
So, to GCSE grades. Years ago, exams were "normally" assessed - such and such a percentage of candidates got As, such and such Bs etc. The problem politically is that, by definition, the percentage of, say, Cs won't change from year to year so how do we show we are getting better each year? So out went O levels and "criterion" assessment GCSEs arrived. Now, a certain mark will get you a certain grade, no matter how many candidates achieve that mark. Politically, we are able to see whether results are improving year after year - and do you know what? They are! Children are actually getting cleverer every single year, amazing! Fantastic! Yeah, as in "fantasy". So we have to have a new grade of A* as the "top" is too crowded - hello?? What happened to the Bell Shaped Curve? I imagine it's still right there, actually. It's a similar story with A levels, they're introducing an A* there too for the same reason and Universities are having to employ their own exams to differentiate between all the hopeful candidates with 17 or so A grades each.
Why do we think that everything must improve all the time? In reality, things tend to stay the same - whether it's the distances we hit golf balls or the distribution of "intelligence" amongst the population. When things won't improve we make them: adjust the lofts and appear to hit the ball further, and adjust the exams and appear to improve academic attainment. Genius.
Here's my prediction for the future:
1) A set of golf irons consisting: wedge 10, wedge 9, wedge 8, wedge 7, wedge 6, wedge 5, wedge 4, wedge 3, wedge 2 and wedge 1.
2) A range of exam grades consisting: A*******, A******, A*****, A****, A***, A** and A*.