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

[DaveF]

I see your point, but then why bother with grading the exam at all in that case? Surely the whole point of assigning a grade is to differentiate the abilities of the students, and when the majority get the top grade I fail to see how this is being done adequately.

In practical terms, FM is a bit of a pass/fail exam. If you need it for your university course, you are probably going to need to get a grade 'A' in it.

From the universities point of view, they don't really care if you are in the top 5% or whatever - there are other exams for that. They want to know that you know the content. And making exams harder is likely to make that worse, not better. This is because maths is very much a "right answer / wrong answer" subject, so in a tough exam you will get more marks for knowing 2 or 3 areas really well than for knowing 5 or 6 areas adequately.

I never got the opportunity to take further maths (thanks to my school ) so can't say if it is a hard exam, but IMO this point is moot.
If it were art where most people got an A then the argument could be used that it's just people who are good at art taking the exam.

One key difference is that almost everyone who takes FM takes Maths as well. So you can directly compare candidates' performances across the two exams. I'm sure you'll find that way more than 57% of people taking the FM exam get an 'A' in their Maths A-level. Which makes it reasonable to say that it's actually a lot harder to get an 'A' in FM as opposed to an 'A' in Maths.

I still say that regardless of the abilities of the people taking the exam it should be graded so as to adequately differentiate the candidates.

In which case very few people would end up taking Further Maths; much easier to take another A-level and get a grade 'A' in that instead. Because the current exam is already one of the hardest A-levels going.

As I said before, there are other exams if you want to distinguish between the best candidates. Cambridge uses STEP, which are aimed at the top 2% or so of candidates. And I'd say those questions are genuinely hard. But it has the precisely the drawback I mentioned - that people concentrate on the areas they think they will do well in at the expense of a fully rounded knowledge base. Many people doing STEP don't attempt a single applied question, for example. Fortunately, because of the FM A-level you are criticising, Cambridge knows they will at least have a grounding in applied maths, however.

None of this is to say that A-level Maths hasn't got easier over the years - it has. And as a consequence, the FM A-level covers less material (though I don't think it's significantly easier, to be honest). But the FM A-level is still one of the toughest exams out there - to criticise it because of so many do well at it is misguided, in my opinion.

 

[lemonkettaz]

Education is easily found. who cant pull up most the knowledge to anything on the internet?

there is no reason why anyone shouldnt be able to get top marks in todays world.

 

[DaveF]

Education is easily found. who cant pull up most the knowledge to anything on the internet?

What's the exact value of the sum from k=1 to infinity of 1/(1+k^2)?

 

[lemonkettaz]

ermmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....

Ok, people who are doing certain things can find a lot of help in todays world.

I wouldnt have the foggiest where to look because i dont do maths,

sorry einstein

 

[HangTime]

Yeah, you get totals and individual module marks and grades.

Ah yes, modular examinations and AS levels. I think that's another good explanation for rising grades (in the long term, compared to when exams were only taken at the end of the second year).

Doing modular exams is obviously going to lend itself to better grades, because students can focus on a particular area (while it is still fairly fresh in the mind), rather than having to recall everything they've done over the past 20 months or so in the space of a couple of days.

Coupled with the ability to retake modules in which you haven't acheived good marks makes it inevitable that students of reasonable intellect are now walking away with a fistful of As.

 

[Deleted member 651465]

They should higher the percentage requirement for an A to 85% in my eyes.

 

[Dolph]

The issue is not whether the exam is too easy, it's whether it allows to differentiate between different people with that qualification.

Large numbers of people getting an A does not allow universities and companies to differentiate properly between candidates, and so the exam needs amending, as it's currently pointless.

This is one of the reasons why Step papers are getting more and more use.

 

[Abraham]

it seems unusually high, out of the 3 classes doing FM in my year (4 years ago) i would say at most a 3rd if not considerably less would have got an A (in FM) probably 95% get an A in normal maths for the reasons already stated. This is at a very good maths department.

 

[colinuk]

How about going back to the system of O levels. the main difference i saw was the fact when i did O level maths and English, of which i only managed to get a C in both I had to sit a paper, in a large sports hall and take a 3-4 hour exam.

