![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I probably don’t need anything more than the title for this one. I mean, who the hell would ever think it was a good a idea to let McDonald’s issue qualifications “equivalent to A-levels”? I’ve nothing against on-the-job training, of course: that’s a good thing. And businesses sponsoring people to study for recognised qualifications, and so on: all good.
But letting businesses issue qualifications that have that equivalence? I thought we were supposed to be worried about the devaluing of A-levels; it seems unlikely that allowing commercial interests to issue them (or their “equivalents”) will do anything other than further lower their value.
And I feel bound to say: would you like fries with your certificate, sir or madam?
This entry was automatically crossposted from my blog, A Labourer at the Bitface. You can comment here on LJ, but it might be nice if you commented over there.
(no subject)
I would hope that vocational qualifications (whether certificate or diploma or City and Guilds) would be done to a serious and validated level. And if you can learn to be a builder on an apprenticeship scheme and get a C&G for that (or a plumber or a welder or an electrician), then why not allow large hotel chains to issue an equivalent in Hotel Management, provided it is a validated set of training courses and the person has passed them. The only thing that having external examiners for a different "company" (which is what is mostly happening with A-Levels anyway) does is give a spurious feeling of confidence in grade based on the (seeming) lack of dodginess of the issuing authority.
But while I can argue against you, secretly I agree with you :-)
(no subject)
Aye, I know what you mean. As I said, on-the-job training, vocational qualifications, all fine. And so I suppose that if McDonald's are to issue qualifications in working on (or running) a fast-food franchise, then there's nothing wrong with it.
But the "equivalent to A-levels" sounds like it means, "interchangeable with A-levels", and I don't think that should be the case. But then, maybe that's not what is meant. The reporting of this whole thing was a bit weak.