Originally posted by jimslyp69Well, I'm not sure about where you live, but here in Australia, we have 2 exams for maths (and physics, and chemistry).
My tutor at night-school told me that last year's pass mark for an A grade in GCSE mathematics was 40%. 16% to score a 'C'. I find this deeply disturbing, especially considering that 20 years ago 40% was required for a 'D' (the lowest grade) at GCE level.
They are divided into...
Knowledge and Scientific Process
(Knowledge of the subject, and how well it is applied)
Complex Reasoning
(Using complex reasoning to evaluate and influence the situation given)
Complex reasoning, it gives you an A for 6/10, while a C is 1/10. This is because it is not really weighted as much as Knowledge and Sci Process.
Originally posted by D43M0NNow, I'm really confused. In America an A is 90-100%, B is 80-90%, etc. Are our tests easier than yours, or am I just missing something here?
Well, I'm not sure about where you live, but here in Australia, we have 2 exams for maths (and physics, and chemistry).
They are divided into...
Knowledge and Scientific Process
(Knowledge of the subject, and how well it is applied)
Complex Reasoning
(Using complex reasoning to evaluate and influence the situation given)
Complex reasoning, it g ...[text shortened]... le a C is 1/10. This is because it is not really weighted as much as Knowledge and Sci Process.
Originally posted by jimslyp69What's more disturbing is that, even though only 16% is needed to get a C on GSCE Mathematics Higher Tier, many children will be entered into GSCE Foundation Tier, where IIRC the maximum grade is a C, with a much higher pass mark. Given that the Foundation course is 2/3 of the Higher course, so someone who'd only been taught to Foundation level could still get an A at Higher level, why do most schools persist in only submitting a minority of children for the Higher Tier exam? It seems we still have the old CSE/O-level divide, where grammar school kids are submitted for Higher Tier and comprehensive kids are (mostly) submitted for Foundation, even when it's not that hard to get the grades on Higher.
My tutor at night-school told me that last year's pass mark for an A grade in GCSE mathematics was 40%. 16% to score a 'C'. I find this deeply disturbing, especially considering that 20 years ago 40% was required for a 'D' (the lowest grade) at GCE level.
Perhaps what happens is the examiners notice how few candidates there are for Higher, and that a lot of them go to grammar schools, and think "ah, these must be the cream of the crop." When the results are less than impressive (even grammar schools have plenty of people who aren't that bright - it's often a matter of intensive tutoring to get them through the entrance exam) the examiners conclude the test is too hard and lower the pass marks.
Originally posted by AcolyteI think the two tier thing is ridiculous. At my (comp) school, only the top class of maths students given the chance to get A and B grades (at GCSE). I was in the top class but the teacher tried to get me put in the lower class. I protested and got my parents in. The teacher insisted that if I did the top tier I would struggle to get a C, probably end up with a D, and that if I did the lower one I would have a better chance of a C. After my parents convinced her to reluctantly let me stay in the top tier, she said something along the lines of "on your own head be it", and made it clear she thought I would fail.
What's more disturbing is that, even though only 16% is needed to get a C on GSCE Mathematics Higher Tier, many children will be entered into GSCE Foundation Tier, where IIRC the maximum grade is a C, with a much higher pass mark. Given that the Foundation course is 2/3 of the Higher course, so someone who'd only been taught to Foundation level could stil ...[text shortened]... through the entrance exam) the examiners conclude the test is too hard and lower the pass marks.
In the end I got an A, went on to do maths A level (I would not have been able to do this with a C), and get a degree in Physics, all nearly jeopardised by this stupid two tier system.
Originally posted by ark13There are many different grading scales used in the U.S. The UC system uses a statistical analysis of the class as a whole to determine the scale. The mean is generally the line between B and C, and so many standard deviations above or below the mean will give the other grades.
Now, I'm really confused. In America an A is 90-100%, B is 80-90%, etc. Are our tests easier than yours, or am I just missing something here?
Originally posted by jimslyp69This is appalling.
My tutor at night-school told me that last year's pass mark for an A grade in GCSE mathematics was 40%. 16% to score a 'C'. I find this deeply disturbing, especially considering that 20 years ago 40% was required for a 'D' (the lowest grade) at GCE level.
When I took my GCE O-levels (over 20 years ago, admittedly), 40% would scrape a C, the minimum pass mark.
An A needed 80% plus.
Surely mathematics hasn't changed that much.
The homework my kids now bring home is very similar to what I remember.
Perhaps the exams should be scrapped and the kids should just get the GCSE handed to them.
I once read of a graffito in the gents Student Union toilets at King's College, London.
Above a toilet roll holder was written "Sociology degrees, please take one."
Oh, and now our trusty Labour government has gotten into power again, they have now decided to make huge cutbacks in adult education. This means that nearly all funding will be stopped to colleges that run night schools etc. The result being that limited aduklt education courses will be available, and for a much greater cost. 'Education, education, education'. Ring any bells?
don't they work it as a percentage of the year? it was explained to me last year, but i forget exactly. but bascially it's along the lines of 20% will get an A, 20% a B etc. i think. and it might be different for GCSE also...
for instance, the maths higher exam in 2000 (i think) was extremly hard. if you needed 90% for an A then there would only be about 50 A's from that year (seriously), but the next year it was much easier so there would be more A's. this isn't really fair...
however, a whole year may, on average, be less intelligent. also, i think they are giving out better grades now as it "looks better". 'tis all politics, methinks...
Originally posted by VargPeople throw up their hands in exasperation at the lack of mathematical skills among the British populace, but the reasons are all around us. The main problem seems to be an epidemic of low expectations among teachers, parents and children themselves, both in the sense that people are tolerant of low standards, and that they see high standards as unattainable. If children see people around them reaching for calculators in order to carry out simple mental arithmetic, is it any surprise that they come to see maths as a difficult subject best left to experts?
I think the two tier thing is ridiculous. At my (comp) school, only the top class of maths students given the chance to get A and B grades (at GCSE). I was in the top class but the teacher tried to get me put in the lower class. I protested and got my parents in. The teacher insisted that if I did the top tier I would struggle to get a C, probably end up with a ...[text shortened]... s with a C), and get a degree in Physics, all nearly jeopardised by this stupid two tier system.
From what I've heard, your teacher's message of "don't try, because you'll fail" is all too common, and that idea has to be one of the most destructive forces in education. For example, a friend of mine was told that he wasn't Cambridge material, not by Cambridge itself but by the teacher in charge of Oxbridge admissions at our school, who seemed more concerned with 'success rate' than encouraging pupils to aim high. Thankfully my friend didn't pay attention, and is now studying SPS at Cambridge. But who knows how many people's education has been ruined by people destroying their confidence and telling them they're bound to fail?
Foundation tier does make a little sense if you're really struggling in a subject; the problem is too many schools see it as the 'default' option, and only the top sets get to do Higher. What if we moved to a system in which you can sit both exams, and then take whichever grade is better? It might lead to a small amount of grade inflation, but it'd be more than compensated for by giving people the chance to 'take a gamble' on Higher without fear of failure.
Having just come to university, and having come through the system labour is trying to form, I believe they have it all wrong.
I got clear over 90% in my gcse maths 3 years ago, and i find it disgusting that someone with half my mark can walk out with an A grade!
Then people who have only been able to answer 1/5 of the paper can pass, and are encouraged by way of financial incentives to stay to do A levels instead of getting useful vocational training, then send them off to university to get degrees that help them very little. This money would be much better off spent funding people who are doing the university courses our country needs (maths, physics, chemistry etc).
Originally posted by ark13Really?
Now, I'm really confused. In America an A is 90-100%, B is 80-90%, etc. Are our tests easier than yours, or am I just missing something here?
Gosh you're lucky, I envy you so much.
For Oak Ridge next year, its 94-100 A, 87-93 B, etc.
(no need posting the lower grades, 'cause I'll never get 'em).😀
When I passed my GCSE's all you needed for a C grade in science was 10% (top paper). Altough i'm not sure what the middle and lower papers required, I believe that people had to work a lot harder to get a C, anyone aiming for a C should be given the top paper and chance answering just one question in every ten correctly, after all they probably only need 2 or 3 correct answers.