Is the Scottish education system failing?

[eurouk]

From talking to (not very happy) friends in Scotland, it sounds as if Highers are at a lower standard than A-levels (an A is a C / D) but many schools don't offer many choices for Advanced Highers because not a lot of pupils take them?

I realise you can go to uni in Scotland with Highers only, but doesn't this put you at a disadvantage when applying for unis in England or elsewhere?

Also, quotas for Scottish students at Scottish unis ... I've heard there are some courses for which the only Scottish students they accept are those with significant contextual flags?

So basically, if you can't get into a Scottish uni, you need to take AHs to (realistically) apply to a good uni in England. But your school may well not even offer the AH subjects you are interested in. So you are stuck between a rock and a hard place, by the sound of it?

Our LA offers a consortium school arrangement so even if your own school doesnt offer the AH another local one may do so and you can go there for that subject or maybe access it online

It’s true it’s tough - but not necessarily impossible - to go to English unis with highers, but most Scottish students don’t do that because you have to pay. Some schools don’t offer many AHs, but these tend to be the ones in disadvantaged areas where paying unnecessarily for unis is even less likely.

The cap issue is hard to manage. Edinburgh, famously, only had spaces for Scottish students with contextualised offers last year, but this wasn’t supposed to happen - the numbers with WP flags was higher than expected so there were no places left once they’d been assigned. This has been predicted in a couple of subjects next year, so they’ve lowered the number of contextualised offers so it doesn’t happen.

I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s failing. It has many, many issues and leaves a lot to be desired but also has a lot of strengths. In my view it’s better than the English system, though not by as much as it used to be.

My understanding is that Highers are more comparable with A/S levels and that Advanced Highers are harder/higher in stature than A Levels.

But I'm sure some Scottish Mums will correct this

An A at A level is worth 56 UCAS points
An A at Higher is 33 UCAS points

Where English pupils study 2 or 3 A Levels - Scottish pupils will study 4 or 5 Highers.

Scottish education has always gone for a broad rather than specialised approach.

You just need to be aware of how many UCAS points you need for the course and uni if your choice.

The Scottish system is more flexible than the incredibly rigid English system which, as reformed by Gove and Cummings, is based on one-size-fits-all Gradgrindian fact-stuffing. The Scottish system at least tries to acknowledge individual learning needs, and legislation in Scotland is generally ahead of England, e.g. Scotland legally recognises giftedness as a special educational need.
The earlier transition to university and the 4 year duration of a bachelors degree / 5 years for integrated masters in the Scottish system allows greater breadth at university level before specialising whereas the English system has been repeatedly criticized for forcing premature specialisation.
It has always been the case that Scottish students could transition to university at 17 after highers but complete an extra year at uni, therefore a like-for-like comparison between highers and A-levels is spurious. Advanced highers are, from what I've seen, just as high a standard as A-level.
Scottish tertiary education has plenty to offer: 8 of the top 50 institutions in the UK are in Scotland (complete uni guide 2023), which is 16%, compared to Scotland's 8% of the UK by population, so twice as many as one would expect if institutions were distributed equally by population.
There are problems with e.g. university quotas, but these seem to me to arise as much from cake-ism on the part of the SNP as anything else.

Scotland is Europe's best-educated country

Of course the other consideration is that DC can receive unconditional offers from English universities on the basis of their highers. Not all but know of unconditionals from York, Newcastle, Exteter, Manchester & Bristol. Suggests that these universities are happy to compete with Scottish universities that would (for the right students) do the same.

It's just a very different system. Also, don't underestimate how many people in Scotland only consider Scottish universities. Even before £9k fees in England, 5 people from my year went to English unis, around 130-150 people went to Scottish ones...

Yes I can see the benefit of a broader education, for sure.

Mind you, many students do 4 A-levels, or 3 and an EPQ (worth half and A-level).

Many students do not do 4 A levels. Some students in Scotland end up with many Highers.

Highers aren’t a lower standard. The Scottish and English qualifications just aren’t designed to be directly equivalent. There are lots of benefits to maintaining a broader based education but at the same time kids aren’t prevented from developing in depth on certain subjects through advanced highers in 6th year.

A great student might do 3 advanced highers in S6 whilst already having 3 highers under their belt in S5

Sorry that should have read 5 highers in S6.

You tend to take more highers than A levels, so if you have 6 highers you will still be fine at other unis.

Remember there are also 2 years to highers - you could do 5 in each year if you wanted. I did 5 highers in 5th year then a higher and 2 advanced highers in 6th year and I was in no way out of the ordinary

This is because the Scottish government completely manipulate the exams to cover the pupils who wouldn't get through otherwise. The Scottish education system is absolutely disgustingly bad. The exam questions include such basic questions to net all the pupils that would otherwise fail.
It's absolutely dreadful.

I don't feel the Scottish education is broad, at least at Nat 5 (GSCE equivalent) level. My son, at age 14, had to choose only four subjects (apart from maths and English) to continue with as his school only allowed him to take six subjects. He is/was very able and could have done many more. He is presently managing four advanced highers quite easily in sixth year.

Night school may be an option. I done additional highers at night school

@kitsuneghost Night school? Really? That’s not acceptable for 6th form pupils. I assume your higher wasn’t in English.

The Scottish education system has been decimated by the SNP. We have been pulled out of all international rankings such as PISA by the SNP as we kept dropping and fell below England. It is not a broader education - at the equivalent of GCSE level (Nat 5) the system is designed that you take only six subjects. And the exams answers are so prescribed that for many subjects you simply have to remember a block of text and regurgitate it.

As for Addition Support Needs (SEN): the definition is so broad that in some areas more than half the children fall in this category. But there are no ECHPs so schools/councils can get away with no/totally inadequate support and the only thing you can do is take them to court for disability discrimination and unlike England the court cannot award compensation.

This thread appears to be inviting people with no experience of the English education system- and an axe to grind in some cases- to slag off the Scottish one. Not sure that's an ultra scientific way of gaining insights.

Aurea, fwiw , a gripe of many students , parents and educators in England is that they take too many subjects at GCSE but, notwithstanding it's not that much different.

Taking the (slightly different) core out of play as you did , English students now tend to take 4 extra GCSE subjects. Some schools force them through random extra stuff but since the way of calculating progress changes this happens less.

What happens after 16 is where the English education system narrows more than the Scots one.

And, for the record, Nat 5 is not a GCSE equivalent.

Does it matter if students 'could have done more'? I have been told over many years that the English system is 'better' because of its depth. Not saying I agree. But very bright students could doubtless do 8, 10, 12 subjects. Where do you stop?

To be honest, the English system is bonkers. To have 15 and 16 year olds revising so many subjects when they are taking up to 11 or 12 is ridiculous pressure. I don't know why we want to do that to them. The amount they have to do for science GCSE is particularly bonkers.

The introduction of National 4 and 5 courses was to offer a broader education meaning it’s more flexible for all children and not just clever children. It’s an inclusive model to ensure all children have qualifications on leaving school rather than just the more able children.

this problem your child has encountered is Down to the individual school he attends and nothing else.

my ds did 5 higher in 5th year and 4 in 6th year whereas dd did 5 highers in 5th year, 3 highers and an advanced higher in 6th year..

some of their friends did 2 highers and 3 National 5’s in 5 th year and then 3 highers in 6 th year.

english exam system seems very rigiid in comparison.