GOGSoc Episode VI: The GoG, the Bad and the Ugly

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

I don't think I can - I don't have that much leave and I'd need someone to go with me, due to having to be supervised most of the time for my own safety :frown:

It's worth thinking about though, so I guess I could look into it :beard:

Summer is the time people usually go to this community :yes:

is it the only community you could possibly study? would you be able to write your proposal by saying you hope to go there, but have a 'back up'? I have a friend whose original proposal involved doing fieldwork in DRC, but since things have kicked off again there now, she can't go for various reasons - but mainly the ESRC won't fund it now. She's just changed her design to interview ICRC people on their return...she's not as happy with it, but it's a solution.

Reply 1782

The_Lonely_Goatherd

20

Original post by flying plum

is it the only community you could possibly study? would you be able to write your proposal by saying you hope to go there, but have a 'back up'? I have a friend whose original proposal involved doing fieldwork in DRC, but since things have kicked off again there now, she can't go for various reasons - but mainly the ESRC won't fund it now. She's just changed her design to interview ICRC people on their return...she's not as happy with it, but it's a solution.

Yeah, my back-up plan is suggesting doing an ethnography the use of the community's music in a specific church setting (probably in London, just for convenience). I didn't realise it was OK to have a back-up plan - I thought they'd think I'm flakey :colondollar:

So it's good to know that - thank you :hugs:

Reply 1783

flying plum

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

Yeah, my back-up plan is suggesting doing an ethnography the use of the community's music in a specific church setting (probably in London, just for convenience). I didn't realise it was OK to have a back-up plan - I thought they'd think I'm flakey :colondollar:

So it's good to know that - thank you :hugs:

well, ideally you want to be able to do the project that they've agreed to fund, and of course, if you could say in your application that you had spoken to the community already and they were open to taking part in the research, that makes your proposal a lot stronger. however, if you're not a position to do so, I think it's best to be realistic and write your proposal in a way that makes it clear that you understand that engaging participants in observational work is not always easy, and that you may need to consider a 'plan B'. If i was interviewing you for the studentship, I think asking what you would do if you couldn't get access to the specific community you want to would be the first question I would ask.

however, maybe dont' go just on my opinion - what do others (perhaps those who are further along than me - Ilex?) think?

Reply 1784

Original post by evantej

I misread your initial comment, but I did not technically misquote you.

I do not see how Oxbridge 'take :undefined:

into account the socio-economic background of undergrads, and the quality of schools they came from, when making an offer' though.

Well then, read and be informed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambridge-admissions-really-work

Take Oxford as an example. They have interviews which cost a lot of money to attend and which private-school students excel at, they do not seem to lower their offers unlike other universities when widening participation (98% of students had three or more As at A level), and they only work with schools 'that field candidates capable of making a competitive application to Oxford' (i.e. 78%). Heck, even their summer school programme looks just as competitive to get on as getting into the university itself.

I guess we have different ideas about what constitutes access though...
Interviews are the thing that make Oxbridge better at access than other elite Universities. Its the fact that they pour more money into the process of considering applicants that makes them fairer and more inclusive. If you just go on a student's personal statement and grades you are inherently biased against their class. Why? Because poor performing schools are less able to help students with personal statements, and disadvantaged students are less likely to have parents who can help. In terms of academic results, educational attainment is extremely correlated with class and ethnicity in the UK, to the point where your social demographic predicts your grades.
The fact that Oxbridge has more money means that they can improve admissions in additional ways: (1) They actually interview students, which allows them to test the actual intellectual aptitude of students, rather than merely their ability to pass tests and cram facts. This means that students who perform poorly at school can sometimes actually perform quite well in interviews. (2) They can pay people to read work samples, which again, provides more information about an individual than other processes allow.

In case you don't read that article, colleges give lower offers to candidates who are more disadvantaged.

Interviews are not expensive. They require travel costs, and nothing more. While I'm sure this has never been tested, I'm sure if an applicant was unable to come to an interview due to financial constraint, colleges would probably be willing to pay for them to come, or to arrange a Skype interview.

Original post by flying plum

I've often wondered what would happen if we went down the Scandinavian route, and abolished private schools. I doubt that would ever happen in this country, it would be political suicide, I think, but if it did, what would happen? Would it even things out, or would those with means still manage to distort the system through private tuition and so on?

I suppose the gap between Eton vs local comprehensive would obviously diminish, but would the gap still exist? If it would, I would say ban them in an instant. Selfish, perhaps, as someone who went to a private school, but really, something has got to change.

Yeh, it would mean that powerful people in society insisted that education was improved. But, as Couldxbe says, this would still be very divided geographically. It is already the case that poverty and 'social exclusion' are very area based. We would just see an increasing divide between good and bad state schools.

Original post by sj27

I'd put this the other way round. The best route out of an underprivileged background is through education. Fix the education system and you go a long way to blurring the division between classes.

Decades of educational research has shown this to be a problematic assumption. Fixing education is a very popular political way to boost popularity. But if you don't tackle poverty and disadvantage in society overall, what you find is that disadvantage is replicated and compounded within the education system through a range of different mechanisms.
Not only does your background determine your educational attainment, in this country, but in some cases the school system can actually make it worse. Longitudinal research in inner city London has shown that black students from wealthy families perform highly when they begin schooling as small children. By the time they reach GCSE they are among the lowest performing students in terms of attainment as a result of institutional racism.

Reply 1785

Original post by *Corinna*

Personally, I do not see why universities should lower their offers for students coming from poorer backgrounds. Yes, it's unfair that some students get worse tuition than others but universities are there to set their own standards of admission, given that each university requires a certain level in order to ensure its students will be able to cope with their degrees. In my country for example admission to university is based solely on performance in the final, nation wide, examinations. There is no consideration of anyone's background at all. In my university, I happen to know 4 out of the 5 students who got in with the highest marks and 3 of them came from state schools (pretty bad ones as well) and the fourth just came from a decent school, nothing exceptional.
In my opinion, it is not the requirements that need to change, but the education system before university. If state schools are so much worse than public ones, then surely this is what we should tackle.

I completely agree with your conclusion, but to answer the first part of your post...
In this country your grades at GCSE and A level (if you actually do go on), is entirely correlated with your background. We have been collecting data about attainment for a couple of decades now, and so we can actually compare performance by gender, ethnicity and class.
What this means is that educational assessment is a reflection of your background not your potential and actual ability. The environment you're in, school you go to, expectations etc... are all much more influential than your intelligence and aptitude.
Therefore this means that something tiny, like 0.5% of students from the poorest backgrounds are attaining A-C grades needed for admission to good Universities. So obviously, if you've come to the point where you stop seeing grades as anything to do with ability, and all about your level of advantage, then it makes sense to consider making adjustments in your admissions criteria, based on this information.

However, what is really annoying, is that there is a lot of political focus on University admissions, whereas by the time a student has gotten to 16, its really too late for them. You are completely right that the only desirable and effective way to solve the problem is to improve bad schools. However, I would go further and say that the state needs to tackle poverty directly. Because even if poor children go to perfect schools, they still face disadvantages that hinder their performance. For instance, its been demonstrated that malnutrition makes small children behave poorly and affect's their concentration. The poorest children are malnourished. While some receive free school meals, there are others whose parents are not well/functional enough to actually arrange this. And others who don't fall into the right income bracket for FSM but who are still not making ends meet. Badly behaved children get treated worse by teachers, and are less likely to become engaged and to do well (they are also more likely to drop out). So there are a whole range of issues going on that even perfect schools could not fix.

Original post by flying plum

So, it's all very well saying 'if you really want to, you can achieve', but I'm not much of an individualist in my views on society, so I can't agree. Sorry. Well done to all those who fought against the odds, I'm not trying to take anything away from you, but I can't help but feel you're a minority.

Statistically they are a ridiculously tiny minority. So yes, this is why we should never rely on anecdotal evidence.

