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 /

How are doctors, nurses and lab techs supposed to gain the academic qualifications and experience they need if they're forced to spend half their time studying bricklaying, electrics, and other "vocational" courses?

Vocational education is the right option for some kids.

A mix of academic and vocational is the right option for others.

But there are plenty of kids for whom pure academia is the only/best option for their skillset, interests, aptitude, and personality.

No need! My kids knew what they loved and what they wanted to do.

Nurses don’t ‘support’ doctors. They have a different role. Everyone works together in the mdt to deliver the care.

And anyway nobody is arguing that we don’t need nurses!

Can't believe I'm sucked in again.
It's like trying to discuss with a toddler.

KS1-KS3 - everyone gets a chance at school to try practical and academic and arts subjects to discover where their interests and abilities lie. parents also try where possible to give their children access to a range of opportunities outside school.

KS4 pupils have the option to select 1-3 options a GCE level where they can add academic/arts/practical subjects to the core subjects. (Some of those subjects are a bit overally academic and most on this thread agree they could be lightened)

By KS5 most students are mature enough and have had enough experience of different subjects that they know what kind of route they wish to pursue. Only a minority need guidance. It's that minority you need to be open minded for.

Horses for courses.

You are clearly not academiic because you cannot follow or make logical chains of reasoning or understand how data leads to conclusions. A perfect example of why business courses are limiting. Really if someone is academic they could start a business using all the free help available and learning online. Not studying 3 a levels and limiting yourself to a Vocational subject in today's changing world is short sighted.

@Boomboom22 Not studying 3 a levels and limiting yourself to a Vocational subject in today's changing world is short sighted.

Hang on! It's not short sighted if you aren't academic enough for A levels, or even if you are you have a strong desire to do something more practical.

There are some fantastic opportunities from more vocational routes for the right person. 3 A levels at grades DDE are much more limiting than a BTEC at DDM.

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

The thing is, the bit you keep choosing to ignore, is that this happens in school.
Schools have a LEGAL obligation to ensure that young people are aware of all routes - both academic and vocational.

What you seem to be suggesting is that young people should be FORCED to take up a vocational course when they've decided it's not for them.

You seem to think that anyone who doesn't do a vocational subject at all is a snob. That in itself is snobbery. The rest of us value all forms of education and want to promote choice.

And can you please admit you were wrong about the curriculum, as the things you want taught clearly are taught?

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

We do need both, but they don't need to be the same person.

It's important that we allow people to specialise otherwise the phrase ' jack of all trades - master on none' springs to mind.

Exactly this. I want to be able to call on a plumber and know they are the best plumber they could be. Their knowledge of particle physics is not relevant to my drains. I want to be able to go to a doctor and get treatment for my condition. Their skills in cabinet making are irrelevant to that.

@pointythings exactly. I'm not sure how this can then be interpreted as being against vocational education?

I thought it was interesting that the OP didn't bother to respond to my post where I outlined how I had supported hundreds of young people access vocational education. Something I only posted because they (quite rudely) requested it. They were quite happy to essentially tell me i was shit at my job though......it's almost as though they are spoiling for a fight???

Indeed.
My DS is in Year 12. Last week they had a whole year off timetable "post 18 options" day where a wide variety of talks and demonstrations were held and they've also had trips to a couple of Universities. But next week he is going to a whole day showcasing Apprenticeship opportunities at employers in the County. He has participated in a scheme run by local businesses which has the specific aim of showing able young people what the career opportunities are locally, plus he was chosen for a day aimed at pupils considered to have Oxbridge potential. He has done 3, very different, work experience blocks this year too. All facilitated by his school. A particularly terrible place by the OP's standards I'm sure - 6th formers even have to wear uniform so it must be bad.🙄
He has been shown a wide range of opportunities and is still unsure what he is going to do next though I suspect it will be middle ground - he knows he doesn't want to go to Oxbridge or a very traditional University but I don't think he will opt for a local Apprenticeship either, he's looking at degrees with strong industry connections and industrial placements.
The leavers' destinations are published every year. It's the most academically reknowned non selective school in the County so there's always a smattering of Oxbridge students and plenty of RG+ but also lots going to post 1992 Universities, apprenticeships, conservatoires, apprenticeships, agricultural colleges or straight into work - you name it. And there is no hierarchy, the published list is alphabetical.
The OP clearly had a bad experience at school with poor careers advice. I did too actually. However, I am capable of recognising that that experience wasn't universal even then, and it certainly isn't now.

