***Reader warning - controversy will follow***
Michael Gove for those who don't know, is the Education Minister for the Coalition and has frequently been in the news, portrayed as a bumbling idiot who wants to take education back to the 19th Century. But is all the lefty-rhetoric insulting Gove justified in any way?
I'm going to go out on a limb here, with the knowledge that 75% of readers are going to vehemently disagree with me and say - no.
The Telegraph led today with an article about "soft" A-Levels, by saying:
Call me draconian, but I wouldn't like to see people waste £27,000+ if they aren't going to get a value-added degree from it. These subjects are vocational, not educational. Although, I'd say it is a bit offensive to say "Are you trying to avoid a challenge?" (As it does in the document) - because I'll tell you, my hardest challenge would to be draw more than a stickman in Art!
Gove himself said today:
Previously Gove has come under heavy criticism regarding the English Baccalaureate, which focuses on English, Mathematics, two Sciences, a Foreign Language and History or Geography. Interestingly, The Russell Group continue to say:
Which isn't surprising when last year more than one third of university entrants did not have "any recognised entry qualifications". As I've said before, university education needn't be the norm, it doesn't have to be the natural progression for students, Lefties will tell you that for the next generation of students university is more of a risk for students, so maybe it is time we stop pushing university down students throats (just like it was forced down mine) and consider apprenticeships and vocational studies.
Brilliantly, the readers of The Guardian have some funny comments on this, read them here.
Michael Gove for those who don't know, is the Education Minister for the Coalition and has frequently been in the news, portrayed as a bumbling idiot who wants to take education back to the 19th Century. But is all the lefty-rhetoric insulting Gove justified in any way?
The Telegraph led today with an article about "soft" A-Levels, by saying:
"A guide compiled by the Russell Group, which comprises 20 top universities including Oxford and Cambridge, to be released today, will advise students which A-level courses are favoured by admissions tutors."Now apologies for those who this offends, but unsurprisingly media studies, art, photography and business studies weren't on the list. (I did business studies at A-Level and it was a piece-of-piss!) The courses on their own hold their own merit, but as preparation to study a university degree - they hold no weight.
Call me draconian, but I wouldn't like to see people waste £27,000+ if they aren't going to get a value-added degree from it. These subjects are vocational, not educational. Although, I'd say it is a bit offensive to say "Are you trying to avoid a challenge?" (As it does in the document) - because I'll tell you, my hardest challenge would to be draw more than a stickman in Art!
Gove himself said today:
"A generation have been betrayed by Labour ministers who denied poorer children the chance to go to top universities,"He is referring to the fact that children were ill-advised when picking A-Levels. He seems within his rights to say this:
In 2004, about 15,000 non-academic qualifications were taken in schools. By 2010, this had risen to about 575,000.Andy Gardner, a career adviser and representative of the Institute of Career Guidance agrees saying "state school pupils had faced a torrent of misleading information until now".
| The average 16 year old |
Previously Gove has come under heavy criticism regarding the English Baccalaureate, which focuses on English, Mathematics, two Sciences, a Foreign Language and History or Geography. Interestingly, The Russell Group continue to say:
By not studying at least two of the following subjects – maths, English, geography, history, any of the three pure sciences or a classical or modern foreign language – "many degrees at competitive universities will not be open to you"Hmmm. So Gove wants to focus on subjects which will help you get into a top university. What a cretin! More interesting is that 7/10 people back the Bacc.
Which isn't surprising when last year more than one third of university entrants did not have "any recognised entry qualifications". As I've said before, university education needn't be the norm, it doesn't have to be the natural progression for students, Lefties will tell you that for the next generation of students university is more of a risk for students, so maybe it is time we stop pushing university down students throats (just like it was forced down mine) and consider apprenticeships and vocational studies.
Brilliantly, the readers of The Guardian have some funny comments on this, read them here.
Firstly, pushing people (students) toward studying a subject which will get them in to a top university such as the so called 'hard' subjects does not take into account the whether or not the person has any interest in the subject. Preaching to the next generation that there's less of a choice isn't particularly progressive, but it is a conservative policy after all! Students have vast differences in interests and culture throughout the country and if they want to study something which isn't 'conventional' they have the right to do so and should not be disadvantaged when applying to university. What it all comes back to is the conservative mentality, basically, "if we provided you with the funding for your degree then we should have some say on what you study". Also again and again education is deformed by too much consideration of economics and how economically viable a certain elite of people believe your degree is.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, if you are wealthy and come from a background where you or family members have connections so to speak, then you have a greater choice to study vocational courses or as I like to call them 'Interesting' courses because after your further education has come to an end mummy and daddy will help you into a nice well paid job with all the benefits (usually in government). So it seams as if what Gove is saying is that students (or at least the less well off) don't know what's best for them and so he will decided for them.
The reason why people don't like him is because he is backward on policy and reductionist in his methods!
Gove isn't saying that the other subjects are useless or anything like that. The fact that they are perceived as "soft" is by the universities not the government. The uni's want the top students doing the strongest subjects, not a surprise really. Top uni's + top student = common sense.
ReplyDeleteSo for you to say that the Tories are paying for it and are forcing their thoughts on to the cirriculum is nonsense, it's the unis that want them to study "hard" topics.
What they are saying is that if you do "vocational" subjects, then don't be surprised if your application is rejected, there is a place out there for vocational subjects, it just isn't at the elite universities.
The talk of rich kids doing well is something that sadly Britain will seemingly never deal with, but that's not something Gove is capable of dealing with.
Just for your interest: Andy Burnham has been shadow education minister for 118 days and has come up with no alternative policies of his own.
I don't see an issue in the universities saying they favour students who do more academic subjects. There is good empirical evidence that those who study those subjects at A Level are better prepared for university, so it makes sense that top unis want those students.
ReplyDeleteI actually think it's a good thing that universities are being clearer about this. It should force sixth forms to give clear advice that students should take at least two traditional subjects if they want to go to a top university.
I don't buy that this makes the English baccalaureate a good idea. Students should be offered two things: a large range of vocational and academic subjects; and clear advice about what universities are looking for in candidates. They should not be pushed into the overly prescriptive baccalaureate. After all, the unis only say that two subjects should be academic, not all.
By all means, emphasise how helpful certain subjects are, but to judge a whole school based on its performance in a very narrow spectrum of traditional subjects is very disheartening for those whose passion lies elsewhere. Let those who want to study sciences know which subjects will help them at university, but that is not what the Baccalaureate is doing, it is saying that those are the only subjects that matter.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a trend to say that you should only study the things that will later earn you money. I think that's perverse, you can't put a price on learning for the sake of knowledge.