Worthless qualifications at state schools

[Judy1234]

Wise words.
Pick solid GCSEs in proper subjects - take a language, take English lit and lang, take maths, geography, history and 2 or 3 proper sciences and get just 8 or 9 in traditional subjects with good grades.

"The headmaster of Harrow has accused many state schools of deceiving children by entering them for ?worthless? qualifications. Barnaby Lenon said that grade inflation and a shift to vocational qualifications was masking a failure to teach enough pupils to a good standard.

?Let us not deceive our children, and especially children from poorer homes, with worthless qualifications so that they become like the citizens of Weimar Germany or Robert Mugabe?s Zimbabwe, carrying their certificates around in a wheelbarrow,? he told a conference.

?[Let?s not] produce people like those girls in the first round of The X Factor who tell us they want to be the next Britney Spears but can?t sing a note.?

He cited media studies as an example of a soft subject, for which many schools were keen to enter students because it was easier for them to get a good grade. The real route to a good job in one of the professions, he said, was good grades in traditional academic subjects such as maths, sciences and languages."

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/school_league_tables/article6998943.ece

claig that report makes very interesting reading

NotAnOtter, do you mean the Sutton Trust report or the Telegraph article?

sutton trust- did not see the telegraph one

I learned loads of useful things at school and out of it. Even yesterday in Switzerland I found 25+ years after my A level German I could get by.

I nkow the universities are now doing their own tests for some entrants which how it was in the days when they interviewed and when Oxbridge had their own exams. We're only going back to that really.

yes the Sutton Trust one is very interesting. I have got a sneaking suspicion that one day they might bring something like this in. It would be interesting to know what teachers think about it or if they have heard anything about it?

i do tend to agree with the conclusion

ds had to submit work and do a tsa test for his interview in december

NotAnOtter, skimmimg it quickly, it looks like independent sector children did perform better that state school children, which is interesting. These tests have been running for years in the States and they do their utmost in trying to avoid any possible bias. The only problem with tests like these is that they require another huge workload for children, on top of all the coursework they already have to do.

Sorry haven't read the whole thread, so I apologise if this has already been said, but...

What a load of bloody tosh!

Education is meant to be striving to be more inclusive. Offering different forms of qualifications allows more children to leave school having attained something. This makes education effective for them, the rest of the co-hort take formal examinations and attain down that route, which makes education effective for them.

The issue in this situation is not the fact that these subjects are on offer. It is the fact that the Government continues to measure an effective education based on formal exam results only, and pits schools against each other dependant on these results. This for want of another term is bollocks!

The whole system needs to change, and some people need to realise that 5 GCSE's at grade A-C are not the be all and end all of education. People without these qualifications make the world go round, they should be celebrated too not told they're not good enough.

Sorry for my rant, it probably makes little sense but I know what I mean by it

Ithas got more inclusive but what we don't want is naive children and their parents thinking employers regard the degree from Middlesex ex polytechnic or the 8 GCSEs in basketwork as on a par with the 11 A*s and an upper second from Bristol or who think nottingham trent or as good as Nottingham university or that Oxford Brookes is the same as oxford. As long as they do know that's fine.

Of course people are going to know the difference between Oxford Uni etc but to be quite honest some people just don't care which Uni or school you went to.

You see in the real world we need, bin men, and road sweepers, cleaners, and carers, all of which are just as important in society as lawyers and doctors, teachers and politicians. What school they went to generally doesn't matter.

What pupils need is to know that their schooling isn't a waste of time.

By continuing this method of measuring effectiveness in schools by formal qualification we are breeding elitism. Perpetuating this 'my qualification is better than yours because I got it at such and such school/uni'.

