Exam Grades

Pross

I suspect engineering is mentioned as a lot of us on here work in some form of engineering field. You're the one that tried to claim an apprenticeship wouldn't expose people to more sophisticated elements like design. I can't speak for industries I don't know about. As someone mentioned, albeit cynically, above there are certainly similar schemes in business management. Even the Forces offer similar opportunities.

There'll always be jobs where a traditional degree route is needed but the original point being made was that people have been led to believe doing A levels and then going to Uni is the only option for a 'professional' career.

ugo.santalucia

Pross said:

I suspect engineering is mentioned as a lot of us on here work in some form of engineering field. You're the one that tried to claim an apprenticeship wouldn't expose people to more sophisticated elements like design. I can't speak for industries I don't know about. As someone mentioned, albeit cynically, above there are certainly similar schemes in business management. Even the Forces offer similar opportunities.

There'll always be jobs where a traditional degree route is needed but the original point being made was that people have been led to believe doing A levels and then going to Uni is the only option for a 'professional' career.

We do offer programmes which are called "degree apprenticeships", which are basically what you suggest... the kid is employed by the company who pay for his degree and the degree is very flexible, to allow for distance learning etc... needless to say they only exist in Engineering and in manufacturing. We did look into it for Chemistry, but companies are just not interested. They would rather hire a graduate and pay for their PhD... there is simply no interest in the sector for 18 yo kids with A levels or BTech

rjsterry

ugo.santalucia said:

Pross said:

I suspect engineering is mentioned as a lot of us on here work in some form of engineering field. You're the one that tried to claim an apprenticeship wouldn't expose people to more sophisticated elements like design. I can't speak for industries I don't know about. As someone mentioned, albeit cynically, above there are certainly similar schemes in business management. Even the Forces offer similar opportunities.

There'll always be jobs where a traditional degree route is needed but the original point being made was that people have been led to believe doing A levels and then going to Uni is the only option for a 'professional' career.

We do offer programmes which are called "degree apprenticeships", which are basically what you suggest... the kid is employed by the company who pay for his degree and the degree is very flexible, to allow for distance learning etc... needless to say they only exist in Engineering and in manufacturing. We did look into it for Chemistry, but companies are just not interested. They would rather hire a graduate and pay for their PhD... there is simply no interest in the sector for 18 yo kids with A levels or BTech

And architecture. I think there's only one course and it's only in its second year. It's quite demanding for the employer when there are people out there with the qualifications via the usual route.

Pross

ugo.santalucia said:

Pross said:

I suspect engineering is mentioned as a lot of us on here work in some form of engineering field. You're the one that tried to claim an apprenticeship wouldn't expose people to more sophisticated elements like design. I can't speak for industries I don't know about. As someone mentioned, albeit cynically, above there are certainly similar schemes in business management. Even the Forces offer similar opportunities.

There'll always be jobs where a traditional degree route is needed but the original point being made was that people have been led to believe doing A levels and then going to Uni is the only option for a 'professional' career.

We do offer programmes which are called "degree apprenticeships", which are basically what you suggest... the kid is employed by the company who pay for his degree and the degree is very flexible, to allow for distance learning etc... needless to say they only exist in Engineering and in manufacturing. We did look into it for Chemistry, but companies are just not interested. They would rather hire a graduate and pay for their PhD... there is simply no interest in the sector for 18 yo kids with A levels or BTech

Yes, as said it's horses for courses and engineering or manufacturing are the areas where on the job training together with part time learning works well. By Chemistry I assume you mean pure chemistry as I know companies like Dow and DuPont do apprenticeships in chemical related subjects such as https://centreforapprenticeships.co.uk/vacancy/1608811/

john80

ugo.santalucia said:

Engineering engineering engineering... where are all these apprenticeships for things which are not engineering?
Who is doing an apprenticeship at the BBC with a view to become a reporter these days?
Any apprenticeship in Chemistry or Biology jobs? The goalpost has been moved... now they hire graduates with a view to pay for their postgrad

