Beggars can’t be choosers
Anastasia De Waal, 21 August 2009
One of the ironies faced by today’s youngsters is that they have more options and choices than ever before, yet the new wealth of opportunity is coupled with poor guidance, frustrating inaccessibility, bureaucracy and a notorious lack of reliable information.
Instead of unpicking the complexities of grade inflation, clearing and the private/state school divide that has overshadowed results’ day for candidates this week, it is equally relevant to analyse the longer term position students find themselves in, both before and after exams.
Under the current system, pupils must choose their GCSE options from an early age – in some schools as early as 13; decisions which then impact on their A-level choices. If a pupil knows they want to head onto tertiary education post A-level, picking the appropriate combinations of subjects is a minefield. ‘Keeping options open’, bending to accommodate specific university admissions pressures and even looking further afield at job requirements, all have to be factored in. Whittling your subject-bank down to a few disciplines is, in the current political/utilitarian quagmire, a tricky business. In the wake of the Tory proposals to make formal distinctions between ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ subjects there appears to be an abundance of opinion on what constitutes what. Opinion which is at times somewhat contradictory.
This week saw Michael Gove announce that: “Academic rigour is the answer – not an A-level in Dance” (a statement much-lambasted by dance critic Judith Mackrell in today’s Guardian: “Why is it academically testing for students to study the history, theory and practice of that artform, yet a drastic lowering of the bar when they study dance?”) and Radio 4’s ‘Any Questions?’ last Saturday was dominated by an agitated GCSE student’s query over which subjects will guarantee her a job. A query confirming the fact that students are experiencing untoward pressures to insure their futures at a very early stage, despite having a new myriad of options to choose from. The panellists’ responses were agitated in response – about the system. Bob Crow of the RMT particularly so: “It’s an actual shame now that you’ve got to look at what subjects you think are going to get you a job, rather than do the subject you think that’s going to advance yourself. That’s the real torrid situation we’ve got in Britain now.”
Panellist Dr Sarah Churchwell (Senior Lecturer in American Studies at the University of East Anglia) suggested that “a broad-base of skillsets will give the most flexibility going into the future […] sometimes people get a little bit tied down when they think about academic training in terms of a very literal kind of relevance so they say ‘well if I study literature what’s the relevance in that in a business degree?’ […] it teaches you communication skills, it teaches you analytical skills, it teaches you to write well.” Two very contrasting viewpoints, yet both objecting to the current utilitarianism in education.
Churchwell’s comment in particular brings to the fore the question of the value of higher education. Despite the ever-growing numbers of people going to university after the recession, many school-leavers are looking elsewhere. The somewhat frantic Guardian A-level blog page is testament to the levels of anxious bright youngsters toying with hopping straight onto the career ladder instead of getting a degree. Almost all lament the futility of their situations, voicing regrets over ill-advised and premature choices. While, as Dr Churchwell noted on ‘Any Questions?’ the skills acquired on non-vocational degreesare undeniably important, it’s easy to empathise with the scores of young people fretting over the utility of an arts degree in the job market (writing as an English graduate myself).
There seems to be only one certainty today – and that’s that the choices on offer to students are too often restricting, misguiding and confusing.
By Kate Pretsell