GCSE pass levels causing confusion over university entry

[A Challenge]

We had to learn quotes from 18 poems and end up only using 1 of them (to compare to another that had been printed on the exam paper). We also had to learn quotes from a Shakespeare play, pre 1914 prose and a post 1914 play. We weren't allowed to take any texts into the exam.

Sent from my HTC Desire 530 using Tapatalk

It is silly your not allowed texts. The poetry bit sounds horrible, but it was guaranteed you'd only need one or two...

 

[northwichcat]

We had to learn quotes from 18 poems and end up only using 1 of them (to compare to another that had been printed on the exam paper). We also had to learn quotes from a Shakespeare play, pre 1914 prose and a post 1914 play. We weren't allowed to take any texts into the exam.

Sent from my HTC Desire 530 using Tapatalk

In comparison when I did English Lit we had an exam board issued Anthology to take in to the exam and could take our own copy of To Kill a Mockingbird in, as long as we didn't write loads of helpful notes in it. We also had to do a Willie Russell play and a Shakespeare book for coursework, as well as a comparison between a 19th century text and a 20th century one. That was well before Gove started changing everything though.

 

[roversfan2001]

It is silly your not allowed texts. The poetry bit sounds horrible, but it was guaranteed you'd only need one or two...

That's the worst thing. We had to learn 18 poems knowing knowledge of 17 of them would be wasted.

Sent from my HTC Desire 530 using Tapatalk

 

[cf111]

Sounds something like what is now the "old" Scottish system of Standard Grades, the rough equivalent to GCSEs. The grading ran from 1-7:

1-2 Credit
3-4 General
5-6 Foundation
7 Ungraded (fail)

Kids would sit two final exams at the end of their fourth year in secondary school, if you were in one of the top streams you would sit the Credit and General papers, middle and bottom streams the General and Foundation papers.

Seems a lifetime away for me now!

 

[Nym]

We had to learn quotes from 18 poems and end up only using 1 of them (to compare to another that had been printed on the exam paper). We also had to learn quotes from a Shakespeare play, pre 1914 prose and a post 1914 play. We weren't allowed to take any texts into the exam.

Sent from my HTC Desire 530 using Tapatalk

And how is any of this relevant to real life? Unless you're going to quote scriptures to sound like a prick?

 

[cactustwirly]

We had to learn quotes from 18 poems and end up only using 1 of them (to compare to another that had been printed on the exam paper). We also had to learn quotes from a Shakespeare play, pre 1914 prose and a post 1914 play. We weren't allowed to take any texts into the exam.

Sent from my HTC Desire 530 using Tapatalk

I did my GCSEs 2 years ago, we were given a clean copy of the texts in the exam. Though I assume your questions would be easier than mine.
Do you still get the data sheets in the science exams?

I know how you're feeling, I've had the reformed A level, which like the GCSEs has been much harder than the previous spec.

For the new science A levels, 20% of each paper has to test GCSE B grade Maths and English.

 

[roversfan2001]

And how is any of this relevant to real life? Unless you're going to quote scriptures to sound like a prick?

I fully agree with you. It's completely irrelevant. I'm not even expecting to pass it and I'm expected to get A/B/7/8s in everything.

Sent from my HTC Desire 530 using Tapatalk

 

[Merseysider]

Having spoken to a few teachers, it seems like there's been a real lack of oversight and foreplanning in the way the new spec is implemented, with teachers given barely sufficent time to adjust their teaching style and learning materials.

It seems like government (both Tories/previous Labour) is always determined to 'fix' things before they break, yet in doing so make it more difficult for teachers to familiarise themselves with a constantly 'evolving' curriculum, which has potential knock-on effects on pupils' education.

This lack of consistency has, in part, led to the highest teacher turnover in a decade and furthermore, almost half of all teachers consider quitting within 5 years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's easy for pupils, but it's certainly a hell of a lot harder for the teachers (I've spoken to) who've had to immerse themselves in paperwork and textbooks each summer preparing themselves for the latest rehashing of the curriculum.

 

[Bromley boy]

And how is any of this relevant to real life? Unless you're going to quote scriptures to sound like a prick?

I agree, at first sight, analysing abstract poems doesn't seem relevant to "real life". Then again, when you really stop and think about it, the basic skills this subject teaches are very relevant indeed.

