Talk:GCSE/Archive 1

Archive 1

GCSE and O Level Equivalency

The table of equivalency seems to me to be erroneous. An A grade at O level encompasses both the numerical grades of 1 and 2 IE You can obtain an A1 or an A2 at O level with A1 being the top grading. An O level B encompasses numerical grades 3 and 4 and a C encompasses 5 and 6. I know this because I have my O level certificate in front of me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.243.217.115 (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

There are bigger issues with the table, as the historic record show: ~80% of pupils were entered for either maths paper in the 1970's, ~35% at O-Level, ~65% a CSE, of which ~10% received an A grade, at O'level, so ~3% of the cohort (Exam candidates + others). Today ~95% attempt GCSE maths, with 6.4% of the cohort obtaining an A* and ~20% obtaining an A*/A, so as maths skills have shown to not have improved in the intervening time (grade inflation) an: O-Level A1 ~= A**, A2 ~= A*/A, B3 = A, B4 = A/B .... 83.104.51.74 (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

CSE Grade 1 (1965 onwards) equivalent to A, B & C at O Level (1975 onwards) - how can that be? In 1977 (when i did O Levels and CSEs) a CSE Grade 1 was considered the equivalent of a C at O Level and no more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.93.140 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I also took O Levels and CSEs in 1977, and a CSEs Grade 1 was only "the equivalent of a C at O Level and no more". It was a qualification that one did, if one wasn't up to the O Level standard. This chart needs updating to show that a CSE grade 1 is equivalent to O Level Grade C and no more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.93.1 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, CSE grade 1 was considered equivalent to O-level grade C. Because some schools entered students only for CSE examinations, there might have been a few who would have achieved a higher grade had they taken O-level. Perhaps we could have the 1 opposite the C, and a greyed-out area above. The change will have to be made to the template. What does anyone else think? Dbfirs 20:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: When the grade boundaries were determined for CSEs, representatives of the 'O' level boards would agree the CSE 1/2 boundary as the same as the 'O' Level C/D boundary. As that was the only fixed point, it's spurious to say that any other equivalence was ever guaranteed. However, it was generally recognised that the difficulty level of CSE exams was unable to discriminate between candidates' abilities in the 'O' Level A/B/C band, so attempting to say that a CSE grade 1 was equivalent to 'O' Level C and no more makes an assumption that isn't really meaningful. Nevertheless, having the table show CSE grade 1 equivalent to 'O' Level A/B/C is even more misleading, so I've amended the table to show grade 1 was equivalent to 'O' Level C. I've used a very unsaturated background for the area above, but can change it easily enough if something else is preferred. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, RexxS, that was a quick response, and exactly what I had in mind. We appreciate your work in creating and modifying the template. Dbfirs 07:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

GCSE list

For not the first time, I've corrected the GCSE subject list again:

• Changed the heading 'core subjects' back to 'effectively compulsory subjects', as that is a more accurate description of what they are, as no GCSE is technically compulsory (this is explained in the text)
• Removed Additional Maths from the core subjects list because its optional
• Corrected Science (the 'old syllabus' of single Science has only just been rewritten, Twenty-First Century Science and the new Science courses are slightly different things) and tried to make the routes clearer
• RE is not compulsory GCSE anywhere in the UK, though it must be studied in some form (not necessarily for an exam) everywhere
• Similarly, PE is not compulsory as a GCSE, but must be studied
• DIDA, CIDA and AIDA are not GCSEs and do not belong in the list

I've also removed the columns, as everything looked too crowded even on my 1280x1024 display. - Green Tentacle (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not simply that no GCSE is compulsory, but no subject is 'compulsory'. Thus it is not true, for example, that religious education (or for that matter, mathematics or English language), must be studied to any level whatsoever. Some subjects must be studied, of course, if the national curriculum is followed, but the national curriculum itself only must be followed in state schools. Private schools and home-educating families do not have to follow it. The article should be amended accordingly.91.84.237.105 (talk) 16:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article already clearly states that the National Curriculum is only compulsory in state schools. - Green Tentacle (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Acronym Soup

I'm an American, and I was looking up this page because my wife, a secondary school student here and I were discussing the GCSE - since someone had been accused of allowing systemic cheating on the GCSE by letting students refer to texts.

