The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Well, I really had expected more posts here about who's waiting for results, who gto what and whose going to which universities as a result. Where is it all?
... and the inevitable "it was harder in my day" argument.
That really hacks me off, for two reasons.
The first is that A levels are blatantly easier now than when I did them way back. It's not to do with the topics or the teachers. These days A levels are modular, you can study one lump at a time and forget about it. In my book that makes them far easier than the "study for two years and then take an exam" format I did. Secondly, if you fail a module you can retake it, twice, without any reprecussions on your final mark. Given those two facts (although I may be misinformed) that must amke A levels easier. End of story.
The second reason is that every year as students wait nervously for their results, the media tell them that the A levels they've worked their behind off for aren't worth as much as the previous years, or the previous years, and so on. Whether that is true or not it devalues the achievements of young people in a system they had no control over. They didn't choose an easier ride, it was imposed upon them. They worked hard and dir their exams and then at the end of it someone comes and criticises what they've accomplished in a way they could not control.
Anyway, this is my proposal to the education minister to end this debacle once and for all. Students should be assessed against the rest of the students under the LEA that year. The same number percentage wise of A's are awarded each year, then same number B's etc.
"but that's not fair" I hear you cry "what if you are in a year with lots of good people, and the next year is populated by intellectual retards?".
And slating students every year for doing well is fair?
In any case, I haven't finished. Along with the grade for the individual there should be an accompanying grade for the year, detailing the spread of results. How that years students have compared to other years.
It's all relative, and yes, maybe it is a little overcomplicated, but it seems far fairer than awarded a lot of A's and then telling the kids that they ain't what they used to be.
... and the inevitable "it was harder in my day" argument.
That really hacks me off, for two reasons.
The first is that A levels are blatantly easier now than when I did them way back. It's not to do with the topics or the teachers. These days A levels are modular, you can study one lump at a time and forget about it. In my book that makes them far easier than the "study for two years and then take an exam" format I did. Secondly, if you fail a module you can retake it, twice, without any reprecussions on your final mark. Given those two facts (although I may be misinformed) that must amke A levels easier. End of story.
The second reason is that every year as students wait nervously for their results, the media tell them that the A levels they've worked their behind off for aren't worth as much as the previous years, or the previous years, and so on. Whether that is true or not it devalues the achievements of young people in a system they had no control over. They didn't choose an easier ride, it was imposed upon them. They worked hard and dir their exams and then at the end of it someone comes and criticises what they've accomplished in a way they could not control.
Anyway, this is my proposal to the education minister to end this debacle once and for all. Students should be assessed against the rest of the students under the LEA that year. The same number percentage wise of A's are awarded each year, then same number B's etc.
"but that's not fair" I hear you cry "what if you are in a year with lots of good people, and the next year is populated by intellectual retards?".
And slating students every year for doing well is fair?
In any case, I haven't finished. Along with the grade for the individual there should be an accompanying grade for the year, detailing the spread of results. How that years students have compared to other years.
It's all relative, and yes, maybe it is a little overcomplicated, but it seems far fairer than awarded a lot of A's and then telling the kids that they ain't what they used to be.
Page:
gerrid wrote:
> No one except the people who set the exams are qualified to say
> whether the exams are getting easier. They say that they are not
> getting easier.
>
True, but my argument was that the modular method that allows for retakes makes the exam easier, or maybe that should be it makes the exams incomparable, and that if people insist on evaluating the education system this way, and criticising students work like this a system should be introduced that is comparable.
>
> That should really be the end of it. You can whinge that A levels
> were harder when you did them to make yourself feel superior to
> today's schoolchildren, r you can be quiet about it and realise that
> every year students work extremely hard for their exams and usually
> deserve the exact grade that they get.
>
I don't care about feeling superior etc. It would be a travesty and a failing in previous years candidates who are now teachers if there wasn't some sort of improvement. The system should encorporate a way of measuring that improvement, especially with the extreme pressure on teachers with league tables etc. without saying "oh, well maybe the exams are just easier these days".
