OT: How many 'O' levels/GCSEs did you leave with?

[banjo]

Debt collecting!

Do you get much job satisfaction doing that?

err yes obviously

I'm not going to make that kind of money working at Pizza Hut am I?

[J]

Depends 20 k up til August, perhaps if you were the shift manager at a central London branch you might?

[states]

I went to University in 1996, the last year of free higher education, and it was clearly a waste of time to let everyone gain a 'higher education' even back then. It wasn't a chance to improve yourself, it was just a glorified piss-up.

With respect mate, it was if you were a wanker (not you personally, I mean those who simply went for a glorified piss up). So, now that it costs a fortune, it dissuades poor people from going - when it would seriously help them up the career ladder. I was the first in my family to go to uni and couldn't have done it if it wasn't free.

Formal education is not the be all and end all...but 'education' generally nearly is. And this includes, as your grandad wisely says, 'learning a trade'.

As for me: 9 GCSEs (that's all they would let me sit), 4 A levels (crap grades), 1 BA, 1 PGCE, 1 Journo cert, 1 MA. Started a PhD but simply couldn't do it as I had to work full-time to help put my missus through uni as a mature student as she left school with nowt.

Sorry, just seen this Ian. To clarify, I'm not against Higher education being paid for by the state. My Dad, like you, was the first person from his family to go to University, which he could never have done if he'd had to pay tuition fee's. As a result, I'm the son of a civil engineer, rather than the latest in a long line of coal miners (or unemployed coal miners, as the case would be these days). My complaint is this idea that everyone should go to university, irrelevant of grades. So you get universities clogged up with guys who managed 2 E's at A level going off to 'study' Sports Science, because they liked P.E. at school, only to graduate with a third class degree, and end up as estate agents, or something similar that they could easily have done without a degree.

[Deserter]

GCSEs are a waste of time, like I posted earlier I left school with feck all, joined the paras, spent 5 years with them and then got into debt collecting which I am still doing now. As it is I am making more money than most of my schoolmates will ever see(including the ones who got straight A's/Uni degrees etc.) I've already made £20k this year which isn't bad for a unqualified 24 year old is it.

Unless you have the common sense to go with those qualifications then them grades aren't worth a carrot.

Absolute and utter nonsense. You're missing the crucial point that your 'earning power' is unlikely to rise in the coming years whereas your contemporaries who have uni degrees etc will, in most cases, rise dramatically. You have surely have already read on this thread how there are several people who are comfortably into the six-figure annual salary realm thanks to securing qualifications.
I accept a formal education isn't for everyone, but to claim it's a waste of time is damaging, misleading and just plain wrong.

[stujones]

The Student loans company does a wanderful job. I'm actually for tuition fees aslong as such companies as the Student loans still exist. It is still possible for the true working class to go to Uni, providing the Student loan covers fee's and living expenses - and then of course you don't have to pay it back untill you get a decent job - so then you don't mind paying it back.

My brother was in the era of Grants, Loans and Funding (the last year I think) - and he pissed up his degree (didn't graduate). I just had the LEA paying my tuition fees at Undergraduate level only and actually left Uni with a degree and a good bit in the black financially wise.

[gb]

Oxbridge entries are based on pure elitism.

I got one of the highest overall scores in the country (I know that because I was on the front of my local paper) for my A-level History, dropping only 15 marks out of a possible 600 (300 A/S and 300 A2). My tutors in sixth form told me that I could easily go on to read History at one of the colleges of Oxford or Cambridge University if I deferred a year and applied again.

Guess what? I did that, waiting a year – and they turned me down. I was a bit disappointed but wasn’t going to commit suicide or anything – and now I’m not even going to do that at uni. The thing that really, really got me down, however, was a girl who lives opposite me went to do history at Cambridge… despite the fact she didn’t get anywhere near the overall score I did.

You know why she got – or at least I think that is the reason – in? She went to a grammar school and I was just in a bog-standard school.

Not fair, is it?

This sort of moaning really winds me up. I went to a state comp. followed by a state sixth-form college and was accepted to study Maths at Oxford. Selection isn't just decided by raw exam marks. Perhaps the girl across the road just performed better that you in the interview process. It's a fact of life; some you win, some you lose.

[Deserter]

Oxbridge entries are based on pure elitism.

I got one of the highest overall scores in the country (I know that because I was on the front of my local paper) for my A-level History, dropping only 15 marks out of a possible 600 (300 A/S and 300 A2). My tutors in sixth form told me that I could easily go on to read History at one of the colleges of Oxford or Cambridge University if I deferred a year and applied again.

Guess what? I did that, waiting a year – and they turned me down. I was a bit disappointed but wasn’t going to commit suicide or anything – and now I’m not even going to do that at uni. The thing that really, really got me down, however, was a girl who lives opposite me went to do history at Cambridge… despite the fact she didn’t get anywhere near the overall score I did.

You know why she got – or at least I think that is the reason – in? She went to a grammar school and I was just in a bog-standard school.

Not fair, is it?

This sort of moaning really winds me up. I went to a state comp. followed by a state sixth-form college and was accepted to study Maths at Oxford. Selection isn't just decided by raw exam marks. Perhaps the girl across the road just performed better that you in the interview process. It's a fact of life; some you win, some you lose.

Surely you can't blame him for being disappointed that he didn't get into the university of his dreams despite applying twice and having great exam results? If you hadn't made it in are you really saying that you wouldn't have felt similarly frustrated and would not have questioned the system if someone with weaker marks had got in?
If you've going to get wound up by anything, then surely it should be the amount of talented individuals that don't get into Oxbridge from the state school sector because they haven't been properly prepared for the selection process?
Saying it's just a fact of life and that you win some and lose someone strikes me as a glib, patronising statement given you're talking about one individual's aspirations and dreams. I'd have expected a more rounded view given your intellect.

[Loftgroov]

GCSEs are a waste of time, like I posted earlier I left school with feck all, joined the paras, spent 5 years with them and then got into debt collecting which I am still doing now. As it is I am making more money than most of my schoolmates will ever see(including the ones who got straight A's/Uni degrees etc.) I've already made £20k this year which isn't bad for a unqualified 24 year old is it.

Unless you have the common sense to go with those qualifications then them grades aren't worth a carrot.

It depends on your outlook on life though as well mate. You get a lot more out of going to university than just the qualifications for (hopefully) a good job at the end of it. I’m now 28 years old, went to uni, and earn approx £40k per year currently (outside London). Not exactly setting the world alight, but a comfortable existence none the less.

The experiences you can have through uni, the people you meet, the things you learn, the outlook on life you develop I would suggest is all the richer for having gone – and arguably better than a life predicated on being able to either shoot someone or punch them.

If you've never been, you'll never quite know what I mean, but each to their own I suppose.

[Dirk Kelly]

GCSEs are a waste of time, like I posted earlier I left school with feck all, joined the paras, spent 5 years with them and then got into debt collecting which I am still doing now. As it is I am making more money than most of my schoolmates will ever see(including the ones who got straight A's/Uni degrees etc.) I've already made £20k this year which isn't bad for a unqualified 24 year old is it.

Unless you have the common sense to go with those qualifications then them grades aren't worth a carrot.

It depends on your outlook on life though as well mate. You get a lot more out of going to university than just the qualifications for (hopefully) a good job at the end of it. I’m now 28 years old, went to uni, and earn approx £40k per year currently (outside London). Not exactly setting the world alight, but a comfortable existence none the less.

The experiences you can have through uni, the people you meet, the things you learn, the outlook on life you develop I would suggest is all the richer for having gone – and arguably better than a life predicated on being able to either shoot someone or punch them.

If you've never been, you'll never quite know what I mean, but each to their own I suppose.

What do you do now? Maybe we should continue this thread with what we all do for a living?

I now work for Cunard Line, operator of QE2, Queen Mary 2 and Queen Victoria. Work as a Relationship Marketing Manager. Since Uni, worked in furniture, motorsport and for a bank. Before did anything that paid well or was easy, building sites, earning £3.80 an hour at 16/17 whilst my mates were working part time in shops earning a couple of quid if they were lucky! Paid for alot of my uni expenses. Worked in bars and in pizza hut all through uni to pay rent and make ends meet.

[Podmore_Birmingham]

This sort of moaning really winds me up. I went to a state comp. followed by a state sixth-form college and was accepted to study Maths at Oxford. Selection isn't just decided by raw exam marks. Perhaps the girl across the road just performed better that you in the interview process. It's a fact of life; some you win, some you lose.

I never even got an interview.

How come she got one and i didn't, eh?

That said, I’m not, on reflection at least, too bothered that I was turned down. Although I was disappointed at the time, four years have passed and i've subsequently decided that I didn’t, in my heart of hearts, want to do History at university. I suppose my tutors telling me i could go egged me on; i'd originally applied to others.

I’m now looking forward to doing something new at Uni next month.

[stujones]

Attractive girl by any chance Tom?

No seriously, that happens in the world of work. Again as I have found out to my cost.

Naturally it wouldn't happen for Uni's.

[WildWaylon]

A builder I know was working on a house when he uncovered a pile of exercise books. They had belonged to two grammer school boys, brothers, who had been at school in the 1950s. I looked at the books and the work was very advanced, the English was superb and they were all very neat and tidy. I dont know but its likely the boys got jobs and never went to Uni because very few did back then. Uni was mainly for public school boys back in those times because there were simply not the places available. Kids these days are just not working to those high standards. Half of them have poor English, know a bit of this and a bit of that yet somehow they get places at Uni. The tough examining bodies who set the exams back then, and marked them, have been sacked so standards have dropped accordingly. In those days a degree meant something. O levels were harder then than an A level now. People talk about going to Uni when all it really means is going to an upgraded Poly with downgraded exams so almost everyone leaves with a reasonable result. Britain fell behind the rest of developed Europe so a poltical move, upgrading Polys, put us back on level again. Kids who went to secondry moderns never mind grammer schools and left with nothing were by far brighter in general than kids leaving comprehensives today with 10 O levels with decent grades. Why is that, better dicipline, fewer subjects, and better trained teachers than we have today. We have kids who are jacks of all trades and masters of none. I know a woman who has been to so called uni who thought her siblings were her children. Says "i did it off my own back" when it should be bat. I could go on basically her English is crap and in my opinion she is thick. My father was very clever at maths and English and very well versed in history yet he didnt have a single qualification. I can understand why some think qualifications mean nothing, to be honest they dont. In boxing terms its like a WBU title.

[King Tubby]

A builder I know was working on a house when he uncovered a pile of exercise books. They had belonged to two grammer school boys, brothers, who had been at school in the 1950s. I looked at the books and the work was very advanced, the English was superb and they were all very neat and tidy. I dont know but its likely the boys got jobs and never went to Uni because very few did back then. Uni was mainly for public school boys back in those times because there were simply not the places available. Kids these days are just not working to those high standards. Half of them have poor English, know a bit of this and a bit of that yet somehow they get places at Uni. The tough examining bodies who set the exams back then, and marked them, have been sacked so standards have dropped accordingly. In those days a degree meant something. O levels were harder then than an A level now. People talk about going to Uni when all it really means is going to an upgraded Poly with downgraded exams so almost everyone leaves with a reasonable result. Britain fell behind the rest of developed Europe so a poltical move, upgrading Polys, put us back on level again. Kids who went to secondry moderns never mind grammer schools and left with nothing were by far brighter in general than kids leaving comprehensives today with 10 O levels with decent grades. Why is that, better dicipline, fewer subjects, and better trained teachers than we have today. We have kids who are jacks of all trades and masters of none. I know a woman who has been to so called uni who thought her siblings were her children. Says "i did it off my own back" when it should be bat. I could go on basically her English is crap and in my opinion she is thick. My father was very clever at maths and English and very well versed in history yet he didnt have a single qualification. I can understand why some think qualifications mean nothing, to be honest they dont. In boxing terms its like a WBU title.

I met an examiner who told me that my grade 'C' at 'O' Level in the early 80's would be equivalent to a grade'C' at 'A' level today.

[Peter Hick]

I took 'O' levels back in 1987, didn't get higher than a B in any subject, and failed French with a D.

I took French GCSE in 1996 and got an A even though I didn't come close to finishing one of the papers.

I think the drop in standards in our education system is scandalous and seems to be getting worse each year.

