St Andrews blamed for lack of poor students
Scroll to see replies
I find this is a hard subject to form a solid opinion on. The inequalities lie primarily within the education system at lower levels. Everyone should have the suport of a good school to help them overcome their economic disadvantage, and schooling should be provided at a standard level across the country. However, this is far from the case. Some schools perform far better than others, and I think it is true that there is a correlation between poorer areas and poorer schools, although this is not always true.
It is clearly unfair to accept students just because they are 'poor' to make the university appear more inclusive. It is an institution that is searching for the best students to obtain the best results for their own reputation. Higher education is a business.
I also agree than 'poor' students might not apply to St Andrews because it involves living out in the vast majority of cases and even because it simply appears 'too good'. Figures such as those outlined in the OP only discourage such people further, along side it's reputation for being a 'middle-class english' feeling place. This obviously offers a motive for their low intake of 'poor' students. Also, the university has quite a small intake from Scotland to begin with considering that it is a Scottish university. A small Scottish intake as well as the reasons for poor Scottish students not applying in the first place will contribute significantly to the small poor-Scottish intake.
There is no clear way to overcome this, as positive discrimination clearly comes with major opposition - it is still discrimination. Really, I believe that an applicants grades should be considered alongside that of their school. This can alleviate the problem of poor shcooling, which often goes hand in hand with poverty itself. However, this does not resolve the real problem - poverty itself. And it does not work to overcome the problems caused by a lack of suport at school level by the school itself - a capable student who achieves, say, BBBC at higher despite being capable of AAAA, but faced with a lack of support, cannot prove themselves to be capable of such grades, and so will rightly be placed at the same level as a BBBC student, possibly BBBB along side a poor achieving school. The problem is far from resolved.
Really, it is quite obvious that StA don't positively discriminate. However, as long as they aren't negatively discriminating they aren't really in the wrong.
It is clearly unfair to accept students just because they are 'poor' to make the university appear more inclusive. It is an institution that is searching for the best students to obtain the best results for their own reputation. Higher education is a business.
I also agree than 'poor' students might not apply to St Andrews because it involves living out in the vast majority of cases and even because it simply appears 'too good'. Figures such as those outlined in the OP only discourage such people further, along side it's reputation for being a 'middle-class english' feeling place. This obviously offers a motive for their low intake of 'poor' students. Also, the university has quite a small intake from Scotland to begin with considering that it is a Scottish university. A small Scottish intake as well as the reasons for poor Scottish students not applying in the first place will contribute significantly to the small poor-Scottish intake.
There is no clear way to overcome this, as positive discrimination clearly comes with major opposition - it is still discrimination. Really, I believe that an applicants grades should be considered alongside that of their school. This can alleviate the problem of poor shcooling, which often goes hand in hand with poverty itself. However, this does not resolve the real problem - poverty itself. And it does not work to overcome the problems caused by a lack of suport at school level by the school itself - a capable student who achieves, say, BBBC at higher despite being capable of AAAA, but faced with a lack of support, cannot prove themselves to be capable of such grades, and so will rightly be placed at the same level as a BBBC student, possibly BBBB along side a poor achieving school. The problem is far from resolved.
Really, it is quite obvious that StA don't positively discriminate. However, as long as they aren't negatively discriminating they aren't really in the wrong.
Original post by ..lauren
It is clearly unfair to accept students just because they are 'poor' to make the university appear more inclusive. It is an institution that is searching for the best students to obtain the best results for their own reputation. Higher education is a business.
There is no clear way to overcome this, as positive discrimination clearly comes with major opposition - it is still discrimination. Really, I believe that an applicants grades should be considered alongside that of their school. This can alleviate the problem of poor shcooling, which often goes hand in hand with poverty itself. However, this does not resolve the real problem - poverty itself. And it does not work to overcome the problems caused by a lack of suport at school level by the school itself - a capable student who achieves, say, BBBC at higher despite being capable of AAAA, but faced with a lack of support, cannot prove themselves to be capable of such grades, and so will rightly be placed at the same level as a BBBC student, possibly BBBB along side a poor achieving school. The problem is far from resolved.
It is clearly unfair to accept students just because they are 'poor' to make the university appear more inclusive. It is an institution that is searching for the best students to obtain the best results for their own reputation. Higher education is a business.
There is no clear way to overcome this, as positive discrimination clearly comes with major opposition - it is still discrimination. Really, I believe that an applicants grades should be considered alongside that of their school. This can alleviate the problem of poor shcooling, which often goes hand in hand with poverty itself. However, this does not resolve the real problem - poverty itself. And it does not work to overcome the problems caused by a lack of suport at school level by the school itself - a capable student who achieves, say, BBBC at higher despite being capable of AAAA, but faced with a lack of support, cannot prove themselves to be capable of such grades, and so will rightly be placed at the same level as a BBBC student, possibly BBBB along side a poor achieving school. The problem is far from resolved.
I agree for the most part- although there a couple of things that bug me. One is that I'm not convinced some universities (St Andrews included) are getting the best students for their own reputation. The problem with taking students on grades alone sometimes is that, as I've said, you can end up with well-educated rather than bright. There are plenty of examples (and I've seen some myself) of the AAB student at the bottom of his/her group at a good school ending up at a good university while the ABB one at the top of a lesser school might be overlooked. If it were up to me, I'd demand that every applicatation received has to put a student in a band relative to their classmates. That way, a grade here or there can be overlooked if said student is top rather than middle of their class.
There's also the self-perpetuating cycle of league tables reinforcing prestige amongst certain groups. As you've said, people from non-traditional backgrounds tend to need a lot of support to thrive. What tends to happen is that the richest are much less likely to drop out, do badly or be unhappy than their poorer counterparts. They're also more likely to get jobs (maybe because their family has them already and knows what to say in interviews). Anyway, what then happens is that since we rank on things like UCAS score, satisfaction, % 2:1s and above and dropout, all that taking lots of poorer students does for you is drop you down the table (and cost a lot of time and money on the student welfare budget)- even if you're taking bright students and teaching them the right stuff and setting high standards. As a result, the difference in league table position between Liverpool and Belfast and Durham and St Andrews is large. What then happens is the cycle of being attractive to privately educated students and off-putting to others continue and the gaps never close in newspapers, which as a result equates to 'prestige' in the minds of some.
It's no surprise to me that the lowest two ranking Russell Group universities have both the lowest two percentages of privately educated students and the highest two percentages of working-class students. Infact, if you were to run the table based on the backgrounds people come from prior to entry, you'd end up with what we have anyway: Oxford, Cambridge, St Andrews, Durham, Exeter, Bristol, Warwick, LSE, Imperial, UCL all do well. That's saying nothing about the standards they set or the quality of the resources or educational experience, save for it'll remain an unattrative prospect to many and an attractive prospect to some, and inequality will continue.
We can't mess with free will, and it's clear that people don't want to go to certain places. The only thing St Andrews has to really worry about, is if it's happy to maintain the status quo, even if that means potentially more students from towards the bottom of the good schools rather than the top of the bad, and if not, what it has to do to encourage more applications from them.
Original post by kaypc
yeah, i read about the Eton oxbridge event. that was unfair because the private schools which are already at an advantage have an even bigger chance of being accepted because the uni events teach them exactly what they expect of their applicants. 
sigh...
sigh...I went to a state school and spent a week living at Oxford free of charge, with lectures by their professors, Lab time and courses on the interviews and personal statements through the UNIQ programme, which is still going (to the best of my knowledge). Oxbridge do try to reach out to state school students as well.
Original post by OmnipotentOmelette
There's an article on the BBC website about how St Andrews university only gave 13(I think) places to students from the poorest 20% of Scottish postcodes, when recruiting undergraduates last year.
Do you think this is the uni's fault or the fault of the poor education system?
Should universities "positively" discriminate poorer students?
Oxford university was criticised last year for having too few black students.
In both of these cases there were way fewer applications from the underrepresented groups, so I don't think the universities are to blame.
