So, yesterday I did a blog about the Tories educational reform proposals. They stigmatise the more vocational and practical A-levels and GSCE's at the expense of traditional science and maths, which they believe we all should be amazing at to have a sustainable living. As I said in my blog yesterday, I disagree totally with what they are saying, as there are many students who do pick their studies due to their desire and want to study the subject, not because they see it as an 'easy ride'. It is wrong to say that the less traditional subjects should be valued less with a lower pointing system, it is actually insulting.
Therefore, when reading today about two former polytechnics beating Oxbridge in terms of having higher employment rates for graduates, I could not help but smile. This is for one, progress, as it shows that maybe Oxbridge will not always hold the grip on future life for students. Furthermore, what degrees do Polytechnics offer? Well, they offer the vocational subjects; they want the type of A-levels and GSCE's that the Tories want to scrap. So the Tories want to reduce the ability of students to pick these types of subjects and go into this career path, despite the fact we have over 2 million unemployed and there is statistical evidence that these types of studies get students into better employment levels than the traditional Oxbridge students?
This further shows the Tories to be out of touch with changes in society. If they want to lower the point level for these types of subjects, it will only make things worse. It will stigmatise students for taking the subjects, it will also mean that those who want to do it will be put off, especially those with ability as they will be concerned about it affecting future careers. What this shows is that vocational courses are very much in, and that they do lead to good employable futures. Maybe the Tories should remove their heads' from underneath the sand and realise that good education is not necessary attributed to privilege and tradition.
7 comments:
It is wrong for the Tories to say we need to tell students that doing Maths and Science is what is best for them, instead of them doing what they want to do
But how are they to know what it is best to do? I am afraid many students are very badly informed and so are their teachers - they just don't realise that for higher level studies the more abstract subjects actually offer a far better background.
I was for many years the admissions tutor in the university Computer Science department where I work. It's a practical degree concentrating on work relevant software development skills, but our experience was that by far the best way of developing and testing the skill required for it was to do A-level Mathematics. A-level Information Technology, on the other hand was almost useless for it. People with good grades in A-level IT often failed the degree, people with good grades in A-level Maths rarely failed the degree.
The reason for this was that the sort of logic reasoning and pattern-recognition skills that A-level Maths tests and develops is actually what underlies a lot of real professional software development. If you aren't trained in that sort of logical thinking, you tend to find it very difficult. A-level Information Technology, on the other hand, seemed to be mainly about memorising definitions and threw out all the more abstract logical reasoning skills.
This just didn't seemed to be appreciated in the schools and amongst school students. They were often astonished when we told them this was the case, and actually we'd far rather their students who "want a job with computers" take A-level Maths rather than A-level Information Technology. Sometimes they accused us of being snobbish - they just couldn't se it wasn't that, we were just saying what we observed in practice. What was I supposed to do if I had a student in tears telling me "I have a good A-level in Information Technology, but I just can't do this degree - it's just so different to what the A-level made me think it would be"?
What about students I rejected because they didn't take A-level Maths? Sometimes I would actually say "Well, we considered you, and if you had A-level Maths we would have taken you, but your A-levels are in subjects we find in opractice aren't useful for our degree". Often they would then say "But nobody told me, I was good at Maths and would have taken A-level Maths if I knew that was what you wanted. I thought Maths was useless, that's why I didn't take A-level Maths". We tried our best to take good students with the more vocational A-levels, but almost always they performed more poorly than students with A-level Maths and other more abstract subjects.
I found admissions tutors in the other departments often said and experienced similar things. It was the more abstract A-levels that were the most useful, the more "vocational A-levels" and supposedly "vocational" qualifications just didn't develop and test the skills required even for quite practical subjects at degree level. Business departments, for example, also would far rather have A-level Maths and an A-level in a traditional arts subject like History than A-level in Information Technology and Business Studies.
It was students from the poorer areas who always lost out here. They were far more likely to receive bad advice from their teachers who didn't know themselves, and far less likely to have the contacts that would give them the better advice on what would be most useful to study. Lacking good contacts and educational backgrounds, they were far more likely to dismiss the more abstract A-levels as "not relevant" and take up the A-levels and other qualifications that sounded from their titles to be more work relevant, but anyone who really knew the field at a professional level would know were not much good and would advise against.
Thanks for your comment.
I think that what is best for them to do is doing what they want to do. I disagree that students should be told to do all these traditional subjects to reinforce the cultural elitism we have around education. Yes, science and maths are important, but so are other subjects that provide students with ability to exercise their own choice in relation to their own interests. To tell them to do one thing is wrong.
To be honest, technology is not really seen as a ‘dumbed down’ subject; in fact, it is a subject that the government encourage students to take. You should have put maths as an entry requirement or something, but to be honest, computer science is not a fair example of this. People who want to go into that obviously need maths and science to help them, I have a friend who does that subject, and he has to have maths lessons at university.
I did information technology at A-level, and it was far more than just remembering definitions. It did involve calculations too, and the use of software to make databases and spreadsheets, so I disagree with that. But IT is different to computing, and at the college I went to, the guy I know who does computing at university chose computing studies at college instead of IT, so again, not a fair assessment.
However, what you are really arguing about is that there needs to be more knowledge about which subjects to take for certain degrees. I do not disagree. What I was arguing about was that I do not believe subjects like Media should be downgraded point wise, or told not to do. If that is relevant to their career choice, that should not be stigmatised.
Again, I think that the responsibility falls on the universities to better advertise the subjects they want for their degrees, and not just blame the state school, as the Sutton Report did.
To be honest, I really do not classify IT and Business Studies as vocational! IT as I said was very hard. My friend took business studies, and that was no means easy either. This is the attitude that annoys me. These subjects are not easy, if people did the subjects they would see for themselves. It takes effort and dedication to pass A-levels, and downgrading points just because the elite do not think they fit in with their view of ‘proper’ education, is wrong.
It is not the poor students fault. Maybe if the universities started to provide poorer people with more contacts, or took a more open approach to applications then we would not have this problem. Yes, there needs to be better advice about what subjects to take for different careers, but that was not really, what I was talking about. I was talking about how wrong it would be to privilege certain subjects above others, and to downgrade them because they are ‘vocational’. To me, that is wholly disheartening and snobby. Students should do what they feel suits them, not what others tell them to do.
I think that what is best for them to do is doing what they want to do. I disagree that students should be told to do all these traditional subjects to reinforce the cultural elitism we have around education.
But there you go - straight away you jump to the assumption that I'm just saying what I'm saying out of elitism. It isn't - it's out of experience, doing the more traditional subjects develops and test the skills which are the most useful even for vocational subjects like mine.
If you are 16 how do you know what is the best A-level to take? What I'm saying is because I see too many students who have ended up not being able to do the university degree they wanted because they were badly advised about what A-levels to take, or they wrongly assumed a "vocational" A-level was best for it.
You should have put maths as an entry requirement or something
The problem is we want to be fair to students who were badly advised and didn't take Maths yet could do the degree. Plus also there aren't enough students taking A-level Maths to fill our places - if we insisted on it the danger is we wouldn't recruit enough students, then we'd lose our jobs.
but to be honest, computer science is not a fair example of this.
Many other subjects say the same thing - too many students, particularly from poorer backgrounds, taking A-levels which aren't very useful for the subject and not taking the A-levels which best develop and test the skills. In particular, A-level Maths is really essential for almost all science and engineering and social sciences as well, yet too many students at age 16 just don't realise that and aren't told it, and quite wrongly dismiss it as "useless" or "irrelevant".
What I was arguing about was that I do not believe subjects like Media should be downgraded point wise, or told not to do. If that is relevant to their career choice, that should not be stigmatised.
It is up to university admissions tutors what qualifications to ask for. We are not forced to use UCAS points. We will ask for whatever is best from our experience.
Again, I think that the responsibility falls on the universities to better advertise the subjects they want for their degrees, and not just blame the state school, as the Sutton Report did
We do, but they just don't listen. What am I to do when it's in the prospectus, on the website, on publicity material, yet still we get hundreds of applicants who, if they had read that, would see they didn't have what we ask for?
It is not the poor students fault. Maybe if the universities started to provide poorer people with more contacts, or took a more open approach to applications then we would not have this problem.
We do. We are forever sending out publicity material and offering to do schools visits.
I was talking about how wrong it would be to privilege certain subjects above others, and to downgrade them because they are ‘vocational’. To me, that is wholly disheartening and snobby.
Why can't you get the point I am making? It is not because we are being "snobby", it is because in practice we find students who have these subjects perform less well than students who have the more traditional subjects.
Students should do what they feel suits them, not what others tell them to do.
Well, fine, so if they know better than us why do they want to come to university and be taught by us?
"But there you go - straight away you jump to the assumption that I'm just saying what I'm saying out of elitism. It isn't - it's out of experience, doing the more traditional subjects develops and test the skills which are the most useful even for vocational subjects like mine."
I wasn’t saying that you are an elitist, I was actually remarking on your response to my blog about how the Tories want children to do science and maths. You said that this is not telling them what to do, just that it means they are better prepared for life. I think the best way people are prepared for life is if they do something that they want to do, not something to just get them somewhere but wouldn’t enjoy! Again, I do not agree that computing can be seen as the type of vocational courses we are talking about now. ]
"If you are 16 how do you know what is the best A-level to take? What I'm saying is because I see too many students who have ended up not being able to do the university degree they wanted because they were badly advised about what A-levels to take, or they wrongly assumed a "vocational" A-level was best for it."
Well that would not be resolved from changing the points offered for an A-level. Furthermore, you cannot do a Sutton Trust Report, and just solely blame the state sector and teachers. The universities have a key role in this too, to make sure that they advise the pupils on specific subjects and how they relate to career paths. This relates to the above point, we have to make sure that the traditional subjects and career paths are not just the only ones promoted, as more arty courses etc. and career paths need to have equal weight too, so downgrading their point level is totally the wrong way to go about this.
"The problem is we want to be fair to students who were badly advised and didn't take Maths yet could do the degree. Plus also there aren't enough students taking A-level Maths to fill our places - if we insisted on it the danger is we wouldn't recruit enough students, then we'd lose our jobs."
Ok, well maybe you should integrate a math component in the degree or something, or again the universities should help advise the different subjects needed for different degrees and career paths. The onus for this falls on more than just the teaches and schools, the universities cannot just complain and do nothing. Surely, there are enough students though, with the record high level numbers of applicants for university this year? And the clearing system?
"Many other subjects say the same thing - too many students, particularly from poorer backgrounds, taking A-levels, which aren’t very useful for the subject and not taking, the A-levels, which best develop and test the skills. In particular, A-level Maths is really essential for almost all science and engineering and social sciences as well, yet too many students at age 16 just don't realise that and aren't told it, and quite wrongly dismiss it as "useless" or "irrelevant"."
Well I have to disagree. Maths is not the be all and end all. I do a social science (Sociology), and there is no real need for complex maths in that. You just have to know the basics. This just links to privileging certain subjects. Of corse you need a basic level of maths, and English, that’s why you have to get at least a C in GCSE in those subjects to get into university. But to say that it is needed for all subjects is wrong. The subjects I am more thinking about are the media and the more arty subjects. There is no need for rational maths in this, it is more based on emotion and ideas.
"It is up to university admissions tutor what qualifications to ask for. We are not forced to use UCAS points. We will ask for whatever is best from our experience."
Well it clearly isn’t just up to the universities, when Michael Grove is on about downgrading the points of these A-levels. It just isn’t fair to say that just because someone at the top doesn’t see it as a ‘proper’ A-level, it should be seen as a nothing qualification.
"We do, but they just don't listen. What am I to do when it's in the prospectus, on the website, on publicity material, yet still we get hundreds of applicants who, if they had read that, would see they didn't have what we ask for?"
Well I do not disagree with you that there needs to be more activity amongst the state sector. However, there needs to be a partnership of ideas with the universities and state sector and other schooling in order to get the message across. Maybe if you actually communicated directly with schools and told them to hammer the message home. The poorer families are less likely to have the links to be able to know exactly what university wants. They are less likely to have had anyone go to university before in their family for one thing, so a change of tactic may be needed by universities.
"Why can't you get the point I am making? It is not because we are being "snobby", it is because in practice we find students who have these subjects perform less well than students who have the more traditional subjects."
Why can’t you get the point that I am making? I am not saying that certain subjects are not needed for certain degrees, but downgrading certain subjects would mean that people are put off their chosen career path. It is snobby to downgrade the a levels that the top believe are insignificant. I accept your point, but computing is not really a vocational course and of corse it requires maths and science because of the nature of the subject. I am not disagreeing with that. But I feel as though you have missed the nature of my post.
"Well, fine, so if they know better than us why do they want to come to university and be taught by us?"
That’s missing the point as well. By doing what they feel suits them I meant they should be allowed to make their own choices about what subjects they want to take, and this should not be impaired by a traditional focused point based system. University is needed to teach students, I am not oblivious to that. But that was not what I was referring to do. I feel you have missed the nature and meaning of my post.
Well that would not be resolved from changing the points offered for an A-level. Furthermore, you cannot do a Sutton Trust Report, and just solely blame the state sector and teachers. The universities have a key role in this too, to make sure that they advise the pupils on specific subjects and how they relate to career paths.
Yes, that's what I am doing, but you are saying I'm wrong to do that. You seem to be saying instead 16 year olds should just be left to do what they feel is best for them.
Well it clearly isn’t just up to the universities, when Michael Grove is on about downgrading the points of these A-levels. It just isn’t fair to say that just because someone at the top doesn’t see it as a ‘proper’ A-level, it should be seen as a nothing qualification.
As an admissions tutor, I didn't want ANY politician or bureaucrat telling me what he or she thinks one qualification should be worth compared to another - they didn't teach on the degree so how could they know? I used my own experience based on how students with various qualifications perform on the degree to decide. As it happens, however, my experience suggests the "vocational" A-level are over-valued by the UCAS points system. But we aren't forced to use that system. When I was an admissions tutor I always made offers that asekd for grades in particular subjects, not just for UCAS points. If the A-levels were in subjects I found less useful, I asked for higher grades.
Well I do not disagree with you that there needs to be more activity amongst the state sector. However, there needs to be a partnership of ideas with the universities and state sector and other schooling in order to get the message across. Maybe if you actually communicated directly with schools and told them to hammer the message home.
Yes, but THAT'S WHAT I DO!!! All the time I was a university admissions tutor I was always communicating with schools trying to tell them this. And even though I'm not doing that admissions tutor role now, I'm putting this point across again because I passionately believe in it - too many young people are taking qualifications that don't serve them well because they are badly informed. And a BIG reason for them being badly informed is too many politicans and educationalists who WON'T LISTEN, and if you try and say "actually these vocational qualifications aren't much good" reply "oh, you're only saying that because you're an elitist".
Ok, well maybe you should integrate a math component in the degree or something
That misses the point - how can I tell if the student is any good at it if they didn't do the subject that best tells me at school? And what is really needed is the mental training that comes from doing it rather than the actual content. It's too late if they have lost it by not doing it at school.
"Yes, that's what I am doing, but you are saying I'm wrong to do that. You seem to be saying instead 16 year olds should just be left to do what they feel is best for them."
No I am not saying that. I agree that universities should help students with what subjects they should be doing to do specific courses. But your example, computer studies, is not vocational and does not require subjects like Media, so would not suffer from A-levels like Media being downgraded. I think it is wrong to downgrade subjects like that, just because they do not fit the Tories expectations of what students should be doing. That is taking the choice away from students.
"As an admissions tutor, I didn't want ANY politician or bureaucrat telling me what he or she thinks one qualification should be worth compared to another - they didn't teach on the degree so how could they know? I used my own experience based on how students with various qualifications perform on the degree to decide. As it happens, however, my experience suggests the "vocational" A-level are over-valued by the UCAS points system. But we aren't forced to use that system. When I was an admissions tutor I always made offers that asked for grades in particular subjects, not just for UCAS points. If the A-levels were in subjects I found less useful, I asked for higher grades."
I agree with that approach.
"That misses the point - how can I tell if the student is any good at it if they didn't do the subject that best tells me at school? And what is really needed is the mental training that comes from doing it rather than the actual content. It's too late if they have lost it by not doing it at school."
Well yes, but if you taught them the skills they needed in the first year, it wouldn’t be as detrimental. It is never too late for learning.
Post a Comment