The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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.
> 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.
I do think over a period of decades they have been made easier but people have also got smarter.
In 5th year in Scotland I worked my backside off to get 3 As and 2Bs in my Highers. Only to look at the news and be told all I had to do was turn up apparently.
In 5th year in Scotland I worked my backside off to get 3 As and 2Bs in my Highers. Only to look at the news and be told all I had to do was turn up apparently.
visit general chat - oh oh spaghettios and AS/A level results topics.
the sagacious one wrote:
> When I took my A-levels many years ago they were a lot easier.
That is interesting. Why do you think you found it easier before and harder now? As I said, I would far prefer a modular system (like they run at most universities) given the choice. Either way, exams only teach students good exam technique.
> When I took my A-levels many years ago they were a lot easier.
That is interesting. Why do you think you found it easier before and harder now? As I said, I would far prefer a modular system (like they run at most universities) given the choice. Either way, exams only teach students good exam technique.
Although the AS system is modular, breaking it down nicely, they've used it as an excuse to cram a whole lot more in.
So instead of having one stressful burnout after two years, you get two stressful burnouts one after another.
So instead of having one stressful burnout after two years, you get two stressful burnouts one after another.
When I took my A-levels many years ago they were a lot easier. I'd done some revision the night before and knew what to write down. Now when I take my A-levels I find it very hard to remember the process of photosynthesis and why communism is different to Bhuddism. I'm still annoyed that you are forced to take A-levels every year, and have to pay to do so when you reach my age. I also find it annoying that every August, my mate's (who thankfully made me aware of the need to take the exams each year) have their results lost in the post, so we can't compare how we've done. Idiot Post Office. I sometimes think that they should use the same examination centre as I do (I always get my results) but they reckon that they'd be tempted to cheat and copy from me.
They probably know best!
They probably know best!
Simon Says wrote:
> 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.
----
You must be kidding.
> 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.
----
You must be kidding.
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: