by Mr Comedy on Wed Jan 28, 2004 6:55 pm
Now lets consider the two, opposing, viewpoints.
First of all, university intake is on the up, every year. This is in line with increases in A level, and GCSE passes. Whereas I do not disagree that examinations are hard, there does not appear to be a reasonable distinction at this level any longer, with so many pupils getting A's and A*'s respectively. I think, with an increase in university intake, there is a danger of the same thing happening to the degree, which is the last bastion of education, and is under siege.
Secondly, let us consider my (and to some degree, the Conservatives) viewpoint. If we make exams harder, to maintain a system where there is equal grading (i.e, aiming so that a roughly similar amount get the same grades each year), and abandon the 50% target, we can then produce an education system that produces a better grading of people. Note, this does not reduce access, but regulates access.
So then we can have an education based on distinguishing pupils ability.
Incidentally, with the drop of the 50% target, we can return to student grants, where education is free, and the only pressure on the student is the pressure to perform, not to fund.
And if we teach key work related skills from the age of 13 in school, that are actually useful for employment, we can produce school leavers that are equipped for the workplace.
I think, (Alex) this is closer to the original vision that Smith had, and reinstates the appropriate Smithonian vision that he had, of a society based on ability, not funding.
"I am in no way interested in immortality, but only in the taste of tea. " -Lu Tung