in thinking that DD will get nowhere with these GCSE options...

[PosyPanther]

DD is 13, so, in my opinion still a child, she changes her mind about pretty much everything daily, school shoes, whose her best friend, her favourite colour, you get the picture...

She has just had the first leaflet from school about GCSE option next year and want to pick health and social care (double award)human health and physiology instead of additional science, child development, psychology and sociology. She says she wants to do social work or primary teaching (or win the X factor )

I think she's mad. She's in the top set at school, level 5 across the board at primary school and is working at solid level 7s now. I would much prefer her to take at least two science GCSEs, history and geography instead of psych and sociology and a language with one choice left for whatever she fancies (but I'd prefer a second language or triple science.)

I can't see that having History, geography, french, german, separate science would disadvantage her in applying for ANY degree/career pathway? How do I convince her that some subjects actually are better than others? Her teachers are insisting all GCSEs are equal but I can't see that sociology is as hard as German or Physics? I'm worried she's going to close doors at 13...

'I am genuinely surprised that there are jobs that degree qualified people are doing where there is no chance of earning £26K per annum. Pretty shocking really.'

I work with kids my manager has a degree and onlygets £6.55 an hour. You dont come in to my sector if you want money you do it for the love and satisfaction. So when I did my degree the debt wasnt relevant and even my tutor said it wouldnt be relevant for most of the graduates on my course.

Haven't read all this but YABU, it's her choice. You (and teachers etc) can guide her but it is her final choice to make. I am hoping my DD next year chooses Maths, Science etc as she is also in the top sets and on the g&t register etc but I will not force her. Of course all these decisions are important but there are other important things too. DD helps run a brownie group and other things which also will help with CVs etc.

'What I find amazing is someone trying to saddle themselves with a mortgage if they earn so little that they are not paying back a student loan. I also find it a bit hmm that they are prepared to take on a mortgage etc but not also factor in paying off what else they owe.'

I see it as not what I owe but that they pay for my degree so I work tirelessly for miimum wage for many hours to change lives. I see it as they do it for the children and not for me as I work in one of the most deprived areas of uk. Its for the outcomes for the children that I have been trained to do it and so I dont see it as what I owe.

Money isnt the be all and end all for everyone. Some people want to make a difference to society and dont care about financial rewards.

IMO, the choices should be about giving the best options, which give the widest access, to each child. Vocational courses are better for some (my DB did one, where he finished school with a recognised qualification), likewise academic courses are better than others.

For the OP's scenario, if her DD is bright and able to do more academic courses, then she should do. As I said before - at 14, unless you're very lucky you won't know what you want to do. And doing such specific subjects is very limiting, whereas doing the more "traditional" subjects do give you better choices later on, or a more variety of choices. My career choices/thoughts etc. have changed considerably over the last 15 years, and no doubt hers will as well. The reality is, there are very limited numbers of spaces at universities and admissions tutors do (many have admitted as such) favour the traditional subjects over the newer ones. Dislike it as much as you want, that's the reality.

'Don't have ambition and aspirations to do well? Yes, it doesn't have to be in a 'traditional high paying industry - but even in tradiational low paying areas such as healthcare/social care, if you get promoted or become a manager you will probably move into a wage bracket where you will be paying back fees.'

Also you are equating ambition and aspirations with high wages. I believe I give 110% and the families I work with and the children with very chaotic early experiences. I aspire to help these people and make a difference. I believe it is more important than making 6 figures and working in the financial sector for instance.

I want my children to chose what makes them happy and gives them satisfaction. If they know from an early age what they want to do then thats fine.

"Money isnt the be all and end all for everyone. Some people want to make a difference to society and dont care about financial rewards."

That sounds very high-minded until you realise that snowflake69 has taken thousands of pounds of public funding with no intention of paying it back. Very noble.

purits - Well if the wages for helping the most vulnerable in society where higher than I would pay it back wouldnt I? My manager does 55 hours a week and gets aid for £40 and takes home £900. She did her degree and uses what she has learnt to help the children that we work with. As it has provided her with a sound basis of child development, special needs and inclusion.Do you not think she was worth that money?

Fair enough Snowflake - I think you have made a couple of good points.

The only thing I would say, is that with the current state of of public finance, there is an interesting moral debate to be had over whether 'we' (i.e the electorate/the government) can afford to finance people to the tune of £50/60k for courses where the course leaders openly admit people will have no chance of repaying the public purse. Are the people who do those courses going to make enough positive impact at the end of that course to make up for the fact that thet can't repay their debts? Probably some of them are. It may not be feasible as a state of affairs in the long term though. Some of the 'less worthy' (subjective I know) courses on gambling and football may disappear through market forces, and the other 'more worthy' may be forced to become more vocational/workplace based so people can earn and study at the same time.

Snowflake- I think the point that is being made is that you really dont need a degree to take care of kids (assuming this is mainstream). You just need to like kids and have common sense.

Parents look after kids all day. They dont all have degrees in "kid care" and they mostly do a pretty good job.