I have still not changed my views.

@pointythings Are you still watching out for UFO`s ?

@DollyTrolly Serious question. As you work in careers advice. Have you ever had to advise kids who aren't academic at school and are/were disruptive about future employment/education/training routes and what was your advice ?

@pointythings Are you still watching out for UFO`s ?

Well, that's not at all irrelevant to the debate.
Have you removed your anti-academic chip from your shoulder yet?

I have no chips on my shoulder. Also no need for any personal insults.

We should have mixed ability classes for all subjects including English, Maths and Science.

@Summersunshinee have you considered going into politics?
You could become Education Minister.

But you do have a chip on your shoulder. You want to take academic young people down a peg. You want mixed ability teaching in subjects where that will benefit nobody. You want to make education worse so that you can feel better about yourself. You want to reduce choice - everyone else on this thread wants to increase choice. Why is that? You never seem to want to give an answer.

Mixed ability classes are more true to real life and you never know the more higher achieving students may have a positive effect on the lower achieving students.

How would I be reducing choice ? I would like to see more subjects available for study.

I wouldn't like to take anyone down a peg or 2 as I would like to see everyone moved to the same place so the gap between the top and bottom is reduced.

So you do want top achievers pulled down, you just said it.

Mixed ability classes are more true to real life
What a meaningless remark. Why would we want to replicate 'real life' (whatever you actually mean by that) in every situation. The priority is creating the best outcomes for the majority of students. Sometimes that means working at a different level or speed than those in another class.

and you never know the more higher achieving students may have a positive effect on the lower achieving students.

Your comment implies that schools don't consider the advantages and disadvantages of setting, and just pick a policy at random, because hey - 'you never know'! That's not the case. I don't think you have the faintest clue what you're talking about tbh. Hard to believe that this thread is still going and that people are still bothering to point out your misconceptions and prejudices really.

Have you got the slightest idea of the difference in what is taught in a maths top set and a maths bottom set? Those things cannot be mixed without either limiting the opportunities for the most talented to reach their potential (if you make the curriculum more accessible to those who are not naturally good at maths), or having whole swathes of what is being taught feel completely out of reach for those who are not naturally good at maths (if you keep the entire curriculum). So no matter what you do, someone loses out on an opportunity to give of their best. Far better to have an excellent functional maths qualification for people whose gifts lie in the vocational arena and to let others carry on with the maths that will help them reach their academic goals. You want everyone to have less. I want everyone to have more.

And it is never acceptable for more able students to be used as free tutors for those who are less able. Teaching is the responsibility of teachers (and parents).

And you don't want more subjects available - you want to force young people to take vocational subjects that don't suit them, which reduces their choice of subjects that do. That's reducing choice.

If you want to level the achievement gap, you don't do that by limiting those at the top. You do it by appropriately supporting everyone.

I have not said I want to move anyone "down".

But the only possible way to narrow the gap as you want is to dumb things down so the non academic kids who just can't apply critical reasoning, like you, can achieve higher grades. Which is pulling down the top. Wanting Vocational for all is certainly pulling down the top.

I wouldn't like to take anyone down a peg or 2 as I would like to see everyone moved to the same place so the gap between the top and bottom is reduced.

The only morally acceptable way to do that would be to bring the bottom up to match the level of the top (impossible). Aiming to actually deliberately lower the attainment levels of any students would be an utterly shocking thing to do. And yes you clearly do have an enormous chip on your shoulder.

Clearly you are a snob and look down on vocational subjects.