GCSEs (again)

I read a bit of the thread started by WUN and then realised I might be here
all night without ever seeing post on the underlying problem. Apologies if
anyone did ever get round to this point:

The main problen with GCSEs over GCE 'O' Levels and CSEs is that there
appears to be a set pass mark.

When I, and many others here, took my GCE 'O' Levels the only certainty was
that you had to be in the top x% to pass in the first place.

The pass mark was not a known factor as it depended on the quality of
candidates for any given exam that year as, still, only a given percentage
of candidates were allowed to pass, regardless of the numbers sitting exams.

That way it was actually possible to assess the quality of a candidate's
knowledge (in an exam siatuation only) against the knowledge of their peers
(but not necessairaily anyone from a different yeargroup).

By allowing all pupils who reach a certain mark to "pass" does not allow for
any qualitative comparison and, thus, devalues the entire examination system
as the difficulty (or lack thereof) of the examination taken is not taken
into account.

Dave

PS. The biggest worry to me has to be the fact that you can now get a GCSE
in "PE"... Wasn't that just a compulsory subject? Its almost as absurd as
getting extra credit for going bowling then picking up an automatic weapon
and then killing yor cla..... Oh. Hold on. 'Merka does that already. Way
to go! We're dumbing the kids down to mainstream 'Merkin levels, woo-hoo!

 

WavyDavy emerged from their own little world to say

I don't have a problem with this. I worked very hard to get a 2.1 at
Cardiff. Apparently, my rolling average would have exceeded the pass mark
for a first at some other institutions by 15%.

Surely the whole point is to allow someone to make a comparison between the
educational attainment of an individual regardless of age?

When I took some BTeC courses in 1990 the thresholds for pass/merit/
distinction were negotiated with an external moderator. This type of system
has a potential for abuse IMHO.

Also IMHO, if we have to tolerate an education system based on certificates
then there has to be standardisation. The current system of 20 million
different bits of paper makes the whole system pointless and very easy for
the blaggers to blag....

 

The point was that, regardless of marks attained in GCEs, only, say, the top
10% get an 'A', the next 20% get a 'B' and the next 20% get a 'C'. In GCSEs
the As, Bs and Cs are given for an actual percentage score.

By setting an actual, rather than a percent/percent-based, 'pass' mark the
whole system is open to abuse, especially when the modern system allows for
course work to count for so much of the final score.

It may be good to allow a 'Pass' level to be set as a specific amount, but
setting in place a system where all sitters of any particluar exam may,
theoretically, attain an A grade does not allow employers or, in fact,
anyone, to disciminate/distinguish between those who have just scraped an
'A' and those who have excelled. Therefore the 'A; grade becomes worhtless
as has been seen in a numberof cases recetly in A levels where students with
(alleged) top marks in 4 A level cannot find university places.

If Universities cannot tell the difference due to too many A grades at A
level, how can anyone else place any value on the difference between a GCSE
A, B or C?

Dave

 

<SNIP>

I agree with Davy,
When i was taking my O Levels (many yrs ago), I was unfortunate enough
to be taking them along with an inordinate amount of genius's for the
year and that caused me to get good marks and still fail every single o
level (thats my excuse and im sticking to it).

--
______________________________________________
Ken
Looking for a new bike...
*Remove knickers to mail me
______________________________________________

 

You could do it at O level as well - certainly in the early eighties. I
hasten to add I didn't take it. I was too busy failing the important
ones.

 

You've hit the nail on the head there. Isn't it an important part of any
government to improve our education and the bench mark for this is improving
grades.

If a "C" was say average, and 50% had to attain it or higher then there
would never be any improvement and the government couldn't show it was
"improving" things.

 

Sure about that? Sure? Absolutely sure?

You're wrong.

 

well, when I did mine, that was the way the scoring system was
described - that a fixed % of people would get As, Bs, Cs, Ds etc. I'm
pretty sure it was an experiment that only ran for a couple of years
though.

It's entirely possible I'm mis-remembering, but if so, I'm also
mis-remembering the big hoo-ha there was about the experimental
scoring system at the time (84/85 or thereabouts).

 

For some reason I have the following embedded in my memory from when I
did my 'o' levels (78/79):

45% for a C
55% for a B
65% + for an A

then there were graded fails of D & E and a U for the really bad (got
one of those for English Literature).

Dunno where I got those percentage ranges from though - probably a mate
in the playground 25 yrs ago! 65% would seem a little "mediocre" to
qualify for an A IMO.

--

jeremy
'02 Fazer 600 in blue
_______________________________________
jeremy at hireserve dot com

 

"4 pupils aged 6 & 7 all passed GCSE Information Technology after
studying at a specialist college in Bushey, Herts for 9 months"

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to interpret from this
whether the exams are getting 'easier' !

Cheers

Paul.

 

Or that they are taught to pass the exam, rather than understand the
subject.

 

A while back, the youngest ever person climbed Everest.

Regularly, people beat the record time for climbing Everest.

Does that mean that climbing Everest is getting easier?

 

Did mine in '85. Can't remember the socring system, all I remember being
told was that the pass mark would probably be in the range of 45-55%
depending on how well all candidates fared and that to get an A you'd need
to be in the top x%, not score any specific mark.

But then maybe we're wrong and Blaney was us in the 80s.

Dave

 

Fixed base camps. Better oxygen systems. Improvements in climbing gear
technology. Guided tours up the mountain with sherpas available to do the
boring stuff like carrying things and pitching up etc for you.... Nah.
It's obviously just as hard as it was in the '50s.

 

Possibly, but I doubt they were taken out of school to hothouse them on
a particular exam to prove a point.

What i'm saying is that the exams are now easy enough for several 6/7
year olds to pass when they should be taking them at 15/16.

I think I can deduce something here.

P.

 

wrote

An alternative interpretation might be that there will always be a few
exceptional kids that can take on grown up sized exams and pass then.

 

<fx: points out the fucking obvious, 'cos no-one else has>

do you really think 6 & 7 year olds would have the maturity(relative),
and attention span to be able to study for and pass 8-9 GCSEs
simultaneously?

Do you really think a teacher could teach a full (30-something sized)
class of 6-7 year olds to pass GCSEs at the same pass-rate as 15/16
year olds?

</fx>

These will have been 4 exeptionally gifted kids, taught a single
subject by probably a team of teachers (and potentially
child-psychologists) probably at the expense of their normal key stage
2 education.

Nothing about the story "proves" that GCSEs are getting easier.

 

darsy wrote:

[O Levels]

I thought it was.

 

The foaming at the mouth tabloids say they're getting easier and are
becoming worthless so I think that conclusively proves they are.