to think there is intrinsic value in a broad education?

[DorothyL]

Often the advice given on here is "don't bother with too many gcse's, good grades are important not the subjects itself"

But the consequence of that are teenagers who give up subjects like history or languages at 13 and who therefore have a very limited world view and outlook on life. One example I've come across - 18 year olds who didn't know how and why WW2 started.

In Germany students have to study a broad curriculum right up to A level age, why do we narrow teenagers' education to this extent in the UK?

I have O Levels, and yes, what subjects you had did matter for university entrance back then. And I expect it will matter again, when the new GCSEs are the highest level public exam that most candidates for pre-A level conditional offers will have.

With terminal exams and the expectation they will be in one season (again like O Levels) the number taken will probably be similar to O levels too, about 8-10.

Is there anywhere to check what GCSEs the 'typical' Oxbridge candidate actually has? Because I expect they do cover a similar range to the EBAC - even back when I was at school the core curriculum pretty much did that.

So for example, everyone had to do a science (they were separate then), with top sets doing biology, middle human biology and lower CSE.

I agree that education is about the journey as much as the results.

I did the European Bacc - 10 subjects in total to varying levels of equivalence to Alevel and AS over 2 years . I had to do English, French, either a 3rd language or a full science ( I took Spanish), another full science(Chemistry), philosophy to either as or a level and some people did another full Alevel subject.

Add in as level political sciences, compulsory history, geography and biology and overall I've been able to tailor my strengths on job applications. If I had done just the subjects I got As in - Philosophy, English and a B in something else I'd have been pretty stuffed had I realized I no longer wanted to work in the subject of my degree (which is in fact vocational).

I was pretty shocked when I first got to uni by the number of students educated at good private or grammar schools who knew nothing about current political situations etc, depressing!

Oops no idea why my phone capitalised philosophy or chemistry.

I also did the European Bacc, Banning, and had a similar shock at the narrow academic interests of my fellow university students. They were more sports-focused than me, however!

I am a bit of an anomaly for someone who has been through the British system as I have a much broader range of A levels. I first studied the 3 sciences but one of my parents died and this affected my grades although I passed them. I decided I couldn't face resitting the same subjects to push my grades up to get to a good university so I went to an FE college and did English, History and Sociology A levels which I passed with better grades, then went to my first choice university.

Although the reason for taking such a range of A levels was a sad one, I don't regret for one minute gaining the knowledge I did. I think the system in the UK is ridiculously narrow. I have found it useful throughout my life to have both arts and science subjects to a reasonably high level. I would strongly favour a move to something more like the French Bac.

The reason there are fewer evening classes now is that people don't go to them. I used to teach evening classes. They closed due to lack of enrolments. You want an evening class, you need fifteen people who will pay for six or ten weeks in advance and show up for most of them. Then you can approach your local Adult Ed provider and ask them to supply a tutor and a venue.

However you carve up the curriculum, schools can't teach everything. I'm a historian, so of course I'm in favour of history being taught. But there are two thousand years of British history, before you take into account European and world history. Same with geography, current affairs, art, music etc. Learning doesn't, or shouldn"t, only take place in schools. People need to take responsibility for informing themselves about the world around them.

I agree. I think things start to go "wrong" in y6 when many spend the year basically revising for SATs which is a test to measure teachers not students.

I think that it is the focus on qualifications that is a problem too as it means time is spent preparing for exams which would be better spent going wider and deeper.

I was educated at an IB school and think that I received a better education as it as broader. My secondary school kids have dropped history because of the way that their options fell. By the time I was 16 I'd learned about all sorts of topics like The Cold War, The Cultural Revolution, the Korean and Vietnam War... which are all popular references in movies and general 21st century life. My children have never even covered Cromwell by age 14.

At my secondary school (late 90's early 00's) you couldn't do both history and geography GCSEs because of the scheduling - so for half the school that was it after the age of 14, you were cut down to half your humanities. I loved both and would have far preferred to do history instead of being forced to take drama! But I picked geography as it was my best subject. A decade later my frustrated historian urges took over and I started doing a history degree with the Open University - only one and a half modules left to go. Not bad for someone without a history GCSE!

