Why have an exam where more than half the students get the best possible grade?

Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
3,926
Location
SW London
I don't wish to take anything away from the people who received their A-levels today, but I've just been having a look on the BBC website and came across the results by subject.

This immediately stood out to me
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/07/exam_results/a_level/html/mathematics_further.stm

56.8% of people acheived an A grade in further maths?
What's the point of having this exam if getting an A tells you that you may not even be in the top half of people who sat it?

Regardless of the fact that people may be getting cleverer (I would like to keep that out of this discussion) surely the exams should be graded on a percentile basis.

What happens in a few years when 90% of the people sitting exams acheive the top grade? They will become absolutely meaningless.

IMO an A grade should be reserved for the top x percentage of people sitting the exam. Even if no-one gets above half marks in actual terms, it should be graded so as to give the top few an A and then lower grades at fixed percentiles.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with your last statement. Grades shouldn't be based on student % achieving a grade, it should have a defined mark, e.g. 70% as per the norm. Tough luck if no one gets it - it could just mean the batch of students have been lazy, assuming theexam itself is of a similar standard as before.

Otherwise, what you could end up is students from 2 different years who may have both got say 73 %, yet one may have got an A and the other a B.
 
unless it changed from when i sat my a levels, 3 years ago, further maths could only be sat by people who achieved a/a* grade at gcse, and completed maths at a level
so, people who are sitting further maths are more than likely going to be in the higher percentile when it comes to exam results
 
Haircut said:
IMO an A grade should be reserved for the top x percentage of people sitting the exam. Even if no-one gets above half marks in actual terms, it should be graded so as to give the top few an A and then lower grades at fixed percentiles.

Well, if you notice your exams - you only ever receive your UMS mark, not your actual mark. This mark is a standardised mark made to fit a normal curve IIRC.
 
Moses99p said:
The only people that do further maths are people that are very good at maths, its not surprising that half of them do well at it.
But surely whoever sets the grade boundaries should take that into account?
 
It is obvious that this will happen. It happens in most exams where the subject is not so popular.

People who are good at Mathematics take the Further Mathematics qualification and thus it is expected that they will have a better pass rate/A grade rate.

One can see this in GCSEs also (just look at things such as Additional Mathematics, or other such "extra" qualifications).

People get really worked up about grades.

Angus Higgins
 
The fact is that if 100% of people in the country took further maths there would be a much much lower percentage of A grades. The people who take further maths are mostly exceedingly good at the subject and thus there will be a high percentage of A grades.
 
Moses99p said:
I'm confused????

In most subjects you get a certain percentage getting each grade because nationally you get clever people and thick people (+ all in between).

In crazy subjects like further maths you only get the top people studying it so the results will look crazy (lots of A's and B's). In my school they offered further maths and it was the really clever and dedicated people that did it, giving up free periods etc to do the lessons.
But by having an exam where most people get an A it gives little indication of how you stand up next to your peers.
How is it possible to see where the very top students are in this case?
If every single student gets over 80% should we give them all A's?

Surely you must see that we need a way of differentiating the most able? Grading is the way to do this, but it falls flat on its face when most acheive the top grade.
 
I'm going to side with the theory that if you're good enough to take further maths you're going to get a good grade in it. I think the BBC as usual are being misleading with the way they present their information. I bet straight maths is a different story because you've got both people who are good at maths and people who are trying as hard as they can to pass maths taking the exam.
 
Moses99p said:
NO! Just all the kids doing it are like the ******* rain man or something.

Can't you understand ONLY REALLY CLEVER PEOPLE DO FURTHER MATHS! omg

Yes i fully understand that, but whats the use of having further maths to your name if you have a very high chance of gettign an A? Surely itll get so common at grade A that it wont be worth as much as it sounds?
 
I'd just like them to use a paper from say 10 years ago and see if it gets a lower pass rate. I'm not convinced it would.
 
Stellios said:
Yes i fully understand that, but whats the use of having further maths to your name if you have a very high chance of gettign an A? Surely itll get so common at grade A that it wont be worth as much as it sounds?

I think the fact that you took it at all and got an A is a good indicator that you're better than the average person who just gets an A in single maths.

Also, not everyone does education to pass exams. I did triple maths (officially it was called 'additional further maths') back when I did A-levels, not because I thought it would help my CV, but because I actually wanted to learn this stuff and thought it would better prepare me for my degree. Call me crazy, but that's how it was.
 
Stellios said:
Yes i fully understand that, but whats the use of having further maths to your name if you have a very high chance of gettign an A? Surely itll get so common at grade A that it wont be worth as much as it sounds?
Surely employers/universities regard further maths higher than other subjects as it's one of the most difficult?
 
The main purpose of A-levels is to decide who gets to go to which university, so their main requirement is to differentiate between pupils.

I dont understand why they dont have one exam board and give grades which are percentiles. i.e: If I come just inside the top 5% of people nationally, I get a grade of 5. If I come inside the top 20%, I get a grade of 20 etc etc.

All this "people are getting cleverer" is ridiculous. Even if they are - they shouldn't let results rise. They should make the exams harder in order to:
1. Continue stretching pupils
2. Continue to allow universities to differentiate between pupils
 
Haircut said:
But by having an exam where most people get an A it gives little indication of how you stand up next to your peers.
How is it possible to see where the very top students are in this case?
If every single student gets over 80% should we give them all A's?

Surely you must see that we need a way of differentiating the most able? Grading is the way to do this, but it falls flat on its face when most acheive the top grade.
As has been said, taking further maths is something only the most able students and those interested in maths will do. Of course a higher percentage of these students will get good grades in the subject than another subject which average Joe will be taking.

What you're suggesting is to make it harder to get a good grade in further maths than another subject where there just happens to be a broader range of abilities sitting the test. How would that be fair?
 
Angus-Higgins said:
It is obvious that this will happen. It happens in most exams where the subject is not so popular.

People who are good at Mathematics take the Further Mathematics qualification and thus it is expected that they will have a better pass rate/A grade rate.

Bingo. Subjects like Further Maths will generally only be attempted by 'elite' maths students who are much more likely to get top grades. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if many schools/colleges actively discouraged some students from taking it if they felt they may not be capable. I know when I was at school, many A-Level subjects had 'entry criteria' that had to be met in terms of GCSE performance.

As for percentile gradings, they could maybe have a place alongside the standard gradings, but not instead of them. As someone else pointed out, otherwise you lose parity between academic years. You could be really unlucky and be in a year with above average performers in a given subject and only get a B, whereas had you been in a previous or later year you might have got an A.
 
further maths is one of the hardest A levels. Only the most able students are even permitted to take it.

When you take further maths you effectively take extra maths modules in addition to your maths A level.

They take the lowest combination of all your modules that gives you an A in the normal maths a level and then put all of the other modules into your further maths result.

This means that excess marks from the easier modules (whichever course they are from) above that required to get an A are effectively "transferred" to your further maths result to give you the highest possible score.

I would just like to point out that despite this it is still considered amongst the hardest courses and just because 50% of people who take it get and A it does not mean that if a random person took the course they have a 50% chance. Only the very best of the best at maths are allowed onto the course by most schools as they know how hard it is.

Edit: also, the idea of assigning a score based on your position with your peers is entirely unfair. Why should someone who took a qualification 4 or 5 years apart from someone else receive the same award for a different level of competency??? The solution is to add MORE grades to differentiate the highest performing students.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom