GCSEs to end

Author
Discussion

Dixie68

3,091 posts

186 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
rover 623gsi said:
Some people might argue that education is about more than just making it easy for employers to spot exceptional kids…
I'd say that the end result of the educational system is to produce a talented workforce - what do you see as the priority then? A lot of talented people on the dole or selling you a Big Mac?

Gwagon111

4,422 posts

160 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
Dixie68 said:
I'd say that the end result of the educational system is to produce a talented workforce - what do you see as the priority then? A lot of talented people on the dole or selling you a Big Mac?
An all round decent education should lead to an all round decent person in later life (I know there have been several notable exceptions in the past, but generally speaking this tends to be the case). I don't subscribe to the idea of education being all about the examinations at the end. There has to be a balnce between the social interaction of life at school, and the acedemic side of life at school. If you find yourself in the fortunate position of being in receipt of an education from the finer educational institutions, you should revel in it and enjoy the experience. These places don't get a good reputation for no good reason.

turbobloke

103,631 posts

259 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
Dixie68 said:
rover 623gsi said:
Some people might argue that education is about more than just making it easy for employers to spot exceptional kids
I'd say that the end result of the educational system is to produce a talented workforce - what do you see as the priority then? A lot of talented people on the dole or selling you a Big Mac?
Indeed, which is probably not far from the current situation as talented young people are being sold down the river by half-baked qualifications. Reform cannot come too quickly. When the priority has been attended to we then need to make sure there are appropriate programmes and assessments for all pupils so everybody has a chance to reach their personal best via high expecations and a course that suits them, as opposed to the current mess with devalued qualifications dumbed down to suit the middle ground and below in academic terms - and inflated grades as well for good measure.

If we want to have any future competitiveness as a country, and if we want to be able to afford to pay adequate benefits to those in genuine need without expensive borrowing, and if we want to even get close to affording future pensions, there is no alternative but to nurture the best young talent we have as fully as possible and do what we can to persuade them to stay here when they eventually leave education / training.

That said, it's not purely about one aspect i.e. unis or employers spotting the exceptional kids. It's about enabling these gifted young people to develop their talent to the full and having qualifications that are capable of stretching them while also identifying the talent on which we depend.

SpeedMattersNot

4,506 posts

195 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
I don't think that there is any real harm in mixing up the education system. It's good to keep kids, staff and parents on their toes.

My only concern with this current plan, is that it will discourage schools, parents and children from pursuing qualifications in the arts. From all of the children I've seen at the school my wife teaches at, those who are heavily involved in Music and especially Drama just seem to have a much better approach to school and often are the highest academic performers in the other subjects too.

It would be a shame to discourage children from learning about the Arts as I feel, whilst they may not land a job directly involved with the topic, it gives them an edge over those who haven't been opened up to creative thinking.

turbobloke

103,631 posts

259 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
There's no need to be overly concerned either way.

The reality may well prove to be that even if the Conservative influence remains, the balls of CMD & Co will shrink to the size of sultanas. If that's possible given the current situation where ballsacks appear to be running on empty already.

If Lib-Lab delusion gets a foot in the door then the proposals will be very unlikely to have time to see even one year through, as the 13 year slide into mediocrity begun by Bliar and Clown gathers pace via another dose of dumbinbg down and incompetence.

Mr Snap

2,364 posts

156 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Mr Snap said:
You said that schools have 'excessive creativity'. Excessive means too much and by using it you imply there should be less. So, are you saying "there's too much but we should keep it that way" or "there's too much, so there should be less"? It's you believing 'words mean what I say they mean' again.
You nearly got it right, this time after the strawman the new treat is selective quoting. What I said was "Schools have sufficient if not excessive creativity" and that sentiment was repeated only recently when I added that there is currently no shortage of creative subjects in school curricula. That's how it is and that's my position - very clear. All your rhetorical devices as used so far and any more to come won't make any difference.

Mr Snap said:
It's that thing about the stuff inside your head being at odds with the real world, yet again...
It is?

Mr Snap said:
As for there being 'no current shortage of creative subjects in school curricula'.
So you did spot it, well done!

Mr Snap said:
Do you ever think about what you say? Please explain which 'less creative' subjects, should be taught in our schools in order to correct this horrific imbalance?
Strawman part 4. There is no imbalance. What I said was, there is no shortage. Also I made no comparison between any particular subjects.

