The Tories tone down their rhetoric on A-levels

Ian Walker

No problem being sensitive to the students - the quality or lack thereof of the exams is not their fault. You can only pass the exam you're given.

The problem stems from having a free market for exam providers, and a system which funds schools based on exam results. Hey Presto! it now becomes a commercial imperative to provide exames with a greater success rate.

Cameo Parkway Kid

Willets sensitive to the youth of today?? You've got more faith in him than most - didn't he say this morning that 'sorry, I know you've got 3 A-levels, but there's not enough room at Uni these days so its off to Poly' to learn bricklaying for you'. Reality is, it highlights that the Govt is as shallow in office as it was in opposition.

charles hercock

Dumbing down
So why not make each grade a proportion of candidates
8% A* 10%A 20%B etc
Then Universities and employers know where they are

denis cooper

What creeps these politicians are ... click on the first link in the article above, and look at the last chart in the BBC article, which shows how the % of A-level entries awarded A grade has changed since the mid-1960's.

Then, fewer than 9% of A-level entries were awarded grade A, and that % stayed the same until the early 1980's when it started to rise. And it's carried on upwards, until now it's 27%.

So if we accept that present day schoolchildren are getting their excellent A-level results through their sheer hard work, rather than through grade inflation, surely the corollary must be that schoolchildren in the 1960's got their much poorer results through their sheer laziness?

Thanks, David Willetts and Nick Gibb, for indirectly insulting everyone who took their A-levels prior to the 1980's.

And now 8% of entries have been awarded A*, taking us back to more or less where we were in the 1960's except for all the results being lifted up by an average of one grade.

Private Schultz

Am I imagining it, or did A-level grades once have an element of proportionality about them? So that, for example, the A grade was awarded to the top 10%-15% of marks that year, and similarly through the grades?

I realise there are problems with this approach too: a bright pupil might not get an A in a particularly bright year, and the same grade in different years doesn't mean the same thing. But at least it would enable universities and employers to assess the most academically-outstanding students more effectively.

I really don't envy their task when over a quarter of students are getting the top grade. The A* might help for a few years, but I'm sure the percentage getting that will go up too.

andrew

A grade 'E' requires hard work? As i remember, 'E' was 30 - 40%, a flunk in all but name. If you put hard work in and got an 'E', you were probably reading the wrong text book.

Before anyone has a go at me, I got 1 B, 1 C and 1 D, and no I didn't work hard at all.

Tarka the Rotter

ah well you see... when the ins are out they say one thing and then when the outs are in... whoops it all changes
why any of us believe one single word a politician says or one single policy they propose pre-election is beyond me....

Commentator

Even the Bagehot column in the Economist, which kissed New Labour's backside for 13 years, has acknowledged that there has been massive grade inflation over the last fifteen years. Are Willetts and Gibb suggesting that exam candidates worked less hard in the 1980's?

denis cooper

But the grade inflation has happened over more like 30 years rather than 15 years; it started under the last Tory government in the early 1980's and continued at about the same pace under the Labour government.

Dorothy Wilson

What mark does a candidate have to achieve to gain an E pass?

stevec

So if we believe successive Governments and academics, kids have been getting steadily more intelligent for roughly the last 30 years. Hmm... so that means that those over, say, 45 have noticed to their detrement the millions of 18 - 40 year olds who are far cleverer than them...err...only that's not the experience is it, so how is this dichotomy explained other than by politically motivated grade inflation?

timac

I took the IB and went to a top Uni that had a large intake of international students. In certain courses that required a corresponding high school course, such as a language, they spend half a year covering basics so that A level students can catch up with us.

If that isn't concrete proof of dumbing down, I don't know what is.

To an extent, and this is just my opinion, UK students are taught how to pass A levels rather than taught the actual subject.

Yosemite Sam

I took A level pure maths in the 1950's. My son took A level pure maths in the 1980's. My grandson has just been taking A level maths (as I type, I do not know his results). My exams were of the Northern Universities JMB - widely considered the most demanding in the sciences. I can state that my course was extremely testing, and the set of three-hour unseens even more so. When my son took A levels, I could see that the syllabus was changing (broadening), he was being taught to the syllabus (we were not - we were posed problems, without being told which techniques to apply, and expected to solve them). His year was the last in which grades were associated with % of passes. Sir Keith Joseph, no less, changed the grading from the % system to the threshold system. My son worked hard and passed, BUT he was not as much of a mathematician as I was at the same age. My grandson has worked hard on an even wider syllabus, but he is not a mathematician at all - he knows a great deal, but the same level of analytical ability is not there. So the conclusion I draw is that it is not possible to talk of 'dumbing'down, the A levels now are different from what they were and produce different outcomes. Incidentally, I did not study mathematics after the age of 18, but I was so well taught I can still remember standard integrals, how to integrate by parts, the catenary, and numerous other bits of standard pure maths. I attended a municipal grammar school.

Jannie Geldenhuys

@timac has it right

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. And the eating is done by universities.

If standards have not slipped, why are universities having to run remedial classes in the first year to get undergrads to where they need to be to cope with the course?

Engineering at Cambridge is a 4 year course when it used to be a 3 year course. Why do you think that might be...

alexsandr

I did a levels in 1974
Then the exams were run by universities. My exams were Joint Matriculation Board, and then the resultes were skewed so the right number of people got grades so the university got the right number of students. Only later were grades made absolute.

alexsandr

be careful googling a-levels as the term also refers to a sex act......

Sam ARMSTRONG

Being sensitive to A Level students feelings on the results day?

Needn't bother: A Level students more than anyone else know what a joke the whole system is.

stevec

To Sam Armstrong - yes but do they? You should try telling an 18 year old that his A* would been lucky to have got a B 30 years ago and see how much they agree with you. I know, I said that to my nephew today!! NO-one likes being told they are not as clever as they think they are - human nature.

Anne Wotana Kaye 1

Not enough university places, not very many apprenticeships, jobs suitable for school leavers very thin upon the ground. Do not dis pair, help is at hand! Morrisons, the giant grocery and everything else company, states that starting on the ground floor, youngsters can proceed right to the top. Actually, I was wondering if there are various grades of shelf filling at all supermarkets. No A levels, fill up the Economy shelves, A levels, go to the Fancy Biscuits, and you university guys and gals, straight to the Taste The Difference section.

Tomdaylight

Actually Pete, the Tories had already made a point of not commenting on this issue on results day in previous years - I remember similar articles being written last year. I think they'd realised it came across really badly to parents of A-level students who might otherwise vote for them, I don't think it has much to do with being in power.

Pot Head

A Levels only got easier the year after you took them. Discuss?

It doesn't add up...

Willetts flunked the exam when he wrote "The Pinch". Gove needs pinching to remind him that only the froth rises when you stir everything in the same pot. The cost to the country of the extra years of education required to inculcate a given body of knowledge is becoming absurd. More farcical still, students are paid in their teens to learn more slowly at school and are required to pay for education at "university" that was formerly free at school, so they can start ttheir economic life in debt. Keeps them off the dole queues until they wind up unemployable though.

Johan

Is it completely beyind the realms of possibility that we just set out set percentages of students who attain each grade - the top 10% in any subject get an A*, the next 10% and A, and so on until theose in the 50-60 %ile get an E. Anyone lower gets an F. Yes, it's harsh and unfair, but so is life. And this system would be totally impossible to gerrymander.

timac

since IB has remained as difficult today as it was 10 years ago, the way to work out if A levels are getting easier is to compare entry requirements for a course 10 years ago and today for IB and A level students

David

When I took my A-levels thirty years ago you had to work really hard to get a good grade. I’m a reasonably bright person and was lucky enough to attend a great school. In addition to attending subject lessons I worked before breakfast, at lunch and for 3-4 hours in the evening, and several hours at the weekend, not just prior to the exam but for the two years preceding it. I managed to achieve AAC in Maths, Physics and Chemistry, which was a really good result. Three A-grades was considered exceptional. Back then few people took more than three A-Levels, as the effort required was just too high. Oxford and Cambridge demanded a minimum of an A and two Bs for the more academic courses. This gives the younger reader an idea of the standard back then.

I read that 1 in 12 people (8%) achieved the new A* and 27% achieved an A or A* this year. While I don’t doubt that many students are diligent, my personal opinion is that the grades being awarded today don’t match those from 30 years ago. I’ll justify that opinion in a few ways:

Universities are now asking for much higher minimum grades, but the standard of graduates has not improved accordingly, and is actually falling compared to some other countries. Perhaps children in other countries are getting a better education?

