A level results

[zico]

Feel sorry for today's kids, having their futures decided on a combination of what their teachers expected their grades to be, and then downgraded by an algorithm.

If that had happened to me, I probably wouldn't even have got into university at all because my teachers gave me expected grades of C,C,C and in the exams I achieved A,A,B. (Don't think I was too popular with teachers, which may have had something to do with these grades?!) I had really wanted to go to Nottingham University, but they asked for 2 B's as an entry requirement, and my head-teacher advised me that they were politely saying "we just don't want you". Way back yonder, you had to decide on your 1st and 2nd preference universities before you knew what your real grades would be, and I trusted my teachers to have a better idea than me of my likely exam performance, as they had so many years of experience.

In my mocks I got A,B,B, but would my mock results have been deemed acceptable under a system like the one that's in use this year? Today's kids won't know until the middle of next week whether their school's mocks will be considered acceptable, and of course, mock exams were cancelled in many schools. Even schools with mock exams had different approaches by different teachers within the same school, some teachers picking tough mocks to shake people out of their complacency, and others giving easy mocks to their more delicate flowers.

Really don't want this thread to degenerate into political point-scoring (especially on this board), but I think it's an interesting one, and worth raising with fellow Lemonfoolers about their experiences. The algorithm-based system that's been used is obviously unfair on any kids (or schools) who've worked hard to raise their game and surpass expectations, because the system assumes students simply meet expectations.

Below, there's a link to how the algorithm works. Seems it uses a ranking order for each school, then adjusts to keep school performance in line with previous years. (For a simplified example, if a school normally has 20 students getting A*, but this year the school predicts 30 students getting A*, it's top 20 ranking kids get an A* and the 21-30th kids get bumped down to A).

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... ummary.pdf

Ofqual says it used an algorithm which doesn't disavantage by class, gender, social type etc, but there are big difference on type of school.

Following table shows % improvement in %age of A* grades compared with 2019.
4.7% Independents
0.3% Sixth form/Further Education/Tertiary (a huge difference compared with independent schools)
2.0% Secondary Comprehensive
1.2% Secondary Selective
1.7% Academy
3.6% Other (Is "Other" faith schools?)

Also some interesting stories emerging about how to game the system to get the outcomes you want. Apparently many public school-educated kids move to a state school for the last year before their exams to take advantage of the "state-school weighting" that Oxbridge apply! Maybe this particular year, that approach could backfire with a 4.4% difference between Independents and Sixth form colleges.

[sunnyjoe]

https://twitter.com/haveigotnews/status ... 7857147904

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics ... 0813199399
I also got poor A Level results and went to the University of Bradford. Fortunately I never had to stoop to politics in my subsequent career

[zico]

Some interesting differences in increased % of A* grades by subject, compared to 2019.

7.7% Classical Subjects (Greek, Latin??)
4.8% Computing
5.5% French
8.3% German
0.3% Maths (one of the lowest, but ...)
7.9% Further Maths (one of the highest?!)
7.1% Music
4.5% Performing/Expressive Arts
5.9% Spanish
0.1% English language, Law, Psychology,
-0.1% Sociology (The only subject with a % drop from 2019)

Apparently, the methodology takes more notice of teachers' expected grades for subjects with small class sizes, so it's not just that kids are becoming worse at Sociology, but more cunning linguists!)

[UncleEbenezer]

Feel sorry for today's kids, having their futures decided on [...]

Agree entirely. And I speak as someone who would probably have ended up with the same grades (unearned) under this system as I got in practice.

The algorithm-based system that's been used is obviously unfair on any kids (or schools) who've worked hard to raise their game and surpass expectations, because the system assumes students simply meet expectations.

Not sure I'd agree it's unfair on any schools, but to individual pupils affected it's monstrous.

Ofqual says it used an algorithm which doesn't disavantage by class, gender, social type etc,

Yes, exactly. It's the same mentality that says "there are a lot of white males in top positions, therefore anyone white and male is overprivileged". Looking at the perceived "group" while refusing to acknowledge individuals.

[swill453]

my teachers gave me expected grades of C,C,C and in the exams I achieved A,A,B.
...
In my mocks I got A,B,B

You must have really upset your teachers...

Scott.

[JohnB]

Life would be a lot simpler if school exams had fixed %ages per grade, so it was just a ranking within a cohort. But the drive to show that education is getting better has led to the expectation of grade inflation, and made inter-cohort comparison a problem when in practice people don't really compete with other cohorts based on school grades.

The obsession with measuring schools has led to teachers being advantaged if their pupils get better grades, and the measurement system is open to gaming, like kicking out students halfway through their courses, as a super-selective did near me.

So you are bound to get a perfect storm if you remove exams and use predicted grades with the teachers wanting to do well for their students, and themselves, knowing they will need to game the system that will push down anything they say, and the examination board being portrayed as evil for trying to rein in the numbers, as they have failed to do so in the past.

So the students get their expectations raised by their teachers, and dashed by the faceless board, but have a clear reason to appeal, which will swamp the system and bugger up university admissions when the institutions are frantically reworking their practices. A friend at Kings says they over-offered, worried about drop in foreign students, with lower grades presented they may lower their offers, but don't know who will come back with higher grades on appeal. And they want students to commit to London accommodation when they might be doing all teaching remotely.. A lot of angst, when in fact there will be more places for domestic students this year.

The Scottish U-turn will put huge pressure on the other countries to follow.

If it were me I'd accept all the predicted grades, allow the 15% grade inflation for students this year as compensation for their disrupted education, as while it won't help with university this year, they might get a boost compared with people in other cohorts when applying for jobs, though I expect HR will just add a 2020 rule to their filters.

4As, when A's meant something.

[swill453]

If it were me I'd accept all the predicted grades, allow the 15% grade inflation for students this year as compensation for their disrupted education, as while it won't help with university this year, they might get a boost compared with people in other cohorts when applying for jobs

Gavin Williamson:
“Increasing the A Level grades will mean a whole generation could end up promoted beyond their abilities”

In unrelated news, Gavin Williamson, Liz Truss, Priti Patel, and Grant Shapps are all senior members of the cabinet.

Scott.

[gryffron]

So here is some actual evidence from the past about predicted grades.

the system of predicted grades is inaccurate. Only 16% of applicants achieved the A-level grade points that they were predicted to achieve, based on their best three A-levels. However, the vast majority (75% of applicants) were over-predicted – ie their grades were predicted to be higher than they actually achieved. Students from disadvantaged backgrounds and state schools are more likely to be over-predicted

So teacher predicted grades are pretty useless, except for "disadvantaged" schools where they are even more useless.

Sounds like a lottery would work better. Which luckily, is what we've got

Gryff

[gryffron]

The algorithm-based system that's been used is obviously unfair on any kids (or schools) who've worked hard to raise their game and surpass expectations, because the system assumes students simply meet expectations.

A popular position, especially with leftie journalists. But it's not really true. If the teacher had ACCURATELY predicted that this student would do well, but others in their year group would do badly, then the grade average for the school would have been correct and the results would have stood.

The problem is that teachers tend to be over-optimistic (to put it politely) about all their students. The historic evidence on predicted grades in my previous link supports this. So it is the teacher predictions, not the algorithm, which is punishing the over-achievers.

Gryff

[zico]

my teachers gave me expected grades of C,C,C and in the exams I achieved A,A,B.
...
In my mocks I got A,B,B

You must have really upset your teachers...

Scott.

The way it worked way back then was -
- apply for universities
- get teacher estimates
- decide on 1st/2nd choice universities
- do mocks
- do real exams.

[zico]

The algorithm-based system that's been used is obviously unfair on any kids (or schools) who've worked hard to raise their game and surpass expectations, because the system assumes students simply meet expectations.

A popular position, especially with leftie journalists. But it's not really true. If the teacher had ACCURATELY predicted that this student would do well, but others in their year group would do badly, then the grade average for the school would have been correct and the results would have stood.

The problem is that teachers tend to be over-optimistic (to put it politely) about all their students. The historic evidence on predicted grades in my previous link supports this. So it is the teacher predictions, not the algorithm, which is punishing the over-achievers.

