People with mediocre grades should not be allowed to go to university

Come on it's common sense. If there was a great probability of people who get crap A level grades doing well at university then entry requirements wouldn't exist in the first place.

This argument could be extrapolated to literally any walk of life, everything has requirements, I don't understand why people don't see this and can't separate their "heart" from the matter, just because they know a tear jerking story of someone who only came into their own once at uni and were given the chance despite crap A level grades, this sort of wishy washy thing cannot work on a national level. You'll just end up letting anyone into university.

I completely agree with the original post. People should only be allowed to go to university if they can get Bs or above at A-level.

I also feel that low grade requirements of universities are only a scapegoat for students who didn't bother at A-level and got low grades. It's not teaching them to take their results more seriously if they go to university, because if some students end up getting CCDE at A-level or something similar, then the low grade requirements by universities (also in clearing) doesn't make them stop to think, "I didn't get into my university of choice, maybe I really should have buckled down and worked harder." Instead it makes them think that regardless of how much effort they put in, that they'll get whatever they want no matter what.

By saying "mediocre people should not be allowed to go to university" you implied that having **** grades made you a mediocre person.

do you actually have any meaningful rationale for this assertion that removes all but a fraction of level 3 qualification holders from University ? or is this just typical TSR arrogant bovine excrement ?

lol so whats all the hostility for? you agree with what i'm saying .

I wish i could say they don't matter but they do.. some colleges say you need 5A*-C to get in etc... what would be better is if a proper indicator was applied...

And yh too many of us... some of my peers blame the system.. i just kept my head down and whilst peers were out there committing crimes i kepy my head down and studied hard hoping it leads to a better future...

Good to see you've turned it around and good luck..

Best of luck to you too.

I was surrounded by bad people and we all turned it around. I wish I could've passed my GCSEs. No lie going to a good rank uni is really good. But sometimes if you wanna turn things around you need to work your way up from the very bottom which is what most man like me doing.

Going to a better university just means better employment once you leave and a few other things. My friend failed his A Levels really bad (DDE) and had to go UEL but after his first year he got into Queen Mary somehow.

Funny you should mention this, UCL chem department swears there is no correlation between A level grades over C and performance at degree level. but they say they can't lower the entry requirements as the main university body refuses to believe them. They say the only correlation is between grades at the first year introductory module and future degree performance.

Yes but having **** grades does not mean you are a mediocre person. Ffs.

I'm too tired to continue this stupid "argument".

This is BS.

On the other hand, Cambridge admissions think that the best indicator of future performance available to them is AS module percentages. So the jury is definitely out. Also, here's a thought for you - If UCL chem are mostly only getting students with high entry grades, how can they say that >C doesn't matter? The exceptions will have likely got in because they were exceptional in other ways.



He didn't say having **** grades makes you a mediocre person. However, failing to understand the many uses of the comma does.



Hm? All the maths modules I've done so far have just been applying maths modules. I suspect that any maths exam less than 2 hours long with more than 6 questions is not rigorous enough to actually test mathematical ability (though I could well be wrong).

Read what I wrote.

"**** grades, mediocre people..."

The comma is not there by some slip of the finger, it is there because I know what it is and I know how to use it.

And if you're not au fait with conversational profanity, the first word starts with an 'F' and rhymes if 'puck'.

Give me ****ing strength.

And do you believe a degree from a university with entrance requirements of DDD looks impressive to employers?

This concept of going to university to "study something you are interested in" is simply not applicable if you have been getting C, D or E grades. If you were that interested, you'd have done better at A-level, for one of two reasons: either you want to study a subject you aren't taking, in which case you aspire to study it at the best institution available; or you took it at A-level, and so should have done very well because you found it all very interesting and knew it all brilliantly.

so someone with BBB in "less academic" subjects (like media, general studies) should go to uni and someone with BCC in the sciences should not?

bare in mind that science exams are a lottery on the day

You know nothing about me so what gives you the right to call me a mediocre person? So I didn't interpret Renal's statement as he intended, it doesn't make me a mediocre person.

I got poor grades. I'm at University. Does this anger you?


Guess what? There's nothing you can do about it. Tee hee.

I don't like how university education is treated as the ultimate proof of an adult's worth by some people. People seem to be getting degrees for the sake of getting one. The country should put more emphasis and value on skills which don't require a university education to achieve, but still an education. At my school, we're given so much information about uni applications and the importance of a degree but almost nothing on what courses or other forms of education you can get if you want a particular job :/ .

I don't entirely agree. The ability to succeed in exams is also vitally important. For a bit of perspective, I've just finished a geography degree at a 1994-group uni. I got ABB at A-level; the lowest UMS out of the three was in geography - my degree subject - which was also the one I found most interesting. Also interesting is that out of my three A-levels, geography had the least coursework by far; whilst the subject I got the A in had by far the most coursework.

Fast forward 3 years to the end of my degree, and here I am with 1% off a 2.1. Throughout the 2 years that contributed towards my degree, I averaged a good 2.1 in all my coursework (highest mark 79%), but a 3rd in all my exams (highest mark 56%).

Bear in mind that I was fascinated by the majority of my chosen modules, and that I put in similar levels of effort in both coursework and exam revision. Yet I averaged the best part of 20% less in my exams. My exams form a clear anomaly; I believe that by ability and passion, I should have been easily a 2.1 candidate. Likewise, I know of people who are naturally very good at exams (averaged 1sts) but many of them are as thick as horsesh*t in real life; the kind of people who get AAB at A-level just by being good at exams despite being not particularly intelligent. Just goes to show that exams are not a reflective indicator of someone's ability or interest in a subject. So from this respect your argument is flawed.

I'm a strong believer in basing A-levels more heavily around coursework, because this is so much more reflective of not only a student's passion for a subject, but also the student's ability.

You think that science A-level exams are more of a lottery than English or History? I would beg to differ.

I don't entirely agree. The ability to succeed in exams is also vitally important. For a bit of perspective, I've just finished a geography degree at a 1994-group uni. I got ABB at A-level; the lowest UMS out of the three was in geography - my degree subject - which was also the one I found most interesting. Also interesting is that out of my three A-levels, geography had the least coursework by far; whilst the subject I got the A in had by far the most coursework.

Fast forward 3 years to the end of my degree, and here I am with 1% off a 2.1. Throughout the 2 years that contributed towards my degree, I averaged a good 2.1 in all my coursework (highest mark 79%), but a 3rd in all my exams (highest mark 56%).

Bear in mind that I was fascinated by the majority of my chosen modules, and that I put in similar levels of effort in both coursework and exam revision. Yet I averaged around 20% less in my exams. My exams form a clear anomaly; I believe that if degrees were awarded solely on ability and passion, I would easily have been a 2.1 candidate. Likewise, I know of people who are naturally very good at exams (averaged 1sts) but many of them are as thick as horsesh*t in real life; the kind of people who get AAB at A-level just by being good at exams despite being not particularly intelligent. Just goes to show that exams are not a reflective indicator of someone's ability or interest in a subject. So from this respect your argument is flawed.

I'm a strong believer in basing A-levels more heavily around coursework, because this is so much more reflective of not only a student's passion for a subject, but also the student's ability.

A guy with a Hertfordshire degree can't flaunt his degree in the face of someone with a UCL degree.

I agree with the OP. It's not even a special achievement any more to say you have a degree. I could join any ex-poly now, doss for 3 years and get a degree. That's the source of all this university league table rivalry as you can't just say you got a degree you gotta say you got it from a top uni to stand out. It's pretty much a conveyor belt, the 20 year old retaker in my physics class who threw around paper aeroplanes is in uni now ffs. You don't have to try the government will practically guarantee that whatever your brainpower there is a uni place for you somewhere.

The government's policy of 50% of people in uni is flawed. If you think in terms of the normal distribution of population intelligence then not everyone is cut out for university.

And if these ex polys were to be closed down then all the money spent on them could go towards the good universities. If people say that you cant do that as every job needs a degree these days well that is the direct result of there being so many people with degrees. It's akin to money inflation, more money around, prices go up, higher qualifications around, job entry requirements go up. Let's be honest you don't need a degree to work in an office.

I say that the minimum standard for entry into any university should be ABB. A in the subject you want to do and B in 2 other relevant subjects. It would encourage people to work harder. Sixth formers these days think "oh if I don't get the grades it doesn't matter as ill guaranteed get a place to party through clearing."

I could join any ex-poly now, doss for 3 years and get a degree.

Sixth formers these days think "oh if I don't get the grades it doesn't matter as ill guaranteed get a place to party through clearing."

you can't just say you got a degree you gotta say you got it from a top uni to stand out.

And if these ex polys were to be closed down then all the money spent on them could go towards the good universities

It's pretty much a conveyor belt, the 20 year old retaker in my physics class who threw around paper aeroplanes is in uni now ffs.

I say that the minimum standard for entry into any university should be ABB. A in the subject you want to do and B in 2 other relevant subjects.