Whatever we end up doing in our adult lives, we all have to read and critically analyse texts from various sources. Indeed those of us commenting on this forum are using precisely these skills.

GCSE English Lit is also meant to give 16yos a taster of the kind of analytical skills that will be required (and developed) if they pursue that subject at A level and degree level.

I suppose the point of all GCSE subjects is to build these basic skills in the general population as well as providing a "shop window " so that students can get an of idea of which subjects play to their strengths and those which they might like to study further.

 

[roversfan2001]

GCSE English Lit is also meant to give 16yos a taster of the kind of analytical skills that will be required (and developed) if they pursue that subject at A level and degree level.

Which is all well and good if it wasn't a compulsory subject like English Language and Maths. Meaning anyone with absolutely no intention of taking English Lit at any level (ie me, and many others) have to suffer 2 years of a time consuming and uninteresting subject in addition to the options taken.

(I don't know if it is compulsory, I'm basing this off my school and other schools in the area making it compulsory for students, whether the government say so or not)

Sent from my HTC Desire 530 using Tapatalk

 

[Bromley boy]

Which is all well and good if it wasn't a compulsory subject like English Language and Maths. Meaning anyone with absolutely no intention of taking English Lit at any level (ie me, and many others) have to suffer 2 years of a time consuming and uninteresting subject in addition to the options taken.

(I don't know if it is compulsory, I'm basing this off my school and other schools in the area making it compulsory for students, whether the government say so or not)

Sent from my HTC Desire 530 using Tapatalk

I guess it depends on what the government at the time considers to be relevant enough as a foundation skill to make compulsory.

I had to suffer through French and religious education which I would argue are far less relevant (in the skills they develop) than English lit. It gets far better at A level and beyond where you can specialise in your interests.

Not to sound patronising but you may find some of the skills you hate practicing at GCSE suddenly suddenly seem far more relevant in later life when you're reading a report from a solicitor on a property you're buying, or when someone's paying you to write a critical report on a text someone else has written for work etc.

I never had much interest in maths but I'm very glad I suffered through the GCSE, in hindsight!

 

[Starmill]

On the one hand these new GCSEs look just like the old ones but with more difficult and far more stressful assessment methods. Given spending 6 years on an exam treadmill of a couple of months of intense stress to the point that you can think of little else at any time of the day (which has been my - generally highly successful - approach to exams) has probably caused most or all of the mental health weaknesses I'm now stuck with, I have a lot of sympathy for anyone doing reformed GCSEs - or anyone doing some reformed ones and some not... which is just crazy.

On the other hand, the gap between completing my GCSEs and doing the first unit of AS level was such a chasm that that year was definitely the worst one of my life so far. I had no idea what I was doing and despite getting all A*/A grades at GCSE I felt I was incapable of doing A Levels at all (Imposter Syndrome). It's tempting to say just working harder in year 11 will make that jump easier, but I am not sure that these reforms will actually have that effect. Not everyone is like me, but also I am not really sure there is a way to live in the society we do and be happy and healthy while going through these assessments, given the weight we attach to them.

And then, like me, even if you do meet your expected A Level grades and get a place at a Russell Group University and spend 3 years there you can still end up with very little indeed other than a mountain of debt (student loan and other) and feeling like you have no way to improve your situation. The exam system can hold you back, but I find it very difficult to see how it can move you forward. You have to both be very, very good at exams and everything else in life, and it's neither realistic or a good way to raise children.

 

[Bayum]

Shouldn't affect anyone yet, though for Uni applications GCSEs don't really matter (they're really after the 3 A level grades)

The A levels have also been recently reformed, I was the first year to take them, and they have kept the A*-C grades.

IMO the GCSEs should never have been reformed, they were reformed in 2009 and 2013 (I think? though it was very minor).

At my secondary, after our exams we 'transitioned' into 6th form and spent our time working with tutors to research the courses we wanted to read and wrote our personal statement from there. It will affect some students right at this very moment.

 

[Bromley boy]

Please delete - duplicated post.

 

[Bromley boy]

On the one hand these new GCSEs look just like the old ones but with more difficult and far more stressful assessment methods. Given spending 6 years on an exam treadmill of a couple of months of intense stress to the point that you can think of little else at any time of the day (which has been my - generally highly successful - approach to exams) has probably caused most or all of the mental health weaknesses I'm now stuck with, I have a lot of sympathy for anyone doing reformed GCSEs - or anyone doing some reformed ones and some not... which is just crazy.