Reply 1786

Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi

Whilst that's all fine and dandy, it bears little on the gut wrenching hurt you feel when others in your cohort say "oh, I only had to get AAB". The word Oxbridge, just as an aside, really grates on me.

In the context of this discussion, that consequence is obviously the least deserving of attention by policy makers.

Reply 1787

Original post by Craghyrax

In the context of this discussion, that consequence is obviously the least deserving of attention by policy makers.

I don't understand this comment - can you explain a bit more?

Reply 1788

Hylean

15

Original post by IlexAquifolium

I don't understand this comment - can you explain a bit more?

Surely how students perceive the decisions made to get them is the least important? Just because it annoyed Adorno doesn't mean it should guide policy based on statistical research?

Hy, Craggy, out of interest, does this research include Northern Ireland? I ask because we don't publish our results, so we never appear in articles discussing the issue on BBC and stuff.

Also, more grumps from me: Fulbright's two year residency requirement is just mean.

Reply 1789

Original post by Hylean

Surely how students perceive the decisions made to get them is the least important? Just because it annoyed Adorno doesn't mean it should guide policy based on statistical research?

I wasn't disagreeing (if that is indeed what Craggy meant), just asking for a little more elaboration since I wasn't quite sure what she was angling at. That's all...

To explain (myself!), I agree with you that policy definitely shouldn't be made on the basis of hurt feelings, but I do think the broader point that Adorno made about his experience - which, if I understand it correctly, was that the student with the most 'red flags' was given the highest offer - would be worthy of further consideration. It is probably evidence of a lot of other variables coming together (which is certainly the picture that the article Craggy linked to suggests, where they made a higher offer to a student with dodgy schooling where they were worried she would struggle) but from a PR perspective, offer makers should be sensitive to how it looks if reduced offers are going to those in the higher socioeconomic brackets. And I don't *think* Craggy would disagree with the bent of that statement, so I just wanted her to expand a bit on what she meant.

Anyway.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1790

obi_adorno_kenobi

Original post by Craghyrax

In the context of this discussion, that consequence is obviously the least deserving of attention by policy makers

Well yes, of course, but it is about the only thing a student is aware of. We never see our private files, we are never told what enabled us to succeed where others do not. I don't venture the anecdote for policy discussion, after all. Though, of course, you never can resist putting me down, can you.

Reply 1791

Text Area

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

Yeah, my back-up plan is suggesting doing an ethnography the use of the community's music in a specific church setting (probably in London, just for convenience). I didn't realise it was OK to have a back-up plan - I thought they'd think I'm flakey :colondollar:

So it's good to know that - thank you :hugs:

Original post by flying plum

well, ideally you want to be able to do the project that they've agreed to fund, and of course, if you could say in your application that you had spoken to the community already and they were open to taking part in the research, that makes your proposal a lot stronger. however, if you're not a position to do so, I think it's best to be realistic and write your proposal in a way that makes it clear that you understand that engaging participants in observational work is not always easy, and that you may need to consider a 'plan B'. If i was interviewing you for the studentship, I think asking what you would do if you couldn't get access to the specific community you want to would be the first question I would ask.

however, maybe dont' go just on my opinion - what do others (perhaps those who are further along than me - Ilex?) think?

On my proposal I talked about potential issues that I might have with my proposed research and how I might overcome them (e.g. access). I was also asked about these in my interview. And I'm not doing my PhD in the same way that I proposed, I couldn't get access- its the same overall theme, but different way in. I saw the person in charge of my funding (ESRC via an early form of DTC) a year later and said that I had changed what I was doing and his response was as long as I finished, it didn't matter.

Would it be possible to speak to the community between the period of submitting the proposal and the interview? Because then you could write in the proposal that you are 'in the process of negotiating access.' And I don't think it will make you look flakey if you identify a plan B- the people looking at your proposal will know the realities of the way in which research pans out.

Reply 1792

Original post by Text Area

On my proposal I talked about potential issues that I might have with my proposed research and how I might overcome them (e.g. access). I was also asked about these in my interview. And I'm not doing my PhD in the same way that I proposed, I couldn't get access- its the same overall theme, but different way in. I saw the person in charge of my funding (ESRC via an early form of DTC) a year later and said that I had changed what I was doing and his response was as long as I finished, it didn't matter.

Would it be possible to speak to the community between the period of submitting the proposal and the interview? Because then you could write in the proposal that you are 'in the process of negotiating access.' And I don't think it will make you look flakey if you identify a plan B- the people looking at your proposal will know the realities of the way in which research pans out.

Agreed, but I think it's important that Plan B isn't 'here is a totally different topic I am also interested in' but 'here is a different way that I could investigate the issue if this more empirically ambitious way doesn't work out'. The latter shows you are a strong candidate who has a good understanding of the realities of research and has given extensive thought to how other people might affect your plans, the former shows you don't really know what you want to do with your life.

Reply 1793

flying plum

On the context of university admissions, and educational/social inequalities more generally, this is something I've felt increasingly frustrated about for a while, and I really feel like I need to try and do something. I know this sounds stupid, naive, and possibly a bit patronising...but I wondered whether anyone had any experience of the 'mentoring' schemes run by Universities/IntoUniversity and that kind of thing? Are they any good, or are they just a bit middle-class guilt assuaging? I just feel really angry about a lot of things, and that sitting in my office researching my thesis, living in my nice flat, is not really doing much about any of it.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1794

Cora Lindsay

10

Original post by The_Lonely_Goatherd

Yeah, my back-up plan is suggesting doing an ethnography the use of the community's music in a specific church setting (probably in London, just for convenience). I didn't realise it was OK to have a back-up plan - I thought they'd think I'm flakey :colondollar:

So it's good to know that - thank you :hugs:

Risk management is an important part of any project. This involves identifying risks ('how can this go wrong?') and proposed mitigation ('when it goes wrong, this is what we'll do').

It is quite acceptable to identify failure to gain access to the community as a risk (in the jargon, a 'programme level' risk, because it will kill the whole thing), and discuss how you would mitigate that (Plan B). I agre that a different approach to the same research question would be better than offering an entirely different project as Plan B

Risk management is a big thing in industry-funded projects and is starting to be more important with the research councils too

Reply 1795

Original post by IlexAquifolium

I don't understand this comment - can you explain a bit more?

As Hylean paraphrased... I just meant that the fact that students might be grumpy isn't a good basis for deciding how to make offers. Three port drift had just described the various factors that are taken into account when choosing where to set an offer, and Adorno replied with: "Whilst that's all fine and dandy, it bears little on the gut wrenching hurt you feel when others in your cohort say "oh, I only had to get AAB". The word Oxbridge, just as an aside, really grates on me." I just found this quite odd, as how individuals feel once actually at University is a completely separate matter when we were essentially discussing whether the admissions approach of Oxbridge is inclusive or not.

Original post by Hylean

Hy, Craggy, out of interest, does this research include Northern Ireland? I ask because we don't publish our results, so we never appear in articles discussing the issue on BBC and stuff.

I can't remember. Crammed loads of stats in my head for an exam, but forgot all the finer details the moment I could :p:

Sociology of Education is one of the most dull subjects ever. My thesis was painful...

Original post by IlexAquifolium

I wasn't disagreeing (if that is indeed what Craggy meant), just asking for a little more elaboration since I wasn't quite sure what she was angling at. That's all...

To explain (myself!), I agree with you that policy definitely shouldn't be made on the basis of hurt feelings, but I do think the broader point that Adorno made about his experience - which, if I understand it correctly, was that the student with the most 'red flags' was given the highest offer - would be worthy of further consideration. It is probably evidence of a lot of other variables coming together (which is certainly the picture that the article Craggy linked to suggests, where they made a higher offer to a student with dodgy schooling where they were worried she would struggle) but from a PR perspective, offer makers should be sensitive to how it looks if reduced offers are going to those in the higher socioeconomic brackets. And I don't *think* Craggy would disagree with the bent of that statement, so I just wanted her to expand a bit on what she meant.

Anyway.

In addition to the above comment I made, I don't really think its that reliable to generalise from one experience. For example, I was ticking the boxes for low income/bad school etc. and I got admitted on AAC (and when I applied, it was actually ABC). So I honestly think that the decisions they make are very fine tuned to the individual and their situation. (Also to the college... admissions tutors in some colleges have different policies to others).

Reply 1796

evantej

18

Original post by Craghyrax

[...] Interviews are the thing that make Oxbridge better at access than other elite Universities. Its the fact that they pour more money into the process of considering applicants that makes them fairer and more inclusive. If you just go on a student's personal statement and grades you are inherently biased against their class. Why? Because poor performing schools are less able to help students with personal statements, and disadvantaged students are less likely to have parents who can help. In terms of academic results, educational attainment is extremely correlated with class and ethnicity in the UK, to the point where your social demographic predicts your grades. [...]

Interviews are not expensive. They require travel costs, and nothing more. While I'm sure this has never been tested, I'm sure if an applicant was unable to come to an interview due to financial constraint, colleges would probably be willing to pay for them to come, or to arrange a Skype interview. [...]

I see no evidence of 'colleges giv[ing] lower offers to candidates who are more disadvantaged'. In fact, I see the complete opposite. For example, because the girl 'from a comprehensive school who got an eight at interview' got terrible GCSEs and a bad reference they deliberately 'set the hurdle high'.

Likewise, your emphasis on the benefits of the interview process do not seem to come through either, including the example above. 20% of applicants never make it to interview; they will typically be people with lower grades and worse personal statements (i.e. low-income students). The first rejections after interview are those 'candidates whose academic track record is – by Cambridge standards – marginal, and whose performance at interview has been disappointing'. In addition, the writer comments that 'great emphasis is placed on exam performance, and the academics are keen to drill down into performance in*individual modules'. And the medicine example at the end of the article places greater on exam performance rather than the interview, because the student's 'four A*s [are] the summation of many years of work.

Not once does it say they give out lower offers or that interviews are important for making decisions. The only interview that stands out is the 'boy from an academy school in Norfolk' who was confident in his natural sciences interview. It does not say whether he was given an offer. Staff simply pick and choose when to ignore relatively poor GCSE results and A level predictions.

What I found most disappointing was the implication that staff were doing one of the students a favour by rejecting her. They admit she lacks essential knowledge knowledge and know this is because of unimaginable teaching difficulties she has faced, yet reject her anyway, because 'the university cannot repair the gaps in this candidate's knowledge'. That is complete nonsense. Of course they can. They are simply choosing to take the easier option of rejecting her and picking someone who can hit the ground running...

You are incredibly dismissive about interview costs. I have just checked the cost of travelling by train more than a month in advance from Newcastle to Cambridge and the cheapest ticket was £37.50 one way. It would most likely cost £58.50. Then you have to consider that most people from low-income backgrounds are unlikely to have clothes suitable for an interview (I know I did not). A Skype interview is not suitable for all subjects (e.g. natural sciences) and simply pushes technological barriers onto the applicant. What if the candidate does not have a computer at home or the internet? What if the school does not have microphones or webcams? I do not think anyone would want to conduct an interview over the phone, but it seems the most realistic option. It would be great if Cambridge offered to pay travel costs. Do you know if they do this?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 1797

Original post by Craghyrax

In addition to the above comment I made, I don't really think its that reliable to generalise from one experience. For example, I was ticking the boxes for low income/bad school etc. and I got admitted on AAC (and when I applied, it was actually ABC). So I honestly think that the decisions they make are very fine tuned to the individual and their situation. (Also to the college... admissions tutors in some colleges have different policies to others).

Yes, I completely agree with this. I hope that further transparency about the process will make it clearer in future that the decisions *are* individualised (and on what grounds this is so), and therefore avoid situations where the surface impression is of prejudice (for instance, I can imagine that girl with crap GCSEs would be pretty miffed when she found out she had a higher offer than someone from a much better school, not knowing the process behind it). I think that opening up of the process is just as important as making fair decisions in the first place. Thanks for elaborating :smile:

Reply 1798

hobnob