Modern Education - Society or the Classroom to blame?

The home is a huge problem but the education system is flawed.

Far too many kids go to University and are pressurised to do so. Somewhere along the line the government got confused between "everyone should have the OPPORTUNITY to go to University" and "everyone should go to University".

Instead of being forced to learn academic subjects kids who arent interested should be offered more vocational courses rather than trying to find some random Uni course that they might like.

This is why we have loads of people in their early 20s with degrees in photography and media studies who are in loads of debt and cant get jobs but you cant bet a bloody plumber or electrician to come to your house for less than about 60 quid!
 
Last edited:
The home and the government. Don't blame the teachers, they're sticking to the GCSE curriculum.

The government needs to make parents more aware of the value of vocational courses such as apprenticeships and the new diplomas covering 14-19 year olds.
 
starfighter said:
degree in plumbing might be an idea lol. Sounds silly but lets face it they earn as much as many other professionals.
Click to expand...

Supply and demand I suppose of those required skills.

I remember years ago where it was thought of so little that (as is probably the case now) there just weren't many about. So they found people were earning e.g. up to 60k a year who wanted a new vocation for roughly equal pay.

The showed people starting off etc., who were previously stock brokers, bankers etc.
 
starfighter said:
degree in plumbing might be an idea lol. Sounds silly but lets face it they earn as much as many other professionals.
Click to expand...

Its not silly at all. There are loads of kids that are not academically minded. Not everyone functions well in a classroom and not all kids like learning in that enviroment. Now years ago these kids would be allowed to pursue careers as plumbers, electricians, painters, joiners etc - all very worthy careers. There is no shame in not going to Uni but now they will be encouraged to find some random Uni course that does suit them and they end up with pointless degrees that are of no real use in the real world.

Kids who arent interested in learning should be encouraged to pursue alternatives rather than being allowed to disrupt classes until they leave school.
 
If I'm not so silly you can have the full answer.

The thing is when you are a kid you don't know what you want to do. While I understand bad kids disrupting lessons is not good you can minimise that by having different skill level classes (and at uni it isn't a problem anyway.) At least by staying until 18 even if they quit at a later point in life you can still go to uni and do almost anything. I think this is worth a lot.

University is attractive to 18 year olds for obvious reasons, staying away from home, alcohol and not a boring 9-5 job. But as good as it sounds it also teaches them to survive and opens your eyes a bit more than going straight into work does.

So yes I think broadening the range of degrees to include more directly applicable subjects is a good idea. Ok, people will complain it isn't as hard as say physics or whatever but if you say you have a Physics degree you are going for totally different jobs and the job wouldn't say "needs degree" it would be "needs physics degree" so it doesn't devalue anything.

As for paying for it, all children deserve to have a good education, it is such an obvious way to fight the cycle of poverty and give everyone a chance. by not giving everyone a chance you are losing potential great minds, (we don't want the next Einstein working in Morrisons) so it will possibly pay off in the long run when we have a better workforce.
 
starfighter said:
If I'm not so silly you can have the full answer.

The thing is when you are a kid you don't know what you want to do. While I understand bad kids disrupting lessons is not good you can minimise that by having different skill level classes (and at uni it isn't a problem anyway.) At least by staying until 18 even if they quit at a later point in life you can still go to uni and do almost anything. I think this is worth a lot.

University is attractive to 18 year olds for obvious reasons, staying away from home, alcohol and not a boring 9-5 job. But as good as it sounds it also teaches them to survive and opens your eyes a bit more than going straight into work does.

So yes I think broadening the range of degrees to include more directly applicable subjects is a good idea. Ok, people will complain it isn't as hard as say physics or whatever but if you say you have a Physics degree you are going for totally different jobs and the job wouldn't say "needs degree" it would be "needs physics degree" so it doesn't devalue anything.

As for paying for it, all children deserve to have a good education, it is such an obvious way to fight the cycle of poverty and give everyone a chance. by not giving everyone a chance you are losing potential great minds, (we don't want the next Einstein working in Morrisons) so it will possibly pay off in the long run when we have a better workforce.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt disagree with much of that. As for the highlighted part, my point is not all kids should go to Uni but the deciding factor as to whether they do or not should be their ability in the classroom and not their parents income. Some kids from wealthy backgrounds shouldnt go to Uni in the same way as some from poor backgrounds should. Its about finding the right path for each kid not forcing them down a path because its seen to be the "done thing".

I dont think there is anything wrong with going to college to learn a "trade" or to take up an apprenticeship rather than feeling that Uni is they way to go automatically.
 
starfighter said:
If I'm not so silly you can have the full answer.

The thing is when you are a kid you don't know what you want to do. While I understand bad kids disrupting lessons is not good you can minimise that by having different skill level classes (and at uni it isn't a problem anyway.) At least by staying until 18 even if they quit at a later point in life you can still go to uni and do almost anything. I think this is worth a lot.

University is attractive to 18 year olds for obvious reasons, staying away from home, alcohol and not a boring 9-5 job. But as good as it sounds it also teaches them to survive and opens your eyes a bit more than going straight into work does.

So yes I think broadening the range of degrees to include more directly applicable subjects is a good idea. Ok, people will complain it isn't as hard as say physics or whatever but if you say you have a Physics degree you are going for totally different jobs and the job wouldn't say "needs degree" it would be "needs physics degree" so it doesn't devalue anything.

As for paying for it, all children deserve to have a good education, it is such an obvious way to fight the cycle of poverty and give everyone a chance. by not giving everyone a chance you are losing potential great minds, (we don't want the next Einstein working in Morrisons) so it will possibly pay off in the long run when we have a better workforce.
Click to expand...

The logic is fine, but by the time the child is 16 you have already lost them. They will have become disillusioned and frustrated to the point that they want nothing more to do with Education.

Education first and foremost needs to be engaging. You can try teaching some kids mathematics on the blackboard and achieve nothing. Introduce it in parts through another subject such as woodworking and they will learn far more.

All subjects have the potential to be taught via another subject and they should all compliment each other.

If it is not engaging you are wasting your time.

On the society side, kids need to be taught obedience and discipline by their parents, not a mum and dad who want to their childs best friend. Kids need to be aware of authority figures and respect them regardless. A teacher should not have to earn the respect it should already be given. That does not mean the teacher cannot lose the respect but they should given it as a default.

Society needs to instill that in the next generation.
 
When you ask about modern education - in what regard do you think it is failing? I don't believe students to be any less clever than in years gone by so are you asking why certain subjects are somewhat undersubscribed (e.g. we often hear there aren't enough people wanting to do science?) or are you saying that you think society is in a mess because of the current youth and want to know if society is to blame for that?
 
I had to write a general studies exam answer on this :) I'm gnna go with school. Don't teach you anything really useful (unless you do cooking but don't even offer it at mine) and all you do is learn how to pass exams. But then it sorta drifts into a society issue, you're only useful / clever with a bunch of exams under your belt so.....hmmph.....
 
Would also need lots of teachers, as classes would need to be set. I'm an ICT teacher, 1 of 4 specialist ICT teachers in a school of 1800 kids. All ICT classes are mixed ability.

Teaching a whole class to understand, think, and apply the curriculum is one thing, but teaching them all to break a skill down, understand why the exam question is flawed, answer it incorrectly in their mind but gaining full marks from the exam board.... is another!!

I have a very gifted and talented year 10 pupil, and sat here going through the year 10 exam papers... this kid could build his own computer, put OSX, linux and windows on, configure it, and then hack into a wireless network.

Exam question: List three steps in the boot up sequence of a typical computer.

His answer: POST, Bootloader, Drivers-Kernal-Launch Services.

Mark scheme: Any three from...

Computer is switched on [1]/system configuration check [1]
The program in ROM is run [1] / loaded into RAM [1]
The operating system is loaded into RAM [1] / from the hard drive [1]

Is he correct!!? Just one example of how poor the exam boards are, how people who know very little about a topic write the exam questions.
 
It all starts at home: if kids are taught respect and taking responsibility for their actions when at home, they will generally speaking, take those values to school with them and be a joy to teach, even for the inexperienced teachers.

If one is teaching a class full of little scrotes who have no idea about respect and discipline etc but who all know their rights, they will **** it up for all the class and think that they are the daddy; all the class will eventually then leave school with poor education and blame the teachers or the school for their predicament ........ they will then pass on those values to their own little scrotes and continue the cycle.


More good citizen and good parenting classes might help but I doubt that the ones who need to attend would.
 
Moses99p said:
It's not because he was thick, or had no passion for the subject... he just didn't make us follow a structure. We didn't really learn much about history in his lessons (we just had to do it as private study)... because he'd start trying to teach us... then one of us would ask a question about something else... and we'd have a debate on something entirely different ;s. Now I think that was more valuable than actually learning about the Cuban missile crisis...
Click to expand...

Inability to actually follow the scheduled lesson may be a common feature with history teachers then, one of my history teachers was very easily distracted into talking about other subjects - the amount I learned about Gala Rugby Club probably outweighed what I learned from him regarding the causes of WWI. Quite interesting in a way but pretty useless for anything other than conversing with other Gala Rugby fans.
 
Most schools nowadays walk you through the applying for further education thing.
I went to a grammar school and I got a huge amount of information packs about BTEC's and other such things for colleges at sixth form. Didnt go to sixth form, though, and found applying and getting into uni was very hard because the only person who could advise me about it was my mum who is a primary school teacher and didn't really know much :/

And to be honest I blame society. The schools do everything they can but at the end of the day people should be able to make their own decision and sort things out :( If they don't want to do something then they should be able to say no, I want to do something else.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom