BRITISH UNIVERSITIES BECOMING IRRELEVANT

"I should start with the premise that I don't think a degree makes anyone a better person. I don't even think it makes you a cleverer person. Intelligence is not measured by exam or diploma, although it's certainly true - or was - that a university course would tend to offer more to those who are, even remotely, academically inclined. But the way the education system is going, it would be more honest simply to raise the school leaving age to 22. University is just something you do when you've finished your A-levels, no matter how badly you might have done or how bored you've been doing them. To suggest to those who are not cut out for even rudimentary academic life that university might not be the best place for them, is to consign them to non-person status.

It's not as if a degree even helps getting a job: all it means is that you've spent longer waiting to find yourself unemployed. If anything, I feel it might impede your prospects. You're just one among a pile of applicants, similarly qualified, none of whom has anything extra or interesting to offer. I think it's the middle classes that have to start the move away from tertiary education. Concerned parents now insist, ever more anxiously, on finding a university place when they would be doing a lot more for their children by refusing to fund the whole enterprise.

Everyone believes that it's no longer possible to work your way up as it always used to be, but no one gives it a chance: they all believe in starting at management level. Nor is it true that everyone used to be able to work their way up: the editors and big bosses who started off as messenger boys and delivery-drivers were the exception even then. But one thing is constant: talent is always in short supply.

So to start off with the premise that 50 per cent of the population should have further education - and, moreover, at academic institutions rather than pursuing vocational training - can have no other result than to lower the standards overall. I know that that might seem to be stating the obvious, but the more glaring it is, the more people attempt to deny it."

More here.





SPANISH GRAMMAR MORE IMPORTANT

"Now, I'm no grammar maven, but I've put a great deal of time into editing papers for my friends. In one particular case, I put two posters up over one's desk. One said, "could HAVE - should HAVE - would HAVE" and the other said "SUBJECT VERB AGREEMENT". This, of course, was after reading several of her papers riddled with "could of" and long compound sentences where the subject and verb lost each other completely.

(When I mentioned "subject - verb agreement" she said, "oh, like in Spanish!" - it's sad most of us poor public school kids learned more grammar from our foreign language classes than our "English" classes.)

John McWhorter argues in Doing Our Own Thing that a lot of the degradation of language is due to the increasing visual orientation of American culture and society. Since spoken grammar is very different from written grammar, I see his point. Not everyone has their spoken grammar corrected every other sentence by Mom Flip (an annoying habit, especially when one is older than 6 - just try to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition while speaking. I dare you). And soon enough, the way we speak becomes the way we write. Read the book, because I really can't do it justice (lack of PhD, etc.).

There's also a great argument to be made here against the whole-language approach to learning reading and writing. I know I learned how to write from my extensive reading habit - one which Sister Flip doesn't share after being subjected to a whole-language approach. Yes, Mom Flip did teach her the phonetic method, but it was counterproductive as her earnest teacher kept correcting and reprogramming, as per the district's instructions".

More here.




VOUCHERS FOR BRITAIN?

"A girl from Haberdasher's (private) school is accepted at Exeter University if she gains three As in her A-level exams. A state school pupil for the identical course requires only an A and two Bs. This discrimination has spread to several universities, and the government is strong-arming the rest into doing it. What is going on? The reasoning is that it is harder to gain three As at a state school. It is indeed. It's not a problem at the best state schools, many of which are grammar or selective schools. The problem is that the overall quality of state schools is not good enough.

Lowering the standards is one way of concealing the failure of the state system. It is akin to hiding the symptoms in a patient rather than tackling the illness. Measures to improve the quality of state education would be a more appropriate response than measures to conceal it.

The Conservative Party is looking hard at the Swedish school system, in which parents are free to choose a private school, and transfer their state funding to it. It is effectively a voucher system, though parents cannot add to it at more expensive schools. The private schools created in response to it now educate 6% of Sweden's children.

Some education reformers suggest that Britain should be fostering low-cost private schools as an alternative to the very expensive private sector and the sometimes very poor state sector. A Swedish-style voucher might do just that. Given the dissatisfaction with UK state education, the chances are that the new type of private schools would soon far exceed their numbers in Sweden.

The problem is not to hide the underachievement of state education, but to bring it up to a standard where no discrimination is needed."


From the Adam Smith blog


***************************

For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL schools should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the poor and minimal regulation.

Comments? Email me here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here

***************************