Comprehensive Universities?
The BBC is reporting today that the Vice Chancellor of Middlesex Universitiy voiced that universities in the UK should be comprehensive. He suggests we are doing students and the economy a disservice with our stratified university system.
He suggests that "the brightest students should be spread across the system, rather than being clustered in a small number of universities crammed with other similar youngsters." He continues that this would "make the most of the talent of those who attend - rather than concentrating the prestige, funding and brightest students in a few institutions, to the detriment of the majority."
What do you think? Do you think that comprehensive universities could work? Or are ultra-competitive and stratified universities a good thing?
He suggests that "the brightest students should be spread across the system, rather than being clustered in a small number of universities crammed with other similar youngsters." He continues that this would "make the most of the talent of those who attend - rather than concentrating the prestige, funding and brightest students in a few institutions, to the detriment of the majority."
What do you think? Do you think that comprehensive universities could work? Or are ultra-competitive and stratified universities a good thing?
Nope. Why shouldn't we be allowed to be with like-minded people? Why should someone work their *** off to be stuck with the same people they were with at high school? Seems a little reductive to me.
Middlesex University, eh? Looks like someones a bit bitter that their university is ranked one of the worst in the country.
And besides, what a load of communist tripe. Why should the brightest young minds be forced to study alongside a bunch of good-for-nothing chavs? Far, far too many untalented people are attending university these days thanks to Blair and Labour.
And besides, what a load of communist tripe. Why should the brightest young minds be forced to study alongside a bunch of good-for-nothing chavs? Far, far too many untalented people are attending university these days thanks to Blair and Labour.
It's one of the dumbest things I've ever heard. The best and the brightest deserve to go to top universities and those who aren't cut out for university should go to polytechnics or start working from the bottom.
Original post by AmeliaLost
The BBC is reporting today that the Vice Chancellor of Middlesex Universitiy voiced that universities in the UK should be comprehensive. He suggests we are doing students and the economy a disservice with our stratified university system.
He suggests that "the brightest students should be spread across the system, rather than being clustered in a small number of universities crammed with other similar youngsters." He continues that this would "make the most of the talent of those who attend - rather than concentrating the prestige, funding and brightest students in a few institutions, to the detriment of the majority."
What do you think? Do you think that comprehensive universities could work? Or are ultra-competitive and stratified universities a good thing?
He suggests that "the brightest students should be spread across the system, rather than being clustered in a small number of universities crammed with other similar youngsters." He continues that this would "make the most of the talent of those who attend - rather than concentrating the prestige, funding and brightest students in a few institutions, to the detriment of the majority."
What do you think? Do you think that comprehensive universities could work? Or are ultra-competitive and stratified universities a good thing?
Worst suggestion ever.
Posted from TSR Mobile
What do you think about this, lefties? Surely this fits right in with your race to the bottom nonsense?
Original post by AmeliaLost
The BBC is reporting today that the Vice Chancellor of Middlesex Universitiy voiced that universities in the UK should be comprehensive. He suggests we are doing students and the economy a disservice with our stratified university system.
He suggests that "the brightest students should be spread across the system, rather than being clustered in a small number of universities crammed with other similar youngsters." He continues that this would "make the most of the talent of those who attend - rather than concentrating the prestige, funding and brightest students in a few institutions, to the detriment of the majority."
What do you think? Do you think that comprehensive universities could work? Or are ultra-competitive and stratified universities a good thing?
He suggests that "the brightest students should be spread across the system, rather than being clustered in a small number of universities crammed with other similar youngsters." He continues that this would "make the most of the talent of those who attend - rather than concentrating the prestige, funding and brightest students in a few institutions, to the detriment of the majority."
What do you think? Do you think that comprehensive universities could work? Or are ultra-competitive and stratified universities a good thing?
What a load of nonsense.
Original post by AmeliaLost
The BBC is reporting today that the Vice Chancellor of Middlesex Universitiy voiced that universities in the UK should be comprehensive. He suggests we are doing students and the economy a disservice with our stratified university system.
He suggests that "the brightest students should be spread across the system, rather than being clustered in a small number of universities crammed with other similar youngsters." He continues that this would "make the most of the talent of those who attend - rather than concentrating the prestige, funding and brightest students in a few institutions, to the detriment of the majority."
What do you think? Do you think that comprehensive universities could work? Or are ultra-competitive and stratified universities a good thing?
He suggests that "the brightest students should be spread across the system, rather than being clustered in a small number of universities crammed with other similar youngsters." He continues that this would "make the most of the talent of those who attend - rather than concentrating the prestige, funding and brightest students in a few institutions, to the detriment of the majority."
What do you think? Do you think that comprehensive universities could work? Or are ultra-competitive and stratified universities a good thing?
And when 200,000 people apply to Oxford Comprehensive University, where is he going to fit them all? Or is he going to select on shoe size, political affiliation or distance from home to Carfax Tower.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by nulli tertius
And when 200,000 people apply to Oxford Comprehensive University, where is he going to fit them all? Or is he going to select on shoe size, political affiliation or distance from home to Carfax Tower.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
J G Ballard once suggested that oxbridge should be postgrad only, which would have fitted with a system based on everyone simply going to a local uni for undergrad rather than trying to leapfrog each other for snob points.
of course the number of postgrad students has exploded since Ballard opined and today you'd just be moving the bottleneck three years down the road - these days I think you'd just have to atom bomb oxbridge entirely.
I really don't see the point. Would it actually make any difference at all?
You're trying far too hard.
Original post by Dot.Cotton
What do you think about this, lefties? Surely this fits right in with your race to the bottom nonsense?
You're trying far too hard.
Original post by Nathan Scott
Nope. Why shouldn't we be allowed to be with like-minded people? Why should someone work their *** off to be stuck with the same people they were with at high school? Seems a little reductive to me.
You're emblematic of the narow minded view that the dumbed down education
system has allowed to think is being clever!
No matter how much you 'work your arse off' at A-Level that's all they are -
A-Levels.
It's in the interest of governments, particularly to support their idea of 50%+ going to university, partly in order to create a business that pays the salaries of the professors, that A-Level grades achieved go up practically every year, with the occasional blip to suggest that no foul play is afoot,
So they can get all the marks each year and say that the top 20% get A grade if
they like, no matter how much difference in intellect there probably is between the
very highest of that 20% and the very lowest of that 20%.
So get off your high horse that the likes of Vanessa Feltz, who attended
Cambridge, are the creme da la creme up there with Isaac Newton in anything
other than the social fortune of which secondary school they went to.
Unless you actually ever attend a polytechnic, or a redbrick, or a plate glass, you
can't compare your experience of the people there. And your experience will be coloured by your own personality anyway which is likely to want to think that the vast majority of people who go to polytechnics must have low grades , just because that is sometimes the minimum requirement.
That's like thinking that, if a museum charges £10 to get in, it must necessarily be better than one that is free. But the teaching quality is better at some former polytechnics than at some universities, as the following article shows:
www.timeshighereducation.com/news/teaching-excellence-framework-tef-results-2017#survey-answer
Many people at Oxbridge are merely standing on the shoulders of giants.
Genuinely talented people don't need to do that and can be equally or more
happier being a bigger fish in an often friendlier pond, where they're more likely to attract the praise and notice of the academic staff too.
The top ranked universities have never necessarily had all the best facilities or teachers, certainly not when many new buildings have been added to other universities. And a brief examination of Oxford Union debates online seemes to show a shallow pool of 'talent', all with a very
similar echo chamber voice to each other and even sharing the same kind of physicality and falsely apologetic manner. If they were really
apologetic they wouldn't be there at all because I agree with Ballard that Oxbridge that it should be for postgraduates only- prove your real mettle elsewhere first. Because few of them would ever get in Oxbridge on those terms and it would, indeed, be not only fairer but provide a far more intellectually and socially exciting student body - who'd have no false apologetic manner to them!
