Is it true that clever people go to 6th form and people who aren't go to college

@TeenDivided our 6th form is attached to the local secondary - they used to be in separate buildings but are now back in the same (new) building. The 6th form has not reverted to having a uniform, has a very relaxed dress code (clean, no offensive slogans), come and go as you please, parent evenings for everyone but much more a consultative process looking at forward planning than anything else. It works well. There is a mentoring programme where the 6th formers mentor Yr 8s and 9s - that works too, despite the 6th formers not being in uniform.

School 6th forms have say 200 places. They are at a place that also has 11yos. They tend (not always) to have tighter rules and restrictions, as the pupils have to be setting an example to the younger ones.

Our nearest college doing A levels has circa 2000 (not a typo) per year, with youngest age 16.
No uniform or strict dress code. Come and go as you please. Parents evening only for under performers. A halfway house to university. Great for those who are mature enough, a bit of a nightmare if not.

’The A levels will be the same (how could they not be really) but the environment in which they are studied will be different.’

Different how?

No. Our school, and the other local ones, didn't have a sixth form, and there was a local college everyone went to. No 6th form option.

The A levels will be the same (how could they not be really) but the environment in which they are studied will be different.

My ds did 6th form my dd college both at uni. Dd just felt college course was better suited to her than staying at 6th form.

In my experience if you say your in 6th form at school people look at you as though you are intelligent.

Whereas if you say you go to college people think you are stupid for some reason and pat you on the head.

Not true. It's just something you believe.

I've worked as a careers adviser in schools and colleges and in recruitment and admissions at universities. I now do research on young peoples career decisions and can tell you that it isn't true.

Just like dozens of other people have told you it isn't true.

@thistimeiknowitsforreal why is it not? Are you saying a levels in sixth form school are different to a levels at college? Can you elaborate on what you mean by this?

I thought sixth form college was a private expensive crammer type education and sixth form was just the normal extension of school

No. The crammers are usually called tutorial colleges, although names vary and are often misleading. So far as A-Level students are concerned, sixth-form colleges are just regular sixth forms in areas where many/most schools don't have sixth forms. They will provide a wider range of post-16 qualifications than school sixth forms can, but that's not particularly relevant to students who are just moving on from GCSEs to A-Levels, unless they want to study less popular A-Level subjects that schools might not be able to offer.

I thought sixth form college was a private expensive crammer type education and sixth form was just the normal extension of school
yr 9 or sixth form was English it was 1st yr to 6th yr for me

In my experience if you say your in 6th form at school people look at you as though you are intelligent.
Whereas if you say you go to college people think you are stupid for some reason and pat you on the head.

In my experience (as admissions tutor for a very competitive degree course with entry requirements above AAA), this is not even remotely true.

Forget to mention I chose to study my a levels at college. I did this because I found the sixth form at my school very immature; I wanted to feel more grown up. We had some students transfer later to college as they hated the sixth form.

Op studying a levels in sixth form secondary school or sixth form college is the same thing! I don't understand the thread.

@thistimeiknowitsforreal apology accepted, OP. I know this thread has been heated in places, but I think a lot of us have learned things from it. At least we agree that UK education needs to do better and be more diverse!

DD did the same , she got 168 ucas points for her Health and Social care at our local FE college, finishing half a term early so she could go do Camp America. Now an OT with a First from an RG uni.

My daughter had great fun telling her peers she had the equivalent of A star, A star, A at A'level, an unconditional offer at uni for occupational therapy, her uni finance and accommodation sorted out all before her friends finished their A'levels at school because she attended an FE college. She was the first to start her career and now, having established herself is going off to travel for 6 months!

I suspect you are right about the scaling. The Dutch were lucky, in a very black and ironic way, that they were first invaded by the Germans and then bombed to hell and back by the Allies. They then got a lot of Marshall Plan money, which they used wisely to rebuild and restructure for a modern society. The old class system largely died and new ideas were allowed to flourish, which included the education system.

The UK sadly spaffed its Marshall Plan money up the wall clinging to their delusions of Empire.

I am also of the opinion that we do not want any more education reforms for at least another 10 years so that we can properly assess what the Idiot Gove's ideas have done and how things may be improved.

However, one point I would like to make: In the Dutch system, nobody studying for the equivalent of A levels is forced to do a vocational subject. English and Dutch are compulsory at all levels, but other than that it's free choice.

As in many other countries, the range of subjects studied on starting secondary school is wide (as it should be). One could argue (and I would agree) that it could be wider still. Right now academic subjects eat up the majority of teaching time. There are different ways of fixing this and all have their advantages and drawbacks.

I come from the Dutch education system, which is selective at age 11 but with flexibility to move at different age points as students develop. In the Dutch system, those who have a more vocational aptitude get a broad academic education in their first two years at secondary, supplemented with the essentials of vocational subjects like bricklaying, welding, electronics etc. Those who are more academic have the same two years of broad education, but with a broader range of academics supplemented with arts, music, DT and PE. Actual streaming happens in the equivalent of Yr9, but it is possible for those whose academic talents develop later to move to a more academic stream by repeating a year in order to catch up with missed subject teaching. It is possible to take the equivalent of A levels at age 21 - I had someone in my class who had done just that. There is no stigma attached to this route.

Students taking the vocational route take exams at 16 and are then moved into apprenticeships where they spend 2 days a week at school learning their chosen trade and 3 days in work, earning the going rate.

It's not perfect, but it's a damn sight better than the UK system - I 100% accept that is is wrong to force people whose strengths lie in the vocational pathway to waste their time dissecting Shakespeare.

But for people who take up those subjects and have no love for them what are they doing it.

Do you think there are lots of young people studying music or the arts under duress? People only choose these subject if they love them and have some ability.

They should have a spanner or trowel put in their hand instead.

Why? What if they don't want to pick up a spanner or a trowel? Why don't you understand the concept of choice? Why are you insisting that forcing people into studying vocational subjects is a good idea?

People who don't love theatre and music aren't studying theatre and music. (Most) teens are studying something they enjoy.
For some that includes holding a trowel. For others it's drama . Or maths. Or English lit.