6th form for the smart and college for thick people

Yeah but the point is that you don't need to do well in your 11+ test in order to do well in Sixth form or well in life in general. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who have little to no grammar or selective schools in their area so didn't take the 11+ test but still did well at sixth form/college or some may have took the 11+ test, failed but still did well in school.

you are displaying an utter ignorance of just how much of a midden , even with everything that has changed in secondary education in the past 20 -30 years (GM , academies etc ), SecMods continue to be ... as they lose the top25 % of the year group regardless and also see a good number of those who might be borderline to pass the 11+ to out of area but still in the county schools

Can you please answer my question, you've diverted again. Please answer them stop dodging it (especially that second question), I live in England and do not go to a private school so Scottish Highers and IBs are a no. Plus in your scenario IBs wouldn't be a thing as I don't think that most sixth form colleges offer IBs and last time I checked IBs are also academic and not practical (probably explains why public schools do them instead of things like BTECs because some have this what I like to call elitist view that academic stuff (A-levels, IBs, GCSEs, Highers, uni etc) are better than things like BTECs, apprenticeships, going straight to work), unless I'm an ignorant fool so you're being hella inconsistent throughout this thread:

1. and do pray to tell how I can get a French degree without doing A-level French? You've answered this thankfully but the point is that I can't do a French degree without going down the academic route in some shape of form unless you can prove otherwise (IBs and highers are academic).

2. Are you essentially saying now that if your scenario were to happen (anyone who wanted to do FE would have to go to college), people who choose to get extra qualifications are dumb? as you made clear that people who go to college are thick (not a rhetorical question). You keep dodging this one so no dodgies this time.

you are displaying an utter ignorance of just how much of a midden , even with everything that has changed in secondary education in the past 20 -30 years (GM , academies etc ), SecMods continue to be ... as they lose the top25 % of the year group regardless and also see a good number of those who might be borderline to pass the 11+ to out of area but still in the county schools

Well yes obviously you can only do French at degree level by doing A level French in England, i was merely suggesting other routes as i was unsure of your location etc

All i am saying is the perception is that say someone who goes to 6th form and say studies A level English, Maths and Phycology will be looked at as being more intelligent than say someone who has gone to college to do say IT, Business or something like catering or hair.

I don`t agree this should be the case at all and that this is a very narrow minded view to have.

Also you're still dodging the question are you now changing your viewpoint on college being for thick people? (You need to stop dodging that question either way) and you're being far too inconsistent. You've gone from bashing college students to bashing sixth formers. It's clear that your not informed when it comes to this subject (nor am I as I've never been to college) and just need to admit that. Come dude: Are you essentially saying now that if your scenario were to happen (anyone who wanted to do FE would have to go to college), people who choose to get extra qualifications are dumb? as you made clear that people who go to college are thick (not a rhetorical question). You keep dodging this one so no dodgies this time.

Well yes obviously you can only do French at degree level by doing A level French in England, i was merely suggesting other routes as i was unsure of your location etc
So you're essentially proving that I'm right, that I'm justified to not go down the practical route because a) I suck at it and b) it's not going to get me that uni entry to do the French degree if I don't go academic in some shape of form, unless you can show me some ways to do a French degree without going down any form of academic route (no A-levels, No IB, No Scottish qualifications).

All i am saying is the perception is that say someone who goes to 6th form and say studies A level English, Maths and Phycology will be looked at as being more intelligent than say someone who has gone to college to do say IT, Business or something like catering or hair.

I don`t agree this should be the case at all and that this is a very narrow minded view to have.
Really funny considering the fact that you said that Sixth forms are for smart people but colleges are for thick people (people who are practical may be more likely to go straight to work or a college, not Sixth form).

I don`t think anyone who wants to do extra qualifications is dumb at all. If anyone wants to learn more and better themselves then all power to them.
I`m just saying a perception exists sadly.

.


Responses above.


But you're saying that College is for thick people and that everyone who wants to do FE should only have college as an option and not Sixth form, so you're essentially saying that in your scenario anyone who does FE (i.e go to college) is stupid as you believe that people who go to college are thick (i.e stupid), see how inconsistent you are being? And why people are calling this out?

Hi,

I was always lead to believe that post GCSE`s that if you are smart/intelligent you went to/stayed at school and went to 6th form.

But if you were thick/stupid and can`t count to 2 you went to college.

Whats your view ?

I have responded to all your questions

Hi,

I was always lead to believe that post GCSE`s that if you are smart/intelligent you went to/stayed at school and went to 6th form.

But if you were thick/stupid and can`t count to 2 you went to college.

Whats your view ?

I`m just trying to stimulate conversation.

So what is it? Have you changed your viewpoint and if so why? What has made you gone from viewing sixth formers as superior to college students via saying that they are smart and that college students can't count to 2 to saying that actually college students are superior because they don't spend their time memorising stuff (you know they do practical stuff that applies to the real world, paraphrasing your point (those that don't do academic stuff)) and that sixth form students are "preppy" or should do other routes, essentially reversing your opinion on sixth form students Vs college students.


Whilst still being inconsistent (damn I need to Google another word for inconsistent).

Hi,

I was always lead to believe that post GCSE`s that if you are smart/intelligent you went to/stayed at school and went to 6th form.

But if you were thick/stupid and can`t count to 2 you went to college.

Whats your view ?

It is a perception i have grown up with i guess, it`s sad that it exists as both have pros and cons. I just feel that 6th form students should give college a try.

How about Illogical ?

This is an old view of 'smart'. What is 'smart' - 'book smart' may not be 'real world' smart. My mum did a college course while I was sitting my A Levels and there was a lot of crossover between Biology and Chemistry, and her course. To criticise college is to criticise numerous industries which are the foundation of our society. Those people that belittle others are the 'thick/stupid' ones. Nurses go to college, Chefs go to college, Engineers go to college, so many massive industries start training at college that, to validate their unworthiness, simply because they don't have a piece of paper is ridiculous.

We have seen during COVID-19 what happens when industries crumble: lives ruined and economies weaken, and this results in our health suffering. All as a result of out 'thick/stupid' college-educated citizens not being able to do what they are 'smart' at.

Education is education, to compare one against the other is nonsensical. Yes, a doctor has more pieces of paper than some others, but it doesn't mean they are smart enough to do what people who have gone to college can do. How can the first 11 years of your life determine your intellect. The same people who came up with this fallacy are the same people who look down of the most deprived areas with the most vulnerable people in our communities. To do this is completely and wholly wrong.

People need to learn to change their views but it will take a long time. By the look of this thread, at least there is a few people who understand what real smart is.

I think that is a pretty common stereotype, but it's not always a case. A straight A GCSE student might just prefer to go to college rather than sixth form, simply because college offers a wider range of courses.

My 12 year old is really smart (think Sheldon Cooper in a way, only less socially awkward), and I have absolutely no doubt that he'll achieve very high grades for his GCSEs. Academically he could easily go on to do A Levels, but he's hugely into programming and 3D game art, and he's known from very early on that he wants to be a games developer. Yeah he could go on to do an A Level in Computer Science (and choose two other A Level subjects that he couldn't care less about), and he'd get great grades I'm sure, but far more interesting to him would be a BTEC in Games Development, or Digital Games Development and Design.

Obviously we're not at a stage yet of him needing to decide on higher education courses, and if this government has its way by the time he reaches sixth form all BTECs will be scrapped in favour of T Levels anyway (a stupid move if you ask me), but it just highlights that the stereotype doesn't fit everyone.

My eldest two kids fit the stereotype. My Year 11 is fairly academic and wants to go onto sixth form to study A Levels. My Year 10 struggles academically and wants to go on to college to study a Level 3 Extended BTEC.

The only truth in it really is that you do pretty much need reasonably good grades to do A Levels, but even then you don't need all 7s-9s, as many sixth forms only require 5s or 6s for entry. Most middle-of-the-road students can get in to do A Levels.

Grammar schools are starting to go (which is sad), especially in some parts of the south and east of England so doing the 11+ test may be pointless for some (for me it would have been pointless even if I was academic because of this reason and because my sixth form is good (other than it having poor communication)).

I think Grammar schools should all go and all classes should be mixed ability

Yeah no thanks to that (I've never been to a grammar school but it's good for academic pupils who don't necessarily have the means to send there child to a private school, I would wish that some privileged households would stop exploiting that system though. With the mixed ability bit, the issue with that is that teachers aren't always willing to accommodate for everyone of different abilities so everyone is held to the same standard and/or was given the same work to do (definitely was the case in my old school when they decided to make English mixed ability, no accommodation for me whatsoever despite me failing (oh the teachers were lazy too)). For schools that a willing to make those accommodations then great mixed ability but if you're not then don't bother. What about subjects that have a higher and lower tier paper (Bar MFL) what happens then? I think that Science, Maths and English need sets or at the very least people who do higher tier shouldn't be in the same class as someone who's doing foundation (I shouldn't be in the same class as a Maths student doing a foundation paper for example because I did higher and the foundation student may have to learn irrelevant content (not that school isn't already like this) that they don't need to know for the exam e.g Sine, Cosine and tan graphs, circle theorems etc).

Also you're kind of diverting from the OP, so have you changed your viewpoint or not?