So were mine
I took them in 1991. 3 'A's and a 'B' at A-level (Maths, Further Maths, Physics, Economics), 2 'U's at S-level

I understood 'N' for 'Nearly' to mean "if you re-sit, you will probably pass" whereas 'U' (for 'Useless') meant "never darken the examining board's doors again"

Edited to say I got an AS-level in "General Studies" at Grade 'A' too. No revision whatsoever. It was a bit like "Just a Minute" in that all you had to do was babble on coherently about any subject in the exam paper. The difference was that the answers were written, and you were allowed pauses and repetitions

[Edited by carl - 8/15/2002 4:22:41 PM]

 

Sorry - I misread your post. I thought you'd just done the sample papers, not the real thing.

 

Regardless of how hard teachers and students work, Universities and employers are bemoaning the fact that even grade A students at A level are not at the required academic standard. Many universities run courses for students to get them up to the required standard - especially in subjects like Maths - before they start their degree proper.

It is an inescapable fact that some people are more intellegient than others. Also, some are more prepared to work hard than others. Qualifications are simply an indication of a level of intelligience and of the ability to apply oneself. There has to be a way for employers to gauge the suitability of an applicant for a position. If they can't use A'levels, they will set their own tests. Companies cannot afford to employ people on the strength of qualifications if those qualifications cannot be trusted.

 

LOL @ Carl - I did 6 hours work for general studies in 2 years (including sitting the exam )

My A levels were too easy - I got mostly A's (as I didn't do enough work for the last physics exam. (read none here )
but they didn't prepare me anywhere near enough for my degree course, and in fact had made me very lazy, as I didn't really need to try to get good marks - they just seemed to happen.

Added - this was just over 5 years ago. I passed my degree with a 2:1 (another grade slowly becoming meaningless...)

[Edited by dnb - 8/15/2002 4:30:24 PM]

 

No, I was just pointing out that my preparation for S-level Physics and Maths relied on 13 year old sample papers

 

How many do u want theyre two apenny round our way

 

The people who say "I worked hard - dont knock my results" have a point. But need to understand its not your result we're knocking. We're not suggesting people to the same as before for 12 years at school then suddenly get presented with an "easy" exam. The entire system has been slowly lowering the goals each year. It might be hard to get an A still but not as hard as it used to be.

When I did my A levels (I took the second year of GCSE), you could already see that example papers had less in than the past papers we had for the previous 5 years. Whilst I underatns some people dont like "Exams" and do better under more continuous assesment. I dont think that should be used as an excuse to lower the overall standard.

And as for multiple AS leves (or whatever) giving a broader bas for more well rounded people. I always that was what GCSEs were for. A levels would give a degree of specialisation then a degree could afford to be very specialised. I don't understand why that fundamental theory needs to change.

Deano

And if we're counting...

A level Grade A's @ Maths,Chemistry,Physics,Further Maths, S Level 2 @ Chemistry

 

You big girly swot, Deano.

 

Surely someone with an S-Level in Chemistry wouldn't be a Network Design Specialist?

 

Deano - I know what you mean about the GCSE's providing a base, but the idea of A1's and 2's is to be more progressive...when you teach a-levels too new student you find alot of the time is spent building the new skills set required i.e. anayltical minds, reading specialist articles etc. and less on the subject - this mearly formalises. GCSEs = facutal recal, A-Levels = becoming more questioning. There's alot to learn by having a base in various a-level subjects before spending a year specialising in 3. From my own experience this has helped produce more rounded (if more stressed!) pupils...

 

Carl, don't tempt me....

 

MarkO - Unfortunately I then went to university and discovered two new things - "beer" and "getting a life" - all went down hill from there

 

So what's an "A LEVEL" anyway

 

I managed to get A in Zoology, B in Botany, and C in Chemistry. This does not explain why I work in a chemistry lab.
Mind you, these three subjects have been successfully combined in my lifelong interest in the fermentation process.

 

Speaking as someone who went through GCSE's and A Levels a few years ago, and who is now involved in hiring people (project manager) I don't have a problem with , 'A' Levels getting easier, at the end of the day I'm far more interested in the people themselves than the grades they got. If more people get to Uni and do more varied but successful A or AS levels - what is the problem?

Also over the past 5 years or so colleges have got far more selective about who they allow to take A levels - using 'points' from GCSE's to detirmine who is suitable. At the end of the day if you don't work for your A levels you won't pass them.

In this country perhaps we are sometimes a little elitist about A levels and Uni...

 

I feel old reading this thread.

I took my O Levels in 1982, i went to a **** comprehensive school in inner city manchester. My year was THE year for experimenting on us educationally as Grammer schools were scrapped as i was due to enter.