However, another startling fact is Oxbridge had several"outreach" events at Eton (I think, it was a famous public school) last year.
What do you think?
This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100
Do you think this is the uni's fault or the fault of the poor education system?
Should universities "positively" discriminate poorer students?
Oxford university was criticised last year for having too few black students.
In both of these cases there were way fewer applications from the underrepresented groups, so I don't think the universities are to blame.
However, another startling fact is Oxbridge had several"outreach" events at Eton (I think, it was a famous public school) last year.
What do you think?
This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my GT-I9100
St Andrews if the best example of a 'prestigious' uni composed almost entirely of dim toffs. They heavily market themselves to American prep schools, obv. the Americans prefer their own elite universities and oxbridge, so there are lots of academically mediocre but wealthy yanks there in addition to the usual public school types.
Original post by chrisawhitmore
I went to a state school and spent a week living at Oxford free of charge, with lectures by their professors, Lab time and courses on the interviews and personal statements through the UNIQ programme, which is still going (to the best of my knowledge). Oxbridge do try to reach out to state school students as well.
I worked for UNIQ. It's great.
Original post by Darkphilosopher
The sixth form I go to is the third highest contributor to Oxbridge and it's a ... *drumroll* state school.
Oh hai Hills Road, ex-Peter Symonds student here.
Original post by TheLastOfUs
Just go on the page for the university of cambridge on wikipedia:
Endowment £4.3 billion (2011, incl. colleges)[1] (approx. $6.8bn)
Endowment £4.3 billion (2011, incl. colleges)[1] (approx. $6.8bn)
That endowment is split between a huge university and ahs to pay for the gardening and maintenance of all the buildings, extra research, nice food (not so justifiable lol). Oxbridge are not normal universities and they are far more expensive to run.
Original post by Organ
Problem is with society not with Saint Andrews University.
Nah, St A's isn't even a very academic uni. Their own VC has admitted its socially but not academically elite. Its a state funded finishing school for the wealthy.
A university accepts the best students, regardless of their background.
The unfortunate thing about out education system, is that it is easier for those at better schools to achieve the grades but what can universities do about that? They can't take a chance on someone with lower grades on the off chance maybe they are smarter, they have to go on factual evidence to get the best students.
I definitely blame schools, not universities for this.
The unfortunate thing about out education system, is that it is easier for those at better schools to achieve the grades but what can universities do about that? They can't take a chance on someone with lower grades on the off chance maybe they are smarter, they have to go on factual evidence to get the best students.
I definitely blame schools, not universities for this.
St Andrews just isn't that good a university, but wannabe aristocrats go there because it has vague royal connections and isn't as hard to get in to as Oxbridge.
Student A: Private school: 8 A* 2 A GCSEs, A*AA A level for History
Student B: State school: 1 A* 3 A 5 B GCSEs: AAB A level for History
I don't see why the university should take student B over student A just because student A went to private school. Student A has the better qualifications. Likewise
Student A: Private school 3 A* 2 A 3 Bs 2 Cs, ABB A level for Politics
Student B: State school 7 A* 1 A 1 B A*A*A A level for Politics.
The uni will obviously take student B, as they're a better student.
Honestly, just because someone's gone to state school doesn't mean the uni will discriminate against them, it's because generally people from private schools will have better grades.
Student B: State school: 1 A* 3 A 5 B GCSEs: AAB A level for History
I don't see why the university should take student B over student A just because student A went to private school. Student A has the better qualifications. Likewise
Student A: Private school 3 A* 2 A 3 Bs 2 Cs, ABB A level for Politics
Student B: State school 7 A* 1 A 1 B A*A*A A level for Politics.
The uni will obviously take student B, as they're a better student.
Honestly, just because someone's gone to state school doesn't mean the uni will discriminate against them, it's because generally people from private schools will have better grades.
Original post by ..lauren
I find this is a hard subject to form a solid opinion on. The inequalities lie primarily within the education system at lower levels. Everyone should have the suport of a good school to help them overcome their economic disadvantage, and schooling should be provided at a standard level across the country. However, this is far from the case. Some schools perform far better than others, and I think it is true that there is a correlation between poorer areas and poorer schools, although this is not always true.
