If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
And I dont do media studies btw.
Still, many students have worked really hard for AS/A levels, and it is demoralising when papers claim that A grades are worthless
I did the International Baccalaureate. I think it is much better system. Six subjects instead of 2-3, with an obligation to study a science, maths and a foreign language. Plus the CAS system, which requires that you make a large (time) contribution to the local community and society.
I'm not the only one who thinks it is a better system. Plenty of independent schools in the UK have switched, and there are serious plans to introduce a UK Baccalaureate.
Why should people have to study subjects they don't want to do? I'm not necessarily against increasing the range of subjects but why should I study sciences and maths when I hate them and they have no role in my future career plans? Plus why should part of your academic qualification be based on doing community work when it has little relevance to your academic work? I can see the benefits in it but I don't think it should play a role in the exam system which is primarily an academic tool.
Just because it's the in vogue system at the moment doesn't make it right, especially the way governments get through educational policies like hot dinners.
:yes:
giving people the choice between the BAC and A-Levels is fair enough. But I don't think they should force people to study everything when they know exactly where their interests lie.
It used to be that A'Levels were about broadening your knowledge, youd read around the subject even if it was not relevant. Now instead of teaching, say, Napoleonic history, teachers will teach the exam of Napoleonic history. same amount of work, same brightness of students, same difficulty of examination, trhe only difference is that students now know how to pass exams, not anything about the suvbject that theyve supposedly studied.
And its for that reason that the IB now pisses all over the A'Level system.
Why shouldnt they? Just because you are excellent at, say, chemistry, love chemistry, live to study chemistry, it doesnt mean that you have an education that will equip you in the worklplace, that will actually make you a useful member of society. University is the time to specialise, not schooltime. People should have to learn maths, english, a foreign language and a humanity up until they are 18- how can someone be educated to a good standard if they only learn two or three subjects?
this is exactly where my problem lies with all these proposals. they don't take into consideration the needs of the university. If you're going to study more subjects then somewhere down the line something has got to be sacrificed in terms of depth of knowledge. which means that going to university, and jumping from 7 subjects to just 1 (or 2 if you do joint honours I spose) is really hard on everyone.
I like the system we had. Go from loads of subjects, narrow it down to 3 or 4, then again to the one you want your degree in.
By the same token some people couldn't do French or German or whatever. Everyone is good at different things, that's why I'm against forcing people to do any subjects that they haven't chosen for themselves.