A-level Results: Clearing Chaos

And so it rumbles on - they're aren't enough places for all those who want to go to university. From The Guardian:

Six students are fighting for each spare university place, figures revealed today.

Which means that there are clearly going to be a lot of disappointed students out there. The question, though, is why should they be disappointed? The answer is twofold. Firstly, there has been an expectation created by the Nu Labour government that everyone who wants to can go to university. Their arbitrary, stick-a-finger-in-the-air-and-come-up-with-a-number, figure of 50% of people attending uni had no meaningful connection with the real world, and now that realisation is sinking in for thousands of students across the country. Fundamentally, and unlike the school system, it isn't open to everyone. It is selective. And as the numbers wanting to go to university continues to go up while funding for universities is going down there is only one way this was ever going to end. Disappointment for some.

But there is another reason for the disappointment; no-one really challenges the idea that going to university is a good thing. There seems to be an ongoing mental block around the question "should I really bother with university in the first place?" This question has become even more pertinent now there is a massive cost associated with attending university coupled with the fact that there is no guarantee of employment on the completion of a degree.

This isn't about elitism - rather, it is about challenging the idea that university attendance is a "good" in all situations and for everyone. In fact, it can be argued that it might be better and more profitable for some to go straight to work after leaving school. I mean, I know board members of FTSE 250 company who never bothered with university, and it hasn't held them back. In fact, quite the opposite.

As far as I can see from my university experiences* there are two reasons, and two reasons alone, for going to university. The first is if you need a university degree to go on to do your chosen profession - lawyer, doctor, teacher all spring to mind here. The second is if you absolutely love your subject, and are willing to run up substantial debt in pursuing your love of that subject. Otherwise, what are you missing out on if you don't go to uni? You can still have a social life, you can still make friends - but you can do it while you earn rather than just spend. And you can also help to fight the spurious and unfounded idea propagated by a target-obsessed Nu Labour government that success can only really come on the back of a university degree.

*Postgraduate about to start a PhD, fact fans.

A-level results: The "They're Getting Easier" Cliché

There’s another tradition to the release of the A-level results in this country; the litany of complaints about how A-levels are getting easier. You know the curmudgeonly types who come out with all the gems: “A-levels are getting easier, they weren’t like this in my day, kids today got it easy, never had it so good, I fought a war for them” and so on, ad fucking nauseam. I’m not going to engage with the “debate” about whether A-levels have got easier – not least because assessments of ease are all relative to the individual debating. No, instead I want to point out a couple of things.

Firstly, the idea that A-levels are getting easier is based on the notion that people are getting better grades. That could also be down to teachers getting better at teaching – or at the very least getting better at coaching their students through the examination process. Which, surely, is something to be celebrated.

Yet that isn’t going to convince the “they’ve got it easy” brigade, and it doesn’t entirely convince me. The problem, though, isn’t just about A-levels – the lack of respect for A-level results is a symptom of a wider problem: namely, the nature of education system in this country. Education has ceased, to a large extent, to be about education; instead it is about checking the right boxes and getting the right grades so students can go to university, and schools can get a decent position in league tables.

Don’t believe me? Take English Literature. You can do well in an English Literature A-level without having any passion whatsoever for English Literature. I know; I did so in 1997. All you have to do is read the relevant texts, work out what passages are crucial and rote learn the different interpretations of those passages. Your teacher tells you what is important about the text you’re reading, and how to interpret it. You don’t get to decide for yourself, and you don’t get given the skills to work out why a text is important in its own right by yourself. English Literature is not about cultivating a love of Literature; it is about making sure that you have read certain texts and read certain authors in a passionless, robotic way.

In order to improve education, we need to work out why certain subjects are studied. Take History – why study history? To learn from the mistakes of history seems to be the main reason. Yet with the Beatles becoming a component of some History A-levels, it is difficult to really see what we can learn from History in terms of avoiding damaging repetition. No, for me, History had its value not just in gaining knowledge of what went before, it also provides context for the modern age and, most importantly, how vital it is to question sources – where the sources came from, what agenda the writer might have had, and how those factors impact on the credibility of the source. Basically, it taught me to be discerning when it comes to dealing with different sources. History should be about more – about far more – than just rote learning facts.

It is also telling to consider what is missing from the education system in this country; many crucial subjects just don’t appear to be studied. Home economics would be a good example; when there is constant bleating about obesity, perhaps the education system could take some time out to teach pupils how to cook healthy food. Sure, you might not want to make it an A-level, but it is a damned important life skill. Likewise, many people study science subjects and Maths at A-level. Yet again, this seems more to be about rote learning that engaging critically with the subject. Would it be too much to require students to study philosophy as well? It underpins most other subjects – the sciences, Maths, History… Plus, philosophy should make people question the world, rather than just blandly accept it.

A-levels haven’t necessarily gotten any easier; rather, the education system has changed. Instead of being about educating people and giving them the skills they need for life, it has become about learning facts to pass an exam to check one of life’s boxes. And, as an aside my people, this mindset is becoming increasingly common at undergraduate level at university as well.

So bemoaning the apparent increasing ease of A-levels is to miss the fact that there is something fundamentally wrong with our education system; that through years of Labour misrule, our schools have become about box-ticking and targets, rather than education.

Besides, those taking A-levels do deserve praise if they’ve done well. After all, someone with straight A grades has done better than someone who has got straight D grades. They have achieved something and to piss on that achievement because the system is flawed seems unfair. Not least because the pupils taking the exams aren’t responsible for the system, politicians are. And since we vote for the politicians, we are also responsible for it. Spouting the “they’re getting easier” cliché is just a way to hide from the problems that are actually crippling our education system.

A-level Results: When A Grades Aren't Enough

This seems to be an addition to the sob stories that always emerge around the time of A-level results - the clever kid who didn't get in:

A pupil who gained three A* and three A grades at A-level has been left without an offer from a single UK university.

Ben Scheffer, 18, had his dreams of studying economics dashed by Oxford, London School of Economics, University College London, Bristol and Warwick.

Well, those do appear to be pretty good universities - in fact, very good, so they probably can take their pick of people with good results. Nonetheless, three A* and three A grades does seem to be above the norm, even in this day and age.

So why didn't he get in? The article suggests various reasons, like the fact that he took the German equivalent of GCSEs rather than GCSEs. I suspect the real reason is this one though:

He also said: "I didn't write the best personal statement, to be fair, it just wasn't special. And it's a really hard course to get into."

Yup, it was probably the personal statement wot lost it for this chap. When everyone is getting excellent grades, you need to be able to differentiate yourself from the others. The personal statement seems to be an ideal way in which to do that. If you don't do that right... well... this sort of thing happens.

Which may be the way good universities work moving forward - if A-levels cease to be a useful measure with which to differentiate applicants, they will look at other methods - like personal statements, extra-curricular activities, sporting achievements and so on. Hell, Oxford and Cambridge - who have always had their pick of the people with the best results - have been doing this for decades. With fewer university places available and seemingly more and more people wanting to apply, other universities will start doing this, and those applying to the best universities in the country should consider what else they have to offer on top of excellent grades.

A-levels and Monkeys

It is that time of year again; oh yes, those claims that A-levels are getting easier are being rehearsed and shouted up to the rafters once more. The favourite quote I've read so far this year is this one:

One director of A-levels, based in the North West, told researchers: "You could train a monkey to do the questions today."

Really? You could train a monkey to do the questions? Really? I doubt that, somehow. Monkeys are good at many things - including flinging their poo at each other - but I think it is a bit much to argue that they could sit an A-level exam. In fact, this claim is so bloody stupid that it makes me wonder about the sort of person who would make it. Is this man - with his Plant of the Apes style view of our monkey brethren - actually fit to be a director of A-levels? And besides, surely a director of A-levels should be able to do something about those exams if he thinks they are too easy?

Anyway, the problem isn't that A-levels are getting any easier*. The flaw seems to be with the exams themselves. They seemed to have stopped testing understanding of a subject, and instead demand rote learning. So it isn't the fault of the 25% of students who will get "A" grades this year - they've done what the subjects require, and have committed a lot of things to memory. And it isn't the fault of teachers - they've figured out how these exams work, and have given their students the required knowledge to go away and pass those exams. No, the failure is within the education system itself. A system that now favours teaching only so targets can be attained, and that the rote learning of information rather than the understanding of a subject. And a system that does very little to prepare students for real life.

So to summarise - congratulations to those who do well at A-level. You worked hard, and you have the grades to prove it. To those of you in charge of this country's "education" system - you might want to think about the flaws in A-levels, and what they show you about the education system as a whole in this country. And finally, a monkey couldn't do the questions on an A-level paper. And it probably wouldn't want to, anyway. It has better life skills to learn. Including learning how to fling its excrement at its family, friends and any gawpers passing by its cage in the zoo.

*Although A-levels were at their most difficult in the year 1997. When your humble author took four, and got three "A" grades and a "B", fact fans. 

An A-level in Creationism

Sometimes, I just despair:

The National Recognition Information Centre (Naric) in Cheltenham, which advises universities and employers on the rigour of lesser-known qualifications, has ruled that the International Certificate of Christian Education (ICCE) is comparable to courses such as international A-levels, the Times Education Supplement has found.

What is the ICCE, I hear you ask? It is some sort of creationist, dipshit Christian fundamentalist pile of bullshit. And if you think I am being OTT, take a look at this:

One of the textbooks tells pupils: "Have you heard of the 'Loch Ness Monster' in Scotland? 'Nessie,' for short has been recorded on sonar from a small submarine, described by eyewitnesses, and photographed by others. Nessie appears to be a plesiosaur.

"Could a fish have developed into a dinosaur? As astonishing as it may seem, many evolutionists theorize that fish evolved into amphibians and amphibians into reptiles. This gradual change from fish to reptiles has no scientific basis. No transitional fossils have been or ever will be discovered because God created each type of fish, amphibian, and reptile as separate, unique animals. Any similarities that exist among them are due to the fact that one Master Craftsmen fashioned them all."

Ngggh. For fuck's sake. They are using Nessie - a most likely mythical beast - to disprove a misleading reading of evolutionary theory and prove that the fictional character God designed everything. It reads like a Chris Morris spoof of Christian fundamentalism. This is the sort of bollocks that gives the God-botherers and the Sky Fairy worshippers a bad name. It is insulting to everyone with any sort of grounding in reality. And this is meant to the equivalent of an international A-level? Nggh!

It leads me to conclude that either:

• International A-levels are worthless
• Or Naric are insane
• Or the whole world has gone mental and no-one told me. 

Whatever. I despair of this sort of thing, I really do. And I just wish that the people who came up with the ICCE would embrace evolution. If only so they could evolve into more intelligent, less bovine people. 

H/T: link via Asquith on Facebook.