Should we care that 50% of state schools didn't produce any medicine applicants in 3 years?

[legallady]

Well if no one from those schools wanted to study medicine then maybe not but if they are not achieving the grades to be able to apply or are not being given the correct advice then maybe we should.

Certainly it seems wrong that half of applicants in that time frame came from independent and grammar schools. It suggests that our qualified doctors a few years down the line will come from a very narrow demographic - similar to our lawyers and politicians - and that can't be good for our society.

What (if anything) is going wrong?

Agree Rabbit.
I'm really sick of the attitude that science/maths are somehow superior to other subjects. They're not. It's what has led to the ridiculous situation where DC whose true interest and abilities lie in the arts/humanities feel they must take at least one science subject at AS/A level.

I fail to see how a biology A level taken in isolation with say English and History is better than taking another humanities subject or a language. Likewise Maths-great if you have an interest in it and are good at it but it seems to be becoming almost a must-have A Level. Why? I got a B at O Level a million years ago, wouldn't have dreamt of taking an A Level in it, but was still more than capable of handling multi-million pound budgets in my job.

We need young people who specialise in the arts and humanities too if we want a society that is culturally rich.

Typing too slowly, my post was in response to rabbitofnegativeeuphoria
Very confusing with 2 rabbits on the thread!

R stew & R Euphoria

and BTW as a totally science dominated household

I utterly agree with Marni that the obsession with "balanced" A levels - which always means that arts/humanities people have to do a science but never seems to make maths/chem/physics/computing people to do English
is stupid and devalues the differences between people.

it actually tracks back to NuLabour and the obsession with KS2 SATs that every child should magically be equally good at maths and English.

I write and think and talk in bullet points.
Writing essays was a chore I tolerated through University but was delighted to never have to go back to.

Those who do like writing essays should not be forced to write equations.

Do you think that's where it comes from Talkin? I think it's also the current obsession with STEM subjects which politicians bang on about (I seem to remember Nicky Morgan making a speech on it recently). The thing is I know we need engineers and scientists etc. We just don't need everyone to be one!

My DD is doing 3 Humanities subjects and a language at AS level. She's had countless fellow pupils sucking their teeth and issuing dire warnings about her subjects not being balanced! As if throwing 1 science into the mix would somehow make her vastly more employable. It's like they've all been brainwashed. Thankfully her teachers don't share that view.

Marni
There are several issue and many other posters on this thread flatly disagree with me but HEY I'm used to that

the 1944 Education Act that brought in the Tripartite system effectively put classics/academic at the top and practical/technical skills at the bottom
from age 11

not coincidentally, over the next 35 years, Britain's science and engineering base collapsed - as bosses had been segregated from doers

by the 90's the UK was turning into a call centre / shopping centre economy and the city centres were dying

industry moved abroad and healthcare and construction became ever more reliant on imports of expertise

the current emphasis is trying to rebuild the physical foundations of the UK economy

but because our politicians are mostly cack handed twerps, they insist on doing it top down, rather than in a libertarian cutting red tape way

STEM is essential : it creates far more net worth to the economy than the arts
BUT
if the tax breaks on arts were tidied up, the rich could fund what they like - as bonsoir rightly pointed out they always did

Interestingly My Open University Tutor linked to me on You Tube The BBC Documentary from last year " Who Gets all the Best jobs" . It is worth watching as there is a large section about "internships" or getting work experience in medicine or Hospitals . The programme also talks how difficult it is for children from families of modest incomes to even have aspirations for any "Professional" Career not just Medicine.

You Tube : "Who Gets All the Best Jobs" Sorry Do not know how to link...

smokepole
I assume its this one

That's the one . Very Interesting and worth watching !.

I know STEM is essential, but it's not the only thing we need. There are loads of other areas which are important to society (and I'm not just talking about the creative arts) for which a science background is unsuitable/not required. So I don't see why DC whose interests and/or talents lie elsewhere are made to feel they have to take at least one STEM subject at A Level.

So I don't see why DC whose interests and/or talents lie elsewhere are made to feel they have to take at least one STEM subject at A Level
Nor do I
and my house makes its money trying to get people into STEM
BUT
Kids should not be scared off thinking they can excel at sciences just because they are hard

See, that pisses me off as well. Arts/Humanities subjects are hard, particularly to score very high grades in. They're no easier than the sciences.

It's much harder to do well in English, if you're really good at it, than it is to do well in maths, if you're really good at that. Much much harder.

R Euphoria
Too right
There are kids in DDs further maths classes who regularly get 100% in tests.
That is just impossible in English.
Because Maths and Science and Engineering have right answers allowing for the odd paradigm shift
whereas arts and humanities are shades of interpretation

STEM subjects are definitely superior.

Trouble is too many folk do arts/humanities, find their skills aren't in huge demand in the workplace, end up going into teaching, and then persuade other people's kids to do arts/humanities like they did. There are too many arts/humanities graduates in teaching, and not enough STEM graduates.

This made me laugh out loud..

If 30 % of secondary state schools are not good enough, according to Sir Michael Wilshaw, it is highly likely the people most likely to be Doctors avoid these schools.

How ?

By being born to different parents?

I recommend all the unborn who are considering a career in medicine make sure they are born families in good catchment areas.

And whether arts/humanities are hard or not is irrelevant. They are less useful and over-supplied.

Hear hear

You cannot eat books
Opera will not cure cancer

Only Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths can save us from our own destruction.

How much would authors make without the internet to hawk their wares?

Arts and humanities degrees and the skills that accrue from studying for them are far more useful to the people who have them than most STEM degrees are (even STEM degrees from Imperial are not going to be more useful to those that hold them than an arts or humanities degree from cambridge). They are also more useful to society at large. They are not, however, more useful to the paymasters who want the education system to provide a steady stream of future low grade technicians earning at best mid tier wages (and at worst lots less) in order to further the paymasters' profits.

If you can't write - and most people can't, and you can't argue, and you have no talent in an artistic area then yes obviously you are stuck with science. And if you're shit hot at science/Maths then maybe that's your calling (but if you'd actually prefer to do something else then you should). But there are way too many kids who want to do arts and humanities and would be better off in every way including financially doing arts and humanities but who are being steered away from them by the gradgrindian attitudes of those with no imagination and apparently no eyes.

Many comp don't offer science a levels especially physics. Some state schools do not encourage ambition. It is harder to get good grades when lessons have a lot of distruption and lack of extension.

My son dreamed of being a doctor and was told at the age of TEN that we would never get the grades. (He was on top table for every subject at primary)

RabbitofNegative, as someone with a PhD in a STEM subject from Imperial, where is your evidence that a STEM degree from Imperial will accrue less skills to the person holding the degree than an arts degree from Cambridge?

As it happens, in order to succeed in science, you need to be better than having an ability to nerd around in the lab. Being able to nerd in the lab will keep you at technician level. Those scientists I know who are successful are excellent communicators including an ability to convey their research through writing and bring able to engage large audiences at conferences.

We definitely do need more STEM graduates, but when it comes to "saving us from our own destruction," you could argue that it's STEM people who have created the tools with which we are destroying ourselves!

We live in one of the richest countries in the world. If we can't afford the arts/humanities, nobody can. It's not either/or, we can (and should) have both. The important thing is that no child should grow up with some avenues closed off before they even start because their school doesn't offer certain subjects or has poor teaching in one or more areas.

As for the relative importance, from my reading as an interested amateur I see that right from the early stages of hominids emerging as separate from other apes we were learning to make tools but we also started at a really, really early stage to decorate those tools in a completely non-functional way. Technology and the visual arts, right from the beginning. Here's an article from the Smithsonian this month on that very point.

AllMimsy, we can afford the arts/humanities, but we can't afford to churn them out at the rate they're being churned out at the moment, to the detriment of STEM subjects. The problem is that HE funding is being driven by student-demand, rather than employer-demand.

Anyone on here from Oz? Somebody told me that they control the supply of HE places based on demand for the associated skills, so there are far fewer places on, for example, journalism courses. However, because of that, degree-level journalism courses are highly selective, and are a more highly respected qualification as a result.

Here, there are as many places on journalism courses as there are students willing to pay for them, in the naive hope that they can then 'be a journalist'. If they were told, "sorry, there aren't any journalism places left, but lots of places on the Computer Coding course, so we suggest you give that a go" then the country might be in a stronger economic position.

The problem is that HE funding is being driven by student-demand, rather than employer-demand.

On that specific point, I agree, seeingthrufog. Psychology and law are amongst the most popular degree courses in the country and I do think a lot of that is because many young people assume they will automatically progress to jobs as lawyers and psychologists without grasping that getting onto postgraduate training in those fields is very, very difficult - far fewer places available at that point than people with the relevant UG degrees. I wonder if as many people would take those subjects if they fully understood the career structure.

That assumes of course that the ONLY reason for doing Psychology or Law degrees is to become a Psychologist or a lawyer, which I'd argue isn't the case at all.

A few vocational courses do have limits (medicine, dentistry, teacher training, pharmacy was going to have but doesn't currently) to how many graduates are churned out.

I wholeheartedly agree with your earlier post mimsy - it isn't an either or - STEM and the arts can and should coexist happily alongside each other and a state of mutual respect.