Edukashun, edukashun, edukashun!

[InsaneApache]

I've been concerned for some time about the effects of dumbing down our educational system. To be fair to our current government this started a long time ago. However Blair and Brown have lifted this whole sorry farrago to a new level.

SOME of the country’s most academic schools are discouraging pupils from applying to popular courses at Durham University in protest at what they see as an admissions system “fixed” against them.

The pupils are being told that they are likely to be overlooked for some courses because Durham uses a handicap system, based on mathematical formulae, to favour candidates from schools with poor grades.

As a result, candidates from high-performing schools - whether state or independent - are penalised.

Durham, Oxford and Cambridge are among those universities that have adopted formulae that use GCSE results data specially compiled by Ed Balls’s Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). The system gives a rating to the GCSE performance of every school in the country which is used to “weight” the scores of university applicants.
Related Links
The answer is to make bad schools better
More university students complain over grades
Students pay peanuts but expect caviar

The thinking is that because candidates from low-scoring schools have outstripped their peers, they deserve more credit than pupils who score a string of A* grades at a school where most pupils do so.

The extra points can be decisive in “tie breakers” for some of Durham’s most heavily oversubscribed courses, such as English and history, with more than 20 applicants per place.

Andrew Grant, chairman of the Headmasters’ and Headmistresses’ Conference of independent schools and headmaster of St Albans school, Hertfordshire, said he had sympathy with the plight of the university, which has to reject about 3,500 applicants a year predicted to score at least three As at A-level. “None of us has any quarrel with making an allowance for serious disadvantage in individual cases,” he said. “What all of us object to is some spurious mathematical formula being applied across the board as if some kind of genuine accuracy is achievable.

“The message I and some colleagues are getting from Durham is that however brilliant your students are in English and history, send them somewhere else - we don’t want them.”

Barnaby Lenon, headmaster of Harrow school, London, said he was warning his brightest pupils they may not get offers for these subjects at Durham “because this year we have had a letter from them saying they are giving preference to pupils from low-achieving schools”.

The concern is spreading to the state sector. Martin Post, headmaster of Watford Grammar School for Boys - a comprehensive, despite its name - said the mathematical approach was flawed.

“How can you weight a school on the basis of these GCSE results? Do they take into account, for example, vocational courses for which the government often gives the same value as four GCSEs? Bless them, these people in higher education are probably unaware of the wangles that go on to improve league positions.”

Universities have been under strong pressure from the government to raise the proportions of students from state schools and deprived families. Use of the formulae is only one of the techniques used.

Durham has said its system was introduced partly in response to a report last year by the National Council for Educational Excellence, which was endorsed by Gordon Brown, Balls and John Denham, the universities secretary.

Sir Martin Harris, the government’s director of fair access, said he expected the GCSE points method to spread. “Will it help fairer access if universities bear in mind average performance of the school? . . . I imagine universities will go down that path,” he said.

However, Professor Alan Smithers, director of the Centre for Education and Employment Research at Buckingham University, said the methods were “antieducational”. He added: “The operation of these formulae is crude and unfair. Universities should be looking for those with the most talent. The country is making a grave mistake.”

Other universities using formulae include Cambridge, which uses government data to award variable points based on GCSEs. The university says no candidates win places solely on their modified GCSEs, but that it is “unarguable” that a candidate’s grades are affected by the school they attended.

Oxford also uses weighted GCSEs for admissions to medical degrees. On the course, which traditionally had a public school “rugger bugger” image, 50% of a candidate’s chances of being shortlisted for an interview depends on GCSE score, marked up if they attend a poorly performing school.

The Durham formula allows each candidate a maximum eight points for GCSEs. An A* scores one, with 0.6 for an A. The score is “modified” with up to 5.5 points to help candidates who have outperformed the average for their school.

Other universities that have requested GCSE figures include Leeds, Manchester, Bristol and Warwick.

Some departments at Bristol, including history, give extra points to candidates from poorly performing schools, although the government data are used only for research.

Some sixth formers believe they may have already been hit by formulae or similar methods. Jack Harman, 19, attended King’s College school, Wimbledon, a high-performing school in south London.

Even though he was predicted to gain three As at A-level, he was rejected by all five British universities to which he applied to read history - Oxford, Edinburgh, York, Warwick and King’s College London. He will now study in America instead.

His mother Emma Duncan said: “I cannot say the British universities are definitely biased . . . [but] calibrating the children’s results with the school record may be one reason Jack was turned down.It is bonkers he does not have a place in a good university here.”

Universities said weighted GCSE scores were vital to see a candidate’s grades in context.

A Durham spokesman said: “For some courses, competition is so fierce our selectors have to make choices between applicants who present themselves with identical credentials.

“The DCSF standardisation measurement allows selectors to see how an applicant has performed in relation to their school’s average. The results have been used to inform decisions in favour of fee [paying] as well as nonfee paying schools.”

A threat to excellence

The government formula used to analyse GCSE results, adopted by Durham and Oxford, is obviously flawed.

It is flawed for two reasons. First, because it assumes that all GCSE results signify an equal level of intellectual achievement. They do not. Many state schools enter their pupils for vocational qualifications which, if passed, are said to count as four good GCSE grades. This is a scam and it renders the whole concept of this government formula ridiculous.

Why, moreover, should a girl from a highly performing school who does slightly worse in her GCSE examinations than her peers, achieving, say, eight A grades against a school average of nine, be judged a weaker candidate than the boy from a less successful school who achieves five A grades against a school average of two or three? The latter candidate may be the stronger, but no mechanistic formula is going to establish the fact.

Ministers, rightly, want more bright young people from disadvantaged homes to win places at top universities. They think, wrongly, that this can be achieved by forcing universities to implement admissions policies that discriminate against candidates from independent and highly performing schools.

In fact, of course, the solution lies in the schools disadvantaged children attend. Labour has failed to raise standards in such schools and now wants us to believe that the problem is the elitism of our best universities.

Great universities are, by definition, elitist. They are institutions that exist in order to promote academic excellence. That excellence will survive if the best candidates compete with another for the limited places available. Social engineering will destroy it.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6350374.ece

Now, can anyone explain to me how this is a good idea. It's a long time past but when I went to school it was drummed into us to get the best grades and as many of them as possible. When will these jokers 'get it'?

[drone]

Sounds to me like somebody doesn't understand that Harrison Bergeron was a satire. :inquisitive:

[Beskar]

This is why I am getting aiming for a Masters.

GCSE's, A Level's and Degrees have been argued for cases of dumbing down while Masters so far have been unaffected.

[Scurvy]

I'm not sure I like the formula, but the principle is right, if 2 people get the same grades, and have similar UCAS statements/ equivelent, then the person at the 'poorer' school should get the nod, its common sense. The problem comes when the consideration becomes disproportionate.

I am never convinced by claims that exams are getting easier. It couldn't possibly be that the education system is better, or kids actually work hard :dizzy2: As someone who did GCSE's, A-Levels etc. recently, it is never nice to see your hard being written off.

It is certainly true that A-levels and GCSE's are becoming harder for universities to use in choosing potential students (for whatever reason). I think an A* grade has been added for A-Leveks this year, and I am very much in favour of re-catagorizing the marks into smaller bands (say 90% A*, 80% A etc.)

Just to note, someone who goes to Private school, and gets a decent set of grades will get into a good University - the issue imo is over the high level universities, the top 5 or so, where everyone is getting straight A's.

I also have immense sympathy with the government over education. If the results improve, the exams are getting easier/ the syllabus is aimed at exams/ the statistics have been manipulated. If results fall, the government is blamed for decreasing educational standards etc. They can't win.

:2thumbsup:

[rory_20_uk]

A levels should be so that only the top 5% get As - so all grades have value. As it is anything below a C is worthless, and Bs are not great. Considering the list goes down to F, the distribution is very poorly skewed.

If this were the case then I would agree that goign to a worse school with the same grades should get in. But in a system where vast numbers all get the same grades this is unfair.

If I had children at that age I'd send them to a crappy school and pay for private tuition to get the grades.

~:smoking:

[naut]

To all non-British Orgahs the British education system is marked in an exceedingly odd fashion. Due to the "no-fail" policy. You can get 9 GCSEs for example, but they may in fact all be a grade of E which means you got 10%-20% on each of your foundation papers, but you still don't fail. :dizzy2:


I'm not sure I like the formula, but the principle is right, if 2 people get the same grades, and have similar UCAS statements/ equivelent, then the person at the 'poorer' school should get the nod, its common sense. The problem comes when the consideration becomes disproportionate.
I disagree. Common sense should really be placed in jar next to discarded nonsense. The alternative? Yes it takes more time, but they really should ask both students in for an interview and assess which has the right attitude/determination etc., and then choose on their merits.

