Well, come on, you explain how 90% can get A passes.... It cant possibly just be down to "oh, we've just gotten better at passing exams" like it's some kind of genetic hardwiring.... I mean, if your generation is so good at passing exams, how come so many are going back to do re-sit exams at uni every year...? I simply cannot see how it can be anything other than a general dumbing-down in education standards... Academic standards are a lot tougher in other parts of the world...

 

The problem with school education these days is that it seems to me that it's way too focussed on just passing exams and not really teaching you to think through the subject... At uni, you have to employ a lot more lateral thinking and you don't get spoon-fed by the lecturers....

 

Uni is probably a different matter, I wouldn't know myself yet. And yes, it is too focussed on passing exams but surely that explains why we've gotten so much better at it? You answered your own question there.

 

Where is this 90% from? If you think 90% are getting AAA, you're beyond deluded. I doubt that 90% even get one A tbh, it may end up being close in my school but I highly doubt it's the average around the country.

The thing is Oxbridge and Snob Andrews will always pick the rich over the poor as they can get more money out of them. The 3 hardest schools to get into St Andrews University are Madras College [st Andrews], Bell Baxter High School [Cupar] and Wade Academy [Anstruther]. The later two of those are within 20mins and the maximum catchment area is still commutable.

 

I got AAAAB and would have a hard time getting in to St Andrews.

It's morally wrong that students from wealthy backgrounds are favoured over students from working class backgrounds too, but Oxford seems to have no problems doing this... I dont even know what AAA is mate, is that Australia/New Zealand qualifications...? Over here it's A or A* for A-Levels.... And A-levels are so ridiculously easy these days anyway that you can pretty much get an A pass without really breaking into a sweat.... In fact, the English education system so ill-prepares students for university standards generally that the drop-out rates and amount of people who rely upon re-sits is pretty shocking.... I agree that education standards have to be the ONLY criteria for uni entry, but seeing as how getting 9 A* passes at A-Level is so p***-easy anyway, then something has to be done about that first of all, school standards seriously need to be beefed-up, school exams need to be a lot tougher, IMO. Put it this way, when I was at school in Scotland doing my highers, my marks were all Bs and Cs, and those were considered above average grades... So, things were clearly a lot tougher at one point...

Bs and Cs would be considered above average grades at my sixth form too, in 2011. There is no denying that pass rates have gone up though, I do think that one reason for this is that getting into University has become increasingly competitive.

 

The problem is though, when you have about 90% of students overall achieving A passes at A-levels how the hell does a university use that as a barmometer for academic excellence... Answer, it cant... I hear EU students complain all the time that they're being held back because most English students have to catch up to the proper level of academic quality, the first year at uni doesn't count in terms of marks, which is pretty ridiculous IMO....

 

Personally, I dont think it does any good to mollycoddle kids and tell them that they're achieving a level that in reality they're not, a hell of a lot of school-leavers who enter into uni get a massive culture shock when they go into uni because the academic standards are so much higher in terms of expectations and workload.. Clearly, the school system is not preparing them for this.....

Just where did you get this statistic from?! It may be difficult for a university to distinguish from candidates in terms of grades, but that's only mainly because a course with entrance requirements of say, AAB, will generally have applications from students predicted mostly AAA, AAB or ABB. So of course they're going to have difficulties, it's not that everyone's bunched up at the top end of scale, it's just that there are hundreds of thousands of sixth formers graduating each year, and thousands of those get the top grades.

 

Well, come on, you explain how 90% can get A passes.... It cant possibly just be down to "oh, we've just gotten better at passing exams" like it's some kind of genetic hardwiring.... I mean, if your generation is so good at passing exams, how come so many are going back to do re-sit exams at uni every year...? I simply cannot see how it can be anything other than a general dumbing-down in education standards... Academic standards are a lot tougher in other parts of the world...

 

The problem with school education these days is that it seems to me that it's way too focussed on just passing exams and not really teaching you to think through the subject... At uni, you have to employ a lot more lateral thinking and you don't get spoon-fed by the lecturers....

