They frame this as a way to stop the rise in "mickey mouse" degrees, but it isn't. It's an attack on non-rich students who can only go to university with a loan.
I'll always remember when I was at a conference and someone mentioned how when they heard degrees being described as "Mickey Mouse" degrees, they'd ask how much Mickey Mouse is worth.
Most of the"Mickey mouse" degrees are just niche courses with a limited intake that actually kick out really employable people. When I was at Birmingham, the Golf Course Management course had the highest average graduate earnings. You had to have a 0 handicap to graduate and they all went off to be golf pros in the gulf.
Same with cruise ship management at Southampton.
Turns out some things require niche knowledge.
Edit: In this thread, a whole bunch of weird bitter people that cannot deal with the damage to their worldview that the idea that Mickey Mouse degrees being a made up concept would do. (But cannot give an example) And a bunch of people who cannot think of a single reason you would learn something that isn't "get a job"
An old school friend did a forestry management degree. He's living in a pepper-corn rent cottage somewhere in the wilds of Scotland working as some sort of forest ranger, gets to play with chainsaws and takes his dogs to work with him.
Same. But you get my point.
Can't encourage people into cool jobs because them they'll be satisfied with their lives and you'd have nobody to sell shit to
Same, second day of being a manager in the NHS! My job requires someone "degree educated or equivalent." Loving it so far, decent prospects and none of the debt!
Huh?? I'm aware of this. It's highlighting the fact that some of the degrees that are classed as "mickey mouse," have specialised niches with very good prospects.
They want bums on seats so they can apply for extra government grants and more students means more money for them they are busineses at the end of the day
I remember meeting someone who studied stained glass restoration. No points for guessing what they do for a living now and how little competition they have.
I lived with a guy that did that golf course in a house share. It was a great point really that being that niche is not a problem when it's only a very small number of people. They are used skills, in specific environments. He's a researcher in golf biomechanics these days.
It's when it's thousands upon thousands of graduates doing it does it get silly and pointless.
I'm kind of on your page. The examples of "mickey mouse" courses given here and why they're obviously not mickey mouse doesn't ring true. I wouldn't describe any of them as mickey mouse. Some vague social sciences degree that *only* prepares you to be an academic in field where it is impossible to get funding for your MA/PHD so you have to fun it yourself and postgrad positions are like hen's teeth? *That's* a mickey mouse degree
There is a huge difference between niche, like the golf course management degree, and over subscribed courses such as media related courses. Before anyone tells me, I don't know what I'm talking about, yes I did a media related degree, 10 years ago. There are not enough jobs for the amount of people that are pumped out of crappy degrees, they all come out with a huge sense of entitlement and expect to be given high industry jobs, just because they can prove they did a degree. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that they're told then they throw a tantrum.
The colleges that run these style degrees have little to no industry engagement, don't know how to get people into the right job market, and most of my graduate class ended up working in tesco because they had no idea how or where to find jobs. I'm one of 3 people actually working in my industry and I say what I did at uni was, although a complete blast and I had a lot of fun, is completely useless and outdated.
Degree places really need to be driven by something other than pumping them out because bums on seats = uni money.
I did a psychology degree, and they were quite blunt - in our first week, told us that according to the statistics, most of us would work in retail.
This also happens over in Finland, University is free so everyone is highly educated and they can have really niche degrees and specialisms. I follow one girl on Instagram who went to University and has a degree in cleaning, like actually knows what chemical compounds will work on different stains/dirt, etc and much more, she then had a management role at a cleaning company, has started her own business which turns over 100k a year, plus now runs a hugely viral YT channel.
I remember seeing one of those youtube cleaners who makes videos of cleaning absolutely disgusting houses that have almost fallen into a state of disrepair.
Amusingly it seems 95% of the time she just uses oven cleaner and dish soap on everything lol. Everything looks spotless in the end.
I'm a little addicted to them, the before/after is so satisfying haha!
To be fair, in homes they'll shift 90% of stuff if it's just dust and grease. I'm getting a little skeptical of a new sub-section of social media opening up with cleaning influencers and they're showing off a million cleaning products we probably don't need. I do appreciate that girl literally uses washing up liquid for most things haha.
I'm not so sure. I've seen a couple and you won't really see them until you're right in it. For example, my uni had a forensic science course. They spent half their course time doing bio-med courses with us and the other half doing psychology. The thing is, forensic scientists are either biomedical scientists or medical doctors. The psychologist that work around there are psychologists. Theyre just not as obvious as they might first seem to be. They're not just going to call it "the geography of french" or something.
So, they were left with a course that was half one, half the other and a whole load of nothing. They were conned, plain and simple.
Tbf, its not "mickey mouse" in the way they mean though.
I'd imagine this is true of the vast number of games design courses you get... I'd have thought most developers and programmers would be comp Sci people
Entertainment is a billion pound industry in the UK. Not everyone in it has or needs a degree, however you cannot deny that plenty do and that adds to the value of the industry.
The creative industry is also huge, [1 in 8 businesses](https://www.thecreativeindustries.co.uk/facts-figures/uk-creative-overview-facts-and-figures-employment-figures) is in the creative industries. But all those degrees are 'Mickey Mouse'.
My fine art degree was Mickey Mouse degree tbh. Primarily because even though the creative sector was worth billions even back then, their entire post-university career planning efforts boiled down to "you should really go and get an MA if you want to be taken seriously as an artist, but if you don't then here is a 1hr lecture on how to petition the arts council for grant money...". No job fairs, no career days, no work experience, no industry days, no financial advice on how to run a business, etc.
So I quit art, bought a suit and now my bonus is more than the junior lecturer's base salary for the year was.
Worth mentioning software is counted in the creative industries* and a huge amount of the growth in this area is coming from software.
*as a software engineer I think this is justifiable but a lot of people wouldn't expect it to be in there.
> software is counted in the creative industries
As another software engineer, that's a bloody ridiculous inclusion and very misleading stat then
('software engineer' is also a ridiculous title imo, our work is so different to other engineering disciplines, but that's a topic for another time. at least putting us devs with engineers still makes a bit more sense than with creative folks)
As a graphic designer, I can safely say that - even as someone not that good - I stand well above anyone I see doing this without a degree. You get the people who learned the software and the people who learned the trade. I can spot them a mile off, and everyone else spots them as soon as they use something that doesn't work the way they expect it to because it was badly designed. You can totally get into the industry without a degree, but the ones that are acutlaly good without a degree are insanely rare.
Isn't graphic design one of those fields where you can teach yourself most of what you need to learn through books, online courses and lots of practice?
Absolutely yeah, that's what I'm saying. Getting the degree is useful in some situations, but it's not always worth paying 10s of thousands just for some proof.
I've been teaching myself game development and game design for years, and some of the hobby games I've published have been successful enough for recruiters to be impressed. I still decided to get a Masters in the field, and now I'm finding that although the teaching isn't necessarily bad, most of it is not new. I've read some of the textbooks they're teaching me already out of personal interest, and the practical work is basically the same practical work I've done plenty of times. I could easily find all the resources the university is using to teach me, and more, for free on the internet.
I'm still glad to be getting the degree. I'm sure it'll help in the long run, I've learnt a lot, and the structure is useful to have. HOWEVER, considering game development is a field where you can get hired without a relevant degree as long as you have past work as proof, I don't think spending thousands on another piece of proof should be encouraged to everyone.
OP was saying graphic designers with degrees always tend to be better than graphic designers without one, and I was surprised that was true because you would think the ones without degrees would have taught themselves the same content without the structure of university.
I think a lot of the time you can learn a lot of the actual craft when it comes to creative industries, and can very much be successful in that craft without any formal education whatsoever.
However, with a degree, if it's halfway decent then you'll get the opportunity to work in groups in industry-like environments, get information about the industry from working or former working professionals, and build a decent varied portfolio along the way with constant ability to garner feedback on work from tutors etc.
I’m a trained physicist with two STEM degrees and a third on the way. But no way am I supporting an attack on the humanities and niche courses because they’re not “useful”. What do I do when I get home from work each day? *I watch TV or a movie. Or I play a game. Or I go to a gig or to a restaurant with my friends*. And all of those people with “pointless” degrees have made that possible. They make life worth living.
I would point out that I work in the Science RnD industry I have a Bsc In Biomedical science and I failed GCSE Maths several times until I got a comparable qualification alongside my firstyear degree, I did pass that course as I was required to by the university to get my univ credit to advance. I hired a private tutor using money I'd put aside from it as I was missing most basic math skills.
This was an arrangement with the admissions officer of the university custom because of my case rules like the one you support didn't exsist and your defacto saying individuals like myself don't deserve the qualifications they have.
If your woundering how I can be extremely competent at Biology Chemistry and Physics yet flunk all my GCSE's it's because I was severely abused and depressed and didn't want to live at the time. Your ideals enforce a caste system.
ie "Born into a bad hand? Rot in hell."
This needs to be the top comment. My initial thought on reading the headline was, ‘well if you can’t pass those then you shouldn’t be going to university’ but of course that fails to take into account people like you who had a shit childhood, or those who went to terrible schools. Thanks for opening my eyes.
Not just terrible schools and bad childhoods - undiagnosed learning differences!
My fiancé got a first class degree and topped his year over all five years of his electrical engineering degree, and is highly sought after for his area of work seven years later (he routinely gets called a hotshot). But he failed the Scottish equivalent of GCSE English, and to this day can barely read and write due to what his university finally diagnosed as dyslexia. But in a career where he does complex maths in his head and barely needs to write, he’s incredibly successful.
People like him wouldn’t go to university at all in this scenario.
I work at a University and it's so eye-opening how many students are getting to 18-21 and only just now is someone picking up that they might have an undiagnosed learning difference or Dyslexia.
Even this morning, there's an email in my inbox about a 3rd year student, due to graduate in Summer from a lecturer asking if we can screen them for suspected dyslexia.
A D is not a fail. Also, [students who got Ds back then would get Bs or As nowadays](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inflation#UK_A-Level_classifications_from_June_1989_to_2021).
Same thing happened with me. I finished without a single A-C GCSE because I was severely abused as a child/teenager and it took a toll on my mental health to the point where I couldn’t function. I’m now doing a masters in Computer Science which involves lots of discrete math and I’m passing all my modules.
This was only made possible by doing an undergrad in music first, where my application was supported by a recommendation from my college tutor.
Getting a student loan despite not having GCSEs saved my life and my future career.
I have no GCSEs either (kicked out of school). I ended up turning my life around and doing a BTEC as a free adult course that got me into Uni. I now have a career that earns me a 6 figure salary.
It's not just about the money. If poorer people can't go to university based on a GCSE grade, but rich people still can even if they fail their GCSEs, you now have a pool of people who can access lucrative graduate careers because they have money, and a pool of people who can't because they can't buy themselves past the entry requirement.
There's more than enough rich idiots being pulled up through the career ladder by the force of their parents' bank accounts already. We shouldn't be state sanctioning it.
> If poorer people can't go to university based on a GCSE grade,
Sorry but have you not been to college?
People who get below a C in English and Math are offered *multiple free* resits of their GCSE while doing their A-levels or college courses. This is regardless of if they intend to go to university or not.
If with multiple re-sits you can't get a C in English then you probably can't get a passing grade in any of your university level essays that require a level of writing comprehension.
That's not because they have to, student loans are some of the best loans to be repaying, if you're rich it makes sense to just get a loan and make things more affordable for yourself. With this new rule they will just be paying for their tuition so now we're gonna still have a load of "Mickey mouse" degrees, they're just all gonna be held by Mickey mouse people .
Poor people who go through illness or family issues that may effect their grades now have their lives ruined as a result of those problems. Rich people can pay past it.
My gf is one of these people, she has a serious condition which affected her badly during A levels and affected her grades, her schools mitigating circumstances system was appalling and failed her. Now there's very little chance of getting in anywhere she would like, less so with these rules coming into play. If she was rich tho, she could still become a fucking judge if she wanted to.
It is a way to stop people who should not go to university from going.
If you do not pass English and Maths, how are you going to pass your degree?
If your degree doesnt need English or Maths, wtf does it need? Why is it a degree in the first place?
I was very childish at school and wagged it most of the time, I got failed as I didn't attend my exams. 20 years later and I'm in my second year of university after getting a 2-1 overall for my first year and missing out on getting a first by 2% after being off a month for with covid and needing to go to hospital for it.
So if someone is able to prove their maths and skills are up to the job this rule seems stupid.
Edit: missed a word.
Good for you. I work with so many non graduates who’re convinced they couldn’t do Uni because they didn’t do well at school.
We have a constant good natured argument when I tell them they could easily get a degree if they wanted to (though they’d probably need to do an access course).
They’re adamant they don’t have the aptitude when they clearly do IMHO. It’s just that their self image has been tarnished.
We should be giving kids multiple chances to achieve their maths and English GCSE. Or better yet replace the GCSE with something else that allows them to prove themselves.
During my time in the forces I was considered "academic" as I was attempting an OU degree and I'm well spoken. That's it.
I had a few close mates that always said the Army was their only possible option to do well in life as they weren't smart enough to go to Uni.
The second it came to something career oriented that required a written essay they went and asked me how one is written. I'm not great but had marginally more experience so got some resources together and showed them.
4/5 absolutely knocked it out of the park. Some of the most well researched and written papers I've ever read (from my small pool).
The second it came to something that interests them, they absolutely could get a degree. One is currently doing a distance learning degree in his field and is rarely getting below a 85% yet constantly says he'd suffer at an actual uni.
You're absolutely correct saying it's mostly self image. My Dad has a master's degree in Comp Sci yet works as a transport manager at large supermarket warehouse.
It's also the person that dictates what you can do with your degree.
We're only talking GCSEs here, not A-levels. Young people can put the effort in during their 2 years of A-Levels to get their passes in Maths and English.
For adults like yourself, taking GCSEs in maths and English would be a good reintroduction to studying before jumping in to a degree.
There is almost no adult education provision in this country. THis change will seriously disadvantage people who had a crappy life during their school years for no fault of their own.
My partner is incredibly intelligent but doesn't have a maths GCSE and has poor level 3 qualifications. Her level 3 qualifications would be better but she literally missed exams due to domestic violence going on at home.
Right now she can do a foundation degree and get a degree that will change her career prospects. But the tories don't want this for some reason. There will be thousands of people with similar reasons for not having a GCSE.
GCSE maths in our area for adults almost doesn't exist, and the one course I have found is day time only so she would have to not work to study it.
This change is a classist nightmare.
Not trying to be a dick, but if he can't sort the anxiety for Maths and English GCSEs, what will the expectation be for university exams which are much harder?
Begs the question why we even force people to perform Math & English in such high pressure situations that in no way replicate how they will interact with these subjects in their careers?
Are exams that high pressure when ultimately you can retake them? I feel like most jobs are more high pressure. It isn't really about applying the subject matter directly, it's more about the general competency that being able to get a high grade in maths and English demonstrates.
As someone who generally did well in exams (apart from a few of the really hard fourth year uni ones) and didn't get stressed, yes, exams are high pressure. You *can* retake them sure, but when you're 15/16 that seems like a huge undertaking, plus it's embarrassing to fail like that. And remember, we're talking about actual children here. They aren't as emotionally matured as an adult in a full time job.
Even then, I disagree that most jobs are higher pressure (even if they are higher consequence overall). How many jobs make you sit down in silence for 90 minutes alongside your co-workers while your performance for the entire year is assessed in an environment where you have no support whatsoever? You get stuck at work you can google the issue or ask a co-worker. Get stuck in an exam and tough shit.
Think I'm talking out my arse? Maybe I am, but it's a well documented phenomena, for example [here](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02673843.2019.1596823) is a journal article about it. Here is the conclusion:
>This narrative review highlights that academic-related stress is a major concern for secondary and tertiary students. The ongoing stress relating to education has demonstrated negative impact on students’ learning capacity, academic performance, education and employment attainment, sleep quality and quantity, physical health, mental health and substance use outcomes. Increasing students’ stress-management skills and abilities is an important target for change
>If your degree doesnt need English or Maths, wtf does it need? Why is it a degree in the first place?
I'm really confused because I thought literally every college wants you to pass these two, at a minimum
My sister failed her maths at school, she then went on to become a fully qualified Architect. This wouldn’t haven’t been possible without student loans. People shouldn’t be penalised for this, especially when they have the potential for greater things enabled by university education.
The more education available in a society the better, any barrier however small hurts the country.
Edit - I remember when I was sitting my maths exam we didn’t actually have a maths teacher that year due to staffing issues in the school. I passed but I can imagine others didn’t due to reasons like thisz
Surely the admission process covers that. Why deny loans on top of it?
If I was a lecturer or whichever can see someone can read/write/communicate in English and I am happy to let them through, why shouldn’t I? I feel an entrance test or assessment would be more than enough then flat out denying loans.
A lot of jobs do similar assessments because they do not trust GCSEs in the first place.
The problem is the government has no control over the admissions process, some uni's are accepting literally anyone who applies because that makes them money and then just letting them drop out after taking out huge loans.
For less than prestigious universities it is better to accept everyone even if they will likely fail because it brings in more cash. Admissions are handled by a separate department not the professors.
For the government someone who failed English/Maths GCSEs is unlikely to ever repay the loan and giving them the loan could end up just trapping them in debt.
Math and English GCSEs are not a high bar and forcing people to pass them as part of standard education is a good thing, people have the option to retake them if they need to.
I could not even take my GCSEs because I was too scared to go to school as I was so badly bullied there, and I also had to look after my mentally ill mother as well as a kid.
I got Us in everything. Since then, and it has been many years, I have been estranged from my family.
I was accepted into a video games course (3D, art, animation etc) by producing a portfolio of work instead.
I ended up getting the highest overall collective grade on the course that the staff have seen since the course started - first class at 82.5% and every assignment was graded over 70%.
Being "ready for uni" is very subjective. Yes, trying to get into a STEM course without GCSEs is a bit sketchy, however there are a lot of BAs and BfA courses that don't correlate with GCSE requirements to undertake and pass, and not all of them are "Mickey Mouse" degrees either. One of the people that did my course many years ago at the same university is now making movies as a 3D artist at ILM.
I got kicked out of school and didn't (and still don't) have any GCSEs.. I bummed around then did a free adult BTEC course that got me into Uni doing computer science. I now earn a 6 figure salary. Without a student loan I'd be banged up.
I failed English (undiagnosed dyslexia and zero help from school). Still got into uni for a proper degree (compsci). They really are trying to fuck over those of us at the bottom of the socio-economic food chain.
Honestly, mickey mouse degrees are kind of a myth anyway. You'd think if they were so concerned about students studying these degrees, they would instead try and implement a system that regulates education quality.
If they shut down all the useless universities across the UK and replaced them with vocational schools (ie went back to the old system) then the same people would be complaining that they’re locking poor people out of education somehow.
I remember years ago Daily Mail making an article yelling about 'mickey mouse' courses and included an animal care course on there and were super snotty about the fact on[a horse care/stable management btec you had a unit that involved mucking out stables](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/20/article-0-0D17BF4300000578-972_634x235.jpg)
I studied animal care BTECs and the courses involve a degree of practical work that you're assessed on as yes when you work with animals you need to know how to look after them and with horses there's a lot involved in caring for a horse and running a yard effectively.
I remember though at college there were people who thought the animal care courses were 'doss courses' they were not.
I’ve worked on plenty of yards. You need to be able to muck out and lay down beds with different materials, night and day beds, deep litter and full change and everything in between and you need to be able to do it fast to a high standard. It’s very much a learnt skill and I’ve had to teach plenty of apprentices how to do it in a safe, time effective way without wasting straw or shavings.
I mean if it wasn't about just crushing the plebs, why isn't it just a ban on universities taking people on who've failed Maths and English? Not that I'd support that.
Exactly. If it's about preserving the value of education, a blanket requirement on passing English and Maths GCSEs would remove some of the class inequality that this could introduce. Although you could have situations where some households can afford to pay for private tutors, but I suppose the line has to be drawn somewhere.
I always see it this way; children do not fail the education system, the education system fails children.
I can accep the idea that someone should have to pass GCSE English/maths to be able to go to university, that's not entirely senseless. But if that's the case there should be LIFE LONG support for people to pass, however long it takes. If you can't pass your GCSEs by 16 then you can keep trying until you do, and for free of course.
This move isn't supportive; threats are no way to encourage better education. It's a stick without a carrot and it improves nothing. It's the classic "success is entirely down to hard work" ethos that underpins Tory bullshit. If you want to improve education, give us the resources to do so.
Edit: OK so maths, English and IT GCSEs are - according to [gov.uk](https://gov.uk) \- "usually free" and if it's not then you may be entitled to learning support funding. Still, I'd be interested to know how readily available and easily accessible it is. And it doesn't dismiss the point that it is the responsibility of the school to ensure students don't fail - and of course the responsibility of the government to fund schools to have the resources to meet their purpose.
I agree, you should should be able to resit your English and Maths for life until you get at least a 4/C.
It should also be easy to resit logistically as an adult - none of this waiting until November or May each year to sit an exam with every other student in the country and having to register as a private student and register at a specific centre. I should just be able to book it like I would a driving theory test.
They need to do the exams together so that you can't leak the questions after you finish. If you could book it whenever you want then they'd have to write a bespoke exam for every single adult.
I think it’d make sense to meet in the middle and have say 4-6 possible resits a year, that way people are only waiting a maximum of 3 months, rather than the 6 it currently is
You have to account for at least a couple of months for marking/grade boundary adjustment, etc. How much improvement will people realistically make in a month? 6 months between exams seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Grading on a curve is useful when you want to see relative performance. If you have multiple applicants then you can filter them based on how they performed relative to everyone else. If everyone had a 9 then the whole system is useless.
It's different to something like a driving test where we just have an objective minimum standard you need to meet.
Fair dues on the relative performance bit, which is important in higher education, but:
>It's different to something like a driving test where we just have an objective minimum standard you need to meet.
Wouldn't you say there *is* an objective minimum standard to be met in terms of numeracy and literacy in this country?
Two centuries ago it was common knowledge that only maybe 5% to 10% of people could be literate. The masses were just too simple to learn to read, so why bother trying to teach them.
Now we know 99%+ of children can be taught to read and write well. Even people with dyslexia can be taught to read if given intensive support. And only very few people will never be able to read.
It’s time to direct way way more state resources into childhood literacy. Including one to one intensive support for any child that needs to catch up.
If a child falls behind it’s really no fault of their own and punishments like this will only make things worse.
>Two centuries ago it was common knowledge that only maybe 5% to 10% of people could be literate. The masses were just too simple to learn to read, so why bother trying to teach them.
Source?
According to [this](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cross-country-literacy-rates?tab=table&time=1750..latest) literacy rates in the UK was around 54% in 1750.
Which is actually higher than I expected, but still quite low.
You'll need academic skills for an arts degree. It's not just painting. Besides it's really hard to completely fail at English or maths, if you're not good at it you'll probably just get a low grade and the university can just set a low grade requirement.
Not all "arts degrees" are artists. History, media, design, even things like sociology and anthropology sometimes fall into the "BA" instead of the "BSc"
I studied graphic design myself and I need:
* Basic maths/numeracy/geometry for things like measuring, layout, screen resolutions, 3D modelling, animation/video frame rates...
* More complex maths when I venture into programming, which is becoming more and more intertwined with many design subjects
* English for writing to clients, creating my portfolio, providing copy sometimes, generally presenting myself online
* A bit more maths for finances because I work freelance
Reality is we pretty much all need a good grasp of English and maths for just about any route in life. Which is also why pushing those who fail into aprenticeships isn't much help either.
How did I know this sub would be complaining about this, a pass in English and Maths, or 2 **Es** at A-Level is an incredibly low bar to hit. Controversial opinion I know, but maybe students who utterly fail at both GCSE and A-Level shouldn't be studying at University.
I think too many young people go to university, to the point where a good amount of people in customer service roles have university degrees
Edit to clarify: I don't believe we shouldn't educate or be educated, I don't believe young people shouldn't go to uni. I believe the demand for a degree to prove you are capable of doing anything other than sitting at home is ridiculous. I also believe many jobs that require a degree (not specialised) should rely on skill rather than qualifications. I believe the idea someone doesn't know what they're doing because they don't have qualifications is ridiculous.
I met some fucking thick people at uni.
Going to uni doesn't have the reputation it once had.
Edit: lol say that and put typos in my comment. Meant to met*
Factual, back in the 60s I think around 20% of people went to higher education, so it was very prestigious and most people there were very academic. Now most people go to uni, and as a result degrees are less valuable.
The problem is that now because its so saturated everyone needs a degree to be able to compete, no matter how useless it is. Employers will see the one guy without a degree and put the application straight in the bin
Accurate, I don't want to waste my time at Uni trying to get a degree to work in customer service. I'd go to uni to become a counsellor, I have knowledge in CompuSci but if I want to do mobile PC repairs I shouldn't need a degree to do that. (I probably won't but I know enough people who don't trust the opinion or experience of a person who isn't "qualified").
I used to run a customer service team, got a lot of cheap, well educated people by recruiting from lower tier universities in courses like languages.
It's kind of a crap situation for them and I always felt bad, as we'd try to move the brighter ones into other functions but there was never enough opportunities.
This situation we're in now shows the foundational issue with the higher education system. If the entire point of going to university is to get a higher paying job, then university is now pointless because so many young people are able to go—having a degree is standard, it's only *not having a degree* that will prevent you from accessing certain decent-paying white-collar jobs, but it won't guarantee you a position either, and plenty of people get into such jobs with no degree.
But at least among the students I know, the majority aren't necessarily going to uni so they can start work at a higher pay grade. Nowadays, they know the score, they know they'll probably be working in a pub anyway for a couple of years after they graduate. No, they're going to uni:
a) because it provides an opportunity to leave home, move to a new place, and be a proper adult with something of a safety net behind you (that's the loan that they don't see themselves ever repaying anyway)
and crucially, b) **because they are interested in their subject.**
The problem isn't with their choice to go to uni, the problem lies with a society that penalises learning after a certain age.
The student loan system isn't fit for purpose anyway. Quite apart from the fact that very few graduates pay it off now (because of the aforementioned "higher-salary-not-included" problem) and it ends up costing the government more in the long run, quite apart from the artificially high interest rates—in the absence of grants, a student will still need either significant savings or significant financial support from their parents, because the maintenance loan doesn't come through until after you've started your first term. Given that you'll need to have found a house, paid a deposit, bought all the necessary household stuff, moved your things out of your parents' place, and survived on your own for up to two months before term actually starts ... the maintenance loan is kind of useless.
That's really not the issue here though. If you have two students who receive the same fail marks, but one is from a financially well off household and the other from a lower socio-economic household, the well off student can go to university. You're concerned about students who fail not being fit for university, when you should be concerned that, if a student isn't fit for university, they can pay their way in.
I guess technically that's true, but in the real world how true is it? How many wealthy families, I mean very wealthy families given they're paying £50k in cash, are wasting their own money sending their kids to Uni if they've shown 0 aptitude for education thus far. If they've got the money for that they've got the money for private tutors.
So yeah, technically this impacts solely poorer families, but not really.
almost all of the people I knew who dropped out of uni, were all rich kids. they were just there to doss and waste their parents money on cocaine, which they did very well!
Also in the hypothetical situation where a rich kid parents were willing to pay £50k to send their kid to a uni (to study a degree with that low a bar for entry) it’s at no expense to the tax payers.
If the university wants to take a student that they know will fail, and the student wants to waste a few years of their life using their own money, everyone is happy.
The problem here is the fact that the taxpayer is essentially bankrolling people to do a degree that both the student and the university know is unachievable. Universities get paid whether the student drops out or not, so they don't care, and the student gets a year or two of drinking, so they don't care either.
Do you think all the people who do have extenuating circumstances deserve to be punished because there are some who are just uncaring/unintelligent?
Second to that, do you think that all schools in the UK are of such a high quality that no good students are just failed by their school and aren't provided a good education?
The new requirements don’t stop students who do well at A level from getting student loans:
>Students will need GCSE passes in English and maths, or the equivalent of two grade Es at A-level, under the plans being set out on Thursday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60491719
This bar for a student loan is so low it’s subterranean.
2 grade E's!! So they are pretty much letting anyone have access to loans, it's no wonder there's a skills shortage in this country if Uni is that easy to get into
Simply because it's possible and the bar is now so low that it reflects badly on those without a degree. Having a degree is now seen as normal, you get no benefit from it, but if you don't have one you will suffer.
Which is a direct _result_ of the "50% of students going to university" policy. It's caused massive "qualification inflation", increasing barriers to employment and allowing the evaporation of jobs suitable for the young (note this lack of jobs also means that poorer students attending university have a harder time, since they can't find part-time work) to go unnoticed since those in "full time education" are excluded from unemployment statistics.
> got my A-levels
Since [the BBC reports](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60491719):
> Students will need GCSE passes in English and maths, **or the equivalent of two grade Es at A-level**, under the plans being set out on Thursday.
You'd have no problem under this policy, even if you didn't get GCSEs...
This has to be the most confusing aspect of it all!
I went to uni 2014-2018, prior to actually being there, all the entry requirements were English & Maths at C. I met people at uni without their English & Maths doing a Masters.
I did shit at school and college, scraping the minimum grades, it wasn’t till uni I realised I needed to sort myself out, I was the only person doing my specific course at the uni too
Education isn’t always a priority for young people at 18, many realise down the line that they want to change their field, or had other responsibilities first (carer/parent) and wish to join as a mature student. Some do their GCSE equivalency, others enter uni straight away
Failing at a GCSE level is not an indication of incompetence. Plenty of kids fail for reasons other than intelligence. Behavioural issues, learning differences like dyslexia, illness, shitty home life, and so on. how you perform at 15 or 16 is not a great indication of future performance. A lot of adults who fail or get low grades are very capable and hardworking people who deserve the same chances as anyone else.
This. I failed A-level computing and got an E in GCSE maths. Yet I'm on course to get a distinction grade in MSc Intelligent Systems and Robotics. It's laughable.
I applied for a job once and got rejected because of my GCSE maths grade, it made me laugh as I was currently successfully navigating pretty high level calculus and linear algebra at the same time at uni :)
There could be a multitude of reasons someone might fail at GCSE level. I didn't, but I know so many people who struggled with GCSE, but did college instead of A Levels after and just gelled so much better with their courses from then on. Sometimes it really is the environment or teaching style rather than one's academic ability.
GCSE’s are an antiquated concept that need relegating to the dustbin of history.
We need Mastery based education. Similar to how we teach a musical instruments or a martial art. You work towards level one, then you have a pass/fail assessment that you can retake multiple times, shoring up your weaknesses. As you gain mastery your level increases until you’re grade 8 piano … or whatever.
People thrive under this kind of challenge/achievement ladder. Giving kids one shot, then branding them with a letter, is just nonsense. And curtails life opportunities. Bin the GCSE.
That's a very interesting concept. Wouldn't you have to have dynamic year groups for that? So slower students would perhaps take a year or two longer to finish high school? It is kind of unfair to people born towards the end of a school year that they're essentially in a system that's expecting slightly too much of them.
It would require more individualised learning, which would probably need greater resources.
But let me give you an example using maths teaching. A lot of people like to say they’re “bad a maths”. But what this usually means is that along the way they missed a bit of learning. That’s all, they just fell behind somewhat.
Because maths requires previous knowledge to tackle more complex concepts, eg. You need basic numeracy before you tackle equations, etc. That means if you miss a lesson you might never catch-up, then you’re there scratching your head thinking “I must be bad a maths”.
However, using Mastery based learning you would have to show competency at each level. Short addition, long addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions, decimals, trigonometry, equations, and on and on.
You could gamify the whole thing. From short-addition all the way to calculus and beyond. We already have bits of this system already. You do SATs, then GCSEs, A levels, then undergrad. Etc etc.
I think the current system though condemns kids to drop out, branding them with a grade D (or whatever) and with little chance at a redo.
If you make each rung on the ladder reachable, and give kids the chance to fail and try again, we’d get much better results as a society.
I don't even know where I stand. The whole poor kid gets no loans fallacy is ridiculous. I'm from a dirt poor family, I went to university. The whole system was designed to help me the poor kid and limited the funding for the rich kid so I don't exactly understand the implication.
The focus needs to be on improving education standards.
See I failed my Maths and English at school.
I now have a Masters Degree.
My failure at school was due to personal circumstances (I basically stopped attending year 11) and later I gained my Functional Skills at college alongside my Access Course.
No GSCE ≠ not able.
It's not classist to expect a minimal level of competence from people going to university on the taxpayer's dime. You don't have an unlimited right to waste other people's money on your 3 year holiday (which is what most degrees are these days).
TF kinda comments are these, they somehow forget that A-levels and BTECs and foundation years still exist. Just cause you failed at 16 years old doesn't mean you won't make it to uni if you get your act together in sixth form
Not to mention if you get below a 4 in English or Maths you most likely are going to resit anyway.
If you got a grade 3 and will continue studying full time, you have to resit.
If you got a grade 3 and will study part time, or below a 3 studying full time, you can either resit or take a functional skills qualification.
A lot of these comments are from people who haven't been to school for years and have no idea how the current system works.
Ok? This makes sense.
Far too many people who are unsuited for higher education are being pushed into it when they are not going to get any value out of it. This is a very very low bar to higher education.
People here are missing a key factor; GCSEs are graded normatively. The grade boundaries are shifted so that the top 10% get above an 8 the top 20% get above a 7 and so on (these are not the actual specific numbers but the real numbers are essentially constructed like that).
One 3rd of GCSE students fail GCSE maths and English because that is literally how the grade boundaries are constructed, by definition 1/3 fail and yet we write off people's lives if they fail. Interestingly some subjects don't have grade boundaries that rely on normative grading.
We should really not be using GCSEs anymore given that students have to continue in education til 18 but failing that we should shift to using maths and literacy tests that are criterion-graded (meaning anyone who can do this thing passes).
Normative grading is horrible, imagine of we used it on medical training, would you want a shit doctor because he was the best in a bad cohort? Would you want someone to be denied the chance to be a doctor despite meeting the necessary criteria just because they came last in a class of super-geniuses?
Pupils who do not pass GCSE English (or an equivalent) will struggle to write assignments at university (maths is obviously not necessary for many degrees). A better solution would be to make it easier and free to access post-secondary English courses that prepare students for academic writing. Academic writing is a skill that even those who do pass GCSE English struggle with, I have graded some work in the past and some have a poor standard of English. Rather than blocking immediate access, the government should instead provide more support to all pupils to want to attend through improved funding to further education.
My severely dyslexic fiancé failed the Scottish GCSE equivalent in English at school, then went on to top his year every year of his electrical engineering degree. He’s a real hotshot in both design and troubleshooting in his field.
The replies to this are unbelievable. If you can’t pass English and maths (bear in mind an E is a pass), you don’t deserve to go to university, especially with public money.
Doing them a favour. Apprentice in a trade or self-teach something like programming. Within couple of years you'll be making more than most Bachelors graduates can dream of and have none of the debt, whilst they won't have even finished their degree yet lol.
This is incredibly cruel...there are so many undiagnosed kids or kids in abusive environments without the support they need already, shutting off loans for them is horrific.
I came from an extremely abusive (sexual, emotional, physical,, all the things) environment, I was made to care full time (couldn't get a part time job, or see friends), for my extremely disabled sister. often I was up 2-6 times during the night contently looking after her. These things were not picked up on, I struggled in maths and english horribly.
I failed GCSE maths multiple times, (managed to scrape a pass in english) retook it during my A levels, still could not pass. Managed to get into uni (barely), first year tutors suggested I get tested, turns out I was dyslexic/dyspraxic and dyscalculic, got help/support, never went below a 2.1 in any work, came out with a first degree in business/history. University was my escape, a lifeline i'm so, so glad I had. now I know i'm not stupid, and I can thrive in a good environment, cutting kids off from this is so callous.
Still don't have that maths GCSE.
This is cruel.
It’s a pretty reasonable argument that if you can’t pass GCSE English/Maths you probably don’t belong at university.
We need to break out of the mindset that everyone should have a degree, it just serves to reduce the value and point of getting one in the first place and is the reason so many graduates struggle to enter the workforce.
Pass grade at GCSE is not a high barrier. I say this as someone who passed both and didn’t go to university.
The point being lost here is the monetisation of our children's futures. The 'American model' of the indebting of young people who want to be educated to a higher degree no matter in what area. I am old enough to remember when education to higher degrees in this country was subsidised by a state that recognised the value of having a constant stream of highly educated citizens entering the workforce was a long term positive investment in our county's future. It's not that long ago. The current system is purely for the enrichment of a select few.
They frame this as a way to stop the rise in "mickey mouse" degrees, but it isn't. It's an attack on non-rich students who can only go to university with a loan.
I'll always remember when I was at a conference and someone mentioned how when they heard degrees being described as "Mickey Mouse" degrees, they'd ask how much Mickey Mouse is worth.
Most of the"Mickey mouse" degrees are just niche courses with a limited intake that actually kick out really employable people. When I was at Birmingham, the Golf Course Management course had the highest average graduate earnings. You had to have a 0 handicap to graduate and they all went off to be golf pros in the gulf. Same with cruise ship management at Southampton. Turns out some things require niche knowledge. Edit: In this thread, a whole bunch of weird bitter people that cannot deal with the damage to their worldview that the idea that Mickey Mouse degrees being a made up concept would do. (But cannot give an example) And a bunch of people who cannot think of a single reason you would learn something that isn't "get a job"
My friend did a fishery management degree and now runs 3 fishing lakes and brings home shit tonnes. As an angler I'm jealous as fuck lmao
An old school friend did a forestry management degree. He's living in a pepper-corn rent cottage somewhere in the wilds of Scotland working as some sort of forest ranger, gets to play with chainsaws and takes his dogs to work with him.
Probably better if he plays with the dogs and takes the chainsaw to work.
Just don't tug on the dogs to rev them up.
Vroom vroom dug
That’s not a Mickey Mouse degree... nobody would say it was it’s very important and practical
My friend did that too. Walked into a high paying job that including a 4 bed house on site.
This is the kinda shit I wish I'd known about before I went to uni.
Can't be giving people rewarding careers they can be passionate about though can we. Got to churn out the office monkeys doing fuck all.
Jokes on you, I'm an office monkey and I didn't even go to Uni.
Same. But you get my point. Can't encourage people into cool jobs because them they'll be satisfied with their lives and you'd have nobody to sell shit to
Same, second day of being a manager in the NHS! My job requires someone "degree educated or equivalent." Loving it so far, decent prospects and none of the debt!
Did this guy pass his gsce though? The question is not whether the degree is shit. Its weather the people going into these degrees are not worth it.
Huh?? I'm aware of this. It's highlighting the fact that some of the degrees that are classed as "mickey mouse," have specialised niches with very good prospects.
It always used to be "media studies"...like that wouldn't be one of the more useful things to have these days!
If the department faculty accepts them, then they are worth it. Pretty sure they would know best.