Mr Snap said:
And, if having different courses for 'non-academics' isn't social engineering, I don't know what is.
It's horses for courses, so now you do know.

Just as it would be absurd to put a non-athletic individual through an elite sports development programme with associated fitness training, so it's absurd to expect non-academic students to cope with high level academic courses. Just as it's absurd to give academic pupils the lack of challenge in today's GCSE which still passes unfeasible numbers of students at A*.

Mr Snap said:
It's just that it's right wing social engineering...
Nonsense, it's nothing of the sort, nor is it social engineering to put elite athletes through a different training and fitness programme compared to average hobby sportspeople. The elite sports programmes are appropriate for elite athletes. We need somthing similar for the most academic pupils but it doesn't exist at the moment.

Mr Snap said:
Oh, and before you start again it's a 'straw man' not a 'Strawman'.
It can be either.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/strawman

Mr Snap said:
But never mind the intellectual rigour, eh Turbo? If it was a GCSE, you'd still get an A* for creativity. Shame you didn't do it in different coloured pens, though...
Shame you didn't check the options before you went all smartass and ended up looking foolish. The above link shows that strawman and straw man both represent "a weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted" something which I would accept you know a lot more about given that you use the device with monotonous regularity.

Some corroboration: http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
No, you're the one who's bending (your own) words - as usual. You use constructions designed to set the reader off in a specific direction then you pretend you didn't do it. It's a bit like the little boy in the Keystone Kops who sends them all running in the wrong direction and then pretends to be innocent when they all return confused.
Yes, I'm being selective, I'm selecting the bits you include to imply things, which you then deny. Take, for instance, "Schools have sufficient if not excessive creativity". If you mean they have sufficient creativity, then say "Schools have sufficient creativity" full stop. Don't qualify it with "if not excessive" and pretend that additional phrase doesn't mean anything: "If not excessive" implies there is too much creativity. Are you completely unable to understand the things you write?
So, it's not a straw man or selective arguing - I'm pointing out the fact that you're either (a) dissembling on purpose or (b) you don't know what you're saying.

It's social engineering if the end point is to advantage one section of society to the disadvantage of another. If there's one thing that public schools do really well, it's to get middle class kids who are as thick as mince into universities - it's a problem that most Tories will admit to (they just don't really want do anything about it). We regularly fail to give our best brains the best education because of their class backgrounds and sex. The Gove Levels will ensure that that disadvantage will get worse. It's well known that females do better at coursework style examinations, for instance (that's one of the reasons they were introduced). Ask PHer's if they honestly want a system that advantages, less intelligent, middle class boys over their daughters.
The reason you won't admit that it's social engineering is because you're attempting to make your right wing ideology appear unbiased and, therefore, irrefutable. Ideology is ideology, bias is bias. I'm biased, you're biased. We did Barthes before. Just be a little more honest and stop trying to disguise your biased agenda.

"Horses for courses" is a diversion. Education isn't, or shouldn't be, a race. If poorer children received public school quality education, many more would succeed and gain access to the best universities. As it is, poorer children are denied the tools that might allow them to compete at entry level. At the expense of taxpayers, we reserve the olympic quality education for those children lucky enough to have rich parents. We select our athletes from an artificially reduced pool. Not only is it unfair, it's a stupid thing to do. It's typical of your 'survival of the fittest' right wing agenda to attempt to engineer the examination system in order to select not the best, but to select those you prefer.






Edited by Mr Snap on Thursday 20th September 05:36

otolith

55,794 posts

203 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
Funny how science and engineering have created almost everything we see around us, but the arts are thought to be "creative"!

yournamehere

23 posts

139 months

Wednesday 19th September 2012
quotequote all
Mr Snap said:
It's social engineering if the end point is to advantage one section of society to the disadvantage of another. If there's one thing that public schools do really well, it's to get kids who are as thick as mince into universities - it's a problem that most Tories will admit to. We regularly fail to give our best brains the best education because of their class backgrounds and sex. The Gove Levels will ensure that that disadvantage will get worse. It's well known that females do better at coursework style examinations, for instance (that's one of the reasons they were introduced). Ask PHer's if they honestly want a system that advantages, less intelligent, middle class boys over their daughters.