On the other hand, the gap between completing my GCSEs and doing the first unit of AS level was such a chasm that that year was definitely the worst one of my life so far. I had no idea what I was doing and despite getting all A*/A grades at GCSE I felt I was incapable of doing A Levels at all (Imposter Syndrome). It's tempting to say just working harder in year 11 will make that jump easier, but I am not sure that these reforms will actually have that effect. Not everyone is like me, but also I am not really sure there is a way to live in the society we do and be happy and healthy while going through these assessments, given the weight we attach to them.

And then, like me, even if you do meet your expected A Level grades and get a place at a Russel Group University and spend 3 years there you can still end up with very little indeed other than a mountain of debt (student loan and other) and feeling like you have no way to improve your situation. The exam system can hold you back, but I find it very difficult to see how it can move you forward. You have to both be very, very good at exams and everything else in life, and it's neither realistic or a good way to raise children.

Congratulations on doing that, its a massive achievement. You're quite right. A decent degree from a Russel group university will guarantee you precisely nothing. However it will put you into the top few % of graduates that the decent graduate employers will look seriously at.

I'd warn you, be prepared for an even greater gulf in expectations between A level and degree level (particularly at a Russel group).

I went into my (Russell group) law degree expecting it to be the same as my A levels. The first year was a massive wake up call. The level of work to get the (stellar) A level results required for entry suddenly wasn't enough - you suddenly become a small fish in a very big pond - a different ballgame entirely.

Unfortunately the stress and anxiety of performing well in exams at school and university continues. So use it as a learning experience! You'll graduate, start work, then you'll need to deliver in order to sustain your job. That pressure can really weigh down on you, especially when your job is what keeps a roof above your head.

 

[Starmill]

Thank you for the measure of encouragement Bromley boy. Unfortunately, I fear I have not been quite as clear as I could - I am at the end of my 3 years of University, not the start! I am still probably as unhappy as I have ever been, and left with very very little idea of what to do with my life - and not, yet, an actual degree. But now I have no money to live off and £43k of student debt to show for it.

 

[Starmill]

I thought this, from the Russel Group's 'Informed Choices' booklet might inform debate:

Changes to GCSEs

GCSEs in England are going through a process of reform. A number of
revised GCSEs were brought it in 2015 and 2016 with further subjects to
be phased-in from 2017. Instead of the previous A*-G system, the new
GCSEs will be graded 9-1, with 9 being the highest grade.
The old and the new grading systems are not directly comparable which
means that universities are working to review their GCSE requirements
under the new system. For example a C grade can be aligned with both
a 4 and a 5 and equivalencies will vary from one university to another.
Students in Wales and Northern Ireland will continue to undertake
GCSEs graded A*-G, so universities and colleges will display GCSEs both
alphabetically and numerically. However, universities and colleges will be
clear about their criteria in their entry requirements.
You should always check individual university websites for more detail on
their grade requirements for GCSEs.
There is more information on qualification reform on the UCAS website:
https://www.ucas.com/advisers/guides-and-resources/
qualification-reform

The English Baccalaureate

The English Baccalaureate was introduced as a performance measure
for schools in England in the 2010 performance tables. It is not a
qualification. The measure recognises where pupils have achieved
a C grade or better at GCSE in English, Mathematics, History or
Geography, two sciences and a Modern or Ancient Language. From 2014
Computer Science has been included as a science option in the English
Baccalaureate performance measure.
As this document demonstrates, the English Baccalaureate includes
academic subjects highly valued by the Russell Group, but it is not
currently required for entry to any Russell Group university. As
mentioned above, most universities require English and Maths. A few
may also require a Modern Foreign Language. Successful applicants are normally expected to have achieved good grades in a range of subjects
at GCSE or equivalent, and to meet any specific requirements for their
chosen course.

http://russellgroup.ac.uk/media/5457/informed-choices-2016.pdf

 

[Bromley boy]

Thank you for the measure of encouragement Bromley boy. Unfortunately, I fear I have not been quite as clear as I could - I am at the end of my 3 years of University, not the start! I am still probably as unhappy as I have ever been, and left with very very little idea of what to do with my life - and not, yet, an actual degree. But now I have no money to live off and £43k of student debt to show for it.

Ah ok that clarifies things.

