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

This is just for example, there is no fact in what I am about to say. I am truely interested as to what the response would be....

Lets say your DD was going to be studying Geography at degree level and had been accepted by 2 Unis, Oxford and Newcastle. Oxford is a world famous Uni with many advantages to studying there, however, their Geography degree results are appaling. Newcastle is a aUni like many others but their Geography results are outstanding.

Which would you advice your DD was the best to go for?

I understand this is an extreme and highly improbable scenario but please humour me.

I think the choice of university exactly parallels the choice of "worthless" to qualifications at the GCSE stage. Its fine take a BTEC in science if you go into it knowing that it fits with your future plans. But not if you want to be a doctor and you are blissfully unaware that you are shutting a door or at the very least making life difficult for yourself.

The same goes for universities -its fine to go to the university that lingers at the bottom of the league tables if the course right for you and it provides a stepping stone onwards to whatever you want. But if you are going there unaware that it is any different from the universities at the top of the league table just because it seems to have a nice low points offer to get in then perhaps you are going to get a shock later on.

Where DH works they have an approved university list for graduate recruitment - if yours isn't on it then its hard lines.

There are no guarantees or sure things in this life (ask last years graduate body!) but how can it not be wise to grab all the advantages you can?
Sometimes the worst thing can be to specialise in a subject that seems to offer prospects in a specific employment sector e.g. fuel science in the early 80's!!

So NAO I can presume from that post that you feel degrees (no matter how good, result wise of subject wise) from a poor university are worthless qualifications.

What a nasty elitist pov this is.

Oxford without a doubt, it's like the difference between a brand new Skoda and a second-hand Rolls Royce. There is a reason why Newcastle's results would be outstanding, the standard would be far lower than the standard at Oxford. All employers would be aware of this.

OK I'm going to leave this thread now as the opinions on it not only infuriate me but also make me very sad.

no you cant
just that you are idealising the situation to suit your argument
i am being a realist

as an employer i would care very much where someones degree was from unless vocational

So a fail at Oxford is better tan a first at Newcastle.

Jesus Christ have you heard yourselves.

Really leaving now.

Jaquelinehyde - you are fixating on the word worthless in the OP. Everything has it's value just as everything has it's price. I don't see how it's elitist or nasty to analyse the information available to you and strive to make an informed choice regarding the best path for your children to take. Ignore the realitity of the way the world works at your peril.

jaquelinehyde, mitbap is right, you've got to look at reality, you can't afford to be deluded by pied pipers telling you about equality and fairness etc., that's not how the world works.

As Ivana Trump said on Big Brother, "it is wot it is"

I'm a bit confused at the turn that this thread has taken because I thought the fact that all degree are not created equal was something that was fact in the real world and not something that is just a POV (elitist or otherwise).

In what way are Oxford's Geography results appalling?

gerontius, it was a hypothetical example

I don't think anywhere has devastatingly awful results. You are probably looking at say a difference of 80% getting 2:1 and above and 70% getting 2:1 and above between the best and worst in terms of pass statistics (this is an illustrative guess, but probably not too badly wrong). The point is, if a child has offers from 2 establishments then both places believe that child can succeed on their course if they work hard & have no unfortunate life circumstances intervening. So you might as well choose the one with the best employment prospects (in terms of likelyhood and type of employment and salary commanded).

The better the institution the lower the drop out rates so look at those for a start. Also a 2/2 from Oxford is much better than a 2/1 at some rubbish place although some employers won't look at anyone with a 2/2. You need to apply tactically. Plenty of people including my siblings did that with Oxbridge.

In general rol on 20 years and those at Oxbridge probably earn more than those with good degrees from not so good places. A job isn't the aim. It's a proper career which pays £100k or whatever.

But as someone said above it's simply the ignorance which is the issue on the thread. I'm not against loads of young people going to universities to get degrees which aren't really any harder than A levels and where they may as well get jobs at 16 or 18 if they are quite happy to have a load of debt and a job which 20 years ago you didn't need a degree for. But they need to know which institutions are better than others.

"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!"

My friend whose daughter didn't seem to know going to Oxford B rather than Oxford would have career impact in the field she is going into is a case in point. Hoever you could just say that's the silly fault of the child and her father. Anyone can search on line and look these things up. If they don't find out then more fool them, may be.

it is taboo to point out that polys and universities used to be different and the difference was 'thus'

education has become all inclusive but at what cost? americanisation imo - everyone is an academic

high five

Dropout rates reflect screened out rates soa renot reliable- Dh'scourse actively looks todrop 50% of the candidates as there is no test at present that allows them toreallya scertain who can do the work,its all about giving people the chance and setting ahrd exams. OTOH on my degree there was no drop outs almost as the tutors kept giving failures another chance (most annoying forthose of us putting in the work ofcourse)

Of course Oxford is better than Oxford B, not knowing that shows a complete lack of nouse IMO. But I knew Bristol was better than my Uni- still turned it down though, wasn't what I wanted and my Uni offered guaranteed entrance to PGCE I wanted anyway.I'd have adored Bristol of course, I like a decent challenge and bore easily, the boys would not have adored the schools and poor housing we could afford there however. I would rate an 18 yr old who made that choice as a bit thick, a mother as just coming with a more complex set of needs.

'as an employer i would care very much where someones degree was from unless vocational '

maybe that is it

almost everyone on my course went on to vocational training anyway-PGCE mainly, dueto nature of subject. Access toPGCE is only by degree, the degree acted as the ticket, ergo degree not worthless at all.

I would happily admit anyone looking to succeed in a competitive field later on was in the wrong Uni & taking the wrong subject and despatch them on to another Uni with a better rep for a post grad, but then that option is there so it only takes a year and enough creative thinking to rejig it (and certainly I was told I could do that when I asked the RG Uni I considered, just realised am not built for the research career it was heading towards).

peachy - i respect your choices and reasoning behind them

again to use the example of our employee - she is not dim I like her a lot and she really helps her son with his choices BUT her son will be first generation ( at least for a while) to go to university ( higher education) and i just do not believe it is in the average parents' understanding of the system to know that there is a difference between de montford and leicester

I was first generation as well.

I knew about Oxford B etc, but I am the sort who spends weeks on the net before any dcision. In actuality I applied at the very last minute as I passed my Access a year early (first ever to do that apparently ) and didn't get to do as much research as I would normally, but it doesn't take that much time dos it?

DH's selection was simpler, only one here,Sheffield and Liverpool offered it- now if you think we live in S E Wales LOL..... so very easy! I was a bit uncomfortable about the Uni as I hadn't heard great things but the actual course is good- in its field. lecturers wellqualified and respected from the big institutions (BBC etc),chap who does lighting design for X Factor comesin to guest.... when I did the research it made moresense but then as you say, it is vocational so different.

I do often suggst people consider how far away they will be as a key point- Ex did maths at York and loved his parents being far away, studying at Ipswich (HND top up) really fellapart for my sister though as she hated leaving her boyfriend and everyone behind, and she ended up dropping out. Trying to think what else we used to advise the students- if you know who you want to work for ring them and ask which University best matches their recruitment needs (mainly for vocational again), or see if you can pullup a few ex students CV's on the net and find out where their career headed and if it was where you wanted to go.

Academically I could probably have handled Oxbridge at 18 but personally not at all- I didgo into vocational training and didnt cope with being away very well. I have always tried to see any student I mentor as a package of both potential and personality and work with that, better a degree at UWIC that they finish than six months at LSE.

Oxbridge isn't just grades anyway,m y cousin went with A*s, scholarships, DofE, grade 8 in 3 instruments.... no place. Good call IMO as I think he would have collapsed in that et up.he has a great place elsewhere (RG to do Chem), but his brother has the same grades and a place for medicine- he'll thrive.

The jackq posts are very interesting. Of course an Oxbridge degree will be better. Someone who gest a third at Oxbridge probably will do better than a first at Middlesex University, surely? It is so hard to get into Oxford they must be interesting and clever; fact they messed up their degree probably means they did other interesting things and just about any idiot can get into Mx.

We live on a planet where people are constantly compared. Some are prettier or thinner or nicer or more clever than others. it's how life is. Now you can con yourself that a woman of 20 stone or one with an IQ of 80 or who looks like the back end of a bus is the same as another but that's just pulling the wool over your eyes to the reality and there seems to be a lot of that about particluarly with these new mickey mouse qualifications.

That doesn't mean for many children (remember the average IQ is 100 and plenty are under it) their having some kind of qualification isn't a good thing though. One of my sons tonight thought his horn scales were good. I said they weren't. Children need to know what is wrong, what is bad work and to see red crosses not be told they are brilliant all the time. Of course you need a balance and I'm one of the last pushy mothers around and have some very laid back children but I hope they always know the consequences of the choices they make

Thinking about it more, I think Xenia does have a point. It's not that these qualifications are worthless, but it is true that some of them are worth less to employers.

I think we are being fooled and it is to do with this culture of relativism, where there are no absolutes, where everything is equal, where there is no better or worse and there are no standards. There are no winners and losers, everybody deserves a prize, everyone must be rewarded with a smiley face or a star. Tourism studies is as important as physics, dance is as important as mathematics and the University of East London is as important as Cambridge.

It all sounds great, but the problem is that the people in the independent schools like Eton and Harrow don't believe a word of it. They are keeping on track making sure that they get the best seats at the table. Even the Labour politicians, educated at Fettes and Oxbridge, don't believe a word of it. They are busy making sure their children end up in the top schools, while we send our children to the local comp down the road.

When we graduate, those of us who believed that everything had equal value are surprised to find that the employers didn't agree. We kick ourselves, curse and realise that we've been conned yet again.

eloquently put claig

I agree absolutely that bright children should be doing academic qualifications and going for their own seat at the top table, no matter what school they are in. But that is being used as a stick with which to beat vocational qualifications. And that I do not agree with. As I've said, I teach in a National Challenge school. I teach BTEC Science, but I don't teach it to anyone who had any chance at all of studying medicine, or indeed studying Sciences at A level. Those students do triple award Science. Even at our school . There may be school that put children in for inappropriate qualifications, and they deserve a kicking, but most don't. And a BTEC diploma is no more worthless than the two Es in GCSE Science that the child would have achieved had they been forced along the 'academic' route. In fact it has more worth IMO. But you would have to know something about the qualification to know that.

TheFallenMadonna, I'm not against vocational qualifications. I want the standards of these vocational exams raised so that nobody can mock them, and so that they gain equal value to the academic subjects. I don't think discussing Chaucer is tougher than building a performance car engine, I think it's a lot easier. Let's make sure that everybody knows how tough these vocational courses are so that nobody can sneer at them.
Let's increase standards all round, the academic subject standards are too low as well.

All I'm against is conning young people and telling them that it doesn't matter what course they do currently, if they pass the exam they'll get a job. We know that is a lie, we shouldn't lead anyone up the garden path.