I was one of the brainy kids at junior school, excelled at all acedemic subjects. I should have gone to a grammer school but that wasnt an option for me due to the political changes made at the time. I did 5 years in comprehensive school, all it taught me was how to fall asleep in class as i was so bored waiting for the other kids to catch up. I took more exams at O level and CSE than anyone else in the school except two others. I passed 5 O levels and 7 CSE's which was pretty high for my school so went on to 6th form college to study Physics, Computing and Applied Mathematics which i was good at.

Was i shocked when i got to 6th form, i was miles behind most students, i was not at all well prepared. For a 16 year old that was quite a blow, i found it a real struggle. I left after the first year because i wasnt happy there for a lot of reasons but a major one was the fact i was always catching up and had got out of the habit/forgoten how to work hard because my secondary school sent me to sleep.

I then went to technical college and started again, studying in electronics, which i excelled in because the starting point was low enough to retrain myself and build on. I had to leave then due to family reasons so didnt go to Uni, but lots of my friends from the course did and they all excelled.

This is all ancient history now.

My basic thought is one of comprehensive style, put all levels together in one class is a bad idea. It doesnt help the gifted kids, it positively hinders them. It doent ultimately help the not so gifted kids as they cannot be catered to properly either. If students are passing A Levels then going to Uni only to find themselves in the same, horible postion of feeling unprepared for the next stage, then something is badly wrong with the system and its grading policy. If Uni's are saying that the students they recieve are not up to standard, yet they have the grades, then something is badly wrong.

I know from an employing of staff perspective, the standards out there are ****. It's almost imposible to employ someone who is genuinely on top of there job and can think for themselves. I hate it if i have to employ a team member, it's a bloody nightmare trying to find smart, self motivated people these days. They may have all the paper to say they can do the job, but i find i end up training them in things they should know, and thats the ones i do take on!

Congratulations if you passed your A Levels. It doesnt mean you know anything though. (j/k)

 

IMHO most exams are just long-winded memory tests anyway, what possible use could there be in learning the date of the battle of Agincourt (silly example but you get my point). If you need to know something in the real world you just look it up on the internet

And why isn't typing on the school curriculum? I reckon that has to be one of the most useful subjects you could possibly learn.

 

Same with Craft, Design & Technology. Why bother learning woodwork, metalwork and plastic-work when IMHO wallpapering, painting, plumbing and wiring would be much more useful?

 

Just done my A levels this year, got B in Maths, B in Electronics (4/600 marks from an A ), C in Physics, and A in AS Design Technology. There's no doubt they're a lot easier than they used to be - as my maths teacher seemed to mention most lessons.
In reality though A levels are just your ticket to uni - they can compare what all their applicants get (grades, not just pass/fail) and take the best ones, so despite the inconsistency between years they're still able to pick who they want.
In my opinion the real injustice is the gap between exam boards. From looking at Letts Revision Guides etc, the syllabuses (syllabi?! - didn't do English ) vary significantly across different boards.
<Rant at WJEC> My year feel our board has let us down very badly, they've just screwed us around completely with the new format of *** and A2s. In principal the new format is a good idea, but they just weren't ready to implement it. Text books for Maths were issued in March (exams in June!), they were never issued at all for Physics or Electronics. Sample papers' were few and far between, and the published answers were next to useless being riddled with errors. One Maths paper had an unanswerable question that they noticed the morning of the exam, some schools were notified in advance, some (including mine) during the exam itself, and some not at all. They never bothered to let us know what was done about it - presumably they'll have disregarded those marks, but I'll bet they didn’t take into account the time wasted trying to figure it out. </Rant at WJEC>
Despite not making the requirements (they wanted ABB - but I do get above equivalent points through adding my AS), I'm into Sheffield Uni to do Aerospace Engineering, so I'm happy

 

I have a friend who works on a government quango looking at further education and he and I often discuss this subject. His view is firmly that the exams are getting easier and, from his perspective most worringly, more based on regurgitating learned facts than applying knowledge about the subject to solve problems.

A couple of examples.

- When I took my A levels (almost 20 years ago!), the French A level exam required students to write in French about French literature. Today, the exams require students to write in English about French culture.

- When I took Physics A level, the exams were all about solving physics problems - to the extent that you had to do Maths A level as well. Today, most of the questions are fluffy essay-type questions, asking students to write about "energy" or "momentum".

 

Am I missing something, what is so worrying about the pass rate? All this means is that 90 odd% of people got an E or above. Whoopdy-do! Is an E a good grade then? As far as I was concerned a pass was a C or above so I was disappointed with my C/D/D/D A-Level results. But looking at my results, I achieved a 100% pass rate. You have to be careful with statistics.
At the end of the day A-Levels aren't really the basis for a career, they are a sorting system for Universities
J

 

Front page of the Sunday Telegraph today...

Uni's are accepting students with no A levels for courses.

Higher / Further education gone mad?