It is clearly unfair to accept students just because they are 'poor' to make the university appear more inclusive. It is an institution that is searching for the best students to obtain the best results for their own reputation. Higher education is a business.
I also agree than 'poor' students might not apply to St Andrews because it involves living out in the vast majority of cases and even because it simply appears 'too good'. Figures such as those outlined in the OP only discourage such people further, along side it's reputation for being a 'middle-class english' feeling place. This obviously offers a motive for their low intake of 'poor' students. Also, the university has quite a small intake from Scotland to begin with considering that it is a Scottish university. A small Scottish intake as well as the reasons for poor Scottish students not applying in the first place will contribute significantly to the small poor-Scottish intake.
There is no clear way to overcome this, as positive discrimination clearly comes with major opposition - it is still discrimination. Really, I believe that an applicants grades should be considered alongside that of their school. This can alleviate the problem of poor shcooling, which often goes hand in hand with poverty itself. However, this does not resolve the real problem - poverty itself. And it does not work to overcome the problems caused by a lack of suport at school level by the school itself - a capable student who achieves, say, BBBC at higher despite being capable of AAAA, but faced with a lack of support, cannot prove themselves to be capable of such grades, and so will rightly be placed at the same level as a BBBC student, possibly BBBB along side a poor achieving school. The problem is far from resolved.
Really, it is quite obvious that StA don't positively discriminate. However, as long as they aren't negatively discriminating they aren't really in the wrong.
It is clearly unfair to accept students just because they are 'poor' to make the university appear more inclusive. It is an institution that is searching for the best students to obtain the best results for their own reputation. Higher education is a business.
I also agree than 'poor' students might not apply to St Andrews because it involves living out in the vast majority of cases and even because it simply appears 'too good'. Figures such as those outlined in the OP only discourage such people further, along side it's reputation for being a 'middle-class english' feeling place. This obviously offers a motive for their low intake of 'poor' students. Also, the university has quite a small intake from Scotland to begin with considering that it is a Scottish university. A small Scottish intake as well as the reasons for poor Scottish students not applying in the first place will contribute significantly to the small poor-Scottish intake.
There is no clear way to overcome this, as positive discrimination clearly comes with major opposition - it is still discrimination. Really, I believe that an applicants grades should be considered alongside that of their school. This can alleviate the problem of poor shcooling, which often goes hand in hand with poverty itself. However, this does not resolve the real problem - poverty itself. And it does not work to overcome the problems caused by a lack of suport at school level by the school itself - a capable student who achieves, say, BBBC at higher despite being capable of AAAA, but faced with a lack of support, cannot prove themselves to be capable of such grades, and so will rightly be placed at the same level as a BBBC student, possibly BBBB along side a poor achieving school. The problem is far from resolved.
Really, it is quite obvious that StA don't positively discriminate. However, as long as they aren't negatively discriminating they aren't really in the wrong.
you mean middle-class Scottish?
Original post by Aaron_xyz
you mean middle-class Scottish?
Nah Edinburgh and St A's are closely related to the english upper middle class. As I've said, St A's has a lot of wealthy yanks too.
When I used to work at a nice hotel we'd have drinking societies composed of English toffs from ST As come in for meal and lash. I loved telling them their barman was destined for a better university than them.
Original post by chrisawhitmore
I went to a state school and spent a week living at Oxford free of charge, with lectures by their professors, Lab time and courses on the interviews and personal statements through the UNIQ programme, which is still going (to the best of my knowledge). Oxbridge do try to reach out to state school students as well.
ive heard of that programme and understand what your saying but i don't think state and private schools are given equal opportunities by the best uni's.
Original post by kaypc
ive heard of that programme and understand what your saying but i don't think state and private schools are given equal opportunities by the best uni's.
