Exactly the opposite. If you dumb down plumbing qualifications so much that anyone who does a 5 day course is classed as a qualified plumber then being able to call yourself such becomes worth very much less.
That doesn't correlate /at/ /all/ with my experience in the 50s/60s versus my children'e experience in the last 20 years.
There's a place for both. If you have to go back to first principles to do anything you can't progress as easily to higher things. a degree of rote learning is useful to speed learning, as long as an understanding is /also/ induced.
Didn't they say that *all* children had to be above average?
EDUCATION HAS NOT BEEN DUMBED DOWN!!!!! If you meet the minimum standard then you good. Just because lots meet it you stupidly think that most are substandard.
| > Exactly the opposite. If you dumb down plumbing qualifications so much | > that anyone who does a 5 day course is classed as a qualified plumber | > then being able to call yourself such becomes worth very much less. | | EDUCATION HAS NOT BEEN DUMBED DOWN!!!!! If you meet the minimum standard | then you good. Just because lots meet it you stupidly think that most are | substandard.
It is the "minimum standard" which has been dumbed down. Apprenticeships used to be five years, at he end of which you had personal experience of all aspects of the trade. |
I didn't say anything about second tier. I simply said that a degree course, with the academic implications that it should have is not always necessary or appropriate for vocational studies. It's simply a different thing. I didn't say that one was superior or inferior to the other.
I don't see it as a question of standards. Simply of appropriateness.
Neither do I and I didn't consider the notion of "class" (whatever that is) in this either.
That's only if you think that a degree is in some way "superior" to other forms of education. I don't. However, I do think that more appropriateness in terms of outcome should be a factor and educational funding applied appropriately as well rather than trying to create a one-size-fits all situation which doesn't really serve anybody very effectively.
I would dispute this, but my main point is elsewhere.
The current system makes no distinction between the labelled grades awarded to the top third of candidates sitting the exam. My point is that this is unfair to the excellent candidates in the top 10% and 20% who deserve a mark distinctive from that awarded to those good students in th etop 30%, but outside the top 20%. The alternative truly is a Lewis Carroll situation, if you believe that all these students really are indistinguishable.
Your system is failing the best students.
The problem with all official statistics about crime is that they are based on "reported" crimes. since many people nowadays don'y bother to report crimes anymore as they don't have a reasonable expectation that it will do any good. So the statistics are fundamentally flawed
Spot on mate. I did biology & chemistry and so did my daughter. No way was I educated to the same standard, as I found when I tried to help with her homework.
When I talk to her friends I'm always impressed with what an articulate, well read, intelligent lot they are.
Dave
Dave
Bollocks.
Apprenticeships are a different thing.
The message from "Doctor Drivel" contains these words:
I think you are right when you say that degree standards are not monitored although it seems that that is not what you meant to say.
It certainly used to be the case that what set a university degree apart from those at lesser establishments was the fact that a university had total control over the standard of its degree courses.
If you simply look at the results of science A levels, you will find that many more students achieve an A grade than was previously the case. This means that the objective of the exam in sorting out the best from the mediocre has been thwarted. The child may have made more effort, but that's not the sole criteria. There is no point in training other than the best to Degree standard, mediocre graduates are not much use to any employer. My own experience of engineering graduates in recent years, has been that the "average" standard of graduate is much less subject competent than their equals of 20-40 years ago. This tells me that the standards have dropped. Passing exams on coursework is always less intellectually demanding than achieving a result on a given day and it's showing in the graduate quality. Also, when 50% of the population goes to University, the intellectual results are crap. As the old adage puts it " You can't turn a sows ear into a silk purse". In the real world, people are probably, on average, less intelligent than they were 50 years ago, as we have not had a war to cull the dimwits!
If teenagers spit at passers by, this reflects the failure of their inadequate parents to instill discipline and standards into their offspring and nothing else.
Regards Capitol
Not true. Whilst the university sets it's own standards there is an external assessor to each course.
Stop believing government propaganda. There is no intellectual difference between the graduate and non graduate teacher in a primary school. It was purely a cosmetic training change. The latest trends in education are almost always largely backwards and fashion driven. For the past couple of centuries good primary education standards have been determined by the classroom teacher. I can show you the results from a primary school in the 80's, where the literacy/numeracy standards were streets ahead of the current levels and the children had a can do attitude with a wide ranging knowledge and high ability. The national curriculum was imported directly from the USA, where it doesn't work either. We are producing a lot more children who have poor literacy etc standards than we were 20 years ago, or even longer. Children do not change significantly from generation to generation. Why would you want to provide homework to primary children, when most of them won't do it anyway? (Maybe their parents will!)
The only person who knows how to teach a primary child is an experienced classroom teacher, who has a basic understanding of the available methods, and can use them as appropriate to the child. As someone who regularly reads the latest scientific(?), educational research papers, I can assure you that there is very little science involved in setting up the criteria interpreting the results. The objective of the paper is to get yourself on the next rung of the hierarchy, never to achieve anything worthwhile.
Regards Capitol
I don't. I think a bit of social division is a very good thing. The rest of the world has it, why should we be afraid?
Regards Capitol
Well f*ck you both, mine were 1968...:-)
No, that's beacsue they are treted like trash by te educatuion system.
I've looked at some papers. Its all learn by rote, no thinking involved and course work as you go.
Quite right, and that middle aged middle class moron is Tony Bliar.
One size fits all, and you all get a comfit in the caucus race.
I am sure it was, but, having got them, nobody cares, because as has been said, so many people get them that whether you were clver or dim, worked hard or skived is utterly irrelevant.
All an A level says today is 'not educationally subnormal'
At one time A Levels were marked so that (approximately) the same percentages received the same grades each year. If you were unfortunate to be in a 'bright' year your potential A could drop to a C or D and a middling student might only get an O. The intention now is to give the same grade as a student would get whether examined this year, last year, next year, or 5 years ago. If you are an employer testing candidates for a job you might want to choose the best 5 - and only the best 5. For an educational attainment that view is wrong. As long as A Levels were for University admission only the old system may have been right. As an examination in its own right the present system is wrong. Educational attainment *is* improving year on year. I'd rather it slowed down and gave kids more time for other important activities.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.