Education should be tailored to meet the individuals needs and ability, if that means a GCSE in basket weaving then so be it. It does not make them a failure, and they still have the ability to play just as an important role in society as the student with 12 A* GCSEs in core subjects.

oxford etc yes jaqueline

i seriuosly doubt that much of the population knows the difference - how would you?

i went to a university and graduated in 1990 - so i know what was a poly etc plus i am interested in education

someone who went post 1992 and has children applying now need not have any idea of the 'stratas' of institutions.

one of our employee's son is applying to university this time and she does not appear to hold the university of sheffield in any higher esteem than de montford or the university of northumbria - i dont want to sound 'snobby' by pointing this out but wonder if she knows

Why does she need to know though, what purpose will it serve? If she is happy with her choice, and is going to get the result she wants from where she goes then her education is effective. That is what matters surely.

i would want a child to be stretched to the best of their ability

if the cohort is less academic then the lecturer will have to adapt his/her teaching accrordingly - resulting in a lower standard of teaching/learning

She does need to know and it does matter (unless you are independently wealthy and just exploring your subject as a hobby!) - so many people have a degree these days - employers know which are the 'real' universities and use it to distingush candidates. I can't understand how parents could get to their kids GCSE stage and not be aware and able to guide towards advisable subjects and institutions. An English degree say from a red brick/Russell Group Uni may well get you a lot further than one from an ex poly or college. If your child is not interested in a traditional higher education or degree level career then naturally there are a host of other courses and institutions offering valuable qualifications of all varieties and this is all irrelevant- but if you are going for an academic course at a university don't be conned.

There is no proof to suggest this though is there NAO, this is just your personal opinion.

I would always guide my child towards a University that has a proven track record for good results in the subject area my child had chosen to study.

I could care less if this was the worst Uni over all in the UK, if they constantly delivered 100% minimum 2:1 degrees in the chosen subject, then that Uni is a good choice.

Some Uni's offer bragging rights that is for sure, and they will probably allow a student to make some good connections but to instantly assume they are better than other Uni's is just ignorant.

I no I wondered how long it would be before the poncey term red brick or Russell Group would turn up

*Oh no, not I no

Well of course it's imho - although a well informed one I feel. I think you should do a little research into the educational establishments that feature in the CVs of those who have succeeded in their professions - public and private!

'poncey'!?

Yes poncey.

I don't have time to wade through oodles of CVs, and quite frankly I have no desire to. However, I am sure that if I was the type of person who enjoyed doing such a task, I would be able to find as many CVs to disprove your opinion as prove it.

This thread is about worthless qualifications, surely you can't be suggesting that a qualification that comes from somewhere other than one of the establishments you refer to is worthless?

I agree with mitbap, it does matter where you go. Some things really are better than others. Laura Robson is a good tennis player, but Serena Williams is better. De Montfort is a good university, but Cambridge is better. If you were offered the choice to read Economics at Cambridge, or Economics at De Montfort, then unless there were major extenuating circumstances, you should choose Cambridge. One reason is that the professors are renowned world-wide, and you will be in one of the world's top establishments and you will be privileged to be stretched and to study along with some of the world's top minds. The other important reason is, as mitbap said, very few of us are so wealthy that it doesn't matter what choices we make. We all have to consider the benefits and advantages of any choices we make, and it matters how employers rate universities. There is no point studying hard for 3 years and obtaining a 1st class honours at one university, if employers consider it to only be worth a third class honours from a university that you could have gone to.

I agree with jaquelinehyde that studying at any university is good, but if you are lucky enough to have the choice of studying at a better one, you should take it. You don't live in a world of your own, it does matter how the rest of society and employers perceive the choices that you have made.

I'd have thought the employment prospects were more important than the results really. Fair enough going somewhere where 100% get 2:1s (do such places really exist? I'd be very suspicious of such good figures in real life aside from anything else), but if only 10% of those are finding employment after then it's probably not such a good choice (either of subject or place to study or both).

I didn't personally mention anything being worthless but was responding and agreeing with NOA and Xenia that the difference between Sheffield and de Montford etc does matter and you should be aware. Claig put it well.

I think employment prospects are very important but also pretty dodgy.

My brother obtained a very good degree from Durham Uni and was employed as soon as he left Uni. However, his employment has nothing to do with his degree, is no way linked and he is the first to admit that he just took the first job he could get given the current climate.

So employment prospects in subject field yes valuable, just emplyment prospects no help at all.

I doubt that my example of 100% attainment rate does exist Snorkie, but as it was offered as an example and not as a fact I don't suppose it really matters.

poncey red brick/russell group - no Jaqueline - old style universities for the academic top 5%

i doubt you would want your child to go the worst university....what would employers think - they would probably discount application without reading it