I thought universities cared about the subjects taken now - facilitating subjects and all that?

givemushypeasachance - my secondary school wanted us to do one of the other but I was able to do both, as was one other person, by not taking any arts subjects. They put up a huge fuss over it but had to concede I'd met the timetable requirements.

I felt the arts subjects - music, art and drama had IME of first few years of secondary school not really been taught at all - or not well.

It's not that I'm not interested in those areas - I've gone back last in life with OU and explored then and RE - another subject I didn't rate the teaching of, which I couldn't do now with the massive increase in price of courses.

I couldn't do full sciences they only offered double science - and I had to take a language which I was really bad at. Timetabling does mean subject are dropped and compromises have to be made somewhere.

Having done history till 16 - I still had huge gaps in my knowledge it's been expanded over the years with books, TV shows and museums and the like.

I do think there is intrinsic value in a broad education but I'm not sure the schools have enough time to ensure this - perhaps helping children keep enquiring minds and teach them how to access and asses information is best approach to achieving it?

How best to deliver the teaching of history in schools - chronological and comprehensive (but superficial) versus miscellaneous topics in depth - is endlessly debated. But IMVHO history, like maths and English (or whatever mother tongue is appropriate) ought to be on the curricukum to 18 for everyone.

History I took was great for looking at sources as oppose to dates and facts - it mainly what the exams was based on evaluating sources - so great at evaluating evidence which is a skill that has wide applications and has proven very useful to me.

I do concede there is a tension to doing lots of history and looking at particular times in greater depth.

However I do wonder if they should do some kind of over arching history pre exams courses then look at particular areas and time periods. Both DH and I found we'd do the same periods few times across our schooling.

*Bloody box ticking.

They've simplified some of the History curriculum so that kids are learning about the Lib Dem reforms and then the war. But to many young minds nothing else happened in between.*

While true, this is not down to box ticking; it is a deliberate choice as advocated by education academics in universities. It is based on the idea that in the 21st century knowing facts is unnecessary, since they are so easy to Google; instead, what children need are specific skills, for example of analysis. This is why particular historical periods are studied in intense depth, so that the children can (theoretically) learn to "think like a historian") with other periods having been neglected entirely. The value of this is questionable, however, since children often still do not know enough about the background and previous history to make sensible analysis: for example, having to analyse the Communist movement when they know nothing about Marx.

(The most recent version of the curriculum is attempting to change this.)

I gave up history after the equivalent of year 9. I'm not such an ignoramus as to know nothing about the world wars.

9 or 10 subjects is pretty broad. 13 or 14 is just getting silly, IMO. It's not like those 13 or 14 subjects haven't been studied in previous years.

what children need are specific skills, for example of analysis.

kesstrel - My 90's GCSE was like this.

However we weren't looking at Lib Dem reforms and then the war - we were were focused mainly on the Industrial Revolution with social, political and technological changes being covered though possibly bit second world war though that might have been pre GCSE can't remember.

It was the Tudors first few yeas of secondary - never touched the war of roses nor civil war ( though did in primary but not really the whole politics of it more round head vs cavaliers ) also did 1066 in primary - and that was it really.

But IMVHO history, like maths and English (or whatever mother tongue is appropriate) ought to be on the curricukum to 18 for everyone.

I was all at sea through much of the O Level maths curriculum. I managed to pass the O Level, but it would have been a waste of everyone's time to make me continue with maths after that. Similarly my brother was very good at maths and sciences at school, but was not good at, and really disliked, subjects that required a lot of essay writing. What would have been the benefit in forcing him to continue with them until he was eighteen?

I do think a mfl should be studied to GCSE level by everyone who is capable of achieving a pass, though.

And I agree about year 6 cramming, when kids are beginning to understand the world about them in less childlike ways, has a lot to answer for. Like with the example of the water cycle, upthread. DS1 and, I'm sure, many other kids, did that in year 5. It largely went over his head then, though, and I don't know if it will be re-visited in any serious detail in any particular subjects after KS2.

Hi Lost

There is actually significant doubt among cognitive psychologists over whether attempts to "teach analytical skills" in this way is actually very useful, because there is considerable evidence that such skills don't actually transfer very well between different domains of knowledge. A lot of what goes on in our schools is based more on hunches and theories than on solid evidence.

