A Level Results Day

[Papak]

I'm pretty sure that when I last took exams (GCEs in 1976) the pass/grade boundaries were 'adjusted' to ensure a constant percentage got each grade. This seemed sensible to me as employers etc could tell you were in the top 10% or whatever at a certain subject.

But I notice that each year now, they talk about the percentage of A*/A etc going up and down (highest ever etc). Is my memory playing up, or did they change the way grade boundaries were defined sometime over the last 50 years ?

The change fits with the "no winners or losers" philosophy.

Clarkson has also posted his annual "Didn't I do well without A Levels":

 

[CHAPPERS]

The change fits with the "no winners or losers" philosophy.

Clarkson has also posted his annual "Didn't I do well without A Levels":

View attachment 187244

Were they trying to spell ****?

C U U N T

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm pretty sure that when I last took exams (GCEs in 1976) the pass/grade boundaries were 'adjusted' to ensure a constant percentage got each grade. This seemed sensible to me as employers etc could tell you were in the top 10% or whatever at a certain subject.

But I notice that each year now, they talk about the percentage of A*/A etc going up and down (highest ever etc). Is my memory playing up, or did they change the way grade boundaries were defined sometime over the last 50 years ?

This changed some time ago. I believe there is still adjustment across UK examination boards, so in theory no board in any year has an advantage of being “easier”. But the year-to-year adjustment you explain went.

 

[Gwylan]

I'm pretty sure that when I last took exams (GCEs in 1976) the pass/grade boundaries were 'adjusted' to ensure a constant percentage got each grade. This seemed sensible to me as employers etc could tell you were in the top 10% or whatever at a certain subject.

But I notice that each year now, they talk about the percentage of A*/A etc going up and down (highest ever etc). Is my memory playing up, or did they change the way grade boundaries were defined sometime over the last 50 years ?

Yeah, that's how O and A Levels worked back in the day. In theory, it was possible to get 85% and fail in one subject and get 60% and snag an A in another (obviously this didn't happen, but it was certainly true that the pass mark could shift year to year or by subject to subject). So, if you got a C in a subject, you were probably in the top 25% in the country.

I have no idea when, or why, this changed but I imagine that this system as much more useful to employers and universities

 

[chip]

One of my pet hates - students who don't turn-up for classes (but complain about "lack of contact hours") or don't do any reading for 3 years (too busy drooling over TikTok), but then complain about not getting high marks for their assignments, or not graduating with a 1st or a 2:1 degree.

Also, parents who phone complaining that Tarquin or Jocasta didn't get a better degree result, and that they should get a partial refund on their fees!

Angry, sweary, father shouted (on phone) at me a few years ago that my teaching must be shit, because his darling daughter had only graduated with a 2:2. When I pointed out that 76% of my students graduated with a 2:1 or a 1st, and that the fault must lie elsewhere, the entitled twat hung-up

Problem is that in the case of any complaint, however frivolous, university managers usually take the side of the students/parents to avoid negative publicity or litigation; so academic staff are often hung out to dry by cowardly management - we're trying to maintain academic standards with our hands tied behind our backs, and absolutely no support from university managers.

I increasingly ask myself why I bother.

I completely get this, it feels like we are fighting a loosing battle with many fronts and no winners. Some students really don't get on well with the truth. That said there are some great young people that do make it slightly worthwhile.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yeah, that's how O and A Levels worked back in the day. In theory, it was possible to get 85% and fail in one subject and get 60% and snag an A in another (obviously this didn't happen, but it was certainly true that the pass mark could shift year to year or by subject to subject). So, if you got a C in a subject, you were probably in the top 25% in the country.

I have no idea when, or why, this changed but I imagine that this system as much more useful to employers and universities

I guess the reason as to why is that it had the potential to mark down cleaver people in genuinely “clever” years and, conversely, boost thick people in thick years. There’s no perfect way although the current system seems better.

