tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8698973430925040234.post1395739751934220268..comments2014-03-22T23:34:14.836+00:00Comments on Charlie Bell Live: Loosely educative - a reviewCharlie Bellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14533905961031329419noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8698973430925040234.post-29386625806430044102012-03-21T19:48:49.427+00:002012-03-21T19:48:49.427+00:00I was with you up until your last main paragraph. ...I was with you up until your last main paragraph. I think the government does realise what is 'essential and important' both domestically and internationally. Britain is borrowing £126bn this year, and that's a lot of money in anyone's book, but that's still less than forecast in a year which has had the turbulence of spending that events like the Libyan crisis and the Irish bail-out are likely to cause. Yes it's a high amount, but not as high as it could be. They are spending much of it in increasing the NHS' budget in real terms, and cutting the bureaucracy that costs so much. That's important. They are decreasing the level of corporation tax whilst increasing the bank levy to ensure banks don't get away with paying less tax. That's important, and I think they should be applauded for that.<br />However I do agree, the school system needs revision. The idea that competition for a rightly finite number of university places can be equal when you have such a polarised two-tier education system is nonsense. The idea that you can 'buy' a university place is wrong, but, sadly, is the reality at the top institutions, as many schoolchildren from the state sector simply do not get the kind of preparation, not to mention motivation, to even stand a chance. It takes a lot more drive. The myriad of exams also isn't helping. Some kids aren't good at exams, under that sort of pressure, and there's no getting away from the fact that that's always going to be the case. But how else can you assess 'natural talent' without time-consuming and stressful interviews and the like? It's a question that needs to be thought about. I didn't do A-levels, I did the Cambridge Pre-U, and loved it. I thought it had an immeasurably better curriculum than the equivalent A-level, and gave more scope at the top end for the brightest to show their talents, yet was broad enough for the least able to still show what they do actually know. The terminal nature of the exams also meant that we didn't lose a term of teaching time in the middle of the two years, and gave us a 'year off' the exams system, which does maintain high levels of stress on students for essentially three years. I think this prepared me better for university, and made it easier for the universities to distinguish between applicants. It wasn't simply another exam, it was a showcase of you, not how good you are at taking exams, and I think it was so much better than the A-level. This is what we should be doing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com