To think the English attitude to learning can be very weird?

[DorothyL]

So often you read "no point in doing more than eight gcses/3 a levels, not needed for later/university"

How about doing subjects to LEARN something, not just to use them as a stepping stone? In other countries eg Germany youngsters continue with a broad range of subjects right through their school career.

Here I have met many teenagers who are woefully ignorant about all sorts of things - due to the fact they specialise far too early!?

"many teenagers who are woefully ignorant about all sorts of things - due to the fact they specialise far too early"

YANBU!

And not just teenagers. I am often at the ignorance of university graduate (some from Oxbridge) British friends about basic biology, chemistry, physics, and even mathematics.

I didn't understand this until someone told me that it's possible to choose your subjects while a teenager and graduate without basic courses in sciences.

Its continuous assessment here in Finland too, the only big exam is the matriculation exam at the end of high school but you don't do it for all your subjects, the only compulsory one being mother tongue and then they choose three other subjects.

I don't think schools can be expected to provide everything. The family setting is important too.

My parents were/are cultured people and I grew up going to art galleries, reading literature, playing and reading about music. I didn't do GSCE or A level Art or History of Art, but I had Ernest Gombrich's book and several beautiful books on various artists and we went to art galleries as frequently as possible considering we lived in the sticks!

I did history at school but this was mainly 18th and 19th and 20th. I didn't study 20th century history but I had books on the two world wars and also books about the cold war so knew all about the Cuban Missile Crisis, the foreign policy of the US, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua. I read my Dad's politics books and I knew roughly who the PMs and governments were of the 20th century and stuff about the development of the labour movement and so on.

I didn't do philosophy GCSE or A level but I had an introduction to philosophy and could have told you about some of the main philosophers and what they wrote.

I didn't do classics but I had greek and roman myths and legends from when I was very young and then when older I had shortened versions of the Odyssey and the Illiad.

I didn't study GCSE or A level music but I had books on the history of music and could have given you a mini presentation on it from memory. I played two instruments well and did grade 5 theory of music. I knew about sonata form, and quite a lot of music theory.

I read Dickens, Austen, Eliot, Hardy and all the great 19th century novelists, together with Orwell, HG Wells, Evelyn Waugh.

This stuff was all lying around at home or was bought for me by my parents following me expressing an interest. It had little to do with what I was taught at school.

Not trying to show off or make myself out to be some kind of genius but this thread has really made me realise how much of my education didn't happen at school at all!

Great grammar isn't a pre-req for great english skills. English is one of the only languages in the world where you can make yourself understood without a clue of it's grammar, and so fluency is better indicator of how advanced someone's skills are.

I also disagree re: British learning. Britain has the strongest adult education/learning tradition in the world - we are the only country in the world where people can realistically hope to career change in their 40s and 50s.

I work as an Investment analyst by the way. Got the job based on the numerical skills I learned on the job as a warehouse operative. I'm only now studying for my degree. Try doing this in any other country even in Europe- you won't be able to. Possibly because it's known worldwide that the British non-graduate workforce is really high quality and in some cases higher quality than the graduate workforces in other countries.

OP, I have been through both systems to some extent: I did my main education in a country that goes along German lines- general education in many subjects, but also had the opportunity of doing some O-levels and now teach uni students who have been through the English system. I think there are benefits on both sides. What the English students get (if they are good and pay attention), I think is depth, and the ability to think more independently and express themselves better. But this is purchased by a corresponding general ignorance, particularly as regards foreign languages.

What I now wish is that I could have done my secondary education in my home country and then A-levels and university in the UK. That would indeed have been the best of both worlds. (dreamy emoticon) As it is, I do sometimes find myself scrambling to catch up with my British colleagues- but otoh I am also aware that I have skills they don't.

Colby43443 Mon 28-Nov-16 11:39:53
"Great grammar isn't a pre-req for great english skills. English is one of the only languages in the world where you can make yourself understood without a clue of it's grammar, and so fluency is better indicator of how advanced someone's skills are."

I think you will find that most people can make themselves understood in their own language without any formal language skills whatsoever. But in many continental countries you are not considered educated if you do not speak 2 or 3 foreign languages, and that's where grammar skills come in.

(though having said this, I have noticed that more and more undergraduates in English seem to be using the form "whom" as the subject in their essays- so maybe even here a little formal grammar learning wouldn't come amiss)

"I also disagree re: British learning. Britain has the strongest adult education/learning tradition in the world - we are the only country in the world where people can realistically hope to career change in their 40s and 50s."

Are you sure? What about the Scandinavian countries? Free access to university modules for any age and without fees; adult education has suffered some cutbacks but still going very strong; nearly everybody I know seems to be doing some kind of evening class, often in foreign languages. Looks far better than what I can get here in the UK.

I agree cory I highly doubt that the UK is the best country for adult education. Will have a look at numbers and stuff when I get on the computer but I'll bet the Nordic countries have the UK beat on that.

DS is in y1 and came out of school very enthusiastic about the split diagraph in his name. I asked him what he mean, and recognised the concept but not the terminology. The irony is that he's still writing most of the letters in his name backwards

Recent government changes have restricted the curriculum at GCSE, pushing students down a restricted choice that they often aren't interested in. A few years ago there would have been more choice of vocational subjects giving a better chance of success to more students.

My biggest gripe with the system is the politicisation where results ultimately decide the fate of the school. It leads to narrow teaching, additional pressure and eroding the concept of learning purely for the love of learning.

I love learning. Really love it - my job invited loves loads of learning. But the thought of doing "extra" gcses or a levels in a school environment does not excite me either TBH.
While teaching is so exam focussed who can blame kids for being results focussed and therefore doing the optimum number of subjects to get the highest possible mark. It's entirely the government system, not the kids or parents (or teachers).

ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Adult_learning_statistics_-_characteristics_of_education_and_training

Adult education and training: relative importance of formal and non-formal instruction
Non-formal instruction is the most frequent type of education and training

The majority of adult education and training in the EU-28 is non-formal education and training, in other words, outside of formal institutions of schools, colleges and universities. This is not surprising given that the age criterion for the AES is persons of working age (25–64 years-old), when most people have already completed their formal studies.

In 2011, more than one third (36.8 %) of the EU-28’s adult working-age population participated in non-formal education and training, a share that was almost six times as high as the share of those who participated in formal education or training (6.2 %).

Formal education and training was relatively common in the United Kingdom (14.8 % of working-age adults), Sweden (13.5 %), Denmark (12.6 %), the Netherlands (12.3 %), Finland (12.0 %) and Portugal (10.4 %); all of the remaining EU Member States reported single-digit shares. By contrast, fewer than 3 % of adults aged 25–64 participated in formal education and training in Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Slovenia and Romania.

There is a lot of early specialisation in the UK compared to the Scandi countries as well

My kids did Swedish GCSEs (grundskoleexamen) and there were 16 compulsory subjects the only "choice" was to choose a 3rd language (Swedish and English are compulsory) and a craft subject.

At A level you choose a programme (gymnasieprogram) - these can be academic or vocational but there are still around 10-12 subjects involved and a common core of subjects that everyone has to take. So even if you take the maths and science programme you are expected to study languages and humanities etc.

These broad knowledge expectations continue at university - a doctor I know who studied medicine in Denmark was expecyed to be able to read textbooks in Danish, Swedish, English and German

Problem with those statistics is that they don't include folk high schools and municipal adult education centres which are where a lot of adult education takes place. More than 1.7 million people take part in adult education each year in Finland and considering that the total adult population is only 3.5 million that's a much larger percentage.

From your own link colby Sweden and Luxembourg have the highest adult participation rate in all kinds of adult education - roughly 70% and Finland, Denmark etc. have 50-60%

Natsku - I personally was only interested in figures involving people actually in work. Am studying the management of learning as part of my degree and have also set up a think tank about it at work to identify locations of future headquarters. Based on the stats I've collated so far the UK is the best location for an investment bank that wants a mix of grads and experienced non-grads (with the calibre to be trained up to grad level).

