, graph sketching, basic probability and statistics - the kind of stuff that will be used in day to day life by a lot of jobs.

 

[chipper]

So man who's not been near the education system for 20 years takes exam and finds it a bit tricky?? Well that's a shocker, clearly that leads to the conclusion that exams these days are far harder than they used to be and have not been dumbed down in any way at all!

heheh exactly what i was thinking, true there are more resources around these days, so in that respect exams are actually easier. theres no trawling through books in librarys, its a simple google entry pop theres ya answer. failing that ill ask on a forum either way the internet gives answers at your fingertips we didnt have that when i was at school or bytesize or any of these other wonderful tools.

kids today are trained purely and simply to pass an exam not to gain knowledge about the subject at hand and make their own conclusions. to me this is not teaching its simply cramming a bunch of facts or equations into someones head that they cant link together.

i dare say ask someone about roman history who is 30 and someone who is 12 and lo and behold that 12 yo prob knows more about it why? because hes just been taught it, in 20 years time 99.9% wont remember most of it and probably wont give 2 shits. its not relevant to everyday life.

i know for a fact if i ran my own buisness i would of course look at that persons grades but i would take someone with lower grades over them if i think they are more personable and will contribute more in a team.

 

[kirennia]

So someone who got a C 20 years ago, going into what is now a completely different way of tackling maths struggled after doing zero revision? Shock horror.

He didn't even know what an integer was which I'm sorry if others here don't but seriously? He doesn't know that and wonders why he'd struggle? They just put an idiot in front of the test to prove a point.


If you walk into an exam room for a 3 hour exam and all you have to know is to write down 'strawberry cheesecake' it'd be the easiest exam in the world...so long as you knew what to write already. Going into any exam without at least skimming over the topics is a waste of time and it wouldn't surprise me to see him fail if he hasn't been exposed to it for 20 years; at the very least, some of the topics will have changed.

It's all relative. I did no homework for GCSE maths, no revision but I did turn up to the classes and got an A because 9 years ago the GCSE papers were a piece of cake. With a nephew rising up through schooling I'm also shown some of this stuff these days and it's a piece of cake. To be honest though, any adult who did well at their equivalent qualification at 16 years old SHOULD find it easy to get to grips with; it's for younger people, building a strong basis for further learning later on in their lives... you don't afterall go around slating 7 year olds for getting simple multiplications wrong...

The problem is that for a large portion of this country, GCSEs are the highest qualification they'll get so as a result, they think it should greatly challenge everyone when in reality, gradings such as GCSEs are merely there for further progression in education.


As for the argument of GCSEs being worth something, sure if you want to get A-Levels but what my CV says, fresh out of uni is 13 GCSEs grade C and above because no employer gives a toss about GCSE grades other then to know that you got them, it's an educational thing. Honestly, what kind of a job other then perhaps GCSE teaching would be interested in a starter block qualification? How much of your GCSE knowledge do you use as a top-level block of knowledge for your job?

Maths, algebra as an example; it is extremely useful and without it, computers wouldn't exist, architectural projects would fail, etc etc but GCSE scratches the surface... and that's just its point.

 

[Bugz]

GCSEs are useful in your uni application so flunking them is definitely not a good idea.

 

[Scouse]

you actually had to understand and use the text, as opposed to knowing it.

I'd say it's pretty fucking hard to "understand" something properly if you don't know it thoroughly.

How many people on this forum have used imaginary numbers in their job or have solved trigonometric quadratics/polynomials between limits?

This argument is irrelevant - because it was exactly the same argument years ago when basic maths was harder - of course you're never going to use most of it - but we're not discussing that.

 

[Bugz]

The skill of english comes from interpretation and justification, not unlimited knowledge on a text and each sentence line by line.

Edit - I believe it is relevant. The same topics are in the syllabus now, they are just re-arranged so that everyone learns the useful everyday stuff and the dedicated learn the more advanced complex stuff.

 

[GReaper]

Easier? No. But I certainly think that schools/colleges are better at teaching to the exam these days, with focus going towards how to answer the questions you'll be facing in the exam instead of providing a more balanced view of the subjects being taught.

 

[Scouse]

The same topics are in the syllabus now, they are just re-arranged

Lol!

 

[Chilly]

Not really sure why you lot are giving bugz a hard time.

