widening participation at Uni

Scroll to see replies

Howard

Is it?

to get B's and C's at GCSE and C's at A Level isnt hard.

EDIT- especially with the current state the qualifications are in.

Reply 41

Fusion

So long as inner city comprehensives are in the state they are it will be a tough road to widen participation from poor households especially into the top uni's. Not sure to what extent they do it now but taken into consideration the quality of school a student has attended and got his grades from is definately something I would like expanded.

Reply 42

ForeverIsMyName

first off you're arguing that kids from deprived backgrounds can do just as well as those who aren't.

your "proof" for this is Branson who went to a ****ing private school.

and you think this follows?! your stupidity here is truly remarkable.

Branson went to university? It's ironic you've ignored my point, yet you're asking me to be more thorough in my comprehension.

secondly, 3 a levels isn't particularly hard no, i've already given you that, considering an E is a pass.

but, let's take a really really really really simple simile in the hope that you might just understand:

walking 100m isn't hard.

ok. still following fimn?

but, let's now say "Karl" and "Milton" both have to walk this 100m.

Karl our equivalent of being from a poor family, his family have never walked this 100m. Milton's family have been doing it for years, he's the equivalent of earlier mentioned Perkins.

so the contest starts. on the way Milton has his dad telling him how he completed the 100m, he has his teachers telling him the sun shines out his ass, he's had years of training, he's wearing decent trainers so no problem there either and the track has a soft red carpet.

Karl's parents haven't done it before so don't quite really encourage him, his teachers tell him he's going to fail, he's never had any practise at this it's all a brand new experience, he's got delapidated sandles on his feet and the track is made of stinging nettles.

Still following fimn?
of course, it's entirely possible that Karl can finish, it just takes a lot of blood, sweat and tears, it's a hell of a lot harder and it's a hell of a lot more likely that he won't do it, whilst Milton walks the course easy peasy. Even if both are of equal size, weight, intelligence, motivation, etc there are still a massive massive hurdles in Karl's way.

do you understand yet fimn?

I think you've just qualified for the world's ****tist analogy award, whilst at the same time ignoring my ****ing point. Why is Karl how he is? Why is Milton how he is? How did they end up in that situation? What is the solution?

You said that it "can't" happen for the vast majority of people, I'm asking why it can't? What physical barriers are stopping them? Some people have it easier than others. That's a good thing. It's called incentive.

Reply 43

Throwback

love2learn7

to get B's and C's at GCSE and C's at A Level isnt hard.

EDIT- especially with the current state the qualifications are in.

He bolded the "25-30k - comfortable salary" statement you made, so I think he was questioning that.

Reply 44

Throwback

I'm quite surprised that people are actually even questioning whether its harder for people from poor school to get the top grades in comparison to people educated from higher quality schools - I would have thought that much was common knowledge? :s-smilie:

This would be why pretty much all universities take into account your educational background. A pupil getting AAA at a failing inner city comprehensive school would surely deserves a little more credit than a pupil getting the same grades at a top 10 ranked school in the entire country?

Reply 45

shady lane

I wonder how many people who think it's not hard to get AAA from a crappy, crime-ridden comprehensive have actually EXPERIENCED this.

Having done a ton of community work and volunteering, I think most of the responses on this thread reek of ignorance and middle-class entitlement. "Well I studied very hard for my A-Levels, you know, I deserve my interview at Oxbridge. I mean, if some people have to work part-time during college that's their own decision, isn't it really? Frankly they ought to prioritize their studies."

Two good friends of mine do extra tutorials for GCSE students who have failed their maths exams and are retaking. It is in a deprived area in North London. In a class of 20 girls, 8 are engaged to be married, due to family arranging. The rest come from mostly dysfunctional families. These girls can barely do basic multiplication. My friends have told me time and time again: it's not that they're stupid, their education has been so bad that there's nothing to be done anymore, other than to help them pass so that they get qualifications. Between horrible teaching and an unsupportive family environment, they're pretty much doomed to minimum-wage work.

If you HONESTLY can tell yourself that if ONE student from this type of cohort could manage to get AAB, that they don't deserve some kind of consideration (I'm not saying acceptance), then you are frankly heartless and probably deluded. Do you know how much extra tuition (which these types of students can't afford) would be needed to go from hardly being taught how to do basic maths to getting good A-Levels? Do you think that takes more or less work than the type of student I mentioned earlier (my cousins) who were privately educated and had extra private tuition during holidays but got the same exact results?

Reply 46

Fusion

Shady Lane I totally agree with you. Inner city comps present one big uphill struggle to acheive even decent grades at - its definately worthy of consideration by admissions.

Reply 47

Throwback

shady lane

I wonder how many people who think it's not hard to get AAA from a crappy, crime-ridden comprehensive have actually EXPERIENCED this.

I have. And it is actually rather hard, involving a lot of self teaching. I obviously can't compare it to the experience of people who've got the same grades from better schools as I've never been in their shoes and I'm not saying they haven't found it hard and worked hard either. But all I know is that if I had better teachers at school who could actually control the class and teach, more resouces like libraries that were actually open, like I imagine people from private schools would have experienced, life would have been made a 100 times easier.

Getting the grades is of course possible (not wanting to blow my own horn or anything lol but I've shown it) but I honestly believe people in such a position are at a distinct disadvantage from the outset. It wouldn't hurt if unis took such disadvantages into consideration.

Reply 48

ForeverIsMyName

mizzy87

No one is disputing that.

Reply 49

Agent Smith

shady lane

The above is simply a great long exposition of why non-fee-paying grammar schools are a really good idea. You've therefore saved me a lot of time, and for that I thank you.

Now, I'm sorry to burst that nice, rosy bubble but I feel duty-bound to point out that coming from a bad family does not excuse an inability to multiply at age 16, and that unsupportive family environments are by no means limited to the lower classes. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to assume that all parents who earn more than a certain income have some little switch in their heads flipped by those extra few pounds a month and turn from abusive, drug-dealing monsters who have more time for Trisha and Stella Artois than for their ten unwanted children into loving, nay doting, individuals who cater to their little darlings' every wish. Maybe some of them actually realise that spoiling your kids is not in either their or your own long-term interest. Maybe some lower-class kids actually are just lazy little bastards. I for one don't see why the richer echelons of society should have a monopoly on such types. Hell, maybe some middle class kids do even have genuine problems that can't simply be dismissed as the narcissistic fantasies of angst-ridden, sexually frustrated hormonal twerps who listen to Evanescence while pleasuring themselves with blunt razor-blades.

And what of those few Oxbridge undergrads (yes, they do exist) who got there by hard work, not by either (a) Etonian/Harovian dodgy dealing or (b) the back door labelled "Access"? What gives you the right to belittle their achievements? Simply having done "a ton of community work and volunteering"? Well, dear God newbie, so have I but I don't go round accusing every successful person I meet of having been born with a silver spoon in their mouth simply because I can't bear the thought that they might have got there by hard work instead of by nepotism and cheating.

Having said all that, and coming out of Dr. Perry Cox mode for a moment, given the current state and indeed the future of our grammar schools, Access Schemes seem to be the best way we've got left of levelling the playing-fields of Eton.

Reply 50

RawJoh1

I am in favour of the access schemes that Oxbridge already has. Summer schools put on primarily for State school pupils, that sort of thing, as well as promoting awareness that State school pupils can go to Oxbridge.

Aside from that, anyone who thinks that State school pupils can't go to Oxbridge doesn't know what they're talking about.

Reply 51

Lawz-

Howard

Off you go to Magdeline College!

Where's that now? :biggrin:

Reply 52

cottonmouth

phawkins1988

Urgh, why they would want to is beyond me. The whole notion of Oxbridge elitism put me right off at the time. It clings to tradition and history, therefore clinging to a time when it did only take rich upper-class people, and it just didn't appeal to me at all. Though i uppose plenty of people love the whole thing. Kind of like lawyers who are looking forward to dining at the Inns and wearing stupid wigs, things that i doubt i'll do unless forced.

Reply 53

Greyhound02

cottonmouth

I've spent some time at Oxford and didn't find it 'elitest' at all: I found it pleasant, intellectual, perhaps a touch ecentric in places. If these things make a place 'elitest' then I think we need a lot more elitism in the world. What's inherently wrong with tradition and history anyway? Moreover, why do you assume only upper class people enjoy history and tradition? Seems a fairly foundationless thing to say to me.

The next bit may not apply directly to you, but when I say it I hope you'll see why it follows on from what you said.

I find it infuriating when many people complain that poor kids are disadvantaged in education, stand a much lower chance of succeeding even if they try hard, and are much less likely to get into the top universities, yet still complain when the top universities go out of their way to help disadvantaged pupils. It shows that the top universities simply cannot win with some people no matter what they do.

Reply 54

Sarky

I'm in my third year of uni after getting in through a widening access course. I was eligable for the course for a number of reasons. Low income family, receiving EMA, poor academic acheivement of school etc.

At is all very well banging on about grammar schools and i'm sure they're lovely. Come to Southwark. There are no grammar schools. You either go to a religious grant maintained school (if you can prove you're religious which i couldn't) or you go to a comp. My mum fought to get me into a good school in my borough, but there are none where i live. I was fortunate enough to get into a school in Westminster, but even that school was one of the lowest performing in that area (still higher than Southwark) and is now on special measures.

