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

[TheFallenMadonna]

I thought this thread was about 'worth' in the non-material sense though.

Actually, I have no idea where it's going now

[claig]

no it's going all over the place, difficult to keep track of it.
But the study in order to get jobs is sadly about material worth.

[TheFallenMadonna]

Not completely. I earn less than my cousin who left school after A levels, and I have several degrees and am in an all graduate profession. And my friend, a physicist who can do things that really very few people can, almost certainly a smaller proportion of the population than could become lawyers for example, earns about the same as me. Studying isn't all about the dosh.

But anyway, we're agreed that not everyone can do the academic study thing, even in these wider access to HE times, so it goes back to making sure people are well-trained for the jobs they can do, and which need doing.

[claig]

yes agree with you not everybody should be forced down an academic route. With pay it really comes down to how much you can contribute to the bottom line, which is why nurses, who do one of the most valuable jobs, are not highly paid.

[Wastwinsetandpearls]

It would make sense to pay people the least amount you can while still making the job attractive to those you wish to recruit. The moving finger of Adam Smith and all that.

I would imagine that careers like teaching and nursing attract people who are not motivated by money and they are such enjoyable jobs you do not need a big wage to attract people.

But then maybe I am biased, perhaps if I was the sort of person who would want to be a lawyer I also would not need a huge wage to attract me either.

Many of the "poorer" paid professions are associated with women historically. Having said that as a teacher I think I am paid well, others are just paid to much.

[Judy1234]

That's how capitalism works in the private sector. You pay as less as you can get away with to get that person in that job. So in some rural areas where cleaners are hard to find they get paid more than in areas like mine where there are loads of people looking for jobs like that. What I cannot see the point in is extending studuying for jobs which don't really need qualifications. By all means at 14 do 2 years of shorthand typing etc and indeed get a certificate in it so that at 16 you can get a job but there's no point really in doing A levels and then a degree so that at 21 you can become a secretary unless you want in effect 5 years "off" accruing debt. I always wanted to be in work as soon as possible rather than doing yet more exams.

[mumzy]

I think the real tragedy of dumbing down exams and having what use to be "mickey mouse" courses is that eventually the people coming out of university will be less knowledgable than they were a generation ago. Other countries who have not dumb down will then over take the UK as they will have better scientists, mathematicians, engineers, linguists and skilled labour. Maybe the lack of an strong manufacteuring base in the UK and our reliance on the financial industry is because we don't produce the kind of scientists, engineers in this country to provide the development & innovation needed and we lack the apprenticeships to give people the manual skills needed in manufacteuring industries.
We need to wake up to the fact that we need to have academic courses, vocational courses, high quality apprenticeships and each make a valuable contribution to our ecomony. We also need to stop pushing all children down the academic route as the only way forward

[claig]

mumzy, very well said

[claig]

LeQueen, there is an interesting comment that backs up what you are saying about modular degrees ,how they are leading to dumbing down and how this affects our competitiveness
talkback.zdnet.com/5208-9595-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=19940&messageID=384139

[gerontius]

But America has some of the best universities and the world and their degrees are all modular aren't they? Don't you do about four subjects at the same time?

[claig]

gerontius, I agree that America's top universities are fantastic. I like their standards in education, I am impressed with their system and you are right they do use a modular system. I don't know how good their lower level universities are. But what is interesting is that MIT, which is a fantastic place, got 8th place and was the only American university in the top ten in this computer programming competition.

If modular courses can be assured to be of a very high standard, then it may not be such a problem. But what was very interesting in the comment was that the poster had inside knowledge from lecturers that the courses had been dumbed down in order to enable paying students to be able to pass.

[qumquat]

I'm not sure why doing a pure susbject is neccessarily better than doing some modules from other subject. I'd have loved the opportunity to study a broader university course, US style. I would say that someone who was skilled in computer science and could speak German is better educated than one who had only studied computer science.

[claig]

qumquat, I guess it's the old specialisation versus generalisation argument, jack of all trades master of none etc.
To compete with other countries at the top level, it would probably be better to specialise. But I agree with you, the more rounded candidate would be the one who had the wider perspective.

[Judy1234]

I was delighted at 15 to give up all the O level subjects and just do 3 A levels. I would not have liked doing the IB and I think you can learn subjects younger rather than carry on far too much into adulthood when you should join real life instead. I could learn my latin and French by the time I was 15. I wouldn't need to carry on with all subjects to 18 or even into university years.

[lazymumofteenagesons]

The american system is very good for the undergraduate who has not yet decided which route they want to take. But it does lead to a system whereby to be properly qualified you need some sort of postgraduate qualification which is exactly what is now happening in the UK.

