subjects of death for chosen careers

"narrow range of English Bacc subjects"

Eh? The whole point of the EBacc is that it covers a wide range of subjects - literacy, numeracy, science, language and a humanity. Would you rather go back to schools being measured on '5 GCSEs' which, in some cases, meant kids were entered for one proper GCSE and a BTech-that's-worth-4-GCSEs (yeah, right) which tended to be in a not very highly regarded subject. So that's 5 GCSE, apparently, but only two subjects. That is what you call a narrow range.

"deniers of all hues" - has me trying to work out relevance of colourful tights to discussion

TheFallenMadonna - I think it's an awkward gap to transition really. Obviously not all students are suited to the more academic path. I can never envisage the day that 100% ebacc at a Comprehensive would be feasible let alone desirable. I suppose it's just that I think that most children sit in the grey middle. These are the ones that need to have the opportunity to make a reasoned choice, vocational or academic. They need to have theirs eyes open and to not be lied to.

Talkinpeace - is it not possible to improve literacy and numeracy skills, and gain an understanding of the world we live in, from subjects other than those you list?

Do subjects like business and law not provide an understanding of the world we live in? I seem to recall such subjects were introduced to the secondary and 16-18 curriculum following complaints from employers that young people were starting work with no clue about the real world.

Out of interest, what's wrong with the idea of young people studying psychology at school?

(Any, you know, there are some people who would classify art and music as non-academic subjects )

Ooops - read all the thread and now see we aren;t in complete disagreement!

I wonder how much experience you have of secondary age children. I am all for more able students doing academic subjects. Absolutely. But, actually, I'm not all for the much less able doing the full range of academic subjects, instead of something useful and interesting. English, Maths, basic science, yes. But French?Honestly, you need to come and see some of the children I teach before you think that that is a better option than a technical vocational subject, even at 14.

Farside

I'm sorry but I have to completely disagree with you.
Up to the age of 16 the academic subjects (English, Mathematics, Science, History/Geography, Art/Music, Foreign Language)
ARE more important.

Pupils may not particularly enjoy them but basic literacy, numeracy and understanding of the world we live in is ESSENTIAL for any and all careers from mechanic to professor.

Anybody who feels the need to do psychology at GCSE IMHO needs to be sent to see one.

And Mipp, yes, there has been a laziness in education. All geeks should be forced to present their work in good English. If scientists and technologists were better are getting their point across then deniers of all hues would not have the influence they do.

Sorry, but I'm concerned reading this. Please please please don't anyone think that it's acceptable to have a poor grasp of the English language if you want a career in science. I know exactly the sort of "gifted" student you mean talkinpeace and all I think is "what a waste"...

appletrees - I was always mathematical/scientific. I hated English and French. But when I started on the GCSE courses I knew I had to work at them and do you know something? They clicked - turns out I wasn't crap at them after all. I still did science A'levels & degree, but I am so so grateful now that I was forced to apply myself in areas that I wasn't so obviously talented in.

Quite agree talkinpeace; I took maths, physics, chemistry mainly because I hated writing essays.

I don't think it's useful to categorise subjects as academic or vocational and then argue that one category is somehow preferable to the other.

What do we mean by academic grounding anyway? Young people need knowledge about how the world works and skills that are valued by employers (research, analysis, problem solving, independent thinking etc). These can be gained from studying a wide range of subjects, not just the "traditional" ones.

Talkinpeace - vocational means work related and can refer to general sectors like business or engineering and not just specific jobs. So, a school student wouldn't take a GCSE in teaching but they might do a GCSE in engineering - and, for many students, being able to study a subject which is clearly relevant to their future career interest is what keeps them motivated and engaged.

Thirty years ago I was utterly uninspired by the choice of subjects on offer at my sixth form. Today, we have made some progress in increasing that choice - but there persists an attitude that new subjects are inferior to old subjects.

There may well be an argument that A level law or psychology could be made more academically rigorous, but let's not assume such subjects have no value in the 14-19 curriculum.

PrettyCandles - my eldest's school have same specialisms as your son's. They do the RE in Yr 9, I think. Earlier than Yr 11 anyway, so it is out of the way and still leaves time to do enough other subjects.

Vocational subjects are exactly that
vocations
not academic theories
do you see nursing GCSE or teaching or architecture
of course not. they are vocational careers that people go into once they have an academic grounding.

