Do too many people go to University in the UK?

[nightrider]

Originally posted by xafier

well the problem with any sort of selecting upon academic achievment is how do you rate intelligence?

 

sure you can just go on A levels, but A levels along with GCSE's are basically certificates to show you have a good memory retension, A level physics and maths which I did were both pretty much 80% remembering equations and how to use them... memory retension isn't the only factor in intelligence...

 

I will be quite open and admit I really did shockingly bad in my A levels in comparison with how intelligent I am, mainly because I went to a place I really didnt fit in and I was sick of all the memorizing education... but on my degree course I'm in the top few, and that isn't just me bragging I often have people on my course coming to me for help, my tutors praise me often...

 

you can't rate people purely on their previous academic results, I think A levels and GCSE's are a poor way to view people, I know people that have flunked out and done poorly in both cases and are EXTREMLY intelligent... I also know people with racks of A*'s at GCSE and 4 A's at A level that I certainly wouldn't trust to run a company or a science lab or a computer network!

 

well then the a-levels need changing. They should be about memorising equations and applying them to new situations which tests for meory retention and problem solving - both important for degree level education.

 

You can retake a-levels - so failing them isnt the only chance.

 

Anyway there has to be some selection criteria and it will never be perfect because nothing ever is.

[nick2]

Originally posted by Cyclone

well, i probably agree I think.

 

Pinch me, I'm dreaming surely.

[Mo]

Originally posted by redrobbo

Why not go one step further? Why not introduce an examination, say during junior schoool years. Let's call this exam The 11+ for sake of argument. A number of places will be reserved at certain schools, (let's call them grammar), where this elite can be educated.

 

Not the elite redrobbo, but the academic. Your statement suggests 2 things;

 

1. That it is almost a crime to be brainy and that it should be in some way used against those concerned to keep them down while the others catch up (if ever).

 

2. That it is almost an equal crime to be non-academic.

 

It makes much more sense to me to bring out the potential in the most efficient and more suitable way....for some that will be sitting exams and for others it will be learning a trade. This needs different educational institutions.

 

You only have to look at the provision of special needs education in the state system to see that it (the state system) is geared to the average/ lower than average ability.

 

Special needs should cover both ends of the ability spectrum but how many of us actually consider children of high ability to have special needs. Well they do and they are in the main not addressed by the state system. Gifted children have to stumble along merely marking time when they could and should be pushed and encouraged to their limit.

 

One of the reasons we have so many disaffected and unruly kids in school is because they see what they are being taught as irrelevant and for many it is. Tailor their education to suit their ability and skill them for proper trades and you will be doing them a service instead of forcing them all through the academic machine in the name of equality.

[timo]

Mo,

With respect, I think you have mistaken Red Robbo's aversion to the selection process associated with Grammar schools for a Pol Pot-style hatred of the 'brainy', as you phrase it. Knowing Red as I do, he would never deny the importance of nurturing 'gifted' children. He is merely against what he perceives to be an unfair system of selection. I, myself, favour the 11 plus, but recognise that children possess different 'forms' of intelligence, to different degrees.

 

A fair and just system of education would nurture the academic, whilst not consigning the rest to third rate schooling and opportunities, as was often the case with secondary modern schools, and some comprehensives run as de facto secondary modern schools. Some children have highly developed linguistic intelligence, others have more advanced visio-spatial skills, some have an equal mixture of both etc. Those who are not academic can surely lead good and useful lives. In fact, as an educator, I would honestly say that the bulk of the population fits into this category. Let us nurture the gifted, but, as you say, give the majority a useful and stimulating education too.

 

One area in which I disagree with you, Mo, is the subject of 'relevance'. Certainly, we have to ensure that there is a reliable, capable workforce, which is where schooling comes in with the inculcation of values, norms and [hopefully, a 'work ethic']. Boys with an aptitude for, and interest in, mechanical matters should by all means be encouraged to do subjects such as Auto Engineering etc. However, there is nothing wrong with asking pupils to study subjects of little obvious relevance in the modern workplace too-such as latin. This may sound odd, to say the least. However, such abstract subjects are good 'brain food', and encourage independent thinking. One of the complaints employers make about graduates is that they are fine when faced with problems they have encountered before [in the course of studying 'relevant' subjects, with a direct link to 'real life' situations], but all at sea when faced with something abstract, and unfamiliar. The study of 'irrelevant', but intellectually rigorous subjects like latin do have their place. Education cannot be all about 'relevance', in a utilitarian way. There must be room for the disinterested investigation of phenomena too.

