Should we care that 50% of state schools didn't produce any medicine applicants in 3 years?

So I don't see why DC whose interests and/or talents lie elsewhere are made to feel they have to take at least one STEM subject at A Level
Nor do I
and my house makes its money trying to get people into STEM
BUT
Kids should not be scared off thinking they can excel at sciences just because they are hard

I know STEM is essential, but it's not the only thing we need. There are loads of other areas which are important to society (and I'm not just talking about the creative arts) for which a science background is unsuitable/not required. So I don't see why DC whose interests and/or talents lie elsewhere are made to feel they have to take at least one STEM subject at A Level.

That's the one . Very Interesting and worth watching !.

smokepole
I assume its this one

Interestingly My Open University Tutor linked to me on You Tube The BBC Documentary from last year " Who Gets all the Best jobs" . It is worth watching as there is a large section about "internships" or getting work experience in medicine or Hospitals . The programme also talks how difficult it is for children from families of modest incomes to even have aspirations for any "Professional" Career not just Medicine.

You Tube : "Who Gets All the Best Jobs" Sorry Do not know how to link...

Marni
There are several issue and many other posters on this thread flatly disagree with me but HEY I'm used to that

the 1944 Education Act that brought in the Tripartite system effectively put classics/academic at the top and practical/technical skills at the bottom
from age 11

not coincidentally, over the next 35 years, Britain's science and engineering base collapsed - as bosses had been segregated from doers

by the 90's the UK was turning into a call centre / shopping centre economy and the city centres were dying

industry moved abroad and healthcare and construction became ever more reliant on imports of expertise

the current emphasis is trying to rebuild the physical foundations of the UK economy

but because our politicians are mostly cack handed twerps, they insist on doing it top down, rather than in a libertarian cutting red tape way

STEM is essential : it creates far more net worth to the economy than the arts
BUT
if the tax breaks on arts were tidied up, the rich could fund what they like - as bonsoir rightly pointed out they always did

Do you think that's where it comes from Talkin? I think it's also the current obsession with STEM subjects which politicians bang on about (I seem to remember Nicky Morgan making a speech on it recently). The thing is I know we need engineers and scientists etc. We just don't need everyone to be one!

My DD is doing 3 Humanities subjects and a language at AS level. She's had countless fellow pupils sucking their teeth and issuing dire warnings about her subjects not being balanced! As if throwing 1 science into the mix would somehow make her vastly more employable. It's like they've all been brainwashed. Thankfully her teachers don't share that view.

R stew & R Euphoria

and BTW as a totally science dominated household

I utterly agree with Marni that the obsession with "balanced" A levels - which always means that arts/humanities people have to do a science but never seems to make maths/chem/physics/computing people to do English
is stupid and devalues the differences between people.

it actually tracks back to NuLabour and the obsession with KS2 SATs that every child should magically be equally good at maths and English.

I write and think and talk in bullet points.
Writing essays was a chore I tolerated through University but was delighted to never have to go back to.

Those who do like writing essays should not be forced to write equations.

Typing too slowly, my post was in response to rabbitofnegativeeuphoria
Very confusing with 2 rabbits on the thread!

Agree Rabbit.
I'm really sick of the attitude that science/maths are somehow superior to other subjects. They're not. It's what has led to the ridiculous situation where DC whose true interest and abilities lie in the arts/humanities feel they must take at least one science subject at AS/A level.

I fail to see how a biology A level taken in isolation with say English and History is better than taking another humanities subject or a language. Likewise Maths-great if you have an interest in it and are good at it but it seems to be becoming almost a must-have A Level. Why? I got a B at O Level a million years ago, wouldn't have dreamt of taking an A Level in it, but was still more than capable of handling multi-million pound budgets in my job.

We need young people who specialise in the arts and humanities too if we want a society that is culturally rich.

I think seeingthrufog has a point though and frankly the same applies for the arts. Part of the reason things are the way they are is actually because too few people of any background give a damn. Who wants to do medicine when it's such hard work, and who wants all that poncey arty stuff when you are entertained by reality TV, mainstream films, "Fifty Shades of Grey," Twitter, YouTube and One Direction? I don't see thousands of angry people picketing the opera because they can't afford tickets. They don't care what they are missing and it is far easier and more profitable to cater for what people want than to try and educate them to appreciate and eventually want something different.

There is a difference between existing/surviving and living. This Tory government, backed by their wealthy chums (and sadly it would seem a fair number of Gradgrinds who should know better) is determined to keep living the preserve of the wealthy while relegating the rest of us to existence/survival (and possibly enhancing the lives of the wealthy through service industries). The education system is increasingly reflecting this. It's scandalous. And this emphasis on the usefulness of science at the expense of everything else is part of that. This thread is part of that. Medicine is no more a special case than any other degree subject.

Haven't read whole thread, so sorry if this point has already been made, but medicine isn't an attractive profession to most people. That is because it is bloody hard work and mega-stressful.

It's pretty obvious to me why state schools don't promote it in careers lessons as much as private schools. Private schools are comfortable peddling the "don't worry, once you're qualified you can switch to the private sector and be paid shed-loads for less work" message, whereas state schools aren't.

Thinking back to my own state school in the late 80s, I distinctly remember the careers advisor saying medicine was very hard work, you needed to be be very clever, and to be comfortable with the sight of blood. Not surprisingly, it wasn't a popular choice.

TheWordFactory - when exactly do you think that the publishing industry was not the preserve of a highly literate elite? I'm not at all convinced it is worse now than in the past (my DF was a publisher and writers/agents/publishers from across Europe and the Anglo-Saxon world peopled my childhood).

"Glyndebourne survives and thrives without subsidy.
There is therefore little justification for other subsidies."

The price of Glyndebourne tickets precludes most people.
There are many many arguments for investment in the arts: pump priming the commercial theatre sector that earns so much VAT and tourist-spend, as well as a world beating TV service and actors. Arts contribution to social cohesion, to education, to a mind-set of a society that promotes a humane, tolerant, imaginative approach to the world.

Music and the arts are great, but they are luxuries.
Essentials are health and food. Science is more likely to provide those.

Which graduates are most likely to find a cure for malaria?
or develop strategies to stop catastrophic climate change?

Glyndebourne survives and thrives without subsidy.
There is therefore little justification for other subsidies.
If the rich wish to divert money to the arts, they get tax breaks to do so.

But those who earn too little to pay tax worry a lot more about finding a friendly doctor and affordable fuel and food.

Word - and not just writing. And the narrower the sphere the narrower the outlook. It's very sad. Because of a quirk of fate I know a lot of people who make their living from writing and they are all ordinary people like me (most of them I knew when we were teens) but they all have to do other things as well as write to pad out their portfolio careers (directing, producing, script editing, teaching mainly). I wonder if this generation will be so lucky. I don't know any artist artists though (you know, painters, sculptors etc). I know a couple of people in commercial design who took that route after art college, but we're forced to follow the money.

Its a damning indictment on the quality of the education system in this country.

Other rabbit - at the moment being a medic is clearly regarded as a higher calling, hence the emphasis on science and the evisceration of arts ed. This needs to be reversed

Very few actual writers make a living ( I know I'm dead lucky in this regard). However, the people involved in bringing writing to market are now being drawn from a narrower and narrower sphere.

Well, I'm happy with the paying more tax idea in order to improve provision for all, too. I'm not happy with taking one person's dreams of being a doctor away from them in order for someone else to become a musician, though. I don't see why one is a higher calling than the other... It's not as if much money is spent on helping poor medics as it is! In fact, I think what you are actually asking for is more money to be spent on music in schools and less on chemistry, biology and physics.

Is be happy to pay more tax. I'd be happy to see funding diverted from tax cuts for the richer than me to support arts. And I actually wouldn't have a problem with diverting some money from helping poor would be medics to poor would be musicians, yes. Very much so. I don't actually care if only Rich people become doctors. I do care if only rich people have the opportunity to study music.

As for the speech you linked, this country is most definitely run for the people who can buy books, not borrow them. I would have thought that's obvious. That's at the heart of the Conservative philosophy and anyone who is hugely relaxed about huge inequalities of wealth, because with colossal wealth disparities, you get colossal disparities of power.

The problem is, it genuinely is very expensive to pay for someone to go through medical school and to pay for someone to go through music college. It's expensive to pay for music lessons in primary schools, whether individually paid for by parents or funded as part of the national curriculum/to cover the costs for those who can't afford to pay. The wealthy don't want to pay lots of tax and the poor can't afford to. Where do you expect the funding to come from? Do you expect the teachers to work for nothing and the musical instrument makers to give instruments away for free? Or for funding to be taken away from elsewhere? Do you want support for poor people who want to get into medicine to be taken away, so that more energy can be put into supporting poor people to get into music?? Who will then be able to afford to listen to this music? Will the concerts these people play in then have to be subsidised, also? Or will they have to focus on the popular music market, for which I see very little sign of talent being a necessary pre-requisite?

Other rabbit - people are not in a position to compete because they are priced out from primary school onwards. It's a much bigger problem than the possible fact that not every school sees medicine as the holy grail.