[Maker]

(Original post by Beska)
Of course it will. If policies are put in place that are ridiculous as this, do you think any self-respecting university would actually remain? Of course not. The discussion is not on the coexistence of private/public, it is on the fact that the 'public' universities would be forced to pick students on their backgrounds, not academic merit. Which university do you think will prosper, the university that is diverse or the university that has academically capable students?

I didn't know you could predict the future, tell me what the lottery winning numbers are tonight.

[akj08]

(Original post by metjush)
Ability should be the one and only criterion for university admission. Period.

(Statements like these always amuse me. Lib Dems and all the other "socially-liberal", "left-wing liberal" or whatnot talk all the time about social inclusion, equality and fairness. If that is the goal they want acheive, I somehow fail to see how it could be acheived by making the students from state and private schools unequal in admission... )

It's already very unequal in that the admissions system favours those from private schools.
Ability described in the form of exam results is to do with educational environment as well as raw intellect and work ethic.

[Beska]

(Original post by Maker)
I didn't know you could predict the future, tell me what the lottery winning numbers are tonight.

[Teaddict]

(Original post by Maker)
So. The parents who put their kids into private schools want their kids to have an advantage over other kids in the state sector. They then expect to get an advantage over state sector kids by going back into the state uni system.

... so parents want to provide the best eduction for their children...

That is unfair and if Oxbridge and other unis want to leave the state sector to cater for privately educated kids, they should do as long as they pay back all the money the public has invested in them. This would mean they would have to charge similar amounts to the private unis in America of around £30,000 per year and more for expensive courses such as medicine and law.

It is clear they provide more spaces to private school children because those children are better educated. The state sector is a mess.

[Maker]

(Original post by milkytea)
No, just no.

I am from a poor background but managed to get a scholarship and therefore afford private education, do I deserve to face inverse discrimination because of that?

This is just Simon Hughes and indeed the Lib Dems feebly attempting to regain some popularity with poor students. Well I say *******s to that.

You should definitely have to get better grades than a state educated student.

[Maker]

(Original post by Teaddict)
... so parents want to provide the best eduction for their children...



It is clear they provide more spaces to private school children because those children are better educated. The state sector is a mess.

So why should privately educated people want to go into the state higher education sector? They should go to America.

[Maker]

(Original post by Beska)

I bet you knew I was going to say that.

[Beska]

(Original post by Maker)
I bet you knew I was going to say that.

Yup. I knew you were going to talk ****, turns out I was right!

[Teaddict]

(Original post by Maker)
So why should privately educated people want to go into the state higher education sector? They should go to America.

Dunno perhaps because we only have one private University...

Are you being stupid? Why the hell should they go to America... get real.

[milkytea]

(Original post by adam_zed)
I agree with most of what Teaddict says, but this I dont. You were very lucky in that you realised your potential much earlier then most people or were just naturally more able. Though I agree it seems like a bit of a populist move, especially considering they were revealing it to the Guardian.

There's just something about inverse disrcimination that I believe to be very wrong - admittedly this is possibly because I am a white male who attended a private school.

I realise that a lot of state education is very lacklustre, to say the least. But introducing inverse discrimination to the point where more fortunate students are actually limited from universities is just unfair, imo. Whatever moral campaign you can make against private education, the fact is that private schools also produce bright, able and hardworking pupils. Whilst in university applications of course some consideration should be given to the candidate's background, I do not believe that actually placing an inflexible limit on the number of "private school kids" to be admitted is fair, at all. Otherwise pupils such as myself, and those who go to private schools that are not as competitive as the very highest quality ones, will be treated unfairly. Certainly, more effort should be made to improve state education, though.

(Original post by Maker)
You should definitely have to get better grades than a state educated student.

Say I was applying to a uni that required 3 As at A level - and I achieved this - how could I get better grades than competition from state school pupils, many of whom I'm sure will also achieve 3 As?

[infernalcradle]

this is stupid...the best student should be taken,

that said, the school attended should be taken into account,

so that a student that gets AAB at one of the worst schools gets in whereas AAA from the top school doesnt as the AAB student has shown much more academic talent

[Shiny Dirt]

****. Take on the best people. Or he could be confused that universities shouldn't take pupils just because they went private school yet have less ability to others. Although I doubt universities would do that anyway.

They need to make it affordable for all people to have a chance. For example, if my interview goes well I may not be able to accept Cambridge School of Visual and Performing Arts due to the cost, and having to reject that offer would be torture.

[KissMyArtichoke]

I think the basic idea is good, but they couldn't just put a limit on private school intake. I think the whole admissions system should be changed really. You can't deny that the same person in a comprehensive school and in a private school would not be significantly more likely to get into a top uni when the private school offers huge amounts of tuition and guidance on how to get in and better teaching to improve exam grades, and the comprehensive offers almost none of that. To say so is just stupid. A system needs to be devised which actually measures potential rather than just knowledge. I imagine the people who go on to do the best at Oxford and Cambridge are those who went to comprehensive and still managed to get a place against the odds, rather than those who went to private school and had a relatively easy time getting in.
Don't get me wrong, I totally support private schools, but I don't think uni's are doing enough to account for the advantages they give.

[Aspiringlawstudent]

It doesn't matter what kind of school they went to; universities should accept the most able students regardless.

This sort of reverse-snobbery really ****** me off.

[modgepodge]

(Original post by innerhollow)
A feeble attempt by the Lib Dems to regain popularity with low-income students. It's obviously a ridiculous argument. Universities should not reflect the make-up of society, they should reflect whoever is academically competent. It's another equality vs. uniformity problem. In a country like Britain, thankfully all demographics are equal, but they are most definitely not all uniform.



I know you don't want to get drawn into this... but you did post something a very controversial argument, so even if you don't want to reply, here is my response.

The problem is with proven ability. Uni admissions nearly always boil down to grades at the end of the day simply because (lying/cheating notwithstanding) they are a concrete, irrefutable proof of academic ability It's fine to say for every ABB student who came from a comprehensive that they could have gotten better grades if they had better teachers... but you can say that about pretty much anything in life.

You also make the assumption that private-schooled students have a poor work ethic. I find that argument bizarre considering the whole point of a private school is that the atmosphere is more encouraging of a good work ethic. This idea that a private school teacher can take an incompetent and unmotivated student and turn them into an A-grade student is hugely flattering towards these teachers, but it's just not true in practice.

Personally, I feel VERY strongly that rather than expecting to be able to provide good teaching quality to every student (which is simply not feasible), all students should be provided with the resources they need to be able to easily teach themselves their A-level content. Therefore, anyone who wants to do well has the resources to do well. Teaching quality should not be an excuse for academic performance anymore in this age of information.

I do not make the assumption at all that private schooled students have a poor work ethic, and neither did my post imply that. In fact I said "assume both students work as hard as they can at school".

Self teaching is not easy. I had to self teach most of my A level in chemistry due to a poor teacher, and got a B (I got an A at GCSE with very little effort) after taking every exam apart from the final one twice. Likewise, a friend of mine took GCSE maths in Year 10 and got an A*. She spent year 11 doing a couple of AS modules, then due to hardly anyone carrying on in 6th form she was the only one doing this when she got to Year 12, with half an AS. She ended up teaching herself the sylabus and only got a B, despite being incredibly able and spending 3 years on it. She was incredibly able - took 5 A levels and got As in all the others.

Anyway, to assume that a student from a poor background could just teach themselves using the internet or whatever and do as well as someone at a private school is just unrealisitic. As someone else says, something has to be done, though I would agree, quotas are not the best way. Perhaps some form of IQ test done at interview? Though of course that is open to the same criticism as the 11+ test.

[TheCount.]

Yet more hypocrisy from the tories. People who benefited from free higher education introducing exorbitant fees. Now someone who clearly benefited from private education is advocating stricter regulation of its success. Way to attack your support base.

[Jenii]

(Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
It doesn't matter what kind of school they went to; universities should accept the most able students regardless.

This sort of reverse-snobbery really ****** me off.

I absolutely agree. However, universities ought to take into account that grades don't necessarily reflect ability. A*AA from a ****ty comprehensive does require more personal hard-work and/or ability than A*AA from a top public school. Oxbridge get a chance to interview and can make a more informed decisions, but other top universities may miss this chance. Quotas are not the answer, but I hope universities do take into account more than just raw grades when making their admissions decisions.

[Barden]

(Original post by Huskaris)
Perhaps Mr. Hughes a better idea would be to promote the idea of grammar schools. Both of my parents came from very working class backgrounds, both went through the grammar school system and are now very successful. I just don't buy this "only rich kids get into grammar schools" *******s. Even if its a 50/50 split it's just cutting your nose off to spite your face.

Education is the main facilitator of social mobility, so give people the opportunity who want to work hard to go to a decent school and therefore university

Exactly, its a crock of bull****

I went to a prep school, and had to do extra maths classes for a term because our syllabus was different to the one being taught in state primaries.

Needless to say, almost everyone at my grammar had gone there from a state primary... 10% of our year group, at the most, had come from private schools

[Aspiringlawstudent]

(Original post by Jenii)
I absolutely agree. However, universities ought to take into account that grades don't necessarily reflect ability. A*AA from a ****ty comprehensive does require more personal hard-work and/or ability than A*AA from a top public school. Oxbridge get a chance to interview and can make a more informed decisions, but other top universities may miss this chance. Quotas are not the answer, but I hope universities do take into account more than just raw grades when making their admissions decisions.

This.

[laughylolly]

(Original post by Maker)
Just make private school students pay uni higher fees. Say £33,000 per year and use the money to subsidise poorer students and improve the uni and state education.

I think thats fair because if you can afford to go to private school to gain an advantage, you should pay for it at uni as well. Private education is all about buying advantage.

Hardly half of private school children would be able to afford uni at 33,000 a year. On average it's around 9000 a year for private education (20000 + for boarding school), I see where you are coming from but because fees are going to be going up to 9000 pounds anyways, even private school parents/kids will be stretching their pockets.

(Original post by Jenii)
I absolutely agree. However, universities ought to take into account that grades don't necessarily reflect ability. A*AA from a ****ty comprehensive does require more personal hard-work and/or ability than A*AA from a top public school. Oxbridge get a chance to interview and can make a more informed decisions, but other top universities may miss this chance. Quotas are not the answer, but I hope universities do take into account more than just raw grades when making their admissions decisions.

I totally agree. Universities should start interviewing more, and I know that already many universities look at other things than just the grades a lot when deciding who to give offers to. It's not just about get X number of A*'s/A's, it's about actually loving and having that dedication for that subject so much that you are prepared to spend 3/4+ years solely studying that subject.