Academic qualifications

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurie Saunders:
Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, why stop at Higher Education. ..

---

...or any education for that matter. Should we not bother sending kids who come from really deprived areas to school at all if they will only end up on street corners as dole fodder?
I agree Laurie: far too important to put on a balance sheet.

quote:

---

...or any education for that matter. Should we not bother sending kids who come from really deprived areas to school at all if they will only end up on street corners as dole fodder?

---

I actually feel that there exist kids who come from really deprived areas and who often don't want to learn anything. They prefer instead to spend their school daze disrupting the learning process for others and discouraging educated people from joining and staying in the teaching profession through their behaviour.

40% of teachers leave the profession within 3 years of qualifying because of this next generation of chavs.

After 5 years the figure is over 50%.

Training teachers is clearly a waste of taxpayers money if more than half of them have quit after 5 years.

All because of a minority who often succeed in completely sabotaging the process of teaching and learning for the majority, and as such should be removed from the education system at the earliest oppurtunity to work as chimney sweeps or down the mines, or for use as target practice by our armed forces.



Regards,

Steve.

I'd have stayed in the profession if it wasn't for the chavs.

The mountain of bureaucracy is a drain but you can live with it if it is more than compensated by the buzz you get when kids learn things from you.

That look on a child's face when the penny drops is priceless.

When a handful of chavs set the agenda in your classroom and you are powerless to do anything about it you want to quit.

Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Toy:
It would be better to limit the numbers of places on courses and abolish courses of low academic or vocational value (Surfing Studies anyone?) so that only the most academically able (say, the top ten percent, and not the one third that B.Liar is after) gain places on University courses.

Then a University degree would be worth something and all graduates would be guaranteed a better-paid job at the end.

---

I believe a degree IS worth something in any case - quite a lot IMO. Limiting places to only those with a deserving track record is fine and logical - providing you select fairly. The ability to pass 3 A levels is meaningless. Credit and respect to all those who jump this hurdle - but it's not indicative of the ability to safely get a degree. There are plenty of graduates and post graduates who didn't arrive there through this route. How do we select for these? Luckily the admissions system is still flexible enough to spot tallent regardless of accademic achievement (which in some cases is sadly nothing more than good memory and being able to reproduce text to specified length and content). Again, credit to anyone who can 'play this game' and stay on target. But it's a lot more complex than that.

I don't think there are enough university places. Anyone who wants to take a degree should be given the opportunity to step up and make a case. Many don't and many more fail to get accepted. I believe it's hard enough already.

I paid my course fees and admission fees. This was back in the 80s. Maybe nowadays I could get a subsidy but no chance for my circumstances at the time and the prevailing rules. I really don't think this motivated me to try harder. I've met very few people who were studying for a degree just to take a stab at it. They tend to be very focused and committed (yes, there will always be exceptions, granted) and a proportion of them still don't make it, of get a third class 'I turned up' award.

Getting back to the originial point, I have sadly met quite a few graduates who not only brag about it to the point I want to hit them, but also seem to think they're really special and that 'plebs' shouldn't be allowed to get anything they have. But these people would be shits regardless of their qualifications. Having a bit of paper doesn't give them the right to say who can and who can't. The last person who bored me to death in a pub on this turned out to have some Micky Mouse degree in cooking, French and flower arranging - and they 'couldn't remember' what grade they got. Think I can guess. In cases like this I disobey my rule of never judging a book by its cover. If they act like a wanker then they probably are?

\rant (sorry)

All IMO. This is a very tricky area. There is no universal solution. Interesting though.

Cheers

Harry

[This message was edited by HTK on Tue 21 September 2004 at 17:23.]

I agree and the fairest system possible was introduced in the Thatcher era.

A friend of mine is a case in point:

He left school in the eighties with no qualifications.

In the early nineties he successfully completed a one-year Access course and gained a University place.

Three years later he graduated with a 2.1 and has more recently successfully completed an MA course.



Regards,

Steve.

I'm sorry. Kids who don't want to learn anything who spoil/disrupt it for everyone else!!!!!!

Personally, I would be glad to see the back of any teacher with that perspective.

Good grief!!!

A class of Year 11 middle-set students one week before the beginning of GCSE exams.

A listening test practice using a past GCSE paper.

18 students on task listening hard to the tape to improve their listening skills as much as they possibly can before the exam the following week.

3 students talking.

No sanctions policy in place for year 11 students.

No magic wand in my hand to wave to somehow inspire these three miscreants to take part in the lesson other than by gracing us with their unmistakeable and noisy presence.

Short of taping their mouths and tying them to their chairs there was absolutely nothing within my power to make them

a) be silent.

b) complete the task.

So I asked them if they wanted to be there.

All three said no, so I asked them to leave, and they left quietly without further incident.

By asking them to leave I chose to disregard the legal requirement that these three remain in my charge and disupt the learning process for the other 18.

I got a roasting from the Head but my conscience was clear.

At the start of the year 6 of the 21 students were expected to gain a C grade - the maximum grade attainable for the papers they were to sit.

At the end of the year, 10 students gained a C. The rest gained either D or E, and as for those three individuals, they just got what they deserved.

Fortunately our education system does make provisions for those who, upon maturity, begin to regret the fact that they didn't learn anything at school, they can then stop blaming the teachers for their own failures and go to college to either resit their GCSEs and beyond, or to take some other more vocational course.

At a time in their lives when they simply refuse to learn, a little damage limitation that prevents them from harming the learning process of others wouldn't go amiss.

It's simply a case of taking horses to water etc.

Mike,

You are clearly an idealist, and I guess you believe that all children are little angels and you can kill them with kindness in order to get them to do whatever you want.

The reality is that most children are angels, and they certainly deserve better than to have their learning completely sabotaged by the few that are but devils of disillusionment failed by the system.

There should be more choice in education from Key Stage Four onwards at the very least so that no child over the age of 14 is ever in a classroom wanting to be somehere else every time they are there.

"Modern Languages for all!" they proclaimed - even to those who struggle to master their mother tongue.

Politicians and other idealists have narrowed the range learning options available to our youngsters over the last generation or so in their pursuit of a one-size-fits-all education. When this system fails the teachers become the scapegoats, and the ultimate consequence of this is a shortage of teachers who stay in the profession without bribes in the form of cash for 10-year contracts.



Regards,

Steve.

Sad to say I was, at times, one of those 'disruptive' kids at school, part of my teenage rebellion I guess, however when I left school and went to college for 5 years part time I was one of the more studious in the classes. The same could be said when I went back to college (for a variety of studies) 10 years ago.

I think it's fair to say that (in my opinion) the secondary school years can be very difficult for some kids, for many reasons and therefore it can be equally difficult for the teachers.

A big subject.

I don't have a degree though, or even a diploma!

quote:

---

The ability to pass 3 A levels is meaningless

---

......rather a generalisation, though I accept that its a lot easier thanit used to be

quote:

---

I believe a degree IS worth something in any case

---

in ANY case?

quote:

---

How do we select for these? Luckily the admissions system is still flexible enough to spot tallent regardless of accademic achievement (which in some cases is sadly nothing more than good memory and being able to reproduce text to specified length and content). Again, credit to anyone who can 'play this game' and stay on target. But it's a lot more complex than that.

---

Yes... the admissions department has one eye on the funding balance and knows full well that it is now virtually impossible to fail some degrees, so letting dodgy students in makes a lot of sense financially

quote:

---

I don't think there are enough university places. Anyone who wants to take a degree should be given the opportunity to step up and make a case. [/QUOTE

...for free?

[QUOTE] I've met very few people who were studying for a degree just to take a stab at it.

---

You mean that very few students embark on a dgree that thery are not really committed to. That academic achievement is top of their list of priorities?

You seem to perceive the world in a way which is unrecognisible to me

quote:

---

Having a bit of paper doesn't give them the right to say who can and who can't

---

Regrettably, it often does


Laurie S

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tom Alves:
It's not the Chavs that teachers leave, or atleast in my experience. Teachers work long hours for little financial reward

---

The money isn't that bad (my wife is an unpromoted teacher and is on over £30K) and the hours vary. This year my wife is teaching advanced higher for the 1st time and that seems to require lots and lots of course preparation. That's always the case the first time she teaches a completely new course but at other times the workload doesn't seem desperately bad, although she does invest a fair amount of her spare time in various school clubs etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Hughes:
I'm sorry. Kids who don't want to learn anything who spoil/disrupt it for everyone else!!!!!!

Personally, I would be glad to see the back of any teacher with that perspective.

Good grief!!!

---

Where is Utopia in the UK?

Sadly there is a chav like class which has no interest whatsoever in learning - why let them spoil it for everybody else?

Mike

Sadly this chav like class stigmatises achievement and success in our society.

They also seem to breed at a faster rate in order to be eligible for cheap housing and state hand-outs.

In generations to come the average intelligence levels (measure them how you will) will drop in this country.



Regards,

Steve.

The thread seems to have gone a little sideways, but I'll throw this in anyway.

My wife took her son out of school when he was eleven and homeschooled him. He spent the first two years doing virtually nothing but play till he recovered from the cruelty and humiliation he had suffered at the hands of the maths teacher who had ruined three generations already of the country town in which that teacher taught. After my wife's son recovered he asked to learn and was taught. He passed state examinations/assessments and is now a 22 year old computer engineer earning more than his Mum.

Ask anybody involved in the free/democratic schooling movement and they will tell you that as long as a child is catered for emotionally they will learn of their own accord as long as there are SKILLED people to facilitate it.

My wife practices a (mostly) Rudolf Steiner based one-on-one "therapy" with (mostly) children with learning or behavioural difficulties, called the Extra Lesson. She is one of the few practitioners to work with state schooled children as most practitioners consider that the state system damages children too much for them to be helped with the modality.

The labels and diagnoses of her students come thick and fast and seem to follow fashions. ADD, dyslexia, dyspraxia.

It appears that when the state schooling system - whose practitioners seem to believe they have the ONE TRUE and SCIENTIFIC and SOUND THEORETICAL basis for their method - is unable to get through to a child and help them succeed then they blame the child. The child has a problem (ADD, dyslexia, dyspraxia....) and is therefore unable to succeed.

It seems to me that when a child fails to learn then the teacher has failed and the teacher should change!

Deane

quote:

---

It seems to me that when a child fails to learn then the teacher has failed and the teacher should change!

---

Where special needs are concerned you are quite correct. Such needs should be addressed on a one-to-one basis or in very small groups.

However two or three 14 to 16 year-olds in a class who simply don't want to learn the subject you are teaching are a different matter. They are maturing and as such need to learn to own their behaviour - and take responsibility for it as well as its impact on others' learning. I've heard a class actually turn on a couple of such disruptive individuals and tell them to shut up because they wanted to learn. The response was, "Pah, you're all a bunch of boffs!"

As such they should be offered real choices of where they want to be and what they would like to learn.

Emotional turmoil perhaps stemming from a traumatic home life may explain disruptive behaviour but it doesn't excuse it.

Whilst cruelty and humiliation is, and never can be acceptable teaching practice, teachers cannot take responsibility for all the factors that may influence a child's failure to learn and let others learn.

Removing a disruptive child from the classsroom may be of benefit to that particular individual in terms of being able to address his/her needs, as well as being of benefit to the rest of the class.

As a teacher of French I was a general practitioner in my subject, not a specialist in the needs of students with behavioural difficulties. Like a GP I should have the option to refer a child to an appropriate specialist when I cannot meet their needs, and be able to do so quickly when necessary.



Regards,

Steve.

Most people under the age of 40 or so attended French lessons for 5 years while at school.

It would seem that not many of them remember much more than the following that they learnt in Year 7 (First Year):

"Dja mapple Jemma AJ kans on." (?)

So what they may have been exposed to over the next 4 years or so was a bit of a waste of taxpayers' money, don't you think?



Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on Fri 24 September 2004 at 6:05.]

Deane F,

Aren't you worried that your kid will end up unable to deal with a lot of situations?

-- woody

Academic qualifications have meant little to me when screening and interviewing candidates (and later observing their performance) over the course of my career. Also, I never give the thumbs up on someone who went straight from high school to college to grad school to a serious job regardless of the paper credentials- I find these people typically not creative enough for the job, too risk averse for the job, and often a combination of immature and lacking awareness.

In addition, it's disturbing the percentage of graduates from supposed top universities who are so used to memorizing "the right answer" and producing it when tested that they never learn to think. In interviews they jump to a neatly canned conclusion without summarizing their analysis/thought process/prioritization/etc. When you get them away from their business framework/engineering principles/etc they fall on their faces. Then there's- What, you're an engineer and you don't build or fix things? Get lost! You're an MBA and you've never considered starting any businesses? Go away!

As I said- it's disturbing.

Pragmatic Ludwig

(And of course perspective on this issue probably varies by field)