The person who looks after my son has no qualifications (like none whatsoever, not just no relevant qualifications). I couldnt care less. I am delighted with her because she is amazing with him. She is just great with babies. I wouldnt pay her anymore if she had a Phd in childcare, so there would be no point in her doing it.

snowflake I so agree with you. It only occurred to me a couple of months ago that I did law and not languages (which I have an natural aptitude for and love) because I could see what job a law degree was going to get me. I'm not devastated, I did fine, but I am much clearer now on the the fact that a degree should be about the person. It's not meant to be a vocational course (yes I did law, but no I could not have bought and sold a house. I had a lot to say about Dworkin tho )

lequeen the academics are not so much laughing up their sleeves as tearing their hair out trying to get unprepared and unmotivated students up to an appropriate level, while trying to keep up their research when it's light years away from what they're teaching. There are of course some really good students there, but they have a harder time of it now. But of course all these unsuitable students are funding the hugely bloated admin sections...

I dont think they should have gambling or football but wholeheartedly thinking Health and Social Care and Childhood Studies should be funded. I do think these lead to good outcomes for the service users personally. In my area the vast majority of people only make the minimum wage or thereabouts.

I did earn and study at the same time but the government paid my fees and I dont think there is anything wrong with that.

It's not snowflakes fault that a minimum wage job requires a degree - if that is the case then that is where the outcry should be directed.
However I don't know many employers that turn down good people on the basis of their qualifications and that's where the lies have been told. You don't need to go to university to succeed, in all honesty it's not just the debt but the 5 years of loss of earnings that need to be taken into account when costing this whole charade.

'I personally wonder how any of you would fare in a hands-on job eg social work with the service users of today. Not as well as them, I suspect. They have excellent ICT and interpersonal skills and reslience far in advance of that displayed here'

You are missing the point again. Many of us on here are teachers, so we do the hands-on job every day teaching teenagers. We have to have excellent ICT and interpersonal skills to do the job.

I also wouldn't if I were you, be so quick to denigrate those who are the people saying that they recruit for unis and businesses. They know what they want and need, and if you are advising students against the specific advice of such people, then you are doing them a grave disservice. They are the people who will be looking at the CVs and qualifications of your students and making the hiring and firing decisions. Ignore their advice at your peril.

'Snowflake- I think the point that is being made is that you really dont need a degree to take care of kids (assuming this is mainstream). You just need to like kids and have common sense.
'

No not mainstream. Some of the most vulnerable and socially deprived kids in UK. They are in care, born to addicts/alcoholics, seen extreme domestic violence etc. I think personally that having a degree is important in working with these children.

Totally agree LeQ.

Those poor kids I am on about - people are now taking the piss because of course they should have realised that what they were choosing to study was a waste of effort. However you are right - unless you gen up on the subject, most people would regard one university as being as good as another. There was not a word breathed at the 6th form these 2 kids went to about superior universities, russell groups, what employers looked for, decent subjects etc. Nobody said anything about Salford and Soton Solent universities not being much cop. They were both pushed by people who should have known better into taking these courses. Absolutely lambs to the slaughter.

And it still goes on. My DP's nephew got a place at Bristol to study architecture. He gave that up (due to the fact that his girlfriend lived in Cheltenham, the daft kid) and got a place at Gloucesterhire uni to study IT. EVERYONE in the family seems to go along with the illusion that his IT degree will be as good as the Bristol one he would have got. Nobody seems to have told him that he has swapped one of the best unis in the country for one of the worst.

"I also wouldn't if I were you, be so quick to denigrate those who are the people saying that they recruit for unis and businesses. They know what they want and need, and if you are advising students against the specific advice of such people, then you are doing them a grave disservice. They are the people who will be looking at the CVs and qualifications of your students and making the hiring and firing decisions. Ignore their advice at your peril."

Excellent post scaryteacher. I think Albert you are deluded at best and arrogant at worst, if you think that encouraging BTEC students to think they are the best thing since Donald Trump is the best approach.
You are doing those kids a great disservice in order to boost your own sense of worth.

LeQ - it didn't. This happened about 2 years ago - he lived in Cheltenham, because of his girlfriend he decided not to live in halls in Bristol but bloody commute up and down every day. His parents were mad to encourage it (his mum paid for his car and petrol).

He left Bristol uni by Christmas. IMAGINE getting such a prestigious place and squandering it like that.

Of course nobody said a word, just said 'he is an adult and he has to make his own decisions'. If that was my daughter I would have had some harsh words to say (something along the lines of 'don't you bloody dare give that place up and go to crappy Gloucesterhire uni')

All because his family are ignorant of the fact that Bristol is NOT the same calibre as Gloucs uni.

Don't you think that is part of the problem though? Not many people seem to do tough love for many of these children nowadays. My view is that I am the adult and the parent and between us dh and I have far more experience than our 15 yo ds on how things work. We can ask the right questions and make the right decisions based on the info and answers available. I don't care if ds likes me or not; I'm not here to be his best mate, I'm here to be his Mum and parent him, which involves his academic decisions as well.

"I don't care if ds likes me or not; I'm not here to be his best mate, I'm here to be his Mum and parent him, which involves his academic decisions as well"

I'm the same. I am sure that left to her own devices DD would have chosen photography and busines studies last year during options, and not bothered with additional science. As it is, she chose double science (and as she is top set is doing triple science), loves it and is considering Chemistry or Biol at A level, none of which she could have done if she hadn't taken additional science.