Gove is right to highlight that some schools are failing their students by limiting the curriculum
but he is WRONG WRONG WRONG to expect every student to get the ebacc

Some of the most gifted engineers I knew at Uni were barely literate.
The running joke of multiple choice graduate recruitment forms in electronics had a basis in truth.
Can you see Bill gates excelling at MFL?

Seems to me that if you aspire to a professional career, then don't do vocational subjects at school.

MollyRoger >is my child doomed to failure because he cannot do a modern foreign language? He is perfectly bright but has dyslexia...

He shouldn't be if he follows his talents. One of the cleverest people I know - absolute genius at scientific computing - was almost written off at school because of his dyslexia, back in the bad old days. He's now a highly respected academic in his field, though he sweated blood to write coherent thesis or papers. Your DS should concentrate on English and the subjects he's good at, not confound himself on MFL just to keep Mr Gove happy.

Molly, my ds is at the same stage. Dyslexic at a selective state school (that's a specialist language college) - it's really not his strong point no matter how hard he tries. This new English Bacc really discriminates.

Dd1 fancies either law or psychology, but isn't choosing either at A level - has gone for Eng, Hist, Physics, RE and Philisophy and Critical Thinking. Keeps her options open.

No need for Philosophy A-level to do a Philosophy degree (although it is a very interesting A-level). Better to have skills learned from, say, History or English essay writing. There is an element of 'dumbing down' (for want of a better phrase) that means some of what you learn in the A-level would have to be changed at degree level.

(That said, I don't think it will hold against a candidate, I wouldn't know, but I do know that it is totally unnecessary in order to do well at degree level Philosophy)

oh Decorhate, does that make me a Proper Mumsnetter? I've just been to check your post, what was the thread about that you mentioned?

I do sort of agree, Farside, I studied woffly social sciences - psychology and philosophy at university and beyond, with large doses of sociology and linguistics, after doing standard sensible A levels (2 maths, physics, French), and it is a bit of a shame that the subjects I've been involved in ever since in are not recommended A level subjects even for those courses.

But I think it's as one poster earlier said, you don't cover the subjects in sufficient depth at A level, so they don't have the rigour that these subjects can have at university level. It's not just about old-fashioned attitudes. Maths and the hard sciences are still a better starting point for psychology or philosophy than those subjects themselves, because you have to be comfortable with science, logic, statistics.

It's a shame there's still so much snobbery around when it comes to certain subjects. I think many year 11 students don't feel passionate about "traditional" subjects and may wish to try out something different at A level - like psychology or sociology or law or accounting. As a careers adviser, I do get gifted & talented students wanting to pick these subjects because they want to do something different. I always advise them to check entry requirements with universities, as some might see these subjects as less desirable, but I do feel sorry for young people being steered towards a narrow range of English Bacc subjects just because we have a ridiculous prejudice against anything non-traditional in our education system.

Happily, not all universities or employers are so narrow minded. I once attended a careers seminar at The Guardian newspaper where we were told by one of their (well known) journalists that a media studies degree would not be held against any applicant.

The world is changing. Young people are bored with the curriculum and need to know about media and business and psychology and the like. We all need to stop perpetuating the snobbery around certain subjects.

Basically, what I seem to have gleaned in my time (I'm 40, BSc, MSc, PhD, 15 years at work and lots of recruitment experience) is that you are better off with a good general grounding in a broad area eg: "Science" (eg A level Maths, Physics, Chem and/or Bio), "Arts", "Humanities" rather than anything to specific or woolly at GCSE/A Level.

I did A level Maths, Phyics and Chemistry and have now moved into a very specific field of engineering via further study and work experience. My A levels have always stood me in good stead for incrementally more specialist moves.

Although I could be classified as an Environmental Engineer, Env Science A level would not have got me where I am.

Ooh Fennel I just namechecked you on the oldtimers thread!

Our destined secondary has obligatory IT, and stats, and technology subjects at GCSE, but these seem to be taken on top of the traditional academic subjects for the higher achievers, not instead. I presume IT and stats are just very easy, if they pop them in as a sideline.
It's a few years til my dds are in GCSE world so it will probably be different by then.

RE obligatory at my dc's schools, but IT is optional.