Your bbc apprenticeship would presumably just end up stacked out with wealthy kids offspring or current newsreaders. Surely it is for chemistry or biology companies to sort this out. After all the scheme from the government and educational institutions does not appear to be solely focused at engineering companies.

ugo.santalucia

Pross said:

ugo.santalucia said:

Pross said:

I suspect engineering is mentioned as a lot of us on here work in some form of engineering field. You're the one that tried to claim an apprenticeship wouldn't expose people to more sophisticated elements like design. I can't speak for industries I don't know about. As someone mentioned, albeit cynically, above there are certainly similar schemes in business management. Even the Forces offer similar opportunities.

There'll always be jobs where a traditional degree route is needed but the original point being made was that people have been led to believe doing A levels and then going to Uni is the only option for a 'professional' career.

We do offer programmes which are called "degree apprenticeships", which are basically what you suggest... the kid is employed by the company who pay for his degree and the degree is very flexible, to allow for distance learning etc... needless to say they only exist in Engineering and in manufacturing. We did look into it for Chemistry, but companies are just not interested. They would rather hire a graduate and pay for their PhD... there is simply no interest in the sector for 18 yo kids with A levels or BTech

Yes, as said it's horses for courses and engineering or manufacturing are the areas where on the job training together with part time learning works well. By Chemistry I assume you mean pure chemistry as I know companies like Dow and DuPont do apprenticeships in chemical related subjects such as https://centreforapprenticeships.co.uk/vacancy/1608811/

It's a good opportunity, not clear which institution awards the degree... I would assume it's going to be Newcastle or Northumbria given the location.

ugo.santalucia

john80 said:

Surely it is for chemistry or biology companies to sort this out. After all the scheme from the government and educational institutions does not appear to be solely focused at engineering companies.

The incentive would be for the student to acquire a unique set of skills that the company cannot just pinch from the free market. The more unique the skills are, the less interested the University is in setting up a degree apprenticeship program. It's a matter of finding the sweet spot... in that there is enough money in the deal for a department to bother to put together something bespoke.
For Msc programs, anything with fewer than 10 students is just not consider worth bothering... and we are talking about typically full fee paying students from the far east...

TheBigBean

The more honest schools now not happy

https://schoolsweek.co.uk/government-facing-exams-challenge-over-schools-advised-to-deflate-grades/

morstar

Was chatting with a 6th form tutor today and he had some interesting observation about both 6th form and uni admissions.
Key points.
1) GCSE pupils have not had the exposure to the full exam experience. As this is the first time they would have been exposed to that type of pressure, he perceives this a significant gap in their experience that may harm them in 2 years time when preparing for A levels.
2) They don’t really know exactly how this year will work.
3) He thinks the uni experience will be downgraded this year for many of the obvious reasons grading shenanigans and bums on seats needed. Academically, he feels intakes will be diluted in quality and the learning experience will be diluted accordingly as your peers will not stretch you as much academically.

DeVlaeminck

I think kids do enough exams these days that missing GCSEs will make liitle or no difference in 2 years. I suppose the uni intake will he diluted a bit but I suspect he's kidding himself as to how much students are stretched by their peers, well unless things have changed since I worked in higher ed. it'll make some difference but not much.

Re. the honest schools being unhappy, with good reason, I know a lot of 18 year old girls (my footy team is basically that age group) and some have had an extra grade across the board from one school - you are talking people with equivalent Cs at gcse getting Bs at A level - I suppose it's possible but seems a bit unlikely. Still lucky them, nobody said life was fair, I wouldn't begrudge them except it's the school my kids left

ugo.santalucia

morstar said:

3) He thinks the uni experience will be downgraded this year for many of the obvious reasons grading shenanigans and bums on seats needed. Academically, he feels intakes will be diluted in quality and the learning experience will be diluted accordingly as your peers will not stretch you as much academically.

I tend to agree, especially about the lack of peer to peer interaction... however, you have to make do... the alternative is taking a gap year, sitting on your xxxx playing games on a console and being worse off the following year, with more shaky knowledge and even less motivation to get back into education... I can't see many other options available in this climate. If they don't grab the spot they have been offered, they are making a huge mistake.
Besides, there is no guarantee 2021 intake will be any different

TheBigBean

Ofqual strikes back. Criticises RSS and its lack of understanding of an NDA

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/23/exam-results-row-deepens-as-ofqual-hits-back-at-statistics-body

First.Aspect

TheBigBean said:

Ofqual strikes back. Criticises RSS and its lack of understanding of an NDA

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/aug/23/exam-results-row-deepens-as-ofqual-hits-back-at-statistics-body

Yeah I used to have to put NDAs, MTAs, studentships and collaboration agreement in place (as mere middle man) for academics. I can vouch for the prevelance of strong but wrong academic opinions of anything legal.

laurentian

First.Aspect said:

laurentian said:

ugo.santalucia said:

University is also something students look forward to as a once in a lifetime experience, which an apprenticeship cannot replicate. In one case you will spend 3 years among likeminded folks of your age, sharing accommodation and partying, on the other case you are going to work among older people and live at home with your parents until you have saved enough to buy a house.... debt free, but exciting? Not sure about it...
You only live once and when you are 25 or 30 you can go back in education if you want, but it's not the same experience anymore.

I think this could read "University is something that is marketed as being a once in a lifetime experience, which an apprenticeship cannot replicate"

As someone mentioned up thread (and as I experienced personally) it wasn't like I didn't party, meet people, go places, do stuff etc etc when I was in my late teens and twenties . . . I had enough money to do it more (and arguably better?) than anyone not earning for whatever reason.

How exciting is moving back in with Mum and Dad when all of that University "experience" is over and you're still skint? The way I see it is that too many focus on their entitlement to the 3 year experience of University rather than evaluating the real world pros and cons.

Don't feel bad, but it really is a once in a lifetime experience that nothing can replace.

For a lot of people anyway.

I don't feel bad and, as I stated a couple of pages ago, I would deny nobody any kind of further education.

In the absence of a reliable time machine, everyone's late teens and early twenties are a "once in a lifetine experience" - university does not have a monopoly on this.

morstar

laurentian said:

First.Aspect said:

laurentian said:

ugo.santalucia said:

University is also something students look forward to as a once in a lifetime experience, which an apprenticeship cannot replicate. In one case you will spend 3 years among likeminded folks of your age, sharing accommodation and partying, on the other case you are going to work among older people and live at home with your parents until you have saved enough to buy a house.... debt free, but exciting? Not sure about it...
You only live once and when you are 25 or 30 you can go back in education if you want, but it's not the same experience anymore.

I think this could read "University is something that is marketed as being a once in a lifetime experience, which an apprenticeship cannot replicate"

As someone mentioned up thread (and as I experienced personally) it wasn't like I didn't party, meet people, go places, do stuff etc etc when I was in my late teens and twenties . . . I had enough money to do it more (and arguably better?) than anyone not earning for whatever reason.

How exciting is moving back in with Mum and Dad when all of that University "experience" is over and you're still skint? The way I see it is that too many focus on their entitlement to the 3 year experience of University rather than evaluating the real world pros and cons.

Don't feel bad, but it really is a once in a lifetime experience that nothing can replace.

For a lot of people anyway.

I don't feel bad and, as I stated a couple of pages ago, I would deny nobody any kind of further education.

In the absence of a reliable time machine, everyone's late teens and early twenties are a "once in a lifetine experience" - university does not have a monopoly on this.

My son is in the forces. For him, university would have had no positive impact and would have simply created debt. I think he is definitely experiencing something that will stay with him throughout his life.

ugo.santalucia

morstar said:

My son is in the forces. For him, university would have had no positive impact and would have simply created debt. I think he is definitely experiencing something that will stay with him throughout his life.

It's a good choice for a small minority. Most kids are too soft for discipline.
If I was allowed to go back, I would probably join the navy

morstar

Seems appropriate to redirect this thread for the school discussion.

A question...

Why not have the same lessons broadcast nationally on TV. Very few people don’t have a TV and everybody gets the same content.

Follow up and q&a should be done by local teachers to their pupils but if content is going to be broadcast why have thousands of teachers replicating content, some better than others.

You could have different levels of content too so that smart pupils go at a faster pace whilst slower lower learners access slower paced content.

The government clearly wants some form of quantifiable assessment to take place so do it on the content broadcast between now and May. Everybody has had the same topics covered.

You could arguably democratise access as pupils could view the level of content they deem appropriate, not a fixed grouping based on a start of year decision.

Just my thoughts.

rick_chasey

Isn’t that just bitesize?

briantrumpet

morstar said:

Seems appropriate to redirect this thread for the school discussion.

A question...

Why not have the same lessons broadcast nationally on TV. Very few people don’t have a TV and everybody gets the same content.

Follow up and q&a should be done by local teachers to their pupils but if content is going to be broadcast why have thousands of teachers replicating content, some better than others.

You could have different levels of content too so that smart pupils go at a faster pace whilst slower lower learners access slower paced content.

The government clearly wants some form of quantifiable assessment to take place so do it on the content broadcast between now and May. Everybody has had the same topics covered.

You could arguably democratise access as pupils could view the level of content they deem appropriate, not a fixed grouping based on a start of year decision.

Just my thoughts.

A Modest Proposal indeed... though, admittedly, one not involving eating babies.

morstar

rick_chasey said:

Isn’t that just bitesize?

Similar only it’s normally additional content.
If all learning content is now being broadcast, why have unique local content.

All content being the distinction.

pangolin

Some countries have been doing this for a while, India is one I think.

pblakeney

I may be suffering from an aged addled brain but didn't Open University used to do programmes on TV at night? We have enough channels now to do something similar during the day. Possible but I can imagine a lot watching something else instead and those who would watch are probably doing the online stuff anyway.

morstar

I actually train people as a small part of my job.

Using Teams to train has identified one major advantage and one major disadvantage.

The advantage comes in flexibility, smaller bite sized focussed sessions are cost effective and have great impact.

The negative is that you lose all of the non-verbal feedback. The loss of the puzzled face or person obviously not on the same page (either ahead or behind) which all influences your delivery.

Seeing as you’ve lost all that non-verbal stuff, the presentation of content becomes simply that, therefore give everybody the same content presented by the same person. The skilled interactive bit is all in the follow up which is where the local teacher comes in.

Pross

Aren't there too many variations in the curriculum for a nationwide approach? It might be helpful as a bit of additional support though.

morstar

Pross said:

Aren't there too many variations in the curriculum for a nationwide approach? It might be helpful as a bit of additional support though.

Yes, but that’s why a national approach right now could ensure everybody has covered the same content over the next few months.

Personally, I don’t really understand the different regional approaches though. Surely the best curriculum is the one we should be using. I agree that’s a subjective question in its own right but geographical region seems an unlikely determinant of that.

johngti

morstar said:

Pross said:

Aren't there too many variations in the curriculum for a nationwide approach? It might be helpful as a bit of additional support though.

Yes, but that’s why a national approach right now could ensure everybody has covered the same content over the next few months.

Personally, I don’t really understand the different regional approaches though. Surely the best curriculum is the one we should be using. I agree that’s a subjective question in its own right but geographical region seems an unlikely determinant of that.

It's kind of available now - the Oak National Academy got created and funded during lockdown 1 and have produced loads of video lessons covering most of the curriculum and that's all free to schools if they want to use it. No reason why that couldn't be broadcast on TV but scheduling it would be a nightmare; streaming would be the only approach that could work.

The other issue is that you can't cover the whole ability range in one lesson video; the most able would be bored and the least able would be left behind. At least in person you do see those non-verbal cues that tell you to speed up or slow down. And for my school (very academic grammar school), the Oak stuff would generally be a bit slower and formulaic for the students we have so we're doing our own thing.

morstar

johngti said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

Aren't there too many variations in the curriculum for a nationwide approach? It might be helpful as a bit of additional support though.

Yes, but that’s why a national approach right now could ensure everybody has covered the same content over the next few months.

Personally, I don’t really understand the different regional approaches though. Surely the best curriculum is the one we should be using. I agree that’s a subjective question in its own right but geographical region seems an unlikely determinant of that.

It's kind of available now - the Oak National Academy got created and funded during lockdown 1 and have produced loads of video lessons covering most of the curriculum and that's all free to schools if they want to use it. No reason why that couldn't be broadcast on TV but scheduling it would be a nightmare; streaming would be the only approach that could work.

The other issue is that you can't cover the whole ability range in one lesson video; the most able would be bored and the least able would be left behind. At least in person you do see those non-verbal cues that tell you to speed up or slow down. And for my school (very academic grammar school), the Oak stuff would generally be a bit slower and formulaic for the students we have so we're doing our own thing.

Good information thanks.

Although I take issue with the pace.
I said in one of my earlier posts, if anything you could have the same base content with several degrees of difficulty and let students self select their own level. Arguably, you are democratising content access.

E.g. level 1 covers only the basic content at a slow pace.

Level 9 covers the same subject matter in the same duration but goes into considerably more contextual and supporting detail.

As I just did, you could align the delivery levels to grades.

Let the students self align themselves.

johngti

morstar said:

johngti said:

morstar said:

Pross said:

Aren't there too many variations in the curriculum for a nationwide approach? It might be helpful as a bit of additional support though.

Yes, but that’s why a national approach right now could ensure everybody has covered the same content over the next few months.

Personally, I don’t really understand the different regional approaches though. Surely the best curriculum is the one we should be using. I agree that’s a subjective question in its own right but geographical region seems an unlikely determinant of that.

It's kind of available now - the Oak National Academy got created and funded during lockdown 1 and have produced loads of video lessons covering most of the curriculum and that's all free to schools if they want to use it. No reason why that couldn't be broadcast on TV but scheduling it would be a nightmare; streaming would be the only approach that could work.

The other issue is that you can't cover the whole ability range in one lesson video; the most able would be bored and the least able would be left behind. At least in person you do see those non-verbal cues that tell you to speed up or slow down. And for my school (very academic grammar school), the Oak stuff would generally be a bit slower and formulaic for the students we have so we're doing our own thing.

Good information thanks.

Although I take issue with the pace.
I said in one of my earlier posts, if anything you could have the same base content with several degrees of difficulty and let students self select their own level. Arguably, you are democratising content access.

E.g. level 1 covers only the basic content at a slow pace.

Level 9 covers the same subject matter in the same duration but goes into considerably more contextual and supporting detail.

As I just did, you could align the delivery levels to grades.

Let the students self align themselves.

Just the mechanics of doing that makes it a bit of an impossible task, though. The amount of information even in one subject is huge - creating differentiated videos to cover a massive ability range would be a thankless task. The Oak materials would be fine for the majority in the middle to make some progress, though.

The other thing that would happen if students self-selected a level is that a lot would go for an easy life! I've moved my department away from differentiating by giving students the option of which questions to do (used to be red/amber/green or some/most/all). Now they're all expected to do the same work but with different levels of scaffolding and support.

I don't think we disagree on the principle. Government funded the Oak National Academy and making that available on TV wouldn't be too difficult.

morstar

I’m not nailed to this idea, I’m just sharing a thought process but I don’t agree the commitment is significant.

What I am saying is, if you take just one lesson, several hundred teachers deliver the same content to a mixed audience simultaneously every day.

Half a dozen iterations of the same base content with varying degrees of depth produced to a very high standard is considerably less work overall.

morstar

Sorry, I agree it is significant. But compared to the current situation is less overall effort by a large degree.