Poorer students should get easier entry grades to college!
Scroll to see replies
No, that should not be the case. Most of the naturally smart people I know are not well off, they worked hard and they are intelligent. Having money and paying for private schools does not ensure good grades, unless you're attending St Pauls etc. If anything, being less well off or less privileged instils a desire to achieve and the children from these families are generally more level-headed and realistic
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by marinaim
...it would just end up like the uni system where there are those who are technically richer but can't actually afford anything better.
what can this possibly mean?
Original post by the mezzil
How is dumbing down the system going to help anyone?
Why would it be dumber?
Unless perhaps you are implying that poor = stupid?
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Why would it be dumber?
Unless perhaps you are implying that poor = stupid?
Unless perhaps you are implying that poor = stupid?
Lowering grade boundaries means dumbing down the system.
I come from a reasonably well off family but went to the local state schools, which also happened to be failing and consistently getting lower than average marks. Being in the middle of the countryside, there wasn't an alternative.
I think how well the school does is more important than how well off your family is.
I think how well the school does is more important than how well off your family is.
Original post by cambio wechsel
what can this possibly mean?
Okay those who's family income is too high to get a grant, but they can't actually afford to pay accommodation etc. because of e.g. other children, mortgages, the moneymaker is only a bf.
It's a terribly common problem.
Original post by the mezzil
Lowering grade boundaries means dumbing down the system.
You have a touching faith in the existing exam and grading systems to accurately distinguish between real ability and the carefully planned gaming and highly resourced practising and coaching that generates year after year of good grades at certain schools.
No, I disagree. Why?
Because I think it's patronising as if the poor are incapable of getting the grades at all
Because I think it's patronising as if the poor are incapable of getting the grades at all
Original post by Fullofsurprises
You have a touching faith in the existing exam and grading systems to accurately distinguish between real ability and the carefully planned gaming and highly resourced practising and coaching that generates year after year of good grades at certain schools.
Got an better alternative method?
Original post by the mezzil
Lowering grade boundaries means dumbing down the system.
Suppose that I am an admissions officer considering the last two candidates for the final place on our course, so it's zero-sum.
Alan has AAA
Beth has ABB
The contextual information available to me indicates that Alan's grades are only normal in his fancypants school which boasts on its website of class size averages of 16 through GCSE and 12 for A-level. By contrast Beth is this year the highest acheiving student from her sink-school at which only 40% progress to A-level.
I want Beth. I'd be mad not to want.
Original post by marinaim
Okay those who's family income is too high to get a grant, but they can't actually afford to pay accommodation etc. because of e.g. other children, mortgages, the moneymaker is only a bf.
It's a terribly common problem.
It's a terribly common problem.
I think it's a problem largely unrelated to the issue being discussed here.
Original post by Fullofsurprises
Why would it be dumber?
Unless perhaps you are implying that poor = stupid?
Unless perhaps you are implying that poor = stupid?
Imagine if you admitted everyone to Cambridge regardless of your academic ability, what do you think is going to happen? standards are going to fall...
Look at Moyes at United he has massively lowered their standards
Original post by cambio wechsel
Suppose that I am an admissions officer considering the last two candidates for the final place on our course, so it's zero-sum.
Alan has AAA
Beth has ABB
The contextual information available to me indicates that Alan's grades are only normal in his fancypants school which boasts on its website of class size averages of 16 through GCSE and 12 for A-level. By contrast Beth is this year the highest acheiving student from her sink-school at which only 40% progress to A-level.
I want Beth. I'd be mad not to want.
I think it's a problem largely unrelated to the issue being discussed here.
Alan has AAA
Beth has ABB
The contextual information available to me indicates that Alan's grades are only normal in his fancypants school which boasts on its website of class size averages of 16 through GCSE and 12 for A-level. By contrast Beth is this year the highest acheiving student from her sink-school at which only 40% progress to A-level.
I want Beth. I'd be mad not to want.
I think it's a problem largely unrelated to the issue being discussed here.
Maybe offer them both a place?
The whole university system seems to be just a byzantine redistribution mechanism.
The idea is that Winston Churchill was not actually any cleverer than Dave Smith, he just had richer parents who bought him a good education, and this is what made him a Nobel Prize-winning author and historian rather than a casual Daily Sport reader. By paying for everyone to go to university, we will make everyone as clever as Winston Churchill.
Unfortunately it's very clear from any marginal contact with the outside world that this idea is bull****, and people remain about as clever as they were before they went to university.
So why not dispense with the university thing entirely, and just give the fees + living expenses to everyone at age 18 as a means tested lump sum. The chavs can go to Ibiza, the middle classes can save for a house deposit, and everything will go much as did before, only three years sooner.
The few useful courses will continue to exist even charged at the full market rate, but there won't be too many.
The idea is that Winston Churchill was not actually any cleverer than Dave Smith, he just had richer parents who bought him a good education, and this is what made him a Nobel Prize-winning author and historian rather than a casual Daily Sport reader. By paying for everyone to go to university, we will make everyone as clever as Winston Churchill.
Unfortunately it's very clear from any marginal contact with the outside world that this idea is bull****, and people remain about as clever as they were before they went to university.
So why not dispense with the university thing entirely, and just give the fees + living expenses to everyone at age 18 as a means tested lump sum. The chavs can go to Ibiza, the middle classes can save for a house deposit, and everything will go much as did before, only three years sooner.
The few useful courses will continue to exist even charged at the full market rate, but there won't be too many.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by clh_hilary
I think the point is more of the general wealth, not only about the schools themselves.
Children from more well-off families, for example, hear more words in general and thus would have had a much better language performance even before they have started school. Then there's the extra tuition and training you can buy to give to your child.
Obviously the schools don't automatically teach better - they just happen to house pupils with generally a lot more resources than everybody else does.
Children from more well-off families, for example, hear more words in general and thus would have had a much better language performance even before they have started school. Then there's the extra tuition and training you can buy to give to your child.
Obviously the schools don't automatically teach better - they just happen to house pupils with generally a lot more resources than everybody else does.
I totally agree. I also add that people coming from poorer backgrounds might have had the need to provide support to their families (and time is a finite resource, so if you spend x hours a day not studying, those hours of study are just lost). There is also a problem of generally putting effort into it: not being sure if you will be able to go to university creates negative incentives to studying. However I don't think that by creating double standards for entry requirements would solve the problem. Instead the application process should probably be rethought and maybe complicated, so to make talent and passion more visible. And anyways all the effort should not be put on universities: secondary schools should find ways to improve the possibilities of people coming from poor backgrounds and policies should be thought to make the system more based on merit.
Foundation years exist for a reason. Instead of lowering the entry requirements for the degree just guide them onto a foundation course.
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Foundation years exist for a reason. Instead of lowering the entry requirements for the degree just guide them onto a foundation course.
This. In course selection is much more precise than pre-access selection. And foundation years are a good way to do that, avoiding over-crowded courses for first year students (something that is not beneficial for learning).
What a stupid thing to do. Im from a poorer family, getting poorer by the month but im working hard to get into uni with grades that are a little bit of a stretch because when i get accepted, all my hard work will of paid off.
Plus there is no correlation between social classes knowledge and money.
The lower social class you are, the dumber you are is NOT a fact.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Plus there is no correlation between social classes knowledge and money.
The lower social class you are, the dumber you are is NOT a fact.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by polscistudent88
This. In course selection is much more precise than pre-access selection. And foundation years are a good way to do that, avoiding over-crowded courses for first year students (something that is not beneficial for learning).
According to one of my lecturers people who take a foundation year and pass it often get firsts in the actual degree as well.
Original post by Yellowglitter19
The lower social class you are, the dumber you are is NOT a fact.
The lower social class you are, the dumber you are is NOT a fact.
But no-one is here suggesting it as fact. I am in favour of (case-by-case rather than broad-brush) contextualizing precisely because I want the smarter kids from the less good schools to be admitted over the less-smart kids from the better schools. And this because that is good for the university.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- easiest unis to get into for medicine
- Age-old question: Can I get into Cambridge with these grades?
- is north american high school studies easier than uk's?
- Graduate Entry Medicine Application BSc 2:2
- Which university to choose
- Chemistry degree: Should I drop further maths?
- Reapplying to Warwick
- Contextual Offer Likelihood
- cambridge foundation year?
- Is it easier for a private student to get into Oxford than Cambridge?
- Pathways to Paramedic
- Low gcse grades
- UCAS and returning to uni
- Transferring to another Biomed course at another uni
- What uni should I pick!?
- How realistic are my choices (so far)?
- Uni Course Application Help!!
- How can I get better in GCSEs?
- what happens if my gcse dont meet my college requirements
- GCSE
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