I found myself in acronym soup. I finally found a link to ICT, but I was not able to determine some of the others. It would also be nice if there were equivalents to countries who were not part of the Commonwealth's Education System. I do have a better understanding of what the GCSE is and I even found the O-Levels. But I have no idea how it relates to the USA High schoo Diploma, and I have no idea how the A levels relate to the standard degrees here. Just a thought - this is not something I can contribute to. Simicich (talk) 00:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

...why should you need to contribute to this page? GCSE is a qualification that affects mainly British students, and I assure you nobody here would not know what you are talking about were you to mention GCSEs. The acronyms are fine as they are as they realte to a British audience. Otherwise, we could say that all American mis-spellings, such as color, traveling and gray, be made into their correct British form so as to falicitate easier understanding of what each article is trying to say. 86.136.63.33 (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What a totally stupid response to the observation. Wikipedia is designed to be read by an international audience and those who hacve an interest in a subject may wish to compare systems in countries besides their own so using acronyms without exmplanation is not helpful. You comparison with differences in spellings is truly asinine. As a Briton, I am embaressed by your comments. Dainamo (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The GCSE does not relate to the US high school diploma. It would not be feasible to include detailed information about how this qualification compares with those awarded in the other 200 countries in the world (although Scotland is a different case). Wikipedia pages should not be biased to just one of the world's countries. However, I'd agree that the article should make it clearer to users of the encyclopedia how advanced a level of study is required for GCSE, so that users outside of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland can then compare with their understanding of qualifications they know more about.

But of course it isn't true that the acronyms should stay just because they are clear to 'British' users (meaning, from parts of the UK outside of Scotland). They should be clear (or clarifiable via Wikilinks) to users anywhere in the world. It is not the case that pages about things specific to one country should be clear above all to users in that country.91.84.237.105 (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorted out a bit of a mess

(193.129.103.99 was me Ameeromar (talk) 07:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Zilch in the article about pass rates

Why isn't there anything about the % of A*-Cs and passes for each year? Might be something to add for those of you in the know. 92.8.237.131 (talk) 17:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This might help: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/education/08/exam_results/gcse_fc/html/english.stm Marthiemoo (talk) 02:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

It would be a lot of easier if citations were provided to reliable sources for a lot of the information in the article, currently they are very few, and it would make this article a lot more stable eliminating the need to correct it as much. I found it very difficult to copy edit this article when it came to complex sections where it is not clear what the users who added the information is trying to say with no sources to help, particularly the bit on "compulsory" subjects. Strictly following policy users can delete unsourced content that can be challenged on sight - but since that would result in this article going to bare bones I have decided not to carry this out. I am planning to attempt to add citations in a few areas eventually, and help will always be appreciated. Camaron | Chris (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See what I wrote above about 'compulsory'. To say 'effectively compulsory' is a bit of a lazy cop-out really. Certain subjects must be studied if the national curriculum is being followed; but it is not compulsory to follow that curriculum; only state schools are obliged to follow it. And it is not compulsory to take a GCSE in any subject. I haven't got the time to tidy up this article, but I hope you will take the above on board! Nor should the article be written in school-teachers' jargon. I'd agree that 'ICT' and 'RE' should be stated in full the first time they are used, and if acronyms are used it should only be in subsequent references. In fact that's a standard good practice for any acronym in an article such as this, meant for a general readership.91.84.237.105 (talk) 16:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes per WP:ABBR abbreviations should be put in full first with the abbreviation itself in brackets and then later in the article just the abbreviation can be used. For example: Religious education (RE) -> RE -> RE -> RE. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of overall UK educational system?

Is there an article which discusses the overall role of the GSCE in the British educational system? As an American I am aware that the system is designed to adapt to the aptitude of the students, and that A-Level is reserved for those who want to continue their education for entrance into universities, while there are lower "tracks" for students that will be happy digging ditches the rest of their life.

In the United States it used to be that students of lower aptitude which do not have an interest in Shakespeare or Algebra could exit the school system at about age 14-16 to enter the menial work/labor force. This was changed so that all students must continue to age 18 and grade 12, which has generally been found to have been a bad idea since school becomes a prison for those lower aptitude students that don't care, don't want to be there, and so instead happily disrupt classes and just drag down the people who do want to go to college.

Where can I find an article discussing the lower educational tracks of the UK system, and what sort of work these students are expected to be able to do after leaving school? DMahalko (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If it's anything like in Scotland, they are likely to go on to do apprenticeships in the likes of joinery or hairdressing. Munci (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Low importance?

