GCSE's and National Curriculum Scrapped by 2014.....O levels to replace them

For everyone saying GCSE's are easy, you all got A*'s right?... If you didn't then they are not easy are they.

It's just another change just because someone can, there isn't anything wrong with GCSE's it's the way teachers are teaching them and also people that are doing them the most don't want to learn.
 
jimbob27 said:
With everything based on an exam at the end of the course you have to actually learn the content of the syllabus.

It'll be a big adjustment for current students, who "learn" by cramming stuff into their short-term memory for modular exams, and copy/paste their coursework off the internet.
Click to expand...
In my head (so be scared,) it's the difference between memorizing that the answer to 2+2 is 4, passing the test (question) and then memorizing something else for next months test under the current system, compared to having to understand the mechanics of why 2+2 equals 4 in case the exam in two years time actually asks you what 1+3 equals.

If that makes any kind of sense :)
 
mrbell1984 said:
For everyone saying GCSE's are easy, you all got A*'s right?... If you didn't then they are not easy are they.

It's just another change just because someone can, there isn't anything wrong with GCSE's it's the way teachers are teaching them and also people that are doing them the most don't want to learn.
Click to expand...

I got C's, because I didn't pay attention, spent half the time outside the heads office, didn't do any revision, and in all honesty am not A* material, but I still think the C's were overly generous for the work I put in.

One of our science exams was multiple choice and a friend of mine just ticked 'B' for every question and got an E, and that's not even the lowest grade >.>
 
Panzerbjorn said:
There's definitely nothing wrong with reverting back to a better system but can either of you prove that the old system was better, or is it just your personal opinion?
Click to expand...

It's a matter of opinion - however I look at my stepdad's generation (me plus 20 years) and how they conduct written work, logical deduction, maths, english ability, reasoning - and then I look at school leavers today who appear to be completely retarded in anything academic.

Or is it because this is the x-factor/you think you have talent(when actually you're just dumb)/big brother/kim kardashian/paris hilton/jackass etc. generation now?

Either way school leavers go down in my estimation every year. You see them on the TV after they get their exam results being interviewed - they have no grasp of language and every other word is 'like'.

Utterly frustrating.

Unless of course the grammar I went to really is far far superior to comp school, not that many would like to admit the fact as it goes against the idea that everyone should be ****** from the outset rather than sending those with genuine ability to schools teaching at a higher level...
 
ubersonic said:
I got C's, because I didn't pay attention, spent half the time outside the heads office, didn't do any revision, and in all honesty am not A* material, but I still think the C's were overly generous for the work I put in.

One of our science exams was multiple choice and a friend of mine just ticked 'B' for every question and got an E, and that's not even the lowest grade >.>
Click to expand...

I got A's and B's whilst ****ing about. Discovered smoking weed during my "revision leave". I even passed subjects like French, German and R.E. which I'd competely given up on.

The fact I've got qualifications in those languages is a joke. I can speak perhaps 10 sentances of each.
 
jimbob27 said:
Well how far down the education system would you take that approach?

Would you pass a trainee heart surgeon who has sound theory, but a history of "underperforming on the day"?

The exam boards already take underperformance into account. If you have a genuine reason for underperforming you can re-take the exam.
Click to expand...

Unless taking exams has now become a profession I think your argument is flawed.
 
Bear said:
So because you struggled, it is supposed to be hard ? How about those that found it easy ?
Click to expand...

Useless argument. Grades are given relative to the rest of the country e.g. top 10% of marks get As etc. stuff like that. If an exam is easy then who gives a ****? If you're not all getting full marks then it's not too easy because an exam's role is to differentiate.

The argument about modules is bs you just need to redesign the modules if you don't think they lead to better learning so that they each feed off the last. Putting exams all at the end only causes you to cram then forget.

This coming from someone with 9A*s and an A, mind you.

The only way an exam can be too easy is if they cease to differentiate between candidates as these qualifications for the most part are signifiers rather than actually adding human capital value to students.
 
If you are clever, you can destroy GCSEs with very little work. If you are not so clever, you can destroy GCSEs by working hard. Not sure how it would work with O Levels, don't really know anything about them, but I do agree that the current system needed changing. It rewarded mediocrity too much.
 
TheCenturion said:
It rewarded mediocrity too much.
Click to expand...

For some reason I just thought of the spitting image sketch with Tony Blair just before the 1997 elections where he was banging on about how everyone will be happy and cheery with gumgrop smiles and everyone would be the same.

I miss spitting image :(
 
I was in the year at school who were the last to do 'O' levels (1986/1987 I think) and we were used as test subjects for the upcoming GCSE exam papers - we did GCE and GCSE mocks in preparation for our actual GCEs so that the examination boards could compare notes on how we did across the two papers in the same subject. My papers were English Language, English Literature, Design and Technology, Biology, Chemistry and Mathematics. So I've done both an O level and a GCSE in all six subjects.

To be quite honest I don't remember the details of the exams - it was after all 30 odd years ago, but I do remember the one prevailing opinion that all of us pupils shared at the time - You can get half your passing grade just from doing the coursework you were going to do anyway throughout the year! Which of course meant to us effectively that the kids in years below us - providing they did the work in the year - were going to be effectively gifted half the points they needed to gain to pass the exam.

