Exams are easy?

[Kami]

There's far too much emphasis put on exam results these days and too little put on social skills and general knowledge. I don't want staff who know theory but can't put that into practice or can't deal with customers 1 on 1 under pressure.

I have no degree, in fact I have no formal I.T. qualifications at all - I'm a certified services engineer by trade (apprenticeship). I have no highers (A levels) and my highest qualification is an HNC (think it's at a grade just below A-level). However I've never had a problem getting a job, never had a problem switching careers and I doubt I ever will have.

People put so much pressure on kids these days to pass every exam going, fact is some of them will be like me and unable to memories random crap that means nothing to them then spew it back out in an exam - it doesn't make them thick though. Tests these days are heavy on memorising and lighter on practical use of the information at hand. How do I know this? I worked for 7 years in schools doing I.T. support before moving elsewhere, I've seen the exam papers, if kids don't have the capacity to memorise information like a computer they've little chance of an A or B grade!

Kids seem to think they if they fail an exam they're "finished" fact is you can do the qualification at college later on, it's genuinely not the end of the world. I'll never put any kids I have under that sort of pressure, but I'm damn sure I'll make sure they get a job they enjoy and that they're actually talented at, rather than shoving them into uni and expecting them to come out like carbon copies of what X industry wanted 10 years ago then struggle to get a post that they've spent 4-5 years training for.

Anyway, I'm off to interview some degree holders for one of my teams junior posts, hope they're better than the last lot

 

[Scouse]

but that isn't a fact exams are easier; just that it's easier to tackle them

q.e.d.





Edit: Wow, I can't do QED like that in capitals?

 

[Bugz]

If you really can't see the difference between an exam getting easier and the individuals taking it being able to tackle it easier, then I don't see why we're even discussing this. =/

 

[Rubber Bullets]

One problem is that good grades no longer help to differentiate the best pupils. Back when I took 'A' levels only a small percentage got an A grade and therefore Higher education providers and employers got a clear idea of where in the spread of ability for that subject each candidate came.

The more people in each peer group who get the top grade the less useful it becomes to each one. This is doing them no good whatsoever, and is probably doing each new class with ever better grades a disservice.

this means that it has become irrelevant why more of the highest grades are attained, whether it is more intelligent pupils, better teaching or easier exams.

In the university course I was involved with (and I got the impression that this went for all of them) the final grades were awarded so that only the top whatever % got a 1st, and so on down. Exam results could even be moderated to ensure this if necessary (this was a brand new course, and occasionally we made exams too hard or too easy, this bit might only apply to untested exams as it were).

On the other hand the University of Exeter, dept of physics one of the better physics undergrad programmes in the country, with correspondingly high entry grades, recently had to start up a remedial maths class for some of its first year students as (despite having the required grades) their maths was not of a sufficiently high standard for them to understand their lessons. Not all had to attend, but a significant number.

RB

 

[Chilly]

wouldnt trust any exeter pure sciences courses - they just shut their chemistry dept down!!

 

[kirennia]

heh, my sisters just about to leave Exeter science department; some of the stuff done there is pretty impressive but as with most degrees/places of education, it's what you do with the resources available that counts

 

[pcg79]

bleh

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.

surely this is the point exactly??

and as for the point about easier exams vs easier to pass: well again, the distinction is obvious to me but its a little bit irrelevant. surely the idea of exams are to:
a) demonstrate the ability to learn/interpret/answer questions on some stuff
b) gain knowledge in a variety of subjects

may be more, but those are the main points. you get the grade to show that you have done this (and how well).
if you agree with those points then you would agree that rising pass marks would suggest that the resuls mean people are getting more clever or that the exams are easier to pass (either because of better teaching, social conditions or easier papers etc).

i cant see much evidence to support increased intelligence so exams are easier to pass. this is bad. exams (esp a level) should be hard to pass - if only the top 5% in the country got As in maths for example, it would be much clearer that these people are clever as fuck (also highlighting the stupid more clearly too). if the content is getting too routine then change it up more. if the content is to limited, then extend the syllabus. if the questions are too formulaic, generate some more penetrating questions.

and if youre studying now and are finding a levels hard and are upset that we're all saying theyre easy: who cares?
ultimately if you were that concerned about having a harder course, then you would have done IB. or 17 different a levels simultaneously.

 

[Scouse]

If you really can't see the difference between an exam getting easier and the individuals taking it being able to tackle it easier, then I don't see why we're even discussing this. =/

I do see the difference. And it's not a good one. You're given the formulas in maths exams. You're told what subject areas you have to cover (rather than having to work it out for yourself - which is a skill you do need). Some of the "harder stuff" has been moved up to A-Level. Universities are screaming blue murder because straight-A pupils are turning up and having to take foundation years. Yadda yadda yadda...

If you can't see that they're a doddle, then I don't see why we're even discussing this!

 

[Zenith.UK]

The thing is that being able to pass an exam doesn't necessarily mean you know and understand the subject.
I was asked to work out 84kg in pounds tonight and did it in my head in about 5 seconds. My little girl's jaw dropped when she used an online converter and the answer was almost exactly what I said. She wants to know how I did all the sums in my head and how can she do the same thing.

She's 10 and not being told how to perform mental arithmetic at school.
It looks like I'll be having to teach her how to do mental maths myself. That's a life skill far more useful than cramming the maths exam in 6 years time.

 

[mooSe_]

GCSEs are pretty easy, A levels not so much.

 

[Bugz]

I do see the difference. And it's not a good one. You're given the formulas in maths exams. You're told what subject areas you have to cover (rather than having to work it out for yourself - which is a skill you do need). Some of the "harder stuff" has been moved up to A-Level. Universities are screaming blue murder because straight-A pupils are turning up and having to take foundation years. Yadda yadda yadda...

That is arguing away from the idea of exams being too easy to 'are we giving the right proportion of grades out.' The answer, I agree with you, is no - we are giving out the wrong proportion but that is why the A* has been introduced, to try to differentiate candidates.

A lot of formula still are not given at A-Level. All the proofs have to be learnt; a lot of the formula has to be derived or just plain learnt. For some of my further maths modules, even though I didn't do as well as I had hoped, the amount of formula I had to learnt was quite alot.

Style-wise, if we take Maths as an example, the older papers and the newer papers do not differ much at all. A typical proof by induction question now will say the same as the papers in the 1970's.

Universities screaming blue-murder is not widely factual and will be reserved to lower tier universities if anything. Most universities offering straight AAA/AAB offers will get only the best students and they will know what they are doing. The consensus that universities pick solely on grades is a wrong one. If you want to get into Oxford for example, you have about 5-6 different boxes you have to tick, and by tick I mean, tick really fuckin well.

I think we will always be prone to disagreeing for this. Maybe your experiences are based off lower tier-schooling; where the students are different from the places I've experienced. Granted, my discussion with other students on this subject tends to come only from the brightest of the bunch, even if the sight of their grades makes me envious!

@PCG: I wasn't clear enough there so apologies. Most exam boards offer a basic a-level in maths and then two extra ones for those who wish to take their understanding further. Typically each a-level is done over one year; or if you are doing all three maths exams, 3 over 2 years. The units not covered in the basic a-level will come up in the two extra a-levels.

 

[Talivar]

This is a never ending cycle tho , society and technology evolve. Its all subjective, when alot of us was younger we HAD to use our heads for maths so got used to it. Nowadays they use calculaters and get used to them. My gf is a whiz at maths in her head but ask her to set up an xbox or amp to a tv and she is lost (same with all modern tech). We can all argue exams was easier ect but then our great great great great granparents can then moan your jobs are way to easy and a joke because when they was young they had to walk 15miles to work 24/7 in a factory with poor lighting and no health and safety rules. Type of palce where each week was a lottery to see who died in a nasty accident this week. All this just to earn enough to buy enough food to survive till the next week. So shall we all dismiss you people with jobs as having it to easy or shall we just accept society moves on and so should we.

 

[Scouse]

That is arguing away from the idea of exams being too easy to 'are we giving the right proportion of grades out.' The answer, I agree with you, is no - we are giving out the wrong proportion but that is why the A* has been introduced, to try to differentiate candidates.

They've introduced the A* because so many people find it easy that they can't differentiate.

A lot of formula still are not given at A-Level. All the proofs have to be learnt; a lot of the formula has to be derived or just plain learnt. For some of my further maths modules, even though I didn't do as well as I had hoped, the amount of formula I had to learnt was quite alot.

ALL the formulae had to be learned. Not just "a lot". You got given NOTHING. If you didn't know it - tough shit. The new system makes it easy for lazy oiks.

Style-wise, if we take Maths as an example, the older papers and the newer papers do not differ much at all. A typical proof by induction question now will say the same as the papers in the 1970's.

But it'll be preceeded by all the formulas you need and the question will be clear and concise, not deliberately obfuscating, as they used to be.

Universities screaming blue-murder is not widely factual and will be reserved to lower tier universities if anything

They were screaming about the lowering of standards when I went to university in 1992. They've spend 15 years complaining that there's a progressive decline. Oxbridge uni's are typically the ones complaining the most.

Are you in some kind of religious denial or something? Finding it hard to admit that your education was a joke? For example - the fact that universities have been complaining for ages isn't a point that's up for debate - but you manage to debate it...

Typically each a-level is done over one year; or if you are doing all three maths exams, 3 over 2 years.

A-Levels used to be a two year course with a fucking big exam at the end. If you didn't know your shit you failed. If you had to retake you had the maximum attainable grade reduced.

Ever heard of negative marking? You could get 70% of the paper perfectly right, but if you answered the other 30% incorrectly you could possibly lose enough marks to fail because you were too fucking stupid to keep your pen still. Even the marking system is more forgiving nowadays....

 

[tris-]

Man, some of you old ***** really have a bee in your bonnet about the younguns

 

[Bugz]

It is evident I am not going to shy you away from your views. Then again, you seem to be one of these pent-up older generation who believe everything was better back in the 60's - 70's.

If you think my education is a joke then that is your own view. But coming from a random older generation fellow, who I have no information about etc., do forgive me if I take it with a pinch of salt. Afterall, you may just be the bitter kid who wore the dunce hat in the class, jealous of the new generation brainboxes that spring to success.

Some kids I know and have spoke to, albeit only briefly at interviews or what-have-you, I know for sure are complete fkin geniuses who would outdo you in every kind of test possible. They will get A's and they will be successful. Just because the exams haven't been changed to help differentiate them against the other kids who get A's but aren't so clever, isn't a dig at how easy exams are, but, as Talivar said, is evidence of how we need to re-design them and in fact move them away from the style they are currently at (a style which from my views expressed some posts back - is a style similair to that of older a-levels). Whereas I realise a need for change and to differentiate further the best from the good and the good from the 'okey,' you cannot seem to get off your generation-induced high horse that the world was a better and tougher place once.

Btw, just so you know:

But it'll be preceeded by all the formulas you need and the question will be clear and concise, not deliberately obfuscating, as they used to be.

Proof by induction questions do not generally use formulas given as the idea is to prove said formulas or situations through induction. But I'm guessing a clever cloggs like you already knew that!

That said - if you are trying to argue your point, maths is probably not the best subject to choose, for reasons I have already disclosed.

 

[Jupitus]

Man, some of you young ***** really have a bee in your bonnet about the olduns

 

[tris-]

Man, some of you young ***** really have a bee in your bonnet about the olduns

I dont
I didnt even do A levels so I couldnt give a shit either way

 

[Scouse]

It is evident I am not going to shy you away from your views. Then again, you seem to be one of these pent-up older generation who believe everything was better back in the 60's - 70's.

If you think my education is a joke then that is your own view. But coming from a random older generation fellow, who I have no information about etc., do forgive me if I take it with a pinch of salt. Afterall, you may just be the bitter kid who wore the dunce hat in the class, jealous of the new generation brainboxes that spring to success.

I do not believe that things were better in the 60's or 70's. If you were that good at maths then you'd have noticed that I went to uni in 1992 and have figured that one out

Things were harder though. And people were more knowledgeable. They actually understood their subjects.

I certainly wasn't the bitter kid who wore the dunce hat - I was the bullied, underconfident yet bright one. I've done the whole "success" thang (used to earn 150k a year after tax) but realised I enjoy life more sunning myself and having the d01ty s3x0rz with t3h bird in the house I owned at 33

Now I'm sitting pretty I've got time to be a grumbly old bastard. And I grumble about the young 'un's because they've not got the life experience to see how badly they've been fucked over...

