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.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
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
yes, grammatically and spelling wise, but historical criticism is particulary good for source criticism and appraisal, in fact it's the best subject to do if you want to be a lawyer, and then do a postgrad law course.
i believe kermit might confirm the stage at which it is best to transfer from history to law
Indeed. My old AS Level Law teacher doesn't have a Law degree but has a degree in History.
It definately doesn't class as equally important as History, Physics, Chemistry, Maths and the like but it provides many skills which are, in my opinion, invaluable if you can't obtain them on your own. IMO, many people can't - or more correctly, will learn the hard way
Sounds good to me..
But we need to do something good with those 2 extra years - education in this country is pretty rubbish unless you're paying for a private school.
I've known people that have come to the Uk from 3rd world countries and left to go back because whatever they got taught inthe Uk they already covered at home 2 or 3 years prior .. we only start to excell at University level - and even then only the top Universities.
i think this is a good move, it will stop people leaving education and going into simple retail jobs and will able them to go on to do specialised jobs, academic courses will be available as well as vocational, so if people come out of school with more qualifications, then they will, in the long run, go on to achieve a better living and earn money.
Why not empower kids with skills to benefit their career and life in general? It doesn't matter whether history is relevant to most people's lives... they don't have to take history if they don't want to!
There are certain subjects everyone should have a good basic knowledge of, these will benefit everyone. Maths and English are the obvious ones. Besides that, kids should be able to choose education which will cater to their needs. But they shouldn't be able to leave at 16 with very few prospects and little chance of contributing to society.
in years 7-11 you get the people who are forced into school aswell as the people who make an effort, when post 16 comes into it, you get the people who wish to achieve, but when everyone has to stay in school, people will be disrupted in years 12 and 13.
ive been talking about this topic alot in sociology in school, in which im doing a/s levels, and im glad half the people who just dicked about left last year, but if these kind of people are forced into further education, that means that people who want do well will have even more dificulty due to the dicks who ruin things for everyone.
AND you wont be able to use doing a levels as a superiority complex :thumb: :razz:
My sister would be described as a 'troublemaker' when she was at school. But now she's left and is doing a vocational qualification, working 40 hours a week for just £80, after 3 years she may become a qualified hairdresser. If she could have started at 13 even she'd have been better off, she's got a good grasp of basic skills but those extra years in GCSEs learning about Shakespeare did her no good, in part because she didn't attend often.
It was amusing, because these child services or whatever said she had to go to school, yet the school had sent all the kids on work placements. They threatened one of the teachers with dismassal if she didn't find my sis something to do. So they pretended she was going in. Still, after not going for 2 years she still got a C for her English GCSE.
I couldn't be prouder of her, she's going to retake her maths under my supervision :cool: muahaha. But seriously, everyone gave her a hard time for not fitting in the system - me included - but now I realise it's because not everyone fits a certain profile.
If school leaving age being 18 includes vocational qualifications, I think that's a good thing, as those that go into shop / warehouse work at 16 (no offence to those that do) do end up limiting their opportunities because they don't gain masses of transferable skills and often get exploited as cheap labour (the minimum wage is lower).
It's a shame tho vocational qualifications are seen as second-grade, even though I wholeheartedly believe they prepare you better for work in many cases. I could in theory go into my chosen career with the 'academic' knowledge I have now, but I need a degree not because I need the knowledge, but because firms like to narrow the target market. To those with a minimum of a 2:1.
My tutor said this the week before last. She asid that there are some people who think that NVQs are easy and are for people who didn't do as well at GCSE. Yet, at the 6th form open evening (last year) there were parents coming up to the people demonstrating their trade (NVQ) and asking them how they did something.
I can see the point you're making, but what about giving the population a general education? I'd hate to grow up being nothing but specialised in one subject - I want to know my history, regardless of my profession. I can see the benefits of raising the school leaving age but I think, if no vocational course is provided, it would be a scandalous decision to make. Not everyone wants to further their academic skills - and your practical alternatives are fairly limited, although this is changing.
Today, at least in Sweden, there are 'profession preparatory courses', which, on the side of the core subjects, have courses which aim to prepare you for a specific profession. I think it's a good idea for those who feel they want an education of this sort. For this reason I whole-heartedly agree with raising the school leaving age and see nothing wrong with enforcing a decision like this.
We already have something like this called A Levels.
Correct me if I'm wrong (I always tend to say something confusing as I'm always relating to my country's system of education and not the British one... which I, incidentally, know nothing about), A levels is a choice and not mandatory, correct? Now that an increased amount of practical courses have been introduced in A levels, I think it's a great idea to make A levels mandatory - for everyone. I've walked around to many schools for A levels and found that almost all of them provide some sort of practical course, whether it's media, various IT specialised courses, technical ones or hairdresser courses.
Sounds cool but it's nothing for me, I like theoretical courses. But it's better if we force the skills to the students of our country instead of giving them the choice of jumping out into the world without any further skills than GCSE (providing they are given the choice between theoretical courses and practical ones, of course)
ETA: I know what A-levels is. (A) I was relating to the other post, where he was saying all those lessons about Shakespeare helped her in no way at all with her career. True, but should we just screw everything which has nothing to do with our future career?
Also, another important factor to remember is that 16-18 year olds going to college for example, have to pay extortionate fees and so staying on at school will help parents financially.
I understand the point you make about frredom of choice, but if that means that bored and unskilled young adults can take drugs and go car-chasing amongst other things, then what we are teaching them is that this is their future when we are offering them nothing in place of these destructive recreations. Not all teenagers behave in these ways but there are a considerable number that do and if it means that we can help them to focus upon positive goals for their future,then education is the way forward.
In schols, kids play sports and are taught sciences and the world is their oyster with what they do want to learn. Kids who cannot concentrate or have a dysfunctional family background, will benefit a great deal from more schooling and schools provide emotional support now to children so they are provided with so much and helps take some of the responsibility and burden off parents who are also having to take exams to try and secure jobs. I think that communal living offers far more support and in many ways, that is what school is and provides a strong foundation of nurturance.
I am with the proposal all the way if this is the only alternative to what we have already and work-place training would be given to 16-18 year olds as part of the schooling process and that it compliments the student's abilities and interests. I don't see how this incredible opportunity dissapoints parents when it serves so many purposes and fulfills so many functions. Any child not interested in their education usually have some disturbances in their home lives anyway and why a lot of children's education is sabotaged and not because of it being the fault of the child. All children's needs are assessed and monitored and therefore, what the child excels most in, will be the area they will be encouraged to pursue and won't be forced into things they don't like but they must be encouraged to like subjects they don't like including maths.
I would give my whole self back to history if I had the chance of having a normal education and not a special needs one because of being abused at home as a child. It has ruined a lot of my chances of having a career and now I love education and would like to study everything but don't have the money nor the resources. So many children don't complete their studies and are not encouraged to do well or excel and because many come from dysfunctional backgrounds.
I beleive that children deserve the chance to have an education and one that gives them a little longer to acheive their goals and interests.
No, but I would have preferred some 'general' learning over others. I mean, for GCSE I enjoyed my subjects but I would have preferred learning the history of Shakespeare rather than analysing his use of imagery. I got a B anyway, even though at SAT ks3 (we have tests every few years) I got an '8' in English (which is apparently equivilent to an A* at GCSE). Same happened in economics at A level, I got an A first year, then next year couldn't bring my grades up above Es and Ds no matter how hard I prepared, all my practice exam questions were poor, just I think everybody hits a 'bottleneck'. (which I fear I am now doing in Mathematics
I wish I had a specific skill, but I don't, except I can learn to do anything to a good level (if we scale it from awful, poor, average, good, specialist) relatively quickly. Even if I say so myself.
the only problem is everyones saying we need to make kids learn more so they can go into higher level jobs but whos going to do the lower level jobs?
i know it would be great if everyone was leaving education with these great qualifications but people are still going to end up working in retail because a) we need people to do those sorts of jobs and b) there arent enough high level jobs to go round we'd have shops filled with managers but no one to fill the selves and serve the customers
that option is available though, for those who actualy want to learn, those who dont want to learn will only continue to disrupt lessons and prevent othrer people from learning