A challenge to those who think GCSEs and A levels get easier every year

[littlebabyjesus]

I went to a school that liked to think of itself as academic – was a grammar school then later went private when that commie comprehensive stuff really kicked in – but the vast majority of the teaching was shit. Totally fucking shit. I remember three teachers – one maths, one English and my Russian teacher – who would try to get us to think. The rest of them were just concerned with getting us to pass exams, which meant memorising a load of shit basically. We were little more than performing monkeys.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Critical thinking is part of the science we teach, and RE. A lot of philosophy happens in RE too.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I went to a school that liked to think of itself as academic – was a grammar school then later went private when that commie comprehensive stuff really kicked in – but the vast majority of the teaching was shit. Totally fucking shit. I remember three teachers – one maths, one English and my Russian teacher – who would try to get us to think. The rest of them were just concerned with getting us to pass exams, which meant memorising a load of shit basically. We were little more than performing monkeys.

That actually sounds better than my grammar school. A lot of lessons involved sitting in silence copying out chunks of text books into our exercise books. I didn't go in much after I was 15. I don't think they noticed to be honest. I loathed it and I'm someone who loves learning.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

...and it was rife with unchallenged bullying and racism.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I did well at school, very well, in terms of passing exams that is. But I loathed it. I was bored most of the time and I despised most of the teachers.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I did really badly. I think my school failed so many of its students.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I developed a love for learning after leaving school, and went to uni a few years later having discovered that I really wanted to learn stuff. School had taught me how to pass exams, not how to learn, and certainly not how to love learning. And precious little of any of what I was taught was to do with learning how to think.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I loved learning before, with a passion, but did not recognise what happened in my grammar school as learning, because it wasn't.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Studying English Literature stopped me reading novels. I started again when I was about 20 and the adverse effects of school were wearing off.

 

[skyscraper101]

What annoyed me most about the GCSE years more than any other years of study, is that the teaching seemed to focus too much on exam technique and how to gain extra points, rather than offer up much inspiration to learn to love the subject.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The best bits of school that I remember are exclusively of when a teacher went off piste to talk about what really interested them rather than the syllabus. We could sidetrack my Russian teacher for half the class, sometimes, to discuss an article he'd read in the Telegraph, but it is those discussions that I remember now. I had a maths teacher who was fascinated by cosmology, and it is the discussions of cosmology that I now remember.

 

[skyscraper101]

The best bits of school that I remember are exclusively of when a teacher went off piste to talk about what really interested them rather than the syllabus.

Ah side tracking. Memories of getting the geography teacher to explain Chaos Theory was a classic.

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

My only personal knowledge of this issue is that when I was doing O'Level French, the high school I went to (an ex-grammar) used a particular text book. Fast forward a few years, and I decided to enrol in an A'Level French course. I was perplexed to realise that the exact same text book I had used for O'Level French was being used to teach A'Level French.

I must admit, whenever this issue comes up, I do think back to that, to a text book formerly used to teach O'Level being used to teach A'Level.

The above does lead me to suspect that exams might have gotten easier. Plus the way many young people nowadays appear to be only semi-literate, so how the fuck so many of them can be scoring A*s when so many of them also appear unable to string a coherent sentence together baffles me. I wouldn't like to categorically say, one way or the other, given that I don't have any evidence to support any argument either way but I do find it curious that the exam grades appear to indicate pupil attainment has improved, whereas reading and hearing stuff would appear to indicate that standards have fallen. It's an anomaly. I can't figure it out. Does not compute.

And no, I wouldn't want to sit one of those exam papers, not without doing some course work and revision - my formerly photographic memory has faded with age!

 

[cesare]

I don't know whether or not GCSEs and A levels have become easier because I don't have a 'nowadays' to compare with; and even if I did I doubt my comparison would mean very much after all these years. I found doing a GCSE back in the 90s was easier than my Os in the 70s but the circumstances of my studying etc were entirely different - for one thing I was just doing one exam rather than several!

I've kept (i.e. hoarded ) many of my old school books and a couple of years ago I found this old 1978 O level paper amongst them. I've attached it for interest though I'm not sure that any meaningful comparison can be made?

 

[cesare]

When my step-daughter was revising for her GCSEs back in 1994, I lent her some of my old textbooks/notebooks for some of the subjects she was finding tricky/lacking confidence in. She said that she found them useful although I suspect that their usefulness was confined to looking at the subjects in a slightly different way because of differences in teaching methods. Plus of course curiosity value because even then they were 17+ years old

 

[cesare]

1. I haven't studied any science since school and if you'd asked me to sit one of my exams a year later I probably would get a lower mark than on the exam day.

For sure, me too. I only paid enough attention to take notes in class & cram info for exam passing purposes rather than committing to long term memory.

2. You'd need to get a current student to sit an old paper too, for balance.

Plus the results being marked to equivalent standards. Even back in my day (for instance) we knew that the University of London board was a doddle compared to Oxford, which we dreaded

Not that I'm saying I think the papers have gotten easier. I have no idea whether they have or not.

Aye. It would be an interesting study to carry out ... but so many factors to take into consideration.

 

[ymu]

Plus the results being marked to equivalent standards. Even back in my day (for instance) we knew that the University of London board was a doddle compared to Oxford, which we dreaded

Marking schemes certainly make a difference. I mark university papers occasionally and I'm quite shocked at some of those that achieve a pass. One of the big problems is a box-ticking approach to marking schemes where they get marks for mentioning the right buzz words, but there's no means for taking them off again if something else they say indicates they actually don't understand the concept. (Top tip for students - if you don't know, don't waffle on and make it obvious!)

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I think enthusiasm can transcend that. I think if teachers love their subject kids see that.

 

[cesare]

Marking schemes certainly make a difference. I mark university papers occasionally and I'm quite shocked at some of those that achieve a pass. One of the big problems is a box-ticking approach to marking schemes where they get marks for mentioning the right buzz words, but there's no means for taking them off again if something else they say indicates they actually don't understand the concept. (Top tip for students - if you don't know, don't waffle on and make it obvious!)

I think it's more likely that folk fall out about the marking than the level of education. Maybe it's more true to say that the level of marking gets easier/different every year???

Just a thought. I'd rather assign differences to marking than quality of teaching (such as it exists).

 

[_angel_]

I wouldn't be able to take any GCSEs unless I had actually done the coursework - I would have hoped that my English language is better than it was 20 years ago though! I have actually still got my English coursework somewhere in the house and know that my spelling and grammar has got better since then.

I would have hoped that my French was better since I did A level afterwards, but there's no way I could do any of the rest of them again - especially the Maths!

It looks like my old school did a million times better than when I was there, I imagine the teaching has improved from the days kids could be left to fail all their exams without anyone giving a shit as long as they sat quietly at the back.

Btw you want to post this in general Mrs M. because a certain Scot never ventures out of there.

ETA: I believe they have changed the way they award As and A stars from how it was done when we did them (on percentages rather than over a certain mark) which might explain the increase.

What these old gimmers don't want to admit is they actually want an exam where 70% of the kids fail because it couldn't be 'proper' otherwise.

 

[A Dashing Blade]

. . . I happened to have a Foundation Science GCSE paper in my handbag (there are various levels of Science paper...double science...applied science...foundation science). Foundation Science is the paper that is about understanding basic science in everyday life and is regarded as the 'easy' paper. . . .

Example here

Took biology, chem and physics O'Levels in '77, would have walked that then, even now there's nothing there I find intimidating. Can absolutely understand why people think it's "the 'easy' paper"

 

[ernestolynch]

I do have a couple of posters in my sights on this one but I think they're too chicken to take up the challenge because of the massive probability of what is technically known as pwnage.

You wouldn't be...trolling...by any chance, would you?

Someone call WoW on the Batphone!

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I think I'm right in saying that that exam paper can only get you a C maximum. You have to take a harder one to get an A or B.

No doubt someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but if not, that would explain why you think it looks easy. It should be compared to an old CSE paper, basically, not an old O level.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Btw you want to post this in general Mrs M. because a certain Scot never ventures out of there.

He's not in my sights on this one.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I think I'm right in saying that that exam paper can only get you a C maximum. You have to take a harder one to get an A or B.

Yes. But a lot of kids are delighted with a C. They know they can't be doctors but what they want is their 5 GCSEs and for science to be one of them. The Foundation paper is about science in everyday life and so many people have batshit ideas about science and I think every child leaving school should be able to understand basic everyday stuff.

 

[Mrs Magpie]

I do think parental interest and involvement in their child's education is a key to success but I think lack of parental interest can be overcome. If good teachers (and TAs) show genuine interest in a child and encourage them that can be enough. I do tend to wear my heart on my sleeve with children that I work with. They know I genuinely care about their future and I really praise their achievements and show genuine pleasure when they do well. They know if they put in effort they will have that recognised.

 

[kropotkin]

I went to a grammar school.
For my a levels I was in the top group for maths, and we competed all the previous exam papers months before the a level exam. Our teacher brought us in an o-level maths paper to show us the difference.

It was *much* harder.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Have you looked at the sample paper monkeygrinder linked to, kropotkin? I did o level and a level maths and while I couldn't say for sure after all this time, I don't think o level maths was easier than that paper.

tbh the slightly depressing thing about looking at that paper is that it reminds me that my mind was much better able to solve such problems when I was a teenager than it is now.

 

[WouldBe]

Pick your subject and I will, in exam conditions, get you to sit a paper and mark the paper and see how you do.

Any comparison would be completely meaningless. There are different syllabusses between O' level and GCSE for starters.

If you asked someone who had just got an A* in maths to use log tables to work out a problem they would be completely lost.

 

[kropotkin]

Have you looked at the sample paper monkeygrinder linked to, kropotkin? I did o level and a level maths and while I couldn't say for sure after all this time, I don't think o level maths was easier than that paper.

But much of that is just having forgotten how to do it now- my experience was when I was match fit for a level maths. It was definitely harder.