"Horses for courses" is a diversion. Education isn't, or shouldn't be, a race. If all children received public school quality education, many more would succeed and gain access to the best universities. As it is, poorer children are denied the tools that allow them to compete at entry level. At the expense of taxpayers, we reserve the olympic quality education for those children lucky enough to have rich parents. We select our athletes from an artificially reduced pool. Not only is it unfair, it's a stupid thing to do.
That's really well put.

We constantly hear in the media, and from politicians, that there is "grade inflation" and that the exams need to be changed to differentiate the able from the less able.

Yet they ignore the fact that between 7 and 18% of pupils buy their way into the top universities by paying for an education that virtually guarantees exam passes.

You are wrong on one point though, if all kids got an independent school quality of education that wouldn't increase the numbers going to the top universities as they wouldn't necessarily get bigger. But there would be 7-18% from public schools rather than the current 50% plus.

If it's not social engineering it's an awful lot like it.



turbobloke

103,631 posts

259 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
Mr Snap said:
It's social engineering if the end point is to advantage one section of society to the disadvantage of another.
Which it isn't, so your claim vanishes. It's about correcting an existimg disadvantage.

Or at least attempting to, as there's no certainty that pupils let down by the current unfit-for-purpose exam will get something more suitable.

Mr Snap said:
"Horses for courses" is a diversion. Education isn't, or shouldn't be, a race.
That either accidentally or deliberately distorts what is being said. The key element isn't education being a race. It's matching participants with what they are participating in.

SpeedMattersNot

4,506 posts

195 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
I think that the system today already helps with the streamlining of students. Those who are very good can still get all A's and A*'s as they could when they were first introduced, but those kids who don't put the effort in or who just are not bright enough, can't get those results?

I think the last 10 years has shown a clear development in helping out kids who don't have the motivation in the "core subjects", by offering an array of alternative courses for them to take. The concept that even the most dysfunctional kids still come out of education with at least some qualification that is useful to someone, is surely very important.

Gove has stuck his neck out and suggested the E-Bach subjects that have been chosen are "the most important" and I just don't agree with all of the choices. Why does he feel that the Arts, IT, and Design Technology are not worthy of being included?

I'm open to seeing how it plays out, but I think there are some huge gaps missing in the proposed reforms.

turbobloke

103,631 posts

259 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
SpeedMattersNot said:
I think that the system today already helps with the streamlining of students. Those who are very good can still get all A's and A*'s as they could when they were first introduced...
While A* grades weren't available when the qualifications (GCSE and GCE A-level) were introduced, the point I would pick up on is the A* and A grades now, there are far too many for them to be a meaningful distinguishing feature of high level attainment, and the syllabus content on which the learning is based has been diluted too much, certainly in the physical sciences and maths.

SpeedMattersNot said:
I think there are some huge gaps missing in the proposed reforms.
There may well be, but have details been published as yet, rather than general intent? Either way, could you expand on what the gaps are?

cuneus

5,963 posts

241 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
SpeedMattersNot said:
I think the last 10 years has shown a clear development in helping out kids who don't have the motivation in the "core subjects", by offering an array of alternative courses for them to take.
What you have seen is schools taking the soft option so they can achieve an A* to C grade

SpeedMattersNot

4,506 posts

195 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I think that the system today already helps with the streamlining of students. Those who are very good can still get all A's and A*'s as they could when they were first introduced...
While A* grades weren't available when the qualifications (GCSE and GCE A-level) were introduced, the point I would pick up on is the A* and A grades now, there are far too many for them to be a meaningful distinguishing feature of high level attainment, and the syllabus content on which the learning is based has been diluted too much, certainly in the physical sciences and maths.
Well, when A*'s were introduced it was still very possible to get all grades at A and A*. The fact that more are acquired by students today is not entirely down to the syllabus being "diluted" (of which I feel is still open to debate but let's assume it has been). It is also down to better teaching, better facilities, the use of on line learning being available for kids at home, to name a few.

I didn't have to work that hard at GCSE's, to get a B in Maths and Geography, two subjects which, Gove deems "important" but I struggled with Graphics due to the quantity of coursework and only got a G. Despite being quite good at Maths and Geography, I haven't yet needed those skills since leaving school but have relied on what I was taught in Design Technology often.

turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I think there are some huge gaps missing in the proposed reforms.
There may well be, but have details been published as yet, rather than general intent? Either way, could you expand on what the gaps are?
I am of course waiting to see how it pans out, as you say, it's not been finalised.