[redrobbo]

We reach further points of agreement timo! I absolutely agree with your suggestion that some subjects should be taught purely for their intellectual rigour. This should not be regarded as an educational luxury either. (Note: I personally would advocate philosophy over Latin - but we can discuss details once we are jointly in charge of the Ministry of Education!).

 

Now Mo, I suspect that you and I are not too far apart in this debate. You have though misinterpreted the thrust of my argument, and I am grateful to timo for his clarification on my behalf. Let me make my position quite clear - gifted children need nurturing. Their exceptional talents require stimulation, and their needs should be met. I am all for levelling up, not down.

 

As timo rightly purports on my behalf, what I am against is an unfair selection process, especially at 11+.

 

To unnecessarily restrict university education to under 50% of the population is, in my opinion, elitism. It denies equality of opportunity to progress to higher education, and skews university admissions towards a favoured minority.

[evildrneil]

Originally posted by redrobbo

To unnecessarily restrict university education to under 50% of the population is, in my opinion, elitism. It denies equality of opportunity to progress to higher education, and skews university admissions towards a favoured minority.

 

That rather depends on how you restrict university education! Opening university education to the non academically inclined / capable is rather like recruiting translators who can't speak any other languages!

[Mo]

Originally posted by redrobbo

As timo rightly purports on my behalf, what I am against is an unfair selection process, especially at 11+.

 

.

 

But why is it unfair if those that are academically inclined and those with a bent for more practical courses are both offered quality provision at different establishments?

[timo]

Evildrneil,

Believe me, even the 'traditional' Universities have considerable numbers of 'non-academically inclined' students wandering around the campus these days. The worst, in my experience, are most definately the 'new' Universities. The entrance requirements are lower, for a start, but certain 'new' Universities seem to accept anyone on the grounds that they are conscious.

 

I have taught some absolutely brilliant, wonderful students over the last eight years. However, I have also taught , or rather attempted to teach, students with practically no interest whatsoever in their subject, and no academic skills to boot. They tended to loaf around the campus, slack-jawed and incurious, waiting for the drinking contests to begin. As I said in a previous posting, they are often strong-armed into enrolling by their parents [despite being, themselves, adults...]. I once received a phone call from a rather irate Cumbrian vicar, to the ends that I wasn't 'doing enough' for his 'little girl'. The female student concerned never attended seminars, lectures or personal tutorials, nor did she hand in work. As an adult, she had the responsibility and duty to do so. I am afraid we have too many like this young woman, and they are there because they do not know what else to do with themselves in many cases.

 

I often wonder if it takes young people longer these days to make the transition from childhood to adulthood? I feel sorry for them, as they are often quite unable to afford to 'fly the nest' and get on the property ladder. Unfortunately, so many of them between the ages of 18 and 25, seem to rely upon their parents much more than my generation did [i am 43]. I cannot help but feel that this is an unhealthy state of affairs.

[evildrneil]

Originally posted by timo

Evildrneil,

Believe me, even the 'traditional' Universities have considerable numbers of 'non-academically inclined' students wandering around the campus these days. The worst, in my experience, are most definately the 'new' Universities. The entrance requirements are lower, for a start, but certain 'new' Universities seem to accept anyone on the grounds that they are conscious.

 

In some case consciousness would be an advantage! However it's not just a student problem - a surprising number of lecturers and researchers are quite capable of talking about their own very narrow (and increasingly narrower) field but take them outside that and they are lost! Although not strictly a university comment I would like to see schooling carry on longer but be of a much broader and less exam driven, so that school students have an exposure to languages, sciences, technology culture, arts and music. We hould be aiming for the polymath ideal not the analytical monomath(assuming such a word exists!?)

[fnkysknky]

Originally posted by xafier

sure you can just go on A levels, but A levels along with GCSE's are basically certificates to show you have a good memory retension, A level physics and maths which I did were both pretty much 80% remembering equations and how to use them... memory retension isn't the only factor in intelligence...

 

Well I hardly ever turned up to college - got an A in Computer Studies and passed maths. Computing had nothing to do with memory retension as I'd not been to any lessons to remember it and maths is always going to depend a lot on what you can remember - that's what maths is basically - remembering formulae and how to apply them.

 

Now I think about it pretty much the same for GCSE's - didn't turn up for too many of those lessons in the last 2 years either.