'Marking on the curve; is it the solution to A-levels?' blog discussion

JimmyTheWig

littlemissmoney wrote: »

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.

melancholly wrote: »

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.:eek: 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

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

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

Gemmzie wrote: »

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/archives/2008/are_a_levels_getting_easier__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).

BurningSnowman

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

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*.

Clearly the boards agree - the AEA already mentioned is being dropped, alongside the introduction of the A*, despite the fact that the new A-level specs won't be anything like as useful as a more challenging paper. In fact, maybe the boards just don't want the admin costs. Hmmm...

WRT discouraging entry, in my experience it happens more at the learning stage than the exam entry one. If your GCSE or AS marks suggest it's not going to end well, you'd be discouraged from taking AS or A2 (respectively). I don't think most places would stop you entering an exam at the last minute and sabotage any chance you had for the whole qualification.