Or maybe children are just cleverer than they used to be

[stujones]

Perhaps Ian could enlighten us further... although maybe he would be putting his neck on the line if he did say on a public forum. But the impression I have always had, and infact GSCE / A level markers have told me, is that the figure of who will get A's, B's etc is pre determined. So no student can say - oh getting 70% will guarentee me an A - if every single student who sat that exam got 71% then they will fail. Similarly, if say 20% was the best score - then that will get an A.

And its this pre-determined figure that is raising. So yes, while I am not sure examinations are any easier - they are easier to pass (if that made any sense).

[dondada]

I did promise myself that I wouldn't post on this thread any longer! For those who don't know, I work for the National Association for the Teaching of English (whilst still teaching).

Some of you are making some really ill-informed, sweeping, Daily Mail type statements. Then again, some of you have very valid points.

The examiner who told whoever that C at O level is now worth C at A level is talking complete nonsense and it's this type of shite that damages education. I've just taken part in a Govt review of standards for GCSE English. (There were the chief examiners there of every exam board and a couple of others including me.)

What is different and has changed over the years is the things the exams look for. I'll tell you what - kids now get an hour to write a response on four different poems in the English Literature GCSE which I'd say is much harder than anything I had to do in 1988.

A lack of accuracy used to be hammered in English and (apart from in a few aspects of the spec) that isn't the case now. The decision was taken years ago was that original thought and creativity was more important than accuracy - that's a huge simplification I'm making, by the way.

Basically, they look to examine different things these days. I would say that candidates probably write with less accuracy these days but that is probably because it has been marginalised in exam specs.

Don't know about other subjects, stu, but the number of students getting certain grades is never pre-determined (as far as I know!)

[rhino222]

i left with 8 0 levels and a CSE grade 1 in art !!!!!!!

i am an anaesthetic practitioner ... :P

[dondada]

Oh, and about a general decline in standards...you need to realise how much the world has changed.

The older members on the forum, if caught daydreaming, might have got a clip round the ear or a blackboard duster thrown at them. Not that violence is the answer, of course but teachers are almost completely powerless these days and thousands and thousands of school hours are wasted indulging children who should not be sat in front of them. It's bound to have an effect.

Yes, there are things you can do, etc, etc, but it's more difficult than you think.

What I always find funny about teaching and people's attitudes is that everyone thinks they're a f*cking expert...because they've been to school. You would never go to an architect "You're talking sh1t there mate, take that beam out" or to a solicitor "Nah, I want to use this particular case from 1843, if you don't mind." You wouldn't even take the scissors off a hairdresser cutting your bairn's hair and say 'I know best'.

But when it comes to teaching/education, people seem to think they all have some kind of qualified view because once upon a time they were a pupil. It's like saying you know about medicine because you've been a patient. Yes, you have a view which is informed up to a certain point but it's always going to fall short of the professionals - most of whom actually live this shit (which is why I got so annoyed earlier).

You can call it arrogance if you like but it's a plain fact, as far as I'm concerned. I've always had a simple attitude - if I want to learn about something, go and ask someone who knows more than I do.

Whatever job you do, unless it's teaching, you are guaranteed to know more about it than I do and if I wanted to know more about it, I'd ask and listen.

The irony being in this country that we constantly appoint government ministers who know absolutely nothing about the area they are in charge of...then they end up telling the professionals what to do, even against their advice! Crazy.

[Peter Hick]

I didn't mention teachers in my post, I was talking about the education system as a whole which the government are ultimately responsible for.

I'm sure there are bad teachers out there but on the whole I have great admiration for the profession. It's a job I couldn't do and wouldn't want to do.

[m1kee50]

4 A's, 6 B's, 1 C.
3 A levels, B, C, D.
BSc Theoretical Physics (2.2)
Currently studying for BA History.

[gb]

This sort of moaning really winds me up. I went to a state comp. followed by a state sixth-form college and was accepted to study Maths at Oxford. Selection isn't just decided by raw exam marks. Perhaps the girl across the road just performed better that you in the interview process. It's a fact of life; some you win, some you lose.

Surely you can't blame him for being disappointed that he didn't get into the university of his dreams despite applying twice and having great exam results? If you hadn't made it in are you really saying that you wouldn't have felt similarly frustrated and would not have questioned the system if someone with weaker marks had got in?
If you've going to get wound up by anything, then surely it should be the amount of talented individuals that don't get into Oxbridge from the state school sector because they haven't been properly prepared for the selection process?
Saying it's just a fact of life and that you win some and lose someone strikes me as a glib, patronising statement given you're talking about one individual's aspirations and dreams. I'd have expected a more rounded view given your intellect.