The types of exam questions I have seen are far less rigorous than in the past. As an example, one old A-level maths question involved using calculus to determine the acceleration of a chain placed over the edge of a table, as gravity pulled it down and friction resisted this. There are numerous modern A-level sample papers available on the web, where the questions look more like what an old O-level would ask.

There is a range of natural intellectual ability spread throughout any population. In the past only the brightest children sat A-levels, in general. Nowadays a much larger percentage of children sit the exam, with a higher percentage of less intellectual children making up the total number, which means that the average intellect of all those taking the exam will have fallen. So were the exam standard and standard of teaching to have remained the same, you would expect the absolute results to have fallen (and perhaps they have overall). It could be argued that the standard of teaching and/or ability of students to learn has improved, but has it improved so much that it not only compensates for the lower average intelligence of those taking the exam, but is so good that it is resulting in 27% getting A grades?

A-level students seem to spend far less time studying than in the past, and much more time socialising and connecting via social media. Is this peer interaction making up for the lack of time spent studying?

I am not suggesting that students don’t work hard, and they are probably more aware than ever before of the need to acquire academic qualifications to succeed in the global knowledge economy. However what I, other posters, universities and employers are pointing out is that an A grade today is not the same as an A-grade in the past. It’s never nice to be told something like this, but there is a lot of evidence to support this assessment.

The government and country needs more graduates. If most people were getting C grades (which when the system was set up was intended to be the “average” grade) then in our modern world would this incentise children enough? Or does everyone need to be a winner?
When I took my A-levels thirty years ago you had to work really hard to get a good grade. I’m a reasonably bright person and was lucky enough to attend a great school. In addition to attending subject lessons I worked before breakfast, at lunch and for 3-4 hours in the evening, and several hours at the weekend, not just prior to the exam but for the two years preceding it. I managed to achieve AAC in Maths, Physics and Chemistry, which was a really good result. Three A-grades was considered exceptional. Back then few people took more than three A-Levels, as the effort required was just too high. Oxford and Cambridge demanded a minimum of an A and two Bs for the more academic courses. This gives the younger reader an idea of the standard back then.

I read that 1 in 12 people (8%) achieved the new A* and 27% achieved an A or A* this year. While I don’t doubt that many students are diligent, my personal opinion is that the grades being awarded today don’t match those from 30 years ago. I’ll justify that opinion in a few ways:

Universities are now asking for much higher minimum grades, but the standard of graduates has not improved accordingly, and is actually falling compared to some other countries. Perhaps children in other countries are getting a better education?

The types of exam questions I have seen are far less rigorous than in the past. As an example, one old A-level maths question involved using calculus to determine the acceleration of a chain placed over the edge of a table, as gravity pulled it down and friction resisted this. There are numerous modern A-level sample papers and questions available on the web, where the questions look more like what an old O-level would ask.

There is a range of natural intellectual ability spread throughout any population. In the past only the brightest children sat A-levels, in general. Nowadays a much larger percentage of children sit the exam, with a higher percentage of less intellectual children making up the total number, which means that the average intellect of all those taking the exam will have fallen. So were the exam standard and standard of teaching to have remained the same, you would expect the absolute results to have fallen (and perhaps they have overall). It could be argued that the standard of teaching and/or ability of students to learn has improved, but has it improved so much that it not only compensates for the lower average intelligence of those taking the exam, but is so good that it is resulting in 27% getting A grades?

A-level students seem to spend far less time studying than in the past, and much more time socialising and connecting via social media. Is this peer interaction making up for the lack of time spent studying?

I am not suggesting that students don’t work hard, and they are probably more aware than ever before of the need to acquire academic qualifications to succeed in the global knowledge economy. However what I, other posters, universities and employers are pointing out is that an A grade today is not the same as an A-grade in the past. It’s never nice to be told something like this, but there is a lot of evidence to support this assessment.

The government and country needs more graduates. If most people were getting C grades (which when the system was set up was intended to be the “average” grade) then in our modern world would this incentise children enough? Or does everyone need to be a winner?