GCSE pass levels causing confusion over university entry

[yorkie]

Having spoken to a few teachers, it seems like there's been a real lack of oversight and foreplanning in the way the new spec is implemented, with teachers given barely sufficent time to adjust their teaching style and learning materials.

Agreed

It seems like government (both Tories/previous Labour) is always determined to 'fix' things before they break, yet in doing so make it more difficult for teachers to familiarise themselves with a constantly 'evolving' curriculum, which has potential knock-on effects on pupils' education.

Yes, that's definitely what appears to happen.

This lack of consistency has, in part, led to the highest teacher turnover in a decade and furthermore, almost half of all teachers consider quitting within 5 years.

Anyone reading this who is even remotely considering becoming a secondary teacher is urged to consider their choice very carefully before proceeding.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's easy for pupils, but it's certainly a hell of a lot harder for the teachers (I've spoken to) who've had to immerse themselves in paperwork and textbooks each summer preparing themselves for the latest rehashing of the curriculum.

Yes. And in some cases teachers are effectively forced to learn a whole new subject! Physics, ICT and Computing are among the worst for having non-specialist teachers, I believe.

 

[northwichcat]

Yes. And in some cases teachers are effectively forced to learn a whole new subject! Physics, ICT and Computing are among the worst for having non-specialist teachers, I believe.

I remember my old school had one specialist IT teacher who did the first computing degree offered by Manchester University - using punchcards! The Internet was evolving at the time she did give the impression of being up-to-date with the latest developments. Other IT teachers were generally Maths teachers who knew about spreadsheets and databases.

Just seen someone from my A Level IT class (who is now an IT teacher) has shared the story on Facebook with a comment saying that he knew it was an issue 5 years ago.

 

[Bayum]

I don't know if it's changed but for GCSE English and English Lit it used to be the case that the questions were the same for both Higher and Foundation but the latter had some helpful bullet points after the question about what to include in your answer. So it's quite likely some people would have got a D if they took the Higher paper but got a C by taking the foundation paper.

GCSE Maths needs more than one paper, otherwise you'll be asking the most intelligent pupils questions that they would have been able to answer when they were 13 (like being asked to calculate the volume of a sphere), while the less intelligent pupils would have to skip questions altogether (like calculus questions.)

Maybe 85% certain that the pass rates and marks were slightly different to the ones quoted!

Higher paper, you couldn't afford to get lower than a C because it was a 'fail'. It was harder to get the 'C' on the intermediate and foundation paper, because you needed to get a higher percentage of the questions right to get to the higher end of the grading boundaries!

 

[SpacePhoenix]

I don't know if it's changed but for GCSE English and English Lit it used to be the case that the questions were the same for both Higher and Foundation but the latter had some helpful bullet points after the question about what to include in your answer. So it's quite likely some people would have got a D if they took the Higher paper but got a C by taking the foundation paper.

GCSE Maths needs more than one paper, otherwise you'll be asking the most intelligent pupils questions that they would have been able to answer when they were 13 (like being asked to calculate the volume of a sphere), while the less intelligent pupils would have to skip questions altogether (like calculus questions.)

Years ago when I done my GCSEs Maths had Foundation, Intermediate and Higher Tiers and every other subject (at the ones I took) only had Foundation and Higher Tiers.

The last time I was out of work, in any job advert where they wanted applicants to have certain GCSEs it was always grade C or above, so in that respect anything below a C might as well have been a fail

 

[northwichcat]

Maybe 85% certain that the pass rates and marks were slightly different to the ones quoted!

Higher paper, you couldn't afford to get lower than a C because it was a 'fail'. It was harder to get the 'C' on the intermediate and foundation paper, because you needed to get a higher percentage of the questions right to get to the higher end of the grading boundaries!

I didn't say what the boundaries were for Maths which had 3 tiers. That was the only subject that had 3 tiers when I did the exam. Like I've already said some people wouldn't have been able to even attempt some of the Higher tier questions as they wouldn't have the relevant knowledge. Using the right method but getting the wrong final answer still got you marks but if you didn't even know the method then you wouldn't get any marks.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm unsure if it's a party political issue or not. The simple fact is far too many people go to university

In our parents' generation university was restricted to the top 10% ability wise and paid for by the government. That makes a lot more sense than the current system where virtually anyone can do a degree based on their ability to pay and irrespective of their suitability for it.

For one thing, a degree is supposed to be an academic pursuit. Practical skills such as nursing etc are not academic subjects, therefore what is the point of creating a degree in these subjects.

Back in our parents' day you didn't need a degree to get on. My dad left school at 15 with nothing, not even a CSE, and got an apprenticeship. He did alright, he wasn't top of the tree but we had enough money for a house and a car and foreign holidays most years. Mum left at 16 with O'Levels and took a similar route, working for Commodore computers when it was still a big deal.

But that's all changed. The days of getting a decent job in the Civil Service with A'Levels have gone. You need a degree and, increasingly, that degree needs to be a 2:1. I agree it is madness, but I'm not sure how it can change. Employers expect the degree now, persuading them to change will be almost impossible.

Nursing isn't the best example because the job has changed so much- senior nurses now have as much, if not more, medical responsibility as junior doctors- but I don't disagree with you. The problem is that the degree is now seen as the starting point for job applications- my replacement in my job must have one- and moving back from that position is going to be very very hard.

The alternative routes really aren't there in most sectors. Now we all know someone who started at 16 on the shopfloor and worked her way up to the top, but those stories are known about because it is so uncommon. These days you need a degree, so people have to go and get a degree, even if they don't really want to or they're not really suited to it.

For a lot of top level jobs now, I'm increasingly seeing a demand for Masters or even doctorate level qualifications. The MBA is just the most obvious example. My wife is a clinical psychologist and the entry level qualification for her profession is a doctorate.

I have no direct evidence for saying this, but I'd imagine it's having pretty disastrous consequences in terms of social mobility.

Repayments are on a bell curve, it's disastrous for social mobility. And factor in interest- whilst you're studying it is RPI+3%, which is more than my commercial bank loan- and it gets worse.

If you graduate and end up in low paid work, you'll make small (or no) payments towards the loan for 35 years and the rest will be written off.

Where the current system really stings you is if you graduate and end up in higher-paying middle-management style jobs, maybe earning £50k a year. You'll be paying it for 30-35 years but you'll be making high payments and you'll probably repay in full, just before you retire, but with 30 years of interest added to the bill.

Earn megamoney, or come from a wealthy background and not have to use the loans at all, and you'll repay much less. That really isn't fair.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

But that's all changed. The days of getting a decent job in the Civil Service with A'Levels have gone. You need a degree and, increasingly, that degree needs to be a 2:1. I agree it is madness, but I'm not sure how it can change. Employers expect the degree now, persuading them to change will be almost impossible.

Is a 2:1 the equivalent of a B grade?

 

[Nym]

Is a 2:1 the equivalent of a B grade?

It's not really the equivalent of anything. It's an upper 2nd class degree...

 

[Bayum]

Is a 2:1 the equivalent of a B grade?

If you were going to try and attempt a comparison, possibly.

1st I'd say is A*, personally.
2:1 is an A
2:2 B
Anything below - C

But the jump from GCSE to A-Level, and then again from A-Level to 1st year is so large that you really cannot compare them in terms of workload or expectation.

 

[infobleep]

I don't know if it's changed but it used to be the case that you could qualify for a course requiring something like 320 points but not one requiring 260 points as some universities only counted A Levels and others included AS Levels, while some included General Studies while others excluded it.

My understanding of the current/old GCSEs was any letter other than U was officially considered a pass but colleges/universities usually required C or above (B or above in some cases), while league tables also used C or above.

I only got into Oxford Brookes because they accepted General Studies. That's not to say I didn't pass my Geography and Physics A levels, just that I wouldn't have had enough points on them alone. I'd dropped Maths because I got an N in my first year mock. I couldn't get my head around it.

I actually think General Studies is a good subject because it makes you think about things more generally. Life isn't just a narrowed focus on one thing.

 

[infobleep]

The point the article is making is that C grades at English and Maths do matter, in addition to A level requirements, but universities haven't as yet adopted a consistent policy as to what is equivalent to a "C" under the new grading system.

I suppose it's relatively unlikely that someone with good enough A levels for a degree course at UCL or Manchester would have scraped through their GCSEs, but possible nonetheless.

When sitting my GCSEs I got a B in English Literature and D in English Language.

The former showed I had some intelligence and the later, that I was dyslexic. Actually you don't need to be dyslexic to get a D but I was.

I was going to resit it but never did. Fortunately the university accepted my argument about my two grades and let me in.

 

[Bromley boy]

Is a 2:1 the equivalent of a B grade?

Not really.

Universities award their own degrees whereas GCSE/A level exams are (in theory at least) marked more generally by national exam boards (I'm not sure how much variance there is between these boards, though).

