Goveasoures Rex

I think the subject of Education in the UK is going to be highly contested within the next few months and as it is a prominent feature on this blog I thought I would give a response to Liam's article with a bit more prowess then a comment.

The reason that some subjects are considered soft is purely economical, due to the fact that educational institutions in the UK, such as universities are seen primarily as businesses which in a way has superseded the importance of education and indeed free thinking.

Plus saying that it is the universities which perceive certain subjects as hard or soft isn't entity the case as it also is apparent in the opinion of the individual to what they consider as such. This subject comes up in public and political discourse, so as well as Gove commenting upon what he believes are hard and soft subjects, people in general have their own view on what is a worthwhile degree (or qualification) to obtain. Personally I have come under attack by people in general for studying Sociology which is considered soft by many but the point is that I am perfectly capable of studying a "hard" subject and have qualifications to do so, I am just not interested in them as much as Sociology.

This isn't taken into consideration by Gove and he seems uninterested in what people find interesting or personally worthwhile and instead would like individuals to spend their time studying a subject which will benefit the economy over their preferred experience or enjoyment.

The fact that there remains this ethos that "if you do "vocational" subjects, then don't be surprised if your application is rejected", is inherently derived from modernity and an overemphasis on capitalism as the more economically astute subjects are given a higher status over ones which aren't. This to me seems a particularly robotic way to approach education as the system in place to educate is comparable to a production line where we all are manufactured to benefit the economy ('hard' products) and the ones who are misshapen or impractical ('soft' products) are disregarded and sold as a cheaper price.

I am not a product and I personally find Gove's overall approach to education offensive especially as it is nothing more than a relic of a time gone by... this is 2011 not 1950.

It is time somebody came to the defence of Michael Gove.

***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:

"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.