Gryff

The algorithm assumes past performance will continue, so obviously anything a school or student does which is individually exceptional (either good or bad) can't possibly be accounted for. To account for exceptional performance improvement, exams are needed.
It's still unclear why independent and "other" schools have won out using this algorithm - after all, the entire point of the algorithm is to keep things pretty much the same as last year, although a likely explanation is from the Ofqual technical report, where they say that students in class sizes of 15 or less have greater weight put on their teachers' assessments - which as you rightly point out, are over-optimistic. So if a student is lucky enough to be taught in a small class (probably the case in independent schools), they also benefit more than kids in other schools (or larger classes) from their teachers' optimism/gaming estimates.

A couple of particularly bad examples below. One shows the inherent unfairness of the algorithm in the light of other evidence, the other shows an inherent weakness of it.

Example 1. Exceptional student from historically low-performing school had been accepted for Cambridge, but algorithm downgraded 2 grades at A level. Cambridge had previously interviewed her and accepted her based on her application, Cambridge interview and her teacher-expected grades, which is what Oxbridge does - look at the individual. However Cambridge have now declined her application - all because of an algorithm downgrading her results because she came from a poorly performing school. A strange decision by Cambridge.

Example 2. German-born student moved from Germany when she was 7, has fluent written and spoken German, but was downgraded to a C for her German A level. It's like Bono coming 5th in a Bono lookalike competition! (An example where the algorithm can't possibly make allowances for individual circumstances like this, but hopefully common sense will prevail).

There will obviously be a mass of appeals, and the people who know how to game the system will win out at the expense of those who don't. I won't mention "levelling up" - oops.

[tjh290633]

Long, long ago, when education was education and not just a pleasant pastime (as my old Headmaster used to say when he took us for maths in 1943) we spent 3 years in the 6th form, and spent the 3rd year taking scholarship exams for Oxbridge and taking Higher School Certificate again with higher level papers. Actually I took the last Higher and the first A-level in 1951. That meant taking S-level papers in the main subjects (Physics and Chemistry) and Group 3 Maths instead of Group 4 Maths for Scientists.

In my case I got offers from both Oxford and Cambridge and was awarded a State Scholarship. Then came two years National Service.

I don't see why the worried well cannot stay on at school for a further year and take the exams proper next year, rather than having a gap year. On the other hand, if their desired University is willing to take them, press on ahead.

Those for whom the problem is more serious is the cohort who have been unable to sit their degree final year exams. They have to explain to prospective employers what their capabilities are. No easy task in many potential occupations. Perhaps night school may have a resurgence.

TJH

[ursaminortaur]

The EHRC are now stepping into the controversy.


https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/13/equalities-body-warns-it-may-step-in-after-a-level-downgrades-in-england

Britain’s equalities watchdog has warned it will intervene in the controversy over the handling of A-level results in England after students from disadvantaged backgrounds were worst hit while private school pupils benefited the most.

The release of A-level results on Thursday revealed that the largest share of rises in A* and A grades in England had gone to independent schools, with two privately educated pupils receiving an extra A* for every one at a state secondary.

Nearly 40% of teachers’ recommended grades – 280,000 in total – were downgraded, it was confirmed. Deprived pupils were more likely to have seen those grades lowered by Ofqual’s algorithm, and the gap in results between pupils on free school meals and better-off pupils widened compared with 2019.

[zico]

I don't see why the worried well cannot stay on at school for a further year and take the exams proper next year, rather than having a gap year. On the other hand, if their desired University is willing to take them, press on ahead.

Those for whom the problem is more serious is the cohort who have been unable to sit their degree final year exams. They have to explain to prospective employers what their capabilities are. No easy task in many potential occupations. Perhaps night school may have a resurgence.

TJH

Surely those with a serious problem are those from less well-off backgrounds who never intended (or could afford) a gap year, but just wanted a reward for their talents to be getting into a top university, and mixing with other gifted students, so they could have a chance of getting into an elite well-paid profession, such as law or medicine, and also make contacts that would serve them well over their working lifetime.

As a former recruiter, I know that simply having been at Oxbridge carries a lot more weight than it should with other interviewers, regardless of actual degree performance.

[JohnB]

I doubt schools will be able to run a 3rd year of sixth form for resits in summer 2021. The ones that can are probably the public schools, who will just accept the extra fees. And who'd want to do a resit this October given you'd have had minimal contact with teachers for 6 months. Anyone thinking of delaying university entrance a year (why pay £9k for muddled tuition and no parties) will have poor options for work/travel/charity in their gap year, and be faced with competition with next years cohort who's results are likely to be better, though still disrupted.

