St Andrews blamed for lack of poor students
Scroll to see replies
St Andrews is rubbish anyway. Oxbridge is much better.
#truthhurts
#truthhurts
Original post by Smack
Maybe poor students simply aren't interested in studying at St Andrews university. I went to a low performing state school and studying something like classics or history of art or maths at St Andrews was the last thing on anyone's mind;
I agree with this, if you aren't from a certain background St Andrews is pretty boring tbh. The bright kids from poor areas that want to go to uni usually want to go to the bigger city unis.
What would be more revealing is if they showed how many people from poor postcodes applied to St Andrews, how many were rejected despite having the right predicted grades....?
Original post by Astronomical
You can't blame the university for choosing the applicants with the best grades, which I am sure is what they must be trying to do.
I don't believe positive discrimination is the answer, either. If you've had to run a household without any parents, and have a job at the same time as studying for A-levels, then you are in such a tiny minority that it is ludicrous to even suggest altering the entire system to accommodate such rare circumstances. Many intelligent, poor students are indeed at private schools anyhow, on scholarships and bursaries.
.
I don't believe positive discrimination is the answer, either. If you've had to run a household without any parents, and have a job at the same time as studying for A-levels, then you are in such a tiny minority that it is ludicrous to even suggest altering the entire system to accommodate such rare circumstances. Many intelligent, poor students are indeed at private schools anyhow, on scholarships and bursaries.
.
I'm disappointed that you feel people who have had to overcome major problems in their lives are not entitled to any positive discrimination when it comes to university admission. A cancer sufferer, a sexually abused young person or an orphan like me - none of this would count or even matter under "your" system where grades are all that matter. So exactly what would suggest happens to disadvantaged students of the kind I mentioned?
Original post by Organ
Tuition fees are not paid upfront (unlike living costs - which Scotland does worse than England & Wales).
They are if you're not getting SAAS to pay for them as I discovered a few years ago when my application was late!
I don't think universities should have to lower their standards, I think that is preposterous. But similarly mad is the idea that the wealthy shouldn't be allowed to pay to give their kids a good education. If my parents could have afforded to send me and my siblings to private school they deffo would've. The fact that they can't is probably due to having so many kids and not having the world's best jobs. I think the people who have the world's best jobs are generally deserving of said job and have usually worked hard to achieve said position. Why should they be penalised for being successful? If I can ever afford to give my kids a private education I will do so. I think state schools should be improved but I don't think you can wait around for this to happen when your kid's education is at stake.
Original post by Orphan
I'm disappointed that you feel people who have had to overcome major problems in their lives are not entitled to any positive discrimination when it comes to university admission. A cancer sufferer, a sexually abused young person or an orphan like me - none of this would count or even matter under "your" system where grades are all that matter. So exactly what would suggest happens to disadvantaged students of the kind I mentioned?
Well, I fall into one of the categories you've suggested, though I will not state which one and I don't believe that I deserve any preferential treatment. I got ABCC at A-level which are mediocre results and I know that but meanwhile I was running my household and caring for my sick mother and three younger siblings. It was hard to know whether to focus on my academia or the welfare of my family and it was bloody hard-work. Does it mean I should get to go to Cambridge? No.
Sure I was disadvantaged, but disadvantages are everywhere. People are not equal and people's life situations are not equal. This does not mean I should get to be like "Hey, I'm more deserving because of this **** I've endured."
**** happens to everybody. The world doesn't owe you anything for your unfortunate circumstances. I'm sorry your parents died but I don't think you should get special treatment because of this because where would it stop? When do you draw the line and say no, this isn't a good enough case?
Do you have any idea how many people experience a death in the family, suffer from cancer or have been sexually abused?
It's fairer to judge someone solely on their grades. I wouldn't want charity anyway. I don't think my family situation makes me more deserving of a place at uni than someone with better grades who is a better candidate.
(edited 11 years ago)
St Andrews isn't typical of most good universities though: It's in a town in a relatively wealthy part of the country with a population of about 15,000. The only sizeable place nearby is Dundee, half an hour away, with a population of 150,000. As a result, it has no 'catchment area' to speak of, so isn't subject to the same pressures as universities like Glasgow or Edinburgh which are in urban areas of 1.5m and 750,000 respectively.