 

[Bugz]

I respect your view Scouse but I just don't see how you can justify the fact education today is a joke. Results are improving; but IQ is also rising too. Results are improving; but so is the resources on offer; results are improving but kids today take more tests so we know how to handle them and how to work 'with' them.

I just honestly think it's a bit misguided to think exams are getting easier regardless of all the other developments that have taken place during the years of which our generations divide. In fact, the sheer rate of development and change makes it hard for either of us to ascertain whether they truly are getting easier or not. I accept exams need to become harder but I do so with the belief that today's exams are comparable (least those I have 'investigated') to those you older guys took.

As for being fucked over - I guess it's something we will see as we experience life for ourselves. Your experience of life in regards to education is outdated now anyway and no doubt when I'm pushing 30 or 40 I'll be telling my children the same things you are telling me now

 

[DaGaffer]

"IQ is rising". Is it now? I think you'll have to back that throwaway line up.

 

[Bugz]

Look up the Flynn Effect if you are interested in it. However I'm not discussing the legitimacy of IQ in relations to intelligence (partly because I wouldn't know where to start ); just stating that IQ is rising, according to the Flynn effect and other like-minded models.

 

[00dave]

I went to a terrible school, (headmaster stealing funds, teachers not turning up to lessons, alcoholic teachers etc.) so when my year took exams very few got A's let alone A*s and at the time (1996) had you told me exams were getting easier I'd have agreed with Bugz. But consistently my old school has appeared at the bottom of the table of schools in the area yet pupils are still getting better results. So either exams are getting easier or the kids at the rough end are getting smarter despite their poor education standards.

 

[pcg79]

hm if youre not using a relationship betwen IQ and intelligence then why mention it??

anyway i still think exams are easier today. i just had a shuftie at a 1960s maths paper . while the content looks pretty similar, its much less structured than exams today. some of the stuff in it looked like what was p4-6 in my day (but thats afew years so i cant remember really) - which was considered further maths. not sure how the modules work today.

definately my maths exams were a nonsense. well, and the rest too. the courseworks were the hardest bit in any subject. and its comedyh that you can resit - what a joke!

 

[Scouse]

There's a simple answer. We're following the American model.

English = Overeducated but underconfident.
Americans = Undereducated but overconfident.

Americans start more businesses, and make more than enough hits of businesses to compensate for their idiocy. English start less, but are more efficient.

However, it's more politically convenient to do it the American way - a country full of clueless fuckers is convienient as they're not switched on enough to be inconvenient...

The gradual erosion of standards is the only way we'd wear it as a population.

 

[Scouse]

I didn't know whether to ressurect this thread, with me being the last poster an' all.

But I couldn't resist!

/lob

and a quote for good measure:

...he had been teaching in 1988 when CSEs and O-levels were abolished in favour of GCSEs and that standards of education at 16 "fell at that moment"

 

[SilverHood]

Meh. He's right. The problem is A-levels. Maths and English needs to be mandatory at A-levels. Half the guys I went to uni with couldn't write proper English to save their lives and among the young guys I work with, the problem is just as bad.

 

[Kami]

SilverHood it shouldn't be necessary for kids to stay on until A-levels to get a decent education in Mathematics and English. Frankly it should be rammed into their brains during primary school and reinforced in the first few years when they move into the "big school" Then if they wish they can take it further with A-levels/Highers and onto college or uni. Those that want out of full time education should be encouraged to take up apprenticeships, which frankly are awesome. We need more companies offering them though.

 

[Jupitus]

Meh. He's right. The problem is A-levels. Maths and English needs to be mandatory at A-levels. Half the guys I went to uni with couldn't write proper English to save their lives and among the young guys I work with, the problem is just as bad.

Nope - if exams weren't so much easier these days then having a compulsory English and Maths standard at O level stage would be perfectly sufficient.

 

[Gwadien]

I live in Leicester, and some are hard.

 

[Scouse]

Lots of people are hard in Leicester. It's the pervert capital of the UK.

Anyway Jup. I agree. If GCSE's weren't so easy then studying at A-Level wouldn't be necessary for so many.

Basically, the story confirms reality and the "breakdown in society" crap that's happening at the moment can, I think, be related to the fact that there's a wedge of society (in age terms) that seem to be significantly more retarded than average...