Personally, however, I never really thought exams to be particularly important (I have lots of GCSEs, some A levels and a degree btw) and I'm a fully paid up member of society these days.

 

[Genedril]

Easier? No. But I certainly think that schools/colleges are better at teaching to the exam these days, with focus going towards how to answer the questions you'll be facing in the exam instead of providing a more balanced view of the subjects being taught.

Not better by choice though. Teaching has been clamped down on by the UK gov to such an extent that exam taking is taught, not subjects as it used to be.

Even OxBridge is having a fit about it (& they're the stupid sods that pushed for the current set up way back when).

 

[Zenith.UK]

The original article just makes the journo look like a twonk.

Quoting myself from February...

I took my GCSEs in 1989 which was also the second year of GCSEs. The school year before us got stupendous results with record numbers getting 8-10 A grades (there was no A* back then). In our school year, NOT ONE got ALL A's and it wasn't because of bad teaching or lack of ability. It was because the marking scheme was set VERY harshly that year. I remember our top student crying when she got her results because she was worried that she wouldn't get into Oxford/Cambridge. I later found out that you had to get over 90% to get an A in Maths that year.

Let me tell you that there is simply NO comparison between the Maths GCSE of 20 years ago and the Maths GCSE of 2006. The 2006 Maths GCSE was easier in content, has less depth and breadth and has lower grade bands than the equivalent paper from 1989. If you look purely at empirical evidence, this particular GCSE is much easier today than it was 20 years ago. Politicians turn around and say that people are unfairly saying that GCSEs are easier than they used to be. No matter how you try to spin it, THEY ARE EASIER!

 

[Bugz]

Lol!

I had a look at a couple of 1970's Maths basic a-level papers for instance; every topic I understood and could answer, although some were in the further maths syllabus as opposed to the normal maths syllabus. I wouldn't expect every kid to be able to answer a basic 1970's a-level paper because some of the topics were difficult and require further/additional maths to understand.

In English; the questions are very much the same, just rather than having to recite the text word by word; quote by quote; you can use a book and instead focus on answering the question itself.

Economics I've also looked at some past papers. Not much difference again, although I did notice the marks were much harder to get, purely because, I assume, the lack of 'objectives' 'to hit' as is the case now.

Granted these three examples are three out of the ten-twelve main core subjects but it provides some example-evidence atleast.

You just show yourself to be a bit of a lamer who can't actually provide any kind of argument but tries to sound like his right and in the know. If the know is lodged firmly up your ass, then perhaps that is right!

Edit - I agree with Genedril. Many subject specifications have key words; 'objectives' etc. You hit those objectives; you get the marks. BUT it is done that way because it makes it easier to mark and makes the marks fairer and to fit the normal dist. they should fit. It seems to me a double-edged sword.

 

[PLightstar]

Its strange the difference between teaching from when I was in school and my GF and thats only 3 years, I was taught the subject and had to understand it all before moving onto the next module/area in the lesson but with my GF's year all there teaching seems geared towards passing the exams, they don't have much general knowledge about subjects and don't tend to question the knowledge they were taught, I know my history and english teachers always told my to question everything that was put in front of me, maybe that was just there teaching style.

Mind you I was terrible in exams I was great in the classroom but the exams I was always nervous and forgot everything. Not that it mattered in the end, I have done really well for myself without uni or decent a-levels, most companies don't care about GCSE's some look at A-levels and uni grades mainly the bigger companies but if you join a small company like I did, you can work your way through every department and now I am moving jobs into a much better job because of my experince nt grades.

That kind of turned into a rant I am going to stop there.

 

[Scouse]

So, by "objectives", do you mean the exam actually tells you what subjects you have to cover if you are to get the marks?

If that's the case, I'd be (not) sorry to say: yep, much easier.

 

[Bugz]

Objectives as in - realizing how the marks are awarded and using that to your advantage to model the answers around that.

English for example - has five main areas generally - analysis; use of the text; evaluative skills; critical quotations; language-style-form or some shit. Knowing how to use them will result in a better mark.

Whether that was the case with subjects in 1970-1980-19-whenever I can only speculate.

But that isn't a fact exams are easier; just that it's easier to tackle them. There's a subtle, but very real difference between easier exams, and someone who is trained to engage them better.