Why is 6th form thought of more highly than attending FE college ?

[Summersunshinee]

I can never understand why if you say that you attend 6th form at school you are thought of more so than if you attended FE college.

I would feel that if anything it would be more impressive to attend FE college as you made the decision to go somewhere else and try something different /

Not encouraging vocational courses. shame on you.

When your child knows exactly what they want to do, what they need to do to get there and how to do those things then as a parent it would be immoral of me to push them into a direction they did not want and refuse to support them.

If you had a child who was a natural at the sciences, had all the aptitudes and skills to be great, had a passion for the conservation of the natural world which we need to survive - why would you push them to be a builder or a hairdresser? Why would you encourage them to steal a college place from a young person who has that same passion for building and hairdressing?

I don't understand why you want to dumb young people down, force them to go against their interests and deny them their dreams. I really don't know where your irrational hatred of academia comes from either - were you ambushed by a thesaurus?

Everyone else on this thread wants a wide (and wider) range of options and choices for young people. You're the only one who actually wants to limit their options and you don't even see it.

@Summersunshinee in case you are interested here is the National Curriculum for Key Stage 3 (Years 7-9) for Design and Technology.
It may have been different slightly when you were at school but this is what it is now.
Full of things you believe should be taught. They ARE being taught.

According to that we should have the next Brunel.

@pointythings You should encourage it as an alternative.

Also you said your son got confidence from performing poetry.

Why not encourage something practical as an alternative.

Focusing on one think like marine biology which must be a limiting field is dangerous and irresponsible in my view.

Why I'm still responding I've no idea but here goes.......

Focusing on one think like marine biology which must be a limiting field is dangerous and irresponsible in my view.

No, what is irresponsible and dangerous is forcing people to study things they don't enjoy.
Supporting young people to study subjects they like and are good at is sensible because they are likely to do well..... which is very important. And i'll tell you why.
When it comes to graduate employability 80% of graduate jobs don't ask for a particular degree subject because employers value the wide range of skills developed which are transferable. They do tend to care about her degree classification though ..... so studying something you are good at is actually a really important factor.

Focusing on one think like marine biology which must be a limiting field is dangerous and irresponsible in my view.

Why must it be a limiting field? this is his area of interest. It's the future. Massive growth industry

My son is interested in poetry. He writes excellent poetry and enjoys performing it. Doing GCSE drama gave him the skills to do it well. No alternatives are needed.

Beyond that he can cook, manage his finances and his life and carry out essential repairs to his wheelchair. Why do you want everyone to be the same and label it 'alternatives'? It's just conformity.

Also why the sceptical response to @Needmorelego when she has set out the curriculum for you? You want this stuff taught. It is. Admit that you were wrong about this and be done.

@Summersunshinee maybe we will have another Brunel as STEM subjects (which DT comes under) are highly encouraged at schools.
My 15 year old went on a STEM workshop for teenage at a robotics factory just the other day. She loved it.
She is also obsessed with drama and musical theatre and singing and (for some random reason the novel) Oliver Twist.
Isn’t it great she can study such a mix?

Why not encourage something practical as an alternative.

Oh, and for a highly competitive course such a marine biology studying something practical but unrelated alongside ( or instead of) A levels wouldn't be viewed favourably as they have strict entry requirements. It's much better to focus on the subjects you'll need to get on that course.

Reduce the amount of science (no tripe science).

So what are young people who are extremely gifted in science - the neurosurgeons and research scientists of the future - supposed to study? What will give them the grounding to be able to study their chosen science field at PhD level?

Keep music and drama but make them after school clubs only.

So you're just throwing young people who are gifted in music and drama and who (with the right support) might end up the next Jodie Comer or Ed Sheeran under a bus, if they don't have the financial/practical support to attend after school activities? They just shouldn't be allowed to even have a chance to succeed?

Bring in mandatory practical classes in computing, cooking & food prep, have introductory classes to thing like brick laying, minor electrical skills etc.

I actually agree that a certain amount of practical life skills classes are a good idea for everyone. A really comprehensive Home Ec class where kids are taught the basics of cooking, basics of stuff like how to wire a plug, how to find stopcock, circuit breaker, etc. in a home, basic finance (how to manage a budget), etc. That should be taught from primary on. But certainly not 50%, and certainly not as mandatory at GCSE stage.

No one needs to ever study bricklaying unless they want to actually become a bricklayer, or it's obvious that they're aptitude is best suited for a practical, physical job.

You just don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that some children/young people are highly gifted and academic and need to have their academic gifts encouraged and nurtured. And that the world needs people who are academically inclined because the world needs doctors and research scientists just as much as it needs labourers.

Where are the next generation of neurosurgeons going to come from if everyone is being encouraged to study bricklaying and start their own small businesses?

