Scotland V England

[scotsboy]

Having just watched Sky News announce the annual increase in numbers passing A levels in England, I wondered if they can be compared directly to Scottish ‘Highers”? It seems the pass rate for A levels is now somewhere around 97%, whereas the pass rate for Highers in Scotland was 73.4%.........can they be directly compared or are we talking apples and oranges?

[Phoebus_Apollo]

I was always under the impression that "A" Levels were tougher than Highers - if you look at UERs most Red Bricks accept 3 A Levels to 5 Highers.

[rob1]

You can't compare them. I did 3 A levels in 2 years, where as some of my friends did 5 Highers in one year. A-levels are probably 3 times more in-depth than Highers. This is why students who have done A-levels and got good results (just about all of them now adays) can get into 2nd year at a scottish Uni, and why a bachelors degree in scotland takes 4 years where as in england it takes 3. Or if a scottish student wants to study in england then they either need very good highers or 6th year studies, or complete a foundation year.

[hotrod4]

it seems that it depends on who is doing the marking. Most schools now have targets to achieve(more so in england) so I would take that into effect before I made comparisons. I did a B-tec in England which was similar to the old scotvec and I must admit it was alot easier than the scottish equivalent as they are all chasing targets.

[Welcomefamily]

A levels are harder, and if you go back a few years they were even harder. The A levels do seem to be getting easier.
The difference in pass rates are due to the more selective nature of A level entrance as to even be accepted you have to have 5 or 6 top grade O levels generally.
The major difference between the two countries is most people in England accept that they will leave school at 16 where it seems to be taken for granted up here that kids stay on for highers.

If you look for something on % of school population it might answer the question.

[Welcomefamily]

Having had a number of years in Education in England, the Scottish system is by far better in the fact that there is a greater expectation of kids to do highers.

At the end of the day schools up here produce a far greater % of students doing highers. However it would be nice to see kids being offered the opportunity to do A levels in their second year of highers using their first year highers as year 1.
This would certainly makeit easier for students on certain courses by giving them the chance to do a more indepth study on less subjects. For example medicine requires 5 highers at A in one of the two years of higher study where as three A levels over two years allow more in depth study.

Also as you do more highers the topics become less interesting, if you do 5 in first year, the five in the second year would be in topics you are not so interested in.

[Oddquine]

English A-levels are done over two years, with the first year being a standalone AS level.......and the second year an A2 level to give you an Alevel.

In Scotland it is much the same as doing Highers, then some of them as Advanced Highers (old CSYS) for applying to English Unis.

Same idea....different way of going about it.

[George Brims]

You can't compare them. I did 3 A levels in 2 years, where as some of my friends did 5 Highers in one year. A-levels are probably 3 times more in-depth than Highers. This is why students who have done A-levels and got good results (just about all of them now adays) can get into 2nd year at a scottish Uni, and why a bachelors degree in scotland takes 4 years where as in england it takes 3. Or if a scottish student wants to study in england then they either need very good highers or 6th year studies, or complete a foundation year.
One effect of the difference between A-levels and Highers continues through the first degree at college. English students usually know much more about their one subject but very little about anything else. For instance you can get a chemistry degree in England (in 3 years) while knowing almost no physics. (This led to a Masters student in chemistry nearly killing another one (me!) because his knowledge of electricity was so slim.)
The other side of the coin is the US, where even in college, arts students are required to take some science courses, and vice versa. That means they get to grad school still knowing not a whole lot about the subject written on their degree certificate, so they need two solid years of classes at the start of a PhD.

[Kenn]

Whatever happened to S levels? These were an advanced form of A level that guaranteed a place at University if passed at grade c or above and involved doing a more intensive course over the two years.
I am also suspicious about the current marking system, a grade A used to require a mark of 90% or above and if you attained 95% it became an A plus.It seems that now any mark over 35%, which in latter years would have been a fail, the pass mark for the lowest grade being 45%,now counts as a pass.
Having been privy to some of the exam papers taken by students over the last few years it is very apparent that the status of the A level has been seriously degraded and they are little more than the old GCE.
My son made the comment when he entered University that the first year was spent bringing students up to the required standard to enable them to continue the course as many had not taken the necessary intense scientific studies when attending sixth form. He was fortunate in that his sixth form taught to The Nuffield level.

[Tristan]

You can't compare them. I did 3 A levels in 2 years, where as some of my friends did 5 Highers in one year. A-levels are probably 3 times more in-depth than Highers. This is why students who have done A-levels and got good results (just about all of them now adays) can get into 2nd year at a scottish Uni, and why a bachelors degree in scotland takes 4 years where as in england it takes 3. Or if a scottish student wants to study in england then they either need very good highers or 6th year studies, or complete a foundation year.

It sounds like Highers and Advanced Highers may be the similar to A levels. In Scotland if you do the Advanced Highers then you can go to Uni and skip 1st year as well.

[Green_not_greed]

A Levels are far harder than highers - a 2 year course and equivalent to Scottish advanced highers. My statement is from the experience of someone who moved to England halfway through their O levels and then sat A Levels. Then eventually came back to Scotland.

[Melancholy Man]

Being a self-loathing Scot, I have more respect for A Levels.

The title reminds me of a skit from a Sunday morning proggie in the 1990s in which the Wallace was on the executioner's slab being implored to repent.

"Fr-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-dom..."

"No, no, no... what you mean to say is that the film you have just appeared in is, at best, historically inaccurate and, at worst, socially irresponsible."

"Fre-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-e-edom!"

"NO!" (Places both hands around wrist, and turns in alternative directions."

"Oh, you're giving me a Chinese burn!"

"Do it!"

"ThefilmIhavejustappearedinisatbesthistoricallyinac curateandatworstsociallyirresponsible."

"Good, now repeat after me, England is better than Scotland."

I laughed.