No wonder A-Levels mean and are worth squat

[Nitefly]

Being able to say you're proficient or even fluent in a foreign language can do wonders for your personal statement in my opinion. Saying it has no influence at all is wrong.

So why would it help you get into a science based degree rather than any other subject than say, music?

Furthermore, let's not kid ourselves here, having an A level in a language does not make you fluent to the extent that you would be more useful to a business. I'm not saying that languages are rubbish, in fact I think their teaching should be encouraged, but they are not going to increase your chances of success more than any other subject at A level.

 

[nikebee]

Having taken Spanish, what good is it if I can describe my school to an A grade level, when I really need to be able to complain, and try to solve problems that I may encounter on my holiday there.

Totally agree with that, having got an A in French back in school when I did my GCSE/A Levels... the only thing I can see is "I am 23 years old, my house has a bathroom and a bedroom and I have one sister and one brother." And "where is the bakers I require some cheese?"

=/

 

[Dorje]

Think it has something to do with education being mandatory till 16, so everyone does GCSE's. The people that either don't want or are capable of university later on go straight to apprenticeships or work, rather than college.

 

[Lightnix]

I'm more worried about the lack of establishments that do A/AS level science courses - particularly physics and chemistry, particularly because of the shortage of people who choose to specialise in physics and chemistry. Perhaps this is linked to the whole drive to get overall better grades, because those subjects are inherently quite difficult if you remove them your establishment's overall grades seem better.

 

[Killerkebab]

No?

I mean, if I was motivated to learn different languages, I would have learnt Maltese in the first place.

Seriously, as already mentioned, Arabic and Chinese would be the most useful to learn, although seeing as English is my native language I cba.

Knowing two languages gives you more of an insight into how language is formed and thus makes it a lot easier to pick up new ones. That is the point.

So why would it help you get into a science based degree rather than any other subject than say, music?

Because knowing more than one language says a lot about you as an individual, and implies decent communication skills - which are useful in any field, even science based fields.

Furthermore, let's not kid ourselves here, having an A level in a language does not make you fluent to the extent that you would be more useful to a business. I'm not saying that languages are rubbish, in fact I think their teaching should be encouraged, but they are not going to increase your chances of success more than any other subject at A level.

That is the fault of the system in my opinion. The education system needs an overhaul, and the fact that having an A-level in a subject still doesn't make you useful to a business is a prime example of the system failing to do its job. I'm not trying to say that doing a French A-level will immediately net you a place at natural sciences at Cambridge, but I am saying that being proficient in a foreign language will open a lot more doors than you can imagine.

The fact that A-levels don't give students any proficiency (according to you that is, the only A-level language I did was French and I can't say it helped me since it is my mother tongue so I'll go with what you say ) is a HUGE shortfall in my opinion, but I stand by what I said - knowing more than a single language would help 100% of people. Maybe not every language will be the godsend that I am making it out to be, but a huge amount of foreign languages could help each and every one of us.

Totally agree with that, having got an A in French back in school when I did my GCSE/A Levels... the only thing I can see is "I am 23 years old, my house has a bathroom and a bedroom and I have one sister and one brother." And "where is the bakers I require some cheese?"

=/

If that is all you know after six years, I see a big problem with education.

 

[Nitefly]

I'm more worried about the lack of establishments that do A/AS level science courses - particularly physics and chemistry, particularly because of the shortage of people who choose to specialise in physics and chemistry. Perhaps this is linked to the whole drive to get overall better grades, because those subjects are inherently quite difficult if you remove them your establishment's overall grades seem better.

They are unpopular because they are, at least at that level, very dry subjects that many find extremely dull, myself included.

 

[Hxc]

Totally agree with that, having got an A in French back in school when I did my GCSE/A Levels... the only thing I can see is "I am 23 years old, my house has a bathroom and a bedroom and I have one sister and one brother." And "where is the bakers I require some cheese?"

=/

I'm about the same and I took GCSE french in year 9, and then flunked and dropped out of the AS level we were forced into for year 10 and 11. I'm now in Year 12.

Spanish we did from year 9-11 and I somehow scraped a B, and I literally can only remember odd words.

 

[dargab]

Try taking a look at the Maltese A levels...hah!

Especially the chemistry papers, that stuff is brutal.

Maltese isn't used by anyone though. Plus, people in Malta all speak English.

