So did I, but then I'm a genius.nodnirG kraM wrote:I know for a fact that I, being the lazy fellow that I am, did no work whatsoever for my GCSEs or A-Levels. And yet I passed the lot.
Congratu-well done
Well that shows how simple they are. Either the "One Show" or BBC Breakfast" revelaled that it's now 26% to get an A !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! F++++ amazing!Sput wrote:In mine I remember being shown a picture of a desktop pc setup and being asked the label the monitor, keyboard and printer.
Tricky stuff.
Why bother - just give every stupid Kid in the street 10 GCSEs - they mean nothing anymore!
User removed
In fairness, that was just one of the questions and there were plenty in the exams, as well as coursework. ICT is hardly a challenging subject at any level anyway!
AFAIK the results are statistically manipulated so a certain proportion of the students get, for example, an A*. So if one year it's a piece of piss, it might be that you have to get more marks than in an absolute bastard of a paper the following year. That will certainly account for some of it, there might also have been issues with that particular module in terms of the exam not lining up with the curriculum (at A level were told to program x system from scratch in VB and found out later it was supposed to be done in Access) and at any rate there are usually several modules making up any given GCSE so I doubt it was 26% to get a GCSE.
AFAIK the results are statistically manipulated so a certain proportion of the students get, for example, an A*. So if one year it's a piece of piss, it might be that you have to get more marks than in an absolute bastard of a paper the following year. That will certainly account for some of it, there might also have been issues with that particular module in terms of the exam not lining up with the curriculum (at A level were told to program x system from scratch in VB and found out later it was supposed to be done in Access) and at any rate there are usually several modules making up any given GCSE so I doubt it was 26% to get a GCSE.
Knight knight
-
Gavin Scott
- Admin
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 13.16
- Location: Edinburgh
- Contact:
Perhaps a daily newspaper could reproduce this year's GCSE English exam (for example), and we could see whether in fact they are easy to pass or not.
Journalist's attempts could be published the following day.
When this happens just remember who came up with the idea.
Journalist's attempts could be published the following day.
When this happens just remember who came up with the idea.
It has to be said that quite a large number of pupils try their best and work their socks off to get a good grade at GCSE and A-level. There are, and always will be those pupils who can just walk into an exam and get an A, some people just have good memories. Whether that A grade is useful is another matter.
The GCSE grading system works on an average calculated by each exam board thus if the "percentages" were really high from everybody that year you could end up with having to get 95% for an A* grade. If everybody gets a low percentage then you could get an A* for say 60%. The idea being that there should be a similar number of pupils gaining each grade every year.
The main issue is the "role" of the examination system. Is it to label pupils with a grade against a national standard, to "cream off" the top 20% as "Exceptional" or is it to measure pupils ability within their year and subject groups? Others could say that the examination system is a measure of the teaching ability of the schools.
The system has a wide range of "uses" and this causes confusion and, in some cases pupils are "coached" to get a high grade in their exams because the school wants to look good and because their parents believe that their child should get an A (not that I'm advocating that a child should be declined the option to aim for an A).
Every pupil has their working level, that level may be a D or that level could be an A. If the pupil tries their hardest and moves from a D to a C well that's good news for them because they have achieved something. If the pupil starts year 10 working at A standard and then achieves an A at the end of year 11 what have they done, they've not improved nor stretched themselves, two pointless years! Society needs it's collection of "Ds and Es" as much as it needs it's A* and A grade people. The current government vision is that everybody should be getting As or A* - what use is that?
The old CSE and GCE system allowed for the top 20% to be "creamed off", that was it's purpose, to select at 11 the highest ability children and power them through. The other 80% were educated to CSE standard and maybe offered a different form of curriculum. That system instantly showed the high fliers and separated them from the rest. Slightly unfairly was that if you made a mess of your 11+ well you were then sent to a Secondary Modern and unable to advance through to a Grammar.
Current research suggests that "streaming", "setting" or groupings by ability does not enhance the learning opportunity nor make for better achievement. It can even be said that if you have ability streaming that the teaching is less effective as the teacher aims for one level instead of the individual levels within the grouping. It has been found that if you have a mixed ability class the teacher is more effective as they plan and teach at a range of levels rather than the middle level of a "top set". Thus the old Secondary Modern and Grammar system was not as effective in ensuring achievement across the board (it did successfully cream off the top 20%).