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Picnic1
You're emblematic of the narow minded view that the dumbed down education
system has allowed to think is being clever!
No matter how much you 'work your arse off' at A-Level that's all they are -
A-Levels.
It's in the interest of governments, particularly to support their idea of 50%+ going to university, partly in order to create a business that pays the salaries of the professors, that A-Level grades achieved go up practically every year, with the occasional blip to suggest that no foul play is afoot,
So they can get all the marks each year and say that the top 20% get A grade if
they like, no matter how much difference in intellect there probably is between the
very highest of that 20% and the very lowest of that 20%.
So get off your high horse that the likes of Vanessa Feltz, who attended
Cambridge, are the creme da la creme up there with Isaac Newton in anything
other than the social fortune of which secondary school they went to.
Unless you actually ever attend a polytechnic, or a redbrick, or a plate glass, you
can't compare your experience of the people there. And your experience will be coloured by your own personality anyway which is likely to want to think that the vast majority of people who go to polytechnics must have low grades , just because that is sometimes the minimum requirement.
That's like thinking that, if a museum charges £10 to get in, it must necessarily be better than one that is free. But the teaching quality is better at some former polytechnics than at some universities, as the following article shows:
www.timeshighereducation.com/news/teaching-excellence-framework-tef-results-2017#survey-answer
Many people at Oxbridge are merely standing on the shoulders of giants.
Genuinely talented people don't need to do that and can be equally or more
happier being a bigger fish in an often friendlier pond, where they're more likely to attract the praise and notice of the academic staff too.
The top ranked universities have never necessarily had all the best facilities or teachers, certainly not when many new buildings have been added to other universities. And a brief examination of Oxford Union debates online seemes to show a shallow pool of 'talent', all with a very
similar echo chamber voice to each other and even sharing the same kind of physicality and falsely apologetic manner. If they were really
apologetic they wouldn't be there at all because I agree with Ballard that Oxbridge that it should be for postgraduates only- prove your real mettle elsewhere first. Because few of them would ever get in Oxbridge on those terms and it would, indeed, be not only fairer but provide a far more intellectually and socially exciting student body - who'd have no false apologetic manner to them!
system has allowed to think is being clever!
No matter how much you 'work your arse off' at A-Level that's all they are -
A-Levels.
It's in the interest of governments, particularly to support their idea of 50%+ going to university, partly in order to create a business that pays the salaries of the professors, that A-Level grades achieved go up practically every year, with the occasional blip to suggest that no foul play is afoot,
So they can get all the marks each year and say that the top 20% get A grade if
they like, no matter how much difference in intellect there probably is between the
very highest of that 20% and the very lowest of that 20%.
So get off your high horse that the likes of Vanessa Feltz, who attended
Cambridge, are the creme da la creme up there with Isaac Newton in anything
other than the social fortune of which secondary school they went to.
Unless you actually ever attend a polytechnic, or a redbrick, or a plate glass, you
can't compare your experience of the people there. And your experience will be coloured by your own personality anyway which is likely to want to think that the vast majority of people who go to polytechnics must have low grades , just because that is sometimes the minimum requirement.
That's like thinking that, if a museum charges £10 to get in, it must necessarily be better than one that is free. But the teaching quality is better at some former polytechnics than at some universities, as the following article shows:
www.timeshighereducation.com/news/teaching-excellence-framework-tef-results-2017#survey-answer
Many people at Oxbridge are merely standing on the shoulders of giants.
Genuinely talented people don't need to do that and can be equally or more
happier being a bigger fish in an often friendlier pond, where they're more likely to attract the praise and notice of the academic staff too.
The top ranked universities have never necessarily had all the best facilities or teachers, certainly not when many new buildings have been added to other universities. And a brief examination of Oxford Union debates online seemes to show a shallow pool of 'talent', all with a very
similar echo chamber voice to each other and even sharing the same kind of physicality and falsely apologetic manner. If they were really
apologetic they wouldn't be there at all because I agree with Ballard that Oxbridge that it should be for postgraduates only- prove your real mettle elsewhere first. Because few of them would ever get in Oxbridge on those terms and it would, indeed, be not only fairer but provide a far more intellectually and socially exciting student body - who'd have no false apologetic manner to them!
Not once did I mention Oxbridge so nice try.
And yes A Levels do not determine one's intelligence and I never said they did, but there is obviously a difference between someone who is willing to put in the effort to get somewhere and someone who doesn't put in much effort at all. It's about integrity, you don't have to be the smartest person to do well in A Levels, or most things for that matter, but you can differentiate between people who put in the effort and people who don't (in general; i'm not talking about every circumstance)
Original post by Nathan Scott
Not once did I mention Oxbridge so nice try.
And yes A Levels do not determine one's intelligence and I never said they did, but there is obviously a difference between someone who is willing to put in the effort to get somewhere and someone who doesn't put in much effort at all. It's about integrity, you don't have to be the smartest person to do well in A Levels, or most things for that matter, but you can differentiate between people who put in the effort and people who don't (in general; i'm not talking about every circumstance)
And yes A Levels do not determine one's intelligence and I never said they did, but there is obviously a difference between someone who is willing to put in the effort to get somewhere and someone who doesn't put in much effort at all. It's about integrity, you don't have to be the smartest person to do well in A Levels, or most things for that matter, but you can differentiate between people who put in the effort and people who don't (in general; i'm not talking about every circumstance)
You didn't HAVE to mention Oxbridge as your argument is that people who get good grades don't want to study alongside people who didn't get such grades. And people know that Oxbridge is the place that asks for the highest grades overall on average.
So, by your argument, everybody should aspire to be at Oxbridge.
By your argument, it would even be silly to want to be at, say UCL, even though
some love the attraction of studying in London. Because, by your logic, UCL
would be full of people who didn't try quite as hard as those at Oxbridge.
A look at the alumni of some universities, by the way, shows that some doyens of The Student Room e.g. Durham have a relatively disappointing alumni list compared to some younger universities.
Maybe you have to be a bit older, or suffered some kind of social rejection, to appreciate that the good guys , intellectually, personality-wise, are not all at the highest ranked universities, Far from it. They're scattered around. The social heyday of Oxbridge in recent times was
probably the 1960s. Now you can go and study English with some Chinese bloke who's been robotically trained to get in who's never heard
of Arthur Miller? No thanks.
(edited 6 years ago)
The UK, in contrast with most other countries in the world, is obsessed with rankings. I'm not sure if it's going to be possible to overcome this obsession but I do not think that it would necessarily be a bad thing.
Original post by AmeliaLost
The BBC is reporting today that the Vice Chancellor of Middlesex Universitiy voiced that universities in the UK should be comprehensive. He suggests we are doing students and the economy a disservice with our stratified university system.
He suggests that "the brightest students should be spread across the system, rather than being clustered in a small number of universities crammed with other similar youngsters." He continues that this would "make the most of the talent of those who attend - rather than concentrating the prestige, funding and brightest students in a few institutions, to the detriment of the majority."
What do you think? Do you think that comprehensive universities could work? Or are ultra-competitive and stratified universities a good thing?
He suggests that "the brightest students should be spread across the system, rather than being clustered in a small number of universities crammed with other similar youngsters." He continues that this would "make the most of the talent of those who attend - rather than concentrating the prestige, funding and brightest students in a few institutions, to the detriment of the majority."
What do you think? Do you think that comprehensive universities could work? Or are ultra-competitive and stratified universities a good thing?
It sounds like socialism to me. There are people who work harder than others, so we should get what we deserve.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Picnic1
You didn't HAVE to mention Oxbridge as your argument is that people who get good grades don't want to study alongside people who didn't get such grades. And people know that Oxbridge is the place that asks for the highest grades overall on average.
