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

Actually I was brought up where the trad route was seen as the only way and having my own child in a state comprhensive with so much choice has really educated me on a whole different system and I have been very impressed.esp with the wide range of subjects on offer and without the assumption that its uni or the scrapheap which was very much the message at my old school!

Okay then, if the BTec is a perfectly acceptable qualification and really on a par with four GCSEs (eg Chemistry, Biology, Physics not Tourism, Healthcare etc etc), then the universities should be accepting it and not preferring students who have, for example, three separate science GCSEs.

What is so wrong is that there is a possibility that universities aren't accepting it, and some students are being encouraged to take it not realising that it won't, in reality, be accepted should they want to apply to a highly academic/scientfic course when they are older.

While state schools continue to peddle this nonsense that they are equal to four GCSEs or whatever, the huge gap between the private and state sector is going to get bigger and those already highly advantaged children are going to be even more advantaged when applying to university. If anyone wants to really close the gap, they should make examinations/courses harder and then only the truly intelligent(in both the state and private sector) would get top marks, not just the ones whose parents can afford to pay. The vast majority wouldn't achieve the top grades and then the standard of education for that group would have to be the top priority.

Psychology A Level has served me well,esp. the stats component as it meant I was able to helptutor other students ion research stats when they were struggling in Uni lab. Pretty impressivefor someone with dyscalculia in fact- had I gone striaght in for it at 18 I wouldn't have ahd a chnce, stepped was good.

Anda lot of it was science: physiology etc. There is lightweight Psych out there no doubt but it doens't have to be that.

DS1 wants to be a theatrical makeup artist. I get the value of absequalifications andbeing able toconvert them into choices, but there is no point in him taking subjects he willfail badly at (judging by amount of TA help he gets) when he could positively excel at otherswith all the resultant boost in self esteem. Of course there has to be provision for the most academically able and that should be done in an informedway,but by definiotn of the most able, most won't fall into that group and areas entitled to arange of options other than crap grades in subjects they have no ability at or intention of using ever again.

DS1 wants out of school already, at ten. If him passing on to vocationals ubjects enables him tomaintain an interest in education and getting a qual,then big up that.

My youngest brother did a btec went to uni didn't seem to limit his choices will have to ask him.

But LL,many students doing a BTEC passdirectly intowork,and at that satge can show some direct workrelevant knowledge. Not all kids will go to Uni.

And not all will go to Uni at 18 either: DH's BTEC + life skills allowed him to jump over the heads of a few A-levelled up 8 year olds.not on a law degree of course, he'd hate that- a practical technology one.And funnily enough he is doing very well.

People are not flow charts:there is no takethis arrow then follow that route. Life is cobbled together from bits of skills,qualifications and chance. There are some people who will do a MPhil at Oxbridge forwhom there probably is only one shot, but also there is the rest of us who do it differently. I am certain doing my degree later suited me much better, and my kids will be raised knowing that there are (almost)always options.

18 I know they say degrees are being dumbed down but amnot aware its all fart jokes and toilet humour yet!

is it 1984 again? When I was choosing my O'Levels the "advice" given to me by school (an all girls with quotas to fill no doubt) and indeed by my parents (working class with middle class aspirations) was to take "solid" subjects particularly science. Hated science, crap at science and hence did very badly in science come exam time (I blame you Thatch)

I still managed to get to universtiy eventually as I did ok in my core subjects (english lang and lit, maths and a language was compulsory - and quite right too) and went back to college to do a couple more A Levels in subjects that I wanted to do (and went on to do one of them at uni) and consequently excelled at.

My point is not everyone's cut out to follow the same "solid" path in life.

When I said only taking 3 or 4 subjects at A' Level I was comparing this to the 9 or 10 subjects that students take at GCSE, not implying that students should take more.

I took GCSEs in 1989, when they had only been introduced for one year. We were only allowed to take 8 subjects, which was appropriate for O' Level study, but was actually very easy at GCSE. Now most students seem to take 9 or 10.

I would be interested to know how indie schools structure their GCSE's. Surely when students get 10 or 12 GCSE's, they cannot all be in Mandarin, Physics and Latin. I am quite sure that they allow their students to take at least one fun subject, even if it is art or IT rather than media studies or sociology.

peachy ds1 sounds like he ROCKS!

NAO he wants to be Gok LOL, I strongly suspect he will be . H ecertainly has the looks- skinny,blonde mop of curls, blue eyes..... I atkehim out as my style advisor already, far more useful to me than sixty seven aA grades in gard science

I completely agree that different qualifications are right for different people!!

What I am objecting to is some students being wrongly advised that their qualifications are equal to others when they are not. I am sure the Btech does get some students on to some courses and I am sure it is a very worthwhile course for some students. I am perfectly aware that many students don't want to go to university and indeed many shouldn't be going. They should be going straight into employment where they would be far happier, but there aren't enough jobs, are there?

However, if anyone wants to stop the stranglehold the private sector has on the top places at top universities then students need to be told the truth about what is really acceptable and what isn't. At the moment some students are ruling themselves out of a place through no fault of their own.

Actually I dont think they should go straight into employment either- training yes, 'be skilled at whatever you do, whether fixing the Queen or fixing the loo' (as my Dad never said)

I did agree much further down that I think Xenia is right for the most able.

Loungelizard I dont disagree that some students are given the wrong advice about qualifications. the private sector (often) has better resources and often (not always) attracts the best teachers. You can only address the strangehold of the private sector by starting at the bottom. Improve the standard of education from the bottom up and there will be more competition and it will be harder to find 'excuses' such as btec to discriminate against those not fortunate enough to go to the right school. The state system is ofen 1 teacher divided by 30 children - you can really call that the state providing the bare minimum. ( depending on your school it probably isnt even that)

I'm afraid it's also a bit naive to believe that employers don't look at qualifications, and make judgements about their value. This is as much to do with grade inflation as it is with choice of subject.

Hiring managers want to be given a short list of candidates who will be right for the job - there are actually very few jobs where qualifications translate directly into ability to perform a specific role (I am not talking about any job where you need specific training & knowledge to carry out that job), so people will make assumptions about what a CV says about a candidate & their ability to perform.

So, managers set about applying criteria for what they believe is needed, and something that is quite common is looking for ''good academics''.

IME, these managers will of course be placing their own filter on what constitutes ''good academics'' but it is surely not wholly surprising that people will infer that A grades in 'traditional' subjects and/or a course at a university that is well-known means they have a candidate who can apply themselves to something difficult/can learn & retain information/can be successful.

Managers may well be looking at a large number of CVs/job applications - in the same way that universitities are bombarded by applications - and mentally rank what they are looking at.

Qualifications/place of study/subjects studied, ie ''academics'', becomes shorthand for a set of qualities and skills that managers believe to be present - probably based on their own academic experience.

I am not saying it's right - but as Loungelizard has said several times - if you don't know how these things could be interpreted by someone else, you are on the back foot. You need to make informed choices, and be prepared to make your case for why you made those choices.

But the problem is the politicising of the education system. My sil, a secondary school teacher in a comprehensive school, was told that they must not give advice on options whereby they promoted one subject's worth over another. She said she ignored this and steamed in to stop a bright girl who had an expressed an interest in being a doctor taking Health and Social Care A Level.

Likewise ds's friend's sister told me she was taking A Level Law. I stuck my oar in and phoned her father and said (tactfully!) this was a mistake. He was most grateful that I had interfered - the parents come from India and are not familiar themselves with the ins and outs of the British education system but are super keen to see their bright offspring do well.

evilHRlady The cv 'selection' process is a whole other can of worms. If you have 400 applicant with Identical a level subjects and grades how do you differentiate which 50 would would like to offer a place to?

a lot of the conversation has been structured around getting the top jobs after coming out of a top uni.

well - thats just not how the world works for most people.

dh went to a RG uni - he didn' even know it was a RG uni or that there was a UNI hierarchy ( beyond ex-poly's are shit )

he has a distinctly average job.

i went to an ex poly - i have always had a better work history than dh.

i agree with the sentiment that education doesn't stop if you blow it at age 15/16. i did my degree aged 21 with three kids under 5 years old.

i do think GCSE's are important though, and that with good GCSE grades - one can get a good career history and easily be at the same level or higher - than somone who has done a degree.

OES - that's kind of my point - there are lots of subjective judgements being made all the time. I was really responding to an earlier post that said employers don't care about qualifications/subjects. IME/O - they do.

Gramercy is right and that's my fear. ALthough even a father in india can go on google and search - "is A level law a good a level to take if you want to study law at university" but the schools should be making that clear too.

"I would be interested to know how indie schools structure their GCSE's. Surely when students get 10 or 12 GCSE's, they cannot all be in Mandarin, Physics and Latin."
I think they do fewer than state grammars - there isn't this rush to have a large number. That leaves time for all your hobbies, DoE awards, time just to rest, sleep (teenagers need lots of sleep), go with your school choir to the choir of the year competition, play lacrosse in the US or whatever.

My 3 older children who have been through that system did about 9 or 10 may be? They all did

1. English lit
2. English lang
3. A language - 2 French, one German - all not good at languages though so dropped latin and dropped either French or German.

Maths 4/5. Two or three sciences

1. or 7 Geography or history or both - the one who dropped history regrets it.

8 two did classical civilisation which you do if you give up latin and isn't a particularly hard GCSE so that's an easier option.

1. They all did music I think because one had a music scholarships and all got 2 or 3 Associated grade 8s on various instruments and sing very well, but that again is an easier option hobby one really.

May one did RE, can't remember.
I never once looked at a single piece of GCSE course work though so I might be forgetting their subjects or less involved than some parents are.

One might have done an IT subject too as an extra.

In 1977 I did English lit, lang, maths, French, German, Geography, History, double science and then later music.

I think it's ludicrous to be told not to promote the worth of one subject over another. It's like a communist state saying dustbin men are as clever as brain surgeons. It's like Animal Farm all over again. the reality is every employer in the land discriminates against mickey mouse subjects so why lull children into a false sense of assurance that their 10 GCSEs in rubbish subjects have some worth?

3 under 5? pah you lightweight Custy,I had 3 under 8 and a newborn (5weeks at finals iirc) on my breast whilst typing dissertation

Seriously though I agreewith you,its not how lifeworks in the real world for most people.

A goodsolid education is important whatever you do and good GCSE'sareas usefulto apainter as a GP albeit in different ways. And situations such as grammercy gave are just silly,nothing is to be gained by that nonsense. It'sjust a shame if that develops into removing options for the less academically viable kids. Keep the btec and the x factor studies,but be honest what it is and whom it suits.

Xenia,
I agree with you that good schools are vital, and high standards are very important.
But I think that "soft" subjects can also be taught to a high standard, in which case universities would no longer find them unacceptable. I wish I had had the chance to study philosophy at school. This is probably classed as a "soft" subject, but there is nothing soft about it if taught to a high standard. It is one of the highest forms of thought that mankind is capable of. The extra choice of subjects that schools now offer is great, but they must be of a high standard.

I agree with you that many private schools are very good, otherwise parents would not fork out the cash to pay for them. But there are many great state schools too, and many state school pupils will be far brighter than the pupils in private schools, who were lucky enough to have parents who could afford the fees.

Where I think I disagree with you is on the "survival of the fittest" type viewpoint. You have been very successful, but I doubt it is due to you being the "fittest". Your hard work and skills have been the major factor, but Lady Luck also helped you and fortune smiled on you.
There will be many people "fitter" than you, who have not been as successful.

"There is an argument that once you've given equal opportunities then after a time those at the bottom are those rightly there and that social mobility will therefore ease off correctly but I doubt we are at that point."
I think in general you see it as those at the top deserve to be where they are through their intrinsic qualities of fitness, and those at the bottom end up where they are due to their lack of fitness.

