GCE 'A' Level 1965

[Gardian]

An interesting debate!

As you might expect, I somehow feel that the exam was more taxing in those days, but I have no proof of that whatsoever. However, that isn't the same thing as suggesting that today's youngsters are less bright - on the contrary, they are surely better informed and more rounded as individuals than ever.

Whether they're better educated is another matter - certainly as far as Languages are concerned, almost certainly not.. In 'my day', we spent the 1st term at senior school doing not much more than French pronounciation. Latin was also obligatory for the first year and a requirement if you took any Language at 'O' level - I certainly found it more than helpful.

Knowledge of foreign languages in British schools has surely reached a lamentable low? There are more French young men and women who have a passable command of English than they will usually admit to. The same couldn't be said of British youngsters.

An extreme example I'll admit, but here's one. The nephew of our Belgian (2nd home) neighbours is from Luxembourg, and we see him annually when he's down here on holiday. He's at University in Paris and after two years, is now on a 12 month attachment at a Uni in Halifax, Nova Scotia. His English is virtually error-free and accent-less. His further education is being (almost) entirely funded by his home State.

What a contrast to the UK, where there's the scandal (IMO) of youngsters and families being faced with crippling costs of university fees. Where's the sense in someone who has some intellect, but from a low income family, being put off the idea of pursuing further education? It should be free to all, regardless of means. There we are, tonight's little rant over!

[YCCMB]

Whilst I understand what you are implying, Gardian, how is it that in the 1960's only about 5% of students went on from school to tertiary education, versus an approximate 50% today?

I abhor the whole tuition fee situation. However, I cannot find a valid counter argument to the fact that today, nobody needs to pay, from their own pocket, if they can't afford it. Indeed, even if they can.... The concept of student loans, like or loathe them, is that the cost is paid by the student loan body and is repaid at an advantageous rate and only when the student's earnings reach a specific threshold. In theory, lack of parental income is no barrier to university entrance.

[Pickles]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]Whilst I understand what you are implying, Gardian, how is it that in the 1960's only about 5% of students went on from school to tertiary education, versus an approximate 50% today?[/quote]

I'm sure that you are well aware that there simply weren't the student places provided by the universities, and thus many people who would today be readily accepted into university did not get the opportunity in the 50s and 60s. Many took professional or vocational exams on a part-time basis whilst working. People did real apprenticeships. However, many quite capable people, by today's standards and by the standards of the time, were excluded.

The expansion of UK tertiary education really took place in two spurts: one in the 60s that took participation up to around 13-15%, and then the second starting in the late 80s and into the 90s etc, which has brought us to where we are.

I feel that there is a difference between the two expansions however: the first was driven by perceived needs of the country and utterly cynically I feel that the second was driven by the need to reduce youth unemployment rates. I think that most universities really don't know what the heck they are supposed to be doing, and we have seen grade inflation first in the incoming students' grades, and secondly in the degrees awarded. I sat in several final exam boards where our external examiners told us that we were not awarding enough firsts compared with other universities, and they felt that we should award more even if we though that they didn't deserve it!

[YCCMB]

I don't disagree at all, Pickles, but there's still been a massive increase only partially accounted for by the facts you mention. A lot, I think, is about perception. A product of an all-girls grammar school, my peer group were led to believe we had few options as a result of our privileged (ha!) education: University (Pref. Oxbridge, or at least redbrick), teaching or a "caring" profession. The only escape which was acceptable was going into a family business. Kids from the secondary modern weren't even expected to aspire to university.

Once non selective education became the norm, it was more difficult to segregate and indoctrinate, and a lot of perceptions were challenged.

Sure, a lot of "new" universities devalued the label, and yes, there's almost certainly been a decline in the value and difficulty of obtaining a degree, but I don't think that coming from a financially disadvantaged background has been a barrier to a university education for many years,.

It's also true that the UK continues to do rather well in terms of the number of its universities that figure among the world's top institutions, so the dumbing down is not universal.

[NormanH]

"coming from a financially disadvantaged background has been a barrier to a university education for many years"

It wasn't in the 60's when I was able to go despite a very modest financial situation of my family, and I was given an enormous amount of support that is no longer available in the form of a grant for living expenses as well as free tuition.

That sort of help has been abolished as it was allowing the working class to get above itself.

At the same time I became aware for the first time that among many of my well-heeled contemporaries the main purpose of being there was not the course but the networking opportunities. They had ready-made places in family firms (Solicitors, Barclays, Blackwells) or in the City. Others had family connections with the BBC.

[YCCMB]

It still isn't a barrier,

[Rabbie]

Since study loans are only repaid once you are earning over a certain level. And are in case written off 30 years after graduation I suspect that the official forecast that 50% will not be repaid in full is correct.

Also study loans are not treated as part of a person's debt. But are only taken in to account for their effect on disposable income for mortgage purposes

[Thibault]

To read media comments or listen to interviews with a wide range of people, you might be forgiven for imagining that the university tuition fees have to be paid up front. They do not and as some other posters have remarked, you only start to repay the loan when you earn above a certain amount.

[NormanH]

It would be a good idea if those educated or trained at public expense were required to work in the public sector if their career were in education or medicines for example, and to take only legal aid cases if they worked in the law.

Those who went into jobs  the private sector would then have to repay their loans immediately.

[YCCMB]

Great idea, Norman. We can never have too many civil servants. And, of course, starting salaries for graduates are so high that stumping up £27K (at least) the moment you sign on the dotted line is a breeze. That would certainly be no problem for anyone from a disadvantaged background.

[NormanH]

I am not sure that Doctors are generally seen as civil servants; and if teachers  were discouraged from working in Public schools or barristers encouraged to take Legal Aid cases that wouldn't bother me.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Pickles"]

The expansion of UK tertiary education really took place in two spurts: one in the 60s that took participation up to around 13-15%, and then the second starting in the late 80s and into the 90s etc, which has brought us to where we are.

I feel that there is a difference between the two expansions however: the first was driven by perceived needs of the country and utterly cynically I feel that the second was driven by the need to reduce youth unemployment rates. I think that most universities really don't know what the heck they are supposed to be doing, and we have seen grade inflation first in the incoming students' grades, and secondly in the degrees awarded. I sat in several final exam boards where our external examiners told us that we were not awarding enough firsts compared with other universities, and they felt that we should award more even if we though that they didn't deserve it!

[/quote]

Totally agree Pickles!

Thatcher's government, bereft of how to solve the youth unemployment problem, came up with the clever concept of HFE (Higher and Further Education): as well as various initiatives, such as the Youth Training Scheme:

Then came the Enterprise Allowance Scheme, which sort of provided a sort of financial boost (£40/week tax free), all provided the applicant already possessed £1,000 minimum to bang into the bank. Once again, it was operated by the ill-fated and wholly incompetent Manpower Services Commission:

Next came a cute wheeze called the Enterprise Initiative, from the DTI (Department of Trade and Industry): whereby SMEs could request a short term consultancy contract at far below market. Actually, what happened was early "retired" executives and middle managers (who had been discharged since they were pretty useless!) signed up and became experts. No more need be said.

Simultaneously, Thatcher's mob and Sir Keith Joseph (Sec. of state Education) realised by turning technical schools and municipal colleges et al into "Polytech Universities", the extra places could be simply created. Except that those who became "Lecturers" were in fact teachers from the previous establishments and they quickly realised they could earn far more money, get a much better pension and on the face of it, improve their social standing!

Once started, then they dreamed up all sorts of whacky "Degrees": and the rest, really is history........

And as I earlier stated, meanwhile, China, India, Korea and even Pakistan, are churning out excellent graduates in engineering, science, maths and computer science.

However and no doubt, what I have just written is "Hackneyed rubbish":  although I was, actually, deeply involved in all this at the time. Clearly, I must have been asleep, or dementia commenced early in my case.....

[Www]

[YCCMB]

Nope, your hackneyed rubbish was courtesy of Mr Shaw.

Personally, I've never taught in a school. I've never taught anyone who is there because they have no choice but to be there. I wouldn't have the strength of character to do it, which is why I find it patronising to criticise those who do.

I am sure that when you were "deeply involved in all this" you pointed out the obvious flaws, or have they only occurred to you since?

[woolybanana]

[quote user="NormanH"]It would be a good idea if those educated or trained at public expense were required to work in the public sector if their career were in education or medicines for example, and to take only legal aid cases if they worked in the law.

Those who went into jobs  the private sector would then have to repay their loans immediately.

[/quote]

There as a time when French teachers could receive their education free if they agreed to work for the Education Nationale for a period of time which I think was twelve years.

Whether this scheme was successful or whether it applied to other professions, I don't know.

Norman, anything which increases the burden of fonctionnaires in any country is evil and wrong because it places a lifetime burden on the taxpayer.

Teaching in the UK went wrong when comprehensives were born because teacher training colleges became highly politicized and very detached from the real needs of society.

[Patf]

Three of our 4 "children" are teachers in secondary schools (don't ask me why, we warned them against it.)

They trained and started off in UK state schools, (Luton, London E. End, Manchester.. ) but then managed to change to independent schools, where the pupils' motivation is better. One in UK, one in India, one in Kuwait.

I'll have to ask them about the standards of A levels, they all teach to that level, though I think the schools that 2 of them are in have changed to baccalaureat style exams.

[woolybanana]

Undoubtedly, it would help teaching if entrants had a much wider range of experience before they entered the profession and if many were older. Additionally, particularly, a 50/50 balance of male and female teachers should be sought, particularly in primary schools, as more and more kids have no male role models at home.

PE staff could be ex-military too, with a strong sense of discipline and achievement.

[nomoss]

FWIW the text for translation is taken from page 175 of "Private Angelo" by Eric Linklater.

Maybe if someone has a french version they can supply a really good free translation.