Michael B, I hope I never become as complacent or condescending as you.

Having sat my A-levels two years ago, I agree with the commonly-held view that they don't test fully the knowledge and understanding of the more academic students.

However, your solution is to do the opposite - set questions that are simply above the level of some in order to let others showcase their incredible talents. Due to the complexities of the question whose virtues you extol, students will likely either be able to answer it coherently or be forced to waffle endlessly for pages on end. This would prevent less academic students (your so-called 'dimwits') from receiving the range of assessment that you desire for others. Your message is, "jolly good for you if you get it, old chap, who could care less about you if you did not".

Good examinations test fully the pupils on both sides of the spectrum. But well done on all your big words - look up supercilious on your way out

Victoria, St Albans,

In Ireland we still have a major exam at the end of 2 years. This makes more sense to me as it allows more freedom for the teachers and the students. We also study at least 7 subjects. I believe that you should look more closely at the International Bac as it would allow your students more freedom.

Aoife, Ireland,

Maybe they don't exist anymore, but to gain entry to highly prized courses at Oxbridge seven years ago required S-levels. Is this now more paperwork in a failing education system?

Alistair Kipling, Birmingham,

The article points out the problem that exist with entrance exams to the Oxbridge universities already- that the public schools prepare their students for the possibility and, state schools don't always offer that. This may refelct on the state schools in question, but it is, nonetheless, a very serious problem.
If we want equality in life, we must have it everywhere, otherwise, what's the point? If Oxbridge universities are full of the privelleged few, at the cost of brighter state school students, won't this have a negative effect on the reputations of these universities?
I am glad to see that headmasters also fear this problem....our future, to use a cliche, is in our children

tim, naples, italy

It is ridiculous to have 9 grades, as in many subjects it is impossible to mark to the level of accuracy required by such narrow boundaries.
The only reason for this number grades is to have an exam that nobody would actually be seen to fail.
This would continue the present scandal in which the poor achievement of the education system can be masked by handing out large numbers of worthless certificates.
Instead of corrupting academic standards by making courses accessible to all, we should be providing a more flexible education system.
We want brilliant academics but we also need well trained plumbers, computer programmers, office workers etc.
The present system encourages too many intelligent children who have with little academic ability to pursue courses from which they will derive no real benefit.
We should cut the number of universities by half and use the money saved to provide the skills we need and which are no less vauable for not being 'academic'..

Bill Rispin, Hessle, East Yorks

What is the point of including these questions? Yes one of them contains a short extract, but the question refers to the entire novel, not merely the extract itself. Neither one is more challenging than the other - which makes me wonder what the purpose of introducing this testing scheme is. To differentiate the intelligent from the merely clever? Or perhaps to differentiate the privately educated from the state educated.

If this method of testing is good it should NOT be reserved for the already privileged. They've got enough help as it is.

Hannah, Telford,

Simon C -

Changes in the exam system were driven by only one reason: to get more passes and claim "success". Other countries' systems are irrelevant: formerly, our schools and universities were looked up to worldwide; our graduates' depth & width of learning much admired. Not any more.

No committed student will drop his interest in maths, languages or literature just because he has no formal tuition in them. I can indeed remember a temporary slackening of interest in the subjects I dropped after "O" level, but it came back in full force after a year or so. The "2 cultures divide" you refer to exists more in educationists' fantasy than in reality. A truer "divide" is between those who commit themselves to intellectual life in all its forms, and those who do the minimum, have no lively interest even in their chosen subjects and expect to be spoonfed even at A level. The modern tendency is to oppress the former and pander to the latter.

I stand for learning. Where do you stand?

Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire

Are there any post 16 education systems around the world specialise in 3 subjects
- Is is desirable that students can drop maths and foreign languages after 16.
- Is a 2 cultures arts and science divide after 16 desirable.

The changes to A levels happened for a reason.

Simon C, london,

Perhaps information from a practising A level teacher might be useful? I teach A level physics and I am aware that students can achieve better grades in other subjects.
The current physics A levels are quite discriminating and the only students I have taught in recent years who have scored 100% or close in some modules have gone to Oxford and Cambridge to study physics or natural sciences. The content of A level physics has been simplified over the years but despite this the questions can still be challenging for students, and are able to sort out those with real analytical skills. The syllabus I teach is coursework intensive, but only students of the very highest calibre are able to achieve nearly full marks. The issue in this whole debate should be the parity between the A/L subjects.
Some students who fail physics and/or maths AS level exams are obtaining C grades in other subjects. Once the parity issue has been addressed it is simple to award an A* grade for very high marks.

D J Shires, Bournemouth,

It is possible to write an insightful, reflective answer to the Margaret Atwood question, however, it is also very easy to drivel. It is also barely possible to go beyond the confines of the text without running the risk of being marked down for irrelevance. Only a well-prepared, thoughtful student can answer the question on Pope and there is ample room to discuss broader issues such as what is meant by "proportion" in this context. In the end it depends what you want your examination to prove.

Ian Fraser, Atibaia , Brazil

What about the AEA (Advanced Extension Award)? I took my A Levels three years ago and at my college, a few of the brightest pupils were encouraged to sit an AEA exam - which were offered for a variety of subjects. Have these disappeared already?

Julia S, Heidelberg, Germany

Simon C is wrong on almost all counts.

After taking anything between 5 & 10 GCSEs there is no real need to continue a spread of subjects.

He is right to compare pre-U with old-fashioned A levels.

The modern A level question is dimwit-friendly. It focuses the answer on closely defined areas, textually and conceptually. It helps those students who have inadequately read the text. It is unacceptably convergent. The set text is an easy and trivial modern novel.

The sample pre-U question is challenging. It presupposes a thorough reading of the poem, a more demanding text. It allows the candidate to address many issues - decorum, prosody, language, social mores, the nature of satire - under the broad heading of "proportion". It is aimed at the serious student.

When I was a schoolboy, state schools and poor students (like me) were not deterred. We did better than the independents, & set the tone at Oxbridge. Why be defeatist about the working class, their brains & industry?

Michael Bruce, Selby, Yorkshire

People always say 'private schools know how to play the game', well they should as they are providing a service which costs the benefactor between £15000 and £30000 a year. Everything in life is a 'game', the more you practice, the better you get. If you are so keen for your children to get an advantage, sacrifice some luxuries in your life and pay for their education.

sng, london,

The unfortunate victim in all these constant changes is the pupil. He is bombarded with new ideas of teaching and subjects which are geared to a so called new world by teachers who are also subject to changes from the educationalists. It is the parents who have to seek and get private education so that their child can at least have a chance in life.
I am a supporter of private education and paid without question. I make no secret of the fact that I have children who learnt many skills and subjects successfully.They are prepared not only for life but can get along with all sorts of people. The state system has enough claptrap and workers rights.It has infiltrated the educational system to make teaching just another platform for churning out people with no thought for the pupil or future.
It is time for serious thought to see what the new age educationalists selfishly have done to this country. They certainly have not thought of the future of this country or it's people..

Philip Hodges, Nottingham UK,

The pre-u has the problems of traditional A levels:
- excessive specialisation in 3 subjects
- high stakes exams after 2 years
- independent and grammar schools know how to play the 'game' better than typical state schools.
- it looks like a daunting investment of time to working/lower middle class students.

Theres nothing wrong with a modular approach as long as some of the modules are genuinely stretching and do NOT involve coursework. The government should resist the pre-u and create modules which really test students.

simon c, london,