sacked

[Stagger]

Your partially right Oracle.

I think the unions are trying to run it out to the school holidays.

BUT

The curriculum and lack of achievement in core subjects ruinings the education of some.

To say a child can be in education from 4 to 17 and not achieving basic Maths and English is appalling.

The schools should not be paid if the kids don't achieve the main 2 qualifications.

[Oracle]

Particularly in Scotland. A third world education, now, I gather.

At another level I saw it with my own eyes stagger.

In the ten years from my graduation, to taking on many graduates and postgraduates in my own businesses,
I think they had lost a full year, the 4 year science graduates knew roughly the same as their 3 year peers had done a decade before.

Confirmed more recently by OH recruiting a hundred or more bio scientists taking phds where they used to take masters, masters where they took graduates, and employing graduates to do former technician jobs. All downhill.

A variety of reasons:
the reduction of traditional A level maths physics courses to Lukewarm technology courses; the reduction of rote learning in favour Of continuous assessment, the rebranding of excellent vocational higher national courses in the old polytechnics to become lukewarm stripped down degrees; A major one: The “ market. “ for matriculation boards favoured those with lower standards; Lots of bird courses like psychology taking over from good science basics.

As an employer I found the claim that young people were better educated because of more A stars, a totally risible claim. They knew far less than their B and C peers from twenty years before. But they expected higher rewards!

One reason Germany has succeeded is it still values good vocational engineering qualifications, done along side work, and values those who have them, as do I. Far more take employment and vocational qualifications there.

Where the U.K. seems to think , I think wrongly as an employer , that lukewarm degrees are better .

It has been a slippery slope for 40 years.

Stroking my long grey beard in a croaky voice.... the youngsters of today.....

Your partially right Oracle.

I think the unions are trying to run it out to the school holidays.

BUT

The curriculum and lack of achievement in core subjects ruinings the education of some.

To say a child can be in education from 4 to 17 and not achieving basic Maths and English is appalling.

The schools should not be paid if the kids don't achieve the main 2 qualifications.

[Witton Park]

Particularly in Scotland. A third world education, now, I gather.

At another level I saw it with my own eyes stagger.

In the ten years from my graduation, to taking on many graduates and postgraduates in my own businesses,
I think they had lost a full year, the 4 year science graduates knew roughly the same as their 3 year peers had done a decade before.

Confirmed more recently by OH recruiting a hundred or more bio scientists taking phds where they used to take masters, masters where they took graduates, and employing graduates to do former technician jobs. All downhill.

A variety of reasons:
the reduction of traditional A level maths physics courses to Lukewarm technology courses; the reduction of rote learning in favour Of continuous assessment, the rebranding of excellent vocational higher national courses in the old polytechnics to become lukewarm stripped down degrees; A major one: The “ market. “ for matriculation boards favoured those with lower standards; Lots of bird courses like psychology taking over from good science basics.

As an employer I found the claim that young people were better educated because of more A stars, a totally risible claim. They knew far less than their B and C peers from twenty years before. But they expected higher rewards!

One reason Germany has succeeded is it still values good vocational engineering qualifications, done along side work, and values those who have them, as do I. Far more take employment and vocational qualifications there.

Where the U.K. seems to think , I think wrongly as an employer , that lukewarm degrees are better .

It has been a slippery slope for 40 years.

Stroking my long grey beard in a croaky voice.... the youngsters of today.....

When I was doing some homework on Unis for WPette, must be 9-10 years ago now, I was interested in Stirling due to her running background. The facilities looked excellent, but the 4 year courses puzzled me and of course, 4 years fees were undesirable.

I contacted the faculty and asked about it. In a nutshell most students need year 1 to bring them up to the old year 1 level.
If she could get 60 more points (BBB from CCC if I recall) she could start at year 2 and make it a 3 year course.

In the end it didn't make the short list, she got ABC and went to her first choice Bangor.

[Stagger]

Tic tock tic tock Cummings.

Not long now. ��

[PiesAreGood]

When I was doing some homework on Unis for WPette, must be 9-10 years ago now, I was interested in Stirling due to her running background. The facilities looked excellent, but the 4 year courses puzzled me and of course, 4 years fees were undesirable.

I contacted the faculty and asked about it. In a nutshell most students need year 1 to bring them up to the old year 1 level.
If she could get 60 more points (BBB from CCC if I recall) she could start at year 2 and make it a 3 year course.

In the end it didn't make the short list, she got ABC and went to her first choice Bangor.

I usually lurk rather than post I thought it was worth defending the Scottish Education System at this point though.

The Scottish system is just set up differently from that in England/Wales/NI which is probably where the confusion comes from. In a nutshell the Scottish system is setup so that a pupil can spend one year less at secondary school but one year more at University.

*As I understand, there is no direct equivalent to the 'A-level' in the Scottish system. After doing the GCSE equivalent Scottish pupils spend one year doing "Highers". "Highers" are not quite as advanced as A-levels, I believe that a top grade in a Higher is about equivalent to a C in an A-level. "Highers" are what Scottish Universities generally ask for to gain entrance, so one year after finishing GCSE (equivalent) the Scottish pupil can enter University, but the Batchelor degree is four years (rather than three in England). Alternatively in the second year after completing GCSE (equivalent) the Scottish pupil can stay on in school and do "Advanced Highers" these are a touch more rigourous than A-levels, a grade A at "Advanced higher" is equivalent to an A* at A-level. With "Advanced Highers" the Scottish pupil can enter Year 2 of a Scottish University course or year 1 of an English University course. In practice many Scottish pupils spend the second year improving their "Higher" grade or studying more "Highers" before entering university.

England
GCSE+1 A-level year 1
GCSE+2 A-level year 2
GCSE+3 University year 1

Scotland (pupil 1)
GCSE+1 Highers
GCSE+2 University year 1
GCSE+3 University year 2

Scotland (pupil 2)
GCSE+1 Highers
GCSE+2 More Highers
GCSE+3 University year 1

Scotland (pupil 3)
GCSE+1 Highers
GCSE+2 Advanced highers
GCSE+3 University year 2

Scotland (pupil 4)
GCSE+1 Highers
GCSE+2 Advanced highers
GCSE+3 English University year 1

Confusing no? It is swings and roundabouts. One advantage with the Scottish system is that it allows pupils to do a wider range of courses to a more advanced level, rather than specialising down after GCSE's. A pupil could do 5 or 6 Highers then specialise to 2 or 3 Advanced Highers before University.

I went Scottish pupil 4 route and did more than fine at an English University.

*Caveat - I went through the system 20 years ago, qualification names may have changed etc etc.

[anthonykay]

Having come from England to study at a Scottish university, and then gone back south to work in an English university, I actually think the Scottish system with four-year degrees is better.

In England, you register for a degree subject at the beginning of your first year, and you are stuck with that for your three years. In Scotland, you do three subjects in year one, narrow it down to two subjects in year two, and only choose your final degree subject at the beginning of year three. Most 17/18-year-olds are not absolutely certain of what they want to study; so we (in England) get large numbers of students wanting to change degree subject at various points during their first and even second year, and having to go back to year one, so a year or two of study (and fees!) have been wasted. This doesn't happen in the Scottish system.

[Graham Breeze]

Having come from England to study at a Scottish university, and then gone back south to work in an English university, I actually think the Scottish system with four-year degrees is better.


In England, you register for a degree subject at the beginning of your first year, and you are stuck with that for your three years. In Scotland, you do three subjects in year one, narrow it down to two subjects in year two, and only choose your final degree subject at the beginning of year three. Most 17/18-year-olds are not absolutely certain of what they want to study; so we (in England) get large numbers of students wanting to change degree subject at various points during their first and even second year, and having to go back to year one, so a year or two of study (and fees!) have been wasted. This doesn't happen in the Scottish system.

Anthony

Does that suggest that an English school leaver with good "A" levels would have an initially easier time in Scotland, and be better able to manage the initial school-university transition - meaning have more fun and still pass First Year exams?


(I once employed a graduate trainee who had managed to change her course twice so took five years to get her Degree in Italian - and was on a full grant for the whole time! Although being absolutely stunningly tall and sultry with lustrous black hair down to her shoulder blades and a body that turned heads in the street may have helped her convince the authorities of her intellectual worth.

It may have helped her get a job with me as well.)

[PiesAreGood]

Does that suggest that an English school leaver with good "A" levels would have an initially easier time in Scotland, and better able to manage the initial school-university transition - meaning have more fun and still pass First Year exams?

If they started in year 1 (of 4) Graham, depending on subjects etc, yes.

If they started in year 2 (of 4), which you can with "A" levels, no.

[Graham Breeze]

If they started in year 1 (of 4) Graham, depending on subjects etc, yes.

If they started in year 2 (of 4), which you can with "A" levels, no.

Ah thanks. Interesting.

In a previous existence in another century I used to manage a large graduate recruitment programme but being based in Leeds we didn't send emissaries north of Newcastle and I don't ever recall interviewing any graduates from a Scottish University.

[anthonykay]

Anthony

Does that suggest that an English school leaver with good "A" levels would have an initially easier time in Scotland, and be better able to manage the initial school-university transition - meaning have more fun and still pass First Year exams?

If they started in year 1 (of 4) Graham, depending on subjects etc, yes.

If they started in year 2 (of 4), which you can with "A" levels, no.

I actually have some relevant experience on this.

My brother went to St. Andrews to do Chemistry, and went straight into their second year (I think he had to do some of their First Year exams before they admitted him to the second year). He got on fine.

I was thinking of doing the same when I went to St. Andrews to do Maths and Physics, until I looked at their first-year syllabus, which especially in Maths included many areas of Maths that the A-Level syllabus didn't even touch on. So I went into the first year, and I suppose I did find it fairly easy; or what I really remember is that I found the second year a great deal harder!