That... right there, is the biggest problem with the British education subject. Consequently, they aren't taught in a way that allows them to appreciate any subject, pretty much, let alone like it.AnarchistFish said:People aren't taught a subject, they're taught to pass an exam.
Consequently, I think they should scrap the SAT's altogether, because let's face it, what, in all honesty do they accomplish?! More stupid numbers for teachers to worry about. You should have three sets of exams if we are to maintain the primary/secondary system. Eleven plus (or equivalent), GCSE & A-level, but I find that the gap between the latter two is widening too much. I almost wept when I compared the A-Level maths C1 exam paper with the P1 equivalent I took thirteen years ago.
A bigger reason is the PGCE requirement to teach at a comprehensive. At private schools, most don't need it, and doing a PGCE can be positively soul destroying. My old man (because he enjoys teaching as a private tutor) decided to do one, but he got turfed to a range of schools, all of which suffered from having severely undermanned science departments. Biology graduates had to teach physics and maths... how fucked up is that?!orangeban said:I think we have a serious problem in that private schools suck up the good teachers. Now, I know this isn't always true, but private schools tend to be able to afford the best equipment, and can be more generous with expelling kids, so teachers naturally prefer to go there. Not to mention that fact that private schools generally pay more anyway. This means that state schools tend to end up with worse teachers, the ones who couldn't get jobs at private schools. Which sucks big time and lends to this cycle where the rich get better education and the poor get suckier education.
I agree... but with a couple of stipulations. If current numbers of school-leavers are going to uni, free tertiary education will never be workable as they contribute nothing to the economy for those years and the state cannot withstand the funding bills required purely for teaching purposes, let alone research. Therefore, there must be an upper limit on how many students can take up university places. I always though 10% was about right, because you as an individual need to have both the inclination and propensity for academic life. A lot of degrees these days literally are just pieces of paper, many cannot derive employment of any relevance due to a lack of experience (perceived and otherwise).And make university free. I realise that we have trouble where loads of people are going to university, but making people pay for it is not the answer.
I will freely admit that I am an academic elitist, seventy-five percent or more of university students should not even be at university, a great many subjects taught should not be taught and many of Britain's 'universities' should be closed. They did a hell of a lot more good when they were 'polytechnics'. I will invite a great deal of 'flaming' when I say that there is only one 'New University' for whose quality I can vouch, largely because I went there.
Now, ask me which one it is, and how much free time during the day I had while I was there.