I will always be incredibly grateful for the year I spent at age 11 doing an hour a day of "world" history (of course, it was really focused on Europe, including the age of exploration, colonialism, etc). I emerged with an excellent overview which was a brilliant foundation for subsequent, more detailed knowledge. But that was in another country, a long time ago: and we had textbooks, which we were expected to read, and testing and that kind of thing, rather than spending lots of time in group discussions about what it would feel like to be a medieval peasant, etc

There is actually significant doubt among cognitive psychologists over whether attempts to "teach analytical skills" in this way is actually very useful, because there is considerable evidence that such skills don't actually transfer very well between different domains of knowledge. A lot of what goes on in our schools is based more on hunches and theories than on solid evidence.

Really ? I wasn't aware.

Possible because for me I could transfer the skills I learnt but I'm a sample of one.

I do wish education was based more on actual peer reviewed well researched evidence and less on hunches and educational theory which seem to be very opinion based.

we had textbooks, which we were expected to read, and testing and that kind of thing, rather than spending lots of time in group discussions about what it would feel like to be a medieval peasant, etc

We didn't sit round discussing what things felt like don't think I ever did that - well maybe English Lit with the war poets.

In history it was here is a source - what is it telling you, when was it written/produced, is it reliable - is it biased - are there reasons for it telling you this - based on crap we've taught you how does this fit in with all that. We'd do it with written, picture and object stuff again and again.

I have to admit I walk round with a device with an internet connection - my phone - where I can look dates up - a large number of people I know do most of the time - so remembering a date seems pointless.

Transferable analytical skills are a wonderful idea in theory but the ability of the human mind to analyse anything correctly depends on vast swathes of knowledge, much of which is implicit within a particular culture and/or domain.

I live in France and contend almost daily with highly analytical (= educated, skilled, experienced, specialized) French people not grasping issues about specific aspects of English culture/practice without having minute, child like detail explained to them. Their analytical skills are useless outside their own cultural context.

I'm afraid things have deteriorated since the 90s. A few weeks before her English Lit GCSE, my daughter was expected to sit underneath her desk so she could "feel" what it was like to be in prison. The same teacher also suggested on another occasion that the children express their feelings in a poster, or a mime, or even "by writing boring old paragraphs".

This is a "good" school. Unfortunately a lot of sensible teachers have been forced out of the profession, by Ofsted inspections that insisted teachers should never talk for more than 10 minutes during any lesson, and that the rest should be spent in this kind of "active" learning.

Exactly, Bobo. Children are being expected to analyse when they simply don't know enough, but teaching knowledge has been down-graded to be less important than attempts to teach generic "skills".

One of the worst consequences of this is that many children simply don't understand what they are expected to read; they don't have the background knowledge that is required for comprehension. But intead of teaching this knowledge, schools spend large amounts of time on generic "comprehension skills", which many psychologists think is of dubious value.

I taught English comprehension skills last year to three DC in the French equivalent of Y6. One DC was British (two British parents). One DC was half British and half French. One DC was French but had done YR - Y3 in a British school and had learned to read and write in English. All three DC were very able. However, the French DC just couldn't make progress because her underlying vocabulary and cultural knowledge blocked her comprehension of texts.

lack of underlying...

few weeks before her English Lit GCSE, my daughter was expected to sit underneath her desk so she could "feel" what it was like to be in prison. The same teacher also suggested on another occasion that the children express their feelings in a poster, or a mime, or even "by writing boring old paragraphs

I'd be bloody annoyed by that. I can see the point of understanding/empathising with the motivation or view point of a writer - but idea that has to be in way acted out is bizarre and a waste of class teaching time.

How ideas are presented posters vs "boring paragraphs" doesn't sound like good English teaching - I'm not sure where presentation should fit in (possibly primary school) but seems odd here and the presentation over actual facts worrying.

I don't get the analytical vs context argument with source work. Doing the source work I did place the object within it's historical context - it looked at what and why the object was produced - and why that was. It dealt with primary and secondary sources - and why a novel written in 1950s but set in 1600 says more about 1950 views of that time period and isn't a source for 1600.

Though you don't have to look far to see people on here who insist their experiences must be universal and can't fathom very different situations mean it's not. It seems a very universal thing and not confined to highly educated analytical people.