The Mirror says Exams Are Easier. Let's be charitable and say A-Levels are different from twenty years ago. I don't know anybody of my generation who got more than five. The norm was three, or four including General Studies. I can't imagine any school in the 1980s allowing people to do more than four, or five.
I can't believe that someobody got 100% for History. That isn't right. It is possible to get 100% for Maths, because you're either right or wrong. Indeed, I am sure that I got over 100% for Stats* but in History, 100% is saying that this 18-year old showed a perfect recall of facts and a perfect analysis of causes, effects etc. Well, that is clearly not the case, because History is always open to revision, even the 'facts' change, not all effects are obvious.
Yet that above rant seems like an attempt to belittle the efforts of the youngsters who should be proud of their achievements. And galling, when they have worked their guts out, to be told it's a cinch. Just because a good or excellent performance is more likely to result in a A doesn't make it easy to put in that performance. Back in the 80s grades were awarded on a quota basis. Sometimes a band of only three or four percentage points separated a 'B' - a good pass - and a 'D' - a not very good pass. Universities made strict grade, not points, offers, so that very narrow band actually signified the difference between 'pass' and 'fail' in many people's minds. And you were only being rated on your performance relative to the achievements of other people in that subject .
I would like to think that the evidence of more people getting 5+ A-Levels indicates a young population with a broader base of knowledge, with more mixing the disciplines. But the evidence seems to indicate otherwise.
And, of course, A-Levels only represent the achievements of an elite. Apparently the introduction of AS Levels has led to more people leaving at 17. They realise that academia is not for them, but having some AS Levels means that they don't feel that Lower Sixth has been a waste. And then there are the huge numbers that don't even to get to GCSE level. In my godson's year only six stayed on for GCSE: 'the Losers' have all asked him (11 A'/A*s predicted for next week...) to give them a job when he's a successful businessman (under his breath he mutters 'when you come out of prison'). What I find quite scary is that by the age of fifteen or sixteen it is easy to predict with reasonable certainty the life-chances of the vast majority of the population. And their children.
*Stats and Maths papers were structured with 120 possible marks. It was assumed that the 'average' person could tackle 100 marks worth in the three hours. Indeed, in Pure, I don't think I tackled more than 90 marks worth. Whereas in Stats I did the whole paper. I was lucky - my most difficult topic had the easiest question compared to past papers. The most diffcult questions were on topics where I was justified in feeling confident.
Ooh, look, the Guardian says pretty much what I said...
