Social Engineering........

You surely have to be pretty bad at maths or English to fail at GCSE level. Are they excluding resits if someone had the misfortune to be ill?
Generally I do feel that too many young people go to university nowadays, many taking courses that are unlikely ever to lead to employment which pays enough for them to make any student loan repayments. So many would be far better taking a vocational course or starting an apprenticeship.

Serious illness? Trauma? So if a child has had one bad year, they are forever banned from accessing university. That's woeful.

Although there will (and should) be exceptions, generally speaking if you can't pass GCSE Maths and English you would find it hard to cope at university. Whatever you study there's a need to be reasonably literate.

That’s why I asked Fran if they were proposing to exclude resits. I doubt they would as that could be grossly unfair.

The BBC says Students who lack English and maths GCSEs, or two A-levels at grade E, would not qualify for a student loan in England, under new plans.
It says there will be exemptions.
I understand there will also be a consultation paper.

These are proposals for discussions, intended to reduce the number of students accepted by universities who will clearly struggle with a university education. There is no insistence on forbidding re-sits as far as I am aware.

I honestly think 2E grades (or equivalent) are a minimum level.
I hope they apply the GCSE rules to foreign students too. My husband has had to teach students with very poor English.

That is setting the bar petty low. It's specifying a pass, not a particular high grade. I would think that there needs to be a minimum, with certain exceptions, to be able to get through a course.

Full paper on Higher education policy statement & reform consultation

t.co/jm1HCElaKT

Page 37:

As part of these plans, we will consider how we can support students to retake exams, to reach this level of attainment, where needed.

We want to address the specific problem of students starting undergraduate degrees, who are not yet qualified by ability or attainment to pursue them, and whose future outcomes in terms of financial benefit and employment are unlikely to be improved, at the current time, by level 6 (L6) study. Addressing this problem will help to ensure that taking up L6 study represents a fair investment for students, and those who would not benefit from L6 study are encouraged into high-quality alternative pathways, which will lead to better outcomes.

I agree with GSM, I do not see why this move should affect any pupil in any social group unduly. The proportion of people going to university without those qualifications must be very small anyway and there are usually exceptions made for those with any disability that makes achieving such standards impossible

I think further education needs a good shake-up with more non-degree training that is flexible, so that it can be acquired in bite size chunks.

In the 1960s and into the 70s most professions had multiple channels of entry with starting points being at every exam level from O level onwards. It was only in the 1980s-90s that the every profession decided that entry should only be by university, which excluded anyone who could not follow the traditional school to 18, 3 A levels, university degree course.

Back in the 1960s I had a boyfriend, plus also my best friend from school, who had family crises at 16, which ended their education. At 18-20 both were able to start training to be a Chrtered Accountant and a solicitor, respectively based on their Olevels, with a small salary. My school friend ended her legal career as a judge, so her lack of formal education did not hinder her career progression. What is needed is a return to this sort of flexible career entry.

Of course a university may not (and should not in my opinion) accept someone with poor grades unless there are extenuating circumstances.

I gained a 1st class degree from a good university when I was 50. No maths GCSE !!

I believe Fran said the proposal was to exclude those without an English or maths GCSE.

Germanshepherdsmum

You surely have to be pretty bad at maths or English to fail at GCSE level. Are they excluding resits if someone had the misfortune to be ill?
Generally I do feel that too many young people go to university nowadays, many taking courses that are unlikely ever to lead to employment which pays enough for them to make any student loan repayments. So many would be far better taking a vocational course or starting an apprenticeship.

Social disaffectation has a major affect on the education some children receive (think very challenging inner city school, with lots of classroom behaviour problems preventing learning). Also the education they are able to take on board if they are hungry / badly fed or have issues at home.

A pass is regarded as being a 4 or a 5 (out of 1-9) at GCSE.

This is just yet another way to keep the working classes down.
Why on earth should anyone be discouraged from getting an education?

I have to say, as an ex teacher and now as a private tutor, I would offer free help to seriously disadvantaged students to help them pass this barrier.

I loath this government more every day. And yet some will still vote for their 'nice' local Tory MP.

Shelflife

I gained a 1st class degree from a good university when I was 50. No maths GCSE !!

Exactly Shelflife. I left school with one O Level. Due to a horrific home life.

I'm now a post graduate and despite being a crone, due to my experience and qualifications, still have a good pick of jobs (should I want to give up being self-employed).

If I were 16 today, this government would be condemning me to living on benefits for the rest of my life, instead of being able to lift myself up out of poverty through education.

I have just learnt that this tory government have pushed through a new ruling which will mean that if a person once fails their Maths and.or English GCSE they will then no longer be eligible for anhy form of loan, e or funding for University and will have to be self-funding.

Does anyone have a link to the report that says this please?

Found it....

So astonished that anyone here can dismiss those who do not pass (first time)Maths and/or English GCSE as not worth having any further higher education.

Neither subjects are 'easy'. And for any student/pupil who may have mental health problems, be an unofficial carer for a parent at home, have their own medical problems, be hungry, be in a school where no subject qualified teachers have been available, etc. etc. they may not make the 'required grade to be a 'pass'. This is most definitely not say that they are not capable.

But.....this will now exclude them from obtaining a student loan towards fees, etc at any future university course.

To me this is totally disgusting.

The most unfair aspect of this is that it will further disadvantage the people who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. People who can afford to pay for their child’s university education are already paying, either via the loans system or independently. People who are less well off get the most help. So, young Percival whose dad is a stockbroker can fail his GCSE Maths 10 times and get into a university because he can pay, whereas young Johnny can’t because he failed Maths twice, even though he is a brilliant artist/writer/linguist or whatever, has a far higher IQ and would benefit more from a university education. It is social engineering.

Germanshepherdsmum

You surely have to be pretty bad at maths or English to fail at GCSE level. Are they excluding resits if someone had the misfortune to be ill?
Generally I do feel that too many young people go to university nowadays, many taking courses that are unlikely ever to lead to employment which pays enough for them to make any student loan repayments. So many would be far better taking a vocational course or starting an apprenticeship.

Not necessarily.
You surely have to be pretty bad at maths or English to fail at GCSE level.

I know a young woman who got nothing higher than a D in any GCSEs, left school and got a job.
Later, after becoming a single parent she decided she needed to better her prospects, took an OU degree then a Masters and has an excellent, well-paid, fulfilling career now.

You surely have to be pretty bad at maths or English to fail at GCSE level.

That should have been in quotes

Not necessarily!

When I went to university, Maths and English at 'O' level (as it was then) was a requirement. I hadn't realized it had stopped being.

I cannot understand why it has to be a first-time pass.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of some teachers on here, not all teaching is first-class.
Some pupils may fail then have the initiative to go to an evening classes to re-take the failed subject(s) at the same time as taking other A levels.
Schools offer re-takes in the 6th form too.
What about the pupils who just fail the first time but then gain an excellent pass the second time?

Will they be penalised for showing drive and initiative?

If I were 16 today, this government would be condemning me to live on benefits for the rest of my life…..

A lack of GCSE’s would be a disadvantage, certainly, but does not condemn you to a life on benefits.