Any deviation from the norm tends to have the organised middle class outdoing the disadvantaged, and its hard to ignore indirect discrimination any more.

And A-levels only matter until you've got a degree, but a degree matters for a decade or more. With degree inflation also rampant (Surrey, I'm looking at you), then recruiters have to look at institutions, as not all 2.1s are equal, as no-one oversees the universities, who are of course incentivised to offer better results to pull in the cash-cow students.

[UncleEbenezer]

I don't see why the worried well cannot stay on at school for a further year and take the exams proper next year, rather than having a gap year. On the other hand, if their desired University is willing to take them, press on ahead.
TJH

A year is a long time at that age. Would you want to put your life on hold? Especially if you live somewhere with no life for teenagers. It would've been unthinkable for me!

As for gap year, that's for ... well, more the likes of Giles Wemmbley Hogg than people like us.

[tjh290633]

I don't see why the worried well cannot stay on at school for a further year and take the exams proper next year, rather than having a gap year. On the other hand, if their desired University is willing to take them, press on ahead.
TJH

A year is a long time at that age. Would you want to put your life on hold? Especially if you live somewhere with no life for teenagers. It would've been unthinkable for me!

As for gap year, that's for ... well, more the likes of Giles Wemmbley Hogg than people like us.

We had to take two gap years without the option.

Remember how many people got their qualifications the hard way, through day release and night school. They were better at techical subjects than most university graduates, and a good deal more practical that those who did doctorates.

TJH

[UncleEbenezer]

We had to take two gap years without the option.

Agreed, I was glad to be spared national service.

But at least your years were structured, you were with others your own age, and above all funded by the government. You didn't have to spend it going spare under your parents roof (if they'd have you), cut off from your peers, and desperately looking for the next pound or two to put food on the table!

Remember how many people got their qualifications the hard way, through day release and night school. They were better at techical subjects than most university graduates, and a good deal more practical that those who did doctorates.

TJH

That's fine. There were certainly many among my cohort who had no interest in University, and other options available to them. But so long as we have universities and associated expectations, it seems seriously harsh to move the goalposts away from a cohort without notice.

FWIW, I did one exam on my own after special arrangements had been made. I arrived in England at age 11[1], my contemporaries had taken the 11+, so they made separate arrangements for me[2]. That was an era when the individual still mattered more than skin colour, chromosomes, or even tribal allegiance. Or, um, statistical lotteries.

[1] Possibly 10 - I'm not entirely sure which side of my (June) birthday it was.
[2] Ironically just a year later I ended up at a comprehensive after another house move.

[gryffron]

Example 1. Exceptional student from historically low-performing school had been accepted for Cambridge, but algorithm downgraded 2 grades at A level. Cambridge had previously interviewed her and accepted her based on her application, Cambridge interview and her teacher-expected grades, which is what Oxbridge does - look at the individual. However Cambridge have now declined her application - all because of an algorithm downgrading her results because she came from a poorly performing school. A strange decision by Cambridge.

But I repeat, this is due to failures by the teacher, not the algorithm. If the teacher had ACCURATELY predicted that this student was exceptional, but all the others were mediocre, then the algorithm would have no need to downgrade any pupils from that school. It is only the over-optimistic predictions of teachers across the board that have made the downgrades necessary.

I concede an entire school which had somehow dramatically improved performance across all subjects in one single year would still be punished. But how often does this happen? Really?

Gryff

PS. Do Oxbridge really look at A level results? Back in my day (1983) the head boy, mother and father both went to oxford, got an unconditional offer and three Ds. The guy who got three As (expected and actual) was rejected. I always considered Oxbridge a bit of a snobbish joke after that.

[Adamski]

The fault here lies with teachers for inflating grades to make themselves look good, or their school, or being generous to pupils. Its human nature. They want the best for the pupils and also make themselves look good.

Personally, I think should be made to sit thinned down exams in September. But that's not going to happen. I'd say the most likely result is some kind of back down, fudge where the inflate grades a bit. Means more going to university.

However, it's like with over promoting ppl at work, if non academic pupils go to university they will struggle with academic demands, and will be unhappy winging it in something their not suited to. Some have practical skills and skills in other areas which are better suited to.