Poorer students are much more likely to apply to close-by universities, mainly because they can stay at home. St Andrews, despite what one might think, isn't particularly fashionable as a study destination amongst Scottish applicants: I believe they received about 4,000 applications from Scotland- about one fifth the level of Glasgow. So, while Glasgow receives Scottish applications by the bucket-load based partly on location, it tends to be people who want to move to St Andrews that apply- this immediately provides a different demographic. Given that Glasgow University is in the affluent part of the city with expensive rents and well-off families but much of the surrounding 50 miles contains a large chunk of the poorest parts of Scotland (it also contains nearly half of Scotland's population), they don't even have to accept many applications in order to appear much better than St Andrews at social mobility. I don't think this has all that much to do with 'accepting the best' either. Actually, since only 3% of the surrounding area is privately educated in Glasgow, the case could be made that it is just as unrepresentative (20% of Glasgow University is privately educated) as anywhere else.
Secondly, the point has often been made that students who are the first in their families to go to university tend to not want to study Philosophy or History of Art, and as a result, a big chunk of the courses at Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and St Andrews are not appealing to them. Computer Games technology, Tourism, events management and so on have been far more successful at recruiting those not traditionally drawn to higher education (unsurprising really), and thus, part of the selection bias pushes students down the road to newer universities offering non-traditional courses. There's also the issue of the students themselves not feeling like they'd 'fit-in'. Like the fact that students from certain schools tend to apply to the same universities, so too do students from different backgrounds not choose those universities for the same reason. I have heard numerous times students at a modern university saying the people at the older one in the same city are stuck up and not 'ordinary' people (by the same token, I've witnessed students here on TSR look down their nose at good universities because people like them don't tend to apply there, Liverpool being one example).
Finally, universities do have a duty to make sure they aren't closing doors unfairly to people who are good enough. The task is to work out whether they just don't want to go there (either before or after application), if there's an academic reason why the ancient universities don't do vocational subjects that they're unwilling to bend on, or if they really are at fault. The point has been made before that certain institutions with lots of well-off students have more polished rather than brighter kids. I've seen it myself first-hand. Student A might have AAB, but goes to a school where A*A*A*A* was the top grade, and is actually relatively poor by comparison to his or her peer group. Student B might have ABB, but was top in an inner city comprehensive and attends a different institution. The one with the better education might be easier to teach initially and know how to write good essays straight away, but there's a danger that by only looking at grades on paper, you miss out on the best as a result. This is where St Andrews has to be careful, not whether it takes 13 or 30 students next year.
Poorer students are much more likely to apply to close-by universities, mainly because they can stay at home. St Andrews, despite what one might think, isn't particularly fashionable as a study destination amongst Scottish applicants: I believe they received about 4,000 applications from Scotland- about one fifth the level of Glasgow. So, while Glasgow receives Scottish applications by the bucket-load based partly on location, it tends to be people who want to move to St Andrews that apply- this immediately provides a different demographic. Given that Glasgow University is in the affluent part of the city with expensive rents and well-off families but much of the surrounding 50 miles contains a large chunk of the poorest parts of Scotland (it also contains nearly half of Scotland's population), they don't even have to accept many applications in order to appear much better than St Andrews at social mobility. I don't think this has all that much to do with 'accepting the best' either. Actually, since only 3% of the surrounding area is privately educated in Glasgow, the case could be made that it is just as unrepresentative (20% of Glasgow University is privately educated) as anywhere else.
Secondly, the point has often been made that students who are the first in their families to go to university tend to not want to study Philosophy or History of Art, and as a result, a big chunk of the courses at Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and St Andrews are not appealing to them. Computer Games technology, Tourism, events management and so on have been far more successful at recruiting those not traditionally drawn to higher education (unsurprising really), and thus, part of the selection bias pushes students down the road to newer universities offering non-traditional courses. There's also the issue of the students themselves not feeling like they'd 'fit-in'. Like the fact that students from certain schools tend to apply to the same universities, so too do students from different backgrounds not choose those universities for the same reason. I have heard numerous times students at a modern university saying the people at the older one in the same city are stuck up and not 'ordinary' people (by the same token, I've witnessed students here on TSR look down their nose at good universities because people like them don't tend to apply there, Liverpool being one example).
Finally, universities do have a duty to make sure they aren't closing doors unfairly to people who are good enough. The task is to work out whether they just don't want to go there (either before or after application), if there's an academic reason why the ancient universities don't do vocational subjects that they're unwilling to bend on, or if they really are at fault. The point has been made before that certain institutions with lots of well-off students have more polished rather than brighter kids. I've seen it myself first-hand. Student A might have AAB, but goes to a school where A*A*A*A* was the top grade, and is actually relatively poor by comparison to his or her peer group. Student B might have ABB, but was top in an inner city comprehensive and attends a different institution. The one with the better education might be easier to teach initially and know how to write good essays straight away, but there's a danger that by only looking at grades on paper, you miss out on the best as a result. This is where St Andrews has to be careful, not whether it takes 13 or 30 students next year.
