Those of us running universities are directly challenged by the government's latest blueprint for the future, Higher Ambitions, to improve our efforts in widening participation through major culture change. Specifically, we are asked to provide opportunities to study "in a wider range of ways than in the past".
Among the government's proposals is the suggestion that universities should not use A-levels or diplomas alone as a guide to merit in determining access. There are sound reasons for contextualising results to give credit for school achievement relative to opportunity, and many universities already address this in thoughtful and creative ways.
However, the blueprint fails to consider the larger, structural problem that persists in the English education system despite recent reforms: that we channel young people into narrow pathways for learning.
At 14 or 15, they are encouraged to make choices in education in preparation for A-levels or diplomas and subsequent university entry. At this point many will abandon a foreign language, and by 16, large numbers will drop English and/or maths. By year 11, most will focus on a relatively restricted combination of subjects and grades to position themselves for a degree programme.
Recent reform, including diplomas and the introduction of a modular structure, applied subjects and the extended project, have gone some way to addressing the perceived narrowness of A-levels, but significant challenges remain.
Universities could positively influence the process but, currently, exacerbate the problem by continuing to rely on A-levels as the primary form of assessment for entry, and by offering students an ever increasing number of specialised degree programmes. Young people learn more and more about less and less.
Such a system ultimately serves students and universities poorly, and is out of step with what many young people say they want, and also with their likely working lives after graduation.
The 2009 National Student Forum Report, published a week ahead of the government blueprint, gives clear guidance on what young people want. Increasingly, it says, they are looking for a personalised education, offering "courses that are flexible, yet structured, and develop transferable skills". The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) report, Future Fit: Preparing Graduates for the World of Work, signals employers are equally clear about the value of "soft skills", such as abstract reasoning, problem-solving, communication and teamwork, together with specialised knowledge and technical skills.
We need to prepare students for a future work environment far more complex and changeable than their parents', and for jobs that may not yet exist. For many, the conventional career "ladder" will be replaced by what has been described as a career "lattice", where they will move upwards, laterally, stop and then start in new directions.
Having recently returned to UK higher education from Australia, the contrast between the narrow specialisation of Britain and the broader-based education in Australia is striking. There, the final two years of high school education require students to complete 12 preliminary units of study in year 11 (some of which can be "double" units), and 10 higher school certificate (HSC) units in year 12. At least two must be English units.
Leading universities such as Melbourne and Sydney have broadened their early undergraduate education to offer something that is a hybrid between the US and the UK, with an increasing proportion of professional qualifications offered as second stage or graduate-entry programmes.
Universities in the UK have consistently demonstrated their ability to accept home students with the international baccalaureate, and international students with more broadly based school qualifications, such as the HSC from Australia.
There is little evidence to suggest that these students are any less well equipped for university education in the UK, or suffer higher drop-out rates or poorer outcomes, compared with students with A-levels. Several universities, including my own, the University of Southampton, are examining ways in which they can better cater for students who arrive at university after A-levels with no fixed career direction and who want to undertake a more flexible, customised educational programme.
Twenty years ago, when a former Southampton vice-chancellor, Gordon Higginson, chaired a government review of the A-level system, his committee reported that the most frequent criticism of A-levels was "that the programmes of study are too narrow and that the system encourages premature specialisation".
The report provided evidence from industry, commerce and education, they said, indicating "overwhelming support for increased breadth in the programmes of A-level students". There was also support for the country to follow other developed nations, which "provide educational breadth for the 16–19 age group" and "recognise the national economic benefits arising from a broadly educated and adaptable workforce".
The committee's conclusion was that we should follow suit, and it recommended five "leaner, tougher" A-level courses. These recommendations were reportedly vetoed by the then prime minister, Margaret Thatcher.
The case for reform of A-levels has been widely recognised since then, but there is more to do. The case remains for revisiting university entry requirements, and for greater flexibility and adaptability in university curriculum structure. It is as compelling today as it was in Gordon Higginson's time.
Among the government's proposals is the suggestion that universities should not use A-levels or diplomas alone as a guide to merit in determining access. There are sound reasons for contextualising results to give credit for school achievement relative to opportunity, and many universities already address this in thoughtful and creative ways.
However, the blueprint fails to consider the larger, structural problem that persists in the English education system despite recent reforms: that we channel young people into narrow pathways for learning.
At 14 or 15, they are encouraged to make choices in education in preparation for A-levels or diplomas and subsequent university entry. At this point many will abandon a foreign language, and by 16, large numbers will drop English and/or maths. By year 11, most will focus on a relatively restricted combination of subjects and grades to position themselves for a degree programme.
Recent reform, including diplomas and the introduction of a modular structure, applied subjects and the extended project, have gone some way to addressing the perceived narrowness of A-levels, but significant challenges remain.
Universities could positively influence the process but, currently, exacerbate the problem by continuing to rely on A-levels as the primary form of assessment for entry, and by offering students an ever increasing number of specialised degree programmes. Young people learn more and more about less and less.
Such a system ultimately serves students and universities poorly, and is out of step with what many young people say they want, and also with their likely working lives after graduation.
The 2009 National Student Forum Report, published a week ahead of the government blueprint, gives clear guidance on what young people want. Increasingly, it says, they are looking for a personalised education, offering "courses that are flexible, yet structured, and develop transferable skills". The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) report, Future Fit: Preparing Graduates for the World of Work, signals employers are equally clear about the value of "soft skills", such as abstract reasoning, problem-solving, communication and teamwork, together with specialised knowledge and technical skills.
We need to prepare students for a future work environment far more complex and changeable than their parents', and for jobs that may not yet exist. For many, the conventional career "ladder" will be replaced by what has been described as a career "lattice", where they will move upwards, laterally, stop and then start in new directions.
Having recently returned to UK higher education from Australia, the contrast between the narrow specialisation of Britain and the broader-based education in Australia is striking. There, the final two years of high school education require students to complete 12 preliminary units of study in year 11 (some of which can be "double" units), and 10 higher school certificate (HSC) units in year 12. At least two must be English units.
Leading universities such as Melbourne and Sydney have broadened their early undergraduate education to offer something that is a hybrid between the US and the UK, with an increasing proportion of professional qualifications offered as second stage or graduate-entry programmes.
Universities in the UK have consistently demonstrated their ability to accept home students with the international baccalaureate, and international students with more broadly based school qualifications, such as the HSC from Australia.
There is little evidence to suggest that these students are any less well equipped for university education in the UK, or suffer higher drop-out rates or poorer outcomes, compared with students with A-levels. Several universities, including my own, the University of Southampton, are examining ways in which they can better cater for students who arrive at university after A-levels with no fixed career direction and who want to undertake a more flexible, customised educational programme.
Twenty years ago, when a former Southampton vice-chancellor, Gordon Higginson, chaired a government review of the A-level system, his committee reported that the most frequent criticism of A-levels was "that the programmes of study are too narrow and that the system encourages premature specialisation".
The report provided evidence from industry, commerce and education, they said, indicating "overwhelming support for increased breadth in the programmes of A-level students". There was also support for the country to follow other developed nations, which "provide educational breadth for the 16–19 age group" and "recognise the national economic benefits arising from a broadly educated and adaptable workforce".
The committee's conclusion was that we should follow suit, and it recommended five "leaner, tougher" A-level courses. These recommendations were reportedly vetoed by the then prime minister, Margaret Thatcher.
The case for reform of A-levels has been widely recognised since then, but there is more to do. The case remains for revisiting university entry requirements, and for greater flexibility and adaptability in university curriculum structure. It is as compelling today as it was in Gordon Higginson's time.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar