Can all you British folks let me know just how accurate the following editorial might be regarding the public education system over there? Here's a choice snippet:
Mere semiliteracy and ignorance do not necessarily disqualify young people from passing public examinations, at least lowerlevel exams. Since failure is now regarded as fatally damaging to self-esteem, anyone who actually presents himself at an examination is likely to emerge with a certificate. I recently encountered a boy aged 16 in my clinic who wrote Dear Sir as deer sur, and I'm as ime (and whose grammar was fully consonant with his orthography), who had passed a public examination—in English.
Are things really like this over there? Is it really just as bad as it is here in the 'States?
Lol, I'm not even in a native English speaking country and I'm fine, most of my friends who don't even like English picked it up fine. I've always been perplexed at how people in UK/America would have trouble learning English.
You need to fail people every now and then. My father failed his high school certificate, was insulted to hell, got all emotional about it, redid a year of school, and was one of the top in his class. About a decade after that he was doing his second Masters in Harvard. Failure didn't doom him; it helped him set his life straight.
But yeah, it happens a lot. Education gets politicized. People love to say "our students have higher grades this year than last year" which is more often a result of lowering standards.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
It's published in City Journal, print organ of right-wing think-tank the Manhattan Institute, so may be printed for political purposes.
To be honest, I'm having trouble getting past the pompous, out-of-touch author's voice, and its tone of moral panic.
Having read it:
Personally, I have very strong feelings about education, and agree that it's a bit of a clusterfuck in this country (not sure to what extent more or less than in other countries; probably they're doing well in Scandinavia), but I absolutely disbelieve that the answer is a return to some kind of Victorian value system.
The author points out that at the time of writing (1995), literacy and numeracy are sub-par among certain sectors of society. This, however, doesn't mean that the country is 'going to the dogs' as this prophet of doom seems so desperate to believe. If the statistics existed for - for example - the 1700s or the 1890s, I'm convinced that the present rates of literacy would look miraculous.
FWIW, literacy in the UK stands at 99%, against the US's 86% (that statistic includes Puerto Rico).
Some stuff I agree with: there is an anti-intellectualism prevalent in British society, which is frankly embarrassing. This, from my limited viewpoint, seems to have increased with the new government and new financial pressures. Also, the White working class do end up as a marginalized group, with poor education and motivation for education.
We just don't need some old bloke who's never heard of Pink Floyd farting out his panic about it from his armchair.
Firstly, in a very few inner-city areas, things really are that bad. However, that's only partly due to teaching standards, and more to do with a wide range of social factors - things like poverty, breakdown of the family unit, abundance of non-English speaking foreign immigrants (eg. I read a newspaper article about a single primary school in Birmingham, where the children spoke 31 different languages), etc.
Secondly, "pass" grades range from "A*" to "G". To get a "G", you often only need to score something like 20% on your exam. However, everyone is well aware of how easy it is to get a pass, and so to demonstrate a decent level of literacy and numeracy, most employers will demand at least a "C" grade (>60% in an exam) in Maths and English.
Finally, there is the issue of falling standards. It's hard to deny that exams are getting easier - if you google it, I'm sure you can find many examples of ridiculously easy exam questions.
eg. "16-year-olds were asked to “give one example of an illegal recreational drug” in a biology exam, while students taking a maths test were awarded marks for writing the number 4,117 in words and working out 50 per cent of £60.".
The way the system works, schools can choose between a range of competing examining boards who set the course content and exam questions. There's a definite incentive for exam boards to deliver an easier course, in order to attract schools, who are really only interested in having their pupils get good grades (which makes the school look good).
Now having said all that, I spend a lot of time with GCSE and A-level kids (14-1 as I run after-school sports activities, etc. The kids I work with generally have a very good standard of literacy and numeracy, and they're incredibly conscientious - they certainly work far harder and take their studies far more seriously than my friends or I ever did. They're also very mature, responsible, polite and "well-rounded" individuals, which I think is just as important. One very good friend of mine is even going to Oxford University next year (subject to her getting 3 "A" grades, which I'm sure won't be a problem).
btw: If you're really interested in this kind of thing, I'd recommend you watch a few episodes of "Educating Essex" (not to be confused with "The Only Way is Essex"), which I'm sure you can find on youtube - eg. http://www.youtube.com/show?p=jFHSkqWsl5E
I finished an HND and BSc in Multimedia Technology last year and it was incredibly easy to "pass". I was so surprised at the amount of people who dropped out half way through the third year, it really upset me to see so many people just giving up. It was a very easy course to pass, too.
Of course, it was difficult if you wanted a 1st, but I don't know... I just always thought the course was easier than others, as it focussed on the basics of a wide range of subjects, rather than learning a lot of one thing.
But my problem now is that I have the qualification, but have no real skills. I was rejected a position as an apprentice graphic designer for half the minimum wage, because I'm overqualified. The government won't let graduates takes lower-level jobs, but then complain the we aren't prepared to... I was prepared to. The government SUCKS in this country. And education.
Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. This is an excellent discussion, here.
I know the article was written in '95 (that's the year I graduated high school, actually!) and it is part of a series of essays and editorials published in 2001. I wanted to "street check" what the guy was saying with actual UK residents/citizens because of this. And yeah, the Manhattan Journal is decidedly Conservative, so my assumption is that it was printed to help make US-born intellectuals feel better about themselves. Even so, the author is a scholar in the UK, and my antennae perked up as I began to think more critically about it. So thanks to you all for adding some more timely insight on the subject.
I just read this article recently because it was cited in an article written by Walter Williams. He's a US Conservative, but he's a black man; I bring this up because his angle is that even though there seems to be a pandemic-level lack of achievement with the young African-American urban population here in the 'States, widely maligned in the media, he says it is not based on race but is a class-based issue...Not necessarily that all poor people lack achievement, but that the mindset is prevalent within that economic subset.
This is a common perspective taken by most middle-class and wealthy white folks here in the US: poor folks are lazy. But the standing debate even within that (exclusive and privileged) circle is whether or not it's based on race. Hearing that whites are also stricken with a "non-achiever" mindset - even in a different country and education system - seems to support his position.
My larger question is: so how do we replicate what the author is talking about in regards to the West Indian immigrant population? If they are also living in poverty, but still seem to be achieving in schools (however regulated or assessed), can that achievement be spread throughout the racial/ethnic spectrum?
When dealing with larger social issues like this, my tendency is to "focus on the bright spots," so to speak. It's related to my day job, so that's why I spend so much time thinking about it.
I'd say that the initial problem is one of class, or rather poverty.
However, the way in which people respond to the problem seems to have a lot to do with cultural values, which are partly related to race.
In some cultures, poverty is seen as an insurmountable barrier to success in life, and so poor children lack any kind of motivation or ambition.
In other cultures (and especially in places like China and India), education is seen as the way to succeed in life and to escape poverty, and so parents push their children extremely hard to do well in school, and to have a respectable career.
One thing you see is that poverty is passed on through generations, in what has been called a "cycle of poverty". For example, children whose parents don't work, are statistically far more likely to end up long-term unemployed themselves. In the case of whites and African-Americans, this cycle is often already well-established and hard to break. However, where you have first- and second- generation immigrants (regardless of race), they see the US / UK as a land of opportunity, and they are highly motivated to work hard in order to make the most of those opportunities.
I have skim read that article - and as someone that grew up in suburban Birmingham area I have to say I think it is pretty truthful. The working class generally has an excuse as to why not to try and better themselves (no jobs, do not need a degree etc). There is the occasional exception though, myself included.
Out of everyone I went to primary school with I am the only one to get a degree of any shape. (I now have an MSc degree and shall shortly have a Doctorate). The UK has always had an anti-intellectual culture (verified by speaking to people at uni in their 50s) and I took some stick at school until I figured out I had to act less smart to fit in which is pretty hard to do. I still got "stick" on examination results though, your so called mates wind you up for doing well, and the elitist clique at the school (there was an elitist clique at my school anyway) hate you for beating them at grades.
Speaking to my German friends, it seems that being an engineer or a successful designer in Germany is a great achievement, and the word engineer has a protected status (like a Doctorate). In the UK telling someone your an engineer usually follows with "I have a broken..."
It really does not apply to more affluent areas of the UK though. The potential students I have spoke to at open days are really completely different.
Originally Posted by -Liam- I finished an HND and BSc in Multimedia Technology last year and it was incredibly easy to "pass". I was so surprised at the amount of people who dropped out half way through the third year, it really upset me to see so many people just giving up. It was a very easy course to pass, too.
Of course, it was difficult if you wanted a 1st, but I don't know... I just always thought the course was easier than others, as it focussed on the basics of a wide range of subjects, rather than learning a lot of one thing.
But my problem now is that I have the qualification, but have no real skills. I was rejected a position as an apprentice graphic designer for half the minimum wage, because I'm overqualified. The government won't let graduates takes lower-level jobs, but then complain the we aren't prepared to... I was prepared to. The government SUCKS in this country. And education.
IMO the only real value of degrees these days is that it filters out the stupid and lazy. They're a certification of hard work, not certification of competence. There's kind of an acceptance here that Comp Sci degrees are worthless. Everyone has to go through 3-6 months of 'real programming' to be worth anything. But the degrees actually filter out how hard someone is willing to work.
Honestly, most people who do klik are better programmers than fresh graduates who've never done programming before, because klikers actually come across problems and think about how to solve them. Even if you're doing it at a very lame level and never finish anything, you come out with the kind of skills and mindset to be able to solve problems. Kind of why, when you look back, a lot of the prominent klikers from 10 years ago actually have really good jobs now.
Also "overqualified" just means that you're hard to control. Doesn't really have that much to do with wages.. more of that people will respect you more than your boss. Just show your portfolio and many competent companies will take you.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
lol, don't they have cheap public universities in the US? I thought every country spends a lot on subsidizing education.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
lol, don't they have cheap public universities in the US? I thought every country spends a lot on subsidizing education.
Yes, and it's still too expensive , though paying about 350 per credit hour is a lot nicer than paying 1000 per credit hour. People, like me, typically go to those for general education, since they rarely have enough of the required classes to get anything higher than an associates or various "certificates", whatever those are worth. Since I'm planning to get a Doctorate, the usefulness of Community College will run out quickly.
The school near me has a decent Chemistry track, so once I get the money I can get going on that, and hopefully be in a better position to move up to a 4 year since apparently I am too poor to qualify for financial aid? Plus, if I do really good in class I might be able to get one of those fancy scholarships everyone is always talking about.
Originally Posted by Muz HI
lol, don't they have cheap public universities in the US? I thought every country spends a lot on subsidizing education.
Actually, in my experience it's easy to borrow money from the Fed Gov to pay for schooling. This only resulted in legitimizing the padding of education costs. Meanwhile, school loans in the US are notorious for being pretty much the only class of loans that never is defaulted or waived; they are only "deferred," which means that the borrower doesn't need to pay it back, but interest is still added to the total.
I was SO SO HAPPY to have paid off my school loans. I thought they'd never go away.
Doctorates aren't really that useful either.. though mileage varies. A Doctorate in Physics or Psychology is way more useful than a doctorate in Engineering or Comp Sci.
Mostly it's good for doing research. You're expected to do research for a Bachelor's, but with a Doctorate, you're expected to do some seriously hardcore stuff. With things like Physics, you can't go anywhere without being a good researcher.
There are people who like to play around with really difficult things, and those guys are perfect for PhDs. And then there are those who only want to put together a bunch of things that work, and if you're there, you can stop with a degree. You don't need to have a PhD to be a really smart person, though it helps, and it will give you a really high work drive.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by s-m-r
It was first published seventeen years ago
as I run after-school sports activities, etc. The kids I work with generally have a very good standard of literacy and numeracy, and they're incredibly conscientious - they certainly work far harder and take their studies far more seriously than my friends or I ever did. They're also very mature, responsible, polite and "well-rounded" individuals, which I think is just as important. One very good friend of mine is even going to Oxford University next year (subject to her getting 3 "A" grades, which I'm sure won't be a problem).
Then again, if I were in the UK, I might have a better shot. HI MUZ 
, though paying about 350 per credit hour is a lot nicer than paying 1000 per credit hour. People, like me, typically go to those for general education, since they rarely have enough of the required classes to get anything higher than an associates or various "certificates", whatever those are worth. Since I'm planning to get a Doctorate, the usefulness of Community College will run out quickly.