Scandal of 400,000 teenagers studying for ‘useless courses’

PasturesNew

lemonjelly wrote: »

Part of me wonders whether we really need so many hairdressers

I bet the majority of them are up the duff within 5 years and don't work again, except a part-time job in a supermarket at some future point.

I doubt many hairdressers actually stick with it.

I had a friend who was trying to do hairdressing, but the salons kept laying her off - and she couldn't go to the college and keep doing the course without a job.

Too many of that sort of course are tied to a job/employer, so if you're laid off you have to stop it, which is a shame for those that really want to keep going and keep trying to get another similar job.

FTBFun

Sapphire wrote: »

Ah, the mobile phone generation…

?

Not sure what point your making there. I was just questioning the value of these degrees in the marketplace.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

FTBFun wrote: »

?

Not sure what point your making there. I was just questioning the value of these degrees in the marketplace.

Traditional degrees such as Classics, Politics, Eng Lit and History may not have an instantly obvious career route, but they are generally still highly valued by large employers (the type that have big graduate recruitment schemes) as they are known to require academic rigour and involve skills such as analysis, summary and debate, which can be applied throughout business. The core teaching of these subjects hasn't significantly changed at most universities, so employers know what they're going to get.

Sapphire

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Traditional degrees such as Classics, Politics, Eng Lit and History may not have an instantly obvious career route, but they are generally still highly valued by large employers (the type that have big graduate recruitment schemes) as they are known to require academic rigour and involve skills such as analysis, summary and debate, which can be applied throughout business. The core teaching of these subjects hasn't significantly changed at most universities, so employers know what they're going to get.

That's exactly right.

Derivative

Vocational courses are one thing, how about Surf Studies?
Labour had the goal of basically sending everyone to University.

When you do that, you have two options:

1. Keep standards high and let people who don't study hard fail

I'll let you figure out the other option.

A-levels are of such a ridiculous standard now that anyone who gets below BBB should not be looking at University IMO. In the sciences, it is possible to get 100% with a few months of reading books. Physics A-level is about 1% mathematics and mostly remembering facts.

blueboy43

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Traditional degrees such as Classics, Politics, Eng Lit and History may not have an instantly obvious career route, but they are generally still highly valued by large employers (the type that have big graduate recruitment schemes) as they are known to require academic rigour and involve skills such as analysis, summary and debate, which can be applied throughout business. The core teaching of these subjects hasn't significantly changed at most universities, so employers know what they're going to get.

What, people you can talk a good game

RJP33

One positive from the new tuition fees policy is that it should start to weed out which courses are a complete waste of money for the taxpayer and students will be confronted with a bigger reality check of whether the course is value for money.

Stuff like media studies etc is fine, but should be 100% student financed.

silverchair

EdgEy wrote: »

Vocational courses are one thing, how about Surf Studies?
Labour had the goal of basically sending everyone to University.

When you do that, you have two options:

1. Keep standards high and let people who don't study hard fail

I'll let you figure out the other option.

A-levels are of such a ridiculous standard now that anyone who gets below BBB should not be looking at University IMO. In the sciences, it is possible to get 100% with a few months of reading books. Physics A-level is about 1% mathematics and mostly remembering facts.

I have to agree with you. A levels are a lot easier nowadays.
I was shocked at how easy GCSEs were too. I know that the media seems to try & stir things up about how easy this & how easy that. However GCSEs are much easier now. Too much multiple choice & modular courses. Doesnt prepare them at all for A Levels (even though the A levels are easier than before). Do Universities have to play the game & lower their standards too to make sure a good proportion of students come out with good degree so that they get a good place on the league table (although I know it also depends on research carried out at the uni too)

I think some vocational courses can be useful. However what happens when those jobs are no longer in shortage. Its timeconsuming & expensive to have to retrain to be something else & start at the bottom again.

Moneybot

I actually worked at a centre where we taught preparation for working life and we didn't do it to boost our pass rate figures (our A* - C gcse grades were usually 1 and I mean 1 pupil) we did it because the course covered things which would be useful to the pupils in getting jobs. It covered how to write a cv, letters of applications, tax, health and safety at work and managing your money amongst other things. It was the kind of course which would be useful to most pupils in year 11.

And aren't most exams about remembering facts?

silverchair

Moneybot wrote: »

I actually worked at a centre where we taught preparation for working life and we didn't do it to boost our pass rate figures (our A* - C gcse grades were usually 1 and I mean 1 pupil) we did it because the course covered things which would be useful to the pupils in getting jobs. It covered how to write a cv, letters of applications, tax, health and safety at work and managing your money amongst other things. It was the kind of course which would be useful to most pupils in year 11.

And aren't most exams about remembering facts?

A lot of exams arent even about remembering facts if its mostly multiple choice its luck. They cant remember the actual keyword, but if its in the multiple choice it jogs their memory (hopefully). Sometimes its putting letters in the correct order (could be size of objects or sequence of events). Not really a true test of their subject knowledge. This is a GCSE exam by the way. This type of thing isnt useful for employers (as it doesnt actual show their true grade/ability just an inflated one) & isnt useful for the actual student.

I think the course you're talking about sound a lot more beneficial to students.