97 % pass rate for A-Levels ; how did that happen?

[m1m1rie]

I took my A-levels in 1989 and passed all three, and was in the minority amongst my peers. Most people failed at least one and only the really, really clever ones could achieve A-grades. Now, with so many passing and record numbers achieving A-grades how do we differentiate between those who are genuinely talented and those who are not? A girl I know has just passed 3 A-levels. She spends her days chatting on her mobile, obsessing about herself and often didn't bother going into college if she didn't feel like it. She even turned up late for one of her exams. As far as being 'clever' is concerned, she couldn't hold a conversation with you unless it was about celebrities or herself, and yet she has managed to pass all three A-levels. I am dumbstruck. I find it demeans those who do put effort into learning as they will all just be lumped in together now and treated with disdain by those who think that all kids are thick and only have A-levels because the exams are easier to pass now. Whatever is going on with the current system, it's not doing anyone any favours, it only serves to make Government stats look good.

we don't only value the dgree though do we?

ahem, and I'd be a classic case

actually I can spell a bit better, I just can't type or be arse to proof read.

The level of english that I see is way below what was expected in my science classes as a teenager. Most students simply cannot structure an essay or a logical argument.

And don't get me started on general Knowledge, a dying art!

My students are really shocked when I discuss political issues or make a literary quotation.....they expect me to be a science drone and know nothing else. They lack interest in anything that isn't on the sylabus. Sad.

possibly, but not necessarily.

We don't only value the degree. In both senses: 1) we should value what university gives you as well as a degree, and 2) we should value other life experience from people who don't have degrees.

And we should value vocational training as much, because as I said below we have a shortage of skilled workers and no shortage of unemployable graduates. Anyone here who has tried to get a decent plumber or joiner out at more than several weeks' notice should surely know what I mean.

you seem to need a degree to work in an office these days. parents panic that the only way a child will get on in life is with a degree.

really mb? I don't remember being expected to do much in the way of arguing etc in my science a level classes. it would have been good if i had as it might have livened the lessons up a bit.

I think the government, with its drive to 50% university attendence, isn't valuing the vocational side of education. I think that is a large part of the problem.

Another reason is that industry isn't involved enough in the development of vocational courses, so they don't 'trust' them as relevant qualifications.

"no shortage of unemployable graduates"

no, but neither do we have an excess of unemployable graduates. how many graduates do you know who don't have a decent job after 2 years? I know none. and I haven't seen a statistics which suggest there are too many grads and not enough jobs either.

sp, my students are expecetde to discuss the ethical issues of prenatal testing, the effects of the human genome project, the ethics of ethnoboteny; they discuss the ethics of gene therapy, stem cell resaerch in the treamnet of parkinson's disease, the effect of GM crops on the enviromant. They look at the cost implications of IVF treatment, the efficay (or otherwiae) of complimentary therapy in cancer treatment. Should live donors be allowed for organ transplant.

You'd be surprised at what we end up dscussing

All of the 8 mark extended questions that they do as AS A2 are this type of thing

don't get me wrong, I think the 50% figure is silly and was obviously plucked out of the air. but the govt are right to get more people to university (and I think that university itself is the aim - HNDs and vocational diplomas count). we do need more and better vocational training too, but that isn't the answer for 50% of students either. someone who wants to be an air hostess, for example, is better off takling a levels than a "travel and tourism" GNVQ.

I don't think that you can ever give a hard and fast percentage. I just know that far too many kids are being shoehorned into a system that doesn't suit them.

cool. maybe I'll take a2 biology when we come back to the uk! i did a level chemistry and maths though so maybe not the same.

southeastastra, that's it - there is an element of 'parental panic'. We start to think that 'the best' for our children means the highest possible academic achievement, when that isn't necessarily the right thing for everyone. Some people would be far better off doing vocational training and never going to university.

Unfortunately, a lot of people are desperate for their kids to have a university place, because that was traditionally the preserve of the middle-classes. They're also misled by the stats about graduate earnings, which are based on figures from when a much smaller percentage of people were graduates. I know plenty of plumbers who earn more than the starting salary for some graduate jobs (e.g. teacher).

Re arguing: I went to Oxford as a state (grammar) school pupil, and I was struck by how much better at arguing in tutorials the public-school educated students were. They weren't necessarily brighter - it was a combination of confidence and the way they were taught. I got the impression their teachers had been encouraged to 'go beyond' the A-level syllabus and had taught them the art of arguing.

Not easy to get comprehensive, up-to-date figures on graduate (un)employment, but

this story

and

this lot of statistics

are interesting.

I think a big reason for the lower rates of people in higher education in the past was that until the mid 80's a far higher proportion of people were needed to do manual labour. Who cared if miners, steel workers, car makers were capable of going to university - they were more useful doing other jobs, to say nothing of women who would obviously do a nice job for a couple of years and then get married and be taken out of the work force. I suppose this all comes back to why people go to university - is it for themselves or to fulfil an economic need?

Unquietdad,

Some of the better arguing skills of your Oxford colleagues could be put down to extra-curricula activities that the public schools encouraged.

My school (private girls school, direct grant aided, a sad loss) had a very strong debating society, and from the age of twelve onwards we had inter-class debates, inter-year debates, and from 16 inter school debates with some of the top public schools. So we learned how to construct arguments and communicate them effectively.

Public speaking competitions were encouraged too, so many of us came out of school able to project ourselves with confidence.

I certainly helped me establish my career, despite my mediocre academic qualifications.

Exactly, MP - it's like I said, it all comes down to what you think university is for. As martianbishop says below - I don't care if my car mechanic can quote Proust, but I want him to be able to recalibrate a sprocket-valve. (I made that up, but you know what I mean.)

You could have a point, clumsymum. My school had a debating society too, but the debates were rarely competitive ones with other schools.

6.9% unemployment 6 months after graduation doesn't sound bad to me. especially given that some grads don't even start looking for 3 months. and even if they do end up as car mechanics, society will still be a richer place (not necessarily in the monetary sense though)

but anyway I thought you lot were all sorted for plumbers now with all the nice poles over there?

Ironicaly dh's uncle (the ex plumber) is of Polish ancestry! So it is obviously in the blood

UD, but what if your car mechanic wanted to study Proust?

Well, that would be up to him! And good luck to him. But it wouldn't make him a better car mechanic.

Reminds me, I once had my hair cut (while living in Canterbury) by a barber who was able to discuss German life, culture and literature, to the extent that he was able to quote Brecht! It made a change from "Where are you going on your holidays?"

Surely using the argument that higher education should only be used to provide training for skills that we 'need', you would cut many of the more 'academic' courses - how many Oxford classicists do we actually 'need'? I agree with SP - education is about enriching society, not just about economics.