I am actually of the opinion though, that these E-Bach subjects will now be what schools are judged on and an excessive amount of focus will be directed at them. Kids that can't see the relevance to these subjects, or ones that just are not that bright, will be encouraged to drop a couple of other lessons that they might actually enjoy and would get a good grade at, just to get a weak mark in a seemingly pointless subject.

There's been great progress with helping weak students actually leave school with a piece of paper, saying they can do something useful. I feel if focus is taken away from these apparent "lesser" subjects, we will be alienating these students further and will see a bigger negative impact on society. Which none of us want.

I also just don't think that the "core subjects" have many transferable skills in the real world. I think IT courses, Arts, Design Technology and other computer based learning subjects are all very important.

I'm not claiming to have the answers, I just don't buy into this idea that going back to how things were done is better. The country is very much full of people stuck in the past and I think we should be modernising the education system and making it interesting for kids.

Not entirely relevant, but just as a personal note that always springs to mind when I think of education. I know of two people, who have polar opposites when it comes to education. One advanced through schooling and graduated with a First in the Classics from Oxford. He is phenomenally intelligent but is really struggling to find work, other than teaching the Classics! He works for below the average wage in a clothes store.

The other lad I know, has limited GCSE's and was deemed quite the failure of the education system. He loved fish, always had done and currently is on way above national average wage as an assistant manager at a fish shop and is very happy.


SpeedMattersNot

4,506 posts

195 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
cuneus said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I think the last 10 years has shown a clear development in helping out kids who don't have the motivation in the "core subjects", by offering an array of alternative courses for them to take.
What you have seen is schools taking the soft option so they can achieve an A* to C grade
Incorrect.

A lot of the courses offered to these under performing students are not even on the GCSE radar.

turbobloke

103,631 posts

259 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
SpeedMattersNot said:
Well, when A*'s were introduced it was still very possible to get all grades at A and A*. The fact that more are acquired by students today is not entirely down to the syllabus being "diluted" (of which I feel is still open to debate but let's assume it has been).
I can assure you it's not open to debate in the physical sciences and maths.

SpeedMAttersNot said:
It is also down to better teaching, better facilities, the use of on line learning being available for kids at home, to name a few.
The impact of better-trained teachers and appropriate use of ICT isn't in doubt, but it cannot possibly be responsible for the sustained significant gains in all grades including top grades over the last 15 years. Don't forget that the exams regulator has stated that grade inflation is real and that exams have become easier over time. The Ofqual findings and comments were posted earlier in this thread.


SpeedMattersNot said:
There's been great progress with helping weak students actually leave school with a piece of paper, saying they can do something useful.
If you believe the paper has worth and it means they can do something useful then fine, in the context of a thread where a grade C GCSE is seen as far less meaningful than it appears, there has to be grave doubt about that.

SpeedMAttersNot said:
I feel if focus is taken away from these apparent "lesser" subjects, we will be alienating these students further and will see a bigger negative impact on society. Which none of us want.
I don;t want it either but with respect you appear to be missing two key points. One is that, as mentioned multiple times in this thread, reforms which reintroduce rigour are only part of the story, but they are the first part and rightly so. You have already conceded that less able pupils are now provided for and leave with a piece of paper showing what they can do - leave aside what it actually means for e.g. employers - so it's perfectly reasonable to look at the circumstances of pupils who have been short-changed by the gradual dumbing down acknowledged by the regulator Ofqual.

The second point is that the vast majority of these lower academic ability pupils are not going to go on and start up, or contribute to the strategic development of, companies which provide jobs and create wealth, some will but we can't wait around for the next Alan Sugar, there is only one if him and few of his type. Most low academic ability pupils will be dependent on others who create the wealth and the jobs,and these are in large part the most able pupils. As a result it makes sense to look after the most able, as others depend on them.

SpeedMattersNot said:
I also just don't think that the "core subjects" have many transferable skills in the real world. I think IT courses, Arts, Design Technology and other computer based learning subjects are all very important.
You mention core subjects. Do you seriously think that literacy skills and numeracy skills are non-transferable? Or that science has no application outside school? Yes to ICT and Design Technology.