Combine that with the fact that we know nowadays that there is a lot of plagiarism from the Internet for coursework (something that could never have been foreseen back in 1986) and the GCSE has been in my eyes completed de-valued as a qualification. You only need to see the ridiculous levels of passing grades every year to be able to appreciate this fact.

'O' level exams were about testing an individuals knowledge of their chosen subject matter. Knowledge that was deemed to be necessary for you to have gained in order to move into higher education or a well paid job in the workplace.

Employers and Universities were able to trust the GCE/CSE system results as a reasonable an solid marker of a candidates knowledge in their chosen field and therefore suitability for positions offered - something which most recruiters I speak to bemoan as being nearly impossible nowadays as almost everyone has lots of GCSEs/As and/or degrees in Mickey Mouse subjects.

I for one wholeheartedly support the return to the 'O' level standard of examinations - this will impact my kids when they go to school and the idea that their qualifications will actually mean something is important to me as a parent.
 
There's also these qualifications called iGCSEs (International GCSEs). They're supposed to be more like O Levels than GCSEs, and be a better preparation for A Level study. I did iGCSEs in maths and geography. In the case of maths, comparing it with other exam boards, it certainly seemed to cover more content and was tougher. In the case of geography, it was an absolute piece of pee. I did practically no revision, and absolutely hammered the exams. However, some of my friends who worked hard in geography didn't hammer it, and so maybe I just beat the system rather than beating the subject :p
 
So you replace one useless system with another?

Typical. :o

They have NO idea how to run education at all, why cant they hire someone that isnt a total ass? The whole system requires change, going back to an older exam system wont change the fact that the system still only regards one sort of mindset worthy of pushing forward, which would be the 1800s mass produced worker slave (slave is being used in the indirect sense), we may have arts/musics and such, but they always seem underfunded compared to science and math, its just a shame.

It also wont change the fact that the teachers feel undervalued due to the pressures of their job, thus they slack in their care for educating and any student is worse off for it, the reason i said before about the singular mindset pushes some of these students to stop caring as well due to them feeling that the system doesn't work for them, makes this especially hard on both the student and the teacher.

There is a massive underlying problem with education that no one wants to admit, but changing the exam system wont change that problem.
 
Last edited:
mrbell1984 said:
For everyone saying GCSE's are easy, you all got A*'s right?... If you didn't then they are not easy are they.

It's just another change just because someone can, there isn't anything wrong with GCSE's it's the way teachers are teaching them and also people that are doing them the most don't want to learn.
Click to expand...

There is a lot from with the GCSE system for examinations:
  • Schools can shop around for and there is therefore a market for 'the easiest'
  • There are too many GCSE equivalence qualifications in subjects that are ultimately useless
  • They're too modular (it isn't unheard of for a year 11 student to take 50 exams in their school year)
  • They are getting easier
  • They are not being adjusted for improving performance

For the last point - it is important that any grading system grades people relatively - ie the typical bell curve. Otherwise how do you compare students? The average attainment rate in the International Baccalaureate, for example, is 50%. It is pretty much always 50%, year on year. There have only been blips when new countries have signed up to it.

If you look at the bell curves of Alevels, they're ridiculous. It peaks at the A-A* end. What's the point?

As to the quality of the qualifications we're essentially duping young kids with, look at how many kids leave schools with competency in a foreign language compared to other countries, and then look at the number leaving with media or community or social studies certificates.
 
Number_25 said:
Nice.

The whole argument that GCSE's are too easy is a complete load of bull-mess though, I struggled like hell with the pressure and only managed 9 GCSEs of C and above.
Click to expand...

I dossed around so much in School it wasn't funny, never did homework, coursework weeks/months late.
I could have gotten a lot better, but 3 A's and 8 B's.

Education system needs a revamp, I don't see the 0 level thing as a good thing, kids these days have little to no real world experience, they need to tackle that for a kick off.
 
Number_25 said:
Nice.

The whole argument that GCSE's are too easy is a complete load of bull-mess though, I struggled like hell with the pressure and only managed 9 GCSEs of C and above.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid they are quite easy. I am sorry that you found it difficult, but the rest of the country doesn't (70% of GCSEs taken get a grade greater than the middle mark (50%)).
 
It's interesting from my perspective....

I thought the national average for GCSEs are like 5 C's... Which well, says a lot about the failings of the British Education system....

As someone who came out with 12 GCSEs, and 5 A Levels, I still feel they're all pretty much useless, the second you do a degree...

Generally speaking it went like:
GCSEs - Panic
A Levels - Panic - wonder why the hell I cared about GCSEs, as they clearly didn't matter for University.
Degree - Panic - A levels still seem slightly important, but again, pale into comparison against importance of Degree...

I suspect the same will occur once I do my professional qualification to my degree. The degree may still be important, but not as much any more..

My general consensus is that after obtaining a certain qualification, the previous one is basically rendered pointless...

kd
 
Ksanti said:
Useless argument. Grades are given relative to the rest of the country e.g. top 10% of marks get As etc. stuff like that. If an exam is easy then who gives a ****? If you're not all getting full marks then it's not too easy because an exam's role is to differentiate.
Click to expand...

I was of the understanding that this is not the case for GCSEs. Technically, everyone could achieve a grade A*. With O Levels it was how you describe, ie regardless of actual mark, something like the top 5% got an A, next 10% a B and so forth. In the real world of employment, the latter is far more useful since it acts as a comparative against an entire year group rather than being subjective upon the relative ease of an individual paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom