The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
You know what I love?
People who've only ever sat 1 set of A levels or whatever commenting on whether it's getting easier or not. How the hell would somebody who's only do one years test know if it was easier or harder than last years?
People who've only ever sat 1 set of A levels or whatever commenting on whether it's getting easier or not. How the hell would somebody who's only do one years test know if it was easier or harder than last years?
Then there's the risk of a large gap in youth employment.
Very right wing of me but I'm intelligent and got better grades than many in my Uni courses. I don't want more stupid gits scraping in and getting the same degree as me and lowering my student loan.
I'm sorry but it's true.
Very right wing of me but I'm intelligent and got better grades than many in my Uni courses. I don't want more stupid gits scraping in and getting the same degree as me and lowering my student loan.
I'm sorry but it's true.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Simon Says wrote:
> The first is that A levels are blatantly easier now than when I did
> them way back.
Utter tosh sir.
Students work harder, we are told and drummed (is that a word?) into us that these results dictate our future (which is in my view cack) therefore pressure = harder studying. Better teaching. etc etc etc etc etc etc.
> The first is that A levels are blatantly easier now than when I did
> them way back.
Utter tosh sir.
Students work harder, we are told and drummed (is that a word?) into us that these results dictate our future (which is in my view cack) therefore pressure = harder studying. Better teaching. etc etc etc etc etc etc.
Belldandy wrote:
> As usual your inane comments miss the point. Are there more hours in
> the day? No. Have college hours increased? No. So how can there be
> more content? Not possible.
I didn't miss the point, I was being pedantic because you phrased it very poorly - as if you really had spent all day at college.
And by the way, it's perfectly possible to fit more in, you just have to work faster. I'm not arguing that there is more course content these days, but it's easily possible to fit more in.
> As usual your inane comments miss the point. Are there more hours in
> the day? No. Have college hours increased? No. So how can there be
> more content? Not possible.
I didn't miss the point, I was being pedantic because you phrased it very poorly - as if you really had spent all day at college.
And by the way, it's perfectly possible to fit more in, you just have to work faster. I'm not arguing that there is more course content these days, but it's easily possible to fit more in.
Blank wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> unless colleges and
> sixth forms found a way to get more than 24 hours of a day, then
> there isn't.
>
>
> You spent 24 hours a day at your college!? Wow, they really were
> harder in your day.
As usual your inane comments miss the point. Are there more hours in the day? No. Have college hours increased? No. So how can there be more content? Not possible.
> Belldandy wrote:
> unless colleges and
> sixth forms found a way to get more than 24 hours of a day, then
> there isn't.
>
>
> You spent 24 hours a day at your college!? Wow, they really were
> harder in your day.
As usual your inane comments miss the point. Are there more hours in the day? No. Have college hours increased? No. So how can there be more content? Not possible.
Belldandy wrote:
> unless colleges and
> sixth forms found a way to get more than 24 hours of a day, then
> there isn't.
You spent 24 hours a day at your college!? Wow, they really were harder in your day.
> unless colleges and
> sixth forms found a way to get more than 24 hours of a day, then
> there isn't.
You spent 24 hours a day at your college!? Wow, they really were harder in your day.
They 'weight' exam results, so that a lower score on a hard paper should equate to a higher score on an easier one.
Effectively, they change the mark boundaries for each grade, and so choose their pass rate.
When the pass rate has increased every year for the last 22 years, given that improvements in teaching standards would be as gradual and inconsistant as the personal development of individual teachers, and so should show the odd fall amidst the rises, it's hard to see any other conclusion than when the examiners choose a pass rate, they choose the increase.
And yes, there was the 'getting easier' talk when I had my results, and it totally demeaned all my efforts, and crippled the sense of achievement from working my a** off for decent grades.
I agree with SS, a fixed proportion of students getting each grade would be better, and also wouldn't penalise students who didn't get the advantage of the 'better teaching methods'.
After all, *what* you learn in your a-levels isn't usually so important, not beyond a broad level of knowledge of a subject, it's more about proving that you can work hard, learn, and apply your intelligence.
Whatever the teaching 'techniques' used, a proportional rate will pretty solidly reflect the above.
And mankind's general power of intelligence has been shown to be at a pretty consistant level for thousands of years. It won't change that much year to year.
Sure, some people right on the boundary might whinge, but there will always be people on the boundary who could have scraped an a instead of a b if they'd been just a little more lucky. But proportional grading would make a very very small increase in the role of luck, and it's a factor that will always be there, throughout life. You can't hide from that.
Heh, maybe it'd be better to do away with traditional grades all together, and give people a score based on how high they ranked in the country for that year.
That'd be a much fairer reflection of achievement.
Effectively, they change the mark boundaries for each grade, and so choose their pass rate.
When the pass rate has increased every year for the last 22 years, given that improvements in teaching standards would be as gradual and inconsistant as the personal development of individual teachers, and so should show the odd fall amidst the rises, it's hard to see any other conclusion than when the examiners choose a pass rate, they choose the increase.
And yes, there was the 'getting easier' talk when I had my results, and it totally demeaned all my efforts, and crippled the sense of achievement from working my a** off for decent grades.
I agree with SS, a fixed proportion of students getting each grade would be better, and also wouldn't penalise students who didn't get the advantage of the 'better teaching methods'.
