Right.
Yes, and earlier, we talked as well about that difference for the A-level students. They know what it is. It's worth UCAS points. For the vocational students, some things like the Career Ready programme, which is used in other colleges, and WorldSkills, you know, where all colleges have really been pushing to get more learners into WorldSkills at national and international level. And for some of our learners, particularly if we take our engineering learners, then having somebody who has competed in Europe as a tiler or an electrician would, I think, make an employer think, 'I'd better look at this person', whereas the other one has done the Welsh bac—. I think they would look at the WorldSkills person first. And the investment we have to put into WorldSkills is huge. So, for some of our learners, we choose that you do WorldSkills, because that is going to be more valuable for you as a skill, and to show to an employer how much extra time you've put in. So, they put a lot of time—you know, to get somebody into a WorldSkills competition is not just a couple of hours a week, it isn't just the normal curriculum—they have extra time. They are more able and talented vocational learners, and that is more valuable to those learners and I think it's more valid for employers than the Welsh baccalaureate.
I think it's got to, extending on what Kay says—. It's got to be—. You know, it is comparable, as long as it's right for that learner's future. If it's right for the learner's future, absolutely it's comparable. But if a learner wants to go into a particular sector and the Welsh bac is not accepted, it's not comparable. But, then, if it is into a certain sector and the skills are being developed in the right manner for that sector, absolutely. But it's got to be right for the learner.
What are the reasons why some colleges do see it as being rigorous and others don't? Why does the view vary?