Rastalovich
New member
It appears on the news this morning in the UK that universities are more or less full to capacity and that there will be a high %age of those coming from A-level studying having to take a year out as a result of not getting a placement.
During a report, it was claimed that with so many failing to achieve a placement, it could be looked upon as a generation being wasted. Only to have to wait until next year to apply again.
An interview forecasts that by 2020, it could be that a very high %age of jobs will require a graduation.
This all seems very wrong to me, and I think it's going to get worse year on year.
Next year ofc, it will be the case that this years "gap year" students will be competing with the next generation of A-level students for the same places - how this cannot present another record in those not getting places I don't know. Further more how the people in these establishments can't see that is beyond me.
I do have a dramatical approach to this (as u may have expected).
It has for a very long time worried me about the status of education. Whether it's a means used to massage unemployment figures that all-parties seem to have agreed on - I don't know, sounds cynical, but it does look good on paper until u get to years where increasing numbers don't get into universities... ooo pretty much like we have now.
The movement from very technical or scientific courses to art, french, sociology and the like.
The event of 5+ A-levels being studied when it used to be the case that 2 was hard and 3 was an achievement in itself. You may well have had the odd student doing more than 3, but it was rare and they had a reason for doing so. U would hardly see these people; evening work, lunchtime classes and so on.
My personal experience came from being the 1st year of pupils to take the new gcse exams. Having been pushed a year previously to take math O-level early (as it was advised that it was a good thing to do by the school) - it wasn't exactly easy and did come out of it with a B grade. The following year came the gcse, which didn't have some of the content that the O-level had, and it did result in an A grade. Tbh having already had the O-level, I didn't put too much emphasis on studying for the gcse.
Mirroring the math change came my birth into physics A-level. I don't think any of my year will forget our 1st day, it was a heavily sarcastic approach to looking over what we will be doing over the next 2 years. The main thing we did was to physically tear out of the books, pages that we didn't need to learn in comparison with previous years. "This information from now on will be given in the exam".
Looking back on it. It would be more of a progression if pages were inserted to these books rather than taken away.
The largest factor for going into further education should be just that, to further education. It can be looked upon that it should be a means to getting employment. But the underlying aspect should or must be to better yourself.
These days taking A-levels is almost a matter of course. This never used to be the case.
Increasingly it seems that going to university is a matter of course.
Financially the institution have massaged in loans and things to support this. Lessening the burden on the establishment. Pretty clever really. We'll increase the likelyhood of students going to university to study cooking, keep the unemployment figures down by a few million (allow foreign workers in to do the work traditionally filled by those not going to further education), and the increase in cost will be negligible. Cynical ? It'd probably be good for 10/20 years until the whole thing falls on it's face when graduates are spat out the other end of the university with no jobs to do. More-so, the number of places for students versus the number of students won't work out. ooo pretty much like we have now.
It would seem logical to me, not just on the basis of furthering mankind (which no-one really worries about cos money is more important) that topics and subjects should get harder year on year, at all educational levels. It shouldn't be the case, for me atleast, that increasing numbers are qualifying to go onto the next stage of education - for me this isn't the case that subjects are getting easier, which many people do argue, but a case in my mind that they're not hard enough.
It wholely depends on ur view on what further education is for. What I think is that up to the age of 16 u should be fashioned for basic life which includes basic employment. After that age, if u've shown to be in a certain %age, u should be offered the opportunity to study pre-university for 2 years (current day A-levels) where u challenge ur thoughts of higher education in university. Wherein the very best of a generation go on to become educated, read or study in both higher aspects of subjects and very much new things of the day. Beyond this I'd have another level for 22+ (or those special ones who get to that level b4 their time).
What this does is not overflow the universities, but those really needing to go to university will get their places guaranteed and as opposed to clearing places being where students hunt for a place to get in, it would be universities saying "we've filled the quota of those who have made the grade, we now open to the step below" (phrased wrong, but opposite to what it seems to be now)
University is taken far to much as a matter-of-course for a young person's life. Which I think is unfair. The expectation being held is that I can get in, get through 3/4 years and then work in the profession I specialize in. Whereas it seems the increasing case is that masses are leaving university, each with almost a mortgage in loans even b4 they try and get a job that their piers are increasingly going for.
The types of subject are of different levels for me too, but that's a whole different subject in itself. They all have their requirements for study, but perhaps at different comparative grades. (typical answer from a math/physics/electronics/computer person)
So what u think.
Go on as we are, deluding the generations into thinking what their achieving is great and never mind the debt cos u won't have to pay it back until u get a job which u won't get for a while ?
OR
Make subjects, even at the school pupil level, increasingly harder year after year until perhaps sometime in the future - say 20 years down the line - what u would expect to learn at A-level is now being taught in comprehensive school ?
OR
We happy that even 30 years ago, kids in school are ok to be still taught what we'll be teaching them in 20 years from now ? 50 years without advancement ?
Very generalized, very stereo-typical, very controversial.
Discuss if u like.
During a report, it was claimed that with so many failing to achieve a placement, it could be looked upon as a generation being wasted. Only to have to wait until next year to apply again.
An interview forecasts that by 2020, it could be that a very high %age of jobs will require a graduation.
This all seems very wrong to me, and I think it's going to get worse year on year.
Next year ofc, it will be the case that this years "gap year" students will be competing with the next generation of A-level students for the same places - how this cannot present another record in those not getting places I don't know. Further more how the people in these establishments can't see that is beyond me.
I do have a dramatical approach to this (as u may have expected).
It has for a very long time worried me about the status of education. Whether it's a means used to massage unemployment figures that all-parties seem to have agreed on - I don't know, sounds cynical, but it does look good on paper until u get to years where increasing numbers don't get into universities... ooo pretty much like we have now.
The movement from very technical or scientific courses to art, french, sociology and the like.
The event of 5+ A-levels being studied when it used to be the case that 2 was hard and 3 was an achievement in itself. You may well have had the odd student doing more than 3, but it was rare and they had a reason for doing so. U would hardly see these people; evening work, lunchtime classes and so on.
My personal experience came from being the 1st year of pupils to take the new gcse exams. Having been pushed a year previously to take math O-level early (as it was advised that it was a good thing to do by the school) - it wasn't exactly easy and did come out of it with a B grade. The following year came the gcse, which didn't have some of the content that the O-level had, and it did result in an A grade. Tbh having already had the O-level, I didn't put too much emphasis on studying for the gcse.
Mirroring the math change came my birth into physics A-level. I don't think any of my year will forget our 1st day, it was a heavily sarcastic approach to looking over what we will be doing over the next 2 years. The main thing we did was to physically tear out of the books, pages that we didn't need to learn in comparison with previous years. "This information from now on will be given in the exam".
Looking back on it. It would be more of a progression if pages were inserted to these books rather than taken away.
The largest factor for going into further education should be just that, to further education. It can be looked upon that it should be a means to getting employment. But the underlying aspect should or must be to better yourself.
These days taking A-levels is almost a matter of course. This never used to be the case.
Increasingly it seems that going to university is a matter of course.
Financially the institution have massaged in loans and things to support this. Lessening the burden on the establishment. Pretty clever really. We'll increase the likelyhood of students going to university to study cooking, keep the unemployment figures down by a few million (allow foreign workers in to do the work traditionally filled by those not going to further education), and the increase in cost will be negligible. Cynical ? It'd probably be good for 10/20 years until the whole thing falls on it's face when graduates are spat out the other end of the university with no jobs to do. More-so, the number of places for students versus the number of students won't work out. ooo pretty much like we have now.
It would seem logical to me, not just on the basis of furthering mankind (which no-one really worries about cos money is more important) that topics and subjects should get harder year on year, at all educational levels. It shouldn't be the case, for me atleast, that increasing numbers are qualifying to go onto the next stage of education - for me this isn't the case that subjects are getting easier, which many people do argue, but a case in my mind that they're not hard enough.
It wholely depends on ur view on what further education is for. What I think is that up to the age of 16 u should be fashioned for basic life which includes basic employment. After that age, if u've shown to be in a certain %age, u should be offered the opportunity to study pre-university for 2 years (current day A-levels) where u challenge ur thoughts of higher education in university. Wherein the very best of a generation go on to become educated, read or study in both higher aspects of subjects and very much new things of the day. Beyond this I'd have another level for 22+ (or those special ones who get to that level b4 their time).
What this does is not overflow the universities, but those really needing to go to university will get their places guaranteed and as opposed to clearing places being where students hunt for a place to get in, it would be universities saying "we've filled the quota of those who have made the grade, we now open to the step below" (phrased wrong, but opposite to what it seems to be now)
University is taken far to much as a matter-of-course for a young person's life. Which I think is unfair. The expectation being held is that I can get in, get through 3/4 years and then work in the profession I specialize in. Whereas it seems the increasing case is that masses are leaving university, each with almost a mortgage in loans even b4 they try and get a job that their piers are increasingly going for.
The types of subject are of different levels for me too, but that's a whole different subject in itself. They all have their requirements for study, but perhaps at different comparative grades. (typical answer from a math/physics/electronics/computer person)
So what u think.
Go on as we are, deluding the generations into thinking what their achieving is great and never mind the debt cos u won't have to pay it back until u get a job which u won't get for a while ?
OR
Make subjects, even at the school pupil level, increasingly harder year after year until perhaps sometime in the future - say 20 years down the line - what u would expect to learn at A-level is now being taught in comprehensive school ?
OR
We happy that even 30 years ago, kids in school are ok to be still taught what we'll be teaching them in 20 years from now ? 50 years without advancement ?
Very generalized, very stereo-typical, very controversial.
Discuss if u like.