My firm belief is that a public examination should be used to gauge pupils off a national standard and pupils should get low grades and some pupils should fail some subjects. A public examination where everybody gets the same grade is not useful it means nothing. Pupils should be encouraged to aim for their best level whether that be A* or D and if they do their best and try their hardest then they have an appropriate level. The issue is the stigma given to lower level grades. Parents don't want to admit their child is working at a D and you can't explain to the parent that for their child a D is exceptional and something to be proud of. We would all like every child to do their best and get the highest grade possible but their has to be a reality check within the system to say "what is the point of this exam?"
That's my two penneth anyway, I will no doubt be, in a years time coaching pupils to pass their exams aiming for an A grade, whether they understand the geography is another matter the system seems to think that understanding isn't important, knowledge of facts is apparently and being able to recall standard information.
The GCSE grading system works on an average calculated by each exam board thus if the "percentages" were really high from everybody that year you could end up with having to get 95% for an A* grade. If everybody gets a low percentage then you could get an A* for say 60%. The idea being that there should be a similar number of pupils gaining each grade every year.
The main issue is the "role" of the examination system. Is it to label pupils with a grade against a national standard, to "cream off" the top 20% as "Exceptional" or is it to measure pupils ability within their year and subject groups? Others could say that the examination system is a measure of the teaching ability of the schools.
The system has a wide range of "uses" and this causes confusion and, in some cases pupils are "coached" to get a high grade in their exams because the school wants to look good and because their parents believe that their child should get an A (not that I'm advocating that a child should be declined the option to aim for an A).
Every pupil has their working level, that level may be a D or that level could be an A. If the pupil tries their hardest and moves from a D to a C well that's good news for them because they have achieved something. If the pupil starts year 10 working at A standard and then achieves an A at the end of year 11 what have they done, they've not improved nor stretched themselves, two pointless years! Society needs it's collection of "Ds and Es" as much as it needs it's A* and A grade people. The current government vision is that everybody should be getting As or A* - what use is that?
The old CSE and GCE system allowed for the top 20% to be "creamed off", that was it's purpose, to select at 11 the highest ability children and power them through. The other 80% were educated to CSE standard and maybe offered a different form of curriculum. That system instantly showed the high fliers and separated them from the rest. Slightly unfairly was that if you made a mess of your 11+ well you were then sent to a Secondary Modern and unable to advance through to a Grammar.
Current research suggests that "streaming", "setting" or groupings by ability does not enhance the learning opportunity nor make for better achievement. It can even be said that if you have ability streaming that the teaching is less effective as the teacher aims for one level instead of the individual levels within the grouping. It has been found that if you have a mixed ability class the teacher is more effective as they plan and teach at a range of levels rather than the middle level of a "top set". Thus the old Secondary Modern and Grammar system was not as effective in ensuring achievement across the board (it did successfully cream off the top 20%).
My firm belief is that a public examination should be used to gauge pupils off a national standard and pupils should get low grades and some pupils should fail some subjects. A public examination where everybody gets the same grade is not useful it means nothing. Pupils should be encouraged to aim for their best level whether that be A* or D and if they do their best and try their hardest then they have an appropriate level. The issue is the stigma given to lower level grades. Parents don't want to admit their child is working at a D and you can't explain to the parent that for their child a D is exceptional and something to be proud of. We would all like every child to do their best and get the highest grade possible but their has to be a reality check within the system to say "what is the point of this exam?"
That's my two penneth anyway, I will no doubt be, in a years time coaching pupils to pass their exams aiming for an A grade, whether they understand the geography is another matter the system seems to think that understanding isn't important, knowledge of facts is apparently and being able to recall standard information.
-
all new Phil
- Posts: 2023
- Joined: Sun 13 Feb, 2005 00.04
- Location: Next door to Hell
That's it in a nutshell. For most of year 11 maths, we spent every lesson doing mock exam papers, as the format didn't change year on year. We therefore focussed solely on what was likely to come up in the exam. Same for A Level French, we were taught how to answer a question from each potential subject that would come up. I found it frustrating, being the geek that I was, as I didn't go to college to learn how to answer an exam question, I went to learn more about things I was interested in.Gareth wrote:That's my two penneth anyway, I will no doubt be, in a years time coaching pupils to pass their exams aiming for an A grade, whether they understand the geography is another matter the system seems to think that understanding isn't important, knowledge of facts is apparently and being able to recall standard information.
I think a lot of it as well is students (particularly at university) are judged all too much on their ability to write, rather that what they know. I'm a clever guy, I got really good GCSEs - 2xA*, 6xA and 3xB - but once I reached university, I found it really hard to get a decent mark in my coursework. Every single time, the marks I would lose would be because I hadn't written it in the style whoever marked it liked, or I hadn't attributed an opinion of my own to some famous thinker. It was incredibly frustrating seeing people who I had to explain things to get better marks than me, as I had an excellent grasp of the subject.
I'm sure everyone tried very hard. But when alot of your marks come from stuff you get off the internet it really doesn't make sense.
When I did these exams, in the last century, you were marked on what happened during the 3 hours you were locked in a room, your knowledge and intuition in interpreting the questions. Amazingly we all have that now - it's called Google and can have it on your mobile even during the exams if they were the same!
I can't see the point in bothering with exams now when you award A* for 26%.
Just hand the kids 15 GCSEs and a degree in Nuclear-Physics as they walk in the school at age 5 - it's meaningless to employers what they walk out with now anyway!
PS: I Did mean well done though Adders!
EDIT: Rant over - I pay for all this education - I have a right to moan!
When I did these exams, in the last century, you were marked on what happened during the 3 hours you were locked in a room, your knowledge and intuition in interpreting the questions. Amazingly we all have that now - it's called Google and can have it on your mobile even during the exams if they were the same!
I can't see the point in bothering with exams now when you award A* for 26%.
Just hand the kids 15 GCSEs and a degree in Nuclear-Physics as they walk in the school at age 5 - it's meaningless to employers what they walk out with now anyway!
PS: I Did mean well done though Adders!
EDIT: Rant over - I pay for all this education - I have a right to moan!
User removed
You don't have a right to moan if you don't know what you're talking about.
EDIT:
I should qualify what I said there through the majesty of roman numerals:
(i) You've apparently never tried to use the internet on a mobile, regardless, I can find some pretty high level stuff on google. Does that render it useless? At any rate, knowledge ain't understanding, and working it into an answer - especially for something requiring the construction of arguments (nearly any humanities subject) - during a 1.5 hour exam is pretty damn hard unless you're very quick to connect the dots with existing knowledge. I can't think of any way a mobile would be very useful in an applied subject like science either. Then there's the small matter of getting caught: how would you go about googling and finding the right answer on a crappy phone connection whilst looking out for invigilators and get anything done?
(ii) Shall we explain the statistical process to you again? You seem to have ignored why there was a 26% A* (wasn't it A last time you posted?) and that it's likely an isolated thing.
(iii) You get physics degree with nuclear physics, you don't get nuclear physics degrees and there's no hypen
(iv) I clearly took mine a LONG time after you took yours (;)), but it was 3 hours in an unlocked room (health and safety, obviously!) for me too and I daresay that after all the brewhaha about coursework cheats it's going to be even more time in such a situation.
EDIT:
I should qualify what I said there through the majesty of roman numerals:
(i) You've apparently never tried to use the internet on a mobile, regardless, I can find some pretty high level stuff on google. Does that render it useless? At any rate, knowledge ain't understanding, and working it into an answer - especially for something requiring the construction of arguments (nearly any humanities subject) - during a 1.5 hour exam is pretty damn hard unless you're very quick to connect the dots with existing knowledge. I can't think of any way a mobile would be very useful in an applied subject like science either. Then there's the small matter of getting caught: how would you go about googling and finding the right answer on a crappy phone connection whilst looking out for invigilators and get anything done?
(ii) Shall we explain the statistical process to you again? You seem to have ignored why there was a 26% A* (wasn't it A last time you posted?) and that it's likely an isolated thing.
(iii) You get physics degree with nuclear physics, you don't get nuclear physics degrees and there's no hypen
(iv) I clearly took mine a LONG time after you took yours (;)), but it was 3 hours in an unlocked room (health and safety, obviously!) for me too and I daresay that after all the brewhaha about coursework cheats it's going to be even more time in such a situation.
Knight knight