3 years ago i retook at night school and came across the GCSE system, how do they get good marks, its easy. 40% of my english exam was done before the exam paper was even sat and for that 40% the english teacher allowed me to take my eassy back and re-do it if it wasnt good enough for a grade A. had about 10 of these tasks to do and had to hand in the best 4 i think it was, so i got 40% before i sat the exam....

Not hard when its like that. Here is what should happen.

3rd year [thats the 3rd year in HIGH SCHOOL to you americanised people] you start to learn the topic you are doing.

5th year - sit in a room with others, take the exam. the exam is the be all and end all of the mark no project work or marks carried over from course work.

Make it even better, make it so a grade A is 80% pass, but not just for the exam, make it so if you get an A you have beaten 80% of everyone taking that exam... make it a compition once more.

I have now taken, GCSE history, Chem, Physics, English, Maths and IT. they are so easy now its crazy. If you dont get B's or above in everything, then you havent turned up...

IMO

To sum it up for me, in High school we had 2 people who went to Oxford Uni, they studies day and night to pass their O level's, both are in great jobs and earn a fortune. For them, they still say the amount of O levels they took was hard and they needed weekend to pass them, they only too 5 O levels.. now they take 12 GCSE and get A's in all? come on, who are they kidding...

Still, good luck to you all in UNI and hope i dont have to work with you in IT when you get into the real world where 'nearly and almost' just are not good enough.

*puts on flame proof coat*

Colin

 

[DaveF]

The issue is not whether the exam is too easy, it's whether it allows to differentiate between different people with that qualification.

But if you take that point of view, you run up against the contrary problem that an 'A' in FM will be far more demanding than an 'A' in other subjects. This is already true to some extent; most people are advised against even attempting FM unless expecting to get at least a 'B' in normal maths. (The one person I know who took FM with a 'B' in normal maths got a 'D' in FM).

Large numbers of people getting an A does not allow universities and companies to differentiate properly between candidates, and so the exam needs amending, as it's currently pointless.

Well, to get an 'A', you need to average over 70% over the FM modules, and you have to do all the questions. So a university will know you probably understand hyperbolic substitutions, polar coordinates, complex numbers, etc. Which I'd say is far from pointless.

The questions on my FM exam 20 years ago were harder, but you only had to choose 6 out of 12. Which meant that universities couldn't really assume you'd know any particular part of the FM syllabus. I think the current way is better, to be honest.

This is one of the reasons why Step papers are getting more and more use.

Well, the way I see it is that the FM exam tests whether you have the basic knowledge, the STEP exam whether you have exceptional ability. And I think that's actually a pretty sensible way of splitting things up.

I also think there's nothing wrong with more universities asking for STEP as part of their offer - it's a far more interesting exam than anything you'll get at A-level.

Edit: interestingly, on TSR, the people who took STEP and AEA generally did worse in the AEA, indicating that's overtaken STEP (I) for difficulty. But the AEA papers I've seen are really boring "grind out the calculation" papers compared with STEP. (Again, one major difference is you have to answer every question for AEA).

 

[Simon]

But if you take that point of view, you run up against the contrary problem that an 'A' in FM will be far more demanding than an 'A' in other subjects. This is already true to some extent; most people are advised against even attempting FM unless expecting to get at least a 'B' in normal maths. (The one person I know who took FM with a 'B' in normal maths got a 'D' in FM).

Well, to get an 'A', you need to average over 70% over the FM modules, and you have to do all the questions. So a university will know you probably understand hyperbolic substitutions, polar coordinates, complex numbers, etc. Which I'd say is far from pointless.

If you have 20 students for 15 Uni places all with 'A's at FM then that point is irrelevant though

 

[Dolph]

But if you take that point of view, you run up against the contrary problem that an 'A' in FM will be far more demanding than an 'A' in other subjects. This is already true to some extent; most people are advised against even attempting FM unless expecting to get at least a 'B' in normal maths. (The one person I know who took FM with a 'B' in normal maths got a 'D' in FM).

I actually have a problem with A levels generally no longer allowing much distinction between students. The number of students getting A's has risen 10% in 10 years or so, An A now is worth less than it was then, irrespective of whether the exams are easier or not.

Well, to get an 'A', you need to average over 70% over the FM modules, and you have to do all the questions. So a university will know you probably understand hyperbolic substitutions, polar coordinates, complex numbers, etc. Which I'd say is far from pointless.

But they won't know whether you only understand them enough, or whether you understand everything about them and more...

The questions on my FM exam 20 years ago were harder, but you only had to choose 6 out of 12. Which meant that universities couldn't really assume you'd know any particular part of the FM syllabus. I think the current way is better, to be honest.

It would be better if it was still a challenge to achieve a high grade.

Well, the way I see it is that the FM exam tests whether you have the basic knowledge, the STEP exam whether you have exceptional ability. And I think that's actually a pretty sensible way of splitting things up.

I also think there's nothing wrong with more universities asking for STEP as part of their offer - it's a far more interesting exam than anything you'll get at A-level.

Indeed it is more interesting, but isn't that an indictment of what A levels have become?

 

[DaveF]

If you have 20 students for 15 Uni places all with 'A's at FM then that point is irrelevant though

But if you only asked for 'A' at for normal maths you'd end up with 50 students for those places. And they'd all need to spend 6 months catching up on stuff they should have learnt at A-level as well.

Look, I'm the first to say it's got far too easy to get 3 A's at A-level. But you're really picking on the wrong subject when you complain about FM - of all the A-levels, I'd say it's the least watered down from when I took them.

 

[DaveF]

I actually have a problem with A levels generally no longer allowing much distinction between students. The number of students getting A's has risen 10% in 10 years or so, An A now is worth less than it was then, irrespective of whether the exams are easier or not.

No disagreement from me. But it's the way the Maths A-level has been systematically cut back and made easier that's the real problem. Further Maths has stood up remarkably well if you ask me.

But they won't know whether you only understand them enough, or whether you understand everything about them and more...

That's what interviews or STEP/AEA are for - if A-levels in general aren't hard enough to distinguish between people, the correct solution isn't to single out one particular A level and make it tougher.

To elaborate: If you make it so only 25% of people taking FM get a grade 'A', then you're making it by far the hardest A-level available. And if you still call it an A-level like any other, then unless someone absolutely has to take it for their course, they won't. Because in later life, most people aren't going to understand or care that it's a 'special case', and loads of potential employers are going to count a 'B' in FM against you, even if it's objectively a better grade than an 'A' in Maths or Physics. From personal experience, employers do look at your A-level grades, whatever people say. And they generally don't understand the concept of 'above A-level' exams. I've had loads of people who thought my distinctions at S-level were actually CSE grade 1's. If I'd only got grade 2's (still far more impressive than an A-level grade A), I probably wouldn't put them on a CV - too many people would misunderstand.

It would be better if it was still a challenge to achieve a high grade.

The only basis you seem to have for saying it isn't a challenge is the pass rate. Which is a very poor measure without taking into account the level of the candidates. After all, Maths at Cambridge is probably regarded as the most challenging course in the country, and over 30% of people doing it get a first.

Indeed it is more interesting, but isn't that an indictment of what A levels have become?

I don't think so, no. Firstly, I did my A-levels 20 odd years ago, and I did past papers back 'til 1980 or so (i.e. back before the 1982 change in syllabus that made things easier). And STEP is way, way harder than anything set back then (considerably harder than the S-level papers from then as well). But secondly, I'd say STEP questions average a fair bit more interesting than the average questions on the Cambridge Maths Tripos as well - in general they are really well thought out questions that make you think and often actually teach you something during the exam. I've certainly learned stuff from STEP questions, and I have a first from Cambridge.

As I said before, the AEA exam actually seems to be harder than STEP I now. But the questions aren't nearly as well thought out - it's more a test of your ability to grind through algebra than your ability to think imaginatively.

 

[TommoUK]

looking at the BBC site, PE, Media and IT are some I looked at with the largest proportion getting C/D. So do you think they are harder than Further Maths? the graph isn't good as a representative of the ease of subjects due to the varying ability of the candidates. Nobody does FM unless they are good at maths, as has been said, repeatedly, in this thread.

 

[Psyk]

That isn't anything to do with the fundamental error of an exam where the MAJORITY of people are getting an A. I thought the whole point of an exam was to show ability relative to others?

But the point of A-level are they are supposed to be equivalent qualifications. An A in media studies is supposed to be equivalent to an A in maths, however flawed that comparison might be. If they made it harder to get an A in further maths it would discourage people from doing it because it would be so much more work for them to gain an equivalent qualification to an A-level in a different subject. If they made it harder to get an A, further maths would have to give a higher amount of UCAS points. It would make the system overly complicated with different A-levels being worth different amounts.

 

[Vixen]

I don't know much about the English exam system, but even while I was at school I saw the Scottish exams getting easier each year. My Higher Physics paper significantly easier than any past paper I'd looked at, and from what I heard of years after me, it wasn't a one-off, and Higher Biology was just a case of memorising a textbook.

When I was doing my standard grades, my Maths teacher frequently gave me books which contained old Higher content as something to do when I finished work quickly. I didn't actually come across some of the stuff in those books until I did Advanced Higher or first year uni!

Despite exams now being really easy, a lot of people I went to school with still managed to fail or only get a couple of Cs.

 

[HangTime]

One thing regarding STEP, I considered taking it as one of my prospective unis wanted me to (Warwick). I got a couple of past papers off the Head of Maths and to be fair I was quite taken about by how much more complex it appeared to be compared to A-levels. In the end I decided not to take it as my first choice and emergency unis (Bristol and Southampton) didn't require it.

Of course 10 years later and having done Maths at uni I can say that it probably does stand people in good stead. I don't think A-level Maths really prepares people for a Maths degree.... it's almost like an extension of GCSE, learning basic techniques etc compared to Maths at university where you have to start thinking in a different way for some units.

 

[Amp34]

Having skipped some of the thread thismay have come up before but...

Lets put all of this into numbers and maybe it will be a bit clearer (numbers approximated from my 6th form a couple of years ago)

Total number of students: 80
Students doing maths: 7
Students doing further maths: 2
Students doing Physics :6
Students ding Chemistry: 5
Students doing psycology/sociology: 20-30
People doing computing based courses: 40 ish
Geography: 20-30

So you see why subjects like maths (especially further maths) and the proper sciences (Chem., Phys., Bio. etc.) have such a high pass rate. Only the truly determined and intelligent (in those subjects) actually do them. In maths we all had to have at least an A at GCSE to get on the course, and only 2 people decided to take further maths. Physics and Chemistry were the same, you needed a B to get on them, then anyone struggling usually left after the fist year.

A lot of the other subjects such as sport, psycology and computing didn't have those restrictions, anyone with any grade could get on them and were usually taken because they were considered very easy in comparison to other courses.

As for exams being easier, they are slightly easier, at least in maths. I did Pure 1,2 and 3 which have now been seperated and joined into Core 1, 2, 3 and 4 (students only having to do 3). This was mainly because there was physically not enough time in the school year to do them since AS levels were introduced. Each exam board also sets it's own course and some are easier than others, for example again maths, Edexcel was considered a lot harder than AQA.

And for reference my maths class got 2 A's, a B and some C's and below (very similar to physics and chemistry which I also did). I don't believe on the whole exams are easier, it is just people have more choice and most will always choose the easier new subjects...

 

[[TR]SweetSpotOz]

I don't know much about the English exam system, but even while I was at school I saw the Scottish exams getting easier each year. My Higher Physics paper significantly easier than any past paper I'd looked at, and from what I heard of years after me, it wasn't a one-off, and Higher Biology was just a case of memorising a textbook.

When I was doing my standard grades, my Maths teacher frequently gave me books which contained old Higher content as something to do when I finished work quickly. I didn't actually come across some of the stuff in those books until I did Advanced Higher or first year uni!

Despite exams now being really easy, a lot of people I went to school with still managed to fail or only get a couple of Cs.

True. Scottish exams are also getting easier. The odd difficult paper compared to relative years (2006 Biology, for one example) but otherwise getting easier.

1989 Standard Grade Maths examples could probably make 2007 A Level Further Maths students cry