>
> To me, the problem is not that there are too many candidates, but
> that there aren't enough universities. Surely the solution for
> increasing numbers of successful students is not to randomly
> discriminate via computer, but just to make more space for them.
I completely agree with you here. Before elected Tony Blair said "education education education" and wanted 75% of people to go on to further education, without realising that that would make further education becaome just "normal" education.
> No one except the people who set the exams are qualified to say
> whether the exams are getting easier. They say that they are not
> getting easier.
>
True, but my argument was that the modular method that allows for retakes makes the exam easier, or maybe that should be it makes the exams incomparable, and that if people insist on evaluating the education system this way, and criticising students work like this a system should be introduced that is comparable.
>
> That should really be the end of it. You can whinge that A levels
> were harder when you did them to make yourself feel superior to
> today's schoolchildren, r you can be quiet about it and realise that
> every year students work extremely hard for their exams and usually
> deserve the exact grade that they get.
>
I don't care about feeling superior etc. It would be a travesty and a failing in previous years candidates who are now teachers if there wasn't some sort of improvement. The system should encorporate a way of measuring that improvement, especially with the extreme pressure on teachers with league tables etc. without saying "oh, well maybe the exams are just easier these days".
>
> To me, the problem is not that there are too many candidates, but
> that there aren't enough universities. Surely the solution for
> increasing numbers of successful students is not to randomly
> discriminate via computer, but just to make more space for them.
I completely agree with you here. Before elected Tony Blair said "education education education" and wanted 75% of people to go on to further education, without realising that that would make further education becaome just "normal" education.
Goatboy wrote:
> Simon Says wrote:
> The first is that A levels are blatantly easier now than when I did
> them way back.
>
> The second reason is that every year as students wait nervously for
> their results, the media tell them that the A levels they've worked
> their behind off for aren't worth as much as the previous years, or
> the previous years, and so on. Whether that is true or not it
> devalues the achievements of young people in a system they had no
> control over.
>
> ---------
>
> You contradict yourself. So which side are you taking?
> This argument is funamentally flawed and a silly thing.
And our survey says . . EH ERR
There is no contradiction here. Merely two points.
One says that I believe A levels are easier now, purely on grounds of the method in which they are taught.
The second point says that its unfair to the students to devalue their achievements every year by comparing this years results to previous ones because that is something students have no choice in, and that a system should be employed that has that functionality incorporated.
> Simon Says wrote:
> The first is that A levels are blatantly easier now than when I did
> them way back.
>
> The second reason is that every year as students wait nervously for
> their results, the media tell them that the A levels they've worked
> their behind off for aren't worth as much as the previous years, or
> the previous years, and so on. Whether that is true or not it
> devalues the achievements of young people in a system they had no
> control over.
>
> ---------
>
> You contradict yourself. So which side are you taking?
> This argument is funamentally flawed and a silly thing.
And our survey says . . EH ERR
There is no contradiction here. Merely two points.
One says that I believe A levels are easier now, purely on grounds of the method in which they are taught.
The second point says that its unfair to the students to devalue their achievements every year by comparing this years results to previous ones because that is something students have no choice in, and that a system should be employed that has that functionality incorporated.
Blank wrote:
> I don't believe it. In terms of grades, I did much better than my
> mother did, but she's probably more intelligent than I am. When she
> took hers, A grades were unheard of. Now virtually everyone gets an
> A.
You could say she IS more intelligent than you, but can you say she WAS more intelligent than you? :-)
Anysway, once I talked to my mum about A Levels and she described the teaching she got at a grammar school.
It was crap.
The teacher read out the notes in the exercise book, set the exercise and then marked the work (probably using an answer book! :-D).
Teaching has fantastically improved since then, and seeing some of the ancient materials my school was forced to make do with when the new Further Maths books weren't printed in time (yep, our stupid backwards government set exams before people were ready to teach the content) and they were just from 1993.
