Learning by degrees

The Guardian reports to day that Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Tesco's director of corporate and legal affairs, says school-leavers have basic problems with literacy and numeracy and that many also have "what you might call an attitude problem". She adds: "They don't seem to understand the importance of a tidy appearance and have problems with timekeeping ... Some seem to think that the world owes them a living," adding "There are growing questions over various aspects of our exam system. There seems to be a fair amount of evidence now that [exams] are getting easier and failing to stretch people. The proportion of firsts and 2:1s has risen enormously so it's much rarer to get a 2:2 than a first. People who are clever today are achieving the grades of the very clever a couple of decades ago."

And in that final sentence, she betrays not only her lamentable grasp of education but also a total inability to understand what constitutes intellect.

It's likely that she has a point - of sorts. There are school leavers out there who fulfil all the criteria she lists but there are as many - if not far more - that don't, and the question is why she doesn't hire them.  But the final statement she makes is not only wrong, it is incredibly misleading.  Firsts are still hard to come by and what she so quaintly terms 'cleverness' has little do with gaining one. But the final evidence of her extreme paucity of understanding is her sweeping comment about the value of degrees.

Is she arguing that a needlework degree from John Moore's is worth less than a physics degree from Warwick? If she is, then she needs to look at the consultancies who hire graduates, and who have known for many years that degrees are judged firstly by subject and secondly by who awards them.  Anyone gaining a degree from a university in the Russell group is given priority at interviews.  Perhaps she needs to brush up on her research skills…