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

Now I know you're having us on. Well played, OP.

You still haven't explained why you think it is acceptable to take choice away from young people at a time when they need to be learning to make and manage their own choices.

Hasn't explained why reducing demand for plumbers, hairdressers etc is a good idea either.

Also doing something "non relevant" as you allude to could bring some life skills they turn to in later life, teach them team working skills, problem solving, cognitive skills.

Or they could already have those skills through practicals in their science A levels, or have learned them at home, or they could learn them at (gasp) university? No need to waste a third of the post 16 curriculum.

Re A level History - you mean like this spec?? Which is already available? It is up to schools to decide which modules they teach and it changes, mostly based on what specialised subjects the teaching staff have. I'm surprised you don't know that. This is AQA, but I imagine EdExcel isn't much different.

You still haven't explained why you think it is acceptable to take choice away from young people at a time when they need to be learning to make and manage their own choices.

Take medical disciplines, people need prepping for surgery ?

You'll need to explain your thinking with that sentence. Are you arguing that medical students could use the beautician knowledge they gain at college to prep someone for surgery?

I got into Uni with the equivalent of 2 A levels.

So did my foster son. But he didn't do bricklaying or catering becaise he'd have hated that. Both my other DC did 3 A levels.

I got into Uni with the equivalent of 2 A levels.

Why do you want to take choice away from young people?

I could say it shows given your lack of any sort of critical thinking....

What's the ucas points system got to
do with anything. It's a representation that's all.

You're arguing people should start medical degrees with two thirds of the knowledge they currently have, so the other third of their time can be spent learning hairdressing or bricklaying. Barmy frankly.

I think the option for 2 A levels and 1 vocation is a good idea.

It is a good idea if it is what the young person wants. It is a bloody stupid idea if it means forcing someone to take a subject they do not want. You are taking away freedom and responsibility at the point where those things need to be developed. You are wasting a teaching slot that could be used for something relevant to a young person's interests and future plans. My disabled DC would have hated being made to do bricklaying instead of History. Young people should be allowed to make choices and then live with the consequences, It's part of growing up.

You are also the only person on this thread who thinks it is a good idea.

How are you going to make universities accept this? You'd have to completely reform the admission system as well.

2 A levels and one vocational isn't enough for uni, so your plan stops anyone going to uni, AND makes sure that vocational skills are no longer sought after!

It could include other things like hair, heath and social care, getting a hgv licence

Well the same thing applies doesn't it. I'd bet most hairdressers, plumbers, nail technicians etc would be pretty pissed off to have an occupation that no one wanted to employ because either they had the skills themselves or their mate did.

And maybe find another Friday night hobby seeing as you don't actually debate, you just revive this thread when you're bored.

Round here in Surrey most of the schools have 6th forms. They seem more classical and old fashioned - you do 3 or 4 A'level's, maybe one a Btec. Colleges offer more choice, a wider variety. Schools have higher targets to actually reach to get in, so they can take the crème of Students with high GCSE's.

Is that what you've got? Personal attacks?

Nowhere have I suggested that people who choose a vocational pathway are less intelligent - that is your spin. I am merely pointing out that different people have different interests and aptitudes, and that forcing them into pathways that do not suit those interests and aptitudes is likely to be counterproductive as well as unethical. Just out of interest, would you also be in favour of forcing those who choose a vocational path to do at least one academic A level?

I would have no objection at all to someone doing two A levels and a vocational subject if that was what they wanted to do, but forcing that on a young person post 16 is another matter. You have still not addressed the matter of enabling young people post 16 to have some agency over their course choices and their future - when exactly did you want to stop dictating to them?

On the logistical front, having satellite locations in the same town would solve nothing. It would only add to the cost and it would also add an element of transport as well as making timetabling far more difficult. It would also make life extremely difficult for disabled students (and yes, one of my DC is disabled, highly academic and at university so I know what that looks like).

What benefits do you see to forcing an academic young person to take an electrician course they do not want to do? They will have no interest in it. They will wish they were doing that third A level. They will do less well than someone who actually wants to be there and with places limited, this will mean someone wanting to do that course may miss out.

Your idea is a bad idea, plain and simple. Undesirable, unworkable, and downright stupid.