Even if you just look at her people in work the Nordic countries still have far more adults participating in education than the UK. There is a long history of adult education here, and a lot of people who learn just for the sake of learning as well as those who learn to improve job skills or learn new skills.

I don't know if this is true... A German lass says that (in most of Europe) students can't study Masters or above degree if they don't have 1st degree in same subject. So a mathematician couldn't sign up to an MSc or PhD course in biology, even if it was very mathy biology. A kid with BA in French couldn't get MA in political science, etc. Also, can't teach in a subject area unless your highest degree is also in that area (so, for instance, an person with PhD from an economics dept couldn't teach health economics in a medical school).

It all sounded very rigid & very unappreciative of the value of interdisciplinary research. Much more rigid specialisation than happens in UK or USA academia.

I fully agree with you OP and that's my dilemma for my kids. I much prefer the French system if I am honest so should I move back home (unlikely), move to London for the French schools (urgh!)? I'll probably try to broaden their repertoire myself I suppose to try and get the benefits of both worlds!

It would also be worth knowing exactly what is taught where. Knowledge of foreign languages is a pretty important work skill in much of Europe, but at least in Sweden many languages will be taught through evening classes at your local workers' institute rather than at some kind of formal college/university. That doesn't necessarily mean the teaching isn't good.

Also, universities tend to be very open about admitting people to single modules: many of the people I knew at uni managed to amass what amounted to two degrees, one in their main subject and one in MFL, just by taking extra modules when they had a bit of time to spare.

"(in most of Europe) students can't study Masters or above degree if they don't have 1st degree in same subject"

Depends on the Master's degree. You can do an MBA after, say, Bachelor of Architecture.

What OP was saying is different, though.

Students in the UK specialise too early, which means that many miss out on basic sciences and go on to believe nonsense like homeopathy and detoxing.

(in most of Europe) students can't study Masters or above degree if they don't have 1st degree in same subject

YY. I have a BA (from the UK), have done teaching/admin/management jobs since graduating including a few years here in France. Now want to move into IT sector for various reasons. Here in France a) there's no way of getting into the sector without an IT qual, they are totally obsessed with having degrees that correspond exactly to jobs, b) the only IT course open to me is a DUT (2 years full time not even equivalent to a BSC or BA, so less than what I already have) which mainly leads to IT support roles. All better IT jobs require Masters or Engineering school. And for the DUT I'd have to do extra maths courses before I could even start it because I don't have maths/sciences at A level.

Whereas in the UK I can do a one year full time MSc in IT using my first degree as leverage into it, come back to France and then have that magical Masters in IT which would be impossible to get in the same timeframe here, which will give me way more job opportunities.

Just a shame I have to move back to the UK for a year AND pay a hefty sum for it, instead of being able to do it here where I currently live...

Students in the UK specialise too early, which means that many miss out on basic sciences and go on to believe nonsense like homeopathy and detoxing.

But people believe in homeopathy and detoxing in France and America - possibly even more so than in the UK.

No system is perfect.
None produces the perfect society.
All have their flaws.

For example Germany's system produces a paucity of creatives.
U.K. Produces too few engineers.

The Germans looooove Homeopathy. Every pharmacy on every corner stocks a wide range of homeopathic products, GPs prescribe them and there are state funded hospitals that work on the principle of homeopathy. FWIW They are also quite into herbal remedies and rather prescribe herbal stuff in the first instance than pharmacotherapy. It's probably enable because health insurers pay are happy to pay for this sort of treatment.

This is true I think... When I was choosing GCSE options I had picked less academic options that I was really interested in. Then on reflection with my tutor realised that those options wouldn't prepare me for the A Levels required by the type of Uni courses I was interested in. Still a massive history boff in my spare time, would love to have been able to study it further but was put off by all the warnings that it wouldn't get me a good job