This is also the reason why a 2:1 from, say, LSE will be weighted far more highly than most employers than a 2:1 in the same subject from a low performing university - as per the discussion in the below article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educatio...tes-from-worst-universities-left-jobless.html

Doing a degree shouldn't necessarily be seen as a means to the end of a highly paying job but, for those of ordinary means, it increasingly needs to be in a world where £9,000 tuition fees are charged and students run up the thick end of £50k in fees and living costs.

 

[Bromley boy]

When sitting my GCSEs I got a B in English Literature and D in English Language.

The former showed I had some intelligence and the later, that I was dyslexic. Actually you don't need to be dyslexic to get a D but I was.

I was going to resit it but never did. Fortunately the university accepted my argument about my two grades and let me in.

Glad to hear it, quite rightly so.

There are exceptions to every rule.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

If you were going to try and attempt a comparison, possibly.

1st I'd say is A*, personally.
2:1 is an A
2:2 B
Anything below - C

Could/Is anything below a 2:2 effectively considered to be a fail?

But the jump from GCSE to A-Level, and then again from A-Level to 1st year is so large that you really cannot compare them in terms of workload or expectation.

Chemistry must be one of the worst for the gap between GCSE and A-Level, it seemed like much of what you learn at GCSE level was in effect a load of crap

 

[Bayum]

Could/Is anything below a 2:2 effectively considered to be a fail?


Chemistry must be one of the worst for the gap between GCSE and A-Level, it seemed like much of what you learn at GCSE level was in effect a load of crap

It depends on the course and what you want to do. If you want post-graduate courses, many of them stipulate a 2:1, but are open to offers of 2:2. Some high flying jobs won't even consider 2:2 or less.

Physics wasn't particularly great either. All this twaddle I teach my children about light travelling in straight lines and 'bouncing' off surfaces... Get to A-Level and you realise your GCSE revision was not going to help!

 

[Domh245]

Could/Is anything below a 2:2 effectively considered to be a fail?

Not sure about other unis, but at Nottingham, a first is 70% +, 2:1 is 60 to 70%, 2:2 is 50 to 60%, a third is 40 to 50%, with anything under 40% being a fail. It does seem to be the case however that anything​ under a 2:2 is going to make life more difficult whilst hunting for jobs (but not impossible)

 

[Bayum]

Could/Is anything below a 2:2 effectively considered to be a fail?


Chemistry must be one of the worst for the gap between GCSE and A-Level, it seemed like much of what you learn at GCSE level was in effect a load of crap

The whole education system is in disarray. The jump from GCSE to post-16 study is always going to be difficult, and in some ways I can see the method in the madness of the new curriculum. What I do disagree with, however, is the rate and expectation now expected of staff and children. Testing Y6 children on their learning at KS2 on a curriculum that has only been introduced? Ridiculous. Grading children as working 'at', exceeding/mastery and then labelling off the other children by telling them, practically, that they're thick because they can't work at the level the government expects of the new curriculum. Primary teachers have had it easy in the new curriculum as we adapt and change our planning without the issue of exams looming. Y6 and secondary teachers have had it so much harder. Teach and re-teach concepts in ever greater detail with no extra funding for resources or CPD to teach the new curriculum, but still expecting to test children on their KS3 and KS4 knowledge when some children are still playing catch up from primary school. Kids just don't stand a chance.

 

[northwichcat]

Could/Is anything below a 2:2 effectively considered to be a fail

No. A third is still a pass. If you study for a hons degree but don't get the hons or you only pass enough modules to be awarded a HNC/D in lieu then you've failed.

 

[Bromley boy]

Not sure about other unis, but at Nottingham, a first is 70% +, 2:1 is 60 to 70%, 2:2 is 50 to 60%, a third is 40 to 50%, with anything under 40% being a fail. It does seem to be the case however that anything​ under a 2:2 is going to make life more difficult whilst hunting for jobs (but not impossible)

Exactly the same grade boundaries where I was (KCL). I believe a pass below a 3rd class degree was also a pass "without honours".

A 2:2 was knows as a Desmond (Desmond TuTu) a third was known as a Douglas (Douglas Hurd: third).

Law students were a pretty sad bunch, come to think of it!

 

[northwichcat]

Exactly the same grade boundaries where I was (KCL). I believe a pass below a 3rd class degree was also a pass "without honours".

A 2:2 was knows as a Desmond (Desmond TuTu) a third was known as a Douglas (Douglas Hurd: third).

Law students were a pretty sad bunch, come to think of it!

So are teachers. At my old school (a comprehensive) we were put in ability sets for subjects like Maths, Science and English. The sets went 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 2A, 2B, 2C and 2D. The teachers never got bored of saying "Is this set 2B or not 2B?"

 

[headshot119]

Exactly the same grade boundaries where I was (KCL). I believe a pass below a 3rd class degree was also a pass "without honours".

A 2:2 was knows as a Desmond (Desmond TuTu) a third was known as a Douglas (Douglas Hurd: third).

Law students were a pretty sad bunch, come to think of it!

Never heard a Third called a Douglas, but plenty of people used Desmond when I did my degree (Computer Science)

 

[Bromley boy]

Never heard a Third called a Douglas, but plenty of people used Desmond when I did my degree (Computer Science)

Law students had lots of silly sayings and were a cliquey, "interesting" bunch.

When we had assessed essays, you'd duly locate the appropriate text in the library only to find the relevant pages had been torn out by one of your colleagues. Purely to hinder the progress of others.

Unfortunately these sociopathic tendencies accelerated throughout the LPC and became positively turbocharged once in legal practice.

I doubt you experienced that level of ****tishness in computer science? The computer science students seemed an altogether nicer, if nerdier, bunch.

 

[headshot119]

Law students had lots of silly sayings and were a cliquey, "interesting" bunch.

When we had assessed essays, you'd duly locate the appropriate text in the library only to find the relevant pages had been torn out by one of your colleagues. Purely to hinder the progress of others.

Unfortunately these sociopathic tendencies accelerated throughout the LPC and became positively turbocharged once in legal practice.

I doubt you experienced that level of ****tishness in computer science? The computer science students seemed an altogether nicer, if nerdier, bunch.

The only issue we had was people objecting to your choice of operating system. A friend of mine owned a Mac Book but had it running Linux Kali, he got loudly tutted at by someone for having a Mac in a Linux Lab, then got laid into by someone for having Linux on a Mac, he couldn't win!

Mostly a nice bunch of people, some people weren't too great in a social sense, but I had a pretty good bunch of close friends.

 

[takno]

Never heard a Third called a Douglas, but plenty of people used Desmond when I did my degree (Computer Science)

Third always used to be a gentleman's degree when I was at uni, because at least it's still got honour(s)

 

[yorksrob]

When I went to Uni, I don't remember even submitting GCSE results (although I may have done, from an administrative point of view). They were pretty much irrelevant. A-level results were all that mattered. Has this now changed ?

 

[Bayum]

When I went to Uni, I don't remember even submitting GCSE results (although I may have done, from an administrative point of view). They were pretty much irrelevant. A-level results were all that mattered. Has this now changed ?

Yep. Most universities want A-C in English, maths and science, and a good grade in a relevant subject. Teacher training, for instance, stipulates A-C including the sciences, AND you have to pass your ITT test.

Some medical degrees require A/A* in all science modules at GCSE AND A-Level.

 

[Domh245]

When I went to Uni, I don't remember even submitting GCSE results (although I may have done, from an administrative point of view). They were pretty much irrelevant. A-level results were all that mattered. Has this now changed ?

Having just double checked the requirements for my course, GCSEs aren't required, although from what I remember, you do have to put them into UCAS (the application system) which will allow the universities to look at them. From what I remember, most of the courses that I saw that specifically asked for GCSE requirements were generally asking for at least a C in English Language to prove that you can communicate sufficiently.

 

[Bromley boy]

Having just double checked the requirements for my course, GCSEs aren't required, although from what I remember, you do have to put them into UCAS (the application system) which will allow the universities to look at them. From what I remember, most of the courses that I saw that specifically asked for GCSE requirements were generally asking for at least a C in English Language to prove that you can communicate sufficiently.

My old course (LLB at King's) now requires A*AA at A Level. No mention of GCSEs, although I seem to recall 5 A-C grades, including maths and English language, was a requirement at the time I applied.

A level requirements seem to have tightened up. I seem to recall the standard offer was AAB when I applied, although this was under the old A level system, and perhaps accounts for "grade inflation" in the intervening years.

 

[Nym]

Having just double checked the requirements for my course, GCSEs aren't required, although from what I remember, you do have to put them into UCAS (the application system) which will allow the universities to look at them. From what I remember, most of the courses that I saw that specifically asked for GCSE requirements were generally asking for at least a C in English Language to prove that you can communicate sufficiently.

When I applied for University, I just had my A Level certificates and that's all they where interested in for entry. Fortunately for myself, I didn't need to apply through UCAS...

 

[northwichcat]

When I applied for University, I just had my A Level certificates and that's all they where interested in for entry. Fortunately for myself, I didn't need to apply through UCAS...

I think applying through UCAS means your chosen university gets told of your results on the day you do. Actual certificates aren't issued before the university term starts (a results slip is not an official certificate.)