It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Education scam! GSCE results have been controled by the government (My opinion)

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:40 PM
Hello to all,

Let me start of this thread by giving you a quick update off what happened with the GSCE results here in the UK-

There has been a fall in the proportion of GCSEs awarded an A*-C grade, for the first time since the exams were introduced 24 years ago. This year's results show 69.4% of entries earned grades A*-C, compared with 69.8% last year. There is also a fall in the proportion of pupils receiving the top A* and A grades, down to 22.4% from 23.2%. About 658,000 16-year-olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are receiving their results.
A further 547,000 candidates, many of whom will have sat exams a year early or as adults, are also receiving their grades.
The pass rate had steadily risen since the exams replaced O-levels and CSEs in 1988, when 42.5% of entries were awarded an A*-C grade. By 2010 69.1% were awarded these grades, prompting accusations of grade inflation.

It is not like we are getting stupid. The school I went to this year has almost doubled the results and pass rate for English and Maths.

Schools minister Nick Gibb said: "Tens of thousands of young people are today reaping the rewards of their hard work over the last two years. It is right that we congratulate students on their results and thank the inspirational heads, teachers and support staff that have helped them succeed."
Head of the Nasuwt teaching union Chris Keates said the government may seek to claim the dip in grades was the result of its "toughening up" exams, but that this was untrue. But she added that it would not be long before results were affected negatively by government spending cuts and its "elitist" reforms.
NUT general secretary Christine Blower said the raising of school GCSE targets to 40% of pupils getting five good GCSEs (including English and maths), combined with shifts in grade boundaries meant many schools would face "a double whammy". She added: "If classified as 'failing', they (schools) will of course be more threatened with academy conversion."
Pupils in Scotland, who take Scottish Standard Grade and Higher qualifications, rather than GCSEs and A-levels, received their results earlier in August.

Source- BBC

The problem I'm having is this. I'm entering college this year. I worked hard for 2 years. Educated myself pretty well and so on. I was fortunate enough to squezee into the average of what the college of my choice had. I was only about 0.3 points ahead of the subjects I wanted. The subject required a 5.0 average. This is how they calculate it if you are interested.

Each grade is given a number of points, have a look at the table below and then work out your average.

A* = 8 points
A = 7 points
B = 6 points
C = 5 points
D = 4 points
E = 3 points
F = 2 points
G = 1 point
U = 0 point

Just write down the GCSE subjects you have taken and the results that you have achieved or hope to get. Then add the points together and divide by the number of subjects you have taken. For instance:

I got a 5.3. Which was pretty damn close to me failing to get the subjects I wanted.
The grades I received were disappointing but luckily not under the pass rate (C and above)
For example I was predicted an A in history but got a C. 2 marks lower than expected. All because of the marking.
Most of my friends found problems because they got D's in English which is a very important subject.

The BBC has reported the changes as shown below

The results in numbers
69.4% of entries earned grades A*- C
It's a drop of 0.4 percentage points on 2011

English lit A*- C grades fell significantly

So did A*- C grades in science...

Overall, girls beat boys A*- C

Change in take up since 2011
Science 36.5% (up)
German 5.5% (up)
Spanish 10.0% (up)
French 0.5% (up)

So let's get to the point of this scandal. I personally think that the government is playing around with the results this year, probably will do so in the following years here in the UK. Because of this slight drop everyone started to panic Even I did because it was a risk for me because of college. But the thing is it seems like Mr Gove wants to keep the poor uneducated and the rich the powerful ones. Funny that we live in a democratic world.
How dare such people say that!

But also this drop has encouraged something else to appear. A different type of system, that allows the person who paid do a higher course and so on. Well some cannot afford such luxury. Like the lower, working class people. This makes me sad because people are born geniuses yet their environment does not let them become who they are.


posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 12:54 PM

Originally posted by hellzdoms
But also this drop has encouraged something else to appear. A different type of system, that allows the person who paid do a higher course and so on. Well some cannot afford such luxury. Like the lower, working class people. This makes me sad because people are born geniuses yet their environment does not let them become who they are.

While I agree that higher education should be free (to allow the best to rise to the top no matter their economic background), the problem is that too many people are going into higher education while too few jobs for them exist.

In the UK in the 1980s, the Conservatives started the boom in higher education to get people off of the dole. The Labour party later further extended higher education to do the same.

Higher education should be free.

Practical Vocational colleges are sound but otherwise far fewer people should be going into higher education. Far fewer people.

edit on 24-8-2012 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:14 PM
reply to post by ollncasino

Well I think that Jobs can be created if there is money going in the system.
But with all those cuts I do not think that really helps.

But yet again I do not see a reason just like you, that people should pay for education if they pay taxes.
University is expencive enough.

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:18 PM

Originally posted by hellzdoms
Well I think that Jobs can be created if there is money going in the system.
But with all those cuts I do not think that really helps.

Government spending tends not to create wealth as much as re-distribute it.

Higher education should be free however. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't cost much money.

posted on Aug, 24 2012 @ 01:29 PM
'O' Levels were marked in a similar 'quota' fashion where only so many people passed at a certain grade.

Gove and other Tories are desperate to widen social mobility and put a greater distance between the 'haves' and the 'have nots', and the drive to return to these kinds of qualification is motivated by this. Gove is intent on sending education back to the 1950s, which might sound fine in principle, but it was before the the working classes started to hit university in any great numbers in the 1960s.

They've spoke quite a lot about fallacies (real or imagined) about the university boom under New Labour and the desire to cut those numbers and replace it with vocational training. However, the reality of this vocational training is 'new apprenticeships' in places like PoundLand and B&Q. No real skills involved, just cheap/free labour schemes for a commercial sector that's already benefiting from 'workfare' schemes. They sold the idea with the suggestion that we'd be creating new engineers, joiners and plumbers (that we're so desperate for we have to import), whereas we're creating new zero-hour retail drones.

They've been intent on culling white collar 'public sector' work since they got in office. Whatever their narrative about 'non-jobs', it's interesting/important to see how the public sector expanded. Under the Tory governments of Thatcher and Major, the employment numbers in heavy and light industry shrank dramatically. As traditional 'working class' jobs disappeared through 'efficiency' and automation, people needed employment. The commercial private sector has never been quick to 'save the day' - no matter what Osborne and Cable keep on promising - and this was certainly the case in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Right or wrong, the Blair government employed more (working class) people in local government &c.; jobs that were, at one time, the sole domain of the lower-middle-classes, as was a lot of 'white collar' work in general. Also, many of these jobs had actual career development and chances of promotion: social mobility.

At the same time, training and post-school was all focused on office-based skills and IT skills. Education in the late 1990s and much of the 2000s was based on these being boom employment areas, areas where working-class school kids could have a chance as opposed to working in retail. We've already seen IT jobs outsourced abroad by private firms, we've already seen many call centres outsourced abroad and now we've seen an unprecedented cull in public sector office work.

Without real job growth (which isn't happening any time soon), where are people meant to work? How are people meant to be upwardly socially mobile? The answer is we're not. The future of the working classes - at least envisaged under Tory government - is now zero-hour contracts, part-time work, under-employment and 'workfare'. A future with very, very few benefits (benefits many people have contributed to for much of their working life) and a reliance on food-banks and the generosity of friends and family (friends and family who are likely to be in the same boat).

It's all #ing bollocks.

posted on Aug, 26 2012 @ 09:46 PM
reply to post by hellzdoms

Sounds like much ado about nothing. I hate to say it but in the US, secondary education (high school, pre-college, whatever you want to call it) is pathetic comparatively.

I lived in London for a while years back. My landlady's son was taking physics, french, and a bunch of other stuff I found impressive. Meanwhile, when I went to high school back in the states (granted a few years ago :@@
all I needed was one year of English, one year of any math, and four years of gym class. The rest of the classes could be a mish-mosh of anything: cooking, art, etc. To my good, I still took more math and science and did get into college for whatever that was worth.

But you hit on a great point: no job waiting for grads after college. I think what kids now a days need to do is seriously look at the job market and tailor their education to it. Hey, if plumbers get paid well and there is always a need, why not? If a kid wants to continue with his/her Phd in Philosophy more power to them. We need smart folks at McDonalds too.

posted on Aug, 27 2012 @ 04:18 PM
reply to post by ABNARTY

Well the thing is I depend on my education to supply me with what I get.
I want to live good at least, I want to be secure and not in debt. But well it is going to be a hard ride but I'm up for it.
But a Mcdonalds job aint going to cut it.

I feel lucky that i got the choice to decide what I want to do.
and English.
Hopefully it will be a good start.

new topics

top topics


log in