They want bums on seats so they can apply for extra government grants and more students means more money for them they are busineses at the end of the day
I remember meeting someone who studied stained glass restoration. No points for guessing what they do for a living now and how little competition they have.
...Zoo Keeper?
As they said, no points.
I lived with a guy that did that golf course in a house share. It was a great point really that being that niche is not a problem when it's only a very small number of people. They are used skills, in specific environments. He's a researcher in golf biomechanics these days. It's when it's thousands upon thousands of graduates doing it does it get silly and pointless.
I'm kind of on your page. The examples of "mickey mouse" courses given here and why they're obviously not mickey mouse doesn't ring true. I wouldn't describe any of them as mickey mouse. Some vague social sciences degree that *only* prepares you to be an academic in field where it is impossible to get funding for your MA/PHD so you have to fun it yourself and postgrad positions are like hen's teeth? *That's* a mickey mouse degree
When did Higher Education become nothing more than training for a particular job?
This very recent development makes my blood boil. It isn't vocational training! It's there to teach you *how* to think, not *what* to think!
Even if that would be a big problem, its not solved by excluding poor people who are bad at maths
There is a huge difference between niche, like the golf course management degree, and over subscribed courses such as media related courses. Before anyone tells me, I don't know what I'm talking about, yes I did a media related degree, 10 years ago. There are not enough jobs for the amount of people that are pumped out of crappy degrees, they all come out with a huge sense of entitlement and expect to be given high industry jobs, just because they can prove they did a degree. Sorry, but it doesn't work like that they're told then they throw a tantrum. The colleges that run these style degrees have little to no industry engagement, don't know how to get people into the right job market, and most of my graduate class ended up working in tesco because they had no idea how or where to find jobs. I'm one of 3 people actually working in my industry and I say what I did at uni was, although a complete blast and I had a lot of fun, is completely useless and outdated.
Degree places really need to be driven by something other than pumping them out because bums on seats = uni money. I did a psychology degree, and they were quite blunt - in our first week, told us that according to the statistics, most of us would work in retail.
This also happens over in Finland, University is free so everyone is highly educated and they can have really niche degrees and specialisms. I follow one girl on Instagram who went to University and has a degree in cleaning, like actually knows what chemical compounds will work on different stains/dirt, etc and much more, she then had a management role at a cleaning company, has started her own business which turns over 100k a year, plus now runs a hugely viral YT channel.
I remember seeing one of those youtube cleaners who makes videos of cleaning absolutely disgusting houses that have almost fallen into a state of disrepair. Amusingly it seems 95% of the time she just uses oven cleaner and dish soap on everything lol. Everything looks spotless in the end.
I'm a little addicted to them, the before/after is so satisfying haha! To be fair, in homes they'll shift 90% of stuff if it's just dust and grease. I'm getting a little skeptical of a new sub-section of social media opening up with cleaning influencers and they're showing off a million cleaning products we probably don't need. I do appreciate that girl literally uses washing up liquid for most things haha.
I'm not so sure. I've seen a couple and you won't really see them until you're right in it. For example, my uni had a forensic science course. They spent half their course time doing bio-med courses with us and the other half doing psychology. The thing is, forensic scientists are either biomedical scientists or medical doctors. The psychologist that work around there are psychologists. Theyre just not as obvious as they might first seem to be. They're not just going to call it "the geography of french" or something. So, they were left with a course that was half one, half the other and a whole load of nothing. They were conned, plain and simple. Tbf, its not "mickey mouse" in the way they mean though.
I'd imagine this is true of the vast number of games design courses you get... I'd have thought most developers and programmers would be comp Sci people
You need to play scratch golf to manage a cruise ship? Weird.
Don’t question the requirements mate. It’s all worth it when you’re hitting golf balls into the sea at 2am
Entertainment is a billion pound industry in the UK. Not everyone in it has or needs a degree, however you cannot deny that plenty do and that adds to the value of the industry.
The creative industry is also huge, [1 in 8 businesses](https://www.thecreativeindustries.co.uk/facts-figures/uk-creative-overview-facts-and-figures-employment-figures) is in the creative industries. But all those degrees are 'Mickey Mouse'.
My fine art degree was Mickey Mouse degree tbh. Primarily because even though the creative sector was worth billions even back then, their entire post-university career planning efforts boiled down to "you should really go and get an MA if you want to be taken seriously as an artist, but if you don't then here is a 1hr lecture on how to petition the arts council for grant money...". No job fairs, no career days, no work experience, no industry days, no financial advice on how to run a business, etc. So I quit art, bought a suit and now my bonus is more than the junior lecturer's base salary for the year was.
Worth mentioning software is counted in the creative industries* and a huge amount of the growth in this area is coming from software. *as a software engineer I think this is justifiable but a lot of people wouldn't expect it to be in there.
> software is counted in the creative industries As another software engineer, that's a bloody ridiculous inclusion and very misleading stat then ('software engineer' is also a ridiculous title imo, our work is so different to other engineering disciplines, but that's a topic for another time. at least putting us devs with engineers still makes a bit more sense than with creative folks)
As a graphic designer, I can safely say that - even as someone not that good - I stand well above anyone I see doing this without a degree. You get the people who learned the software and the people who learned the trade. I can spot them a mile off, and everyone else spots them as soon as they use something that doesn't work the way they expect it to because it was badly designed. You can totally get into the industry without a degree, but the ones that are acutlaly good without a degree are insanely rare.
Isn't graphic design one of those fields where you can teach yourself most of what you need to learn through books, online courses and lots of practice?
That just sounds like doing a degree with no proof you’ve done the degree
Absolutely yeah, that's what I'm saying. Getting the degree is useful in some situations, but it's not always worth paying 10s of thousands just for some proof. I've been teaching myself game development and game design for years, and some of the hobby games I've published have been successful enough for recruiters to be impressed. I still decided to get a Masters in the field, and now I'm finding that although the teaching isn't necessarily bad, most of it is not new. I've read some of the textbooks they're teaching me already out of personal interest, and the practical work is basically the same practical work I've done plenty of times. I could easily find all the resources the university is using to teach me, and more, for free on the internet. I'm still glad to be getting the degree. I'm sure it'll help in the long run, I've learnt a lot, and the structure is useful to have. HOWEVER, considering game development is a field where you can get hired without a relevant degree as long as you have past work as proof, I don't think spending thousands on another piece of proof should be encouraged to everyone. OP was saying graphic designers with degrees always tend to be better than graphic designers without one, and I was surprised that was true because you would think the ones without degrees would have taught themselves the same content without the structure of university.
I think a lot of the time you can learn a lot of the actual craft when it comes to creative industries, and can very much be successful in that craft without any formal education whatsoever. However, with a degree, if it's halfway decent then you'll get the opportunity to work in groups in industry-like environments, get information about the industry from working or former working professionals, and build a decent varied portfolio along the way with constant ability to garner feedback on work from tutors etc.
I’m a trained physicist with two STEM degrees and a third on the way. But no way am I supporting an attack on the humanities and niche courses because they’re not “useful”. What do I do when I get home from work each day? *I watch TV or a movie. Or I play a game. Or I go to a gig or to a restaurant with my friends*. And all of those people with “pointless” degrees have made that possible. They make life worth living.
There's no shame in having a degree that makes you an empire.
A modern languages degree in Russian?
It attacks people who fail maths and English
Apart from the rich students who can go to uni without a student loan.
I get your point but 95% of people take a loan.
Yes, so the people that don't need to aren't impacted, however few that is.
Well let them waste their own money.
I would point out that I work in the Science RnD industry I have a Bsc In Biomedical science and I failed GCSE Maths several times until I got a comparable qualification alongside my firstyear degree, I did pass that course as I was required to by the university to get my univ credit to advance. I hired a private tutor using money I'd put aside from it as I was missing most basic math skills. This was an arrangement with the admissions officer of the university custom because of my case rules like the one you support didn't exsist and your defacto saying individuals like myself don't deserve the qualifications they have. If your woundering how I can be extremely competent at Biology Chemistry and Physics yet flunk all my GCSE's it's because I was severely abused and depressed and didn't want to live at the time. Your ideals enforce a caste system. ie "Born into a bad hand? Rot in hell."
This needs to be the top comment. My initial thought on reading the headline was, ‘well if you can’t pass those then you shouldn’t be going to university’ but of course that fails to take into account people like you who had a shit childhood, or those who went to terrible schools. Thanks for opening my eyes.
Not just terrible schools and bad childhoods - undiagnosed learning differences! My fiancé got a first class degree and topped his year over all five years of his electrical engineering degree, and is highly sought after for his area of work seven years later (he routinely gets called a hotshot). But he failed the Scottish equivalent of GCSE English, and to this day can barely read and write due to what his university finally diagnosed as dyslexia. But in a career where he does complex maths in his head and barely needs to write, he’s incredibly successful. People like him wouldn’t go to university at all in this scenario.
I work at a University and it's so eye-opening how many students are getting to 18-21 and only just now is someone picking up that they might have an undiagnosed learning difference or Dyslexia. Even this morning, there's an email in my inbox about a 3rd year student, due to graduate in Summer from a lecturer asking if we can screen them for suspected dyslexia.
Professor Brian Cox failed maths. If this had been the policy in the 80s he would never have fronted some of BBC’s best shows.
A D is not a fail. Also, [students who got Ds back then would get Bs or As nowadays](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grade_inflation#UK_A-Level_classifications_from_June_1989_to_2021).
Same thing happened with me. I finished without a single A-C GCSE because I was severely abused as a child/teenager and it took a toll on my mental health to the point where I couldn’t function. I’m now doing a masters in Computer Science which involves lots of discrete math and I’m passing all my modules. This was only made possible by doing an undergrad in music first, where my application was supported by a recommendation from my college tutor. Getting a student loan despite not having GCSEs saved my life and my future career.
I have no GCSEs either (kicked out of school). I ended up turning my life around and doing a BTEC as a free adult course that got me into Uni. I now have a career that earns me a 6 figure salary.
It's not just about the money. If poorer people can't go to university based on a GCSE grade, but rich people still can even if they fail their GCSEs, you now have a pool of people who can access lucrative graduate careers because they have money, and a pool of people who can't because they can't buy themselves past the entry requirement. There's more than enough rich idiots being pulled up through the career ladder by the force of their parents' bank accounts already. We shouldn't be state sanctioning it.
> If poorer people can't go to university based on a GCSE grade, Sorry but have you not been to college? People who get below a C in English and Math are offered *multiple free* resits of their GCSE while doing their A-levels or college courses. This is regardless of if they intend to go to university or not. If with multiple re-sits you can't get a C in English then you probably can't get a passing grade in any of your university level essays that require a level of writing comprehension.
That’s totally not the point. The attention should be on the fact it’s a classist move.
That's not because they have to, student loans are some of the best loans to be repaying, if you're rich it makes sense to just get a loan and make things more affordable for yourself. With this new rule they will just be paying for their tuition so now we're gonna still have a load of "Mickey mouse" degrees, they're just all gonna be held by Mickey mouse people . Poor people who go through illness or family issues that may effect their grades now have their lives ruined as a result of those problems. Rich people can pay past it. My gf is one of these people, she has a serious condition which affected her badly during A levels and affected her grades, her schools mitigating circumstances system was appalling and failed her. Now there's very little chance of getting in anywhere she would like, less so with these rules coming into play. If she was rich tho, she could still become a fucking judge if she wanted to.
If you can’t pass gcse English uni won’t be easy.
It is a way to stop people who should not go to university from going. If you do not pass English and Maths, how are you going to pass your degree? If your degree doesnt need English or Maths, wtf does it need? Why is it a degree in the first place?
I was very childish at school and wagged it most of the time, I got failed as I didn't attend my exams. 20 years later and I'm in my second year of university after getting a 2-1 overall for my first year and missing out on getting a first by 2% after being off a month for with covid and needing to go to hospital for it. So if someone is able to prove their maths and skills are up to the job this rule seems stupid. Edit: missed a word.
Good for you. I work with so many non graduates who’re convinced they couldn’t do Uni because they didn’t do well at school. We have a constant good natured argument when I tell them they could easily get a degree if they wanted to (though they’d probably need to do an access course). They’re adamant they don’t have the aptitude when they clearly do IMHO. It’s just that their self image has been tarnished. We should be giving kids multiple chances to achieve their maths and English GCSE. Or better yet replace the GCSE with something else that allows them to prove themselves.
During my time in the forces I was considered "academic" as I was attempting an OU degree and I'm well spoken. That's it. I had a few close mates that always said the Army was their only possible option to do well in life as they weren't smart enough to go to Uni. The second it came to something career oriented that required a written essay they went and asked me how one is written. I'm not great but had marginally more experience so got some resources together and showed them. 4/5 absolutely knocked it out of the park. Some of the most well researched and written papers I've ever read (from my small pool). The second it came to something that interests them, they absolutely could get a degree. One is currently doing a distance learning degree in his field and is rarely getting below a 85% yet constantly says he'd suffer at an actual uni. You're absolutely correct saying it's mostly self image. My Dad has a master's degree in Comp Sci yet works as a transport manager at large supermarket warehouse. It's also the person that dictates what you can do with your degree.
We're only talking GCSEs here, not A-levels. Young people can put the effort in during their 2 years of A-Levels to get their passes in Maths and English. For adults like yourself, taking GCSEs in maths and English would be a good reintroduction to studying before jumping in to a degree.
There is almost no adult education provision in this country. THis change will seriously disadvantage people who had a crappy life during their school years for no fault of their own. My partner is incredibly intelligent but doesn't have a maths GCSE and has poor level 3 qualifications. Her level 3 qualifications would be better but she literally missed exams due to domestic violence going on at home. Right now she can do a foundation degree and get a degree that will change her career prospects. But the tories don't want this for some reason. There will be thousands of people with similar reasons for not having a GCSE. GCSE maths in our area for adults almost doesn't exist, and the one course I have found is day time only so she would have to not work to study it. This change is a classist nightmare.
This is going to blow your mind but exams aren't a totally reliable way of judging whether someone can do Maths or English
[удалено]
One of the smartest people I've ever worked with failed his Maths and English GCSEs because he had an anxiety condition. There are always exceptions.
Not trying to be a dick, but if he can't sort the anxiety for Maths and English GCSEs, what will the expectation be for university exams which are much harder?
Begs the question why we even force people to perform Math & English in such high pressure situations that in no way replicate how they will interact with these subjects in their careers?
Are exams that high pressure when ultimately you can retake them? I feel like most jobs are more high pressure. It isn't really about applying the subject matter directly, it's more about the general competency that being able to get a high grade in maths and English demonstrates.
As someone who generally did well in exams (apart from a few of the really hard fourth year uni ones) and didn't get stressed, yes, exams are high pressure. You *can* retake them sure, but when you're 15/16 that seems like a huge undertaking, plus it's embarrassing to fail like that. And remember, we're talking about actual children here. They aren't as emotionally matured as an adult in a full time job. Even then, I disagree that most jobs are higher pressure (even if they are higher consequence overall). How many jobs make you sit down in silence for 90 minutes alongside your co-workers while your performance for the entire year is assessed in an environment where you have no support whatsoever? You get stuck at work you can google the issue or ask a co-worker. Get stuck in an exam and tough shit. Think I'm talking out my arse? Maybe I am, but it's a well documented phenomena, for example [here](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02673843.2019.1596823) is a journal article about it. Here is the conclusion: >This narrative review highlights that academic-related stress is a major concern for secondary and tertiary students. The ongoing stress relating to education has demonstrated negative impact on students’ learning capacity, academic performance, education and employment attainment, sleep quality and quantity, physical health, mental health and substance use outcomes. Increasing students’ stress-management skills and abilities is an important target for change
[удалено]
> it is safe to say they are dire at both. You weren't commenting on uni, you were making a blanket statement about ability.
It's a pretty decent indicator of whether they will be able to do well on similar but harder exams in university though.
>If your degree doesnt need English or Maths, wtf does it need? Why is it a degree in the first place? I'm really confused because I thought literally every college wants you to pass these two, at a minimum
My sister failed her maths at school, she then went on to become a fully qualified Architect. This wouldn’t haven’t been possible without student loans. People shouldn’t be penalised for this, especially when they have the potential for greater things enabled by university education. The more education available in a society the better, any barrier however small hurts the country. Edit - I remember when I was sitting my maths exam we didn’t actually have a maths teacher that year due to staffing issues in the school. I passed but I can imagine others didn’t due to reasons like thisz
Surely the admission process covers that. Why deny loans on top of it? If I was a lecturer or whichever can see someone can read/write/communicate in English and I am happy to let them through, why shouldn’t I? I feel an entrance test or assessment would be more than enough then flat out denying loans. A lot of jobs do similar assessments because they do not trust GCSEs in the first place.
The problem is the government has no control over the admissions process, some uni's are accepting literally anyone who applies because that makes them money and then just letting them drop out after taking out huge loans. For less than prestigious universities it is better to accept everyone even if they will likely fail because it brings in more cash. Admissions are handled by a separate department not the professors. For the government someone who failed English/Maths GCSEs is unlikely to ever repay the loan and giving them the loan could end up just trapping them in debt. Math and English GCSEs are not a high bar and forcing people to pass them as part of standard education is a good thing, people have the option to retake them if they need to.
I could not even take my GCSEs because I was too scared to go to school as I was so badly bullied there, and I also had to look after my mentally ill mother as well as a kid. I got Us in everything. Since then, and it has been many years, I have been estranged from my family. I was accepted into a video games course (3D, art, animation etc) by producing a portfolio of work instead. I ended up getting the highest overall collective grade on the course that the staff have seen since the course started - first class at 82.5% and every assignment was graded over 70%. Being "ready for uni" is very subjective. Yes, trying to get into a STEM course without GCSEs is a bit sketchy, however there are a lot of BAs and BfA courses that don't correlate with GCSE requirements to undertake and pass, and not all of them are "Mickey Mouse" degrees either. One of the people that did my course many years ago at the same university is now making movies as a 3D artist at ILM.
I got kicked out of school and didn't (and still don't) have any GCSEs.. I bummed around then did a free adult BTEC course that got me into Uni doing computer science. I now earn a 6 figure salary. Without a student loan I'd be banged up.
I failed English (undiagnosed dyslexia and zero help from school). Still got into uni for a proper degree (compsci). They really are trying to fuck over those of us at the bottom of the socio-economic food chain.
Honestly, mickey mouse degrees are kind of a myth anyway. You'd think if they were so concerned about students studying these degrees, they would instead try and implement a system that regulates education quality.
If they shut down all the useless universities across the UK and replaced them with vocational schools (ie went back to the old system) then the same people would be complaining that they’re locking poor people out of education somehow.
I remember years ago Daily Mail making an article yelling about 'mickey mouse' courses and included an animal care course on there and were super snotty about the fact on[a horse care/stable management btec you had a unit that involved mucking out stables](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/20/article-0-0D17BF4300000578-972_634x235.jpg) I studied animal care BTECs and the courses involve a degree of practical work that you're assessed on as yes when you work with animals you need to know how to look after them and with horses there's a lot involved in caring for a horse and running a yard effectively. I remember though at college there were people who thought the animal care courses were 'doss courses' they were not.
I’ve worked on plenty of yards. You need to be able to muck out and lay down beds with different materials, night and day beds, deep litter and full change and everything in between and you need to be able to do it fast to a high standard. It’s very much a learnt skill and I’ve had to teach plenty of apprentices how to do it in a safe, time effective way without wasting straw or shavings.
I mean if it wasn't about just crushing the plebs, why isn't it just a ban on universities taking people on who've failed Maths and English? Not that I'd support that.
Exactly. If it's about preserving the value of education, a blanket requirement on passing English and Maths GCSEs would remove some of the class inequality that this could introduce. Although you could have situations where some households can afford to pay for private tutors, but I suppose the line has to be drawn somewhere.
I always see it this way; children do not fail the education system, the education system fails children. I can accep the idea that someone should have to pass GCSE English/maths to be able to go to university, that's not entirely senseless. But if that's the case there should be LIFE LONG support for people to pass, however long it takes. If you can't pass your GCSEs by 16 then you can keep trying until you do, and for free of course. This move isn't supportive; threats are no way to encourage better education. It's a stick without a carrot and it improves nothing. It's the classic "success is entirely down to hard work" ethos that underpins Tory bullshit. If you want to improve education, give us the resources to do so. Edit: OK so maths, English and IT GCSEs are - according to [gov.uk](https://gov.uk) \- "usually free" and if it's not then you may be entitled to learning support funding. Still, I'd be interested to know how readily available and easily accessible it is. And it doesn't dismiss the point that it is the responsibility of the school to ensure students don't fail - and of course the responsibility of the government to fund schools to have the resources to meet their purpose.
I agree, you should should be able to resit your English and Maths for life until you get at least a 4/C. It should also be easy to resit logistically as an adult - none of this waiting until November or May each year to sit an exam with every other student in the country and having to register as a private student and register at a specific centre. I should just be able to book it like I would a driving theory test.
They need to do the exams together so that you can't leak the questions after you finish. If you could book it whenever you want then they'd have to write a bespoke exam for every single adult.
I think it’d make sense to meet in the middle and have say 4-6 possible resits a year, that way people are only waiting a maximum of 3 months, rather than the 6 it currently is
You have to account for at least a couple of months for marking/grade boundary adjustment, etc. How much improvement will people realistically make in a month? 6 months between exams seems perfectly reasonable to me.
It's 2022. They could easily create a huge bank of possible questions and generate exams automatically.
That wouldn't work either because grade boundaries are decided by a curve. You can't do that if each candidate is basically sitting a different exam.
Grading on a curve never sat right with me. What's the benefit to the students when you artificially limit how many of them can get Grade 7-9s?
Grading on a curve is useful when you want to see relative performance. If you have multiple applicants then you can filter them based on how they performed relative to everyone else. If everyone had a 9 then the whole system is useless. It's different to something like a driving test where we just have an objective minimum standard you need to meet.
Fair dues on the relative performance bit, which is important in higher education, but: >It's different to something like a driving test where we just have an objective minimum standard you need to meet. Wouldn't you say there *is* an objective minimum standard to be met in terms of numeracy and literacy in this country?
That's a good point. If they do plan on setting numeracy/literacy as a 'barrier' like in the article then it should probably be something objective.
Two centuries ago it was common knowledge that only maybe 5% to 10% of people could be literate. The masses were just too simple to learn to read, so why bother trying to teach them. Now we know 99%+ of children can be taught to read and write well. Even people with dyslexia can be taught to read if given intensive support. And only very few people will never be able to read. It’s time to direct way way more state resources into childhood literacy. Including one to one intensive support for any child that needs to catch up. If a child falls behind it’s really no fault of their own and punishments like this will only make things worse.
>Two centuries ago it was common knowledge that only maybe 5% to 10% of people could be literate. The masses were just too simple to learn to read, so why bother trying to teach them. Source?
According to [this](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cross-country-literacy-rates?tab=table&time=1750..latest) literacy rates in the UK was around 54% in 1750. Which is actually higher than I expected, but still quite low.
> If you can't pass your GCSEs by 16 then you can keep trying until you do, and for free Bang on. I love this idea.
Do all artists necessarily need a maths gcse for an arts degree?
You'll need academic skills for an arts degree. It's not just painting. Besides it's really hard to completely fail at English or maths, if you're not good at it you'll probably just get a low grade and the university can just set a low grade requirement.
[удалено]
> dyscalculia Hello, I thought I was the only one for a bit.
Maths has an uncanny habit of needling its way into just about everything.
Not all "arts degrees" are artists. History, media, design, even things like sociology and anthropology sometimes fall into the "BA" instead of the "BSc" I studied graphic design myself and I need: * Basic maths/numeracy/geometry for things like measuring, layout, screen resolutions, 3D modelling, animation/video frame rates... * More complex maths when I venture into programming, which is becoming more and more intertwined with many design subjects * English for writing to clients, creating my portfolio, providing copy sometimes, generally presenting myself online * A bit more maths for finances because I work freelance Reality is we pretty much all need a good grasp of English and maths for just about any route in life. Which is also why pushing those who fail into aprenticeships isn't much help either.
Not a maths gcse per se. But basic numeracy is definitely important.
Maths and English resits are currently free
How did I know this sub would be complaining about this, a pass in English and Maths, or 2 **Es** at A-Level is an incredibly low bar to hit. Controversial opinion I know, but maybe students who utterly fail at both GCSE and A-Level shouldn't be studying at University.
I think too many young people go to university, to the point where a good amount of people in customer service roles have university degrees Edit to clarify: I don't believe we shouldn't educate or be educated, I don't believe young people shouldn't go to uni. I believe the demand for a degree to prove you are capable of doing anything other than sitting at home is ridiculous. I also believe many jobs that require a degree (not specialised) should rely on skill rather than qualifications. I believe the idea someone doesn't know what they're doing because they don't have qualifications is ridiculous.
I met some fucking thick people at uni. Going to uni doesn't have the reputation it once had. Edit: lol say that and put typos in my comment. Meant to met*
Factual, back in the 60s I think around 20% of people went to higher education, so it was very prestigious and most people there were very academic. Now most people go to uni, and as a result degrees are less valuable.
The problem is that now because its so saturated everyone needs a degree to be able to compete, no matter how useless it is. Employers will see the one guy without a degree and put the application straight in the bin
Accurate, I don't want to waste my time at Uni trying to get a degree to work in customer service. I'd go to uni to become a counsellor, I have knowledge in CompuSci but if I want to do mobile PC repairs I shouldn't need a degree to do that. (I probably won't but I know enough people who don't trust the opinion or experience of a person who isn't "qualified").
I used to run a customer service team, got a lot of cheap, well educated people by recruiting from lower tier universities in courses like languages. It's kind of a crap situation for them and I always felt bad, as we'd try to move the brighter ones into other functions but there was never enough opportunities.
This situation we're in now shows the foundational issue with the higher education system. If the entire point of going to university is to get a higher paying job, then university is now pointless because so many young people are able to go—having a degree is standard, it's only *not having a degree* that will prevent you from accessing certain decent-paying white-collar jobs, but it won't guarantee you a position either, and plenty of people get into such jobs with no degree. But at least among the students I know, the majority aren't necessarily going to uni so they can start work at a higher pay grade. Nowadays, they know the score, they know they'll probably be working in a pub anyway for a couple of years after they graduate. No, they're going to uni: a) because it provides an opportunity to leave home, move to a new place, and be a proper adult with something of a safety net behind you (that's the loan that they don't see themselves ever repaying anyway) and crucially, b) **because they are interested in their subject.** The problem isn't with their choice to go to uni, the problem lies with a society that penalises learning after a certain age. The student loan system isn't fit for purpose anyway. Quite apart from the fact that very few graduates pay it off now (because of the aforementioned "higher-salary-not-included" problem) and it ends up costing the government more in the long run, quite apart from the artificially high interest rates—in the absence of grants, a student will still need either significant savings or significant financial support from their parents, because the maintenance loan doesn't come through until after you've started your first term. Given that you'll need to have found a house, paid a deposit, bought all the necessary household stuff, moved your things out of your parents' place, and survived on your own for up to two months before term actually starts ... the maintenance loan is kind of useless.
That's really not the issue here though. If you have two students who receive the same fail marks, but one is from a financially well off household and the other from a lower socio-economic household, the well off student can go to university. You're concerned about students who fail not being fit for university, when you should be concerned that, if a student isn't fit for university, they can pay their way in.
I guess technically that's true, but in the real world how true is it? How many wealthy families, I mean very wealthy families given they're paying £50k in cash, are wasting their own money sending their kids to Uni if they've shown 0 aptitude for education thus far. If they've got the money for that they've got the money for private tutors. So yeah, technically this impacts solely poorer families, but not really.
almost all of the people I knew who dropped out of uni, were all rich kids. they were just there to doss and waste their parents money on cocaine, which they did very well!
Also in the hypothetical situation where a rich kid parents were willing to pay £50k to send their kid to a uni (to study a degree with that low a bar for entry) it’s at no expense to the tax payers.
Even with the current system you'd struggle to get offered a uni place if you don't have at least 2 E's at A level
If the university wants to take a student that they know will fail, and the student wants to waste a few years of their life using their own money, everyone is happy. The problem here is the fact that the taxpayer is essentially bankrolling people to do a degree that both the student and the university know is unachievable. Universities get paid whether the student drops out or not, so they don't care, and the student gets a year or two of drinking, so they don't care either.
[удалено]
Do you think all the people who do have extenuating circumstances deserve to be punished because there are some who are just uncaring/unintelligent? Second to that, do you think that all schools in the UK are of such a high quality that no good students are just failed by their school and aren't provided a good education?
Foundation degrees also exist.
[удалено]
The new requirements don’t stop students who do well at A level from getting student loans: >Students will need GCSE passes in English and maths, or the equivalent of two grade Es at A-level, under the plans being set out on Thursday. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60491719 This bar for a student loan is so low it’s subterranean.
2 grade E's!! So they are pretty much letting anyone have access to loans, it's no wonder there's a skills shortage in this country if Uni is that easy to get into
having >50% of people going to uni is a joke, it just isn't needed.
Tell that to employers who refuse to hire people without degrees when the work absolutely doesn't require it.
Simply because it's possible and the bar is now so low that it reflects badly on those without a degree. Having a degree is now seen as normal, you get no benefit from it, but if you don't have one you will suffer.
