Saw this interesting read today and wanted to know what you think?
Turn on thread page Beta
"Schools are for learning; They're not Qualifications Factories" watch
- Thread Starter
- 13-01-2017 17:34
- 13-01-2017 17:41
School is a perfectly adequate place to not only learn, but to learn what it is you are interested in and people who complain that they failed because school was too easy it bored them, should have aced the exams, skipped years and taken additional qualifications outside timetabled hours rather than having this completely undue sense of their own intelligence.
- Community Assistant
- 13-01-2017 18:02
Bunch of stuff on there that doesn't seem to have been thought through:
English Literature (and the ability to analyse literature) shouldn't be a GCSE because it is not an essential skill. By that logic neither none of our GCSE's are appropriate. Being able to solve quadratic equations, knowing chemical formulas and so on are not esential skills either and yet Maths and Science are core subjects that you have to take.
Employers shouldn't judge people on the education they had as a child. I'm pretty sure most employers aren't judging (or even looking) at the GCSE's you did. Your degree and experience generally take precedence.
GCSE's have no real need to exist. We need some way to judge who capable someone is. There needs to be some test at GCSE level to determine if a student can progress to college, just like A Levels judge if you can progress onto a degree. The knowledge you have as a child is not job relevant because children don't get jobs. The knowledge you get at degree level is relevant becuase graduates get jobs.
Schools should be able to teach more subjects. At what point does it become too much? If you have too many subjects and not enough students it becomes a financial burden. Universities offer a diverse range of subjects but there are far fewer universities. Therefore classes still get filled. Despite this though I'm at uni with 20,000 other people. In my year there's 40 or so people doing my course. Assuming the same across each year that's 120 or so people, That's 0.6%. At school there were 1000 students or so, of which only a small handful were choosing GCSE subjects. Even 0.6% of 1000 only amounts to 6 students and when you factor in that only a small percentage are actually choosing GCSE subjects at a time you'd end up with 1 or 2 people in a class. This is not practical. Then you have to consider that schools are smaller and can't afford the teaching spaces, staff and so on to cover loads of diverse subjects. Even colleges cannot cover every available subject. I do agree that some actual life skills should be involved. Learning how taxes work, learning about politics and so on is fair but there's a severe limit to what you can do at GCSE level.
Stopped reading because I'm busy and don't have time to critique the entire article.
GCSE's do not teach essential skills. They are designed to teach foundation knowledge that is essential to progress to higher levels. Some essential skills should be learned outside of school. Parents are responsible for teaching kids about things like how to do your laundry. Academic essential skills are often taught in early school life, such as basic numeracy and English. The main issue I see though is that the solution to learning is apparently more learning. But the real issue is that kids aren't encouraged to explore these things for themselves. Why should kids learn about politics at school? Why not encourage them to learn at home? At GCSE level many students get all their education from school. Kids should get their education from multiple sources.