Soleron said:
I think the opposite. The uptake of 'soft' degrees that don't lead to graduate level jobs is huge and wasteful. The number of people taking A-level just because they get £30 a week (I don't) to end up in the same job they could have got with GCSEs is similar. The way we teach the core subjects could be better, as only those with aptitude enjoy it and progress. But I think the main problem in schools is discipline, looking at the contrast between the two state high schools I've been in (one with a '4' from Ofsted and one that is very high in league tables) the difference was that in the latter the kids respected the teachers and did not disrupt the lessons by talking or messing about. |
That's not so much because of a focus on core courses so much as something called "credential inflation."
Having a Bachelors degree from college is practically worthless now a days because everyone has them, even advanced degrees are starting to be meaningless.
The generally argued Pro to this, is that more people get a chance to learn this stuff which gives "diamonds in the rough" a chance to break through even though they would of never gotten a chance in a smaller graduate pool.
The generally argued con to this, is that foresight is not perfect, not even hindsight it... and that by inflating these degrees... for every "Diamond in the rough" you add... you also add dozens of people who aren't any good. If these people get jobs instead of the original qualfied candidiates it causes issues.
What i think SS is talking about is educating people in non-core education to make them better citizens. Which doesn't nessisairly have to involve college. In fact, i'd think if your teaching humanities at college for the first time, a lot of the lessons about how and why people are is lost by then.
