Qualifications do not necessarily mean that you will be efficient, effective, motivated or even nice. Richard Branson has done quite nicely thank you, without a degree, and you would have been foolish to put money on Charlotte Bronte becoming a great author, as her school report in 1825 said, she “knew nothing about grammar” and wrote “indifferently”. Even Shakespeare famously spelt his name three ways in one document.

So where does that leave the rest of us? As far as some people are concerned the whole business of assessment at 18 would be so much more efficient if only we had a baccalaureate. However, not everyone will agree that the “bac” is a panacea. Similarities between the French exam and the old Scottish higher are striking. As they are with the old school certificate, which was so heavily criticised that it was replaced by A-levels and O-levels. The CSE was then introduced alongside the O-level, but both were heavily criticised and replaced by the GCSE.

It is not the name that is important, but the thinking behind the qualification and how “fit for purpose” it proves to be. But no qualification will be all things, to all people - whether the testing be by pencil and paper or by computer. And there will always be powerful pressure groups intent on moving the agenda back to where it was before.

The exam boards are not the architects of these many reforms, but often get the blame when things go wrong. Our main task is to maintain standards from year to year and from reform to reform. So that if a school certificatebaccalaureateScottish higher - call it what you will - were to be introduced, then so be it. We have been there many times before.

The writer is head of public affairs at the Assessment and Qualifications Alliance, an awarding body