Gary came to fit a new bathroom suite in my house. Soon after he arrived in the kitchen, he announced: “I can’t fit the sink to that wall, it’s not sound!”

As this was the parting wall of a terraced house, this was alarming. Two plasterers were summoned and said that, although the surface plaster was a bit crumbly, there was nothing wrong with the brickwork and if Gary mounted the sink on a baton all would be well.

I phoned Gary to tell him the good news. His wife answered. “Oh no,” she said, “Gary’s phoned his lecturer, and he says the sink can’t be fitted unless you replaster.”

The awful truth dawned. Gary had set up his plumbing operation on the basis of having attended a course at his local college. Presumably, graduating with flying colours and plenty of theory, backed up by “practical sessions” in the college bathroom suite, was meant to prepare him for the realities of Victorian renovation.

I am not for a moment suggesting that practical subjects should not be taught in colleges. But in trying to give practical subjects status and make them comparable with academic ones, curriculum boards appear to be making them more academic.

The message seems to be: “If you can’t write an essay or prepare a survey on it, then it’s not worth studying.” This misses the point. To gain true parity with academic qualifications it must be accepted that practical skills are no less important but they are different and should be treated as such.

Writing essays and sitting exams are not the only measures of ability. The DFES needs to recognise that if it is up to its neck in sewage, it needs a plumber who can solve problems, not one who can write an essay about them.

Janice Dickson

12 Oxford Rd

Enfield

Middlesex