I am currently doing my GCSE exams which are what precede A levels in England. In my school we do 9 subjects for these and then drop 5 of them for A level. This means that after spending between 2 to 8 years (some subjects are started later) learning a subject we take a exam which last a few hours and then never need to think about it ever again. This seems a bit wasteful to me in terms of time, effort and simple resources like paper and ink. Although the paper in England is usually from sustainable sources it still uses energy to manufacture and to recycle.

I guess I just find it worrying that I have spend a sizeable chunk of my adolescent life working hard towards something which allows me to continue working hard at a higher level. First I wanted to be in a good set at primary school. Then I wanted to get into a good secondary school, then I needed to prove I was good enough to do so many GCSEs which would prove I was suitable for A levels. This allows me to go to university and work hard for a degree which just might, if I am lucky, get me a good job where I can continue to work to make money to buy things for myself. In this time I will have probably forgotten around 90% of what I learnt to get to the next step of the system. I have studied three languages, three humanities (RS geography and history), English literature and English language, all of which I have now dropped and will never need to learn again because I now only need to learn science and maths. At university I probably only do physics. Why does it take about 14 years (this might vary depending on country) of my life to show society that I can go and learn physics at university when I could probably have learnt the same physics just fro videos and articles on the Internet?

So, here are few questions for you to discuss:

• Should education be about testing children's ability?
• Should things which do not help this be removed from the system?
• Should it be more accurate as a measurement of value?
• Should it be about preparing children for life?
• Should we learn fewer or more subjects?
• Do you support and approve of your countries education system?
• How much should be spent on education?
• How long should we be educated for?

2nd edit: Answer as many or as few of the questions as you want. You do not need to even answer or reference the questions, they are there as guidelines. Any other opinions on the subject are welcome but please be articulate

Edit: I would also like to know which subjects you think should be taught at schools from what ages.

*Should education be about testing children's ability?
I don't think it is...not in my school anyways. However, those who aren't as 'smart' as others will be put in simpler classes. Those put in simpler classes can then progress to the higher classes if they are doing well. For example, I used to be in the lowest set of Maths and now I am one set away from the top set out of 4 sets. Testing their ability though, does help the education system decide the best area for that child so they can work in a way they are comfortable with. I kind of read the question wrong... I think. If you are talking about their qualities outside of life. No. Most of the time a test determines what you remember than what you are capable of.

*Should things which do not help this be removed from the system?
Well...all subjects help you one way or another. You said you could learn physics from videos and articles? You could, but it won't be as effective without a teacher telling you whats wrong and right and judging your work. Yes you could learn from the internet but you could also do both. Just to add: A lot of universities require the applicant to have studies certain subjects weather that be All Sciences or History.

*Should it be more accurate as a measurement of value?
It could be but every kid is different and they all have different life opportunities and ambitions. Schools must make sure they try to give every child a fair chance. While you don't want to learn English maybe other students need to. So the school teaches them that subject while trying to teach you at the same time? And when you fully understand it you can request to take that GCSE early. I don't know if all schools do that though.

*Should it be about preparing children for life?
99% of the time it is.

*Should we learn fewer or more subjects?
Well, In my school we learn: English, Maths, Science, Life Studies, Religious Studies, Physical Education, History, Geography, Art, Drama, Music & Technology. I may be missing a few. But the point is that a few of those subjects are pointless to you but may everything to another child. For example, if they let all kids have the freedom of choosing a subject they want its a bad idea. They would most likely choose the fun subjects as they are kids and they probably aren't that serious about life yet. I am talking about 14's-16's right now. I think the amount of subjects we learn right now are fine. Extra subjects can be learnt at home. Maybe not as effectively but they can still be learnt at home. Since my school doesn't teach game designing I do it at home. It's not as better as having somebody to guide you but it gets the job done in the end.

*Do you support or approve of your countries education system?
I used to think it was alright until they said ALL children must now go to college. I don't really want to go to college if I get out of Highschool with good grades. I want to skip college and go to University but now college is taking up time I could be spending doing something I can be taught best at Uni (Game designing, 3D Enviroment specifically).

*How much should be spent on education?
With how many jobs are being taken and even stolen in some cases. More should be spent to determine a certain child gets the best grades. In the end you are competing with your friends to live a better life.

*How long should we be educated for?
I think the amount of time right now is fine. Which is around 14 years but there is always university if you need more education.

I hope I answered these well enough for you.

• No
• Like what?
• Why?
• Yes.
• More.
• Not particularly.
• A lot more than currently is.
• Mandatory education? Up until legal adulthood.

Things which are not useful for exams: subjects which will be dropped by pupils before they take important examinations in them. Things we learn which are not in the syllabus for exams (most of which is more interesting than the exam syllabus).

Why: the system of examining subjects currently can be affected by the students situations and it doesn't take into account skills which might be useful for life. Nevertheless, as you said, education should probably not just be and examination machine, so, in my opinion, this aspect of education should be reduced rather than enhanced.

Please also be more articulate about your opinion to keep this interesting.

My answers are for the UK's education system only.

English and maths should be more primarily focused until A Levels. There are two reasons for this:
1. It has now been made mandatory for students to pass both of these subjects in their GCSE exams, in order to leave school. Putting time into a variety of subjects (like geography, citizenship, art) isn't time well spent, especially since most students won't continue with these subjects. If the system narrowed the number of subjects down for students, more time will be available for the more important subjects, such as english, maths, science and ~physical education~ (which I think should also be mandatory for A Level students due to the declining health rates).
2. English and maths are required for more jobs than any other subjects. In an application form, english and maths grades are always looked at first and make a huge difference to the outcome of a decision.

Other miscellaneous subjects (such as geography and business) can be easily learnt online. They're hardly necessary for the earlier stages of a child's life.

Our education system has also fucked up my life.

So you don't thing education should focus more in the development of students as people but that it should be a CV form and qualification machine?

I believe the whole geometric gridding and ordering, with numbers, codes, rules, regulations, barcodes, etc. takes the whole learning/testing aspect out of an exam and makes it like some freaking police identity registration. It puts me off, makes me nervous, and stops me learning, especially when the teachers start talking in exam speak way before the exams, like "you've got this set and you've got to meet this criteria and have this bullet point and meet this deadline and this many pages and exam board and" blah blah blah. It goes straight through my head. Unless they bother to be a bit more ear-friendly with their words, I can't learn anything.

School should only be the road to getting a half-decent job, or better.
The developmental side to it is nonsense. If school has taught me anything, it is that people are shallow. I had no intention of making friends or raising my social-status to fit into a degrading society.
Approximately 10 years of my life were wasted because of our education system.

I think sort of agree. I wish that the education actually admitted what it was rather than preaching "giving children space to grow" and other advertising bllshit.

That having been said I think that children who go to school tend to be better at forming social connections than those who are home schooled. We learn more at school than the syllabus. You make teaching children how shallow the world is sound like a bad thing. If people don't learn that bit everyone can be trusted when they lose a friendship as school then they will probably learn as an adult when they lose a considerable proportion of their life's savings to a con artist or a scam (just over priced things in general).

On the other hand now a days the Internet can teach us things like this and 12 year olds will probably lose a considerable proportion of their parents life savings to micro transactions in "free2play" mobile games.

You offer an interesting view point and for that I thank you (this way of ordering my words probably makes me sound like an arrogant smartass...)

You make a good point about trust, etc.
Personally, I just think that since we have the internet and all this technology, the education system needs to advance to the next level. This is a totally new and different generation, which requires evolution from all kinds of systems and areas.

To further discussion, I'd like to go back to my point about physical education.
A couple of months ago there was a small debate in my college on whether or not PE should be mandatory in schools. One of the arguments was that PE is irrelevant to learning and should be the parent's job, not the school's job.
Now, I totally disagree with these points... Who in their right mind would think that all parents are completely competent with their children's health? I cannot imagine a simple household creating an exercise routine for their children. Especially not in today's society.
It just wouldn't happen. I know I'm not the only one who finds it uncomfortable to look at obese people... Thoughts?