[/quote][/quote]
[/quote]

Ok, allow me to clarify.

I am not saying that there aren't issues with access to Oxbridge. However, describing this as "pure elitism" is wide of the mark; just because someone goes to a grammar/private school and has lower grades, but gets in doesn't mean that the grammar school issue is definitely the deciding factor. This is assuming a cause and effect that isn't necessarily there. I work in a run of the mill private school, and have seen this exact same thing happen within our school i.e. two kids from our place apply to study the same subject at the same college and the apparent "weaker" one gets in. Which is why I said "you win some, you lose some" it's impossible to second guess what the selection panel are after, very much like the job market.

On a similar note, the levels of private/grammar school kids at Oxbridge are similar to places like, Bristol, Durham, Edinburgh etc.. so lets not single these places out for special criticism.

[WildWaylon]

Oh, and about a general decline in standards...you need to realise how much the world has changed.

The older members on the forum, if caught daydreaming, might have got a clip round the ear or a blackboard duster thrown at them. Not that violence is the answer, of course but teachers are almost completely powerless these days and thousands and thousands of school hours are wasted indulging children who should not be sat in front of them. It's bound to have an effect.

Yes, there are things you can do, etc, etc, but it's more difficult than you think.

What I always find funny about teaching and people's attitudes is that everyone thinks they're a f*cking expert...because they've been to school. You would never go to an architect "You're talking sh1t there mate, take that beam out" or to a solicitor "Nah, I want to use this particular case from 1843, if you don't mind." You wouldn't even take the scissors off a hairdresser cutting your bairn's hair and say 'I know best'.

But when it comes to teaching/education, people seem to think they all have some kind of qualified view because once upon a time they were a pupil. It's like saying you know about medicine because you've been a patient. Yes, you have a view which is informed up to a certain point but it's always going to fall short of the professionals - most of whom actually live this shit (which is why I got so annoyed earlier).

You can call it arrogance if you like but it's a plain fact, as far as I'm concerned. I've always had a simple attitude - if I want to learn about something, go and ask someone who knows more than I do.

Whatever job you do, unless it's teaching, you are guaranteed to know more about it than I do and if I wanted to know more about it, I'd ask and listen.

The irony being in this country that we constantly appoint government ministers who know absolutely nothing about the area they are in charge of...then they end up telling the professionals what to do, even against their advice! Crazy.

The final point you make Ian is absolutely correct. They need to listen far more to the people who because their years of experiance as professionals really do know what is best. In the same way, we on this forum, all need to look at the points you make, as you have better knowledge of teaching and education than any of us. As I see things everything went wrong in the 1970s. Teaching methods changed, dicipline in schools, even the actual buildings in some cases. Schools built in the 1890s had classrooms and every school built before the 1970s was built the same. Then the crazy idiots decided to build some open plan schools. Children all being taught in a huge open area were distracted by the other children nearby so they had to erect screens. It just didnt work, another badly thought out government idear. Yes, I did have chalk thrown at me for talking in class. I did have six of the best. I was kept in at break time and told to stare at a particular brick while facing the wall. In those days teachers had control and you had to pay attention. Again the government made the decision to take away the power teachers had over pupils and look where that has lead us to. Another daft idear of the 70s was to combine geography and history and call it humanities. Another really stupid thing was teaching kids to spell cat with a K and then telling them a couple of years later the correct way to spell certain words. Back in my days at school, from 1950 to 1960 we didnt have the range of subjects taught in schools today. Too many subjects is not a good thing. Why teach kids French or German when they dont know English well enough. I asked a teacher in the 1990s why they taught algibra and she said its done to expand childrens minds. My answer was simply "You can do the same with something useful that may help them in life" Vital time is wasted in schools teaching kids stuff they will never ever need, so why do it. During the 1970s too many changes, not just in education, were made that we have been paying for ever since. My view is, if something works, dont try to change it or fix it. Finally I agree with Ian, the professionals do know best but older people like myself (63) can look back over a long life and see how change and the dropping standards has ruined education in this country. What happened to Tony Blairs "lets get back to basics in education" it just never happened.

[WildWaylon]

Our daughter went to primary school with a girl we dubbed "little miss rich kid". Both applied for a place at a privately run college taking children at 11. Our girl got in but the other girl didnt and her parents promptly stopped talking to us. Strangely enough after the girls father made a very good donation to the college a place was suddenly found for her. Obviously he bought her the place but he argued his older daughter was already a pupil there and the donation was to provide facilities for for her and the other children. I understand the donation was around half a million which he would have hardly missed in his bank account. The standard there is way above that of any other school in the city and anyone who misbehaves or doesnt work hard soon finds themselves expelled. Getting a place there is not via an exam or through getting top results in SATS at primary school and there are no school fees. We do know the worst thing a child can say at interview is " I want to come here because my parents want me to have a place". They have to take black,white and Asian kids and pick the ones they believe best meet the criterior of the college (whatever that means, well rounded I suppose). They also have to consider children from all over the county, rather than have a defined catchment area. Selection is therefore very hit and miss and nobody can be sure they have a place until the letter arrives confirming you have been successful. They have a parents meeting for all those who have children who have applied. The head told us not to raise our hopes as most of us would be dissapointed. Our girl left at 18 with 8 O levels and 2 A level passes B and C. Little miss rich kid got 5 A stars and a bunch of other good passes and went to Cambridge.

[SticknMove]

I have read this thread with a lot of interest. There’s much that is valid from all points of view.

For the record I left school will 8 O levels and 2 A’ levels. I too was the first in the whole of my family to go onto further education and got a 2.1 in economics at Kingston Poly as it was back then. I went on to become a FX/MM trader in the city for 9 years before being made redundant.

The school I came from in East London had quite a few old boys that came back to the school to teach. This is probably an age old story, but my first few years were distracted by getting into trouble doing things that boys do without any regard to where that may lead you. I was the youngest of 4 brothers (none of them entered an exam at school) and had a rep to live up to. I was a fairly bright kid and I owe immeasurable gratitude to those teachers that came from similar and familiar backgrounds that turned my head. They were not pompous pricks but earthy considerate people that knew the value of education for it’s own sake. They didn’t win over everyone’s repect but they got mine. The value of teachers, as mentors back then, was invaluable. And it should be today. But in an ever moving environment it is hard for them to know where they stand let alone the kids they are meant to teach/mentor.

Moving on career wise – it has always been a dog eat dog world. I don’t blame the fella that lied about his qualifications to move himself on. But being a recruiter stretches it a bit. I have always treated recruitment consultants with the same disdain as any salesman. They’re on commision which is par for the course – lots of articulate BS and little honesty apart from when it suits them. You can trust them as far as you can throw them.

A lot of the people I have met during my working life, that are successful, are not necessarily intelligent in an academic sense, but are intelligently sharp. Their intelligence and sharpness generally comes from a grassroots bottom up focus on one thing that widens with age and experience. The academic format presents kids with a broader perspective from arseroots but with little focus. I sometimes think that is where the education system, at the higher end, fails them – they can’t be generically good at all things.

[Wax On]

Moving on career wise – it has always been a dog eat dog world. I don’t blame the fella that lied about his qualifications to move himself on. But being a recruiter stretches it a bit. I have always treated recruitment consultants with the same disdain as any salesman. They’re on commision which is par for the course – lots of articulate BS and little honesty apart from when it suits them. You can trust them as far as you can throw them.

To be fair, in recruitment, just like in every profession there are people who are good at their job and others who are just plain bad at it. Those who BS may make a little more in the short term, but get found out long term when they get a bad name for themselves and candidates / clients won't touch them with a barge pole. I will say this though, anyone rings me up and treats me with disdain, there's only one place their CV is going and that's straight in the effing bin.

It's very easy to stereotype. It's like the old saying.......Those who can, do. And those who can't, teach. Which is nonsense obviously, but just goes to show how ignorant some people can be.

I have a lot of respect for teachers. I loved that advert a couple of years back featuring famous figures (Tony Blair etc) name dropping the best teacher they'd ever had alond with a slogan along the lines of "Everyone remembers a great teacher." So true!! I think a good teacher can have an amazing impact on a young person and as a result would love to do it later in life.