Rishis plan for education

[mids2019]

Compulsory maths and English until 18 under Sunak education reforms mol.im/a/11360205 via dailym.ai/android

So ok it's the DM but it seems the PMs plan for secondary education is to produce a baccalaureate type system forcing children to study maths and English to 18 and creating a greater focus
on vocational training.

Seems to me the style of education presented will be focused on the comprehensive sector leaving grammars and the independent to focus on academic variety to link to RG universities.

The idea if forcing students to take maths until 18 seems quite drastic as many arts specialists may not have a great mathematical strength and vice versa. STEM specialist for instance took physics, chemistry and maths at A level will potentially have to take English and those that do for instance doing English, English Lit and History would have add maths.

Do the older more academic universities wantthis necessarily?

It is also possible to identify at 14 which students are going to get a good enough pass in GCSE maths to sit an A Level (no point if not in with a shout at a B). Those students could do a more functional qualification instead. One that would actually mean they mastered the basics and would help in life

However interspersed with these courses are courses like fashion, design, film and media studies, digital game development, sport science where the demand and future employment opportunities are dubious

dubious employment opportunities in fashion, gaming, sports, film and media? What planet are you on?! I bet you’ve got game apps downloaded on your phone. I bet you watch TikTok videos, Netflix and the news. I am pretty sure you wear clothes everyday and more and more of us are health conscious and need support to work out.

whilst I would broadly agree that a degree in golf course management has its limitations, given limited golf courses and a churning out year after year of people who ideally want to do that for a living, you do need to think transferable skills and the modern world we live in.

I think the real issue is allowing people to follow their dreams and try and make it work for them. If designing games doesn’t work out, providing opportunities for retraining is key. And that’s the problem - the further away from 16 you are, the harder that is.

@motherofthelittlescreamingone

I don't know if it is that easy to produce a suitable metric to absolutely judge course quality but I agree there are some low tariff universities which offer poor value courses

If we use graduate earnings then some very high quality performing arts courses may be under threat as the industry can depending on circumstance be low paying

Also some Oxbridge courses on the arts side can initially lead to just above average salaries (21-22K) as many go into education, further study or in professions with traditionally low starting salaries

If you are going to use earnings as a quality determinant you need good follow up data and this is hard to do over a number of years. Additionally if you are a course organiser of media studies at the University of X would you be eager to provide data that would mean your course (and possibly your job) would be axed?

Actually golf course management graduates are very highly sought after and well paid.... as are theme park management graduates.

Why does the UK continually equate 'good quality' with 'well paid'. Why don't we value knowledge for its own sake? Why don't we value actors, artists, dancers, museum curators etc who will never be well paid but add so much to the cultural richness of the country?

(Incidentally there is long term data on salaries of graduates by subject and uni which is collected by HMRC.)

For those advocating for such a measure to determine university quality, I wonder if you realise you're advocating for women to not go to uni because they earn less and often end up working part time?

@mids2019 It feels like you've got an agenda about certain uni courses, but I really don't think this is what the plans for English and maths are about. Many unis set their bar for English and maths at a 5, or a 6 anyway, so are guaranteeing higher standards.

I know a 4 is a major achievement for some students, but it doesn't represent a high standard of English/maths (in my opinion). I think if this has been thought through, and not just thrown out as a soundbite, it's probably because you do see 16yos who have got their 4 in English, but really can't write long form in a coherent way, or who have their 4 in maths, but actually can't calculate a percentage with a calculator, or work out change, or convert minutes into seconds etc.

It's well known as well that maths skills degrade if you are not using them. So if a student, for example, scrapes a 4, does a post 16 course that doesn't use much maths, and then is looking for employment- their maths skills can really be quite weak.

I actually don't think this has much to do with unis- because unis can ask for whatever grades they like, and they can ensure they have people on the courses of sufficient quality. The other thing you have to remember is that the proliferation of unis also generates employment- not just academic staff, but administration, maintenance, hospitality etc.

But I do think there are probably employers who are disappointed with the levels of maths and English in their new recruits/apprentices who have nominally passed with a 4.

If we're talking about greater focus on vocational training, it has to be done in a sensible way though.

T- levels were supposed to be high level vocational training, but they are very very hard to run in rural areas with limited employers available for work placements.

@titchy

I don't think I am equating it with pay, though.

To me, a good university course either leads to good pay OR opens doors because you go on to work in a related field. I agree that the latter is important.

Societally, doing a low quality media studies course and working In telesales is a waste of money. Being a curator is not.

Signed, a lawyer who now works part time, but whose skills are in demand :).

And @mids2019

You keep ignoring the fact that what I am advocating is Salary OR working in related field/another metric of high quality. I.e. churning out people who are employable and use something that they have learned professionally should be the priority. Not salary alone.

Your high quality performing arts courses would be safe.

To me, a good university course either leads to good pay OR opens doors because you go on to work in a related field. I agree that the latter is important.

That's just way too simple an approach though. A fine art graduate who works in a pub but tries to make a living painting - where do they fall? Should they need to prove how many hours they spend painting or is there a minimum price they should sell at for their uni to justify offering the course?

The History grad who gets their dream job at a local museum who after two year hates it and goes to work in retail. Is that two years enough?

The Chemistry grad who has a child and works part time as a teaching assistant. 20 years later they get a job where they use their degree. Too long?

Peoples career journeys are not linear or binary. They can be complex, portfolio, tangential because their lives often are.

The value of a degree must be measured across a whole lifetime (and often across more than one generation), not at a few static points in the first couple of years after graduation.

Germany and Switzerland do have much better systems of vocational education - mainly because of the links with industry.

There is no way that the systems have equal prestige with the academic though.
My favourite quote about this was from someone teaching in Germany who said that "anyone who thinks vocational education has equal prestige hasn't tried telling a middle class parent their child isn't suitable for the gymnasium"

As someone who witnesses the hoops parents go through here for selection I’m kind of amazed that it’s tolerated so well there.

Ok, fine @titchy, have it your way.

Truth is, there is absolutely no way that it is sensible to fund a 3 year academic university course for someone who gets less than a C at A Level in a related subject. It is expensive and massively inefficient for all concerned. This is basically what I am saying.

There are far too many poor courses producing graduates that employers think are crap and want instead to hire from overseas.

So there is something going very wrong in higher/tertiary education.

What is your proposal?

Well I don't accept your argument that there are too many courses producing graduates who are apparently crap (according to employers - are employers the best arbiters of university quality?).

You may have missed the fact that half the cost of uni is borne by the student themselves and the real cost to the tax payer is shrinking year after year.

Plenty of sub-C grade students go onto get decent degrees and careers so I'm not sure why you've selected that as your criteria?

So what exactly is going 'very wrong' with HE? What evidence do you have? Hearsay doesn't count.

Totally agree with you. Well said.

What on earth is the relevance of somebody's A level grade @motherofthelittlescreamingoneif they then go on to get a good degree? In my experience most employers are only interested in an applicant's highest/most recent qualification so if you have a job applicant who has a good degree, would you even look at their A level grades? I'm not really following that argument.

Don't A levels primarily function as a stepping stone to the next phase, whether that be university, an apprenticeship, a job etc?

@titchy

I think with your example of golf course management this is a supply/demand issue

Golf course design probably is lucrative and requires a great deal of skill (with a passing ability to play golf?)

However isn't it the case that for niche interesting well paid like jobs like these there will be a lot of competition? If you allow swathes of students take degrees in a niche discipline won't may be disappointed when it comes to employment? I think the same argument would go for fashion, acting, film production etc

Bricklaying though maybe not as varied will practically guarantee a job?

Regarding course quality I think provision of academic subjects by the newer universities have to be marketed with the caveat that unfortunately the harsh reality they will not have the same currency in the job market as those from traditional universities.Tgis possibly should not be the case but employers remain to be convinced otherwise.

With regard to supporting post 16 students with maths and English this is a good thing especially with regards to numeracy as a life skill. However I think we need to be careful that maths/English support is not an alternative to more academic provision for everyone; I think everyone with potential should have the opportunity to show it regardless of school background

@thing47

How do you define 'good degree'?

Good question! I think in general a First or a 2:1 is considered a 'good degree', on the basis that a number of job ads specify that and also you are likely to need that to undertake post-graduate study, but happy to be corrected.

I think provision of academic subjects by the newer universities have to be marketed with the caveat that unfortunately the harsh reality they will not have the same currency in the job market as those from traditional universities.Tgis possibly should not be the case but employers remain to be convinced otherwise.

You see this statement is bollocks. There is no evidence for this at all.

Well @thing47

It's quite relevant. I mean, getting less than a C in, say, history or English, is not of a standard that should be consistent with a decent grade from any university in those subjects absent very high mitigating circumstances. This is why grade inflation is such a huge issue in universities and why employers don't think a first from one university is equal to another. Because it isn't and it can't possibly be.

We should be more like Australia, where the "default" degree if you are not mega academic but wish to go to university is business focused. Australians very easily get decent jobs in the U.K., because their degree standard is very high. Doing a random arts degree as a "default" is not a very sensible strategy, for the student or the taxpayer.

And why shouldn't what employers need factor in? I mean, we have a skills shortage. If you can leave university without having acquired a decent level of skills in writing, communicating and numeracy, then surely something has gone wrong?

@titchy

Graduate earnings are better for RG/Oxbridge grads. I wasn't saying whether I agreed with this but I think it's factual (or why would so much if society put a premium on such universities?)

Neither party, least of all the Tories, who, to be fair, have only been in for 12 years, have any idea on how to improve the education system.

Low per pupil funding, low pay, low moral, poor behaviour from our children, crumbling buildings and mass shortages of teachers.

and thats before we even begin to look at FE and HE and student debt, why accrue 10 of '000s in debt to earn a pittance. (where do you think teachers come from?)

Or as Coffey said recently "let them leave, we 'll get more from abroad (applies equally to teachers no?)

All of this has to be addressed first before Reforms/improvements

This is an eye opener.

The average math teacher gross salary in Germany is 111.584 € or an equivalent hourly rate of 54 €. In addition, they earn an average bonus of 4.820 €. Salary estimates based on salary survey data collected directly from employers and anonymous employees in Germany. An entry level math teacher (1-3 years of experience) earns an average salary of 76.964 €. On the other end, a senior level math teacher (8+ years of experience) earns an average salary of 139.058 €

getting less than a C in, say, history or English, is not of a standard that should be consistent with a decent grade from any university in those subjects absent very high mitigating circumstances

You're equating A level results with degree results – I'd like to see data evidence of that before I accept you are doing anything more than offering your personal opinion, which has no statistical validity whatsoever.

Degree style teaching, and learning, are totally different from A level study. It is perfectly possible to be much better at one than the other (in either direction) so you cannot make a direct correlation between someone with average A levels and a good degree – or indeed someone with stellar A levels who doesn't get a good degree because they have already 'peaked'.

What do you consider 'mitigating circumstances'? A difficult home life? Unsupportive parents? A rubbish school? Poor teaching? A preference for self-study? High ability in one particular subject area but not across the board? All those (and more) could conceivably be reasons for average A level results which are unlikely to have an impact on a student's university degree.