Practically all of my friends speak Maltese, thanks. You're actually regarded as being a little "off" if you can't speak your own language here. I think it should be well preserved, I don't know of any other language based in semitic roots yet uses Romantic language.

 

[Nitefly]

Because knowing more than one language says a lot about you as an individual, and implies decent communication skills - which are useful in any field, even science based fields.

It says a lot about you as an individual, whilst music doesn't?

I could go on a big long waffle about how learning music encourages individuals to be original and bolder with their own ideas and that would hold equal weight to your spin on learning a language. Decent communication skills that you can't establish by any presentations you can speak in English?

Again, I'm not knocking learning languages, but you can't really claim that it gives anything extra at this level.

That is the fault of the system in my opinion. The education system needs an overhaul, and the fact that having an A-level in a subject still doesn't make you useful to a business is a prime example of the system failing to do its job. I'm not trying to say that doing a French A-level will immediately net you a place at natural sciences at Cambridge, but I am saying that being proficient in a foreign language will open a lot more doors than you can imagine.

The fact that A-levels don't give students any proficiency (according to you that is, the only A-level language I did was French and I can't say it helped me since it is my mother tongue so I'll go with what you say ) is a HUGE shortfall in my opinion, but I stand by what I said - knowing more than a single language would help 100% of people. Maybe not every language will be the godsend that I am making it out to be, but a huge amount of foreign languages could help each and every one of us.

Of course languages can help everyone, and so everyone should be able to speak another language to a very basic level at least. But how can anybody be expected to become proficient from a classroom. You have to go and live in a country before you can speak a language to an impressive level. You have clearly had an advantage with your mother tongue that others do not, to expect other students to get to your standard is ludicrous.

Spanish we did from year 9-11 and I somehow scraped a B, and I literally can only remember odd words.

Pfft, I got a D and I can remember quite a fair bit, you goldfish

 

[thephantom114]

They teach you to pass a test now, they don't teach you useful knowledge, exams are easier and almost every exam year to year is identical, similar questions, similar styles, similar numbers just slight changes. You get years of papers to practice the exact method of passing and only some slight number changes(say in a maths exam) when you take the real test. The problem being maths is about the method, the numbers are easy, its how you use the numbers and they basically tell you what the questions will be before you take the test.

Its all a joke, the government want people in education longer because, shockingly, its like creating more fake jobs. Rather than 16yr olds going to get jobs in mines, and car factories and chemical plants and other manufacturing jobs. Its easier to have them learn nothing for a further 5-6 years.

I would expect to be taught how to pass the test I am sitting. If it's only up to the student why not just give them a text book and tell them to just go and pass. It would solve the teaching shortages right away.

Yes for sciences, maths and even history, english etc the relative subject material is very specific but that's not to say there's little of it. I had to learn the entirety of the English Civil War as well as the rise and fall of Oliver Cromwell on top of 100 years of German History and 100 years of Russian history. That's quite a bit of history to learn for one year.

How can it be easier having so many students living off tax payers money as so many are fond of saying instead of as you saying working in mines, factories etc and putting back into the economy?

Yes they are. Try take a GCSE paper from 10 years ago, or an O-Level paper from 20 years ago. Sorry to rain on your parade - I am sure you worked hard and did well, but they are getting easier

Can you even give a fair judgement for that? The subject material is entirely different ten years ago to what it is today. I'm sure if someone was taught for two years the material on an O-level they would achieve an equal. You could just as easily say someone who is 30 wouldn't be able to pass todays A level.

Surely people get good grades at A-Level because they choose to stay and take them. GCSEs are matoryory, and thus people who aren't willing to put the work in don't bother and fail.

People want to be studying at A level. Not because they are easier but because they want to be there to study and furthermore they are studying entirely what they want to study as opposed to GCSE where you may dislike half of what you are doing.

Naturally you are going to put more effort into subjects you have an itnerest in.

Besides, nine times out of ten A levels are just a spring boardes, into university and all that matters then is which course you study and at which university, that is the true difference maker.

And look at the massive difference in the number of exam entries. 5469260 entries for GCSE and only 846977. That's a difference of over four and a half million. So of course the GCSE results would be more spread out.

 

[Chimerical]

Practically all of my friends speak Maltese, thanks. You're actually regarded as being a little "off" if you can't speak your own language here. I think it should be well preserved, I don't know of any other language based in semitic roots yet uses Romantic language.