The article seems to be indicating that the Universities have to accept people in the following fashion:

Two students
One who has 3 A* grades from a school with an average A grade applies
One who has 3 B* grades from a school with an average D grade applies


Why should the B* student get the spot? In terms of marks they have only got 40% on a higher level paper or 70% on a foundation paper? It makes no sense! The A* student has got 80%-85% plus on a higher level paper. They are obviously the smarter/more studious student. IF the B* student is actually worthy there should be an alternate means where they can apply and actually have a face to face application where the University can decide if they warrant a spot.

(A little google fishing seems to indicate this too).

[drone]

Sorry for being an ignorant yank, but are these A-levels/GCSE tests standardized across the country? Is a student in the worst Manc slum being graded against the same questions as the posh kid in Chelsea?

[Beskar]

As a point, both GCSE's and A-levels are basically scrapped in the country, being replaced by a diploma system which will be fully introduced by the time our 11 year olds reach the age of 16.

GCSE - General Certificate of Secondary Education. This is the national test where everyone in England take the same exams and get graded on. So one person one side of the country gets graded the same as some one else on the other side.

AS/A - (Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced level) in also the same as GCSE in this regard.

[rory_20_uk]

As a point, both GCSE's and A-levels are basically scrapped in the country, being replaced by a diploma system which will be fully introduced by the time our 11 year olds reach the age of 16.

GCSE - General Certificate of Secondary Education. This is the national test where everyone in England take the same exams and get graded on. So one person one side of the country gets graded the same as some one else on the other side.

AS/A - (Advanced Subsidiary and Advanced level) in also the same as GCSE in this regard.

Not quite true. There are several different boards that set the exams and many are known to differ in standards. Market forces dictate that easy exams will attract schools who want to maximise their good results.

A better system would be to get the top 10 universities in the given field responsibility to set GCSEs and A levels

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

They are being scrapped anyway and we are moving to a diploma system. So it is really pointless to discuss them, and if anything, discuss the diploma system.

[rory_20_uk]

Moving deckchairs on the Titanic. The basic underlying problems are being studiously avoided:


The reasoning for increasing the school leaving age
The perceived quality of the exams - when universities and employers state they're getting worse it's time to worry.
The widespread lack of drive to succeed in school - lack of differential between benefits and working a 40 hour week?
Alternate pathways for non academic students - surely there's something better than pretending we're all equal until the poor sods hit 18?


~:smoking:

[Scurvy]

The reasoning for increasing the school leaving age
The perceived quality of the exams - when universities and employers state they're getting worse it's time to worry.
The widespread lack of drive to succeed in school - lack of differential between benefits and working a 40 hour week?
Alternate pathways for non academic students - surely there's something better than pretending we're all equal until the poor sods hit 18?



:2thumbsup: especially 4.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They are being scrapped anyway and we are moving to a diploma system. So it is really pointless to discuss them, and if anything, discuss the diploma system.

GCSE's and A Levels are not being scrapped, the idea has been put on the table, but the take up has been low, markers have laughed at the exams rather than cry in despair, and the current government will be out on its ear in less than a year.

So, not a done deal.

As regards exam boards, the two Welsh boards are considered the hardest, and Welsh language papers are harder than English ones.

To all those who say they have worked very hard on their A-Levels this year, I am sure you have. I also know my sisters exams this year were easier and less intellectually taxing than mine four years ago.

So, it seems that Labour has presided over a system that non only inflates grades, but lowers standards as well. Major may have started the slide, but it's got a hell of a lot worse in the last 12 years and it's not his fault.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Moving deckchairs on the Titanic. The basic underlying problems are being studiously avoided:


The reasoning for increasing the school leaving age
The perceived quality of the exams - when universities and employers state they're getting worse it's time to worry.
The widespread lack of drive to succeed in school - lack of differential between benefits and working a 40 hour week?
Alternate pathways for non academic students - surely there's something better than pretending we're all equal until the poor sods hit 18?


~:smoking:

#3 Seems important to me - why study and work hard if you can lounge about on the backs of honest folk? People on the dole in Britain seem better off than folks on welfare over here.

CR

[tibilicus]

A levels should be so that only the top 5% get As - so all grades have value. As it is anything below a C is worthless, and Bs are not great. Considering the list goes down to F, the distribution is very poorly skewed.

If this were the case then I would agree that goign to a worse school with the same grades should get in. But in a system where vast numbers all get the same grades this is unfair.

If I had children at that age I'd send them to a crappy school and pay for private tuition to get the grades.

~:smoking:


This man talks sense.

The fact is that for most courses any University in the top 30 wants at least two A grades.

[Beskar]

A levels should be so that only the top 5% get As - so all grades have value.

It is a stupid idea. The value should be the demonstration of knowledge, not where you are ranked.

[rory_20_uk]

That's not what A levels are there for. They are there to differentiate candidates.
It's not like the Theory test for driving where as long as you're over the minimum it's OK (or Medicine, come to think of it...).

Your system would be OK with everyone having the same grades. So what do universities and employers do then? Most likely construct new exams - utterly undermining the point of A levels. That's stupid.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

No, the exams are certificates to say you are of the right standard. What does it care to Universities and Employers? "This person has proven advanced knowledge on the subject" ultimately, they are of the standard to do the course/job.

The rating system from A to E depicts the standard of knowledge demonstration. It isn't a ranking system and education shouldn't be a ranking system.

[A Terribly Harmful Name]

I pity Britain. It'll be 3rd World in less than two decades, if current trends are not reversed.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, the exams are certificates to say you are of the right standard. What does it care to Universities and Employers? "This person has proven advanced knowledge on the subject" ultimately, they are of the standard to do the course/job.

The rating system from A to E depicts the standard of knowledge demonstration. It isn't a ranking system and education shouldn't be a ranking system.

The grades demonstrate level of achievement, that achievement tells the universities etc. whether you are worth investing in.

Traditionally, anyone without all Bs was not. All As was considered a very good bet indeed.

Now the government's qualifications are useless as any kind of standard.

[Crazed Rabbit]

No, the exams are certificates to say you are of the right standard. What does it care to Universities and Employers? "This person has proven advanced knowledge on the subject" ultimately, they are of the standard to do the course/job.

The rating system from A to E depicts the standard of knowledge demonstration. It isn't a ranking system and education shouldn't be a ranking system.

The problem is when schools lower the standard so more kids can pass and the teachers can say how good they are. Thus, the stupider kids get higher marks, so the Universities and employers can't tell the smart kids from the average ones.

CR

[rory_20_uk]

The grades demonstrate level of achievement, that achievement tells the universities etc. whether you are worth investing in.

Traditionally, anyone without all Bs was not. All As was considered a very good bet indeed.

Now the government's qualifications are useless as any kind of standard.

When my parents were applying to university Cambridge had ABB for several subjects. Now you're unlikely to get anything lower than AAA

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

Hmmm, I don't know how well this "fits" in here, but...

a couple of months ago I read about a Dutch sociology student who had been on an exchange program with an American university. All her grades were straight A's.

Dutch grading works from 1 (lowest) till 10 (highest, and incredibly rare)
When she went back to the Netherlands to finish her study there, she found out that all her American A's had been converted into Dutch 8's.
This supposedly was because an A from this particular university and a Dutch 8 are comparable. The student felt that her efforts would have been rewarded with a higher grade if it were possible, so she went to appeal. I don't know what happened next.

[Beskar]

Yeah, same here in the United Kingdom. American grades are ranked lower than ours. For example, only way to get a First in translation of marks if to get A's from America and then proving this translation by getting First's in your work here is the only way the system compensates for it.

[tibilicus]

When my parents were applying to university Cambridge had ABB for several subjects. Now you're unlikely to get anything lower than AAA

~:smoking:


Both my parents went to Sheffield and got in with C's and D's.


Now you'd probably need AAB to have a worthwhile shot at a place.

[Chimpyang]

I don't think it's particuarly unfair to have the equation in place, but I think that there are issues at hand that cannot be summer up or equalised by an equation alone. Ofc you need to be of a certain standard to do a course at a particular university, but after that baseline standard (which I suspect to be BBC at A level accounting for further progression of workload and maturity) it just comes to setting people apart so you take the 'best' of the crop that has applied.

The exam system is supposed to judge the country as a whole, however, the disparately different exam boards (Edexcel has a reputation for being easier for the sciences - esp chem.) and wildly different teaching quality (in short good schools get lots of money for doing well, hire better teachers, better learning environments which also attract better teachers who don't necessarily want disruptive pupils) mean that it isn't always practical to judge the applicant pool as a whole. Leaving a situation where you are judged comparitively to your immediate peers. If you are a riser above the pack, you obviously have at least some untapped potential if the majority is getting a lower grade (for whatever reason, teaching quality, socioeconomic conditions).

What really throws a curveball into it is the selectivity of grammar school, having been to one I know that they have an effect of pooling generally more able children, creaming them off the top before state schools get a grab at them. Which provides a 'weird' school where the pupils do well in exams, only a few will rise above. The equation will not account for the fact that these kids would probably 'shine' relatviely has they not been picked out at 11 and therefore creates a lot of unfair fiascos etc.... public schools have a similar effect, drawing upon the socioeconomic backgrounds of people who are sent there, and the 'intellectual prowess' of those who are lucky enough to get a scholarship. I can't think of a way to correct the situation, but hope my arguments shows why it is not entirely unfair to provide a leveller to account for different backgrounds.

Whilst there is less to separate between the levels, it is mostly down to the focus of the education system. Instead of teaching knowledge, schools are more exam machines teaching kids how to pass exams. Luckily I had more of an emphasis in my education on "useless" knowledge, but the time taken over courseworks and necessities of exam preparation now take up most of a year's worth of classes, leaving very little time for teaching of broader, extra curricular (but still academic) things. Which is why paying schools to get good grades doesn't work, only on a superficial level.... :(

[rory_20_uk]

BBC is pitifully low - you're not even that good at the subject you're going to be doing at a higher level!

It is no wonder that the higher rates of drop outs are as a rule from those with lower grades (and poorer backgrounds).

The worst courses will spend up to 2 of the 3 years rehashing A level work. The best will assume you're utterly competent and will set off at a brisk pace; for example in Maths the best places such as Cambridge and Warwick assume you've not only done further maths, but you did well at it. If not you're going to struggle from the first lecture.

And I did my degree over 10 years ago. Then candidates with AAA at A level dropped out as it was too hard. A decade of softening grades and you think BBC is enough?

~:smoking:

[tibilicus]

BBC is pitifully low - you're not even that good at the subject you're going to be doing at a higher level!

It is no wonder that the higher rates of drop outs are as a rule from those with lower grades (and poorer backgrounds).

The worst courses will spend up to 2 of the 3 years rehashing A level work. The best will assume you're utterly competent and will set off at a brisk pace; for example in Maths the best places such as Cambridge and Warwick assume you've not only done further maths, but you did well at it. If not you're going to struggle from the first lecture.

And I did my degree over 10 years ago. Then candidates with AAA at A level dropped out as it was too hard. A decade of softening grades and you think BBC is enough?

~:smoking:


I disagree.

The only people getting AAA or AAB are those who either go to grammar schools or the very good state schools. I myself am doing A levels and at my 6th BBC would be seen as something good. The people getting all these A grades go to the top schools in my area, normally grammar schools as mentioned but there are some highly rated non grammar schools. Schools like mine tend to sufferer because of this. The teachings standard is quite frankly pathetic for most subjects, I'm lucky I do mostly humanities subjects as the humanities department is by far the best staffed department. Even saying that, all year I've not had a permanent teacher for one of my subjects, I don't really expect to walk into the exam hall next week and do all that great for that subject which isn't surprising.

Even still getting A grades isn't as easy as your making out. I'm currently working my arse of at the minute as I need at least two A's, I know anything less is worthless to most universities. It's not as easy as it sounds though. Especially as during exams I'm writing so fast that my written English suffers horrendously, letters get missed of the end of words, the word to appears where the word the should be amongst many other things.


Anyway rant over basically 6th forms like mine suffer. If I could go back in time I certainly would of chosen to go to an independent 6th form college. BTW to highlight the extent of just how good an A grade is at my school only 3 people out of a grouping of around 64 achieved an A grade in psychology, the average grade was an E. The situation is even worse for economics where the average grade was a U..

