Ivy League in the UK?
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
-
Sassie'sDad
- Posts: 459
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:36 pm
- Location: Rugby
This will help start an alternative attitude:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 017837.ece
and this:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 017836.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 017837.ece
and this:-
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a ... 017836.ece
-
northernsoul
- Posts: 68
- Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:51 pm
- Location: CORNWALL
As a 'mature' student, I embarked on a degree course with high expectations of the course itself and the calibre of the other students. What a shock! Whilst there is a top stream of high achieving students there is also an unhealthy number of home students (and overseas students) who struggle to put a sentence together, never mind write a 3,000 word essay. They are given a disproportionate amount of tutor time and led by the hand through the whole process. Their essays seem to follow a 'painting by numbers' formula with no originality. I do not think they should be there if they cannot cope at that level, and if their presence means that the course is gradually being dumbed down.
However, in the workplace, my employers will no longer take on anyone who is not a graduate. Whilst the new engineering staff are highly competent, the admin staff have appalling basic English skills. The new Marketing Manager is a recent graduate who achieved the top A level grades at a comprehensive school yet I cringe everytime I see a letter or marketing material that she has written. And don't get me started on her telephone manner!!
From primary school through to university, the standards seem to be being dragged down to the lowest common denominator.
And here we are, seemingly having to fight tooth and nail, to secure precious grammar school places for our offspring and preserve some educational standards. Perhaps we should be thinking about standing for parliament?
i am most definitely for quality not quantity.
And National Service for unemployed youths
However, in the workplace, my employers will no longer take on anyone who is not a graduate. Whilst the new engineering staff are highly competent, the admin staff have appalling basic English skills. The new Marketing Manager is a recent graduate who achieved the top A level grades at a comprehensive school yet I cringe everytime I see a letter or marketing material that she has written. And don't get me started on her telephone manner!!
From primary school through to university, the standards seem to be being dragged down to the lowest common denominator.
And here we are, seemingly having to fight tooth and nail, to secure precious grammar school places for our offspring and preserve some educational standards. Perhaps we should be thinking about standing for parliament?
i am most definitely for quality not quantity.
And National Service for unemployed youths
-
Loopyloulou
- Posts: 878
- Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 5:20 pm
Can't remember who was talking nor what time but last week on radio 4 the tories were lambasting labour for education and were saying that the torries were going to do much more for the bottom end and that their aim was for 50% university attendance.Loopyloulou wrote:You're right of course, magwich. If we did what you suggest the country could easily afford to do away with tuition fees, which would solve another social problem.
Our society really doesn't need or benefit from nearly so many young adults remaining in public care until the age of 21. It doesn't make them better plumbers.
I suspect the real reason for the explosion in tertiary education in the last ten years is to hide the massive rise in youth unemployment.
It will be such a shame if the tories cut higher education across the board, rather than simply removing the bottom end.
A "Desmond" from the dark ages is meaningless now. But in those days it indicated too much time in the bar being sociable by someone with a very good brain. A first was almost unheard of, a friend had the first first in the history department for 10 years. Only 1% went to university and I think about 10% went to polytechnic. University was for education, there were FE colleges for training. Now the whole lot is mixed up and anyone in their 40s should hope that they never have to rely on their old qualifications to get a job as they look very paltry compared to 12A*, 5As and a first.
Rant over - sorry.
Dear northernsoul,
I quite agree with everything you say especially of having many students at University totally unable to to write anything coherently (leading to some quite awful 3,000 word courseworks I have to mark!) coexisting with a cohort of excellent students.
However, if I may I would like to elaborate on your statement:
There is a question here that I often ask myself as a University teacher: is the existence of so many badly prepared students at the University the result of the fact that 43% of the school leavers now attend Uni and many of them are just inherently unable to cope with the intelectual rigour of academic study simply because the % of people born with academic rigour are far less as a percent of the population? (I hope not!) Or is it just that the schools are totally unable to deliver to the Universities young people that can express their ideas coherently (both on paper and orally) and have no idea of referencing, let alone a training on independent learning. It is incorrect to expect that training for these things will take place at a university. A degree only lasts for three years. The dumbing down of standards starts many years before a student reaches the university and if he/she does, this does not mean that these gaps in school education (suffered disproportionally by children in the wrong social/income class) will be resolved during their degree years. Staffing Universities with unprepared for higher education children will not engineer social change, just a waste of the taxpayers' money when these same money should have been spend many years in advance in properly preparing these same children.
I quite agree with everything you say especially of having many students at University totally unable to to write anything coherently (leading to some quite awful 3,000 word courseworks I have to mark!) coexisting with a cohort of excellent students.
However, if I may I would like to elaborate on your statement:
From primary school through to university, the standards seem to be being dragged down to the lowest common denominator.
There is a question here that I often ask myself as a University teacher: is the existence of so many badly prepared students at the University the result of the fact that 43% of the school leavers now attend Uni and many of them are just inherently unable to cope with the intelectual rigour of academic study simply because the % of people born with academic rigour are far less as a percent of the population? (I hope not!) Or is it just that the schools are totally unable to deliver to the Universities young people that can express their ideas coherently (both on paper and orally) and have no idea of referencing, let alone a training on independent learning. It is incorrect to expect that training for these things will take place at a university. A degree only lasts for three years. The dumbing down of standards starts many years before a student reaches the university and if he/she does, this does not mean that these gaps in school education (suffered disproportionally by children in the wrong social/income class) will be resolved during their degree years. Staffing Universities with unprepared for higher education children will not engineer social change, just a waste of the taxpayers' money when these same money should have been spend many years in advance in properly preparing these same children.
sj355
-
Sassie'sDad
- Posts: 459
- Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 3:36 pm
- Location: Rugby
Sj355 I think the findings of a panel of experts in a Government-backed report:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... exams.html
answers your point eloquently.
From some comments in this discussion I get the impression some contributors really believe a change of government/dominant party will make a difference. I want to know where the evidence is to support that?
It is quite clear from recent surveys of school age pupils and University students that they are in favour of grammar schools and want to see their numbers increased. Recent changes have all but removed the teaching of modern foreign languages from the curriculum. History has been subverted as to make it ridiculous and the sciences taught as discrete subjects have been similarly treated. Then of course there is Physics. Even my daughter and her coterie of high flyers pull faces at the thought of it and take the stance that 'girls don't do physics'- something that Susan Greenfield and others have been trying to change. The Royal Institution has a lack of funding running through out its history. Charles II 's Royal Charter founding it was done with the expectation it would return much needed revenues: never to be fulfilled. Its recent dire predicament forced it to sack Lady Greenfield and do away with the post of full time director. Once again as a country we fall far short on R&D.
We have fair minded academics who want to see excellence preserved arguing for applications to university being made anonymous.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... ering.html) Chances of it happening? Pigs and flying come to mind.
Does anyone seriously think any of the main political parties offers an alternative and will halt the decline in education? For the first time in forty years I see no hope whatever that which ever way I vote it will make a scintilla of difference to our declining standards of education and am consoled only by the fact I have no more children left to engage its perfidy!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... exams.html
answers your point eloquently.
From some comments in this discussion I get the impression some contributors really believe a change of government/dominant party will make a difference. I want to know where the evidence is to support that?
It is quite clear from recent surveys of school age pupils and University students that they are in favour of grammar schools and want to see their numbers increased. Recent changes have all but removed the teaching of modern foreign languages from the curriculum. History has been subverted as to make it ridiculous and the sciences taught as discrete subjects have been similarly treated. Then of course there is Physics. Even my daughter and her coterie of high flyers pull faces at the thought of it and take the stance that 'girls don't do physics'- something that Susan Greenfield and others have been trying to change. The Royal Institution has a lack of funding running through out its history. Charles II 's Royal Charter founding it was done with the expectation it would return much needed revenues: never to be fulfilled. Its recent dire predicament forced it to sack Lady Greenfield and do away with the post of full time director. Once again as a country we fall far short on R&D.
We have fair minded academics who want to see excellence preserved arguing for applications to university being made anonymous.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/ed ... ering.html) Chances of it happening? Pigs and flying come to mind.
Does anyone seriously think any of the main political parties offers an alternative and will halt the decline in education? For the first time in forty years I see no hope whatever that which ever way I vote it will make a scintilla of difference to our declining standards of education and am consoled only by the fact I have no more children left to engage its perfidy!