It depends on the definition of equal opportunities. If you mean that people from private schools are more likely to get in, then I'd agree, if you mean the same student, with the same grades, from a state school would be passed over in favour of one from a private school, I'd disagree. It must be remembered that if private schools didn't do better than state schools, nobody would bother to pay to send their children there. The job of the university is to take the best students available, regardless of background.
Original post by chrisawhitmore
It depends on the definition of equal opportunities. If you mean that people from private schools are more likely to get in, then I'd agree, if you mean the same student, with the same grades, from a state school would be passed over in favour of one from a private school, I'd disagree. It must be remembered that if private schools didn't do better than state schools, nobody would bother to pay to send their children there. The job of the university is to take the best students available, regardless of background.
As I've said before though, are they (in St Andrews- and others- case)? I think this is the crux of the matter. This strongly depends on how you define 'best'. If 'best' means the AAB student in the bottom third of the best performing schools because they get the best grade, fine. If 'best' means being willing to take the ABB student from the top of poorly performing schools who are the first in their family to enter higher education and take the chance that on average they'll require much more support and probably not do your dropout or satisfaction stats any good, then I think the answer is different. Certain places aren't doing enough to even attract these people, let alone accept them.
Let's be clear here: I'm not advocating taking poor over wealthy. I'm advocating a clear line that says those at the top of their peer groups at bad schools will not be disadvantaged by background, and that those who did badly relative to their peers, at any level cannot expect to walk into selective universities.
I find it odd that universities with different student demographics are set different targets on what their dropout rate should be (they expect far more students at Edinburgh Napier or Glasgow Caledonian to drop out than at St Andrews), yet there are never targets set on what people from different demographics should achieve at school. I think university admission becomes much more straightforward when there's at least the acknowledgement that someone from a family income of £250k+ at a fee paying school should be getting Bs and As whereas one from a family income of £15k at a struggling comprehensive in a crime/poverty stricken area is not expected to reach those levels quite so often. These sorts of targets and expectations are part of formal government policy in most other areas, but when a university says it'll accept certain students with a grade lower than others, we get 'reverse discrimination' wheeled out by the Daily Mail. If it's fine to take more tax from the wealthiest, should it not also be fine to expect that the most expensive schools are 'taxed' through expecting slightly higher grades? From a purely personal perspective, I've taught enough students with excellent grades but comparatively little between their ears to have difficulty accepting that we're always getting the best at the 'best' universities.
(edited 11 years ago)
I think a few people here need to take a long hard look at what they are proposing/supporting.
Some are saying (or it follows as a direct consequence of their comments) that losing both my parents in year 12 shouldn't have made the slightest difference to the way my university application was handled. Suppose I had missed the grades I needed by 1% they would have just said "tough". Needless to say neither my school, nor the university concerned, agreed with them. Of course I got the grades anyway so didn't need what somebody labelled "charity" but clearly folk don't know how lucky they are!.
Some are saying (or it follows as a direct consequence of their comments) that losing both my parents in year 12 shouldn't have made the slightest difference to the way my university application was handled. Suppose I had missed the grades I needed by 1% they would have just said "tough". Needless to say neither my school, nor the university concerned, agreed with them. Of course I got the grades anyway so didn't need what somebody labelled "charity" but clearly folk don't know how lucky they are!.
Original post by Orphan
I think a few people here need to take a long hard look at what they are proposing/supporting.
Some are saying (or it follows as a direct consequence of their comments) that losing both my parents in year 12 shouldn't have made the slightest difference to the way my university application was handled. Suppose I had missed the grades I needed by 1% they would have just said "tough". Needless to say neither my school, nor the university concerned, agreed with them. Of course I got the grades anyway so didn't need what somebody labelled "charity" but clearly folk don't know how lucky they are!.
Some are saying (or it follows as a direct consequence of their comments) that losing both my parents in year 12 shouldn't have made the slightest difference to the way my university application was handled. Suppose I had missed the grades I needed by 1% they would have just said "tough". Needless to say neither my school, nor the university concerned, agreed with them. Of course I got the grades anyway so didn't need what somebody labelled "charity" but clearly folk don't know how lucky they are!.
Just want to start by saying that I'm really sorry to hear what has happened to you. I couldn't begin to imagine what that feels like.
I have to say though that it shouldn't make a difference no. It should be based solely on grades and your personal statement. It would be wrong to give you ANY "extra" consideration or chance or mercy only because you have been really unlucky. Giving you that extra "compassion" could result in another student missing out because YOUR parents died,got sick etc. Now thats my friend would be unfair.
Theres a little thing called life. People need to be able to deal with it sooner or later. EVERYONE will have to go through trauma at some time or another. To say you should be giving extra consideration because of a traumatic experience suffered early on in life over someone who still has theres to come is wrong.
That proposal is wrong. Lets say you got the same grades as someone else.... but the uni choose you because of compassion and it "must have been harder" therefore your should get it..... what happens if that person you are against loses all his friends and family in a one off event. Should he/she be contacted to have a place at uni because "everyone you know has died". Although its an extreme case it proves my point. You cant base things on life events. They happen to everyone.
On another point..... weird choice of username you have? Can I ask why you would choose to have that?
EDIT: Neggers why? are people seriously of the opinion that a person should be accepted for uni over another despite having worse grade... only because they have had a life event. What about the other guy/gal with better grades? Its not his fault that this happened to another person. He got the grades to get in but you want to stop him to have compassion for another?
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by 1tartanarmy
I have to say though that it shouldn't make a difference no. It should be based solely on grades and your personal statement. It would be wrong to give you ANY "extra" consideration or chance or mercy only because you have been really unlucky. Giving you that extra "compassion" could result in another student missing out because YOUR parents died,got sick etc. Now thats my friend would be unfair.
Theres a little thing called life. People need to be able to deal with it sooner or later. EVERYONE will have to go through trauma at some time or another. To say you should be giving extra consideration because of a traumatic experience suffered early on in life over someone who still has theres to come is wrong.
I have to say though that it shouldn't make a difference no. It should be based solely on grades and your personal statement. It would be wrong to give you ANY "extra" consideration or chance or mercy only because you have been really unlucky. Giving you that extra "compassion" could result in another student missing out because YOUR parents died,got sick etc. Now thats my friend would be unfair.
Theres a little thing called life. People need to be able to deal with it sooner or later. EVERYONE will have to go through trauma at some time or another. To say you should be giving extra consideration because of a traumatic experience suffered early on in life over someone who still has theres to come is wrong.
This makes me amused, bemused and angry all at once. Well done. Again, it tends to be the people that haven't lost parents at a young age, haven't lost their job because they broke their neck through something that wasn't their fault or have had something completely outwith their control happen to them that say 'it'd be just terrible for that poor guy to not get in to his dream choice of university because they gave you extra consideration, now he'll have to go and take a gap year in Tahiti'. My heart bleeds. I assume that if you get hit by a bus on the day of your final exam, it's just dandy that they just fail you for your degree, leave you with no prospects but £50,000 of debt, then flung out of your home, and that you'll still have the same stance? That the guy who you were going to finish above in your class now gets the nice job and nice life? I'm sure you'll shake his hand and say 'when your hamster nibbles dies, Life will have evened things up'.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Aaron_xyz
you mean middle-class Scottish?
What do you mean?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Diversity at St Andrews University
- St Andrews
- Questions/Concerns about St. Andrews
- St Andrews vs Edinburgh
- st andrews racism/classism
- Student life and Neuroscience
- st andrews vs durham for physics?
- Alt/subculture at St Andrews?
- Bachelor in international relations
- MA English Literature at St Andrews
- How good/elite is the University of St. Andrews?
- Subject choice help
- Is St. Andrews boring?
- Advice on personal statement for Statistics and Philosophy?
- Organising your day at DRA (commute & lunch)
- St Andrews - Ask A Current Student Thread [part 2]
- Unis similar to Glasgow and St andrews
- University of St Andrews - 2023 Applicants Thread
- Durham VS St Andrews: Who would YOU pick?
- Which is the better university?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