This is one of the central aspects of secondary education in the UK, millions (even tens of millions?) of people have taken this exam and it receives a Low rating? I think this is wrong myself. How do we go about changing this? 158.143.134.201 (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge of Certificate of Education (Secondary) to here

The Certificate of Education (Secondary) article has been around since 2006 and is a stub, it hasn't been expanded in that time and seems unlike to do so. It appears to have some information of value to this article, it has some External links that might be references. I placed the tag in the section I thought it may fit in the best, is there be a better section for this information? Blackash (talk) 23:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there is no opinion I merge the two. Blackash have a chat 04:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Philosophy?

Is phliosophy meant to be under religious studies, because there is a great deal of atheist philosophy criticizing religion. That isn't right, or do they ban atheist philosophy or something even though many of the most important philosophical figures were atheists? I'm worried now.

131.128.72.3 (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

GCSE equivalent

I have just passed level 1 maths and would like to know what that is equal to as a gcse result 109.156.70.111 (talk) 12:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: Your English is terrible, I hope you do better in your Maths!

Maybe I missed it in the article, but nowhere could I find WHY the GCSEs are taken. What is the PURPOSE of taking the tests? What are the implications or the results of passing or failing the exams (their IMPORTANCE)? As an American, I am trying to find out what are the GCSEs. Without this important information, I cannot understand or appreciate the meaning of GCSEs in British culture and society. This page needs some work to fill in the gaps and to better organize the content. Thanks. Jdevola (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. For such an important article there isn't much about the cultural context. I'll try and have a go at sorting it out. Barry m (talk) 22:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

GCSEs are often used as a minimum requirement for job applications, eg. applicants must have grade C or above in five subjects, including English and Maths; similarly certain minimum grades are usually a requirement to go on to further education. Possibly similar to the US High School Diploma - but I only know about that from popular culture so can't speak with any authority. It would be useful to find a reliable source comparing the cultural significance of various examinations in different countries; I will look for one. Malentaheloyse (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

weasel words?

"There have been calls from several MPs for GCSEs to be scrapped in favour of a national Diploma[by whom?]. The Department for Education does not look likely to do this at any time in the near future[weasel words]. Sir Mike Tomlinson, former head of Ofsted, also stated that GCSEs ought to be scrapped and replaced with Diplomas in August 2009[19]."

What's a weasel word and isn't that a matter of opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.211.208 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Govian reforms in Intro

I'm tempted to remove them as out of date, considering most of it was announcements of things that haven't happened and he's also no longer Education Secretary. Barry m (talk) 22:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

multiple issues: GCSE / O-Level (UK) / CSE - reversion war

All three page have numerous issues, but as it appear any attempt to correct errors leads to a revision war perhaps a responsible adult fancies addressing:

Copied mainly from ( User_talk:83.77.136.150#GCSE_.2B_O-level ) but to duplicate them here:

FYI:

• However ever many times you hit revert there will still only be 10 years, not 20, between 1996 and 2006, you can verify that one on your fingers, no toes required..
• The figures in the table I'm building: English O-Level and CSE Mathematics entrants 1977-9 are for years 1977, 1978 and 1979 (those little blue numbers after by title will take you to a LINK with the original numbers in), please leave the years alone.
• The figures for 8+ passes, in another little table I'm building "Percentage of School-Leavers in England obtaining 'n' O-level(A-C) or CSE grade 1 pass", are: 4.5 and 4.7 - again follow the magic blue numbers to the source, and leave the numbers alone.
• The first GCSE awards were in June 1988, so there is no pre 1988.
• The number of subjects, syllabus content, assessment, ..... have changed considerably since those proposed in 1986, the number of subjects has increased from the ~33 in 1988, to over 120 in the list you keep removing the formatting from, the A* was introduced in 1994, controlled assessment expanded..... So please stop removing the content i'm adding, and replacing it with a "nothing changes".
• The GCSE in not norm-referenced, so any comparison with similar awards will only be valid for the year the data was compared, in this case the comparisons were made in: 1988 and 1994.
• There are approximately 800,000 pupils in each GCSE cohort, not 6 million, please stop replacing the count of exam scripts with the word candidates.
• Also please stop deleting the "See also" sections, that link to other variants of the qualification.
• removal of quoted and cited text from the OECD and Department of Education,
• please stop removing the previous names / brands the exam boards offered GCSE's as.

83.104.51.74 (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC) 83.104.51.74 (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

83.104.51.74 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

English Baccalaureate

To add as a section or a new page? 83.104.51.74 (talk) 18:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on General Certificate of Secondary Education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121107144232/http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/6908_gcse_english_literature.pdf to http://www.ofqual.gov.uk/files/6908_gcse_english_literature.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Grounding for grading

How is it decided how people get a specific grade or another? Is it based on percentages of pupils (and thus zero sum) or is it based on a particular percentage of results? Munci (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

The grading is intended to be criterion referenced which means that the percentage mark required may be slightly higher in a year when the questions are judged to be slightly easier. Long ago, O-levels were norm referenced which meant that a certain percentage of candidates earned each grade, but this method is now considered unfair and is not officially used. Dbfirs 16:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Where does the grade equivalency table originate

The equivalency table between GCSE and O'level grades seems to have no reference. I mention this as it conflicts with a number of sources who deny that grade D O'level is equivalent to Grade C at GCSE - this is important for gaining entry to courses like Teacher Training which specific Maths and English GCSE grade C. However there seems to be no official authoritative source for this conversion in general anywhere, with DfE telling me (only verbally) they refer to this wiki article for reference, that sadly is not enough.

That's because the comparison that you cite is an unofficial one, motivated by the concept of "grade inflation". It has no official basis. The intention on the introduction in 1988 was that grade C at O-level would correspond to grade C at GCSE. Dbfirs 09:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

England-centric article

This page has been edited to include many of the changes being made to _English_ GCSEs, but fails to not anywhere that Northern Ireland and Wales are not making many of the changes being imposed on England. For example, NI and Wales are keeping the A* to G grades, rather than the new 1-9 system. GBM (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

We need some dates

When were GCSE exams introduced, and when were the predecessor exams phased out? Surely we need to cover this in the History section, and probably also in the lead. The only dates appear in the UK GCSE Grades Awarded table which starts in 1988. Was this the first year for GCSE? Verbcatcher (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the first GCSE examinations were in 1988, replacing O-levels and CSEs, though there had been a similar examination called "16+" which awarded both an O-level and a CSE certificate earlier in the 1980s. Dbfirs 09:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Please note that for the last two or so years this article has been constantly vandalised by User:Supervisor635 who has an obsession with removing dates from articles about educational qualifications. It's likely some of this vandalism has persisted. Older revisions, such as this one might hold more information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:09, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. It would be good to find a citable source, and to restore some of the lost content where appropriate. There are similar problems at GCE Ordinary Level (United Kingdom) and Certificate of Secondary Education. The Scottish exams should also be checked. Verbcatcher (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

First edition: Brooks, Ron (1991). Contemporary Debates in Education: An Historical Perspective (First ed.). Longman Group UK.

Latest edition (viewable on GBooks) Brooks, Ron (2014). "A decade and more of debate". Contemporary Debates in Education: An Historical Perspective. New York: Routledge. pp. 21–23. ISBN 9781317899327.

That gives most of the dates you need as well as a useful commentary. Disclosure: During the 1980/90s I was a member of The West Midlands Exam Board and later Midland Examining Group, as well as the National Executive of the Socialist Educational Association, and was heavily involved in most of those events, so I find it hard to write dispassionately about them. --RexxS (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added a citation of this source, and added the date to the lead paragraph. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hannah's sweets

The "Hannah's sweets" question is a piece of piss. Twitter users are morons.

I have deleted the wording that states as a matter of fact that the question is "particularly difficult" because it is not. (And people have had a year to replace the cite tag with a reliable source that says it is difficult and have failed to do so.) It is easier to solve than a quadratic equation factoring which is a GCSE staple.

The fact that it is mentioned in the article at all is giving WP:UNDUE weight to stupid people on Twitter but I will leave that to non-anonymous editors to decide. --87.224.68.42 (talk) 12:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Table in History and format section

The table in the History and format section isn't quite right. According to the document linked below, grades 1-3 are spread evenly across D-G, grades 4-6 spread evenly across B-C, only grade 7 is equal to A, with grades 8-9 spread across A*.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/605041/Qualifications_reform_-_teacher_resources_-_March_2017.pdf

Kookiethebird (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't quite work like that, although I agree that the table in the History and format section is inaccurate in the area you pinpoint. When grades are being decided, examiners and senior members of exam boards have a meeting to decide just a few grade boundaries and the rest are determined statisticaly. Currently, I believe the A/B boundary, the C/D boundary and the G/U boundary are fixed by the Chief Examiner proposing marks that represent those boundaries and then samples of papers around those marks are looked at by those at the meeting to confirm or adjust the Chief Examiner's recommendations. Once that has been done, the grade boundaries for A*/A, B/C, D/E, E/F, and F/G are determined by formula. For example, of those in the A*–A band: A* was 31% and A was 69%. Now, as I understand it, in the reformed system, the boundaries 7/6 (was A/B), 4/3 (was C/D), and 1/U (was G/U) will be determined at meetings exactly as before, and the 9/8, 8/7, 6/5. 5/4, 3/2, and 2/1 boundaries will be determined statistically once more. According to http://www.aqa.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/policy/gcse-and-a-level-changes/9-1 the new grade 9 will be 20% of the band 9–7; 8 will be 40%; and 7 will be 40%. As you can see, a rather lower percentage of candidates will achieve 7 than previously achieved A (the top candidates of A will now be awarded 8), while the previous A* will cover new grade 9 and the top of grade 8. The table I've drawn below will give an approximation of the actual relationship between the new 9–7 and the old A*–A:

Approximate proportion of candidate awards in top grades (9–7 or A*–A)

Fraction	New grade	Old grade
10%	9	A*
10%
10%	8
10%		A
10%
10%
10%	7
10%
10%
10%

However, the table represents the average distribution of the new top grades across all subjects, not in each individual subject. Those subjects with cohorts of higher ability than average (e.g. separate sciences compared with combined sciences) will see a higher proportion of grade 9 than those with cohorts of lower than average ability.

Hope that helps --RexxS (talk) 13:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comprehensive response. I wonder if the table could be improved but it may not be technically possible. It's not overly important. Kookiethebird (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

RexxS, the recent change to the table is misleading in that it does not show the correct correspondence. I appreciate that you were making it display better on all devices, but are you able to make a modification to show the correct division lines that you gave above? Dbfirs 13:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: The problem is that there is no genuine correspondence between grades awarded at different times. The 1988 introduction of a strong element of coursework, and the subsequent introduction of modular courses (effectively continuous assessment), along with a greater emphasis on criterion referencing made comparisons between O-Level and GCSE grades a very inexact exercise. Now that the new grades 7 to 9 are statistically based on the average distribution of the new top grades across all subjects, rather than in each individual subject, you simply cannot say that the new 9 corresponds to the top two-thirds of A* in any given subject (although the numbers will even out to that when summed over all subjects). What I'm saying is that we can make tables that display correspondences to a greater precision than the table as I revised it; but that in reality any such precision is spurious, and probably at least as misleading as what I wrote.

Nevertheless, feel free to revert back to the previous table, but I'd appreciate it if you could then fix the colours used, as they simply don't meet WCAG 2.0 AAA standards (and there's really no reason why they should not). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Isn't it better to have no table at all than to present a misleading one? I'll wait to see what anyone else thinks. Dbfirs 17:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I'd much rather have no table and a properly-sourced paragraph explaining why such comparisons can never be more than rough approximations. Unfortunately, I don't know of a reliable source that could support what is only my own knowledge and experience. In any case, it would probably only be a matter of time before someone else came along and re-inserted a "table of equivalencies". I'd be happy to go along with what others think, and of course it's easy enough to go back to the previous version. --RexxS (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dbfirs: Update: I've been trying to meet your desire to have the 7/8/9 grades fit better against the A/A* grades, but wiki-markup seems not to like the complexity of rowspans needed. I've therefore made a version in html that does render accurately on both desktop and mobile and replaced my previous, simpler version. Does that better resemble what you were envisioning? --RexxS (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@RexxS: Thank you for your excellent work. That's exactly what I had in mind, but I didn't know how to achieve it. Dbfirs 22:14, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on General Certificate of Secondary Education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130527190110/http://www.bath.ac.uk/study/ug/prospectus/subject/accounting-finance/entry-requirements to http://www.bath.ac.uk/study/ug/prospectus/subject/accounting-finance/entry-requirements/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/data/methodology/specific/PublicSector/output/downloads/Peter_Tymmns_paper_GCSE_and_A_level.doc
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.history.ac.uk/history-in-education/sites/history-in-education/files/attachments/history_examinations_from_the_1960s_to_the_present_day.doc.
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924140144/http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ECO%2FWKP%282012%2916&docLanguage=En to http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ECO%2FWKP%282012%2916&docLanguage=En

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Summary of changes (27-29 November 2017)

I've completely reorganised the page, hopefully making it much more navigable. The changes, between revision 810875979 by ClueBot NG and 812646978 by me come out to a 10,803 byte change, so I'll explain the edits here, as the edit summary box isn't enough to fully explain what's happened.

