Home » Forums

[MSE Lawrence]

This is the discussion to link on the back of Martin's blog. Please read the blog first, as this discussion follows it.

Read Martin's 'Marking on the curve; is it the solution to A-levels?' Blog.

Click reply to discuss below.

[littlemissmoney]

I kind of agree, however it wouldn't work for all subjects. A Level Further Maths is a good example. People only tend to take further maths if they are really good at maths and want to study it at university. Therefore the majority of people who take it get an A, which seems fair to me.

Edit:

Here are the stats for last year:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...cs_further.stm

[JimmyTheWig]

If teaching standards are getting better (which, presumably they are if the exams are not getting easier but the grades are getting better) then with this method you would have someone getting a B today knowing less than someone getting a B in 5 years time.

I can see your point. Your system shows a student's ability to learn, rather than what they know. Depends on who is looking at the results and why as to which information they would prefer. Maybe students should get both grades??

if a paper or course happens to be easier one year, then marking on the curve smoothes out the problem

This isn't an issue with the current system. That's what moderation is for. There is no strict trule that says, for example, you need to get 70% for an A.

or we simply scrap the whole thing and rely on teacher assessment of pupil ability.

Now there's an idea...

[sdooley]

It would encourage people to take the courses that they perceive less clever people apply for.

[MSE Martin]

Originally Posted by littlemissmoney

I kind of agree, however it wouldn't work for all subjects. A Level Further Maths is a good example. People only tend to take further maths if they are really good at maths and want to study it at university. Therefore the majority of people who take it get an A, which seems fair to me.

Edit:

Here are the stats for last year:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...cs_further.stm

Im not sure why this makes a difference?

Under the 'curve', most of those people would get an A in maths, but then in further maths the grade they got would show how well they did compared to their 'super good' maths peers?

[JimmyTheWig]

It doesn't allow for trends of subjects people take.
For example, what if over the next few years more and more A-level maths students decided to take further maths as well. Lets assume currently that only the top 10% of maths students take further maths and that in 5 years time the top 20% of maths students take further maths.
The student who was on the 16th percentile this year would get a B. The equivalent student in 5 years time would be on the 16th percentile of the top half of the students, making them on the 8th percentile overall, getting an A.

On the other side of the coin, what if over time more youngsters went for vocational courses rather than academic ones. We could assume that the ones who would do this would be more likely to come from the lower end of the academic spectrum meaning that it would get harder for those left to get the good grades.

For this reason alone it would be unfeasable for any course that didn't have a near universal take-up.

[melancholly]

Originally Posted by MSE Martin

Im not sure why this makes a difference?

Under the 'curve', most of those people would get an A in maths, but then in further maths the grade they got would show how well they did compared to their 'super good' maths peers?

but if you need certain grades for uni entry, then you wouldn't want this an option....! it would have put me off, anyway!

i think they could add something to A level results which shows your raw marks rather than just a grade. that way you can see those you scraped an A versus those who got 100%. not sure that would fix it entirely though.

there are also people complaining about the same problem with degree results and too many students being given a 2:1..... no easy solution there either.

[littlemissmoney]

Originally Posted by MSE Martin

Im not sure why this makes a difference?

Under the 'curve', most of those people would get an A in maths, but then in further maths the grade they got would show how well they did compared to their 'super good' maths peers?

That just wouldn't work. University offers are generally not subject specific so it would just put people off choosing subjects like further maths. Or you could get your friends to sit it too and ask them to write nothing to increase your grade

The 'curve' sytem only works when a very large number of people are taking a virtually compulsary exam e.g. SATS or GCSE maths, english and science.

[kingmonkey]

This system would work for Universities I guess, but would make it confusing to employers.

University entry exams are the way forward.

[Karmacat]

Martin, I think this is the system we used to have in this country. I took my A levels in 1973, and just beforehand, I found out what the marking system was: that only 40% of people were allowed to pass. Nobody talked about it in those days, we didn't think about these things, but I think it changed about 1980. Even a couple of years ago, when I was thinking about working abroad teaching English, I got the comment that since my A levels were before 1980, that made a big difference. I was surprised, to say the least.

[jamtart6]

introducing the A* is going to be awful (was on the news) for a-levels...employers will look at results from my year and think "oh they only got A's" whereas this bright young thing has an A*...

the A-Levels in my opinion are the hardest exams ever, because the questions are worded very ambiguously, the answer they want is hardly ever what you've been taught (ie. access to the higher marks is some random thing you've never been taught) and they fluff the marks/grades to suit whatever they want.

Whilst my Uni exams were much tougher in terms of content, the questions/marking etc. were much more straightforward, less of a guessing game as to what the examiner wanted, and based on pure knowledge.

I pity A-level students, and hearing that "they're getting easier every year" only demoralises them

I like the "curve" idea

[JimmyTheWig]

Originally Posted by littlemissmoney

The 'curve' sytem only works when a very large number of people are taking a virtually compulsary exam e.g. SATS or GCSE maths, english and science.

That's what I was trying to say in post #6. It would only work where you could assume that all those who didn't sit the exam were the worst in the year. Ironically, that could be argued for Further Maths, in which case everyone who takes it is in the top 10% and should get an A! But it certainly isn't the case for, for example, A-level psychology.