God knows how awful (by todays standard) even older books must've been!
By the by, Bell's little quip of "how can there be more in the course if there aren't more hours in the day than there used to be".
Well, there's the same amount of hours in the day, just more work to cram into them. A lot of our progress often seemed rushed (especially in the first year when teachers weren't quite used to the new syllabus) and we had to delay some of the first year exams because there hadn't been enough time to learn the course properly yet.
And you can't just forget the first year because:
A. Work leads directly on from it, so you need to know most of it to carry with the rest of the course.
B. Most subjects require a Synoptice paper which broadly covers both years.
Sure, you don't have to remember the first year in as much detail as the second, but it's still not quite a piece of cake.
On the brighter side, the books and other learning resources are better than ever so you're left with a fighting chance.
> I don't believe it. In terms of grades, I did much better than my
> mother did, but she's probably more intelligent than I am. When she
> took hers, A grades were unheard of. Now virtually everyone gets an
> A.
You could say she IS more intelligent than you, but can you say she WAS more intelligent than you? :-)
Anysway, once I talked to my mum about A Levels and she described the teaching she got at a grammar school.
It was crap.
The teacher read out the notes in the exercise book, set the exercise and then marked the work (probably using an answer book! :-D).
Teaching has fantastically improved since then, and seeing some of the ancient materials my school was forced to make do with when the new Further Maths books weren't printed in time (yep, our stupid backwards government set exams before people were ready to teach the content) and they were just from 1993.
God knows how awful (by todays standard) even older books must've been!
By the by, Bell's little quip of "how can there be more in the course if there aren't more hours in the day than there used to be".
Well, there's the same amount of hours in the day, just more work to cram into them. A lot of our progress often seemed rushed (especially in the first year when teachers weren't quite used to the new syllabus) and we had to delay some of the first year exams because there hadn't been enough time to learn the course properly yet.
And you can't just forget the first year because:
A. Work leads directly on from it, so you need to know most of it to carry with the rest of the course.
B. Most subjects require a Synoptice paper which broadly covers both years.
Sure, you don't have to remember the first year in as much detail as the second, but it's still not quite a piece of cake.
On the brighter side, the books and other learning resources are better than ever so you're left with a fighting chance.
I'm afraid you are. I haven't had anything official yet, but I did better than the conditional offer, so I think they're contractually obliged to give me a place.
By the way, I meant to ask you, are you on a three or four year course?
By the way, I meant to ask you, are you on a three or four year course?
Blankster, are you still heading York-wards? Am I facing the prospect of having to match your banter in a university setting?
I totally agree with the point that it's unfair to criticise people's results because the exams are getting easier - no students had a choice in getting easier exams. Many students get A's, yes, but how much better do you want them to do? I'm sure many would choose for the harder exams with a different qualification at the end of it, but that choice isn't available.
And as a side note, I found some of the papers I sat more difficult than a lot of the past papers that I'd done over the course of the year.
Even if they are easier, I don't think it's fair for the media to constantly emphasise this and belittle the achievements of those who did well. In fact, it probably makes it especially difficult for those who didn't get the grades they needed, despite sitting "easy" exams.
The students have no control over the difficulty of the exams they sit, so it isn't fair to criticise 'the youth of today' for getting an easy ride on exams, since they have to make do with the exams that are set.
I don't know whether exams are any easier, but I do believe the media handles the situation too harshly.
The students have no control over the difficulty of the exams they sit, so it isn't fair to criticise 'the youth of today' for getting an easy ride on exams, since they have to make do with the exams that are set.
I don't know whether exams are any easier, but I do believe the media handles the situation too harshly.
Anyway, I'll need to up my act next term. I was bordering on satisfactory in some cases.
Quite right sheepy, although to be honest if they just scrape in, they may not even get to graduation.
Page: