Should more emphasis in education be placed on classic rather than modern subjects?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Should more emphasis in education be placed on classic rather than modern subjects?

In recent years especially under the Labour Ministry from 1997 to 2010 in the United Kingdom, an explosion in modern subjects in education took place in our schools as well as universities which resulted in many schools introducing or placing more emphasis on subjects such as hair and beauty, drama and performing arts, music, citizenship and media studies. The popularity of these subjects in many state comprehensive state schools was very apparent, and which the present government under the then-Education Secretary Michael Gove MP expressed concern over as pupils were dropping more traditional subjects such as History and Geography in favour of such subjects.

The argument many would put forth would be that these subjects were popular and that many students were able to do these subjects compared with more academic subjects such as History and Geography, where as opponents would say that shifting students away from more academic subjects merely masked a decline in standards of eduction in Great Britain. But what do you think? Are subjects such as media studies useful to the majority of pupils leaving school or should more effort be placed on improving History and Geography results?

There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum and within the coming weeks we'll hopefully have some new awards and prizes to be won in this forum and beyond. Focus on putting a good argument forward, try to be controversial and you'll be rewarded!

The debate is open to you.

[scottish]

No, people stopped picking those subjects because they're boring and useless

In your example the likes of history, it was always boring very few people liked it and approximately 1 person in every country wants to pursue a career with that subject.

[Aiden]

A mixture of subjects should be given to students but as I see it all of them are failing. Traditional subjects should all be compulsory for a GCSE, each student should be able to watch a quiz show and at least get half the questions that they would know from succeeding at traditional subjects. Then creative subjects should also be shown. The future of our country is very much in subjects such as ICT, drama, music. These subjects are very bad at the moment though (at least the subjects I do).

In ICT we learn to make a slideshow and do small bits of research on copyright. In drama you're taught very little but get an A* through being good at the start, there's not enough inspiration for these subjects through the teaching and exam boards. It's extremely easy to get good grades in these 'soft' subjects.

[Kardan]

A mixture of subjects should be given to students but as I see it all of them are failing. Traditional subjects should all be compulsory for a GCSE, each student should be able to watch a quiz show and at least get half the questions that they would know from succeeding at traditional subjects. Then creative subjects should also be shown. The future of our country is very much in subjects such as ICT, drama, music. These subjects are very bad at the moment though (at least the subjects I do).

In ICT we learn to make a slideshow and do small bits of research on copyright. In drama you're taught very little but get an A* through being good at the start, there's not enough inspiration for these subjects through the teaching and exam boards. It's extremely easy to get good grades in these 'soft' subjects.

One of the reasons they are known as soft subjects.

My answer is no, even though I can see the argument for yes. I know schools that actually make you pick between History or Geography GCSEs - you have to pick one. You also have to pick a foreign language, pick a design/technology subject meaning you only have one free choice at GCSE - so if you really want to pick media studies, go for it.

With all the people I went to sixth form, there's been an obvious pattern. People that did Maths, Sciences, English, Geography, History, French A-Levels all went to Uni and are employed. The people that did Citizenship, General Studies, Critical Thinking, Communication Studies etc not only did most of them spend an extra year at sixth form but as of yet I'm not sure any of them are employed after graduating.

Of course, this is just the scenario and the people I'm around. Could quite easily be different elsewhere.

[Aiden]

I would like to say that's not true but it looks like that's the way it's going to go for people around me too. Schools very much rush pupils into picking any subjects as long as they go along with a certain pathway. You can choose to do all four of your options as creative subjects with no intention to go into those industries and have no guidance. I'm not sure if it's just my school but teachers don't care or don't show that they care. Very few are willing to go above their bare minimum requirements as a teacher.

Most pupils are capable of taking GCSEs in year 9/10 and they should be taught subjects like history in those years. It's really not that hard for most people to achieve well at these subjects if they try. I know thought that subjects like drama though aren't just messing around. Yes it's a creative subject but there's a lot of writing. To succeed in some subjects you need creativity as well as knowledge but others you literally need to learn a page or two.

[Kardan]

I would like to say that's not true but it looks like that's the way it's going to go for people around me too. Schools very much rush pupils into picking any subjects as long as they go along with a certain pathway. You can choose to do all four of your options as creative subjects with no intention to go into those industries and have no guidance. I'm not sure if it's just my school but teachers don't care or don't show that they care. Very few are willing to go above their bare minimum requirements as a teacher.

