science gcse too easy

[mollykins]

I just heard on the bbc news that apparantly the gcse science exams are too easy, I kind of agree, even the extension science which apparantly is nearly a-level stuff isn't that hard.

But I did notice a difference between the year 10 and 11 exams, these were slightly challenginger but I answered all the questions and last year got two as and two a*s one of which was 50/50 but because I do extra science, that one doesn't count . . . .

[mollykins]

I think they were talking about science in general.

Single science is complusory for everyone and most people do the exam in year 10, but the people in the lowest set, only do this science for the two years and get tested on it in year 11. Everyone else does double science in year 11 which is slightly harder, then people from the top two sets can choose to do triple science, which gets them a gcse in science, for which you do coursework and learn stuff for the exams in both years, which are tested in year 11 which is slightly harder than the other year 11 stuff. but if you do triple, then it replaces one of your optional subjects such as art of french etc, so I did triple science, art history and geography.

[mollykins]

The three exams for english were, two language and one literature, but I think the gcse for literature has more coursework than language. Plus the lit was longer.

[dothawkes31]

that's exactly how I explained it but with less typing

[squarebear]

Triple science? We used to do biology, chemistry and physics as separate subjects.

They probably do oral exams in English, as half the teenagers I know can barely string a sentence together.

Teacher - "How are you today Wayne?"
Wayne - "Sorted miss, innit? "

[mollykins]

sb, everyone has to do a bit of everything.

[mollykins]

not realy dot, they don't get double or triple as hard.

[craft1948]

lol squarebear do you pass if you just put "yeah but no but yeah but no"......

[dothawkes31]

don't contradict me molly tut

[jake-the-peg]

Ah Molly - this is a perpetual story for lazy journalists

It's great because it basically tells the reader - you worked harder and were cleverer than todays kids and don't get the breaks they do

So it appeals to their self-righteousness.

It's a simple recepie - Firstly you compare 'O-levels' with foundation level GCSEs whereas the old CSEs were more applicable.

Then you ignore the fact that GCSE questions in subjects like maths and Science tend to start easy and then get more difficult towards the end of the paper

So you find I nice easy question from a foundation level paper compare it with a stinker from an O level paper and tell all the old gits how clever they are

[dothawkes31]

who you calling an old git jack?

[dothawkes31]

sorry jake, I can't find me glasses lol

[mollykins]

jake, that's probably it. Are they taking into account the fact that the average iq goes up a certain amount with each generation, or does that not affect this? On qi they said something like, that the average adult 50 years ago would now be classed as being thick. Their average score may have been 100 but because we are getting cleverer 100 is still the average, but not worth as much or something.

[jake-the-peg]

I don't think the average IQ going up a point or two every 10 years comes into play much here.

There is a difficulty in providing exams which are able to descriminate between individual students at the bottom of the heap and those at the top.

The complaint at the moment seems to be that the exams are not able to seperate out the truely exceptional from those who are merely very good.

What puzzles me is why this should be necessary at GCSE level. It's not as if there is intense competition at this point for a few high end schools.

At AS level and A level that is a real issue where places like Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial are looking for the very best.

This sounds to me to be a political rather than a practical issue

[Old_Geezer]

As I understand it 100 is deliberately set to be the average.

I suspect it isn't that folk were thicker in previous generations (although good nutrition and stuff helps) more that they were less knowledgable. IQ tests are supposed to avoid that problem but I suspect if you don't feel confident that you know stuff, then you are less inclined to push yourself, but to say it is too difficult and give up.

[Old_Geezer]

Some easy exams are simple to spot. Just ask yourself, do I have to write loads demonstrating I know the subject, and how to apply the knowledge, or do I have to tick one of the boxes instead ?

[jake-the-peg]

The rising of IQ's is the flynn effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect

It's hugely contraversial not least because he's got borderline cases off of death row in the US by showing that they would be below the IQ for legal execution when the law was passed

Best guess seems to be that our increasingly "modern" lifestyles brings us more and more into contact with the sort of mental disciplines needed to do well in IQ tests

[jake-the-peg]

nope just that if you'd been brought up in a tribe in the Kalihari dessert you wouldn't score as highly in an IQ test as you would being brought up in the UK

That might sound obvious but proponents of IQ testing say that they are testing something innate and that you can't improve much with practice and schooling.

I say hogwash but make your own mind up

[mollykins]

So unless you practice the right kind of logic based exercises, your iq wil always be the same won't it?