Yeah, I know they can speak the native language aswell. I thought that was obvious.

Upon your arrival in Malta you will not only be captured by the warm welcome you will receive but also the ease of communicating as English is so widely spoken because Maltese people are bi-lingual.

http://www.choosemalta.com/en/about-malta/maltese-language.php

 

[dargab]

Yeah, I know they can speak the native language aswell. I thought that was obvious.

No what I mean is that it's not like English is the first language here, then it would surely be dead.

Sorry if I sounded hostile

 

[Chimerical]

No what I mean is that it's not like English is the first language here, then it would surely be dead.

Sorry if I sounded hostile

No worries and no offense meant.

 

[xen_]

How exactly are they "worth squat", for the majority of people they are required for applying to university, so they are worth something, with the exception of subjects like media/general studies etc. When looking at those graphs I was quite surprised how many people got As, but the introduction of the A* grade next year might help seperate things up a bit.

 

[Greebo]

I disagree, effectively telling students they only passed because the exams are easier is a slap in the face. Primarily peddled by older people who likely have a 'snob-complex' or constantly condemn everything that doesn't conform to how things were 'back in the day'.

Surely this is a matter of opinion as different people will have different strengths.

I took both French and German to A-level and found them easier than Chemistry. Is it true that spelling doesn't need to be correct on language exams nowadays That would make them even easier!

I suppose that is me but I do honestly beleive that GCSE and A levels are getting easier. Look at the simple multiplication/division question "using a calculator" I posted from the "higher" GCSE maths paper from last year and the other stupid "what is 1 - 0.1 - 0.2 -0.2? without a calculator" question.

The fact that you only 22% in certain subjects to "pass" and 50 to 60% to get an A. The fact that we have already had to introduce A* in exams to differentiate between results. If you look ahead to say 10 or 20 or maybe 30 years time I can foresee 98% of students acheiving A's in exams. How will that help employers/colleges/universities choose between students? Will that mean all those 98% of students who got A's are more better than all the 80's people who only got B's? I seriously doubt it.

The fact, as I have linked to, that writing "**** off" as an answer in an English exam got points and would have got more if he had used a "!".

The fact that you are no longer required to spell words correctly in foreign language exams (madness). What's next? You are no longer required to spell words correctly in English Language exams?

I am not knocking the hard work and effort that pupils have put in but I feel sorry for them especially the brighter ones . Say for example you just found out today that you got 4 A*, 4 A's and 4 B's. Perhaps if the exams were harder or the grades at higher percentages you might have still got those results but your 80% A* are "diluted" by the 1000's of others who only got 63% and still got an A*. How will they feel in 10 to 20 years time when they see most people getting A* for only 50%?

I know this thread is about A levels but you need your GCSE's before you can do them. There is a report around from last year on education which stated that in English GCSE pupils are tested for the same things as 11plus English and in theory any reasonable bright 11 year old would pass GCSE English. That cannot be a sound way of testing people. What the hell were they taught for the next 5 years?

I can see us very shortly dropping grades and using the percentage that people get and Universities instead of saying they need you to have AAA, might say you need a total of 210 to enter (3 x 70% average).

 

[Killerkebab]

It says a lot about you as an individual, whilst music doesn't?

Stop putting words into my mouth. You're the one who brought up music, and I certainly didn't knock it. If it were up to me students would take ten subjects all the way to university like they already do in European countries.

I could go on a big long waffle about how learning music encourages individuals to be original and bolder with their own ideas and that would hold equal weight to your spin on learning a language. Decent communication skills that you can't establish by any presentations you can speak in English?

Again, I'm not knocking learning languages, but you can't really claim that it gives anything extra at this level.

Again you're putting words into my mouth. I never said that learning a foreign language is the only way to show decent communications skills. I merely stated that it is a way, and a way with huge advantages on the side to boot. You get to show you're a good communicator, it makes it much, much easier to access a third language if you so wish (skills like translation, grammar and syntax don't come easy, learning a second language is very good to re-inforce these notions), it allows you to blend in more easily in a foreign country that speaks the language and it even makes you more interesting to a prospective employer with international ties - and lets face it, in this day and age employers with international ties are only getting more and more numerous.

Of course languages can help everyone, and so everyone should be able to speak another language to a very basic level at least. But how can anybody be expected to become proficient from a classroom. You have to go and live in a country before you can speak a language to an impressive level. You have clearly had an advantage with your mother tongue that others do not, to expect other students to get to your standard is ludicrous.

I never said anyone should become fluent from a classroom, again stop putting words into my mouth. Proficiency isn't necessarily fluency, however it is a lot more than knowing a few words here and there. My dad learnt English at school and got sent to work to England at the age of 40. His degree is in Chemistry and his proficiency in English is almost entirely classroom based (up to baccalaureat level in France). He has a mammoth French accent but he was and is still proficient. To say a language doesn't offer anything at this level just because you won't be fluent is ridiculous.

I can see us very shortly dropping grades and using the percentage that people get and Universities instead of saying they need you to have AAA, might say you need a total of 210 to enter (3 x 70% average).

How about a contest based approach? 1k places, top 1k get in. If you are 1,001st place with 218 marks and the guy in 1,000th had 219 then tough luck to you, sir. It would mean we're not studying to beat a paper, but to beat the competition which would return pressure on GCSE and A-level students to actually revise and do some work, and would shut the old gits up - after all who can say A-levels are getting easier when students aren't beating an exam, but their peers?

 

[Hxc]

Percentages of what Greebo? Exam results which have varying difficulty each year, and also between subjects. It's not an equal measure. Say 30% could be a C in maths, giving the person 30 points.... yet 30% could be a E in like, physics. Is an E in physics worth the same as a C in maths?

I suppose you could do it with UMS... but that's basically what they are doing with UCAS points anyway...

 

[thephantom114]

How about a contest based approach? 1k places, top 1k get in. If you are 1,001st place with 218 marks and the guy in 1,000th had 219 then tough luck to you, sir. It would mean we're not studying to beat a paper, but to beat the competition which would return pressure on GCSE and A-level students to actually revise and do some work, and would shut the old gits up - after all who can say A-levels are getting easier when students aren't beating an exam, but their peers?

This would only really work for the top 3-5 universities. After there how do you judge which university is better? And do you judge by how good the university is overall or by it's ssubject rating. For example Aberdeen is in the 33 in the times uni guide overall but 8th for Law.

It's also incredibly hard to differentiate between the 25th-50th, 50th-75th etc. It's about choosing the uni that's also right for you.

What criteria would you even base a university on anyway?

The reason we have the system as it is is so that universities can differentiate between someone that just has AAA and someone that has AAA work experience, extra activites, an obvious interest and passion for their subject.

 

[Greebo]

Percentages of what Greebo? Exam results which have varying difficulty each year, and also between subjects. It's not an equal measure. Say 30% could be a C in maths, giving the person 30 points.... yet 30% could be a E in like, physics. Is an E in physics worth the same as a C in maths?

I suppose you could do it with UMS... but that's basically what they are doing with UCAS points anyway...

I know that makes it difficult but Universities know the subjects you are taking and the rough bands for grades so say somebody normally needed AAA in Maths, Physics, Chemistry which might mean 70%+ in Maths, 60%+ in Physics and 50% in Chemistry but there will be 1000's getting these grades. So they could set a total target or 210 ( or even individual percentages in each subject) which would mean say 80% in Maths, 70% in Physics and 60% in Chemistry (or whatever combination you want which totals 210 or more).

Might work and not far off from the next step when the points systems stops working because everybody has 15 points (3 A's).

And I have noticed that Universities keep putting up the requirements for entry each year. On my course you used to only need ABB. Nowadays it's straight A's and I guess when A* comes in, it will be straight A*'s

 

[Nitefly]

Stop putting words into my mouth. You're the one who brought up music, and I certainly didn't knock it. If it were up to me students would take ten subjects all the way to university like they already do in European countries.

I'm not putting words into your mouth - I asked you what languages offered over music (for example), and you gave that response.

Again you're putting words into my mouth. I never said that learning a foreign language is the only way to show decent communications skills.

I never said that you said that

To say a language doesn't offer anything at this level just because you won't be fluent is ridiculous.

Ok, now this is getting ridiculous, I certainly didn't say that either

My posts were originally aimed at a poster claiming that universities prefer language based subjects to others - you have taken the wrong end of my stick and as a result, I have taken the wrong end of your stick too, leaving us arguing the same point from different angles.

Languages are excellent and will encourage my own children to take them to a higher level because I think they are valuable. I was just trying to show that as a qualification for applying to university, it doesn't make any difference what you take because you get different skills from different subjects.

Sorry for the confusion