I've looked at other 'education standards' elsewhere in the world, and I can honestly say that A Level exams seem to be far more analytical, problem based and thinking-out-of-the-box than most others, perhaps only behind IB. I do think that requires a little less revision, but A Levelers certainly wouldn't conduct their exams on auto-pilot. It would be generalising to say that APs in America would be based purely on trivia and remembering facts, but it's certainly a lot more inclined that way, which doesn't seem to test intelligence so much to me. I believe it's similar across much of Asia-Pacific.

Well, come on, you explain how 90% can get A passes.... It cant possibly just be down to "oh, we've just gotten better at passing exams" like it's some kind of genetic hardwiring.... I mean, if your generation is so good at passing exams, how come so many are going back to do re-sit exams at uni every year...? I simply cannot see how it can be anything other than a general dumbing-down in education standards... Academic standards are a lot tougher in other parts of the world...

 

The problem with school education these days is that it seems to me that it's way too focussed on just passing exams and not really teaching you to think through the subject... At uni, you have to employ a lot more lateral thinking and you don't get spoon-fed by the lecturers....

Where on earth is this 90% statistic coming from? It's certainly not that high - and you certainly have to work hard for all As. Getting 9 A*s at GCSE certainly isn't piss easy either...

What I would do if I was in charge of further education.

 

1) Raise the entry barriers significantly to get into uni, no one would get in to uni unless they have AAA or AAB or in exceptional cases ABB at A level. Uni should be for the most academically gifted only.

 

2) Axe vast numbers of soft courses

 

3) Taxpayer funded tuition and accomodation fees for people studying science, medicine, engineering, languages, nursing, business management and other courses that are important to society and business.

Edited March 24, 201114 yr by Valley Pub

Why would you do 1)? An OECD report even said that if we want to be internationally competitive we ought to aim for 50% minimum going to university, and we're far below that. And why should it matter how you do in other subjects if you're a specialist?

Why would you do 1)? An OECD report even said that if we want to be internationally competitive we ought to aim for 50% minimum going to university, and we're far below that. And why should it matter how you do in other subjects if you're a specialist?

 

How are people going to university studying history of art, sociology, media studies to name but a few going to help Britain be internationally competitive ? languages, finance, business, medicine, science, engineering, economics those would make the UK more competitive but how is a history of art degree going to help the UK prosper ?

 

Those that do the softer courses that are of little value to most employers are the ones least likely to end up earning much over £21k so the investment in them has been largely wasted as it is their loans that will never be fully paid back in many cases.

 

I would rather see the academically elite 10% of young people go to university and studying courses that will help the nation prosper than see 50% go to university for the sake of it.

How are people going to university studying history of art, sociology, media studies to name but a few going to help Britain be internationally competitive ? languages, finance, business, medicine, science, engineering, economics those would make the UK more competitive but how is a history of art degree going to help the UK prosper ?

 

Those that do the softer courses that are of little value to most employers are the ones least likely to end up earning much over £21k so the investment in them has been largely wasted as it is their loans that will never be fully paid back in many cases.

 

I would rather see the academically elite 10% of young people go to university and studying courses that will help the nation prosper than see 50% go to university for the sake of it.

Sociology and media studies are both incredibly useful in aiding Britain's competitiveness - a lot of media studies graduates end up going on to, wait for it, work in the media, and sociology is useful for jobs such as social care and things like that - not necessarily directly aiding our competitiveness, but social workers are useful in cases of child development etc. which obviously helps our competitiveness in the long run.

 

YOU would rather see the academically elite 10% go to university, but experts who know far more about these things than you have advised 50% attendance for improving our competitiveness. You can parrot all you like about 'softer courses', but the fact is that the vast majority of students going to university don't do these softer courses.

Sociology and media studies are both incredibly useful in aiding Britain's competitiveness - a lot of media studies graduates end up going on to, wait for it, work in the media, and sociology is useful for jobs such as social care and things like that - not necessarily directly aiding our competitiveness, but social workers are useful in cases of child development etc. which obviously helps our competitiveness in the long run.

 

YOU would rather see the academically elite 10% go to university, but experts who know far more about these things than you have advised 50% attendance for improving our competitiveness. You can parrot all you like about 'softer courses', but the fact is that the vast majority of students going to university don't do these softer courses.

 

What percentage of media studies graduates are likely to end up in a job in the media be it print or broadcast after graduating ? a very small percentage I would say, it is an industry where contacts and nepotism are the dominant factor, unless you know someone who works for the BBC or a record company or News International for example you are almost wasting your time trying for a career in the industry whereas if you study medicine or aerodynamic engineering you are almost 100% certain of a job in your chosen field.

 

While I am not looking down at anyone who does media studies or sociology a lot of people seem to sign up to those type of courses because they just want to go to uni as opposed to given much thought to their post uni career prospects.

What percentage of media studies graduates are likely to end up in a job in the media be it print or broadcast after graduating ? a very small percentage I would say, it is an industry where contacts and nepotism are the dominant factor, unless you know someone who works for the BBC or a record company or News International for example you are almost wasting your time trying for a career in the industry whereas if you study medicine or aerodynamic engineering you are almost 100% certain of a job in your chosen field.

 

While I am not looking down at anyone who does media studies or sociology a lot of people seem to sign up to those type of courses because they just want to go to uni as opposed to given much thought to their post uni career prospects.

What are you basing this assumption of percentages of people who get in on other than a random guess? I know a fair few media studies graduates who made it into the media, and funnily enough the degree helps you to get those contacts - which you need for pretty much anything these days.

What are you basing this assumption of percentages of people who get in on other than a random guess? I know a fair few media studies graduates who made it into the media, and funnily enough the degree helps you to get those contacts - which you need for pretty much anything these days.

 

I have a sort of friend who gained a media studies degree and even for the most junior positions in the media she was being overlooked in favour of family and friends of people already in the industry, she now works as a supervisor for Boots and gains a modest income out of a blog she writes.

 

She is admittedly the only person I based the previous post on but from her experiences I can well believe she is not alone.

 

Whereas another friend of mine is a student nurse and upon graduation she is assured of a job at the hospital she has been training in.

Students who study so-called "soft subjects" are still demonstrating skills which will be useful in the work place. They are showing an ability to study a subject and absorb relevant information and are demonstrating an understanding of their subject.

 

When I was at university in the late 70s / early 80s, much was made of the Robbins principle that anyone capable of benefitting from a university education should have the opportunity to do so. That remains the case today.

 

A lot of employers insist on people having a degree. While that may in some cases be partly due to them wanting to take people on at 21 rather than 18, they still value the qualifications and experience gained at university.

Students who study so-called "soft subjects" are still demonstrating skills which will be useful in the work place. They are showing an ability to study a subject and absorb relevant information and are demonstrating an understanding of their subject.

 

When I was at university in the late 70s / early 80s, much was made of the Robbins principle that anyone capable of benefitting from a university education should have the opportunity to do so. That remains the case today.

 

A lot of employers insist on people having a degree. While that may in some cases be partly due to them wanting to take people on at 21 rather than 18, they still value the qualifications and experience gained at university.

 

With so many applicants going for each vacancy these days there are degrees and there are degrees so those with degrees in the most respected subjects will have the advantage over graduates in other subjects.

 

Simply having a degree does not hold the influence it did in my day

I can't help but think that you're disregarding the fact that a lot of these 'softer' courses give people skills that are massively more relevant in the workplace than anything you learn in school...

What percentage of media studies graduates are likely to end up in a job in the media be it print or broadcast after graduating ? a very small percentage I would say, it is an industry where contacts and nepotism are the dominant factor, unless you know someone who works for the BBC or a record company or News International for example you are almost wasting your time trying for a career in the industry whereas if you study medicine or aerodynamic engineering you are almost 100% certain of a job in your chosen field.