The problem with this view is that it fails to take into account that those at the bottom are not on a level playing field, they do not get the same equality of opportunity, they do not receive the same level of input. They are not lucky enough to go to the best schools and therefore their innate ability may possibly never be developed to the same extent as the more fortunate children at the top.

We know that many members of the royal family are not the sharpest pencils in the drawer. Even with all the best tutoring available, their grades were not too good. Many poor children on sink estates would have far surpassed them, if they had had access to the same quality of tuition that the royals had. There is huge ability and potential in the children at the bottom, but it may never be tapped if the quality of education that they receive is not good. Hardly any of the child prodigies that we read about in the papers, the majority of them home-schooled by their parents, come from the top of society.

When I was doing my degree, I used to offer personal maths tuition. One little fellow I used to teach was up for an 'E' grade. He proudly told me how he started to raise his hand in class and answer questions. The teacher used to say to him "what's happened to you, are you feeling well?". He never let on that he was having lessons, but was chuffed to show how good he was. He phoned me to tell me that he got a 'C' grade in the exam. I was slightly disappointed because I knew without a doubt that he could have got an 'A' if he had had a longer time with me. There was also an ex-pat family that had returned to the UK and the son wanted to get an apprenticeship at an engineering company. Unfortunately he had failed the maths test, but the company did allow him to try the exam again. I went to their house and gave him 7 or 8 lessons, based on the concepts covered in the exam. He phoned me up to tell me that he had got 100% on the exam. Without lessons, he would never have passed the exam and never have got the job. All of these children are very capable, they just need good tuition.

As Edison said "genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration", and often the poor children at the bottom work harder than the children at the top, who may rest on their laurels.

'There is an argument that once you've given equal opportunities then after a time those at the bottom are those rightly there and that social mobility will therefore ease off correctly but I doubt we are at that point."

In fairness,Xenia has always be very understanding of the limitations palced upon me by my carer duties and never impoied that I deserve my low income 'bottom' fate through any intrinsic inability.

Obviosuly you don't know that but I though fair to point out.

I think that this is a bit of a non-debate because most schools (Comprehensive schools and others) insist that children do:

maths
english
science (Single science for the strugglers, double science for the midde lot and separate sciences for the brightest)
a modern language
a humanity (geography, history or RE)
CDT (what used to be cookery and wookworking a long time ago)

This only leaves space for one other options and I can't see whether it matters what you take at this point; let personal interest dominate.

Infact, I'm not sure that the National Curriculum allows you not to do the core subjects.

And, as for steering children down soft subjects; a comprehensive would never let the bright children drop the key subjects in favour of anything else.

I can say that - as a sciency type - I had to put far more work into my Music GCSE than any of the science/maths stuff. We had to compose tons of music and it was utterly time consuming. I can't see how music was a soft option.

That is true Custardo about the world not revolving around top jobs from top unis.

BUT with so many more people being encouraged to go to university, it has a knock on effect for our children.

When I was at school (I am 50) the vast majority didn't go to top universities. Only the top few percent did. At my grammar school, many left after the 5th form and went into employment. Only a handful gained 3 As at A level.

Now, with everyone being encouraged to go, it does matter that parents and students are properly informed. They are led to believe that all degrees are equal, all universities are equal. They are not. The private and grammar schools are aware of this and advise accordingly. Why can't other schools do that as well?

It works both ways, it is as unfair to encourage students who aren't academic enough to aim for top courses as well as not advising children to reach their potential.

I absolutely agree that all students these days should be given the opportunity to apply and there should not be the mentality of 'its not for the likes of us' etc, but there is a two tier system going on these days and it is absolutely not to the benefit of bright children from poor backgrounds who are not party to the ins and outs of what is and what is not acceptable.

Why can't the education sector just be honest and give proper informed advice about the ins and outs of taking various GCSEs and courses. Many may still choose to take the so called soft subjects which is absolutely fine. Many may need to take those subjects for the career they want but at least they will be making an informed choice.