No English or Maths GCSE? No Student loan
Discussion
As the thread title says, the latest proposals from the Government.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60491719
Will this be seen as sensible or controversial?
andymadmak said:
As the thread title says, the latest proposals from the Government.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60491719
Will this be seen as sensible or controversial?
Stupid headline aimed at the boomers who vote Tory, could mean no loans for art or music students.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60491719
Will this be seen as sensible or controversial?
Same old fools that deride the Millennials, even those spent the last 20 years fighting the war on terror.
Also meaningless as Uni's won't accept those with out the required minimum grades
Edited by cirian75 on Wednesday 23 February 12:43
andymadmak said:
As the thread title says, the latest proposals from the Government.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60491719
Will this be seen as sensible or controversial?
Good idea IMO. It seems that almost every youngster attends University nowadays and Universities pretty much let everyone in. I'm in favour of there being higher barriers to entry so a degree becomes a bit more meaningful. For job applicants now, we generally strike out people with a 2:2 and only interview those with a 2:1. A shame as i'm sure we miss some good people but if there's a large number of applicants, there has to be a method of thinning downhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60491719
Will this be seen as sensible or controversial?
Edited by Candellara on Wednesday 23 February 12:43
No problem with it in theory, but only if they offer assistance to gain thise qualifications later. Being screwed for life because your parents failed and your school was poor benefits noone.
Personally I'd have free education for skills we have a shortage in and loans for the rest. That way you can have social mobility if you want it, or can pursue your interests if you're happy to pay for it.
Personally I'd have free education for skills we have a shortage in and loans for the rest. That way you can have social mobility if you want it, or can pursue your interests if you're happy to pay for it.
glazbagun said:
No problem with it in theory, but only if they offer assistance to gain thise qualifications later. Being f
ked for life because your parents failed and your school was st benefits noone.
Personally I'd have free education for skills we have a shortage in and loans for the rest. That way you can have social mobility if you want it, or can pursue your interests if you're happy to pay for it.
Totally agree.ked for life because your parents failed and your school was st benefits noone.Personally I'd have free education for skills we have a shortage in and loans for the rest. That way you can have social mobility if you want it, or can pursue your interests if you're happy to pay for it.
The bigger "story" is how the f
k people were *ever* going through to higher education (such that student loans were available) without decent capability in English and Maths. How did that happen?glazbagun said:
No problem with it in theory, but only if they offer assistance to gain thise qualifications later. Being screwed for life because your parents failed and your school was poor benefits noone.
Personally I'd have free education for skills we have a shortage in
Yes, i agree with free education for skills we need.Personally I'd have free education for skills we have a shortage in
cirian75 said:
andymadmak said:
As the thread title says, the latest proposals from the Government.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60491719
Will this be seen as sensible or controversial?
Stupid headline aimed for the boomers who vote Tory, could mean no loans for art or music students.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60491719
Will this be seen as sensible or controversial?
Almost all employers demand English and Maths GCSE as mandatory for any half-decent position. This proposal could stop unemployable arts students from pursuing degree courses. That will never do - how else would they spend their time?
Murph7355 said:
glazbagun said:
No problem with it in theory, but only if they offer assistance to gain thise qualifications later. Being fked for life because your parents failed and your school was st benefits noone.
Personally I'd have free education for skills we have a shortage in and loans for the rest. That way you can have social mobility if you want it, or can pursue your interests if you're happy to pay for it.
Totally agree.ked for life because your parents failed and your school was st benefits noone.Personally I'd have free education for skills we have a shortage in and loans for the rest. That way you can have social mobility if you want it, or can pursue your interests if you're happy to pay for it.
The bigger "story" is how the f
k people were *ever* going through to higher education (such that student loans were available) without decent capability in English and Maths. How did that happen?"Students who lack English and maths GCSEs, or two A-levels at grade E, would not qualify for a student loan in England"
How many degree courses are there which will accept students with less than two A levels at grade E (or the equivalent points)? There can't be too many of them, so I'd hope someone has made an assessment as to whether those courses offer students and the tax payer value for money. It should be easy to provide evidence for the proposal rather than it being based on a gut feel that 'too many kids go to university these days'.
Many colleges + sixth forms currently provide assistance for students to resit English + Maths GCSEs while they are studying for A levels so kids are already made aware of the importance of having them if they want to go on to higher education.
How many degree courses are there which will accept students with less than two A levels at grade E (or the equivalent points)? There can't be too many of them, so I'd hope someone has made an assessment as to whether those courses offer students and the tax payer value for money. It should be easy to provide evidence for the proposal rather than it being based on a gut feel that 'too many kids go to university these days'.
Many colleges + sixth forms currently provide assistance for students to resit English + Maths GCSEs while they are studying for A levels so kids are already made aware of the importance of having them if they want to go on to higher education.
doesthiswork said:
"Students who lack English and maths GCSEs, or two A-levels at grade E, would not qualify for a student loan in England"
How many degree courses are there which will accept students with less than two A levels at grade E (or the equivalent points)? There can't be too many of them, so I'd hope someone has made an assessment as to whether those courses offer students and the tax payer value for money. It should be easy to provide evidence for the proposal rather than it being based on a gut feel that 'too many kids go to university these days'.
Many colleges + sixth forms currently provide assistance for students to resit English + Maths GCSEs while they are studying for A levels so kids are already made aware of the importance of having them if they want to go on to higher education.
This proposal seems to be merely nibbling at the edges. In reality too many young people go to university at significant cost to the taxpayer and a cost in time and foregone money for the student themselves. How many degree courses are there which will accept students with less than two A levels at grade E (or the equivalent points)? There can't be too many of them, so I'd hope someone has made an assessment as to whether those courses offer students and the tax payer value for money. It should be easy to provide evidence for the proposal rather than it being based on a gut feel that 'too many kids go to university these days'.
Many colleges + sixth forms currently provide assistance for students to resit English + Maths GCSEs while they are studying for A levels so kids are already made aware of the importance of having them if they want to go on to higher education.
Raise the standard, and status, of technical qualifications and slim down universities to those who actually need to be there for future careers.
Edited by JagLover on Wednesday 23 February 14:09
A university place for all is the way to abolish tuition fees says Nick Hillman, Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute. He was a government special adviser, 2010-2013
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/12/...
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/mar/12/...
Candellara said:
Good idea IMO. It seems that almost every youngster attends University nowadays and Universities pretty much let everyone in. I'm in favour of there being higher barriers to entry so a degree becomes a bit more meaningful. For job applicants now, we generally strike out people with a 2:2 and only interview those with a 2:1. A shame as i'm sure we miss some good people but if there's a large number of applicants, there has to be a method of thinning down
Universities stopped being about educating students a long time ago and its now just another business, just interested in the money.Edited by Candellara on Wednesday 23 February 12:43
JagLover said:
This proposal seems to be merely nibbling at the edges. In reality too many young people go to university at significant cost to the taxpayer and a cost in time and foregone money for the student themselves.
Raise the standard, and status of technical qualifications, and slim down universities to those who actually need to be there for future careers.
All very well saying to raise the standard of technical qualifications, but as the guy further up said, his company will only interview 2:1 degree holders. I'm sure other companies have similar requirements, and it that attitude/policy that encourages students to go to Uni to get a degree - any degree - as pretty much any other qualification is barely worth having in terms of getting a job.Raise the standard, and status of technical qualifications, and slim down universities to those who actually need to be there for future careers.
When I were a lad, you needed Maths and English O-level (as it was then) to 'matriculate' for any university degree course. Universities expected their students to be reasonably well-rounded and a basic knowledge of English and Maths was seen as part of this.
I was pretty astonished when I discovered that it was no longer the case, so this move seems like a sensible reversion to the former situation, as far as I'm concerned.
I was pretty astonished when I discovered that it was no longer the case, so this move seems like a sensible reversion to the former situation, as far as I'm concerned.
Let's be clear: this isn't aimed at the students.
This is firmly aimed at low-quality "educational establishments" that target low achievers with promises of degree qualifications and future jobs, when the courses they offer barely qualify as such and typically add zero value to a person's education or job prospects - and, not co-incidentally, suffer drop-out rates far higher than "traditional" universities. Of course it's entirely a problem of the governments' (plural) own making in that if they hadn't encouraged the creation of a huge number of universities and the correspondingly largely worthless courses in a misguided attempt to create a more mobile and higher-calibre workforce by sending everybody to university, then the market wouldn't have been expanded downwards in the way that has, inevitably, happened. All they're doing is making it official that the government isn't going to fund low-quality courses with poor outcomes.
This is firmly aimed at low-quality "educational establishments" that target low achievers with promises of degree qualifications and future jobs, when the courses they offer barely qualify as such and typically add zero value to a person's education or job prospects - and, not co-incidentally, suffer drop-out rates far higher than "traditional" universities. Of course it's entirely a problem of the governments' (plural) own making in that if they hadn't encouraged the creation of a huge number of universities and the correspondingly largely worthless courses in a misguided attempt to create a more mobile and higher-calibre workforce by sending everybody to university, then the market wouldn't have been expanded downwards in the way that has, inevitably, happened. All they're doing is making it official that the government isn't going to fund low-quality courses with poor outcomes.
deckster said:
Let's be clear: this isn't aimed at the students.
This is firmly aimed at low-quality "educational establishments" that target low achievers with promises of degree qualifications and future jobs, when the courses they offer barely qualify as such and typically add zero value to a person's education or job prospects - and, not co-incidentally, suffer drop-out rates far higher than "traditional" universities. Of course it's entirely a problem of the governments' (plural) own making in that if they hadn't encouraged the creation of a huge number of universities and the correspondingly largely worthless courses in a misguided attempt to create a more mobile and higher-calibre workforce by sending everybody to university, then the market wouldn't have been expanded downwards in the way that has, inevitably, happened. All they're doing is making it official that the government isn't going to fund low-quality courses with poor outcomes.
^^^^thisThis is firmly aimed at low-quality "educational establishments" that target low achievers with promises of degree qualifications and future jobs, when the courses they offer barely qualify as such and typically add zero value to a person's education or job prospects - and, not co-incidentally, suffer drop-out rates far higher than "traditional" universities. Of course it's entirely a problem of the governments' (plural) own making in that if they hadn't encouraged the creation of a huge number of universities and the correspondingly largely worthless courses in a misguided attempt to create a more mobile and higher-calibre workforce by sending everybody to university, then the market wouldn't have been expanded downwards in the way that has, inevitably, happened. All they're doing is making it official that the government isn't going to fund low-quality courses with poor outcomes.
(former University non-exec)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff