Quote:
Originally Posted by cookie_365
O levels were dreadful qualfications. They tested nothing of any value. All they tested was your ability to regurgitate a fairly predictable set of key facts.
Good at problem solving? Good at working together in a group? Good at doing stuff (instead of knowing stuff)? Good at finding stuff out rather than memorising a tiny proportion of it? Good at applying what you've learned to real life scenarios?
If you answered 'yes' to any of these - well, no-one would ever know if you took O levels. Because they measured none of the above.
If you think about the skills you need to get through life and perform jobs in 2012 Britain, then O levels are about as far away as those skills as you can get.
Believe me, I was one of the last group in the UK to take them. I very quickly learned that I didn't need to do any work whatsoever for three years. I just memorised a small number of key points, regurgitated them into essays, and got good results.
|
since '0' levels and cses's weren't meant to do any of the above i'm not surprised they didn't .There purpose was to provide a good basic grounding in certain chosen subjects .The pupil would then either leave school with a basic knowledge of a subject or go onto further education in those subjects where they where expected to ,work in groups ,find things out ,etc.Nowadays ,as in my sons case ,he was "re-assessed" in geography to make sure he attained a pass mark ,not a resit as such just re marked in such a way that he gained a C grade