After all, *what* you learn in your a-levels isn't usually so important, not beyond a broad level of knowledge of a subject, it's more about proving that you can work hard, learn, and apply your intelligence.
Whatever the teaching 'techniques' used, a proportional rate will pretty solidly reflect the above.
And mankind's general power of intelligence has been shown to be at a pretty consistant level for thousands of years. It won't change that much year to year.
Sure, some people right on the boundary might whinge, but there will always be people on the boundary who could have scraped an a instead of a b if they'd been just a little more lucky. But proportional grading would make a very very small increase in the role of luck, and it's a factor that will always be there, throughout life. You can't hide from that.
Heh, maybe it'd be better to do away with traditional grades all together, and give people a score based on how high they ranked in the country for that year.
That'd be a much fairer reflection of achievement.
Well;
A) Got my A Levels under the old system before this AS/A malarky so not too bothered if the AS type ones are devalued, I also got mine in what most people consider 'proper' subjects (bar general studies) so again I'm not bothered if people are walking out of college with an A in media studies or expressive arts.
B) I figure AS levels must be easier, you're being allowed to do half the course and just forget about it, under the old system you had to know everything from day one to the last day. Don't come with this "there's more in them" thing because, unless colleges and sixth forms found a way to get more than 24 hours of a day, then there isn't.
C) I think the subjects available has widened to include less academically challenging subjects - which I won't name because it's going to offend someone at least - which are simply easier to pass. 98% passed art/expressive arts. Either we have a nation of artists or a chimpanzee can pass that exam. General studies is an example of one of the pointless A Levels - odds are that anyone with a brain can pull at least a C, as a result many universities will not even accept it - making it pointless.
D) It's insane that there are people on TV with AAA who have been turned down from all Universities because the places are swamped with similar candidates. It must be damn depressing if you have those grades yet have no place! Even the idea of universites asking for more than qualifications is stupid because we all know that you can creatively adapt your experiences for the hilarity that is the "personal statement". Last year I worked at the Uni I was at during enrolment, and sorting through original application forms revealed that either there was a legion of saints starting, or creative writing skills had been put to use.
E) The good news is that, if you get a place, make it through three years of Uni, the next hurdle is graduate jobs unless you are in a very specialised subject, even then it's no guarantee of a job. Supposed to be a shortage in the sciences isn't there? My friend graduate with a 2.1 in chemistry, and she can't even get a £10K a year post because of the sheer volume of people applying. You've got about 100+ people applying for a post, often far more than that. For Toys R Us they whittled 500 people down to 50, invited them in groups of 10 to assesment, and 1 person got a job. Don't think teaching is any easier either, mate of mine graduate with QTS, nearly 2 years now he is still doing temporary work and can't fully qualify because he can't do a probation year anywhere. Exception to this is down South where there is a real shortage.
F) Finally, the good news is that univeristy is easier than A Levels, because you have more time to do stuff, more resources, more help etc The work per se is not itself easier, it's the fact you have the time and can focus on a subject, plus it's a hell of a lot more fun! And no, I've no idea why I labelled this A-F either.
Even better, next year you too can whine about the A Level results as well :P
A) Got my A Levels under the old system before this AS/A malarky so not too bothered if the AS type ones are devalued, I also got mine in what most people consider 'proper' subjects (bar general studies) so again I'm not bothered if people are walking out of college with an A in media studies or expressive arts.
B) I figure AS levels must be easier, you're being allowed to do half the course and just forget about it, under the old system you had to know everything from day one to the last day. Don't come with this "there's more in them" thing because, unless colleges and sixth forms found a way to get more than 24 hours of a day, then there isn't.
C) I think the subjects available has widened to include less academically challenging subjects - which I won't name because it's going to offend someone at least - which are simply easier to pass. 98% passed art/expressive arts. Either we have a nation of artists or a chimpanzee can pass that exam. General studies is an example of one of the pointless A Levels - odds are that anyone with a brain can pull at least a C, as a result many universities will not even accept it - making it pointless.
D) It's insane that there are people on TV with AAA who have been turned down from all Universities because the places are swamped with similar candidates. It must be damn depressing if you have those grades yet have no place! Even the idea of universites asking for more than qualifications is stupid because we all know that you can creatively adapt your experiences for the hilarity that is the "personal statement". Last year I worked at the Uni I was at during enrolment, and sorting through original application forms revealed that either there was a legion of saints starting, or creative writing skills had been put to use.
E) The good news is that, if you get a place, make it through three years of Uni, the next hurdle is graduate jobs unless you are in a very specialised subject, even then it's no guarantee of a job. Supposed to be a shortage in the sciences isn't there? My friend graduate with a 2.1 in chemistry, and she can't even get a £10K a year post because of the sheer volume of people applying. You've got about 100+ people applying for a post, often far more than that. For Toys R Us they whittled 500 people down to 50, invited them in groups of 10 to assesment, and 1 person got a job. Don't think teaching is any easier either, mate of mine graduate with QTS, nearly 2 years now he is still doing temporary work and can't fully qualify because he can't do a probation year anywhere. Exception to this is down South where there is a real shortage.
F) Finally, the good news is that univeristy is easier than A Levels, because you have more time to do stuff, more resources, more help etc The work per se is not itself easier, it's the fact you have the time and can focus on a subject, plus it's a hell of a lot more fun! And no, I've no idea why I labelled this A-F either.
Even better, next year you too can whine about the A Level results as well :P
Page: