We now live in the Orwellian nightmare world where, thanks in a large part to our politicians, we now see funding at school favouring the so-called 'hard' subjects at the expense of the 'soft' ('hard' subjects good, 'soft' subjects bad!).
A couple of weeks back I heard an apparently moronic moron witter on about encouraging the 'proper' subjects in our schools as this would make those leaving 'more employable'. Turns out the 'moron' was an MP (so the cap might well fit!!) and all that they left out of their highly informed and influential point of view was the voicing of a desire to return to the days when Britain was the home of technology, industry, manufacturing and the whole of the globe was red! Another contributor to this debate said that doing art was great preparation for a life of unemployment.
Now, to cap it all I understand that the Russell group of universities are about to release a new handbook and, if the Grauniad are to be believed, it will travel along these lines:
"By not studying at least two of the following subjects – maths, English, geography, history, any of the three pure sciences or a classical or modern foreign language – "many degrees at competitive universities will not be open to you,"
The world of education that I came from focussed on the sciences because I was heading into the world of science and technology and Art, Music and Religious Education were available on the non-academic 'Arts' stream whilst Technical Drawing, Woodwork and Metalwork were available to those who took the 'Technical' path.
Those who took the arts route generally appeared to end up teaching (which is ironic I guess).
Those who took the technical route generally worked in engineering, construction and related industries until they found themselves unemployed in mid-forties onwards. Many of these people now exist in 'benefit world' or in alternative careers (one I know of works at McDonald'sm which isn't a problem but perhaps makes a statement!).
Those who took the academic route seem generally to be split between those who are still employed in offices doing admin' work, those who went into higher education (and mainly now find themselves in early-retirement) and those who have managed to keep a job in their chosen occupation.
The irony is that many of us who were pushed (sorry - I mean 'guided') into the Maths, English, Physics, Chemistry (plus others) appear in later life to have wished they'd done humanities, drawn things, played instruments and took up subjects that would benefit them now. Mind you one of my former scholar colleagues says that geography probably helps him with his daily work :-)
Having had a graduate from 'Bimbo University' work in one of my previous areas of influence (first-class BA in Tourism!!) I take more offence at the soft degrees and whilst I can understand that 'A levels' in media studies, Religious Education (the queen of all sciences), art and design, photography, psychology, business studies and other 'soft' subjects might be seen as an easy option to building a portfolio, there are times when the intended career path demands, or at least is supported by, them.
Here in the Vicar's palace we have one child embarked upon English, Music, Art and Psychology 'A levels'. The next is looking to do Maths, Physics, Art and Computing, One looks towards a career in the wonderful world of performance and arts whilst the other seeks a path that takes them to the world of animation. Both report that at GCSE many of those who opted for Art soon slipped away as they found that the workload was anything but soft and this is also the experience in other 'soft' subjects.
Here's the reality:
Most of us who did degrees find that what we did has little or no connection with the career/s we ended up with.
The pushing of our children into 'hard' subjects because this will get them the places is tosh. We should be encouraging our children to study the subjects that they enjoy (which usually means that they have a passion or skill in and for).
We need to develop a love of science and maths (I remember the passion (of now Prof) George Mathon for the 'art' that is mathematics) and from there see our children study the subjects because of the emerging passion for them (but this means we need inspiration and well as perspiration from our teachers).
We need to stop seeing education as something that can be converted into drinking vouchers. Learning develops passions, skills and abilities in us and we teach to enable people to fulfil their potential as people not as earners.
Soapbox away :-)
Pax
6 comments:
Ah, yes. Whatever did happen to Liberal Education? And what became of all that research in the 70s, 80s and 90s that showed that people who were well motivated and had a passion for their work and were encouraged and treated well by their managers were actually much more productive than others who were treated as drones?
I remember several years ago one of my son's teachers remarking that the popularity of some of the so-called "soft subjects" at GCSE and A level was because the kids had not yet failed at them.
I despair at the current utilitarian view of education as something which has value solely or largely in terms of getting a specific job. As far as higher education goes, its main value is in teaching one how to THINK flexibly, regardless of subject. Give the fast-changing nature of our society and much of the job market this is one of the most valuable assets we can have.
The purpose of education is to maximise the earning potential of the pupil what you propose is nothing more than a self-serving existence of coloring in, making a noise and taking from the state to support you.
We need people who can build, manufacture and market such that exports are made and products are once again British.
Indeed Simmy, liberal thinking always seems to beget rigid realities (and not always the right reality either). - hey ho, 'twas ever the way I guess!
Anon - seems to me that those who do art find work in so many places because of it (and predominantly seem to maintain their jobs). Those wo make music, even when it's not a career have something that relieves stress after the daily toil and are healthier people because of it.
Those I know who did the hard stuff (subject not alcohol-wise) appear to have, generally, found that they didn't maximise their earning potential, well not when you add the years where retirement of the early sort came into the equation.
Think you're wrong but would have to assume you, and probably your friends (and the paper you read) wouldn't agree.
Thanks for the comments though - perhaps you might provide me with some examples of what it is you'd like to see so we can dialogue further - I could be wrong couldn't I?
Pax
The definition of education is:
the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life.
Says nothing about maximising earning potential. The idea that all artists and musicians are supported by the state is also ludicrous!
We do need people who can build, manufacture and market, but we also need people to entertain and move us, to touch our souls and help us to connect with things outside of ourselves - otherwise we will exist in the nightmare of a Brave New World.
All I can say is, thank God (and I do) that I was educated in a system where I had inspiring teachers who cared, and taught me to care, about learning for its own sake and who did not have this soul-destroying, tawdry obsession with potential earnings. There are plenty of other ways in which society can benefit from having well-rounded, well-educated individuals who can make a positive and satisfying contribution to a good society besides focussing on the material/financial bottom line.
Of course, what anonymous also fails to realise is that all those things to be built and manufactured start as designs - wonder who makes those?
From the bed we drag ourselves out of in the morning, to the clothes we wear, the packaging of the food we eat and all those everyday objects - all have an artist's hand somewhere in their creation. Not to mention the buildings we inhabit.
I'm sure there are a number of architects and designers out there who would be interested to know that the years of education and training they have been through have allowed them only to colour in!
Post a Comment