Boffins demand: Cull bogus A-Levels, hire brainier teachers Today the Royal Society, Blighty's pre-eminent boffinry institution, has issued its "state of the nation" report into science education in the UK – and it doesn't make encouraging reading. According to the report, there are far too few schoolchildren studying the correct combinations of subjects at A-Level in order to become …
Trust me, if those holidays didn't exist you would have no teachers. Until/unless you've worked in a school alongside them and seen what they have to go through (and I worked in an "outstanding" school) then you just don't understand the severe mental pressures that teachers have to deal with day in and day out. They NEED those holidays, or they'd just quit or go insane.
Couldn't agree more...
I used to teach - when it came to summer holidays - the first two weeks were spent ill. Some strange sickness that required rest etc. Wasn't sickness - just the stress coming out. The next week was spent fixing up all those things that you never got round to in term time. The next week could have been called a holiday and the last weeks were spent preparing for the coming school year.
6 hrs is a very misleading statement - one teaching hour is probably closer to 75 real minutes minimum. Thats prep time and possibly a little paper work. Then you have to do the rest of the paperwork and becuase your idiot school couldn't come up with adequate material - you needed to create material, tests and god knows what else...
I think I was doing something like 60 to 80 hours a week just to keep up.
Whoever thinks that it's an easy cushy number needs to do it.
Would I go back?
Absolutely - IF the money was upped to a level that you could live off AND the burden of administration was lowered AND I was given some executive power to easily remove disruptive members from class. (ok - thats a lot of ANDs)
for a B.Sc. Management and Information Systems degree, and we accepted any good A-levels. The subject didn't matter, the grades did (BBC or better, BC for mature students). There was also a huge table of equivalents to A-levels, including BTEC, Scottish Higher, Irish certificates, French bac, and so on.
Many of the best students came into the 2nd year after an HND. So I reckon the best approach is to stop people doing degrees straight from school. Instead, 100% of the population should do a vocational qualification in whatever the economy needs right now. This could be in an FE college, or a company apprenticeship. Then later in their lives, when the vocation has disappeared, go and do a degree so that you can learn how to learn new subjects for the new jobs that are replacing the old one.
And then, what?
Having watched the process of two of the Pete 2 clan setting out for university (or 3 years of booze, partying and occasionally handing in an assignment, as they thought it would be) nobody ever takes the whole school/qualifications/university/job process to the next logical step. Nobody in secondary education appears capable or interested in what happens to the little kiddy-winks once they depart (running) from the hallowed portals that was school.
The secondary education process is essentially a sausage factory. Raw meat comes in at age 11, gets stuff added, shaped and wrapped up. Eventually it gets squeezed out of the other end of the educational machine and, with luck, adds to the tables of academic achievement with the requisite numbers of GCSEs and A-levels. The End.
At no point during the years spent listening to semi-qualified grownups (in the loosest possible definitions of both terms) is there any strategy given to the kids. Sure, some of them might get some careers advice from people who went into the education system aged 5 and are still in it, 30 years later - albeit giving instead of taking. But none ever get told that if they get a degree in art-history or french, all they'll be able to do with it is work in a museum (sweeping the floors) or in a Burger King in downtown Marseilles asking the punters "Voulez-vous quelque choses à boire, avec ça?"
For most of them, the whole point of school is survival. Getting through with the least amount of hassle, selecting courses that aren't hard - or that they like. No-one apparently ever suggests that Geography, German and Religious Studies might not be a good combination or that people won't be falling other each other to employ you, with English Literature and Physics side by side on your resume.
No. Education is far above such practical, materialistic things as earning a living or paying off your student loan. It's all about EXPANDING YOUR MIND, releasing your potential (for what?) and becoming a balanced and valued member of society. Just like your teachers were. That's just as well, since by the time these future dole-claimers get to studying for GCSEs, the deadlines for career changing decisions is far behind them. If yo want a career in science, it's no good thinking about that at age 21 after you've graduated. Or even at 18 when choosing a degree course - your available topics are decided by your A-level subjects and grades, not by what you WANT to so. Even at 16 your path is already cast in concrete as it's then too late to correct poor GCSE choices and take different courses instead. So at the tender age of 13, either you want to be a scientist or you don't - any other time is too late. But, at 13 what possible experience would you have to base a life-choice on? Only your parents and teachers - God help us.
I downvoted you, and here's why.
First of all, I'm sorry your two children setting out for uni had no-one at their previous school who gave a shit. From my own personal experience of working in a school I can categorically say that there are PLENTY of teachers who do care. Last year one of our ex-students at uni committed suicide and it affected a lot of staff deeply, enough that there were a good number of teachers from our school at her funeral. But they don't care, right?