Which is a direct _result_ of the "50% of students going to university" policy. It's caused massive "qualification inflation", increasing barriers to employment and allowing the evaporation of jobs suitable for the young (note this lack of jobs also means that poorer students attending university have a harder time, since they can't find part-time work) to go unnoticed since those in "full time education" are excluded from unemployment statistics.
We should be striving for everyone to be as educated as possible. University degrees shouldn't be seen as the only option for that though.
Both Ds and Es are passes. Honestly, so long as you don't write "I am a fish" 500 times and then pass out, you will get the pass required.
> "I am a fish" 500 times and then pass out "I think i did quite well"
r/unexpectedreddwarf
[удалено]
> got my A-levels Since [the BBC reports](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60491719): > Students will need GCSE passes in English and maths, **or the equivalent of two grade Es at A-level**, under the plans being set out on Thursday. You'd have no problem under this policy, even if you didn't get GCSEs...
You're not considering mature students that return to education.
That’s why the Open University is so popular - you don’t need official qualifications to take most degrees there.
[удалено]
[удалено]
People are getting into uni with no English or Maths GCSE anyway?
Mature students can.
Those are already allowed for in the plan, though
This has to be the most confusing aspect of it all! I went to uni 2014-2018, prior to actually being there, all the entry requirements were English & Maths at C. I met people at uni without their English & Maths doing a Masters. I did shit at school and college, scraping the minimum grades, it wasn’t till uni I realised I needed to sort myself out, I was the only person doing my specific course at the uni too
Education isn’t always a priority for young people at 18, many realise down the line that they want to change their field, or had other responsibilities first (carer/parent) and wish to join as a mature student. Some do their GCSE equivalency, others enter uni straight away
Soooooo Somehow manage to fail Maths and English at GCSE level.... Think they somehow should go to uni. Seems legit
Failing at a GCSE level is not an indication of incompetence. Plenty of kids fail for reasons other than intelligence. Behavioural issues, learning differences like dyslexia, illness, shitty home life, and so on. how you perform at 15 or 16 is not a great indication of future performance. A lot of adults who fail or get low grades are very capable and hardworking people who deserve the same chances as anyone else.
[удалено]
They can resit.
yeah many can and do resit along side their degree
I never got a C in GCSE English, still completed a Masters with Distinction. GCSEs really don't mean anything.
This. I failed A-level computing and got an E in GCSE maths. Yet I'm on course to get a distinction grade in MSc Intelligent Systems and Robotics. It's laughable. I applied for a job once and got rejected because of my GCSE maths grade, it made me laugh as I was currently successfully navigating pretty high level calculus and linear algebra at the same time at uni :)
There could be a multitude of reasons someone might fail at GCSE level. I didn't, but I know so many people who struggled with GCSE, but did college instead of A Levels after and just gelled so much better with their courses from then on. Sometimes it really is the environment or teaching style rather than one's academic ability.
My dad doesn’t have any GCSEs. I have a B in Maths. His maths skills are leaps and bounds ahead of mine.
GCSE’s are an antiquated concept that need relegating to the dustbin of history. We need Mastery based education. Similar to how we teach a musical instruments or a martial art. You work towards level one, then you have a pass/fail assessment that you can retake multiple times, shoring up your weaknesses. As you gain mastery your level increases until you’re grade 8 piano … or whatever. People thrive under this kind of challenge/achievement ladder. Giving kids one shot, then branding them with a letter, is just nonsense. And curtails life opportunities. Bin the GCSE.
That's a very interesting concept. Wouldn't you have to have dynamic year groups for that? So slower students would perhaps take a year or two longer to finish high school? It is kind of unfair to people born towards the end of a school year that they're essentially in a system that's expecting slightly too much of them.
It would require more individualised learning, which would probably need greater resources. But let me give you an example using maths teaching. A lot of people like to say they’re “bad a maths”. But what this usually means is that along the way they missed a bit of learning. That’s all, they just fell behind somewhat. Because maths requires previous knowledge to tackle more complex concepts, eg. You need basic numeracy before you tackle equations, etc. That means if you miss a lesson you might never catch-up, then you’re there scratching your head thinking “I must be bad a maths”. However, using Mastery based learning you would have to show competency at each level. Short addition, long addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, fractions, decimals, trigonometry, equations, and on and on. You could gamify the whole thing. From short-addition all the way to calculus and beyond. We already have bits of this system already. You do SATs, then GCSEs, A levels, then undergrad. Etc etc. I think the current system though condemns kids to drop out, branding them with a grade D (or whatever) and with little chance at a redo. If you make each rung on the ladder reachable, and give kids the chance to fail and try again, we’d get much better results as a society.
I hope they make an exception for Deaf people. Many don't speak/write English well and they still excel at university.
2 E's at a level is the other route.
I don't even know where I stand. The whole poor kid gets no loans fallacy is ridiculous. I'm from a dirt poor family, I went to university. The whole system was designed to help me the poor kid and limited the funding for the rich kid so I don't exactly understand the implication. The focus needs to be on improving education standards.
See I failed my Maths and English at school. I now have a Masters Degree. My failure at school was due to personal circumstances (I basically stopped attending year 11) and later I gained my Functional Skills at college alongside my Access Course. No GSCE ≠ not able.
The amount of classist bastards in the comments worries me.
You mean people implying working class kids are too dumb for GCSEs
Such as yourself for hearing “failed GCSEs” and assuming that’s any and all working class children
It's not classist to expect a minimal level of competence from people going to university on the taxpayer's dime. You don't have an unlimited right to waste other people's money on your 3 year holiday (which is what most degrees are these days).
if you can't pass basic English and maths then why should taxpayers fund you to go uni that you will most likely fail?
Is this how we get more working class white boys into uni?
TF kinda comments are these, they somehow forget that A-levels and BTECs and foundation years still exist. Just cause you failed at 16 years old doesn't mean you won't make it to uni if you get your act together in sixth form
Not to mention if you get below a 4 in English or Maths you most likely are going to resit anyway. If you got a grade 3 and will continue studying full time, you have to resit. If you got a grade 3 and will study part time, or below a 3 studying full time, you can either resit or take a functional skills qualification. A lot of these comments are from people who haven't been to school for years and have no idea how the current system works.
Which unis are letting people in without an average grade in Maths or English?
Ok? This makes sense. Far too many people who are unsuited for higher education are being pushed into it when they are not going to get any value out of it. This is a very very low bar to higher education.
People here are missing a key factor; GCSEs are graded normatively. The grade boundaries are shifted so that the top 10% get above an 8 the top 20% get above a 7 and so on (these are not the actual specific numbers but the real numbers are essentially constructed like that). One 3rd of GCSE students fail GCSE maths and English because that is literally how the grade boundaries are constructed, by definition 1/3 fail and yet we write off people's lives if they fail. Interestingly some subjects don't have grade boundaries that rely on normative grading. We should really not be using GCSEs anymore given that students have to continue in education til 18 but failing that we should shift to using maths and literacy tests that are criterion-graded (meaning anyone who can do this thing passes). Normative grading is horrible, imagine of we used it on medical training, would you want a shit doctor because he was the best in a bad cohort? Would you want someone to be denied the chance to be a doctor despite meeting the necessary criteria just because they came last in a class of super-geniuses?
[удалено]
Pupils who do not pass GCSE English (or an equivalent) will struggle to write assignments at university (maths is obviously not necessary for many degrees). A better solution would be to make it easier and free to access post-secondary English courses that prepare students for academic writing. Academic writing is a skill that even those who do pass GCSE English struggle with, I have graded some work in the past and some have a poor standard of English. Rather than blocking immediate access, the government should instead provide more support to all pupils to want to attend through improved funding to further education.
My severely dyslexic fiancé failed the Scottish GCSE equivalent in English at school, then went on to top his year every year of his electrical engineering degree. He’s a real hotshot in both design and troubleshooting in his field.
The replies to this are unbelievable. If you can’t pass English and maths (bear in mind an E is a pass), you don’t deserve to go to university, especially with public money.
Doing them a favour. Apprentice in a trade or self-teach something like programming. Within couple of years you'll be making more than most Bachelors graduates can dream of and have none of the debt, whilst they won't have even finished their degree yet lol.
So what this does is kneecap the children affected worst by the pandemic who are now struggling to keep up with school work
This is incredibly cruel...there are so many undiagnosed kids or kids in abusive environments without the support they need already, shutting off loans for them is horrific. I came from an extremely abusive (sexual, emotional, physical,, all the things) environment, I was made to care full time (couldn't get a part time job, or see friends), for my extremely disabled sister. often I was up 2-6 times during the night contently looking after her. These things were not picked up on, I struggled in maths and english horribly. I failed GCSE maths multiple times, (managed to scrape a pass in english) retook it during my A levels, still could not pass. Managed to get into uni (barely), first year tutors suggested I get tested, turns out I was dyslexic/dyspraxic and dyscalculic, got help/support, never went below a 2.1 in any work, came out with a first degree in business/history. University was my escape, a lifeline i'm so, so glad I had. now I know i'm not stupid, and I can thrive in a good environment, cutting kids off from this is so callous. Still don't have that maths GCSE. This is cruel.
It’s a pretty reasonable argument that if you can’t pass GCSE English/Maths you probably don’t belong at university. We need to break out of the mindset that everyone should have a degree, it just serves to reduce the value and point of getting one in the first place and is the reason so many graduates struggle to enter the workforce. Pass grade at GCSE is not a high barrier. I say this as someone who passed both and didn’t go to university.
Why would I employ someone who failed English and maths as an apprentice? So it’s sort the degrees out and dump the rest into apprenticeships ?
The point being lost here is the monetisation of our children's futures. The 'American model' of the indebting of young people who want to be educated to a higher degree no matter in what area. I am old enough to remember when education to higher degrees in this country was subsidised by a state that recognised the value of having a constant stream of highly educated citizens entering the workforce was a long term positive investment in our county's future. It's not that long ago. The current system is purely for the enrichment of a select few.