That glass ceiling! Part 2

[var123]

Continuing the discussion about artificial limits placed on G&T children, and the resulting impact on their health and happiness (not to mention futures).

Do they really matter less because they have a perceived "advantage"?!

original thread here:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/gifted_and_talented/2507232-The-glass-ceiling-for-very-able-children?

Bertrand I think maths is more like learning a sport, you need a coach to help you improve. It's not about reading books and acquiring more knowledge.

Look at the great mathematician Ramanujan. He was self-taught from a textbook, but due to his lack of mathematical training never achieved his full potential.

Bobo, I am not asking you to synthesise research - I am asking for a constructive answer to the question:

'If the PGCE is never the right way to train teachers, at any university, in any subject, then what would you suggest instead?'

and what about the BEd?

Bertrand -So, able mathematicians aren't able to progress without specific teaching?

Well its a bit difficult to just know without anyone ever having said it to you that i denotes the imaginary number which is the square root of -1. Sometimes you need someone to tell you things. What you usually don't need is lengthy explanations, and yes, there are things you can deduce for yourself, with if you have the prior knowledge.

Bertrand - because then you would google it and it would out me

irvine you would hope that an able child at a decent school would be able to get excellent results and progress to a top university without any sort of extra support from parents. Obviously pressure needs to be put on universities to ensure that entry requirements aren't restricted to those with money and resources.

The UKMT is very helpful in extending able mathematicians beyond the curriculum and provide university mentors who can coach able students by email. Unfortunately they are absolutely crap at advertising beyond the standard maths challenges and many schools are completely unaware of this.

teacher - the right way to train teachers would be a two-year Masters of Education post first degree.

I have very little knowledge of BEd degrees since they don't attract attention in international teaching circles.

var, 20*20 example reminded me of something.
Last year, my ds was given a quick morning task to make "8" along with everybody else.
He has written all sorts of number sentences including squares, square roots, cubes, etc. in full page which equals to answer 8.
His YR2 teacher was great, she recognised his talent immediately and talked to me about what her plan was. Not so lucky this year.

Obviously pressure needs to be put on universities to ensure that entry requirements aren't restricted to those with money and resources.

But why should universities take students who don't have the prerequisite knowledge and skills to study their courses? If universities dumb down courses to take students without the prerequisites, then the courses are no longer comparable to those in the rest of the world and the qualifications are therefore worth less.

Shouldn't the pressure instead be put onto the government, to ensure that sixth forms have the resources and knowledge to prepare students adequately for third level education?

But why should a university have pre-requisites that go beyond the school curriculum?

"Bertrand - because then you would google it and it would out me wink"

Because you were at a conference?

Were there only 2 people there, or something?

Because the school curriculum has been dumbed down?

BertrandRussell - I think you are probably going to have to accept that people know what will out them better than you do and are allowed to decide what to keep private.

If people want to be taken seriously and accepted as speaking from a position of authority, then they need to be prepared to state their credentials and give their sources. If they aren't then they forfeit that right.

Nobody could possibly be outed by linking to a conference paper.

Because the school curriculum has been dumbed down?

That's a ridiculous argument. Universities are funded by the public purse and therefore can't only go accepting rich/well resourced students.

Universities moan about e.g. the lack of numeracy in their students, but because they want bums on seats they don't include maths in their entry requirements. Because it's not in their entry requirements, kids don't take it. Same with maths courses not requiring further maths. They can't go moaning about maths A-level being inadequate for university study when they don't require further maths.

Hear hear disquit.

Universities have done a hell of a lot to widen access; outreach, contextual offers etc. But it is not the job of universities to bridge the gap between those students who have received a decent school education and those that have not.

We can take it into account, but it cannot be our responsibility to solve the problem.

I agree that it would be reasonable to expect school final exams to be contiguous with fresher's week. However, if, for whatever reason, the exams have been dumbed down, and schools only teach to the exam, then should the universities lower their entrance point too?
I don't know. That's why i am asking.

Same with maths courses not requiring further maths. They can't go moaning about maths A-level being inadequate for university study when they don't require further maths.

But surely the student has some personal responsibility to take the A levels that will prepare them best for the course they want to do? Why would a 16 year old who wants to do maths at uni, or even just might want to do maths at uni, not take the advanced maths a level?

Is it not universally offered or something? What kind of advice does the school give in this instance? (Please don't tell me that they advise you to just do the bare minimum for whatever you want to do next?!)

Maybe I should start saying that it's not the job of schools to bridge the gap between those students who have rich parents and those who have not.

I suspect that would be met with outrage. And rightly so.

var no, further maths is not universally offered.

And if the university says further maths is not required, why would a student not believe them?

"And rightly so." Why? What are schools actually mandated to do?

Do they say further maths is not required but highly recommended or simply "not required"?

if the former, then it would be stupid not to take note. if the latter, then they need to upgrade their advice.

var schools are expected to get good results out of kids according to their ability regardless of their background. Pupil premium money is given to schools per disadvantaged student and schools have to publish how they use this money to 'narrow the gap'.

My school had a snap Ofsted inspection because Ofsted looked at our results and were concerned that our Pupil Premium students weren't doing as well as the others.

var the very top unis require further maths/STEP but other RG unis e.g. Bristol say 'AAA including A in Mathematics, plus at least one of the following subjects*; or AAA including Mathematics and Further Mathematics'

They can't go moaning about maths A-level being inadequate for university study when they don't require further maths.

As you said, the top universities do insist on further maths - which excludes pupils who were erroneously told that it was fine not to take it. It is also harder to get offers from Oxbridge for maths without having physics. Despite being well publicised, this is another issue that holds back pupils from weaker schools.

Other universities don't actually go around moaning about maths A level being inadequate for STEM - they just deal with it. But in reality the drop out rate is a bit higher amongst those who don't have further maths at places like Bristol. So even if students get in, they are at a disadvantage by not having it. (If they get through the first year, they don't do worse afterwards but they are more likely to drop out of some courses if they don't have FM.) This is made clear to students during admissions days - if they have the option of self-studying FM modules or studying them at sixth form they are strongly encouraged to do so.

And as you say even top universities are actually being forced to take students they would prefer not to take - otherwise they will go bankrupt, with costs increasing, but fees fixed and research income being pushed down. (We spend about half as much of our GDP on research as the rest of Europe and North America.) The biggest problem is amongst STEM students who didn't do A level maths (biological sciences etc) and whose maths level is truly shocking. I know RG universities, for example, have to start their maths for biologists courses with fractions and decimals...

BTW the draft A level maths curriculum was in part the responsibility of top RG maths departments who are utterly fed up about the declining standards of A level maths... As I said upthread, I do have deep concerns about the implications of the new A level for weaker students, but something does have to change at the top end.

We can take it into account but it can't be our responsibility to solve the problem

I was at university in South Africa in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The disparaties in education between white state schools and black state schools were absolutely vast compared with the state/private school divide in the UK. Pupils who went through that system and managed to even pass their final school exams in Maths and Science showed both significant intelligence and motivation. The universities did try to step in, I believe successfully, for example offering such students a first year course spread over two years, to help them bridge the gaps in their knowledge and then enable them to join their peers at the right level in their second year.