On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:09:14 +0100, Sam Nelson  wrote:

>In article , 
>me@address.invalid says...
>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:05:09 +0100, Edward Cowling London UK
>>  wrote:
>> >A fellow old fart :-)  Well done that man. Now they give A levels away 
>> >with a gallon of oil.
>> 
>> AFAIR the results were normalised so that 50% was  the mean on a normal
>> distribution.
>
>So, if you happened to take A-levels in a better-than-average year, you 
>were stuffed, and in a worse-than-average year you looked good even if 
>you were a dimwit.  Is that better than the current situation?

It gave a more realistic distribution. 25% didn't get 95% and higher. 
Universities didn't complain that A levels were worthless for admission
filtering.
-- 

Martin

In article , 
me@address.invalid says...
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:09:14 +0100, Sam Nelson  wrote:
> 
> >In article , 
> >me@address.invalid says...
> >> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:05:09 +0100, Edward Cowling London UK
> >>  wrote:
> >> >A fellow old fart :-)  Well done that man. Now they give A levels away 
> >> >with a gallon of oil.
> >> 
> >> AFAIR the results were normalised so that 50% was  the mean on a normal
> >> distribution.
> >
> >So, if you happened to take A-levels in a better-than-average year, you 
> >were stuffed, and in a worse-than-average year you looked good even if 
> >you were a dimwit.  Is that better than the current situation?
> 
> It gave a more realistic distribution. 25% didn't get 95% and higher. 
> Universities didn't complain that A levels were worthless for admission
> filtering.

But an A-level could meet a university's requirements one year and fail 
them the next with exactly the same percentage mark.  Is that equitable
or just?  I think perhaps not.
-- 
SAm.

Sam Nelson wrote:
> In article ,
> me@address.invalid says...
>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:09:14 +0100, Sam Nelson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article ,
>>> me@address.invalid says...
>>>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:05:09 +0100, Edward Cowling London UK
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> A fellow old fart :-)  Well done that man. Now they give A levels
>>>>> away with a gallon of oil.
>>>>
>>>> AFAIR the results were normalised so that 50% was  the mean on a
>>>> normal distribution.
>>>
>>> So, if you happened to take A-levels in a better-than-average year,
>>> you were stuffed, and in a worse-than-average year you looked good
>>> even if you were a dimwit.  Is that better than the current
>>> situation?
>>
>> It gave a more realistic distribution. 25% didn't get 95% and higher.
>> Universities didn't complain that A levels were worthless for
>> admission filtering.
>
> But an A-level could meet a university's requirements one year and
> fail them the next with exactly the same percentage mark.  Is that
> equitable or just?  I think perhaps not.

It's impossible to produce exams which are equally hard every year. If 
everyone is scoring high percentages this year, that doesn't mean you have a 
brainy group of kids, it means you've accidentally made the exam too easy. 
Moving the grade percentages up and down to keep the numbers of people 
scoring each grade the same each year means that an employer can consider 
kids who got a B to be equally bright regardless of which year they sat the 
exam or which board's exam they sat.

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:56:44 +0100, Sam Nelson  wrote:

>In article , 
>me@address.invalid says...
>> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 17:09:14 +0100, Sam Nelson  wrote:
>> 
>> >In article , 
>> >me@address.invalid says...
>> >> On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 16:05:09 +0100, Edward Cowling London UK
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> >A fellow old fart :-)  Well done that man. Now they give A levels away 
>> >> >with a gallon of oil.
>> >> 
>> >> AFAIR the results were normalised so that 50% was  the mean on a normal
>> >> distribution.
>> >
>> >So, if you happened to take A-levels in a better-than-average year, you 
>> >were stuffed, and in a worse-than-average year you looked good even if 
>> >you were a dimwit.  Is that better than the current situation?
>> 
>> It gave a more realistic distribution. 25% didn't get 95% and higher. 
>> Universities didn't complain that A levels were worthless for admission
>> filtering.
>
>But an A-level could meet a university's requirements one year and fail 
>them the next with exactly the same percentage mark.  Is that equitable
>or just?  I think perhaps not.

The universities knew the process and adapted accordingly.
-- 

Martin