• Restructured entire article, using standard WikiMarkup section headings and formatting. Some previous mid-article 'sections' were offset simply with bold 'title' lines in body text style.
  • Reordered paragraphs and sections to provide better flow to the page and more natural division of themes and topics.
• Removed several paragraphs throughout the article which simply restated the same or very similar points in different words at disparate points in the article. This mostly accounts for the reduction in bytes.
• Split the former 12-paragraph lead section throughout the article, mostly into a new "History" heading that covers both introduction and reform of the qualification.
• Rewrote and corrected grammar in most paragraphs of the article while reconstructing, to improve readability.
• Subdivided the controversy and criticisms sections into thematic topics. Otherwise, I've not touched this section much, so the copy is mostly the same as in 810875979
• Refined and reformatted the grade comparison table, adding in the new Northern Irish grading scheme.
  • Separated said table into Template:GCSE grades to standardise the format across the three articles that use it (this one, GCE Ordinary Level (United Kingdom), and Certificate of Secondary Education.) This accounts for another reduction in bytes.
• Standardised spelling of "A-Level" and "O-Level" as such. I'm not sure if there is a consensus spelling for these already, but they were both used with and without the hyphen and secondary capitalisation in various places, so I just settled on one for now.

I've removed the Template:Lead too long tag now that this restructuring is done.

ATMarsden^Talk 02:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

On the Northern Ireland grading scheme: I'm using the CCEA documentation, which sets the 9/8 boundary and A*/A boundary as equal (and thus makes the A span fully across grades 7 and 8), and sets 4, 5, and 6 as equal to C, C*, and B grades respectively. I couldn't find a secondary source on this, so have added a primary source to the footnote on the template page. ATMarsden^Talk 02:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Political Censorship of School Syllabus

Before the GCSE system was introduced, British newspapers reported that the then Secretary of State for Education, Sir Keith Joseph, had refused to allow the scheme to go ahead until he had personally reviewed the syllabus for each subject. He demanded reduction or removal of topics such as radiation protection in Physics, hazards of industrial processes in Chemistry and environmental pollution in Biology. Sir Keith was not a fan of glasnost, which he called "the see-through society," and did not speak about this in public, but the government papers on this should be available to the public by now under the thirty year rule. If anything has been published about this, it is likely to be in the Times Educational Supplement, which is hidden behind the Murdoch paywall. NRPanikker (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Misleading information in Errors and Mistakes section.

This can additionally be seen as, in general, more appeals are submitted each year, however the appeals rarely result in any grade changes as only 182 out of 6.2 million (0.003%) grades were changed in England in 2018, with most upheld appeals ending in no change of marks.

The above refers to the Appeals process for the examinations, however neglects to inform of the Post-Results services process, which includes a Review of Marking (often known as a remark), which is likely to be where the majority of grade changes occur, whereas the appeals process is only utilized if this review takes place and the school still disagrees with the marking. In addition, the above cites a report but includes in the article both an inaccurate percentage, and generalized statistics which include those at A-Level. I'm somewhat new, and this change would likely require a reasonable amount of research and restructuring of the section, but I feel like I need to raise the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualKitten (talk • contribs) 20:34, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

History of Subjects Offered

I'd love to see coverage of a history of subjects that were taught in the late 80s-1990s compared to now. Courses I know have been dropped include Typing and Home Economics, but I don't know when these were dropped. I believe Needlework, Crafts and Childcare were also offered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.81.43 (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Heritability of results