[NotAnOtter]

the whole 'sytem' of a levels and gcses is so so different
i am currently going through the process of both with two of my dcs who are at great state schools and both considered very bright

ds had his a2 modules last week and chemistry was three months worth of work in a one our 45 minute exam...

not the same - i feel it does not tax your brain in the same way our A levels did. for those that say it was just cramming in our day - at least you crammed two years worth in and had to then 'select' from that what was appropriate for the paper that you turned over that day

now the dcs barely digest the stuff - pops in the head for a couple of weeks then pops out again- less 'cramming' more 'snacking'

[claig]

NotAnOtter, agree 100%. I think it was changed for poltical reasons but I won't go there, too likely to start a heated debate

[Peachy]

My degree was only modular in the sense you chose which faiths to study- nobody could master them all after all. I may have chosen Buddhism over Jainism, but it was no less specialised in my field. We did have to do an induction choice of a second subject thinking about it- in year one- but I managed to do Psychology, and stick to the Psychology of religion and also autism,which actually was what got me an immediate yes fo rmy MA now (which is in autism). So actually worked in my favour IYSWIM. Sometimes it is about how well you play the game I think.

DH has no options on his degree, it is as it is. They can attend extra talks in specific fields such as architectural lighting but no options on main course.

Xenia that thing about being a Secretary only worked when every other person applying didn't also have a degree. You have to make yourself competitive for the market you face now,many undergrds, not the Xenia-ideal or one that existed twenty years ago.

[claig]

the point in doing 'A' levels and a degree is that it keeps your options open and gives you more choice of careers. You won't be restricted to becoming a secretary.

[Peachy]

But if you want to be one and everyone else has a degree then you still have to do it don't you? No point in being idealistic, tool yourself up and go for it with 100% effort I say. And then if, ten years down the line, you think 'shit this is crap' it's a damned sight easier to shift about- evening MA and you have a neat specialism/ new career, far easier for most than giving everything up to study for 3 years.

A great many people I know are now,as their kids are a bit older and not so dependent, thinking about what they want from their lives from hereon in. The ones with degrees are finding it far easier to switch about (friend going from Environmental Health to Forensics, BIL from trouble shooring (sick of the travelling aspect-a continent a week seems fun when you don't have a family to miss out- on to logistics management) than those who don't. Even my friend who has good A-Levels (maths, pure maths, biology, physics at A /B again inmid eighties) is struggling (her degree was aborted when her parents both became ill) and stuck in a job because she hates but she can't just pack it in and go off to University. Being a TA for the last 5 years suited her life needs, but had she had a degree in her armoury she'd have found it far easier to do the extra bit needed to use her real abillities now.

many years ago I was given a test by a Psych friend which supposedly analysed your position for education. At the time I was getting a rep as a serialPT student-an OU course here,maybe something completely random thre- allalongside my terrible job that paid the bills. The test was pop psych at its worst, but suggested I saw it all as as what they called 'they key'- something you could put away in adrawer and pull out when needed. Ten years later,when applying for Uni I realised that was exactly right- not only did I have awealth of info to draw upon but up to datestudy skills to boot. And OK so the make upartist bit was not a great help LOL,but that tomeexactly is the value of education- it buys you options and if you're a secretary now you may as well be a step ahead if you want a change somewhere down the line.

[claig]

peachy, agree entirely

[Judy1234]

Same with children, get them skilled at loads of things and may be some will be useful some time. I don't think I've used my A level German since I took it in 1979 but last week in Switzerland I could understand most of what I heard even though I haven't used it for decades. My daughter may be got her job because she show jumped and rode a lot as that was a common interest with whoever hired her. She worked in Antigua one summer because we'd got her taught how to sail. In other words expose children to a wide range of things (and they will often pick what you don't want them to - I'd rather they wanted to sing with me for example but they can cast off their grade 8 singing exams be very into a different hobby - their choice) but if they have had a broad education, not just crammed for exams then that gives them more choice too and makes them more interesting people.

I agree that a degree gives you more choices later. I don't think most people except for people like my siblings and me choose a career specific degree and stick with it for life (although both my parents also did that which is interesting), necessarily stay with one career for life so if you have lots of skills you will have more choices. Even just getting them to pass their driving test at 17 really helps older chidlren. I got them to take the driving theory test on their 17th birthday. I taught myself to touch type age 15 from a book from the library and that was one of the most useful skills I picked up. I didn't need a 2 year GCSE typing course of course as any idiot can type and library books are free but I'm the fastest typist I know and I then wrote 30 books and I'm not sure I would have done if I'd had to dictate them.

[Hellster]

My son is being forced to take media studies at GCSE, with English Lit being relegated to an optional choice. I am FURIOUS. He can choose to take English Lit, but at the expense of another subject he wants to do. I am arguing the point with his school (local comp) but fear I will lose the battle. They insist it's not a soft option and isn't anything to do with improving their standing in the league tables.(yeah right!)