Edukashun, edukashun, edukashun!

[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.

[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

[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

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?

[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?

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.