Originally Posted by melancholly

i think they could add something to A level results which shows your raw marks rather than just a grade. that way you can see those you scraped an A versus those who got 100%. not sure that would fix it entirely though.

As much as I object to Martin's idea, I think this would be worse. Some papers are easier than others. That's just the way it goes. That's where moderation comes in - if a paper is difficult one year you might only need 69% to get an A, but if a paper is easier another year then you might need 71% to get the A. It would be unfair on those students to say someone got a 69% A and someone else got a 71% A when they are both at the same standard.

[JimmyTheWig]

Also, is this A* really a new idea?

When we did our A-levels in 1994 there were what were called "special papers" for the brightest students. (I got a distinction in Physics, but failed the Chemistry one.) I see that as the equivalent of an A*.

[pinkcloudnine]

Slightly off topic, but still A levels. DD got her results yesterday. She was very pleased, passed all 4, gained a place at uni of choice, but won't be taking it up as was put under pressure to apply by school. School had terrible results in Biology, all bar 3 students failed to acheive a pass [C or higher] school blaming the students!!!! most of them passed at least 2 or 3 other subjects, some with straight A's in all other subjects, so hardly stupid! Mind you school very happy as almost all managed first choice uni's, lots were even taken on with grades 3 grades lower than needed!!!! I think it is a case of bums on seats for the uni's this year. It is a worry that it would appear that in my area you can study Biology at degree level with an E grade at A level, & 2 D's in chemistry & geography. This is the case for a friend of DD . I wonder if these students who are, by their school, being pressured into uni & debt, will actually benefit from uni education. I think it is a case of "look at our school, we have sent all our students to uni, aren't we great"
There is life outside university, it's time schools realised this.
Ps, I do have DS in 3rd year at uni, his choice, no pressure from his school, has love of his subject, & wants to teach.

[Gemmzie]

Originally Posted by JimmyTheWig

Also, is this A* really a new idea?

When we did our A-levels in 1994 there were what were called "special papers" for the brightest students. (I got a distinction in Physics, but failed the Chemistry one.) I see that as the equivalent of an A*.

They do that now in some schools, mostly private I believe. They are called AEA - you only pass or fail but they are used for the top students.

From next year, students will need to put all module marks on UCAS - so if they've got an A but retaken a module three times to get that A, it'll show on paper. Plus the student with AAA at 80% average and AAA at 90% average can be separated.

[tinkerbel]

Originally Posted by Gemmzie

They do that now in some schools, mostly private I believe. They are called AEA - you only pass or fail but they are used for the top students.

From next year, students will need to put all module marks on UCAS - so if they've got an A but retaken a module three times to get that A, it'll show on paper. Plus the student with AAA at 80% average and AAA at 90% average can be separated.

You can't only pass or fail AEA (Advanced Extension Award) exams, you can get a U (fail), a Merit or a Distinction. And I dont think that you can do it in all subjects either and at my school there was very little funding for it and you were only allowed to do it if you werent going to fail.

[yinhong]

The problem lies in the structure of exams.

It's becoming more common to practice standard exam questions which, once you know the answer to one of those type of questions, you know the answer to the miniature variations to them. This does not test anyone's intelligence or ability to perform at a certain subject but rather test their memory.

I think employers have recognised this, and is probably the primary reason why most employers look for more than just exam grades when looking for suitable employees. Personally, I believe life experience is worth a million times more than any exam grade.

There's also the question of what is public schooling actually trying to achieve? Is it to educate people with knowledge? Help them become 'better' people? Or is it simply to differentiate between the 'naturally talented' and the rest? If it's the latter, then why choose only after 18 years to differentiate, since it's the period from 18 - 22 that (I think) people grow the most?

I've got to say though, after 22 years in the education system, I don't BELIEVE in today's public education anymore. Whilst public education is better than no school, I know that there is a better way. Public education also encourages parents to 1) avoid taking real responsibility for what their kids turn into, and 2) simply dump them at school.

[villanova]

According to several web sources, including http://www.hero.ac.uk/uk/studying/ar...asier__Aug.cfm
the system changed in 1984. I'm not sure why, although as one source points out:
"The old system certainly helped identify the best of a particular intake, but as the general standard could vary over a period of years, it was difficult to judge who could actually do what, all norm-referenced grading did was tell you, who was the best and worst of a particular batch. UMS on the other hand, particularly as it gives students a mark out of 600 which is then turned into a grade, does help distinguish very well between students who sat exams in different years."

I think that, as other correspondents have mentioned, the 2 key factors are that teachers are concentrating on drilling pupils to pass exam questions, rather than imparting knowledge and then distilling it into nuggets suitable for exams; and the terrific pressure on teachers and schools to improve their league table positions. I don't know how likely it is that pupils unlikely to pass an exam are discouraged from entering, but I can imagine it happening (it certainly did in my day!)

[dolly day dream]

I think Martin's suggestion shows his financial roots. It always used to be (20+years ago) that only a certain percentage of Chartered Accountants were allowed to pass each year. Therefore if they wanted to be a Chartered Accountant they had to study like mad to ensure they got as high up the list as they could. This I know because I used to work for a business that tutored Chartered Accountants.

[melancholly]

just had a thought - if they added in negative marking for essays, that would help a lot. at the moment students can blurt out lots of rubbish, but as long as there are enough markable points, they can still score well on the question (unlike university, where saying something really stupid results in being marked down).