| |
|
The idea of making a wider choice is good. The current system, I felt that I was choosing the subjects which I liked so much that I wanted to keep doing them. I'd like to see a system where I would simply get rid of the subjects I didn't like, and kept doing the rest. This would leave me with six or seven subjects rather than three of four, which is plenty of choice, but still specialised enough for me to choose whether I would be doing mostly scientific subjects or artistic.
It is true that 15 is too young for many people to choose their future career. This is where the in-depth study of a career subject, such as psychology or law, is a bad idea. But I think most people would have decided a general direction, towards the type of job they are best suited too (say sciencey or arty or mathematical -whatever) It would be quite easy for someone studying eight subjects to have a pretty major change in ambitions or choice of career at age eighteen.
As it is, I feel that I am pretty tied down to a science-based job. Deciding nest week to become, for instance, a journalist, might be awkward. But with an extra three subjects I could study maybe English, History or a foreign language as well as Biology, Chemistry Physics and Maths. This would give me loads more choice in University courses and careers.
Of course the In-depthness (thata word? I don't think so!) of the courses would have to suffer. But, talking to teachers, A-Levels are infringing more and more on University Level subject areas. Many have a surplus of depth, not a lack.
Shortages of teachers may be less of a problem with a wider qualification. Most A-Level teachers seem to have a degree in the subject they are teaching. Usually a good degree as well. In subjects where people with degrees in that subject are usually much better paid than teachers (eg. Maths, Physics) few of the teachers have a degree.
The maths teachers without degrees struggle to explain the more complex areas of the syllabus, occasionally even to comprehend them. I think they would be much better suited to teaching a less in-depth maths qualification, to more people.
Certain subjects have such a huge drop-out rate after the first year that the local education authority cuts their funding. The school has no choice but to (rather ham-fistedly) merge classes and drop lessons. A broader curriculum would
probably lower drop-out rates (especially if you didn't have such an easy take-a-single-year-and-run option) as failing in one subject need not drop your overall level of qualification down so much.
For example, if I were to completely lose the concept of mathematical thought next month, I could compensate for this by trying harder in the other six subjects. As it is, I would lose a quarter of the qualifications I gain in the sixth form, and my chances of studying on the Uni course I want to.
International qualifications do exist. But schools, especially in the UK, tend not to offfer them. Many are US-centric, poorly translated and difficult to compare to local qualifications. A real international baccalaureate would need to be adopted over a wide area, such as the whole EU. It would also need to be adaptable, as different countries teach different things lower down the school system. But it would be useful for employers to be able to compare candidates from all over the world on the same scale. Maybe the international baccalaureate just needs to be a standardisation of grades.
Well, who cares, I'm out of this particular system next year. Hopefully. ;-) |
|
|
