Multi Manager Funds - Hargreaves Lansdown

Aegis

meester wrote: »

Surely that depends on when you did your A Levels? They get easier each year.

My recollection from when I did Maths and Further Maths (2000, 2 A's), was that they had a number of dumbing down techniques. To get an A Level you needed 6 'modules'. Modules are a dumbing down technique whereby instead of actually remembering significant quantities of information learned over two years, you just need to remember the last term's worth. In addition, if you screwed up a module, you could retake it at least twice. I got 100% on the first couple of modules, which meant that when I only got 65% on another module due to lack of study (which was a C or possibly B grade), it didn't matter because I had the points in reserve (80% was an A).

I did maths and further maths as well, in modular format. My modules were set up so that I was required to do six modules, but there were 6 each for pure, mechanics and statistics with some additional specialist modules that weren't offered by the school.

I took 5 pure modules, 4 mechanics and 2 statistics, meaning I took a module beyond what was required for both a-levels. In my first year I took 6 modules and therefore got my a-level immediately, in my second year I took all but 1 of my 7 remaining modules in the summer exam slot, so got the second a-level effectively in a single sitting (as the 6 modules in the second sitting were enough to get me the further maths a-level).

Another key technique was the use of topic shuffling. Basically certain mathematical concepts are objectively more difficult, such as advanced calculus. Rather than removing them entirely from the syllabus, they were moved into higher modules. There were six Pure modules, 4 Statistics, 4 Mechanics, and 2 Discrete modules. For a single Maths A Level you needed to take Pure 1, 2 and 3, plus 3 more. Most schools chose Statistics because it doesn't require any spatial reasoning, and is definitely easier than Mechanics. We did Mechanics. Very few schools I think had the expertise to teach Discrete Mathematics.

I was forced to go right the way up to Pure 5 in my course, which was extremely tough. I probably managed to get a maximum of 50% of the gross marks on the paper, but was graded up because the difficulty had been far beyond what was expected for even further maths a-level students.

Anyway, the result of this was that the exam board knew that those going beyond Pure 3 would be likely to be mathematical. As a result they moved some important, but perhaps tricky, material into later modules, where it would only be tackled by the maths geeks taking Further Maths. As I recall Pure 4 had complex numbers, and Pure 5 and Pure 6 had differential equations and some other topics. Pure 6 I remember was the most challenging of all. Mechanics 4 and Statistics 4, which would surely have been taken in very small numbers given that the obvious pairings for a Further Maths A Level were 3 * Mechanics or 3 * Statistics and 3 * Pure, contained all the hard stuff. By this means the exam board kept all of the 'hard' maths on the syllabus, they just ensured that few actually had to learn it. Result of course being grade inflation.

I don't recall much of the syllabus of Pure 5, but I believe it went into a lot more depth on the subject of complex numbers on my course. Mechanics 4 was differential equations, which was fairly straight forward. I think mechanics 3 was trajectory and orbits, but the rest is just a vague memory now.

My school was a bit duff, and they didn't teach Further Maths, so I had to teach myself. Luckily we did Mechanics in class, so had the rather less unpleasant task of teaching myself Statistics. Discrete maths looked like fun, so I got the school to buy me a book on that, read about the travelling salesman problem and so on. For Further Maths you were only required to do Pure 4 - the harder looking Pure 5 and 6 were optional. I didn't fancy them, and because I had 2 * Discrete, 3 * Statistics, I didn't have to.

Lucky escape!

The other thing the exam boards did, and still do, is compete to provide the easiest exams. Schools, as I did, want to find the easiest exams because it means better exam results, which translates into prestige for the school, a better intake, kudos for individual teachers and heads of department, etc. So schools would switch to whatever exam board had the easiest exams. This of course means an arms race of year-on-year easier exams, as they try to get back lost custom. One of the side-effects of this was the failure of the Oxford board, which didn't dumb down, quite a few years back.

The other dumbing down development I'm aware of is the 'AS' levels. While I have no personal experience of them, this is a transparent wheeze to make things easier - by teaching more subjects, depth is reduced, meaning that hard material can be removed from the syllabus.

I thought much the same when they introduced AS/A2 levels after I left.

purch

I was about to post something interesting about A Level Mathematics.



Then I remembered.............there is NOTHING interesting about A Level Mathematics :eek: !!!!!!!!!!!!!

meester

Aegis wrote: »

I did maths and further maths as well, in modular format. My modules were set up so that I was required to do six modules, but there were 6 each for pure, mechanics and statistics with some additional specialist modules that weren't offered by the school.

I took 5 pure modules, 4 mechanics and 2 statistics, meaning I took a module beyond what was required for both a-levels.


In my first year I took 6 modules and therefore got my a-level immediately, in my second year I took all but 1 of my 7 remaining modules

I take it arithmetic wasn't a part of the syllabus?

Aegis

meester wrote: »

I take it arithmetic wasn't a part of the syllabus?

Heh, nice! Yeah, I took another statistics and one of the ones outside the usual bands of 6. My total was 13 rather than 11.

Usually I'm a little more alert than that, I must say

Aegis

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

I doubt it

Aren't I lucky that your approval would mean literally nothing to me then

Lokolo

meester wrote: »

:rotfl:

In the UK, A-level results have risen for twenty-eight years in a row, with a 2008 pass rate (A–E) of 97.2%

I don't get whats funny or significant about it to be honest? Its hardly being 'dumbed down', we're just getting smarter

You can't retake life pet.

Is pet now my nickname?

And I don't plan to, I am happy where I am

Lokolo

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

:rotfl:

There was some evidence for increasing intelligence earlier in the twentieth century as malnutrition became a thing of the past...
Now I suspect we're getting stupider again for a variety of reasons not least the molly coddling of kids.

Thats only some people!!! Not everyone. Also, when you're old and grey, think about whose looking after you

Dooooooooooooooonut wrote: »

Would you like it to be? I also have poppet and sweetie avaliable.

Just wondered why you called me 'pet' thats all.

meester

Lokolo wrote: »

I don't get whats funny or significant about it to be honest? Its hardly being 'dumbed down', we're just getting smarter

Yeah, that's why every GCSE or A Level student knows that the exam papers from a few years earlier are much harder than the more recent ones. :rolleyes:

Aegis

meester wrote: »

Yeah, that's why every GCSE or A Level student knows that the exam papers from a few years earlier are much harder than the more recent ones. :rolleyes:

I've not looked at any since my brother did his A-level maths modules. It was fairly easy stuff, but I had just finished my second year at university at the time that he started taking his first exams, so that's not too surprising. I don't think that there was too much difference between what he did and what I did, but with only 4 academic years separating us, that's not really any surprise.