What @DollyTrolly said wasn't an opinion. It was fact. It was reality. It's how things work out here in the real world.

In the real world, having good academics is the backup plan, because it opens doors.

While you're here please do clarify what you class as 'tripe science'?

@flurbubbly I think meaning we don`t produce another Ed Sheeran is good enough of a reason to reduce drama and music in school.

Also you agree with me on something.

@pointythings I meant to say triple

While you're here please do clarify what you class as 'tripe science'?
That'll be gastroenterology obviously, so we won't have anyone to treat our gut problems in the future 🤣

If triple science is taught in the same amount of curriculum time as the double award (and it usually is), why would you do away with it? You'd gain nothing - no extra curriculum time, no teachers freed up, nothing. You'd just be robbing talented young people of an opportunity to stretch themselves and do something a bit harder.

To be honest I did such a jumble of mixed up subjects for GCSE that it never really led to any particular plan - let alone a back up plan 😂
It gets to a point in education that you really do need to narrow down and focus on what interests you. I think GCSE level is the best age to do it. Children will have had a decade of learning all variety of things and although they may not know where in life they want to go they will know what really doesn’t interest them and where their talents are.
If that interest is on the academic side then they should go for that. Why shouldn’t they?
STEM subjects could lead to the next Brunel.
Creative and academic subjects could lead to the next Shakespeare. A good society needs both.

I think the perception is driven in my area by the fact that the school sixth forms typically have higher entry requirements for A-levels than the FE colleges do. That isn't to say that there aren't some very bright students who choose to go to FE colleges, but the less bright ones don't really get the choice.

My dd's secondary school only went up to GCSE so she had to choose between transferring to a school sixth form and going to the local FE college. The FE college was definitely the front runner in her mind initially...it was much closer to home, for a start; less formal; fewer rules about dress code and all that nonsense etc. In the end, she changed her mind though because the school sixth form offered much better support for uni applications etc.

Most of her friends chose the school but a few went to the college. They all stay in touch and their experience is not that different overall tbh. Quality of teaching has been excellent in dd's sixth form, but I think it has been good for her friends at the college as well. DD was worried that the school environment would offer less freedom than the college, but actually her sixth form is pretty chilled so that hasn't really been an issue. Surprisingly the biggest difference that dd has found has been that the social life has been much better at the school sixth form than in the college..her friends who went to the college don't seem to have made nearly as many new friends as they only tend to mix with people on their courses, I think the college is just too huge to mix more widely than that. But that might be just their experience and not typical, who knows?!

God it`s funny you suggest ways in which education could be changed how prejudice and snobby come to the fore.

Also god forbid that suggesting someone who is academic should be suggested vocational routes as an alternative.

Why on earth would they?

Surely if someone is gifted/shows an aptitude in something - regardless of what that thing is - then that's the thing that should be encouraged and nurtured?

The world needs academics, needs doctors, needs scientists. You seem very opposed to anything "clever" but where do you suggest the next generation of surgeons comes from?

Being anti-intellectual is just as snobbish.

I believe academic study and vocational should be hand in hand as we need both.

You said we need doctors ? well we also need nurses.

You say we need scientists ? we also need lab techs.

I am very happy that my academic kids didn’t go down the vocational route. And don’t care if you bizarrely identify that as snobbery!

Bad example. Nurses and lab techs also need to study academic subjects and be academically/science-minded in general.

Most lab techs do degrees or BTecs in science subjects. It would be extremely hard to find a job as a lab technician (which is a competitive field) without at least GCSEs/A Levels in science subjects.

Nurses have to have a decent knowledge of biology, chemistry and anatomy to be able to do their job. You can't become a nurse without either having a degree in nursing (and the entry requirements for a nursing course generally include GCSEs and A Levels/alternative to A Levels, and usually you'd take maths and at least one science subject at GCSE if you wanted to pursue nursing) or an RNDA.

Besides the entire point that pretty much everyone on this thread has made is that the world needs both academic-types and practical-types, and that all students need to be supported in pursuing the thing they are best at and most interested in. If someone is really good with their hands but rubbish at academia then forcing them down an academic pathway is pointless, but they might really shine either on a vocational course or going straight into work. By the exact same standard, someone who's extremely academic and intellectual but has zero interest/aptitude for practical stuff will be best served by an academic education.

Are you saying here that modern nursing is not an academic subject? I think many nurses would beg to differ…

@RetinaRouge I do realise that to become a Nurse you do need a degree.

Also @flurbubbly I realise that also to become a lab tech is not easy to say the least.

What I was trying to say is that as much as we need doctors and scientists we need the support network behind them.

@RetinaRouge Why didn't you at least discuss a vocational route as an option/alternative ?