As for giving strategy to children for picking their GCSE options, the problem is you can talk till you're blue in the face but for many, given the option, they WILL pick what they see as the "easy skive" because they just don't understand how it may affect them. Your options there are to change the way they see life (parents job) or not give them the choice in the first place.
Lastly, as for the whole "Your life is planned out by the time you're 21" nonsense... Really? Have you ever tried applying for uni after that age? You'll find universities, like a lot of employers these days, are far less interested in your qualifications and more interested in your potential aptitude and interest in a subject. Even for the more "hardcore" subjects like sciences, most places would be happy to take on someone for a MEng who'd gone and done their A-level and degree when they were 30 because that's what they wanted to do, because that shows willingness to learn and interest in the subject.
Of course teachers are human and would like to see their pupils succeed, somehow. And sorry to hear about the suicide and yes that'll affect you, you wouldn't be human if it didn't.
But there's caring, and there's caring. What we're talking about here is about imparting the knowledge and skills to help you succeed later in life and the counselling on choices you have as a pupil isn't all it could be. Heck, the teaching isn't all that could be. It may very well be it's the best the teachers can give. But that's not a guarantee the offered teachings are actually good enough, or even the right subjects. A large part of the point made in the article and the report it references is that indeed, the teachers care so much they aren't bleeding good enough for teaching subjects like math and physics.
It's all very moving, and touching, and shiny-eyed good-willed, I'm sure. But if it's not what the children need, then it's not what the children need. It's simply not good enough. So sorry, but that's how it is. You don't seem to understand that, which isn't surprising since you're part of this inadequate school system. How do we know it's inadequate? It doesn't impart the knowledge and skill we need freshman students to have to educate new scientists to eventually pick up and further the state of science.
As to employers, I have shedloads of potential and the battle scars to prove I can deliver, too, and also stacks and stacks of emails and letters to prospective employers and recruiters and very little answer indeed. They want shiny bits of otherwise meaningless paper and more years of experience than the technology has existed and if you don't have it, well, you're SOL. "Don't call us," and you know the rest. Yeah, if you want to achieve something better get cracking and be sure you're well under weigh at 21, lest you be tossed by the wayside. I can relate to that. "Willingness to learn" my arse.
I'm not saying all schools are perfect, and indeed the system needs changing. I know many teachers who know they should be telling students to avoid certain things, but the "higher ups" LIKE those things because they're an easy result and some of them count as FOUR GCSEs, meaning you only have to get them a C in that and in Maths & English and that's your all-important 5 A-C target hit. It's sad, but many of the school leaders either do this on purpose or feel like they have to because otherwisde their school will be judged as "poor" by the gubbermint and put into special measures.
There ARE a lot of bad teachers. There are a lot of teachers who simply shouldn't be in the job, because they don't really care. I'm not trying to excuse them, but they're not the only examples of teaching you should be looking at. Don't blame teachers if the government of the day has decided that they should be allowed to pick whatever they like and water down the curriculum, unfortunately they have VERY little say in what can and can't be taught to students. This is why education should be run by a separate committee outside of government interference. You know it. I know it. We all know it.
Teaching is a very tough, underpaid profession considering its vital importance in the future of our entire nation. A lot of schools are also run by people who have a... slightly dictatorial approach and that's fine if they're good at their job, but many aren't. A lot of teachers fear trying to change things because it's easy to find yourself on some trumped up charge and dismissed, which unlike most jobs is almost a death sentence for a teacher. The school system is home to so many workplace abuses that get swept under the carpet because no-one looks at a school unless it's failing, you'd be amazed. They'd never get away with it if they were businesses.
Bad teachers, inept headmasters, a meddling government, rules geared to foster just the wrong thing, and kids forced to make choices they have not the means to meaningfully make.
Identifying a horrifying lack of /good/ teachers is but the beginning. The next question is /why/ are there so few? Part of that will be in the local leadership. Some will be in what people are attracted to teaching, and in what education school delivers. Another thing identified in the article was "bogus A-levels", putting to much effort in what basically are filler subjects. I can't help but wonder, why are they even offered at ordinary levels?
> I downvoted you, and here's why.
First of all, respect for saying that and the explanation.
The point I was trying to make was not one about nuturing/caring, there's plenty of that - some of it's even genuine (though personally I'd prefer teachers who were complete b.....rds, but efficiently and consistently transferred knowledge and skills). What I would like to end is the "stove-pipe" effect of schools. A teacher presents their subject to one class, then goes on and does the same at a different level to another class. Repeat this process for every teacher in every school. Each one does their job in isolation, is assessed in isolation and never has to consider what any of the class is taught by any other teacher - and in some cases actively avoids "stepping on other teachers' toes". That's a bit of a simplification, but the general case stands.
I suppose the basic problem is the emphasis on choice. While this may seem like a good idea, in real life choices always come with consequences. Those are never made known to the kids when they decide what courses to take. It's almost put as a "free lunch" - with the only limitations being ones of timetabling, not practicality If there was the possibility of some kind of sanity check on those choices - preferably run by an outside, independent body that both presented options before the choosing began and support during it. Along the lines of "you _do_ realise that if you do X, the following opportunities will be closed to you?" or "if you want to go into Y, you'll need a minimum of .... "
This is not even just about getting a job. Exactly the same principle applies to purely academic courses - although it would be nice if schools set the expectation that people leaving education should support themselves - rather than work merely being one option open to them. Even the old chestnut of "Legal / interesting / well-paid - choose any two" would be worthwhile careers advice to anyone, at any time during the education process.
As title ;)
We do seem to broadly agree. The current system needs changing as it is not really fit for purpose. The vast majority of teachers who care would agree, but they feel powerless to do anything in the face of the bureaucracy and target-driven culture they find themselves. If they don't meet targets, which are nationally set with no regard for school catchment area and general ability (CVA went some way towards making up for this), they're judged to have failed. If they try to argue against the measure headteachers put in to meet those targets, they're met with the old "don't you want the school to improve?" argument.
The problem with your argument about preferring teachers who were bastards but efficient and consistent at transferring knowledge is... it doesn't work. The best teachers, and I've watched this happen, get the students interested in what the lesson is about. Getting them interested can sometimes involve having a laugh and a joke with them, or learning how to get them "on your side". If you don't do that, they switch off. This isn't the 40's and 50's, as much as we may lament it children do not generally have the same automatic respect for their elders that they used to. Being a complete bastard means you cannot be efficient at putting across your knowledge, because students are actively turned off by it and will deliberately go out of their way to ignore you.
Some teachers will still tell students that picking Media Studies, Business Studies, and Film Studies for their A levels is going to close doors for them. Many students don't care. What do you do then?
Strangely school senior management and the Gubbermint seem to promote this ideal of the friendly teacher, who will care the child, nurture the child and somehow get the knowledge into the child via painless osmosis.
The truth is kids like a useful bastard. The most popular teachers when I was at school were those that instilled a sense of fear in the kids and got results. You knew there was no messing with these teachers and for whatever reason the 'bad kids' knew this and for them it was even more effective. They gravitated to these bastard teachers not away from them.
The friendly teachers, who were often also poor at teaching, would get no end of trouble and disruption.
The wife is a bastard teacher. She shouts at the kids and throws them out the class if needed, she confiscates their phones, she issues punishments and follows them up, she tells parents their kids are lazy and feckless BUT she also gets the highest results in the region especially from challenging kids
How do the management reward these results?
She was pulled up the by the depute for being intimidating and condescending to the kids, she was ordered to top confiscating phones in class and is banned from throwing out trouble makers. She's received no mention of her success at all only criticism of the few problems. She's also been blocked from expanding her successful department to offer other university approved subjects in favour of vocational courses such as hairdressing and retail (to be taught by a language teacher).
This article does not contain the words "engineering" or "engineer". Whereas the RS report is peppered with them, El Reg prefers to talk like this:
"... science or technology undergraduates..."
"... sci/tech faculties"
"... sci/tech grads..."
The Reg perhaps needs to review its nomenclature for various levels of boffinry. It does not help us engineers that a leading technology paper does not know what we are.
I'm a professional engineer and have been for 20 years. In my early days I was very much in support of the profession, (still am to a degree) but I work in a company which is determined to outsource as much as possible to India. We bring in Indians and kick the English out (by making them redundant).
I talk to my native indian colleagues in the UK, I talk to Indian colleagues in India and I hear the same thing: there aren't enough jobs in India, so this is why they leave and come to the UK.
It's all very well saying, let's take positive action to increase the number of science, engineering, IT graduates but the fact is, given how many of these are being turned out by Indian Universities, there isn't enough jobs in the world for them!
If we as a country adopt a strategy of increasing the number of grads in these categories, then we're simply exacerbating the problem and salaries in these professions will drop further, and they're already too low!
Someone who could teach proper science to kids and not just general scientific ignorance would probably be useless at fitting in with the other primary teachers and useless at not coming across like a paedo or "on the spectrum" so probably wouldn't get the job.
So why not employ an army of floating primary science teachers that take a class once a week whilst the normal teacher is having non-contact or is ill?
As a UK graduate (BSc and PhD) who has not lived or worked in the UK for 20-odd years, my impressions may be somewhat off-base, but the issue I have is the changing role of higher education - into a training system as opposed to education. As a number of previous commenters have noted, real training (as in learning the job) comes when you are on the job - the degree requirement was to identify those people who could learn and had the necessary background.
It now seems more and more that people (employers? employees?) expect to be able to "do the job" as soon as you start not "learn on the job" and so the focus of the qualification becomes more vocational than educational. In this case, we end up reducing the usefulness of the qualification for anything other than the specific job it is intended for and ability of the employee to bring anything more to the job than just an adequate ability to perform it. Now this is a chicken and egg situation - do employers demand this or teachers expect this to be the case - but as I compare my A-levels and degree studies with what I read now, there is no doubt that there has been a large change in focus.
As I have been exposed to higher education in four other countries since my UK PhD, what I have noted is the value in the highly focussed A-level system in the UK: For those people who have the desire and ability to get into research it is (or was?) the best system of any that I have experience of. Whether this was a problem for other students was an important question, but wrecking one (only?) good thing about the UK education system hardly seems the right way to go about addressing a different problem.
Hmmm just so happens our wonderful politicians are well into the process of bastardising that Scottish Curriculum highlighted as being so good. We'll not be doing subjects in the future only outcomes. And most of those will have the words "equalities" or "diversity" tacked on them somewhere i.e. show how the oxidation of iron can be made to improve the equalities in developing nations or how can quantum physics be used to encourage equalities in inner city areas.
Also as a spawn of the Scottish system with highers in Maths, English, Chemistry, Biology and Physics followed by an honours degree in biochemistry I can state that after seeing what the wife goes through as a teacher there is no fucking way you'd ever get me to work in a school.
I didn't realise it at the time but now I know for sure: they sold me and my education down the river so that they could get a few cheap points on whatever nonsense bullshit clock-watching bum-picking league table faecally impacted nonsense bollock-sweat-odour crap factory wank bucket statistics the head master (if we even had one??? never saw him do a days work in his life) happened to be looking at when I was at school.
I bet he was earning £100k a year as well. And thanks to him and his chums millions of kids are leaving school without an education. Might as well get Jim Davidson to run the education system. Somebody with such a total lack of education as him would do a fine job.
Ban the league tables.
Bring back a real education. This is not the post-ideological age that Tony Blair and his war mongering chums hoped for. Some of us can still think and we're fucked off.
I would kill my own children with a wooden cooking spoon before I'd ever consider sending them to any of the bullshit factories we laughably brand as schools. With people we laughably pretend are teachers and text books we laughably imagine might be accurate.
Well I say no more. I do not consent to this kind of shabby treatment anymore. I reject your reality and substitute my own.
“Blighty's pre-eminent boffinry institution”
Still? Despite their motto, ‘nullius in verba’, their head honcho, Sir Paul Nurse, managed to present a whole edition of ‘Horizon’ dedicated to squashing criticism of those brave, upstanding scientists whose funding is only assured as long as they promulgate catastrophic global warming. His pitch seemed to rely on the idea that the scientists were not communicating well enough, rather than the shortage of any real evidence for the hypothesis - which is rather at odds with what normally passes for scientific method, let alone what is written over the RI’s door.
My eldest started secondary school last September, according to his sats scores he is well ahead of the curve in terms of maths but he still seems to have covered very little. Maths at primary school seemed just to be arithmetic. He's now starting to look at the topics my primary school was teaching when I was 9, so more than 2 years behind already. Maths seemed to have been taught as a boring but mandatory subject that the primary school just had to do.
Of course the only way to get more mathematically and scientifically able teachers into all levels teaching to to improve pay and conditions. Without this why would anyone want to take on the job?
This article reflects a sadly common outlook on the role of universities in today's society. While feeding industry with young people trained in appropriate skills is *a* function, it certainly isn't the sole function. To a large extent the point of a university system is to pass the collective knowledge of mankind (yes, fluffy Arts as well as science) from generation to generation, as well as growing the collective knowledge through research.
This modern post-Thatcher habit of focusing solely on industry's needs risks killing the university system in the long run.
Obviously many, many young people do undertake a degree with the sole purpose of getting a job at the end and that's good - but it is wrong-headed to force this 'apprenticeship' model onto all undergraduates.
I worked very hard for three enjoyable years on an Arts degree (English/Philosophy) which to this day enriches my life. I had no idea before starting the degree what kind of career I wanted. When I graduated in the early 90s into the teeth of a recession, I still had no idea what career I wanted. A little life experience pointed me toward IT as an interesting industry - I went back to uni for a vocational one year conversion MSc which resulted (with a little blood, sweat & tears) in an interesting and comfortable career as a software engineer.
If I knew then what I know now, I would definitely choose the Arts route again rather than a CS undergraduate degree. And when I retire/win the lottery, I will probably return to do another Arts degree for the sheer pleasure of it.
It would be helpful to occasionally acknowledge that our universities are not just conveyor belts to jobs in industry. That's a valid role, but not the only role. If it's just a conveyor belt we want, then why pay for a university through taxes - just let industry pick up the tab?
This post has been deleted by its author
Graduate Chemist in case you wonder, worked in the Pharmaceutical industry on the cutting edge anti HIV drugs.
Now sits in an office poncing about with marketing idiots paid twice as much as me. At least now I can pay the mortgage. I wouldn't be able to do that if I was still at the (Rapidly being relocated and outsourced) bench or fume cupboard.
Its the "techies are just over promoted spanner monkies" approach which has killed large swathes of industry in the UK
The U.S. educational system is different enough from the British one that I frequently have a hard time understanding some of what you Brits are talking about. However, the one underlying theme (besides what sounds like a truly messed up bureaucracy) that strikes me as really odd is the way that compulsory education seems to stop two years earlier than ours. In the U.S., graduation is after 12th grade at 18. Secondary school (grades 7th-12th) is typically broken down to 7-8 and 9-12. Only the latter are considered to be vocational or college prep.
To this Yank, terminating two years earlier sounds like it forces kids to specialise way too much way too early. I would argue that instead, what is really needed is a much, MUCH more rounded education that prepares kids for a broad range of careers.
Here, you need a minimum number of English, Math, Science, Art, and what we call Social Studies (civics, history, economics, etc.) to graduate. It's possible for a kid aiming at a job as, say, a diesel mechanic to get by with some pretty minimal classes if s/he wants to. Nothing prevents kids from mixing things up as much as they want to, though.
Take me as a somewhat extreme example. I went through high school 30 years ago. I packed on a pretty full load my last three years because I was bored and love learning new stuff. Minimum number of credits necessary to graduate was 15 per trimester. Each class was 3-5 credits, I think. I carried 16-18.
I took Honors English, Honors History, Honors Math, Honors Physics, Honors Chemistry. I also took Small Engine Repair, Fundamentals of Flight (satisfied the coursework necessary for a private pilot's license and we got to actually pilot a small plane twice ourselves), Woodworking I, Basic and Advanced Electronics, a year of Computer Programming, Debate, 3 years of Spanish (my dad taught that while another teacher taught German), Basic Typing (hey, it's where all the cute girls were!), Biology, Art, Physical Education, and some other odds and ends that I can't recall at the moment. Just about every vocational track available had enough classes to allow a high school student to step into a job like junior mechanic, carpenter's apprentice, or lumberjack.
My last two daughters are going through high school right now in the same state but a different school district. Yes, things have degraded some, but not as much as it sounds like they have in the UK. My kids have a choice of Advanced Placement or basic classes in English, Math, Biology, Physics, and Chemistry. For languages, they have a choice of Spanish, French, and American Sign Language. As I mentioned earlier, they are also required to take a few classes in Social Studies, Art, and Physical Education. Both of my daughters are participating in the school's string orchestra to meet the Art requirement. One of them is a all year athlete (cross country, cross country skiing, and track) so she doesn't need to attend the Phy Ed classes.
Among other things, this school also offers Woodworking, auto body repair, woodworking, and electronics. It's clearly still possible to get a really well rounded education if you wish to, or even just concentrate on preparing for a trade.
Now, here's the real kicker: Neither of the two example schools that I cite is all that unusual here. The first school is in a small town in northern Minnesota while the second is in a suburb of the Twin Cities. Reading the comments as well as the base article suggests that only the Scots have anything like this kind of school available. Is this really the case?
"Here, you need a minimum number of English, Math, Science, Art, and what we call Social Studies (civics, history, economics, etc.) to graduate."
Those mirror the requirements in a Scottish Standard Grade pretty well, at least at my high school. English, maths, a social science, a language, a science and an art were all required, leaving two timetable slots to fill with other subjects. Standard Grade takes place in the third and fourth years of high school (we have 7 years of primary school and 6 years of high school), before we take Highers. I believe your perspective is skewed slightly by the fact that the article discusses Highers and A-levels almost exclusively, at which point some specialisation kicks in (to a greater degree south of the border).
Students that decide to leave school at the age of 16 (after completing Standard Grades, usually) almost always go on to study a vocational course at a further education college, so it's not like they're dumped out of the education system at that point.
I'm a Brit currently living in the US and considering starting a family. My biggest concern with this decision is the cost of sending my kids to school in the UK because the US education system is so badly screwed up.
I do part time tutoring for American kids through a charity and the depth that the kids get to in the subjects they do at High School is far too low. This ends up meaning that undergraduate degrees are watered down, and many of the things I consider standard from my degree and Masters are put off until PhD level. This is why US universities still have structured taught courses at PhD level, and still require you do basic subjects at an undergraduate level.
I want choice from my education system. If my child is a great generalist, I would want them to do something like an International Baccalaureate. If they turn out to be far better at Sciences than Arts (like me) then I want them to be able to choose to specialise far earlier. Personally, I chose to drop most Arts subjects at the age of 14. Dropped the remaining ones at 16. And was concentrating solely on my chosen subject by 18. It meant I got far further ahead in my chosen subject, and I haven't suffered at all as a result.
By the way, you need to correct your impression of British Schools. Education is not compulsory to the age of 18, but it is free to all until the age of 18. These days the majority of kids study through to 18 at school. But Britain also has the advantage of universities being a lot cheaper than the US (at least at the moment), and subsidised for poorer families. This means that everyone has a chance to go to the best universities regardless of background. Very different to the US.
[slowly] Ho ho.
It is just possible that one or two of the independent schools in the UK (the ones that charge 5 figure sums each year for fees) actually even have the range of facilities you imply. (I'm not sure they do, but it is possible.)
There's not a snowball's chance in hell of such a broad education being offered in a state-funded school. As the article notes, we don't even offer science lessons everywhere.
Lets face it - 50% of folk are of below average intelligence.
the bottom of the bell curve there sucks up most of the time and effort of teachers - If we were smarter about filtering out the window lickers at 12-14yo like they used to do when you had to do entry exams for secondary school, maybe we could free these resources in the education system to teach people who will actually benefit from it....
If yer going to spend yer life changing tyres/working in mcburger/working in tescos then why the hell keep em in school part 12 years old - how long does it take to teach the thickies to use a cash register and learn how to say 'do you want fries with that?'....
Of course, that would require the admission that 'some folk are smart, and some folk are thick' - something that seems to be accepted less and less by governments and parents....
Q) if you have kids: are any of them thick ?
Q) have any friends of yours admitted that their kids are thick ?
30-40 years ago the answer would have been yes - it wasn't a stigma - there was a realisation in the laws of nature - which seems to have been replaced by everyone being dyslexic, having TDD or any one of a number of other 'conditions'* rather than admitting they arn't the brightest tack in the box.
*read carefully please: not ofr a moment suggesting these conditions are not real for some - just suggesting that its an easy label to attach to the 'ralphs' of the world.
Oh and to the Art grad: I have no problem with you going to university for universities sake - be my guest. Just don't expect me to pay for it.
I'd make uni fees based on the countries need of each subject - updated every year.
Shortage of electronic engineers: make the course free for those that start that year.
Expected shortage of travel agents ? - make art degrees free for folk that start that year...
otherwise - you pays full price.
stu
Start Violin music: I came from a poor background and attended a secondary school "comprehensive" in the 70's that could be politely described as "rough". There was drugs, knives and, I sh*t you not, pitchforks! All the bad things that happen in schools today we're happening then, including the constant dicking around with the curriculum, trendy teaching methods that always failed, overcrowded "mixed ability" classes, streaming poorly applied, then cancelled, then poorly applied again. Having to stand in a seperate queue and even at seperate tables (like lepers) if you had the misfortune to qualify for "free" school dinners. Teaching to the exam was common and just as ineffective.
I left school with Grade B's (O Levels, not A's) in Maths, Physics and Chemistry and a CSE GRADE 1 in Computers (we had one teletype machine and punched cards! Yay). Somehow, I've managed to carve myself out a decent career in IT (after doing a BTEC at college - they paid me 25 quid a week to do it 50% went to mum and the other third [joke] went on beer and SPACE DEFENDER). End Violin music.
The POINT is, you can still succeed DESPITE our lame education system (and it's been lame for over 30 years). I'd have KILLED to be allowed to do A-levels and go onto university and I get so angry when I see "students" wasting their opportunites to study complete gash like "media studies". I'm angry that "soft" subjects are taught at university at all. The world (not just UK) needs to select the very best people (from an early age) and encourage and exploit their scientific capabilites. for it is SCIENCE and TECHNOLOGY that will solve the problems of the world and not our capability to make documentaries about it or expressing ourselves through th e medium of dance. I'm rambling. Hang all politicians (especially Shirley Williams, remember her?)
Grenade, coz we're all gonna need one soon.
If you are wondering about the pitchfork, some kid bought it in and attacked a PE teacher with it, didn't see it myself though.
Oh, one more thing...Religious Education should be banned in schools. It destroys the mind (which of course, is it's purpose).
Here in Germany "soft skills" have been all the rage ten years ago. It turns out that the hard skills are what matter. Anybody who is not a complete idiot can acquire the soft ones "on the job".
This is a (probably not completely accurate) curriculum for a Technisches Gymnasium (up to class 13 (nominally 19 years-aged pupils at completion (Abitur)):
http://www.wikischool.de/wiki/Lehrplan_Baden-W%C3%BCrttemberg/Lehrplan_TG
Translated: http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&ie=UTF-8&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://www.wikischool.de/wiki/Lehrplan_Baden-W%25C3%25BCrttemberg/Lehrplan_TG&prev=_t
If you want to study for a engineering job, just must be able to do simple engineering jobs like designing a transistor audio amplifier *before* going to Uni. You must be able to calculate a Standard Deviation of 1 million numbers with a Delphi program. You must know how to harden a steel instrument (ab)using you mothers kitchen, while she is at the barber shop.
You have to know how to make explosive cotton.
Those who don't learn this for whatever reason must drop out. No excuses, no "high potential kid" rhethoric of parents accepted. Lawsuits are to be addressed to the state, not a teacher. Problem fixed. Hard skills matter. Talking is done in Germanistic or Anglistic studies, even though I have to say my English teachers were quite good.
A German Gymnasium is not the same as an English one :>) It doesn't mean that the Germans do back flips in the history class.
In my experience as a native English speaker and living in a German speaking country, the standard of education amongst young people here, is way higher than the UK. In fact i am quite shocked at what some young Brits don't know.
It should come as no surprise to anyone that Germany leads the field in engineering and while Britain still has its boffins they are becoming scarce.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisen-Kohlenstoff-Diagramm
Funnily there is no English Wiki page on it. We had to learn and understand ẃhat happens when temperature and carbon content is changed in steel. Didn't english engineers discover all of that ? Then, there was "Härteprüfung nach Vickers" or "Härteprüfung nach Rockwell" (testing hardness).
German industry needs qualified enginers to sustain the development and production of high-quality metal-based machinery - from cars to the A380. There are lots of jobs for proper engineers and technicians here. Our wealth ultimately depends on ingeniuity, as our only natural resources are wood, grain and salt. German Coal is not competitve by an order of magnitude.
I assume Magaret T ("there is no such thing as society") bears a lot of responsibility for all that.
See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Iron_Company
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_hardness_test
"develop into useful high-skilled citizens of the future as opposed to mindless drones qualified in the humanities or other soft studies"
so studying all about transistors, bits, regression testing or particle physics will not produce any mindless drones. Whereas people learning about human nature, dynamics of social interaction or – heaven forbid – politics and principles of justice will inevitably turn into obedient monkeys.
Yes, utterly logical.
I wonder what constitutes a mindless drone. Someone working in the IT-industry all her live, with a comfortable income, but unable to understand or relate to other ways of viewing and living life?
Huggy-feely brigade takes over schools. Makes sure nothing is "too hard", obviously "for the children". Science-y teachers all run. No kids learn worthwhile subjects. Some of them go on to education school. Freshly taught teachers believe the huggy-feely stuff is actually worthwhile to teach. After all, they're so ham-handed at teaching "hard" stuff it turns off the pupils, permanently. And so it goes.
Honestly, school shouldn't be "teaching" the easy bullshit stuff at all. School shouldn't even be easy. It should be worthwhile. There's a difference. I say that having done both in school; slacking off, dropping levels, and finally getting kicked through hard by a (very different) school where the teachers actually wanted to teach something useful.
And then finding other people with comparable intelligence but the privilege of a better school system had still managed to pick up about half again as much in the same time. Work hardest of the entire school, top-tier in the national scheme of school-y things, and do so for a couple of years, only to find I've seen nothing yet. I can tell you, that was a bit of a bummer. Have I just wasted all that time and effort?
In short, too easy a school isn't doing the pupils any favours. At all.
... well before my time, even, but maybe it still happens, there were teachers that didn't start out teaching. They started out as something else entirely, and upon retirement filled a couple years with teaching. A retiree foreman or staff sergeant is not likely to have trouble keeping order. A civil engineer or scientist isn't going to have trouble explaining what you can do with all that math, physics, chemistry, and so on.
As they say: Those who can, do; those who cannot, teach. And now we've made that a specialism. The words "results" and "predictable" come to mind.
The initial graphic was about Primary schools. I think it was pretty shocking, but it is not the biggest problem in that sector. There are still plenty of people in education who think it 'inappropriate' for men to teach in Primary school.
Do you think that people that far up their own agenda are going to give a stuff about mathematics or future employment or the good of the country?
The same thing is true all over Europe.
Ask yourself this simple question. Why would you take the hard route and study to become an engineer or scientist? If you take the easier route and study management and other bs, you'll be able to manage the engineers and scientist.
There is no appreciation for technical skills, nor for the people that actually get things done. And that is the biggest threat to the western world.
There are quite a few highly successfuly German corporations who have CEOs with engineering degrees. Some of them (such as Mr Piech or Mr Zetsche) can actually design and build something else than only an Excel sheet.
Mr Piech built VW (and all its european elements) into a serious competitor to Toyota, which is #1 in automotive.
Warren East of ARM is educated as an engineer, as are many of his colleagues:
http://ir.arm.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=197211&p=irol-execCommittee
Angela Merkel has a Physics PhD.
Google: Two engineers/computer scientists at the top.
Intel: Founded by engineers, still run by engineers.
It is true that many engineers have trouble dealing with "social" issues in the widest sense. But it is also true that other professions have trouble dealing with "reality", in the widest sense. See 2008/9 financial crisis.
Engineers need to mingle with people instead of isolating themselves. When they do, they will quickly realize there are so many opportunities to improve the state of affairs and what the weaknesses of other professions are. Also, experience and learn the nasty tricks. Experience the "heat in the kitchen".
If you are too lazy or too cowardly for that, please do not complain.
Some pictures of engineers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pionnier-legion.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Polytechnique_flag_guard_Bastille_Day_2008.jpg
These things don't translate precisely, but ...
An O ("ordinary") level education is roughly the same as graduating high school here in the USA.
An A ("advanced") level education is roughly the same as an AA degree here in the USA, but instead of getting it at a Junior College, you do the extra couple years in your local high school.
Theres something I've encountered, as a graduate (possessing a B.Sc (Hons) in mathematics), which I don't know how widespread it is.
I would like to go into teaching, I have attended open days at University's, obtained all the flyers, leaflets and booklets on the courses. But theres a problem, to go and study for a PGCE I need (or at least according to all the institutions whose courses I've browsed the requirements for) at least 1 days classroom observation. Now thats the hard part, schools and colleges won't even bother replying to you, let alone consider the request. Which means I can't study for a PGCE, which means I won't go into teaching.
I can understand that schools/colleges have a moral and legal duty to protect their pupils/students from outsiders, but surely its overkill if you don't even respond to requests, instead of responding and getting a check on the applicant. I mean, if this problems nationwide, then maybe its not a shortage of candidates but a failure to even consider the applicants and an application process that is self defeating (you must have classroom experience to be a teacher, but you must also be a teacher to get classroom experience).
It seems to me the majority (well actually, all the teachers I know) come exclusively from the SAS program (where undergraduate students spend time in schools) and outside of that the way into teaching is barred (or at least heavily barricaded to dissuade potential teachers).
Perhaps the real issue isn't the lack of teachers, but the failures of the current recruitment system?
If you're academically minded or just good at exams, I like the Irish system for Junior (at 15) and Leaving Certificate (at 17/18). Points for university qualification are based on the 6 best honours subjects. pupils in school typically do 8 subjects and allowing for pass Irish (Gaelic to the rest of the world), that gives some leeway.
Maths, Irish and English are compulsory but it let me take Latin, French and history to complement chemistry and biology. I would've taken physics but I really didn't like my physics teacher (before I'm flamed as a fluff).
I think that the real issue that others have raised is why very talented, enthusiastic and knowledgable people will not go into teaching.
I have three friends who are teachers, who teach in a complete variety of schools - one of the new academys, a faith based Catholic school and a bog standard comprehensive and all of them are seriously considering leaving the profession. The reason: The rediculous amount of completely irrelevant and unnecessary paperwork, which means that nearly every night they are working, unpaid, until about 10pm. Everyday of the week, plus weekends and holidays.
They love the teaching, imparting knowledge and working with the pupils, but the paperwork is the killer. It's all so that the govenment (of whatever political flavour) can be 'seen to be doing something'. 'Look', they say, 'teaching standards are improving, here are numbers!'. And yet the way these numbers are generated inevitably decreases teaching standards: teachers are spending more time off sick, leaving after a year or two, focussed on teaching to the test and people who would make really good teachers won't touch the profession with a barge pole.
I would love to go into teaching - I currently work as a volunteer youth worker in the evenings, so I'm used to working with kids, some of whom are challenging. I have over 10 years of industry experience. I'd be happy to take the pay cut while qualifying and starting out. But there's no way that I'd currently consider it until there sheer amount of useless, bullshit paperwork is reduced and teaching is just that - teaching. So I'll continue to work in a fairly non-challenging job, making OK money looking after build servers and writing the abomination that is InstallScript. But at least I can go home at 5.30, have a social life and retain my good physical and mental health.
It's also worth noting that that when my friends are complaining about the job, discipline and pupil behaviour is way down the list of complaints.
"very few forced into teaching".
Yeah. Forcing people into a job always makes them shine with inspiration.
You don't think very highly of non-scientific subjects? Stop watching TV, DVDs and films right now. Because the folk who write them, direct them and perform in them get their qualifications from non-science subjects. Consuming (and enjoying) what they produce without respecting their abilities makes you a hypocrite.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
