Would two B's and a C at A level in 1970 equal two A*s and an A today?

In those far-off days - when Pontius was a pilot and before Doris Day was a virgin - we had GCEs, O levels and A levels, which we all understood: kids, universities, and employers knew what they were worth, the same as a half crown or a guinea.

There were no league tables and no annual comparisons, simply because the same percentage passed each year. How did they do this? By altering the pass mark!!

You needed to get four or five O levels to go on to the 6th form, and something like two Bs and a C to get into university. Three Es would get you a Polytechnic place (A what? I hear younger readers saying. Well... they're called universities now. For example, the University of the West of England was Bristol Poly.)

When the record-breaking (again!) A level results were announced yesterday, I can't help asking  what happened to that simple way of doing things which we all understood?

Successive governments have tinkered with the system to make it look as though everyone is getting a better education. We should all be getting A*s and going to uni because the government has provided such good schools. The fact that literacy levels are falling is quietly brushed under the carpet.

Truth is, people are much the same as they always were. Some are academically gifted, some are great craftsmen, others are happy working on the farm or the roads. So shouldn't we be educating people to make the most of their particular talents and skills, instead of trying to drive everyone through increasingly meaningless exams?

Of course, give all the same opportunities to shine, but don't let's kid ourselves that suddenly school children have all become more intelligent. Who does the government think it's kidding?

Does anyone agree - or am I just a grumpy old man?