[rory_20_uk]

Where I went it was expected to succeed. Some teachers were great, others were not. Yes, our school had the cream. We'd worked damned hard to get there. Most top grades are from the grammers and other schools as generally the best get there.

It's called a meritocracy.

Chemistry? Good bloke. We got on. He once taught a lesson from the GCSE syllabus until someone pointed out he was looking in the wrong one...
My Physics teacher was pathetic. utterly useless. For the first 6 months he was on exchange in Australia, and we missed the supply teacher when he left.


So I got the syllabus and a decent textbook and learnt it myself. I wasn't going to let him ruin my life. I got a B and I'm rubbish at Physics. If I can get a B and have nothing more than book-learnt data parrot fashion then there's something wrong with A levels. They weren't testing understanding, merely the ability to vomit up facts on demand.
Modules can be retaken what? 4 times max. One can cram for an exam then forget it all. There is almost no need to understand the subject.
I'm amazed that people on the cusp of adulthood whinge that it's all their school's fault and they're powerless to do anything about it. Get married? Sure. Vote? Sure? Have kids? Sure. Take the initiative for their own live? Nope.

The best universities are after the best. Most aren't are not the best, hence the term.

~:smoking:

[tibilicus]

I'm amazed that people on the cusp of adulthood whinge that it's all their school's fault and they're powerless to do anything about it. Get married? Sure. Vote? Sure? Have kids? Sure. Take the initiative for their own live? Nope.

The best universities are after the best. Most aren't are not the best, hence the term.

~:smoking:


I don't think winge is the word. As I mentioned I'm expected to get A's in my best subjects, I'm going to be majorly disappointed with anything less. What you seem to be doing is writing everyone of who achieves B grades as less than mediocre and as people who shouldn't be studying at higher education. There's a grade boundary of 2 marks for most subjects between grades. All it would take for an A candidate to slip to a B candidate is to mess up on one question.

Now, according to you, that would make the person some one who would struggle with higher education. Also back to your taking initiative in school point. As I mentioned I've learnt nothing in school for this subject and have pretty much taught myself the syllabus. Even then I still wont achieve a top grade in it. That doesn't mean I'm not clever, it means I've been pretty hard done to though.

Also my points completely valid about the way most educational institutes are run. My 6th form even encourages students to take BTEC's. These are qualifications which in comparison to A levels are worthless. People I know applied to Unis this year with BTECS only to be told that they are worthless and they pretty much wasted 2 years of their lives taking them. Also you seem to forget the attitude of most people. Whilst yes, a small group of students like me can be bothered to do the work out of school most people can't.

[tibilicus]

They weren't testing understanding, merely the ability to vomit up facts on demand.


~:smoking:

I agree with this point actually.

If you look at the mark schemes examiners are given the marking criteria is incredibly shallow. Ultimately your being assessed on your ability to follow exam structure, not your academic ability.

I had a politics exam last week, I actually wasted my time learning about Michels iron law of oligarchy and learning about the various grouping within each political party, the cornerstone group ect.

I wasted my time seeming the exam wanted to know how the Uk could benefit from the wider use of referendums. What ensured was a boring list with points such as encourages participation, brings us closer to direct democracy, educates the electorate ect..

I went into that exam and barely stopped 5 minutes to think, I was simply spewing out information and regurgitating fact from a textbook. I don't believe there was anything stopping me from answering a more interesting question, other than the fact examiners can't be bothered be bothered to mark unique scripts.

SO yer, I agree with you totally on that point.

[rory_20_uk]

In the current system that is the problem. If the exams were geared to a C being average a "good" candidate may worry over getting a B or an A, but both are OK. With the current system even a B is dubious.

To compensate people are now taking more A levels. There is a massive difference to one getting AAAB compared to someone getting BBBB

I fell into your example - I got a B in Chemistry, what I thought was my best subject (sodding coursework - but that's my long-standing whinge). As "insurance" I'd taken STEP Chemistry in which I got a 1, which is recognised as being worth more than an A which has equivalent value to a 2.

Universities should be there for a small number of people who are both clever and driven to succeed. They are worth investment in, and will often be the "bright young things" of the next generation. By the sound of it you are one of them, and I'd agree that you deserve a place more than I would as you had to fight harder than I did to achieve.

One could argue that teachers are there to help. But I would argue that considering one's choice of A level will massively alter one's life a bit of effort by the individual is to be expected. As you stte, BTECs are valueless. A fact that is pathetically easy to check (pick up a decent prospectus, call admissions. Spluttering laughter at the other end = not a good idea).

For the majority University is a waste of time and effort, getting a so-so degree at a so-so university that is required as everyone has one and if you don't you must be a real moron...

~:smoking:

[tibilicus]

In the current system that is the problem. If the exams were geared to a C being average a "good" candidate may worry over getting a B or an A, but both are OK. With the current system even a B is dubious.

To compensate people are now taking more A levels. There is a massive difference to one getting AAAB compared to someone getting BBBB

I fell into your example - I got a B in Chemistry, what I thought was my best subject (sodding coursework - but that's my long-standing whinge). As "insurance" I'd taken STEP Chemistry in which I got a 1, which is recognised as being worth more than an A which has equivalent value to a 2.

Universities should be there for a small number of people who are both clever and driven to succeed. They are worth investment in, and will often be the "bright young things" of the next generation. By the sound of it you are one of them, and I'd agree that you deserve a place more than I would as you had to fight harder than I did to achieve.

One could argue that teachers are there to help. But I would argue that considering one's choice of A level will massively alter one's life a bit of effort by the individual is to be expected. As you stte, BTECs are valueless. A fact that is pathetically easy to check (pick up a decent prospectus, call admissions. Spluttering laughter at the other end = not a good idea).

For the majority University is a waste of time and effort, getting a so-so degree at a so-so university that is required as everyone has one and if you don't you must be a real moron...

~:smoking:

And your last sentence provides the key point.

I know which universities I want to go to, they're all top 20 and they all want at least AAB. I'm not going to give up till I achieve that, quite frankly anything less is failure.

What is absurd though is that careers guidance, teachers ect. actually seem to merit and encourage students to go to university, even if its a poor one. The vast majority of people at my school will end up at these new education institutes or even worse former polytechnics. I actually find it shocking that teachers encourage students to stay on and achieve grades so that they can go to these universities.

Personally I think it would be better if 6th forms were just aloud to be realistic with students. People should know that if they're not achieving at least ABB then they probably shouldn't consider university. It's completely preposterous at the minute, people need to realise that coming out with a degree from former polytechnics and the like are worthless.

The fact is the government got this education system completely wrong. They wanted to get more people going to university and yes, they achieved that. The way in which they did it was completely wrong though, they simply made more people go to university to achieve a pointless degree.

You know you can now achieve degrees in events management? Gamblings also another newly introduced qualification. And people wonder why I'm an academic elitist.. If I was an employer and someone came to me without a single academic qualification I wouldn't even let them past the interview stage..

[Chimpyang]

For the majority University is a waste of time and effort, getting a so-so degree at a so-so university that is required as everyone has one and if you don't you must be a real moron...

Less than 50% of school leavers will go on into higher education. So not everyone gets one. And for some students and employers, it's not the grade or the course that matters, it's whether they manage to complete one whatsoever. It still marks you above a great deal of the population, even though they might not be fighting for the top jobs, they will probably do better than most.

B isn't bad and requires work, it sits at a funny place because most of the time if you understand a question, you'll most likely get an A in that particular area, and if you don't, best thing to hope for is a C. The B seems to be a little sandwiched between A and C territory which has always been hard to attain specificly.


"Universities should be there for a small number of people who are both clever and driven to succeed. They are worth investment in, and will often be the "bright young things" of the next generation."

And they are, especially the top end ones, I think that most of the time, the equations etc... do not come into play, and for the most part, universities fill their role of educating the best of their applicants. But there are things to be looked at, it's not a co-incidence that most of my year are white/indian of middle and upper class backgrounds and more affluent areas - they are certainly clever, but so are the hordes of people I know who could do it equally well but didn't have the preparation. (I'm a 2nd year med student btw) When I quote BBC, I seriously mean that for the course I'm on, a BBC student with the right working attitude and compassion etc... would probs see you through. The first 2 years have been mostly learning simple concepts but a lot of them, I'll let you know after clinics.


Also TVU = one of the best places for Nursing out of the newer institutions. But 112 overall. It does depend on what course, what place.