A Levels aren't getting easier, but it is far more important now to have a degree to get a 'decent' job - therefore there is more pressure to get A Levels. I don't see why it should automatically be assumed (as much of the UK press assumes) that exams are bad if no-one fails. They prove that you can assess evidence and structure an argument with some amount of logic - it's good if everyone can do that to A Level standard 🙂
Not so sure about the degree admission - many courses (e.g. golf course management, leisure and tourism, yo-yo manipulation) are more vocational than academic. It's just when we used to have them as non-degreee courses, they were taken even less seriously.
BTW, do we still have YTS in the UK, or is that just for footballers? Theya re the only group of people I ever see mentioned in connection with the scheme.
just a quick view, but what is the point of 50% of the population delaying working ofr 4 more years when the degree they get out of it is usually worthless because they'll never use it. I graduated in chemnistry, I work at a chemical plant as chemical advisor but I only need to have a degree for 10% of my work. What does a guy who did film studies have to offer if he doesn't go into film? I'm employing right now & I would rather see someone with 4 years work experience where they have proved themselve that someone with a degree of no relevence.
Originally posted by belgianfreakI think this is a very important part. What is the point of educating passed your need? As far as I am concerned no education is a waste of time, whatever the subject matter.
just a quick view, but what is the point of 50% of the population delaying working ofr 4 more years when the degree they get out of it is usually worthless because they'll never use it. I graduated in chemnistry, I work at a chemical plant as chemical advisor but I only need to have a degree for 10% of my work. What does a guy who did film studies have ...[text shortened]... ars work experience where they have proved themselve that someone with a degree of no relevence.
However why get educated? If it is simply for employment purposes than certainly nothing like 50% need to go - there are already a large proportion of graduates who one year after graduating are in jobs which require no degree.
There is a major shortage of skilled workers many who "waste" their time on "meaningless" degrees might well have done better studying plumbing for example.
But then do you equate worth/success with earning power? Many extremely intelligent and well educated scientists earn a pittance in research - what is their worth to the country?
I peronally am not sure - I do not think so many people need to go to university I think it would be better for the country if they were earning from a younger age and probably better for most of them as well - after all student debt is increasing.
As for 'A' Levels - I have not seen a paper since I did mine in '89 so I have no idea but if they are not getting easier then they must be made harder to differentiate the very good from the good - as currently it is unfair on the very good. Please note I was never in the very good or good catergories😵. But the best universities must have the best students who can use each other to learn.
Sorry if this was all a bit garbled getting late!
Mat
Originally posted by ivangriceI'm not qualified to talk about maths, and have never even looked at an A level science paper, but think i am reasonably qualified to talk about history, english literature, politics and modern languages. I haven't seen a deterioration in the paper standards in these subjects.
Yes, they are. Analyse the scope and extent of papers set for subjects like Maths, and one very quickly sees the objective standard fall over the last 20 years.
Originally posted by Mat Kelley
The British government are trying to get 50% of the population to go to university. Is this a good thing?
There is an argument to aid in this 'A' levels are getting easier is this true?
Are they also creating the necessary jobs that have to go with it in order to give all these highly educated people a decent income ?
Originally posted by Mat KelleyA target like that can be good to measure progress in education against. But not as a goal in itself. If no other changes take place, it would simply mean a degradation of the universities.
The British government are trying to get 50% of the population to go to university. Is this a good thing?
There is an argument to aid in this 'A' levels are getting easier is this true?
Originally posted by OsseA study conducted at Coventry University showed that a paper that failed Maths in 1989 would get a 'B' if marked in 2004. It's apparently a similar story in all the 'hard' sciences.
I'm not qualified to talk about maths, and have never even looked at an A level science paper, but think i am reasonably qualified to talk about history, english literature, politics and modern languages. I haven't seen a deterioration in the paper standards in these subjects.
In non-Science subjects, many examiners have become disillusioned in the marking scheme, as they are obliged to give high grades for scripts that barely make grammatical sense.
Top universities in the UK are having to run more and more remedial courses for first-year undergraduates, in order to get them to a level where they can begin their university studies.
A levels are now modularised (throughout the two years), and candidates can retake failed modules up to four times.
I'd suggest that standards have deteriorated.
Originally posted by belgianfreakIt's not just that we have too many students, but the distribution of subjects studied is all wrong. Examples of insufficient and excessive popularity of subjects:
just a quick view, but what is the point of 50% of the population delaying working ofr 4 more years when the degree they get out of it is usually worthless because they'll never use it. I graduated in chemnistry, I work at a chemical plant as chemical advisor but I only need to have a degree for 10% of my work. What does a guy who did film studies have ...[text shortened]... ars work experience where they have proved themselve that someone with a degree of no relevence.
Maths - Maths is used in many areas, such as science and financial services (albeit not much of the pure stuff, but the skills involved in proof, which isn't really taught at A-level, are still invaluable), and of course if you're going to teach it, it helps to know more than is strictly required for whatever exams you're preparing people for. However, if we insisted that maths teachers have a degree in it, we would need half our maths graduates to go into teaching maths at school, just to sustain the current level of maths education. In fact, the disparity between supply of maths graduates and demand is so severe that the government has contemplated paying certain maths teachers up to 60k a year! And it's getting worse: IIRC, Maths is one of the few subjects for which applicant numbers are declining.
Forensic science (FS) - In the UK, there are now more university courses (never mind students!) for FS than the number of forensic scientists employed annually. There's one little snag - a FS degree is virtually useless if you want to become a forensic scientist, and you're much better off doing chemistry (you need to learn the basic skills at uni, the specifics will have to be relearnt when you train anyway). So, what is it useful for? My mum used to be a forensic scientist, and now she lectures FS, among other things, and she still would rather FS students had applied to do chemistry.
I think it's a major policy mistake. There are many going to university who end up significantly worse off after than they would have done either taking a apprentiship (plumbing, elctricain etc). The policy has nothing to do with this though, and thats not why it's reasonably popular. I think the answer is 2 fold.
Going to University is usualy a brilliant experience (leaving the learning bit aside) and far more fun than working, so people want to do any degree to live the student life.
I think the other reason it's popular, and probably the reason it was intrudced by the (socialist) Labour party, is that it's a "class thing". 50 years ago only the upper class went to university. While I apporve of the change in opinion that only the "upper class" should go to Uni I disagree the solution is to send everyone to Uni.
Policy mistake? Ha!
The current "Conservative" Government keeps unemployment figures down whilst pretending to care about education.
The icing on the cake for them is that it does not even come out of the governement coffers, now that student loans are in!
It's a win/win situation for the Blairites.
Imagine having to do a study orientated on a job you might later have?
That's terrible!
People should educate themselves in what they find interesting, no matter what the job perspectives. Then, when they are ready to go out and work they should get on-job training to do the job properly and then advanced courses should they wish to better themselves within the sector they're working in.
alrighty-next month (less than 3 weeks!!!) i'm off to university to study maths (and computing). why maths? because i am very good at it (i got a grade-A for my AdvancedHigher paper, which is a kinda combination of first and second year uni work and altogether beyond meer school education. people who ger A's at higher are often lucky to get C's. people who get C's at higher fail. miserably.). it also has good career prospects-teaching, accountancy, actuarial work, computing etc.
why st andrews? because when i leave my degree's gonna be somewhat better than the equivalent degree from an ex-poly uni. or will it? i needed BBBB to get in (5 highers is the par). it says nothinging about them being in maths. going by my Advanced Higher course, people with even a B in maths are gonna struggle with maths at uni. call it elitist, hbut unless you've got an A a relevant subject, do your other grades matter? i mean-you get an A for your hgiher maths, and you fail everything else, you probubly wouldn't get in. but you get a C for your maths and B's for everything else you will.
i was talking to my hair dresser the other day (i have short hair!!! 😀), and she was saying how people are missing out by going to uni. she takes on a number of apprentice girls a year, who often go on to very high-paid jobs as hair dressers. i mean-hairdressers can earn over £120'000! £28'000 for a teacher... what use is a civil engineering degree if you've never worked on a building site? you can become an engineer through apprenticeships etc.
the average age of a brick layer is over 50.
in scotland, we sit a maximum of 5 highers a year. youy have 2 years to do as many highers and advanced highers as you wish. this means that you can come out with a maximum of 10. you only need 3 to get into university. glasgow caledoonian offer you entry with CCC.
i work in a restaurant at weekends. we have currently 3 university graduates working for us. one has been recently appointed as a supervisor. he has a degree in product design and can't find a job. another washes dishes. another makes baguettes.
me, i'm just afraid that when i leave uni my degree's gonna be worth cow-poop.