The problem with A-levels

 A levels, examinations for sixth form/college students who typically aim to go to university. A levels suck out the creativity and imagination which comes with learning. Going down creative rabbit holes of research is referred to as being "in the weeds" rather than diving into the depths of the subject you are studying. Elon Musk said "You can have a Bachelor's degree, and still be an idiot". This summarises A levels, from the formulaic essays to tasks of memorisation. The criticism of memorisation applies to the humanities rather than STEM fields, take politics and want to get an A*? Memorise some essay plans which you didn't even create, or use the points and evidence you find in the textbook to formulate your own. The repetitive cycle of learn, memorise, test and forget is dangerous and a foolish way to structure education. Where are our creative thinkers going to be created? University? Potentially. But these skills should be developed from 16-18. If you cover a topic on human rights and want to dive in to the implications of replacing the HRA with the new Bill of Rights then you should do that, rather than memorising evidence you have no intention of understanding. 

A lot of complaining, fine. But what about solutions? Logistically this is difficult, but theoretically it is far more simple. Do a standardised test, definitions, tick boxes, the simple stuff any student who revises can do. Then follow this up with an examiner interviewing the student with various topics of debate, I'll stick with he example of politics as a subject. First of all if you study politics - properly - you should be reading the paper. Therefore, a topical potential question may be "Out of Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, who's response to the cost of living crisis is more effective? And Why?". This requires a plethora of knowledge and doesn't confine the student to a stupid specification. The question given does sit better for an economist, so maybe give the student a different question such as "Are Labour unelectable?". Quite quickly, topics such as Electoral systems, Political parties, Socialism and Media spring to mind (note, these are all topics within the Edexcel politics course). A conversation provides leading questions so that if a student lacks the contextual knowledge the examiner can provide it and the student can do with it as they will. De facto, this method is time consuming, costly and subjective (arguably essays are as well, even with a mark scheme) but you do not to need to agree with the argument, but you can judge the quality of argument. 

My solution may not be perfect but condensing 2 years of work into a few hours of tests is a silly measure of intelligence.