Original post by willbee
It's fairer to judge someone solely on their grades. I wouldn't want charity anyway. I don't think my family situation makes me more deserving of a place at uni than someone with better grades who is a better candidate.
It's fairer to judge someone solely on their grades. I wouldn't want charity anyway. I don't think my family situation makes me more deserving of a place at uni than someone with better grades who is a better candidate.
I don't think that better grades mean a better candidate if one of the candidates has had a life-changing disaster to cope with and the other candidate hasn't.
It isn't charity - it is compassion plus logic.
Original post by Orphan
I don't think that better grades mean a better candidate if one of the candidates has had a life-changing disaster to cope with and the other candidate hasn't.
It isn't charity - it is compassion plus logic.
It isn't charity - it is compassion plus logic.
Well I don't think it's fair on the person who hasn't had a life-changing disaster if they're getting undermined by someone who has. I'm all for compassion but I don't think what you're proposing is very fair at all. If your grades aren't up to scratch but you have something else to show for it such as experience and excellent references by all means use that as a ticket in, but I don't think other students should be penalised and have you take their place just because you've had a death in the family and they haven't.
Original post by Orphan
I don't think that better grades mean a better candidate if one of the candidates has had a life-changing disaster to cope with and the other candidate hasn't.
It isn't charity - it is compassion plus logic.
It isn't charity - it is compassion plus logic.
Yeah, someone who's been in those kinds of circumstances should be considered more carefully than other students, but they shouldn't get a special set of lower grades. If you'd had some life-changing disaster then chances are your grades are going to be **** because you've been focusing on other aspects of your life, but you haven't learned the course! Can you imagine how hard it would be to do a degree in something that you havent really learned about since GCSE? The kinder thing to do would be to allow that person to re-take that/both years at no extra cost to them (after 3 years of A-Levels the person becomes a 'mature' student and has to go to college and pay).
Welcome to the world.
A world where your social class, gender and ethnicity determines just about everything in your life and you can't control it because you were born that way.
A world where your social class, gender and ethnicity determines just about everything in your life and you can't control it because you were born that way.
Unless they're favouring a 'rich' student over a 'poor' one with the same grades, I don't see any issue with the current situation, other than Alex Salmond needs to actually get some decent education going there. You'd think they'd get decent education with such an abnormally high amount spent on it for the UK.
Original post by JollyGreenAtheist
The system needs fixing and the humungous inequalities need to be reduced between social classes and education.
The disparity in achievement between working class students at state schools and middle class students at public schools is stupendous. Universities can't be blamed for taking the best applicants, because the richer you are, the better the education you're able to receive. It's a nonsense that the wealth of one's parents determines the child's future; there's something Victorian about that degree of injustice.
The disparity in achievement between working class students at state schools and middle class students at public schools is stupendous. Universities can't be blamed for taking the best applicants, because the richer you are, the better the education you're able to receive. It's a nonsense that the wealth of one's parents determines the child's future; there's something Victorian about that degree of injustice.
The sixth form I go to is the third highest contributor to Oxbridge and it's a ... *drumroll* state school.
Original post by Darkphilosopher
The sixth form I go to is the third highest contributor to Oxbridge and it's a ... *drumroll* state school.
I don't doubt that some state schools are excellent, but I was highlighting a trend. It's unlikely that many public or grammar schools perform poorly according to OFSTED, at least compared to state run schools.
Original post by willbee
Well I don't think it's fair on the person who hasn't had a life-changing disaster if they're getting undermined by someone who has. I'm all for compassion but I don't think what you're proposing is very fair at all. If your grades aren't up to scratch but you have something else to show for it such as experience and excellent references by all means use that as a ticket in, but I don't think other students should be penalised and have you take their place just because you've had a death in the family and they haven't.
I didn't need the "charity" that one person mentioned. Despite everything I got the grades I needed. But yes I think if I had got BBC rather than BBB I think the university should consider my situation more favourably than another student with BBC who didn't have any disasters to cope with.
I suppose losing both my parents counts as "a death in the family"?!
Personally, I don't think it's fair that those from disadvantaged backgrounds should get preferential treatment. A middle class student can work equally as hard. Of course it should be considered in some circumstances if the university feel that the candiadates background put them at an unfair disadvantage, that could've contributed to sub-par exam performance.
Original post by Darkphilosopher
The sixth form I go to is the third highest contributor to Oxbridge and it's a ... *drumroll* state school.
There are cases like this around, but when looked at more generally the disparity is huge. AAA+ is much, much more common at fee-paying schools than state schools. There are some schools where two-thirds of the students get at least AAA! At the poorest performing schools it's not unheard of for no-one to even get three A-levels- a B and a C is a big result in some places. All in all, three times as many privately educated students get AAA than their state counterparts.
Sure, this might be because the children of those who can afford to pay probably have parents with degrees and are both relatively bright and come from a family of people who know how to pass exams either academically or professionally, but nevertheless I'm sceptical that the gap can be so wide on that alone. Universities must therefore be careful when looking at applicants. I've taught in modern and ancient universities and I know the difference good and bad schooling can make later on in life. Sometimes, if nothing else, having a classroom free from the 4-5 knuckledragging morons that clogged up virtually every lesson where I grew up can make a big difference. At a family member's school, anyone not getting straight Bs or better was called in with their parents to chat to the principal to see what could be done. At a school less than a mile away, those who didn't show initiative with no help were pretty much cut loose at 15 years old. My sister is one example of that. She's as bright as me, I think, but has no qualifications beyond GCSE/Standard Grade level.
What concerns me about this system is that we often come across students at leading universities with good grades who just aren't very bright and not cut out for higher education or the critical thinking that we demand. Usually, it's because said student has performed towards the bottom-end of a very good school rather than the top end of a bad one. A cousin and a good friend of mine both attended St Andrews. One was a medallist in a state school, the other freely admits he went there because he didn't get into his top choices where most of his school ended up going (Oxford/Cambridge or abroad) and he felt it was somewhere he could see himself being. His grades, from a self-confessed underachiever near the bottom of his high school class, were equal to the medallist at the state school. I suspect if one compiles a table based on universities with the most students from the top 10% of their high school classes, we might get different results than when we look at UCAS score alone. As an aspiring academic, I only really care that we get the brightest- none of us care much about their background. I wonder though if certain universities really are getting them.
Original post by ThatPerson
Personally, I don't think it's fair that those from disadvantaged backgrounds should get preferential treatment. A middle class student can work equally as hard. Of course it should be considered in some circumstances if the university feel that the candiadates background put them at an unfair disadvantage, that could've contributed to sub-par exam performance.
You know, having worked with and taught those who didn't have the easiest route to higher education, I find it's usually those that are from comfortable backgrounds that haven't had a life-changing event or serious extenuating circumstances who are the first to say that people shouldn't get preferential treatment. Until you've been in a situation so horrible that I don't really want spend time thinking about it, I don't think you (or I) are in any position to talk about when a student does and does not deserve special consideration for a place.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by 0404343m
You know, having worked with and taught those who didn't have the easiest route to higher education, I find it's usually those that are from comfortable backgrounds that haven't had a life-changing event or serious extenuating circumstances who are the first to say that people shouldn't get preferential treatment. Until you've been in a situation so horrible that I don't really want spend time thinking about it, I don't think you (or I) are in any position to talk about when a student does and does not deserve special consideration for a place.
You know, having worked with and taught those who didn't have the easiest route to higher education, I find it's usually those that are from comfortable backgrounds that haven't had a life-changing event or serious extenuating circumstances who are the first to say that people shouldn't get preferential treatment. Until you've been in a situation so horrible that I don't really want spend time thinking about it, I don't think you (or I) are in any position to talk about when a student does and does not deserve special consideration for a place.
Thank you so much for posting this. Some of the other people here have reduced me to tears (literally, not as a figure of speech) by their comments.
All I can say to them is I hope that they never have to go through what happened to me. Or if they do lose both parents and are faced with a choice between living in a Children's Home or with GParents who really, really didn't want me I hope they receive more compassion that they showed in this thread!
Original post by Orphan
Thank you so much for posting this. Some of the other people here have reduced me to tears (literally, not as a figure of speech) by their comments.
All I can say to them is I hope that they never have to go through what happened to me. Or if they do lose both parents and are faced with a choice between living in a Children's Home or with GParents who really, really didn't want me I hope they receive more compassion that they showed in this thread!
All I can say to them is I hope that they never have to go through what happened to me. Or if they do lose both parents and are faced with a choice between living in a Children's Home or with GParents who really, really didn't want me I hope they receive more compassion that they showed in this thread!
I didn't mean to say don't give special consideration at all. What I meant to try and say is that just because you have come from a poorer background doesn't mean you work harder than another person.
I am in favour of special consideration only if the person has had an event that has siginficantly affected their studies, physical or mental health.
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 1 day 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 1 day 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 ?