I've just re-reverted a section Heritability of results, re-added by Nerd271 [1]. The entire topic of inherited intelligence is a controversial area and requires the highest quality sources, not a couple of primary studies. The edit summary by Nerd271, These aren't "biomedical" claims; but psychological, cognitive, and genetic in nature is complete hogwash, and WP:MEDRS clearly applies. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Hogwash? Humans are different from so many other species in that the ratio between brain size and body mass is higher than all known life-forms. Having such a large brain relative to body mass is a key trait that makes Homo sapiens unique. Thus it stands to reason that genetic factors can influence how the brain works, that means personality traits and intelligence. But since these are complex traits, so the environment certainly plays a role. The question is, how much of each? This is what some scientists are trying to work out. Neither biological determinism nor environmentalism holds. As the peer-reviewed papers noted, results are for a specific cohort from a specific time in a specific society, namely English and Welsh students born from 1994 to 1996 taking the GCSEs. Results would clearly not apply to say, the U.S., which has a completely different education system, or China, with a completely different language. If you wish, I could also add that results in these two studies cannot be used to inform policy decisions because the specific genes still have not been identified yet. Nerd271 (talk) 00:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and none of this this "biomedical" because it is not talking about psychiatric disorders, only academic performance. Not doing well in school does not mean you're mentally ill. Nerd271 (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271: Wikipedia is not a forum for you to expound your ideas about biology. The content you added make claims about the relationship between a person's genetic makeup and particular traits. That is a biomedical claim and requires secondary sourcing. If you find good quality secondary sources that examine the relationship between academic performance and genetics, then feel free to use them to add to articles. In the meantime, do not use primary sources for this kind of content. --RexxS (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: Actually, these are not "my views" at all. If you enter the search phrase "heritability of academic ability" into your favorite search engine, you would find plenty more. I believe that phrase is neutral because the answer could turn out to be (statistically) insignificant. But that is not what researchers found, at least in the U.K. Also, biomedicine means the application of biology to the medical research and practice. A person who struggles at school is not necessarily mentally or physically ill. No information on diagnosis or treatment is given. Nerd271 (talk) 04:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271: When you add your views to an article, they are your views, regardless of who else might be found to hold them in a Google search. Your understanding of "biomedical" is flawed. Here is a sourced description taken from our article Biomedical sciences:

Biomedical Sciences, as defined by the UK Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education Benchmark Statement in 2015, includes those science disciplines whose primary focus is the biology of human health and disease and ranges from the generic study of biomedical sciences and human biology to more specialised subject areas such as pharmacology, human physiology and human nutrition. It is underpinned by relevant basic sciences including anatomy and physiology, cell biology, biochemistry, microbiology, genetics and molecular biology, immunology, mathematics and statistics, and bioinformatics. As such the biomedical sciences have a much wider range of academic and research activities and economic significance than that defined by hospital laboratory sciences.

Please note that genetics and molecular biology are plainly included and you have no get-out from our sourcing requirements by trying to claim that MEDRS does not apply to your edit. It does.

To put it bluntly, we don't write scientific content based on primary studies. I understand that you found that study about the relationship between academic performance and genetics interesting, but you are going to have to find the subject discussed in "review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." (from MEDRS), before you can use in Wikipedia articles. You either abide by our policies and guidelines or you don't edit. --RexxS (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

That's interesting. Because the same article has this.

Biomedical sciences are a set of sciences applying portions of natural science or formal science, or both, to knowledge, interventions, or technology that are of use in healthcare or public health.

Nerd271 (talk) 21:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Sure. That's because the first source is a general source describing the biomedical sciences in general. The second source is a health authority consultation discussing the use of biomedical sciences in healthcare. The latter does not exclude the former. No matter how much try to wikilawyer it, a primary source remains insufficient to make claims about the relationship between genetics and academic performance. You simply can't extrapolate the results of a single study on a small group at particular time to imply something that has no currency in mainstream secondary sources. --RexxS (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Who said anything about extrapolating? It was only for a very specific cohort—people born in England and Wales between 1994 and 1996 who took the GCSE—and the authors took care to note the limitations of the study and clarified it should not be used to make policy recommendations. This is therefore basic science in an early stage rather than applied science. Biomedicine is applied science. Biology, and sub-branches like genetics, are basic sciences.

Try to understand WP:LISTGAP.

I said something about extrapolating. A study about a very specific cohort is worthless for adding content to a Wikipedia article. It's laughably WP:UNDUE for an article about the GCSE, and it's no more suitable to take up space in the article than to use to make policy recommendations – our readers deserve quality content. Science is science, no matter how you try to dress it up, and we don't don't write scientific content based on primary sources, especially when MEDRS applies. Go find a reliable secondary source that addresses the issues around genetics and academic achievement and you may have something you can use in a Wikipedia article. What you've stumbled across so far is not. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Ha ha ha! Of course "science is science" but there is a difference between applied and basic science and peer-reviewed versus random. This, like I said, is only a start. More will come. This is after all an active topic of research. It can be updated later. Not sure why Wikipedia is not allowed to talk about the latest research that has already been accepted for publication on peer-reviewed research journal and reported on some popular sources. Wikipedia is not the be-all-end-all of knowledge but only a beginning. I do not see why we cannot stimulate the interest of our readers; that is quality content. Nerd271 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, intended to summarise accepted knowledge, not a popular science magazine, full of speculation and fringe theories. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball --RexxS (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Except the sources I employed were neither popular-science magazines nor random websites. Nerd271 (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

But they were primary sources putting forth speculative theories that have no currency in mainstream science. That's exactly what pop-sci consists of, and there's no place for it on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 21:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

As I said before, even a cursory search by a layman like yours truly returned numerous results, including many peer-reviewed articles and others written by the researchers themselves. Perhaps a research team is wrong. But it is much less likely for so many researchers approaching the problem from different angles to be wrong. This is hardly speculative nor outside of the mainstream. Like I said, the numbers for different countries will be different because they almost always have different languages and always different education systems. Nerd271 (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

And as I said before, you're not only having difficulty in understanding WP:LISTGAP, you're having difficulty understanding WP:MEDRS. You'll find "peer-reviewed" =/= "secondary". Now back under your bridge until you've learned enough to discuss sensibly. --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Line breaks are for readability. I do not see why we cannot make changes so that what we write is easy on the eye. You will notice that your comments remain grouped together it they have multiple paragraphs.

But as you wish, your majesty, I shall leave this alone now. Your condescension has been enlightening and convincing. Perhaps in ten years someone else will return with even more evidence. Human genetics is a blooming field. U.K. estimates (in the 60s) might be low compared to other ones (which might be as high as 80%, on par with the heritability of IQ, a positive correlate of academic ability). Nerd271 (talk) 00:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nerd271: If you can't see why you shouldn't make the experience of reading these pages far worse for anybody who is visually impaired, especially after having your attention drawn to it, you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. The blank line only has a visual effect when editing and an indent marker has just the same effect in the edit window without causing the same problems for screen readers. Editors and readers who use screen readers have a difficult enough time here anyway, and your thoughtless and selfish actions simply make that experience worse. You should be ashamed of yourself.

If you think you can disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, I'll immediately disabuse you of that should you be thoughtless enough to do it again. I hope that's clear enough. --RexxS (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Adding line breaks is now abusing the visually impaired? What are you even talking about? We are not making a list. I add line breaks so that it is easier for everybody to read the code. Nerd271 (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

References

"Science modules" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Science modules. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 14#Science modules until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 12:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

[Needing] an O-Level in order to progress to A-Level.

Not the case, or wasn't in my day. Plenty of people did A level economics at my school (where the O level wasn't available), and one did Russian completely from scratch at a different school, I suspect because she was awkward.

What is it?

Just as I commented about O-levels article, this article doesn't really explain the topic. It looks like it's written for people who already understand it. It's a qualification. How does one achieve the qualification? Why would they want to? What is its actual significance? Why does it exist? How does it differ from others (I don't even know what to compare it against: a vocational school certificate? A US high school diploma? An associates degree?)? What kind of organizations want to see the certification (i.e., is it needed to enter University or does it just go on your job CV? Or both?)? Do different scores on the test confer different grades of certification, or is it pass fail? Is there even a test at all or is it like a diploma you receive for finishes a battery of courses? Or do you get it through apprenticeship? Some of these questions may seem silly to people who understand it, but to those of us who don't it's entirely unclear from the intro blurb. And if I can't understand what I'm reading about from the intro, why would I read more in depth?--2604:2D80:DE11:1300:4DE5:35B5:5DD3:86B4 (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I suspect it's just Americans who can't understand what GCSEs are, because the US does not really have national examinations: instead each school has its own "graduates." A General Certificate of Secondary Education lists grades of achievement in individual subject examinations, usually taken by 16 year olds at their school (but marked by external examiners) in England, Wales or Northern Ireland, at the level of the French Brevet or the US high school diploma. Many employers expect a handful of GCSEs for entry-level jobs. It takes another two years at school before GCE A Level exams are taken: one or more are needed for many higher level (white collar) jobs and 2 - 4 for university entry. A Levels are at the standard of the French school-leaving baccalaureate or a US Associate of Arts (or Sciences) degree. NRPanikker (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2022 (UTC)