dennis@home wrote:


In the mid 60s when I did my O-level GCEs the grading was 1 to 9. 1
to 6 were passes and 7 to 9 failed.

Its the way they were graded that was different to now and is what
made older O levels harder.

It was assumed that the pupils taking O levels didn't vary much from
year to year and that any variation in the marking was due to the
questions being easier or harder ( I think this was and is a valid
assumption). Then the results were scaled so that the top 105 got a
1, the bottom 40% failed, and various bands in between (I also think
this was a valid way to mark them).

Now some group of teachers decides how hard the questions are and if
lots of kids pass its because the teaching is far better than it was
(the only evidence being the pass rate for the questions they set
BTW). If lots of kids fail then they decide they have made a mistake
and make allowances for the error in the exam papers.

The same applies to A levels except they even dropped the old S level
exams which put you in the top 2% or 5% if you got a 1 or a 2.

There was a newspaper a few years ago that gave 10 GCSE A pass students an O
level paper. They all failed as the syllabus had changed so much that the
CGSE puplis had not coverered what was in the O level papers.

There are a lot of bright kids out there but the GCSE and A level
exams do not separate them from the chaff and it really is easier to
get grade A now despite what the educators will insist on telling
everyone. Employers now this and they are more important than the
educators ATM.

It does seem that an A pass is now just a minimum requirement and you are
right, it does not sort the wheat from the chaff.

My girlfriends lads teacher has asked that I do not help with his maths as
"maths is not taught like that anymore".

--
Adam