Skip to main content

A-Level Results

I'm not one who usually jumps on the band wagon of slagging off modern exams as being too easy, but having just read the reports in the Times of some students results I must confess to being a bit worried.

One young lady and another young man achieved eight A* at A-Level each.  This tells me that at least one of the following things is likely to be true:
  • They have chosen subjects that are very easy;
  • They have chosen difficult subjects that are hard but the content of the syllabus and exams are too easy;
  • They are in desperate need of a life; or
  • They are both geniuses and will one day rule us all... or attend Comic-Con regularly.
I note that the young man's haul includes "critical thinking" and "general studies" both or which are joke qualifications.  In fairness, almost everything else he studied sounds bloody difficult to me: chemistry, maths, further maths, economics and history.  The remaining one is business studies, which could be difficult or not depending on what you are studying I suppose.  I did a GCSE in it and it wasn't that hard.


The paper also reports on one 13-year-old (who co-incidentally goes to my girlfriend's old college) who scored an A* in physics and an A in chemistry but took just a single year rather than two to obtain these grades (presumably an academic year, so about 9 or 10 months instead of a real year).

Like I said at the start, I don't normally join in with this yearly obsession of doing down A-Levels, but when a child can clip through two in half the time it's supposed to take to do one and others are knocking down eight in a stride you have to ask yourself if these exams are still the gold standard in education. When I did mine 3 was standard, although a friend did do 4 proper courses plus general studies, which incidentally he got an A in without ever attending a lecture!  He also barely had a life for two-years and claimed afterwards that it had been a mistake as there simply wasn't enough time to devote to each subject.

Comments

  1. Before being allowed to join Uni, my younger sister had to do an A-level in General Studies, it had nothing to do with the degree course she wanted to join. I think it was a tick box exercise to give her the correct number of 'points'.

    I am studying Engineering part time at the moment, 5 years one day a week. Its a very difficult subject and requires more time studying outside of Uni than it does attending lectures.

    However, whilst working in industry I have met graduates who have very little ability to communicate using the writen word. Part of the criteria that I am marked on for coursework is the writen word upto 15% and the use of refences up to 10%. Potentenial I could lose 25% for poor communication skills, which would bar any ideas of a first, this in a subject that has its basis in numbers and theorum.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To be fair I should qualify the above by saying I have met far more graduates who are smart, able to communicate and a credit to their subject.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I like the sound of 'critical thinking', Could have done with that before going on to study literature and philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that many unis do not accept General Studies as a qualifying A level for their courses. So when they ask for AAA, they have to be from other subjects. Uni of Sheffield does accept it though (or did when I applied in 2006). In the end I got in without GS, but still.

    I think GS is a missed opportunity; it could be a subject which gives students an understanding of the wider world, outside their specialisms. Effectively, it should be the equivalent of reading a broadsheet in class and having someone explain the issues behind each article. It should look at unrest in the Arab world, the economics behind the recession, the reforms to legal aid; topics which wouldn't be covered fully anywhere else in the syllabus of any other subject, because the textbooks haven't been written yet.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…