Sadness of Open Days

[Gemauve]

So on the stand this morning at 0905, I was approached by a charming woman and her keen, enthusiastic daughter. It's the first university they're visiting, in fact the first university that either of them has ever been to, but they're really looking forward to ... and they reel off a list of good places. Daughter really wants to do our subject, and has clearly checked out the top places.

And what A Levels are you doing?

Ah.

Well, you can't come here, and for what it's worth, we're slightly more relaxed than the other places you've named and I know that you won't be able to go to any of them to do our subject or anything even vaguely related. I didn't say "and on past experience from when we were even more relaxed to the point that we might have admitted you, you would almost certainly fail, and the last cohort where we did that less than 5% of them made it to finals". Sorry.

"My school said these subjects would be ideal".

They're catastrophically wrong. Did you look at any prospectuses before choosing your subjects? No. And off they went, their hopes destroyed by 0915.

What the fuck are schools playing at? Why do they let children who don't have middle class parents get into this situation?

I went to a very academic girls' school in the 70s (direct grant, bit like an independent school with assisted places - lots of free (scholarship) places, most of the rest heavily subsidised). Out of an intake of about 90 I think over 80 went on to some form of higher education. Most of those went on to universities. The rest were split between degree/HND courses at polytechnics/colleges of education/art colleges/music colleges and some sort of structured professional training, e.g. nursing, physiotherapy, occupational therapy, banking (taking exams), accountancy.

Under 10 left at 16 with O levels and did secretarial training or similar. Of those, two are now successful TV producers after working at the BBC.

I didn't realise how very unusual this was and how lucky I'd been for a long time after I left.

People may get "bad" advice from a school but if a person wants to know how to take a desired path then they will get there, alsometimes it will be right away and others a few years along. I told my school I wanted to be a teacher and was told there was no way it would happen for me. Seventeen years after leaving school and two years after someone corrected my false impression that I wouldn't be able to get on a course I will start in September to make that dream come true.

If I had asked sooner than that would have been great but then as another person pointed out then I wouldn't be bringing life experience to my course with me.

My parents never cared if I went further in education or not. They told me to do what I wanted to be happy and be able to provide for myself, which I would think is due to others in my family never having bothered with any education after compulsory age at all.

Well as they say you can take a horse to water. My daughter started A level History, six weeks later I found out she had changed to Photography because she hated the History.
I think she is clever enough to have got a good grade in History but it wasn't going to happen if she wasn't interested.
For those of you who think there are other ways of being successful besides going to uni where do young people start where are the jobs?
I started as a clerical assistant inthe 70's and worked my way up in the council. It won't happen nowadays.

Why won't it happen now Fairyliz?

Nowadays there are no (or very little) opportunities for advancement within the same company. Most only ever seem interested in how hard they can work you till you drop. I think years back that the idea was you joined a company and they developed you as far as you were interested in being developed.

Every company I have worked for have only ever been interested in you value to them at that set point in time. Any other conversation has clearly been lip service to the policy of the time for appraisals etc.

Because jobs that used to ask for a handful of O levels or CSEs are now advertised as graduate level jobs. Even if you can get a job as an office junior with GCSEs only, you'd struggle to move up the ladder without higher qualifications.

I do absolutely agree with your general point about the disadvantage that some DCs suffer by getting poor advice re A-level choices. However, are you sure that no university would accept the girl's choices?

I was at the University of Birmingham Open Day today and the Director of Admissions for Economics very clearly stated that neither Maths nor Economics were required at A-level (although most students would have one or both). I was extremely surprised as I would have thought that Maths was fundamental. Not sure what he'd think of ICT and Business Studies, but he said he was quite keen to have some students with History & English etc to balance out the Maths boffins.

This wasn't economics.

OK, fair enough. I was just surprised that such a prestigious degree course didn't require what I presumed would be the necessary A-levels.

Way back when I was 17 (so half-way through my A-levels) a teacher asked me what I was planning to do at university and I said "What's a university?" because none of my family had been to one, so no-one had ever talked to me about it.

I am very aware of how much more support I am able to give my own DCs through having been educated myself and familiarity with the system. It's a great pity when you encounter children who haven't had that help and advice.

Gasp0de - I agree that not every child is suitable for university, and university is not suitable for every child.

I think some children have attitudes and skills that are not suited to university study, and I think these children are being failed by the current system, because, if they do go to university, they end up on a course they can't do, or that is not suitable for them, and many drop out.

We need, as a society, to value skills outside the academic. We need to find the skills of each child, and give them the education, and post-school training or degree that enables them to make the most of their skills, to earn a living and forge a career.

Education and training should not be a one-size-fits-all. And people whose skills aren't academic, should be valued as highly as those who do. Doctors and lawyers and managers need someone who can build their home or fix their car, and the mechanics, plasterers etc need doctors and lawyers - society can't function without people of all sorts, with all the skills and talents and knowledge - so all should be equally valued.

At the moment, I fear that the emphasis on university as the Blue Riband of education, leaves those who can't, or don't want to go to university, feeling second class - and that is wrong, imo. Their training and opportunities should be as high quality as university - just different.

Sorry - this is my personal bee-in-my-bonnet. I will stop ranting now.

Though I will say this - I am a huge fan of university - dh and I both have degrees (I did my nurse training in the pre-university days, and gave up after doing a post RGN course, to go to university and read politics and music, just for fun), and just this week, ds1 got his degree results (2:1 in Law - slightly proud mum ) - but it's not right for everyone.

it's not right for everyone.

In general terms, and with some exceptions, people tend to believe that too many other people are going to university, and just the right number of their own family. Isn't that tidy and neat?

I'm a teacher and a sixth form tutor. Some teachers and schools do tell students these things. And they completely ignore us and do their own thing. A big issue in sixth form is that so many are used to being spoon fed or given so much help, they all want to quit courses on first few weeks.

You would be surprised the number of students who choose courses based on what their friends do, who the teacher is or in our case doesn't mean having to get a bus to our partner school!

Part of our phse course in sixth form goes through different kinds of universities, course etc. But many choose based on closeness to home.

I remember getting to university and wondering why doctors were doing all the teaching. Maybe they didn't like medicine?

Took me ages to figure out the degree/PhD thing.

I also don't think there's enough information about being able to switch courses etc. friend of mine wanted to do history- had history, English and biology a level. Flunked history, decided to switch to science. Couldn't get on a degree with those a level subjects, but got on a hnd at her preferred uni, and was able to transfer to the degree course at the end of the year without any additional study.

Are you suggesting I have nasty motives for thinking not every child should go to university, Gemauve? Because that is not what I am saying - I think every child deserves a high quality education and training that suits their skills and aptitudes.

I would support any of my dses who wanted to do a vocational training, as opposed to a degree - because I want the best for them.

I place high value on degrees, but I place equally high value on the many other things that people do.

"Takver, what you're seeing there is that now state schools now have similar levels of access to HE as other routes. Do you think that only 10% of the pupils at Eton did A Levels in the 1980s?"

Well, that's exactly my point. What was only the norm for a very limited group of pupils is now expected across the board.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing - I think it's great that access to higher education has been widened out. But I just don't think it's true to say that it's purely about giving women access to HE and re-defining what you call an HE course. There are lots of 18 year olds who would have gone into jobs 20-30 years ago who now are expected to stay in education as a matter of course.

Plenty of these 18 year olds have parents who don't have the sort of background knowledge that more priviledged (sp?) pupils take for granted, because in their day (ie my day), most 'normal' people didn't go to uni.

"In general terms, and with some exceptions, people tend to believe that too many other people are going to university, and just the right number of their own family. Isn't that tidy and neat?"

I'd strongly encourage dd to at the very least take time out after school, and not go automatically to university.

Apart from that, AFAIK I have no blood relatives I have ever met that have been to university. I can't say whether that's the right number or not . . .

I just don't think it's true to say that it's purely about giving women access to HE and re-defining what you call an HE course.

But for women, read state school pupils. What's happened is that access is now much less equitable, and people from many backgrounds are going to university. It's only "lowering standards" if you believe Eton's students are more deserving.

I've not said anywhere that I think standards are being lowered, I wonder if you're confusing me with someone else?

I met plenty of students from fancy private schools when I was at college who I personally think would have been much better served not having gone directly from school into further studies.

Overall, I'd say (on average, obviously plenty of exceptions) the mature students were far and away the 'best' students, then the state school pupils, then at the 'bottom' in terms of work ethic and motivation came the private school pupils.