In that case I'd say focus on getting the best degree result you can. Hopefully you've chosen a subject you're good at and are able to come up with a decent degree result. You're at a RG so stand a decent chance of gaining a good job upon graduation.

Above all, job wise, I'd say focus on your interests. My RG law degree, that I sweated blood for, got me into a city career I didn't particularly enjoy. However it bought me my flat and paid me well enough throughout my 20s to give me the freedom to take a long hard look at myself in my early 30s and choose to take a very different path career wise. I still don't know what I want to be when I grow up , but I'm relatively financially secure.

The debt levels students incur these days are ridiculous - they're something I count myself very lucky I never had to contend with. Unfortunately they are a product of far too many people going to university to pursue completely pointless degrees. The saving grace is that it isn't a "hard" debt you need to repay every month - its more like a graduate tax you don't really notice as it's deducted like PAYE from your salary and only becomes payable above a certain earnings threshold.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Sounds something like what is now the "old" Scottish system of Standard Grades, the rough equivalent to GCSEs. The grading ran from 1-7:

1-2 Credit
3-4 General
5-6 Foundation
7 Ungraded (fail)

Kids would sit two final exams at the end of their fourth year in secondary school, if you were in one of the top streams you would sit the Credit and General papers, middle and bottom streams the General and Foundation papers.

Seems a lifetime away for me now!

Would "Foundation" have in practice been effectively considered to be a fail as well?

 

[Tetchytyke]

The level of work to get the (stellar) A level results required for entry suddenly wasn't enough - you suddenly become a small fish in a very big pond - a different ballgame entirely.

I'm in my last week of working as an adviser specialising in academic and money problems, before I move on to pastures new.

And this is one of the biggest problems I face in my job, the combination of significant costs and unrealistic expectations. If I had a pound for every student I saw who blamed everyone else for their failure I'd be a very very rich man indeed. These students are not used to doing badly and so they can't deal with it. It must be bad lecturers or biased examiners. They've "paid nine grand a year for their degree". Hmm.

I had a similar background, I came from a relatively poor school in Bradford and so I was at the top of the tree. At Durham in my law and politics degree I was very very average, and it took some getting used to. I got a 2:2. I didn't want the high-flying city career anyway, but what did (and still does) frustrate me is that we have to treat all degrees as equal when RG degrees are so much harder to obtain. With my professional experience now, I know for a fact I'd have got a 2:1 if I'd gone to the poly down the road.

Ah well. That was a bit of a rant.

Unfortunately they are a product of far too many people going to university to pursue completely pointless degrees.

I don't agree with that. They are a consequence of the Tories being far too wedded to the idea of an "open market" in everything, which is why there are now so many private providers of higher education hoovering up anyone who'll pay. Yes, I'm looking at you BPP University. Tuition fees stem out of a belief in "competition" in the "market", treating everyone as good little consumers, which is so misguided as to be hopeless.

The Tories, because they don't understand these things, thought fees would be competitively brought down. What's happened is the top universities charge top fees because they can, even though they don't need to because of their research income. Oxford and Cambridge could charge tuition fees of 50p a year and still make sackloads of cash from all their other revenue streams.

The lesser universities- who don't have research income- charge them because they have to. The whole system is idiotic.

But then the current system was devised by David Willetts- who reckons that feminism is to blame for the fact that men have to compete to get the best jobs now- so it's hardly a surprise it's idiotic.

 

[37038]

Personally I think the grading system was made unnecessarily complicated and the difficulty increased. At the end of the day an exam isn't a parrot-style test where you just spit memorised info straight back onto the page. It should be there to actually test your knowledge of the subject. This should have been reformed similar to how GCSEs used to be as the previous system was crud.

9 grades is overkill, we going to end up with a numerical equivalent of an A******* at some point? Where over time it's slowly diluted so even the lowest end up with an A?!
A*-E pass grades, U fail grade. Make everyone sit the same paper, no foundation crap. Foundation papers set you up for a max of a C so inevitably most are sitting exam where they haven't a chance of even reaching a pass seen as a minimum by most employers!

So long story short, I think the change away from parrot-back style was correct but going OTT when English Lit students aren't allowed anthologies and textbooks for reference. That's like doing the entire set of maths exams without a calculator...
Please change the grading though....

A-levels can stay as they are. The step from school to sixth form I considered to probably be the biggest leap in ability/learning I had to make at one time.

 

[DarloRich]

I'm in my last week of working as an adviser specialising in academic and money problems, before I move on to pastures new.

And this is one of the biggest problems I face in my job, the combination of significant costs and unrealistic expectations. If I had a pound for every student I saw who blamed everyone else for their failure I'd be a very very rich man indeed. These students are not used to doing badly and so they can't deal with it. It must be bad lecturers or biased examiners. They've "paid nine grand a year for their degree". Hmm.

I had a similar background, I came from a relatively poor school in Bradford and so I was at the top of the tree. At Durham in my law and politics degree I was very very average, and it took some getting used to. I got a 2:2. I didn't want the high-flying city career anyway, but what did (and still does) frustrate me is that we have to treat all degrees as equal when RG degrees are so much harder to obtain. With my professional experience now, I know for a fact I'd have got a 2:1 if I'd gone to the poly down the road.

Ah well. That was a bit of a rant.

I disagree that they are not so much harder to obtain. I did a 4 year law course which meant to didn't have to do my law society conversion exams ( and that the council paid for it all) at Northumbira. It was the only course in the country to offer that route (at the time) and the entry qualifications were as high as Durham who also made me an offer.

I chose Northumbria because they seemed interested in me as a person and wanted you to go there and wanted to invest in you getting on. Durham didn't give a toss. I was in class, library, research or seminar 9-5 for 4 years which was much more than a friend of mine did in their law degree at Durham. Many people bombed out and transferred to a doss course.

I got a 2:2 mainly because I spent 3 years on the razz ( although i rarely missed lectures) and one year working. Luckily I have always found exams & revision easy so never really had to work hard other than when I applied myself in year 4. I averaged a first in year 4 and a 2:2 or borderline fail in the other 3.

The good thing was that the quality of the UNN degree was recoginsed in my field and opened doors - perhaps as the RG degree might in other areas.

 

[northwichcat]

Foundation papers set you up for a max of a C so inevitably most are sitting exam where they haven't a chance of even reaching a pass seen as a minimum by most employers!

I don't know if it's changed but for GCSE English and English Lit it used to be the case that the questions were the same for both Higher and Foundation but the latter had some helpful bullet points after the question about what to include in your answer. So it's quite likely some people would have got a D if they took the Higher paper but got a C by taking the foundation paper.

GCSE Maths needs more than one paper, otherwise you'll be asking the most intelligent pupils questions that they would have been able to answer when they were 13 (like being asked to calculate the volume of a sphere), while the less intelligent pupils would have to skip questions altogether (like calculus questions.)

 

[northwichcat]

That's like doing the entire set of maths exams without a calculator...

When my older brothers did A Levels Maths everyone was encouraged to get a graphical calculator and they were allowed to use it in exams. When I did A Level Maths graphical calculators weren't permitted for the modules they would have useful for, so the only people who had them were the ones who did Further Maths. I recall having to do an A Level Maths paper without any type of calculator and having to use log tables.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I disagree that they are not so much harder to obtain. I did a 4 year law course which meant to didn't have to do my law society conversion exams ( and that the council paid for it all) at Northumbira.

I wasn't thinking of Northumbria in my rant, that four-year programme is really good and difficult to get onto.

I worked at one university in London where, so long as half your modules in years two and three were over 60, they'd give you a 2:1 regardless. With the exact same marks as I got at Durham, I'd have got a 2:1 there. And it was an easier programme...

 

[DarloRich]

I wasn't thinking of Northumbria in my rant, that four-year programme is really good and difficult to get onto.

I know

I worked at one university in London where, so long as half your modules in years two and three were over 60, they'd give you a 2:1 regardless. With the exact same marks as I got at Durham, I'd have got a 2:1 there. And it was an easier programme...

I shared first year digs with people who had one lecture a week and still couldn't make that!

 

[ooo]

I don't know if it's changed but for GCSE English and English Lit it used to be the case that the questions were the same for both Higher and Foundation but the latter had some helpful bullet points after the question about what to include in your answer. So it's quite likely some people would have got a D if they took the Higher paper but got a C by taking the foundation paper.

GCSE Maths needs more than one paper, otherwise you'll be asking the most intelligent pupils questions that they would have been able to answer when they were 13 (like being asked to calculate the volume of a sphere), while the less intelligent pupils would have to skip questions altogether (like calculus questions.)

For English there is only one tier now meaning everyone does get some of the bullet points

 

[MarlowDonkey]

So long story short, I think the change away from parrot-back style was correct but going OTT when English Lit students aren't allowed anthologies and textbooks for reference. That's like doing the entire set of maths exams without a calculator...

Back in the 1960s, GCE O Levels as they then were ran from 1 to 6 (pass) and 7 to 9 (fail). No books allowed in Eng Lit either, you were expected to know the source material well enough to be able to quote from it and answer questions about it. No calculators in Maths and Sciences either, not least because small cheap portable ones had yet to be invented. You could use Slide Rules though.

I don't know if anyone who took exams in the period when grades ran from 1 (best) to 9 would still be expected to quote them in a CV, but if they are, that's a future recipe for confusion with the scale now upside down from the historic one. There is an advantage in having an ascending scale, that additional levels can be added to the top.

 

[A Challenge]

I did my GCSEs 2 years ago, we were given a clean copy of the texts in the exam. Though I assume your questions would be easier than mine.
Do you still get the data sheets in the science exams?

I know how you're feeling, I've had the reformed A level, which like the GCSEs has been much harder than the previous spec.

For the new science A levels, 20% of each paper has to test GCSE B grade Maths and English.

Reduced Data Sheet

 

[Bromley boy]

I'm in my last week of working as an adviser specialising in academic and money problems, before I move on to pastures new.

And this is one of the biggest problems I face in my job, the combination of significant costs and unrealistic expectations. If I had a pound for every student I saw who blamed everyone else for their failure I'd be a very very rich man indeed. These students are not used to doing badly and so they can't deal with it. It must be bad lecturers or biased examiners. They've "paid nine grand a year for their degree". Hmm.

I had a similar background, I came from a relatively poor school in Bradford and so I was at the top of the tree. At Durham in my law and politics degree I was very very average, and it took some getting used to. I got a 2:2. I didn't want the high-flying city career anyway, but what did (and still does) frustrate me is that we have to treat all degrees as equal when RG degrees are so much harder to obtain. With my professional experience now, I know for a fact I'd have got a 2:1 if I'd gone to the poly down the road.

Ah well. That was a bit of a rant.



I don't agree with that. They are a consequence of the Tories being far too wedded to the idea of an "open market" in everything, which is why there are now so many private providers of higher education hoovering up anyone who'll pay. Yes, I'm looking at you BPP University. Tuition fees stem out of a belief in "competition" in the "market", treating everyone as good little consumers, which is so misguided as to be hopeless.

The Tories, because they don't understand these things, thought fees would be competitively brought down. What's happened is the top universities charge top fees because they can, even though they don't need to because of their research income. Oxford and Cambridge could charge tuition fees of 50p a year and still make sackloads of cash from all their other revenue streams.

The lesser universities- who don't have research income- charge them because they have to. The whole system is idiotic.

But then the current system was devised by David Willetts- who reckons that feminism is to blame for the fact that men have to compete to get the best jobs now- so it's hardly a surprise it's idiotic.

I agree BPP are a bit of a dubious outfit. I did my legal practice course at BPP professional education. Fortunately for me the (very high) fees were paid by my future employer. However BPP were quite happy to take on students who had no realistic chance of getting a job and happily take their money. Then again, the adage "fools and their money are soon parted" springs to mind and I think it's down to the individual to decide whether they have a realistic prospect of getting a decent job before committing to the course.

I'm unsure if it's a party political issue or not. The simple fact is far too many people go to university. The people who actually get the well paid blue chip graduate jobs generally come from the same few Russell Group universities. The rest waste £9k a year in fees and frankly,
in terms of the limited difference in earning potential their degree makes, would probably have been better off starting work immediately.

In our parents' generation university was restricted to the top 10% ability wise and paid for by the government. That makes a lot more sense than the current system where virtually anyone can do a degree based on their ability to pay and irrespective of their suitability for it.

For one thing, a degree is supposed to be an academic pursuit. Practical skills such as nursing etc are not academic subjects, therefore what is the point of creating a degree in these subjects.

Also, the purpose of getting a degree in the first place shouldn't be solely the intention of getting a well paid job. Academic people from modest backgrounds who want to pursue a degree in an academic subject - who want to end up in academia rather than the professions - are now likely to be dissuaded from doing so thanks to the enormous cost. I have no direct evidence for saying this, but I'd imagine it's having pretty disastrous consequences in terms of social mobility.