Aibu to think that the Scottish education system is far superior to the English one?

[Margerykemp]

What I see on the news and here about GCSEs and it sounds crazy!
-different exam boards
-modular exams
-sitting exams in different years
-inflexible attitude to deferring entry
-no automatic entry to local school
-league tables
-some courses being 'worth' numerous GCSEs
-going to secondary at 10/11 rather than 11/12
-church schools
-academies
-different systems in different regions
-local authorities not having enough places for all their residents
-a high proportion of private schools, with eye watering fees
-schools making kids do 'Micky mouse subjects' to get them up the league tables
-a ' choice' system which favours pushy middle class parents

• lottery placements

-too big a jump from GCSEs to a level -too few a levels taken -not knowing a level results before applying to uni -Michael Gove being in charge!

I don't know how you all put up with it!

But explaining as being at least partly because it's a four year course doesn't work if you can start the course from a lower base and if you have advanced Highers/A levels you have the option of doing the course in three years. I prefer not to describe my undergraduate degree as "masters" as I think it is a bit confusing. Ok, employers perhaps should be aware of the differences in awards and terminology at UK universities but in practice they probably don't and I don't want to inadvertently mislead.

But Scottish universities aren't proper universities though are they? I mean, you took the Royals in and everything.

A degree in Spain can be a 4 or 7 years course and believe me the folks with a 7 year degree are often not a patch on many UK uni 3 years students. Taking 4 years to do the work of 3 is not an indication of anything really.

Didn't Scotland have 5 Universities when England only had 2.

Oh lets not get started on PhD's calling themselves doctor outside of academia. Post nominals are more than sufficient.

Dh did a 4 year at St Andrews - 3 years bachelors, one year masters, it was still a 4 year course.

Definitely not worth less than a 3rd course followed by a one year masters (he's English so had A levels).

That's not the same as some uni's (like Oxford) handing out a masters for no extra work after leaving uni and just having 3 years passed timewise.

St Andrews and to some extent Edinbugh have always been rather different though with larger English contingents as St A's used to be only difficult to get into for Med which was finished off down manchester way adn one or two of the sciences. Social anthropology etc were all good courses but less subscribed so easier to get into as few scots seemd to favour St.A ast ehy prefered the big smoke. St A also have the advantages of being a far enough away from an English home to avoid family visits but close enougth to take the Golf GTi back home again on a friday night and be in london for midnight.

St Andrews used to allow you to pass an exam in the first year and the next exam you had to do was your finals.

I loathe the idea of "mickey mouse subjects" I think its really unkind to the children taking them.

Calling them micky mouse is unfair on the kids, but the BTECs and other vocational qualifications are useful. Not all children are going to go to university, giving them some skills that might make them more employable is, surely, the right thing to do.

It's the process of getting a school in the first place that bothers me most about the English system. From what I have read it seems so stressful. In Scotland you can at least be confident that your child will have a school place at your nearest school no matter what. I have read about children not having a school place at the start of the summer holidays.

As to degrees mine is worse than useless but I don't think it's because it is a Scottish University, just the wrong University within Scotland.

It's the process of getting a school in the first place that bothers me most about the English system. From what I have read it seems so stressful. In Scotland you can at least be confident that your child will have a school place at your nearest school no matter what. I have read about children not having a school place at the start of the summer holidays.

As to degrees mine is worse than useless but I don't think it's because it is a Scottish University, just the wrong University within Scotland.

I think it is easy to get a skewed view on each system from just reading posts here. The people who post about schools more often than not do so because they have a worry or problem, those who get on fine with the system tend not to post (as much) about schools.

Re universities - the honours part of the degree isn't automatic, I know plenty of people who didn't get into honours or didn't want to do it and graduated with an ordinary degree.

While exceptional grades at advanced higher or a level may mean students can start in second year, it's not common and most courses that offer second year entry do it for HNDs.

In England very very few pupils do not get a place in the normal admissions round, and almost all of those are sorted out before the summer holidays. In most places you can get a place at your local school (as long as it isn't religious) if you put it on your preference list. The two exceptions I know are: London, and some very rural areas (a long way from the local school) in high birth rate years.
On the other hand I do prefer the English supposed choice, but that is because back in the day of strict catchments, I remember the hassle my mother had to go to to get me out of the school with bullies, and the lack of information for choosing a new one.

The Scottish system seems quite good as long as you aren't less able.

But the fact you even have to submot this list of preferences is just daft.

Why not just enrol at your nearest school/Catholic school and that is that?

In what way is it worse than england if you're less able? (having not so much experience with the English system)

I prefer to have a choice, and my kids don't go to my local secondary. To be honest the local secondary is great if you are in top sets, does its best but can label kids who don't conform to the standard model of able students. I believe my kids would have done less well there. It also doesn't have such a good SENCO.

My experience in Scotland is much more limited, but what I observed is the long tradition of Presbeterian/Calvanist value for education can mean the less able see themselves as worth less (not worthless). But then again even that seems to differ between the cities and the rural areas. I'm not saying that in England it is great, but at least there do seem to be plenty of role models who have achieved with few or no qualifications.

I got an unconditional at Oxford on my higher results which was very surprising (23 years ago)

YABU Scotland's educational performance is worse than Englands with higher levels of illiteracy and innumeracy.

I heard someone discussing this on radio 4 years ago. It is a total myth. I think they said that in Scotland spending in real terms had increased by 75% and the results had gone down. No league tables means very little accountability. They mentioned someone who had moved from England who struggled to get information about the school because there just wasnt any. So I think YABU for that.

Having said that it seems to be more standardised, and there isnt the same beating up of exam results every year. There seems to be a lot less anxiety over everything. And YADNBU re Michael Gove!