SpeedMattersNot said:
I'm not claiming to have the answers, I just don't buy into this idea that going back to how things were done is better.
That's not what's happening, but it's how opponents of the reforms are painting it so that those who agree for political reasons have a mantra to chant. Surely you can see past that? As you say yourself, details aren't known.

SpeedMattersNot said:
The country is very much full of people stuck in the past and I think we should be modernising the education system and making it interesting for kids.
It also needs to be of use to them, and to the nation - whichever nation they work in, so our nation too. Not getting the most out of our most able young people will make the future of this country even more bleak than it already is, particularly for those who are not so able and need support.

turbobloke

103,631 posts

259 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
SpeedMattersNot said:
cuneus said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I think the last 10 years has shown a clear development in helping out kids who don't have the motivation in the "core subjects", by offering an array of alternative courses for them to take.
What you have seen is schools taking the soft option so they can achieve an A* to C grade
Incorrect.

A lot of the courses offered to these under performing students are not even on the GCSE radar.
To copy your own style...incorrect. If this nonsense has been stamped out by now then fine, but here you go:

"It is incredible that courses in flower arranging and beauty therapy are regarded, for league table purposes, as equivalent to GCSEs but the International GCSE (IGCSE) is not recognised by the curriculum regulator."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/juliehenry/82737...

SpeedMattersNot

4,506 posts

195 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
It is also down to better teaching, better facilities, the use of on line learning being available for kids at home, to name a few.
The impact of better-trained teachers and appropriate use of ICT isn't in doubt, but it cannot possibly be responsible for the sustained significant gains in all grades including top grades over the last 15 years. Don't forget that the exams regulator has stated that grade inflation is real and that exams have become easier over time. The Ofqual findings and comments were posted earlier in this thread.
I disagree, I think it's quite an obvious factor in helping kids get better at achieving higher grades.


turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
There's been great progress with helping weak students actually leave school with a piece of paper, saying they can do something useful.
If you believe the paper has worth and it means they can do something useful then fine, in the context of a thread where a grade C GCSE is seen as far less meaningful than it appears, there has to be grave doubt about that.
It's entirely up to an individuals perception. For example, my wife runs a music technology course. Above all, to a potential employer it should be perceived as an IT course.

turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I feel if focus is taken away from these apparent "lesser" subjects, we will be alienating these students further and will see a bigger negative impact on society. Which none of us want.
I don;t want it either but with respect you appear to be missing two key points. One is that, as mentioned multiple times in this thread, reforms which reintroduce rigour are only part of the story, but they are the first part and rightly so. You have already conceded that less able pupils are now provided for and leave with a piece of paper showing what they can do - leave aside what it actually means for e.g. employers - so it's perfectly reasonable to look at the circumstances of pupils who have been short-changed by the gradual dumbing down acknowledged by the regulator Ofqual.

The second point is that the vast majority of these lower academic ability pupils are not going to go on and start up, or contribute to the strategic development of, companies which provide jobs and create wealth, some will but we can't wait around for the next Alan Sugar, there is only one if him and few of his type. Most low academic ability pupils will be dependent on others who create the wealth and the jobs,and these are in large part the most able pupils. As a result it makes sense to look after the most able, as others depend on them.
I think this is where we disagree.

How many academic's flourish in education, yet still end up with nothing after it? I know countless people with degree's yet don't end up working in the field they studied, and some who are just working in clothes stores despite enduring possibly the most academically challenging of subjects.

I think we need more focus on the "less academic" students. I know a large amount of people who didn't study the "core subjects" but have indeed gone onto be very successful.

turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I also just don't think that the "core subjects" have many transferable skills in the real world. I think IT courses, Arts, Design Technology and other computer based learning subjects are all very important.
You mention core subjects. Do you seriously think that literacy skills and numeracy skills are non-transferable? Or that science has no application outside school? Yes to ICT and Design Technology.
English is a given, but I honestly don't think Maths has transferable skills, no. Finance does, but not maths. It's only useful if you intend to end up being an engineer but then they've already told us that Design Technology and IT are not as important?

History? Transferable skills? Geography...come on!

I concede though, I believe languages are very important. I reckon they give you a better understanding of your own language and it's definitely handy in the real world when seeking work or expanding contacts.

I actually believe in the real world, the students who have studied the Arts; specifically Drama just have an edge to them that other students don't. English is a requirement, but being able to interact with others is an essential skill and performance of any variety whether it be in Drama or Music is an experience you do not get in other subjects.

Again, here we'll probably have to disagree.

turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I'm not claiming to have the answers, I just don't buy into this idea that going back to how things were done is better.
That's not what's happening, but it's how opponents of the reforms are painting it so that those who agree for political reasons have a mantra to chant. Surely you can see past that? As you say yourself, details aren't known.
That's why I've said I will wait until I hear more details to pass more judgement. You asked me to expand on my initial fear of the lack of details but until they are highlighted, there's not much that can be said or done in reality.

SpeedMattersNot

4,506 posts

195 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
cuneus said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I think the last 10 years has shown a clear development in helping out kids who don't have the motivation in the "core subjects", by offering an array of alternative courses for them to take.
What you have seen is schools taking the soft option so they can achieve an A* to C grade
Incorrect.

A lot of the courses offered to these under performing students are not even on the GCSE radar.
To copy your own style...incorrect. If this nonsense has been stamped out by now then fine, but here you go:

"It is incredible that courses in flower arranging and beauty therapy are regarded, for league table purposes, as equivalent to GCSEs but the International GCSE (IGCSE) is not recognised by the curriculum regulator."

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/juliehenry/82737...
AFAIK, such courses may well be regarded as "GCSE equivalents" but are not factored at all in the A*-C boundary.

If all schools are after is an a*-c representation, then the majority of these bogus courses whilst considered "GCSE equivalents" are not legible for use in the A*-C boundary.

turbobloke

103,631 posts

259 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
SpeedMattersNot said:
I disagree, I think it's quite an obvious factor in helping kids get better at achieving higher grades.
No, you don't disagree, as I said it was a factor smile


SpeedMattersNot said:
There's been great progress with helping weak students actually leave
It's entirely up to an individuals perception. For example, my wife runs a music technology course. Above all, to a potential employer it should be perceived as an IT course.
Fine, but individual examples prove nothing sonar

SpeedMattersNot said:
How many academics flourish in education, yet still end up with nothing after it? I know countless people with degrees yet don't end up working in the field they studied, and some who are just working in clothes stores despite enduring possibly the most academically challenging of subjects.
I've nor read that three times and it still doesn't appear to offer anything relevant to the discussion - just saying. Whether an academic ends up working in one field or in a car park is irrelevant. If their work has intellectual value, and commercial value quite possibly (but not necessarily) they have achieved a lot and contributed much. This discussion never was so narrow as to exclude work in different areas.

SpeedMattersNot said:
I think we need more focus on the "less academic" students. I know a large amount of people who didn't study the "core subjects" but have indeed gone on to be very successful.
So do I and they are the exception not the rule. We already have (and I thought you argued this very point only a post ago) courses and pieces of paper that suit less able students. We need to continue to provide for all students, but the most short-changed are those suffering disadvantage as a result of dunbing down and all-must-have-prizes delusion.

SpeedMattersNot said:
I also just don't think that the "core subjects" have many transferable skills in the real world. I think IT courses, Arts, Design Technology and other computer based learning subjects are all very important.
turbobloke said:
You mention core subjects. Do you seriously think that literacy skills and numeracy skills are non-transferable? Or that science has no application outside school? Yes to ICT and Design Technology.
SPeedMAttersNot said:
English is a given, but I honestly don't think Maths has transferable skills, no. Finance does, but not maths.
???!!!

nuts

jester

SpeedMattersNot said:
History? Transferable skills? Geography...come on!
I mentioned English, maths and science, but whatever!

Source and evidence evaluation as taught in history is a very valuable skill. FOr starters it would help to prevent so many people falling for the propaganda of political writers and teacher union barons. The 'evidence' they offer would be dismissed by more people as trite propaganda if these skills were more widespread.

Geography - to take one example, map reading skills are less valuable since the dawn of satnav but if students were taught the hard sciences of geology and astronomy (as well as source and evidence evaluation) fewer people would be taken in by the global warming junkscience which is currently costing the earth. Pun intended.

SpeedMattersNot said:
I concede though, I believe languages are very important. I reckon they give you a better understanding of your own language and it's definitely handy in the real world when seeking work or expanding contacts.
In principle I agree, especially with business/aviation/ICT/everyone using English, as we can get complacent.

SpeedMattersNot said:
I actually believe in the real world, the students who have studied the Arts; specifically Drama just have an edge to them that other students don't.
And they wear corduroys and floppy hats smile but not all decide to swing from war memorials before going to jail wink

SpeedMattersNot said:
Again, here we'll probably have to disagree.
That's not a problem in the civilised world of PH threads. Well, mostly not. type

SpeedMattersNot

4,506 posts

195 months

Thursday 20th September 2012
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I disagree, I think it's quite an obvious factor in helping kids get better at achieving higher grades.
No, you don't disagree, as I said it was a factor smile
True, but you did go onto say but it cannot possibly be responsible for the sustained significant gains in all grades.

It's either a factor or it isn't! smile

turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
How many academics flourish in education, yet still end up with nothing after it? I know countless people with degrees yet don't end up working in the field they studied, and some who are just working in clothes stores despite enduring possibly the most academically challenging of subjects.
I've nor read that three times and it still doesn't appear to offer anything relevant to the discussion - just saying. Whether an academic ends up working in one field or in a car park is irrelevant. If their work has intellectual value, and commercial value quite possibly (but not necessarily) they have achieved a lot and contributed much. This discussion never was so narrow as to exclude work in different areas.
It was in reference to something you said, of which I took to mean we should concentrate on higher achieving academic students, because less academic students end up relying on them!?

Just offering my opinion that I know of multiple cases where the end net result is quite the opposite.

turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I think we need more focus on the "less academic" students. I know a large amount of people who didn't study the "core subjects" but have indeed gone on to be very successful.
So do I and they are the exception not the rule. We already have (and I thought you argued this very point only a post ago) courses and pieces of paper that suit less able students. We need to continue to provide for all students, but the most short-changed are those suffering disadvantage as a result of dunbing down and all-must-have-prizes delusion.
Yes, but as highlighted my fear was these classes will be cut back. Not even talking about the "equivalent" subjects here.

turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I also just don't think that the "core subjects" have many transferable skills in the real world. I think IT courses, Arts, Design Technology and other computer based learning subjects are all very important.
turbobloke said:
You mention core subjects. Do you seriously think that literacy skills and numeracy skills are non-transferable? Or that science has no application outside school? Yes to ICT and Design Technology.
SPeedMAttersNot said:
English is a given, but I honestly don't think Maths has transferable skills, no. Finance does, but not maths.
???!!!

nuts

jester
When was the last time you worked out the area of a circle?

turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
History? Transferable skills? Geography...come on!
I mentioned English, maths and science, but whatever!

Source and evidence evaluation as taught in history is a very valuable skill. FOr starters it would help to prevent so many people falling for the propaganda of political writers and teacher union barons. The 'evidence' they offer would be dismissed by more people as trite propaganda if these skills were more widespread.

Geography - to take one example, map reading skills are less valuable since the dawn of satnav but if students were taught the hard sciences of geology and astronomy (as well as source and evidence evaluation) fewer people would be taken in by the global warming junkscience which is currently costing the earth. Pun intended.
I actually think they're both important subjects. I think it's right that we learn about History and the planet we live on. But they're not academic subjects. Comparative essay's are common in nearly every subject, in face I believe that in Science the whole evaluation/hypothesis is much more valuable. Regarding Geography being academic because you can read a map, c'mon turbobloke you're probably in the top 10 influential posters on this forum and you can't concede that Gove has possibly got a little something wrong here? Lol

turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
I actually believe in the real world, the students who have studied the Arts; specifically Drama just have an edge to them that other students don't.
And they wear corduroys and floppy hats smile but not all decide to swing from war memorials before going to jail wink
Hah! I've seen you joke about this before. Need I say more?

turbobloke said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
Again, here we'll probably have to disagree.
That's not a problem in the civilised world of PH threads. Well, mostly not. type
I try to be civilised, there's no point getting upset on a discussion forum. I enjoy your inputs in the Global Warming threads for example, and agree. But we definitely have different opinions when it comes to education.