A new book of questions from the old-style 11-plus exam has begged the seemingly perennial question - are exams getting easier?
Dr Martin Stephen, the high master of St Paul's, London, who wrote the book's foreword, said today that exams were easier but standards were higher.
"In the bad old days, you set the exam that marked the standard to which people aspired and now you decide what's a reasonable standard to which people can aspire and set the exam to test it," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
Stephen confessed to not getting a single answer right. You can pit yourself against a sample of questions from the test here.
John Bangs, the National Union of Teachers' head of education, confessed to failing the 11-plus.
He said they were tough questions, mostly dealing in simple regurgitation of what pupils' remembered, whereas modern exam questions have moved into "using and applying".
The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, whose job it is to check standards, insist they haven't fallen over time, even if the exams themselves have changed.
As Bangs put it: "Leaving school with an enthusiasm for learning and the ability to tackle new problems and new issues is what is absolutely necessary in the 21st century".
But has the pendulum swung too far the other way, as Stephens suggests? Is the "core of human advancement rote learning"? Should there be a return to more traditional teaching methods and exams?
