IT can鈥檛 be fun being an exam-taking adolescent. First, there is the sheer
misery of sweating through the papers themselves, knowing that Your Whole Future
rests on the outcome. Then there鈥檚 the sticky weeks of waiting to see the
results posted on a cruelly visible school noticeboard. And the final nightmare
of Having Done Really Badly.
Or curiously, even worse, of Having Done Really Well. These days exam success
is increasingly likely to attract unpleasantness from so-called adults. Perhaps
you鈥檝e heard the 鈥渟tandards are falling鈥� line which tends to end with 鈥渋n my day
they had proper exams鈥�.
Such people tend to argue thus: recently, the proportion of school students
getting high scores in their year 11 and 13 exams has risen year by year, in
many subjects. Therefore the exams must be getting easier.
Advertisement
Clearly, if these adults ever learned anything about correlation or
statistical significance, they forgot it ten minutes after the relevant exam.
Possibly, they鈥檙e comparing how hard they found the exams then with what they
think they know now. That, as you may still remember, is error number one in
considering correlation.
To test this in Britain at least, let鈥檚 compare the exams set 25 years ago
with today鈥檚. Not surprisingly, a call to one of the examination boards produces
some consternation. It also produces a paper by Helen Patrick of the University
of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate on the difficulties of comparing exam
results over time. 鈥淲e鈥檙e not assessing the same thing,鈥� she concludes, 鈥渨e鈥檙e
not assessing it by the same methods, and even if we were we would be doing so
in quite a different context, which of itself would change the very thing we
were assessing.鈥�
She has a point. A quarter of a century ago, for example, when I was a keen
but rebellious pupil, my eye was inevitably drawn to the heading 鈥淧athological
Forms鈥� on an article which described a mathematical curiosity known as
Sierpinski鈥檚 Gasket. I enthused. Forget it, said my teacher. Too obscure. Now
resource lists for mathematics teachers are full of such fractals.
Or take next year鈥檚 Institute of Physics syllabus for 16 to 18 year olds,
developed as part of its 鈥淎dvancing Physics鈥� initiative. It includes a 70-minute
paper entitled 鈥淩ise and Fall of the Clockwork Universe鈥�. The content is largely
classical, non-chaotic, mechanics. But the critical approach of the title would
have confused many teachers in 1975.
The institute鈥檚 syllabus requires pupils to be familiar with 鈥渟torage of
images in a computer as a series of numbers鈥�. Think back. In 1975, computers
featured as a tiny part of any mathematics course anywhere. I well remember
excursions to see The Computer.
It seems that everything in the 1975 exam is still in the syllabus, except
for detailed knowledge of thermionic diodes (remember them?). In simple terms,
the exams are probably harder if anything. The subject as a whole is certainly
bigger, and the standard of adult general knowledge a lot higher. As Patrick
also says, careful comparisons can illuminate differences between schools,
between examination boards and between subjects鈥攂ut not between
generations.
So, listen to Uncle Mike and cheer up. You live in a more complicated world
than many of the adults around you recognise. And, even more important, you
probably are, statistically, smarter than they are. So there.