I can't speak for all widening access courses but i know what it is like here. The university does a lot to encourage non tradtional applicants to consider higher education. I am part of an organisation that me and some friends set up which also does this. Just last week we had a group of Yr9 students in and we ran workshops about university and medicine with them. They are from the local comp and talking to them, they have mostly been encouraged to go down the vocational route. Their school focuses on things like Btechs in order to tick the 5 A-C's boxes.

My course isn't full of underacheiving immigrants who can't speak english btw. There are even white people on the course :eek:

. No preference is given based on how many parents you have, and the focus is on the education you received and the potential you show.

I did well in my GCSE's for my school. I was in the top 5%. But compared to the average GCSE scores for a grammar school i was considered average at best. During my A levels, i was in hospital a lot and scraped the lowest grade possible so i could have applied to standard courses stating extenuating circumstances (which i did) but i was lucky to meet the criteria for these courses.

Of course people shouldn't be let on a course when they can't cope with the academic demands, and i didn't take the place from someone as this course was created alongside the existing one. My application was very good (if i may say so myself) in terms of my work experience, references i.e. all the non academic stuff. I had to do an extra year here to get up to the standard required but it has definetely been worth it.

People have the right to want the best for their children and if they have the money to pay for it then fair enough. If i ever get to finish this course i'll be in the position of one day having to make that decision myself.

However i've seen the positive side of widening participation. It isn't about getting people with EEE into Oxford. And it isn't about getting people to study at any uni just for the sake of it (at least here it isn't).

Reply 55

gooseymcgoose

I think it's really funny that the most common reaction has been outrage. This agenda is well and truly established in Oxbridge. Widening access is the centre of Oxbridge's agenda and has been for a decade - it's all there on their own websites with what grades they think from school A are equal to what grades from school B...

People are mainly freaking out because they think some liberal agenda is decididing what disadvantage equals what. This is a misconception, Oxbridge define a simple objective, to get the most potential. They consider that a student who has performed relatively well despite poor circumstances has a lot of potential. If you don't agree with them, then watch as they lose out to HYPSM, but the idea that you know better than the most intense admissions procedure in the world is not credible.

I personally strongly believe that your background can limit your potential to achieve. Inner city life is pretty much designed to make clever people mentally ill. Middle class life is where academic achievement flourishes. It's too difficult to be a work focused person when you're surrounded by dysfunction and violence and mental illness and an educational environment with vocationally oriented expectations.

I find howard's idea that families can slowly socially climb over time pretty depressing. We're individuals, and trying to group people into families in this day and age where those concepts are increasingly blurred is inappropriate. If you're clever enough (as an individual) to go to a top uni but don't then you miss out by falling short of your potential, and the economy misses out by not using all your potential.

Reply 56

L i b

gooseymcgoose

It's too difficult to be a work focused person when you're surrounded by dysfunction and violence and mental illness

Um, bit of a generalisation as to working class life, no?

What I mainly object to here is the implication that someone who is middle class must have a rosy and privileged life. It's a lot of presumptuous crap.

Reply 57

Agent Smith

Lib North

Um, bit of a generalisation as to working class life, no?

What I mainly object to here is the implication that someone who is middle class must have a rosy and privileged life. It's a lot of presumptuous crap.

They're all drug-addled chavs living in squalor on council estates, Lib, they don't know any better.

Reply 58

tehjonny

shady lane

It should be based on your school and your family's income. Period. Those are the two biggest factors in educational opportunity, not divorce or depression or any of the other "where does the madness stop!!!!!!" points you have tried to make.

AAB from a crap school from a student with a poor background deserves a second glance. That's all I'm saying. I know plenty of people I went to university with you got lower than average SAT scores due to poor background and schooling; one is graduating this year Phi Beta Kappa and several have graduated with honors. If you really think this is "dumbing down" then perhaps you don't know enough people who have come from this kind of background.

So you've got the privately educated rich lad and the inner-city comprehensive lad. The first's entire family die in a plane crash two days before the first exam. You are then going to consider income differences, but not this happening? That is insane...

I've got a better idea. Lets scrap exams, perhaps the most idiotic method of testing ability ever devised. Lets certainly scrap modern 'these are the Q's that will be on the exam' A-levels.

Reply 59

tehjonny

Thud

well...yes actually.

if you go to a crap school, crap learning enviroment, no one believing you can do it, parents not motivating you, lack of money, all your mates dropping out at 16, teachers have no confidence in you etc etc etc.

i love how you lot always ignore these things and bang on about how fair it is, and that people should be able to get over these things to get AAA. that's true, some can still get AAA despite all this, but in no way at all are they on equal footing with Perkins over there at eton.

Rather than engineering it at the end to create a level playing field, why not tackle these issues. You know, the ones causing the disparity.

Nahhhh, far easier to create an absurd system of candidate judgement and then fascistically apply it, preferably whilst chucking all reason out of the window. 'You're fat? Here, have a Bsc!'