I do agree that the current attitude of 'thou shalt go to university' is wrong. I think students (whatever their background) need to be very mindful of why they're going to university and have expectations managed accordingly. By that, I mean that I knew I wanted to be an engineer and the best way into that for me personally was the academic route with a 5 year masters degree and then further on the job training before fully qualifying. Still a little irked by the way my architecture colleagues have convinced the world that they do '7 years of study' when it's actually no different to many other professionally qualified roles

Equally, I had friends who knew they wanted to do medicine so went straight into university which was right for them. Lots of other friends though felt 'funneled' into university and ended up picking subjects that they like - no major issue with this - but they could have probably got into the career they did without that degree and the associated debt (we were just before the £9k gang thank god....£45k for me to study might have prevented me going, even if it was all paid for in loans).

If you are doing a degree because it's required for a certain career, great.
If you are doing a degree because you enjoy it and want the 'university experience', also great but be aware that that's essentially what it is and not necessarily some automatic right to a higher level job than if you hadn't.

Hope that makes sense?

I've not said anywhere that I think standards are being lowered

OK, I misstook your argument.

In 1954, my father was told (by either a Nobel Prize winner or a Nobel Prize winner's sidekick whom it is commonly held should have been joint winner, I forget which) that the standards of intake were in free-fall with all these grammar school boys coming to university, that year's intake was the worst they'd ever had and if matter got worse the university would cease to exist as we understand it. That was with takeup at 3%. About a quarter of that cohort went on to be professors, founding several of the best respected research groups in the country.

The usual claim that's made (and I apologise for confusing you with the people making this) is that increasing takeup means decreasing standards. The point of reference is usually the speaker's own day, because obviously they should have gone to university, but these days, my dead, it's just terrible.

The reason the argument is nonsense (and I stupidly wrote "less equitable" rather than "more equitable" upthread) is that university admission is always tied to parental income and aspiration and the vagaries of secondary education. In the 1950s, it was essentially impossible to get to university unless you passed the 11+ (because you needed to take O levels) and your parents were affluent (because there was no funding whatsoever available from 15 to 18). In the 1960s roughly the same, although secondary moderns did start to offer O Levels, because there was no funding from 15 to 18. 1970s? No funding from 16 to 18. And that's before we also consider the huge problems of lack of aspiration from parents and schools, subtle and not-to-subtle barriers to admission, etc, etc, etc.

If you count down the ability scale amongst the affluent and motivated to the last child who went to university in 1960, and then read across at that level to rest of the population, there has been no drop in standards. High takeup means that the value to those that do go to university of the, for want of a better metaphor, Wonka golden ticket is less than it was; someone with a degree in the 1950s was a rarity who could name their own price, which isn't true now. That's just tough. Education is always a good thing.

"High takeup means that the value . . . is less than it was. That's just tough."
I think that is a critically important point, though, and one that is not being made clear to students. In fact, I'd say the opposite, that potential students are being led to believe that a degree will automatically get them a 'good' job, when that isn't necessarily the case.

"Education is always a good thing."
I'd definitely agree with that. I don't, though, think that the automatic channelling of large numbers of 18 year olds into university is necessarily the right answer. I'd really just like to see many teens being encouraged to take time out first to experience the world a little more, so that they can make the most of a university education.

I also think that it is a crying shame that adult education courses are becoming more expensive and less available year on year. I'd love to see a situation in which good quality education (covering all subjects, not just the narrowly vocational) is available to everyone at a reasonable price or even better free throughout their lives.

What pains me is the number of teenagers I meet who do want to go to top universities, who definitely have the ability but who are given useless advice and have at 16 very little knowledge of where to get better , who for example tells a girl who wants to be a lawyer ( not just read law but actually go into the profession) that a music Btec will be acceptable as a third Alevel . even if it is in theory in practice the competition is so stiff that you can't take this risk .

Only the other day I met an18 year old who had been advised not to apply to Cambridge because it's"not for our sort of people and she would not fit in"I thought I had been time traveling .
Luckily her parents encouraged her and she has an offer for next year and met plenty of " her sort of people" (sic) at interview .

not for our sort of people and she would not fit in

The teacher who said that probably thinks of themselves as progressive, not the hideous Tory they actually are.

Indeed. I'm still reeling from reading many years ago about the Dulwich Picture Gallery education department, which works really hard to reach out to schools in SE London and by all accounts does a brilliant job. One primary school head they contacted said 'No, we won't be sending any children to the DPG on trips. The sort of art you have isn't relevant to our children and they wouldn't get anything out of it'. Arrogant tosser.