 

While I am not looking down at anyone who does media studies or sociology a lot of people seem to sign up to those type of courses because they just want to go to uni as opposed to given much thought to their post uni career prospects.

Your argument fails.

 

I'm doing an Accounting Degree, which would be safe under your plans, and contacts are just as vital to get into a job in the financial sector. I'm losing out on opportunities to work for companies because the prick who went to St Andrews to waste four years doing one of their vast number of completely pointless and irrelevant degrees got jobs in my sector because daddy got them in.

 

Nobody is 100% guaranteed a job in their chosen field and the connected rich will always prosper over the unconnected poor. It's nothing we can change, as we're always going to have the elite who will just go to uni for four years, study $h!te so they have a bit of paper that says they have a degree and go into a cushy city job that daddy has lined up with one of his Golf buddies.

 

I went to Alliance Trust with my uni last week and one of their graduates from last year did f***ing Geography at St Andrews. Had we been competing for that job i'd have lost out despite being more qualified for the position.

I can't help but think that you're disregarding the fact that a lot of these 'softer' courses give people skills that are massively more relevant in the workplace than anything you learn in school...

 

I don't disagree in principle but with so much competition for jobs these days, probably more so than ever, if 2 CV's land on the desk of an employer one of them is a 2:1 in history of art and the other one is a 2:1 in physics it is a no brainer who is going to get the employer's attention.

 

The chap doing history of art is no doubt very intelligent and good at absorbing information but the degree would not be attractive to an employer when so many cv's are arriving on his desk from graduates with degrees in non 'soft' subjects.

Your argument fails.

 

I'm doing an Accounting Degree, which would be safe under your plans, and contacts are just as vital to get into a job in the financial sector. I'm losing out on opportunities to work for companies because the prick who went to St Andrews to waste four years doing one of their vast number of completely pointless and irrelevant degrees got jobs in my sector because daddy got them in.

 

Nobody is 100% guaranteed a job in their chosen field and the connected rich will always prosper over the unconnected poor. It's nothing we can change, as we're always going to have the elite who will just go to uni for four years, study $h!te so they have a bit of paper that says they have a degree and go into a cushy city job that daddy has lined up with one of his Golf buddies.

 

I went to Alliance Trust with my uni last week and one of their graduates from last year did f***ing Geography at St Andrews. Had we been competing for that job i'd have lost out despite being more qualified for the position.

 

Yeah I can see totally where you are coming from there, reminds me of the auction for internships recently to raise funds for the tory party, internships with 27 firms were auctioned off to well connected party donors with the internships not advertised to outside parties, it was snobbery of the highest order <_<

I don't disagree in principle but with so much competition for jobs these days, probably more so than ever, if 2 CV's land on the desk of an employer one of them is a 2:1 in history of art and the other one is a 2:1 in physics it is a no brainer who is going to get the employer's attention.

 

The chap doing history of art is no doubt very intelligent and good at absorbing information but the degree would not be attractive to an employer when so many cv's are arriving on his desk from graduates with degrees in non 'soft' subjects.

Doesn't that rather depend on what the job is?

Doesn't that rather depend on what the job is?

 

Yes I mean if it was a job for an art gallery for example the history of art student would have the advantage and if it was a job shelf stacking at Tesco's I would think it would be a level playing field but there is no doubt that in business some subjects have much more prestige than others.

How are people going to university studying history of art, sociology, media studies to name but a few going to help Britain be internationally competitive ? languages, finance, business, medicine, science, engineering, economics those would make the UK more competitive but how is a history of art degree going to help the UK prosper ?

 

How about, some wanting to do a "soft course" wanting to do it simply because they enjoy it? People doing things like sociology are going to be paying for their entire degree themselves before long anyway thanks to the government, so how can you possibly complain?

 

Would Political Economy escape your cull out of interest? :)