Most pupils are capable of taking GCSEs in year 9/10 and they should be taught subjects like history in those years. It's really not that hard for most people to achieve well at these subjects if they try. I know thought that subjects like drama though aren't just messing around. Yes it's a creative subject but there's a lot of writing. To succeed in some subjects you need creativity as well as knowledge but others you literally need to learn a page or two.

Definitely not true. I'd say a small minority of students have the ability to take GCSEs early, and even then only a small proportion of them actually take the GCSE early without sacrificing grades. And what happens when you take your GCSEs early? There's no real benefit for early entry.

[Aiden]

Definitely not true. I'd say a small minority of students have the ability to take GCSEs early, and even then only a small proportion of them actually take the GCSE early without sacrificing grades. And what happens when you take your GCSEs early? There's no real benefit for early entry.

I wouldn't say that my school is in any way elite but I'm sure most people in my classes and above would succeed at taking them a year early. For sciences we spend three years doing the basics of GCSE science. I taught my sister who's in year 6 the core biology stuff and she is capable of getting a C. It's just learning facts for a lot of subjects. Taking them early means harder subjects like languages can be focused on and you have the chance to gain additional GCSEs.

[Kardan]

I wouldn't say that my school is in any way elite but I'm sure most people in my classes and above would succeed at taking them a year early. For sciences we spend three years doing the basics of GCSE science. I taught my sister who's in year 6 the core biology stuff and she is capable of getting a C. It's just learning facts for a lot of subjects. Taking them early means harder subjects like languages can be focused on and you have the chance to gain additional GCSEs.

But what do additional GCSEs give you? What will learning GCSE Biology in Year 6 instead of Year 11 enable you to do that you couldn't do before?

I took GCSEs early myself and it was of no benefit to me at all. Also worth noting your sister wouldn't be able to get a C grade on core biology alone. If we're talking about GCSE Biology then she only knows 1/3 of the content - not enough for a C. Likewise, if we're talking about GCSE Science, that again, is only 1/3 of the content.

I agree that the top end of pupils would succeed in getting a decent grade in Year 10, but at Year 9 only the very top end of pupils will get a decent grade. I reckon out of all the Year 9's I've taught Maths barely any of them would get a C in GCSE Maths if they took the exam there and then.

Of course, it all comes down to the kids. We see kids as young as 6 taking GCSEs and A-Levels, but it brings me back to my main point - what is the point in taking GCSEs early?

[Aiden]

But what do additional GCSEs give you? What will learning GCSE Biology in Year 6 instead of Year 11 enable you to do that you couldn't do before?

I took GCSEs early myself and it was of no benefit to me at all. Also worth noting your sister wouldn't be able to get a C grade on core biology alone. If we're talking about GCSE Biology then she only knows 1/3 of the content - not enough for a C. Likewise, if we're talking about GCSE Science, that again, is only 1/3 of the content.

I agree that the top end of pupils would succeed in getting a decent grade in Year 10, but at Year 9 only the very top end of pupils will get a decent grade. I reckon out of all the Year 9's I've taught Maths barely any of them would get a C in GCSE Maths if they took the exam there and then.

Of course, it all comes down to the kids. We see kids as young as 6 taking GCSEs and A-Levels, but it brings me back to my main point - what is the point in taking GCSEs early?

If you take GCSEs early you have a number of benefits:

- If you do bad in year 9/10 you can always retake them in year 11 and stay in time with the rest of the country
- Take additional subjects to expand knowledge, do creative subjects as well as academic, get a more rounded education
- Can take harder subjects if you start in year 9, you have more time to learn, closer to fluency in languages
- Less stress, you know if you fail in year 10 you've still got a year to benefit

Perhaps I'm missing something important (like usual) and I don't see why it's not practical. I just see this as giving people the best opportunities to advance themselves. If it was the norm to take GCSEs in year 10 then you would likely see the same results come out. If someone grows up knowing they don't need to take GCSEs they have no reason to learn, so if you grow up knowing exams at a certain point you will try if you're sensible.

[MKR&*42]

I don't think it's necessarily the course subject itself which leads people to I guess ''look down upon'' the more modern subjects, but the fact the course structure and essay marking is 'more generous' upon students than English Literature for example.

I don't see anything massively wrong with studying more modern subjects at college level (don't really have much of an opinion secondary school-wise), but I wish they were made more difficult so their respectability increased.

Just look what they're doing to A Level philosophy (a more traditional subject history and uni-wise, but not really at college/school level): http://www.theguardian.com/education...iculum-debased