Gcse Results

[josie kelly]

You really do have an awful complex about what other people do and what qualifications they have.

 

i'm just interested what has happened in your lives to make you so bitter that you have to make others feel like shit, it must be that you are bitter that you didn't achieve all your goals in life and want to take it out on those who are trying to achieve their aspirations.

 

 

Perhaps people haven't been as polite as they should have been when criticising your choices, but I don't think that their comments stem from personal bitterness.

 

There is a general perception these days that many teenagers are choosing 'easy options' in order to stay as a student for another three years rather than earning a living. Judging by your comments, this is not the case with you - you say that you are following a goal and I hope it works out for you!

[Albert Tatlock]

No degree is useless, but not all degrees are equal despite what some HR types might say, and however much people try to convince themselves of the fact. What worries me the most is that more and more people seem to be taking the 'easy option' by studying subjects that are relatively easy to pass, such as history, media and business studies, and avoiding the more difficult and specialised degrees such as physics, chemistry, maths, and engineering, which add long term, specific and measurable benefits to the economy. I have seen some of these general degree courses with 9hrs contact time per week compared with 28hrs contact time + a project worth 25% of the course marks for some engineering/science courses.

 

IMHO, if as a nation we do not understand and value these more 'complex and specialised' subjects we are far less likely to be able to invent things that can be sold abroad, which is precisely why high value engineering, science and manufacturing are in major decline in the UK and on the island. We need entrepeneurs not more managers - and 'product of the year' should not be a face cream, and 'entrpeneur of the year' should not be a pizza manufacturer.

 

IMHO, ever more reliance on the finance sector is leading the UK toward a heavy fall, once India, China and some of the Eastern European countries get their act together and deliver the services currently delivered by the UK at half the cost...though I'm sure we will have more than enough media study experts and historians able to report and document this when this finally happens en masse. This process is already well underway within the finance sector, with many financial companies moving elements of their business abroad via 'offshoring, outsourcing and best-shoring' schemes. Historians can tell you this...the finance sector have always gone where it suits them - not us.

 

Though times may be good at present, if we ignore this just as we ignored the 'export' of many engineering, science and manufacturing companies and facilities, I fear the island (and the UK) will be in for a major recession within not very many years, and one which could last a very long time.

 

It's only natural for people to select courses that suit themselves, however it takes joined up government thinking to encourage people to take the right courses, but sadly no university runs such a course.

[Chinahand]

Oh don't people just love trolling, insulting and getting on their high horses.

 

FFS we are meant to be talking about people getting GCSE results and now we've moved on to degree choices.

 

We are talking about people right at the start of their working lives, young and aspirational who have studied hard and are proud of the results they've got. The exams may have been tougher in our day etc etc etc ... but that is irrelevent in discussing the achievements of today's students ... well done to you all and good luck with your future studies and careers.

 

The idea that we are all dammed with one degree and one career choice is just so much bull.

 

I was practically minded, did engineering, and a postgrad in manufacturing. Worked in the industry for 10 years and then realised my qualifications were not relevent to my needs. So I went back and studied an MBA and a masters degree in International Studies ... The IS course was basically history and politics and the understanding it gave me of the patterns above the day to day issues of business I was studying in the MBA are now more important to my work than how to balance the accounts.

 

Get real people; we live in a diverse world and the idea that you can't have a successful career if you study a non-vocational degree is just bullshit.

 

A good friend studied History. Trained to be an accountant, went into the oil industry and worked her way up to a senior position. Had kids, gave it all up, retrained as a school teacher and is now educating 8 year olds.

 

Another studied Anthropology and Archeology. Trained to be be an accountant and is now a senior partner in one of the big accountancy firms.

 

Another studied pure mathematics, did a PhD in quantum physics, joined a telecoms company and is now the lead manager on their contribution to the Gallileo GPS system.

 

The idea that you study history means you become a historian is facile ... it gives you skills in writing, research, analytical thinking etc etc.

 

The clincher is where is there more graduate unemployement and who gets lower salaries ... its science and engineering graduates ... there is no evidence that the market needs more engineers or scientists.

 

We live in a diverse economy, I fully acknowledge the importance of, and work in, manufacturing, engineering science and technology related companies. But no matter how much you huff and puff these are minority areas in an economy that only consists of minority areas.

 

No sector in our economy is dominant and people should just choose their degrees and work towards their career goals as hard as they can and good luck to them ... if they do that I do not think our economy will be in any danger.

[iom_cb]

i just don't see how history has been roped into one of the soft subjects.

 

Cambridge publish a list of what they considor "soft" subjects.

 

History certainly is not one of them.

 

Thank you for all the kind comments.

 

I hope the OP's son did well in his interview at QEII today.

[Lonan3]

subjects that are relatively easy to pass, such as history, media and business studies, and avoiding the more difficult and specialised degrees such as physics, chemistry, maths, and engineering, which add long term, specific and measurable benefits to the economy.

 

Mr Tatlock - revealed as Mrs Thatcher!

[ourtess]

Well done the op's child.

Is Lancaster the most popular university with Island children?

 

While you are there I hope you tell people that a nice fast road to the uni is needed from Heysham docks.

[iom_cb]

Is Lancaster the most popular university with Island children?

 

it is quite popular.

 

i guess about 35...maybe 40 are going to uni this year from QEII. Five of us are going to lancaster.

 

Chester and Liverpool are popular as well.

[Albert Tatlock]

The clincher is where is there more graduate unemployement and who gets lower salaries ... its science and engineering graduates ... there is no evidence that the market needs more engineers or scientists.

Chinahand you surprise me...by being, IMHO, so fundamentally wrong.

 

When you analyse the economy, the bulk of it is based on physical items either: making/growing them, buying and selling them, betting on their prices, selling a service (or a legal requirement) based around them, or lending them or banking their money (to give to other companies that make things or support those that do). Just look at the worlds biggest companies, the bulk of which make things, without which the banks (glorified accounting departments riding on their backs) and the accountants/auditors (implementing government rules about how companies should act and report mainly for tax reasons) - would all be out of business.

 

It is the scientists and engineers of these companies (and their suppliers) that make or break the world's economy - on which most of us rely.

 

GCSE's and degree choices are fundamental indicators of where the country will be within this 'economic system' in 30 years time.

 

 

Worlds biggest companies (in order)

 

ExxonMobil Corp., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Royal Dutch Shell plc, BP, Chevron Corp., DaimlerChrysler AG, General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., ConocoPhillips, Ford Motor Co., Total S.A., General Electric Co., Samsung Group, AXA, Allianz AG, Volkswagen AG, American International Group, Inc., Siemens AG, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp., ING Group N.V., IBM Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co, Citigroup Inc., Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Aviva plc, Nestlé S.A., Sony Corp., Deutsche Telekom AG, PSA Peugeot Citroën S.A, Verizon Communications, Inc., Home Depot, Inc., United States Postal Service, Tesco plc, Eni S.p.A., Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Altria Group, Inc., Fiat S.p.A., E.ON AG, Munich Reinsurance Co., Cargill, Inc., Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A., Statoil ASA, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., HSBC Holdings plc, Credit Suisse Group, Fannie Mae, RWE AG, Toshiba Corp., LG Group, BMW AG, Deutsche Post AG, Renault S.A. (Nissan not included), Sinopec, The Boeing Company, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, United Technologies Corp., The Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc., Bayer AG, Koch Industries, Inc., Barclays plc, Fujitsu, Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline plc, European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V., Telefónica S.A., Microsoft Corp., Tyco International Ltd., OAO Gazprom, Deutsche Bahn AG, Morgan Stanley, A. P. Møller - Mærsk, Intel Corp., Nokia, Sanofi-Aventis, BASF AG, Veolia Environnement SA, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A., Mizuho Financial Group, Inc., HypoVereinsbank AG, BHP Billiton, Swiss Re Co., Roche Group, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Celesio Group, Air France-KLM S.A., Norsk Hydro ASA, Alcan Inc., Anglo American plc, American Express, Airbus S.A.S., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., KBC Group NV, Merck & Co., Inc., Raytheon Co., Bridgestone Corp., AstraZeneca plc, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Halliburton Energy Services, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc., Electronic Data Systems Corp., PricewaterhouseCoopers, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., CGE Michelin, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Mars, Inc., Japan Post, Alliance Unichem plc, Vattenfall AB, CRH plc, Loews Corp., Deloitte Touche, Tohmatsu, Fortum Oyj, Bombardier Inc, Continental AG, BAE Systems plc, Apple Computer, Inc., Ernst & Young, Henkel KGaA, Mitsubishi Corp., Nike, Inc., Linde AG, Marsh & McLennan Co., Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler, Coop Norden, Koç Holding A.S., Sun Microsystems, Inc., ICA AB, Telenor, All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd.

[ourtess]

Don't forget the link road.

[bubblybaby]

I have just spoken to him now, he has had his interview for Sixth form and has been accepted.

 

Thanks all for your kind comments, I have passed them onto him and I know he will be even more determined now.

 

[Tea&Biscuits]

Chinahand I agree with all that you said. The problem is that there is always too many people predicting what the economy needs in the future and of what careers people should take etc. Can we realisticaly do this?

 

Who would have thought from the advice I got in the 1980s careers advisers that in 2012 hairdressers, beauticians, personal trainers, plumbers, life coaches would be professions that are in total demand and will therefore demand higher wages compared to some white collar jobs? Did anyone predict that Chinese is the language we should all really be learning instead of French (as in it is prob going to be more beneficial in the business world)?

 

It is true though that industries like engineering, science need more graduates and I would agree with the need to encourage this.

 

PS: Im also a bit miffed that history has been lumped in with "soft degrees" whatever that actually means.

 

Also would like to say well done to the students who studied their GCSEs - I still remember how I found it all quite hard and I didn't do that well - which also makes me point out that at 16 there is no need to be too hard on yourselves. Fine if you know what you want to do - go for it, for most people they don't really have a clue what career they want to pursue. Choose those subjects you are interested in and mix with one harder subject in your continued studies - and I would say try not too worry too much about what people predict for the future.

[Tea&Biscuits]

The clincher is where is there more graduate unemployement and who gets lower salaries ... its science and engineering graduates ... there is no evidence that the market needs more engineers or scientists.

Chinahand you surprise me...by being, IMHO, so fundamentally wrong.

 

When you analyse the economy, the bulk of it is based on physical items either: making/growing them, buying and selling them, betting on their prices, selling a service (or a legal requirement) based around them, or lending them or banking their money (to give to other companies that make things or support those that do). Just look at the worlds biggest companies, the bulk of which make things, without which the banks (glorified accounting departments riding on their backs) and the accountants/auditors (implementing government rules about how companies should act and report mainly for tax reasons) - would all be out of business.

 

It is the scientists and engineers of these companies (and their suppliers) that make or break the world's economy - on which most of us rely.

 

GCSE's and degree choices are fundamental indicators of where the country will be within this 'economic system' in 30 years time.

 

 

Worlds biggest companies (in order)

 

ExxonMobil Corp., Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Royal Dutch Shell plc, BP, Chevron Corp., DaimlerChrysler AG, General Motors Corp., Toyota Motor Corp., ConocoPhillips, Ford Motor Co., Total S.A., General Electric Co., Samsung Group, AXA, Allianz AG, Volkswagen AG, American International Group, Inc., Siemens AG, Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corp., ING Group N.V., IBM Corp., Hewlett-Packard Co, Citigroup Inc., Hitachi, Ltd., Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Honda Motor Co., Ltd., Aviva plc, Nestlé S.A., Sony Corp., Deutsche Telekom AG, PSA Peugeot Citroën S.A, Verizon Communications, Inc., Home Depot, Inc., United States Postal Service, Tesco plc, Eni S.p.A., Berkshire Hathaway Inc., Altria Group, Inc., Fiat S.p.A., E.ON AG, Munich Reinsurance Co., Cargill, Inc., Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A., Statoil ASA, Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., HSBC Holdings plc, Credit Suisse Group, Fannie Mae, RWE AG, Toshiba Corp., LG Group, BMW AG, Deutsche Post AG, Renault S.A. (Nissan not included), Sinopec, The Boeing Company, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, United Technologies Corp., The Tokyo Electric Power Co., Inc., Bayer AG, Koch Industries, Inc., Barclays plc, Fujitsu, Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline plc, European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company EADS N.V., Telefónica S.A., Microsoft Corp., Tyco International Ltd., OAO Gazprom, Deutsche Bahn AG, Morgan Stanley, A. P. Møller - Mærsk, Intel Corp., Nokia, Sanofi-Aventis, BASF AG, Veolia Environnement SA, Petróleo Brasileiro S.A., Mizuho Financial Group, Inc., HypoVereinsbank AG, BHP Billiton, Swiss Re Co., Roche Group, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Celesio Group, Air France-KLM S.A., Norsk Hydro ASA, Alcan Inc., Anglo American plc, American Express, Airbus S.A.S., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., KBC Group NV, Merck & Co., Inc., Raytheon Co., Bridgestone Corp., AstraZeneca plc, Deutsche Lufthansa AG, Halliburton Energy Services, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc., Electronic Data Systems Corp., PricewaterhouseCoopers, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., CGE Michelin, Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Mars, Inc., Japan Post, Alliance Unichem plc, Vattenfall AB, CRH plc, Loews Corp., Deloitte Touche, Tohmatsu, Fortum Oyj, Bombardier Inc, Continental AG, BAE Systems plc, Apple Computer, Inc., Ernst & Young, Henkel KGaA, Mitsubishi Corp., Nike, Inc., Linde AG, Marsh & McLennan Co., Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler, Coop Norden, Koç Holding A.S., Sun Microsystems, Inc., ICA AB, Telenor, All Nippon Airways Co., Ltd.

 

 

 

And the point is that although these companies are financial, science, engineering etc, within those companies you will have press department (media degree), marketing, HR, PR (media again - not such a soft option IMO), IT, design, procurement etc etc. Within those departments you can still be a big player and I feel that any degree incl history and media you could rise to the top.

[Chinahand]

Albert: I don't know how interested anyone else is ... but the Economist article below seems to give some facts on the issue. In fact it looks like it is saying things we both agree about, ie in favour of targeted skills, against dumbed down courses etc. But this whole discussion started with iom_cb discussing doing a history degree at Lancaster ... believe me this is not a dumbed down course ... if he said media studies I'd probably be on your side of the fence, but generally the increase in graduates is good, and the idea these people all need hard science or engineering courses is plain silly.

 

Graduate employment prospects

 

Engineering a shortage

Jan 6th 2005

From The Economist print edition

 

The strange supposed shortage of scientists and engineers

 

POLITICIANS and businessmen are worried by Britain's shortage of scientists. Industry regularly bemoans the dearth of technically minded employees. Science was a big theme in the chancellor's pre-budget report last month. And it is a favourite subject for Lord Sainsbury, the minister responsible.

 

But the market demurs. According to a report from UK GRAD, a government-funded group, science and engineering graduates have the highest rate of unemployment, at every level from first degree (see chart) to PhD. And although, when they do find work, their salaries are slightly higher than average, they are rising more slowly than most. The average Briton got a 3.2% wage hike last year, but scientists and engineers had to make do with 2.4%. “It's very difficult to show that there's a shortage from the data,” says Nick Jagger of the Institute for Employment Studies.

 

What's going on? For engineers, the problem is too much learning. Graduates are plentiful; it is technicians that are in short supply. “We need about 10,000 apprentices a year, but we're only getting 6,000,” says a spokesman for the Engineering Employers' Federation. Pay data backs this up: according to the Engineering Technology Board, salaries for technicians have risen by 15.2% since 2000, compared with 9.5% for chartered engineers.

 

But the government's determination to push more teenagers through university means that youngsters that might otherwise have left school at 16 and got a vocational qualification are being persuaded to study for degrees instead. Universities are encouraged to offer less rigorous courses, because they are paid according to the number of students they attract and keep.

 

The result is not too few good-quality graduates but too many poorly-trained ones. Financial services firms in the City offer big salaries to the brightest, which suggests that Britain has more need of good-quality accountants and derivatives traders than engineering graduates. The large engineering groups cherry-pick the best of the rest, leaving a rump of mediocre, expensively-educated graduates who often end up in jobs that technicians could do just as well.

 

Scientists' problems are different: rather than too much learning, many of them have the wrong sort. Richard Smith of the Science, Engineering and Manufacturing Technologies Alliance, an employers' organisation, complains that there are too many graduates with degrees in subjects that are popular with students but not with employers. Forensic science is one example. Police dramas have made it a popular undergraduate degree, meaning that universities increasingly offer it at the expense of more rigorous courses like chemistry. There were no forensic science courses offered in Britain in 1990; now there are more than 50. The result is a glut: Mr Smith reckons that there are about 2,000 forensic science students graduating every year, but only 100 jobs for them to fill—and these usually require a post-graduate qualification, not just a first degree.

 

Government policy plays a part here, too: chemistry and physics are expensive to teach compared with watered-down degrees like forensic science, and the universities get the same amount of money either way. But universities will make money only if they offer courses that are popular with students, who seem content to ignore what the market is telling them. That may be the result of state-funded higher education. If students had to pay the full cost of their courses, then employment prospects might loom larger in their minds when deciding what to study.

[Albert Tatlock]

And the point is that although these companies are financial, science, engineering etc, within those companies you will have press department (media degree), marketing, HR, PR (media again - not such a soft option IMO), IT, design, procurement etc etc. Within those departments you can still be a big player and I feel that any degree incl history and media you could rise to the top.

Though the next generation are more likely to have to move abroad to do so, as there will be no point in locating science or engineering companies (i.e. any of the world's largest companies) in the UK when there will be few engineers, scientists or technicians available to work them.

 

IMHO, the real danger of sticking our head in the sand, is that with less and less control of major world industries the UK will have no choice but to offer nothing but services to those that own them at prices that will have to compete with service workers in China, India and Eastern Europe, who will soon be equipped to offer them (and since it will be their own culture they will be selling to - they are more likely to get the contract).

 

India last year produced more IT graduates than all graduates in the UK - the bulk of whom speak English. India had a total of 48.7 million graduates in 2004, up sharply from 20.5 million in 1991. And while just around 29 per cent of those enrolled for graduate courses went in for science in 1995-96, this is now up to 35 per cent.

 

Eventually UK living standards will decline or at best match theirs (our higher standard of living is currently at their expense), UK recessions will become more frequent and deeper because we will offer nothing but services and be dependent on how those abroad perform and thus be the first into every recession and the last out. The advance of computer and telecommunications technology will only serve to speed this process as companies immediately connect to the cheapest supplier or worker anywhere in the world.

 

You might think this is an over exageration - but you only have to look at what's happening in the world to see the trends. Yesterday British Industry called for no limits on the number of Bulgarian and Romanian workers that will come into the UK. Surely, we as individuls are not going to benefit from that, only companies will benefit, and if your job or your loved ones job gets taken by a Bulgarian in five years (equally qualified and willing to work for half the money) and then eventually the company moves out to Bulgaria to take advantage of the cheaper labour there (manufacturing or finance sector) - please don't act all surprised.

 

IMHO, all this because we have decided not to invent and make things anymore and do not value our scientists, engineers and technicians. Worse than that we can't even be arsed to learn their languages so it will probably be even more dire. Over the next 20 years I suspect we are going to see a gradual but major realignment of the world's economy from West to East - and the bulk of workers in the UK will be some of the biggest losers.

[Foxtrotlima]

I have just spoken to him now, he has had his interview for Sixth form and has been accepted.

 

Thanks all for your kind comments, I have passed them onto him and I know he will be even more determined now.

 

 

Congratulations to him BB