Edukashun, edukashun, edukashun!

[rory_20_uk]

Where I went it was expected to succeed. Some teachers were great, others were not. Yes, our school had the cream. We'd worked damned hard to get there. Most top grades are from the grammers and other schools as generally the best get there.

It's called a meritocracy.

Chemistry? Good bloke. We got on. He once taught a lesson from the GCSE syllabus until someone pointed out he was looking in the wrong one...
My Physics teacher was pathetic. utterly useless. For the first 6 months he was on exchange in Australia, and we missed the supply teacher when he left.


So I got the syllabus and a decent textbook and learnt it myself. I wasn't going to let him ruin my life. I got a B and I'm rubbish at Physics. If I can get a B and have nothing more than book-learnt data parrot fashion then there's something wrong with A levels. They weren't testing understanding, merely the ability to vomit up facts on demand.
Modules can be retaken what? 4 times max. One can cram for an exam then forget it all. There is almost no need to understand the subject.
I'm amazed that people on the cusp of adulthood whinge that it's all their school's fault and they're powerless to do anything about it. Get married? Sure. Vote? Sure? Have kids? Sure. Take the initiative for their own live? Nope.

The best universities are after the best. Most aren't are not the best, hence the term.

[tibilicus]

I'm amazed that people on the cusp of adulthood whinge that it's all their school's fault and they're powerless to do anything about it. Get married? Sure. Vote? Sure? Have kids? Sure. Take the initiative for their own live? Nope.

The best universities are after the best. Most aren't are not the best, hence the term.

I don't think winge is the word. As I mentioned I'm expected to get A's in my best subjects, I'm going to be majorly disappointed with anything less. What you seem to be doing is writing everyone of who achieves B grades as less than mediocre and as people who shouldn't be studying at higher education. There's a grade boundary of 2 marks for most subjects between grades. All it would take for an A candidate to slip to a B candidate is to mess up on one question.

Now, according to you, that would make the person some one who would struggle with higher education. Also back to your taking initiative in school point. As I mentioned I've learnt nothing in school for this subject and have pretty much taught myself the syllabus. Even then I still wont achieve a top grade in it. That doesn't mean I'm not clever, it means I've been pretty hard done to though.

Also my points completely valid about the way most educational institutes are run. My 6th form even encourages students to take BTEC's. These are qualifications which in comparison to A levels are worthless. People I know applied to Unis this year with BTECS only to be told that they are worthless and they pretty much wasted 2 years of their lives taking them. Also you seem to forget the attitude of most people. Whilst yes, a small group of students like me can be bothered to do the work out of school most people can't.

[rory_20_uk]

In the current system that is the problem. If the exams were geared to a C being average a "good" candidate may worry over getting a B or an A, but both are OK. With the current system even a B is dubious.

To compensate people are now taking more A levels. There is a massive difference to one getting AAAB compared to someone getting BBBB

I fell into your example - I got a B in Chemistry, what I thought was my best subject (sodding coursework - but that's my long-standing whinge). As "insurance" I'd taken STEP Chemistry in which I got a 1, which is recognised as being worth more than an A which has equivalent value to a 2.

Universities should be there for a small number of people who are both clever and driven to succeed. They are worth investment in, and will often be the "bright young things" of the next generation. By the sound of it you are one of them, and I'd agree that you deserve a place more than I would as you had to fight harder than I did to achieve.

One could argue that teachers are there to help. But I would argue that considering one's choice of A level will massively alter one's life a bit of effort by the individual is to be expected. As you stte, BTECs are valueless. A fact that is pathetically easy to check (pick up a decent prospectus, call admissions. Spluttering laughter at the other end = not a good idea).

For the majority University is a waste of time and effort, getting a so-so degree at a so-so university that is required as everyone has one and if you don't you must be a real moron...

[tibilicus]

In the current system that is the problem. If the exams were geared to a C being average a "good" candidate may worry over getting a B or an A, but both are OK. With the current system even a B is dubious.

To compensate people are now taking more A levels. There is a massive difference to one getting AAAB compared to someone getting BBBB

I fell into your example - I got a B in Chemistry, what I thought was my best subject (sodding coursework - but that's my long-standing whinge). As "insurance" I'd taken STEP Chemistry in which I got a 1, which is recognised as being worth more than an A which has equivalent value to a 2.

Universities should be there for a small number of people who are both clever and driven to succeed. They are worth investment in, and will often be the "bright young things" of the next generation. By the sound of it you are one of them, and I'd agree that you deserve a place more than I would as you had to fight harder than I did to achieve.

One could argue that teachers are there to help. But I would argue that considering one's choice of A level will massively alter one's life a bit of effort by the individual is to be expected. As you stte, BTECs are valueless. A fact that is pathetically easy to check (pick up a decent prospectus, call admissions. Spluttering laughter at the other end = not a good idea).

For the majority University is a waste of time and effort, getting a so-so degree at a so-so university that is required as everyone has one and if you don't you must be a real moron...

And your last sentence provides the key point.

I know which universities I want to go to, they're all top 20 and they all want at least AAB. I'm not going to give up till I achieve that, quite frankly anything less is failure.

What is absurd though is that careers guidance, teachers ect. actually seem to merit and encourage students to go to university, even if its a poor one. The vast majority of people at my school will end up at these new education institutes or even worse former polytechnics. I actually find it shocking that teachers encourage students to stay on and achieve grades so that they can go to these universities.

Personally I think it would be better if 6th forms were just aloud to be realistic with students. People should know that if they're not achieving at least ABB then they probably shouldn't consider university. It's completely preposterous at the minute, people need to realise that coming out with a degree from former polytechnics and the like are worthless.

The fact is the government got this education system completely wrong. They wanted to get more people going to university and yes, they achieved that. The way in which they did it was completely wrong though, they simply made more people go to university to achieve a pointless degree.

You know you can now achieve degrees in events management? Gamblings also another newly introduced qualification. And people wonder why I'm an academic elitist.. If I was an employer and someone came to me without a single academic qualification I wouldn't even let them past the interview stage..

[Chimpyang]

For the majority University is a waste of time and effort, getting a so-so degree at a so-so university that is required as everyone has one and if you don't you must be a real moron...

Less than 50% of school leavers will go on into higher education. So not everyone gets one. And for some students and employers, it's not the grade or the course that matters, it's whether they manage to complete one whatsoever. It still marks you above a great deal of the population, even though they might not be fighting for the top jobs, they will probably do better than most.

B isn't bad and requires work, it sits at a funny place because most of the time if you understand a question, you'll most likely get an A in that particular area, and if you don't, best thing to hope for is a C. The B seems to be a little sandwiched between A and C territory which has always been hard to attain specificly.


"Universities should be there for a small number of people who are both clever and driven to succeed. They are worth investment in, and will often be the "bright young things" of the next generation."

And they are, especially the top end ones, I think that most of the time, the equations etc... do not come into play, and for the most part, universities fill their role of educating the best of their applicants. But there are things to be looked at, it's not a co-incidence that most of my year are white/indian of middle and upper class backgrounds and more affluent areas - they are certainly clever, but so are the hordes of people I know who could do it equally well but didn't have the preparation. (I'm a 2nd year med student btw) When I quote BBC, I seriously mean that for the course I'm on, a BBC student with the right working attitude and compassion etc... would probs see you through. The first 2 years have been mostly learning simple concepts but a lot of them, I'll let you know after clinics.


Also TVU = one of the best places for Nursing out of the newer institutions. But 112 overall. It does depend on what course, what place.

[tibilicus]

They weren't testing understanding, merely the ability to vomit up facts on demand.

I agree with this point actually.

If you look at the mark schemes examiners are given the marking criteria is incredibly shallow. Ultimately your being assessed on your ability to follow exam structure, not your academic ability.

I had a politics exam last week, I actually wasted my time learning about Michels iron law of oligarchy and learning about the various grouping within each political party, the cornerstone group ect.

I wasted my time seeming the exam wanted to know how the Uk could benefit from the wider use of referendums. What ensured was a boring list with points such as encourages participation, brings us closer to direct democracy, educates the electorate ect..

I went into that exam and barely stopped 5 minutes to think, I was simply spewing out information and regurgitating fact from a textbook. I don't believe there was anything stopping me from answering a more interesting question, other than the fact examiners can't be bothered be bothered to mark unique scripts.

SO yer, I agree with you totally on that point.