Yes. It's pretty obvious. Exams are now almost a mixture of testing reading comprehension (for written exams) and work ethic (for coursework) - though sometimes not even the latter.

I was visiting a school the other day and picked up some higher level papers (A-C) for Geography, a subject I was lousy at. There wasn't a question you couldn't answer with a bit of general knowledge and common sense.

Posted by: Paul at June 8, 2006 11:01 AM

One point to note is that the GCSEs have been going for many years.

When I took a history GCSE about 10 years ago I definitely recall questions of kind found on the O-level paper.

Whether such questions are found on today's papers I don't know, however logically to make the claim that all GCSEs are 'dumbed-down' by compaaring two questions from current papers seems perhaps slightly excessive.

I'm not particularly arguing in favour of the current exams, merely that the statements made are overly broad.

Posted by: Angus H at June 8, 2006 03:29 PM

There was a noticeable sudden drop at the point at which the GCSE came in. In my case, (I was teaching at the time), it went in three consecutive years, O-Level, 16+, GCSE.

They did cover the same topics ; what's been happening since is that the depth of the topics has reduced, and the breadth has too 'removing the difficult stuff'. Have a look at the 'new science' exam, which is abysmal junk about the environment and contains virtual no 'raw science'. The proponents argue for understanding as well as knowledge, which I support. The problem is the understanding ends up being more like basic reading comprehension.

The questions are much simpler in structure. I haven't sen a 1996 History paper, but I've seen those before and after. I sat mine in 1979, and it was three hours six essays one to four line questions 'Explain the development and deployment of the Steam Engine' and that was it. Write about that for half an hour.

It's difficult to logically prove that the papers are easier ; this has to be anecdotal,

notwithstanding modern 'A' level papers having questions that look suspiciously like 'o' level ones. I remember quite clearly picking up the first ever post GCSE 'A' level syllabus and thinking 'they can do this already.... what do I do for 2 years ?' Every level above has been dragged down to compensate,

However, the killer is the pass rate.

Working from the basic principle that what one might term innate intelligence is more or less constant here. However, the exam rates have, since GCSEs started continually gone up and up and up. Before that they really didn't move at all. The concept of A* didn't exist, because it wasn't necessary.

There are various reasons why this might be the case. Better teaching and more funds are the two most commonly claimed. This is not credible though ; this could explain a slight rise but it doesn't explain the continual year on year rises.

It is true that teachers are getting better at getting children through the exams - often basically cheating their way through it. They do this because of the intense external pressure to do so.

When I started your exam pass rates were not measured unless they were noticeably bad (and sometimes you just got a not very bright group). League tables force not, as was planned, improvement, but false gerrymandered improvement.

The recent exams ; I reckon I could pass anything, (including european languages I do not know) and get a C or higher grade in anything that does not require specific knowledge.

There is a fundamental problem that people in the system will not accept, which is that to have a qualification that has value, it has to be exclusive.

Raising the number of graduates to make the country better is something good. However, if you do it by offering lunatic degrees to anyone and everyone, it is purely a statistical improvement ; the concrete benefit is probably negative, because those people are not doing this they actually could be useful at.

Posted by: Paul at June 9, 2006 07:52 AM

As an example of the trivialisation, this in today's TES.

http://www.tes.co.uk/2243916 (may need registration)

Hundreds of thousands of pupils will soon be able to pass GCSEs assessed entirely through multiple-choice questions and coursework.

From November, pupils will be able to score up to 75 per cent in a science GCSE by choosing from A, B, C or D options. They will sit six multiple-choice papers of either 20 or 30 minutes, each of which is offered with up to five re-sits and is marked by computer.

The exam, run by the AQA and Edexcel boards, is the first major GCSE to be mainly multiple-choice. The rest of the qualification comprises new-style coursework which allows pupils up to six attempts to get a good mark.

Posted by: Paul at June 9, 2006 08:13 AM

One of the tragedies of this situation is that it doesn't help students find out what they are really good at.

I know students that have got 10 or more A* grades at GCSE while not (in my opinion) really being competent is some subjects. This really doesn't help them to make career choices.

Posted by: HJHJ at June 9, 2006 11:03 AM

This year I did my GCSE history, and I have done that paper before and have seen some O level papers, and I can say that to answer them to the full extent which the mark scheme requires is just as hard, furthermore, if one cared to delve deeper into the GCSE paper, they would find similar essay questions to the one posted. The GCSEs are a bigger and better system testing more skills, they are not dumbed down versions as our elders would have us believe. This is simply a way of getting one over on those who are younger, and this percieved dumbing down debate must stop!

Posted by: Benjamin Stewart at June 20, 2006 09:18 PM

No it's not just a simple test of comprehension. If you wrote that the Leaugues aims were; what is written above you would recieve 0 out of 4 marks given on an A question. To gain marks a pupil would need to use inferences that could only be realised if the pupil had a good knowledge of the material he/she was writing about and if he/she had a good mind for making these links. To gain one mark you would have to say that 'it suggests....' followed by a complicated link. I could'nt make one since I have'nt studied this area of history but it would have to be made with a competant level of empathy of The Leagues intentions. This is the most basic question on the paper being as mentioned above worth 4 marks out of a possible 30 in 1 paper. It is a sourced question so should not be compared with a non-sourced question- the two being very different. However in temrs of skills required for the two: The GCSE question requires intelligence, knowledge and good empathy whereas it seems as the only thing required in the O-level one is more knowledge. Im not arguing that it does'nt seem harder to complete, since more material needs to be remembered but in learning for GCSE's more skills would be learnt and encouraged, which quite frankly would be more useful in more fields of work than having a good memory for facts.

Posted by: Alex at May 20, 2008 08:30 PM

I think it is a startling generalization to claim that GCSEs are easy. Many people are saying that they could have answered the questions themselves. Well that may be true but the fact remains that you have lived at least 20 years longer (sorry to guess your ages) than the candidates and so would probably have the general knowledge and skills gained in subsequent examinations in order to answer. I am doing my geography GCSE this year and the point of the course is to learn general knowledge of land formations etc. The mark scheme actually calls for place specific knowledge of over 15 different case studies.

Also, the format of all the exams needs to be taken into account. The majority of subjects have a foundation and higher tier now, the higher of which is sufficiently harder, to deal with altering abilities. This is also why they now do an Additional maths paper, which is for higher level GCSE students and is comprised of AS level standard work. For subjects like history, which does not have tiers (at least not with EDEXCEL) they will deliberately put lower level questions at the beginning and they will increase in difficulty, in order to cater for all abilities. The questions may appear simple, but the mark scheme requires different answers. For example, for a question saying "why did Hitler come to power in 1933?" it would not suffice to simply write the reasons why, you would need to link in factors and explanations.

If it is being said that GCSEs are easy, then what about A-levels? For example, both my siblings who have received all A and A* grades at GCSE level went on to get all As at a level, and my sister went on to Oxford. Should it then be assumed that A levels are also too easy? Then what about universitys? Its not that GCSEs are "easier" than o levels its just that they require interpretation rather than just learning hundreds of facts. I have no idea which science paper you are talking about Paul, as i am doing triple science and there is only about two multiple choice questions on the papers worth a collective two marks. Double science is similar, and applied science is about 60% coursework. Perhaps it is single science you are referring to, but that is aimed at lower level students and is ability based.

Posted by: Katie at May 31, 2008 02:39 PM