 

[Gwylan]

I guess the reason as to why is that it had the potential to mark down cleaver people

Yeah, they'd get the chop

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yeah, they'd get the chop

Oooops. Never mark down a person holding a cleaver!

 

[WATFORD zero]

I guess the reason as to why is that it had the potential to mark down cleaver people in genuinely “clever” years and, conversely, boost thick people in thick years. There’s no perfect way although the current system seems better.

I have to say I disagree. I'm not sure that with the numbers involved there are 'clever' or 'thick' years statistically (and besides which, how could you tell if the exams are different each year that it's not simply hard or easy exam years ?)

However, as an employer, I would be more interested in whether I'm looking at one of the top 10%, 25% whatever in that year, rather than thinking is an A* today equivalent to an A from 20 years ago

But this is from someone who never got the chance to fail their A levels unlike those thick f***ers Clarkson and Humphrey. We had it hard back then

 

[Seagull58]

One of my pet hates - students who don't turn-up for classes (but complain about "lack of contact hours") or don't do any reading for 3 years (too busy drooling over TikTok), but then complain about not getting high marks for their assignments, or not graduating with a 1st or a 2:1 degree.

Also, parents who phone complaining that Tarquin or Jocasta didn't get a better degree result, and that they should get a partial refund on their fees!

Angry, sweary, father shouted (on phone) at me a few years ago that my teaching must be shit, because his darling daughter had only graduated with a 2:2. When I pointed out that 76% of my students graduated with a 2:1 or a 1st, and that the fault must lie elsewhere, the entitled twat hung-up

Problem is that in the case of any complaint, however frivolous, university managers usually take the side of the students/parents to avoid negative publicity or litigation; so academic staff are often hung out to dry by cowardly management - we're trying to maintain academic standards with our hands tied behind our backs, and absolutely no support from university managers.

I increasingly ask myself why I bother.

Is 76% getting 1st or 2:1 fairly standard?
When I graduated in Engineering in 1980 there were only 4 1St's and around 20 2:1s from 80 odd students who completed the degree course, so around 30%. There were 3 who failed.

 

[Gwylan]

Is 76% getting 1st or 2:1 fairly standard?
When I graduated in Engineering in 1980 there were only 4 1St's and around 20 2:1s from 80 odd students who completed the degree course, so around 30%. There were 3 who failed.

When I graduated, no-one on our course got a 1st (only two the previous year and one the year before that). A friend of mine at another uni got a 1st and said that they were handing them out like free gifts in cereal packets that year as four people got one.

It should also be noted that only about 7% of people went to uni, not the 45% that we have now.

 

[Peteinblack]

Is 76% getting 1st or 2:1 fairly standard?
When I graduated in Engineering in 1980 there were only 4 1St's and around 20 2:1s from 80 odd students who completed the degree course, so around 30%. There were 3 who failed.

Sadly, yes. The 'students as customers due to paying fees' regime, coupled with university managers' obsessing over 'student satisfaction' surveys and league tables (universities have gone the same way as schools; overmanaged, drowned under paperwork, and demoralised or frustrated staff leaving in droves) has meant pressure to award more 'high' degrees.

What would have been a high 2:2 about 20 years ago will now be a low-2:1, and we're instructed not to deduct marks for incorrect spelling or poor punctuation in case the student is Dyslexic.

At Open Days, prospective students actually ask what proportion of students graduate with a First, so if we say 7%,, they'll say "Oh, university X awards Firsts to 8% of its students, so I'll go there", and management will then tell us to award more Firsts to attract more applicants, and beat our competitors.

This is the 21st Century corporate business model university. Increased competition has not led to higher standards (as Conservatives and New Labour claimed), but instead a dumbing-down, 'all must have prizes' ethos. Meanwhile, university VCs are on £400,000-500,000 salaries, and 50% of student fee income goes on administration and management. In most universities, there are more bureaucrats than academics.

Academics detest this regime, in which universities are viewed as if they were no different to supermarkets or high-street pubs competing for happy customers, but it has been imposed on us by politicians (from all parties), and aggressively enforced by arrogant, swaggering, university managers who treat academics like sh*t; if we complain, we're told we're dinosaurs, and invited to apply for redundancy.

The whole stinking regime - thanks Thatcher and Blair - is about to collapse like a pack of cards, in which case, I'll take early retirement.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

I have to say I disagree. I'm not sure that with the numbers involved there are 'clever' or 'thick' years statistically (and besides which, how could you tell if the exams are different each year that it's not simply hard or easy exam years ?)

However, as an employer, I would be more interested in whether I'm looking at one of the top 10%, 25% whatever in that year, rather than thinking is an A* today equivalent to an A from 20 years ago

But this is from someone who never got the chance to fail their A levels unlike those thick f***ers Clarkson and Humphrey. We had it hard back then

I guess if somebody has an A-level or a degree or whatever, the grade tells you that they reached a given standard in that subject, which is probably more useful than knowing how they compared to however many people did the same exams that year.

Unless somebody from the exactly the same year and college happens to be applying for the same job, but there are probably better ways to tell such people apart than comparing their exam results.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I guess if somebody has an A-level or a degree or whatever, the grade tells you that they reached a given standard in that subject, which is probably more useful than knowing how they compared to however many people did the same exams that year.

Unless somebody from the exactly the same year and college happens to be applying for the same job, but there are probably better ways to tell such people apart than comparing their exam results.

But the post above yours suggests that any given standard is actually dropping year by year, so a first from 15 years ago was a far higher standard than a first from this year due to commercial pressures, and I can't see the reasoning behind changing the percentage principle, beyond political. Exam results show that 'Schools are performing much better under us'.

I really don't know what the answer is

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

But the post above yours suggests that any given standard is actually dropping year by year, so a first from 15 years ago was a far higher standard than a first from this year due to commercial pressures

I really don't know what the answer is

Well maybe, but how they grade people is a different issue to whether the qualifications themselves are worth less. It wouldn't help to know somebody's in the top 10% of a cohort if the course they'd done was shit anyway.

All the best people get 2:1s rather than firsts anyway.

 

[Papak]

Isn't it obvious to everyone that the fairest way to hold the exams and be able to compare relative performance over time is simply to ask the same questions every year?

 

[trueblue]

A level results day wouldn't be A level results day without Jake Humphrey reminding the world how successful he is despite ballsing them up. This year I'm pleased to say is no exception

If the consolation for completely messing up my A-levels was the thought I could end up as annoying as Jake Humphrey that would tip me over the edge.

 

[Peteinblack]

Isn't it obvious to everyone that the fairest way to hold the exams and be able to compare relative performance over time is simply to ask the same questions every year?

No, because students will be able to access the previous year's exam papers or questions, and therefore know exactly what they will be asked, so work out their answer in advance.

Also, if students know in advance which questions or topics they will be confronted with, they will only go to the Lecture(s) or seminar(s) on those topics; all other topics and information will be dismissed as unimportant.

Some students already have this mentality; just learn what is likely to be examined, and ignore the rest. So a medical student might answer some questions on 3 or 4 topics which were asked last year, or the year before, and thus graduate with a degree in Medicine, but having skipped the 'irrelevant' classes, or recommended reading, on topics such as 'Bone Fractures', 'Cancers', or 'Diabetes'. I would not want that person diagnosing or treating me!

 

[Papak]

No, because students will be able to access the previous year's exam papers or questions, and therefore know exactly what they will be asked, so work out their answer in advance.

Whoosh!!!

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Well maybe, but how they grade people is a different issue to whether the qualifications themselves are worth less. It wouldn't help to know somebody's in the top 10% of a cohort if the course they'd done was shit anyway.

All the best people get 2:1s rather than firsts anyway.

Agree