So, by your argument, everybody should aspire to be at Oxbridge.
By your argument, it would even be silly to want to be at, say UCL, even though
some love the attraction of studying in London. Because, by your logic, UCL
would be full of people who didn't try quite as hard as those at Oxbridge.
A look at the alumni of some universities, by the way, shows that some doyens of The Student Room e.g. Durham have a relatively disappointing alumni list compared to some younger universities.
Maybe you have to be a bit older, or suffered some kind of social rejection, to appreciate that the good guys , intellectually, personality-wise, are not all at the highest ranked universities, Far from it. They're scattered around. The social heyday of Oxbridge in recent times was
probably the 1960s. Now you can go and study English with some Chinese bloke who's been robotically trained to get in who's never heard
of Arthur Miller? No thanks.
So, by your argument, everybody should aspire to be at Oxbridge.
By your argument, it would even be silly to want to be at, say UCL, even though
some love the attraction of studying in London. Because, by your logic, UCL
would be full of people who didn't try quite as hard as those at Oxbridge.
A look at the alumni of some universities, by the way, shows that some doyens of The Student Room e.g. Durham have a relatively disappointing alumni list compared to some younger universities.
Maybe you have to be a bit older, or suffered some kind of social rejection, to appreciate that the good guys , intellectually, personality-wise, are not all at the highest ranked universities, Far from it. They're scattered around. The social heyday of Oxbridge in recent times was
probably the 1960s. Now you can go and study English with some Chinese bloke who's been robotically trained to get in who's never heard
of Arthur Miller? No thanks.
Oxbridge doesn't offer all subjects sometimes it's more about the course, and I'm sorry but just because someone get's high grades doesn't mean they would always have to aspire to go to Oxbridge, like I said it's about differentiating between people who try hard and people who don't try at all - being the best of the best isn't what we're talking about here.
And don't even try to assume anything about me, I know very well that not every 'good guy' will be at/ have been to a high ranked uni, given that not everyone even goes to uni. You seem to be ignoring the point I made; some people say themselves that they didn't try in school etc and some people turn themselves around later on but not everyone does.
Original post by Nathan Scott
.
The consequence of your idea, the one that is in place, is that some clever AND
sensitive working class people who end up at top universities will feel emotionally
perturbed by the sometimes lack of there being anyone like the people that
they grew up with. A different type of intelligence (it could be an emotional intelligence but it could also be an intellectual seriousness towards 'new' subjects too such as computer game design) could be missing from a place that
only accepts AAA.. (as if, as I say, AAA means much anyway. Getting a first class
degree from a redbrick means more about your raw intellect than being accepted to
any university does).
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by Picnic1
(as if, as I say, AAA means much anyway. Getting a first class
degree from a redbrick means more about your raw intellect than being accepted to
any university does).
degree from a redbrick means more about your raw intellect than being accepted to
any university does).
Since 2010, the highest possible grade for A-levels is A*. Fewer people get A*A*A* then get firsts at redbrick universities.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Support and Motivation at Staffordshire University - International Student Support
- MSc Human-Computer Interaction, City University of London / University of Birmingham?
- Durham additional documents
- Apprenticeship - paramedic science
- best diploma for global university acceptance (ICT and Engineering related courses)
- Lectures at Cambridge
- M.Sc Artificial intelligence
- Is grammar school actually better?
- How to go global - student exchange experience
- Social class prejudice and private schools in Britain
- How to go global - student exchange experience
- How to go global - student exchange experience
- IELTS for Master's Degree and upwards
- With a 3 Year BEng and 18 years of Engineering Work Experience, How do I become CEng
- Learning difficulty software?
- Are Open Days Really Helpful in Choosing a University?
- Exams in biomedical science in foundation year
- AQA A level Chemistry Equations
- How to cite
- international admission
Latest
Posted 2 minutes ago
GB News set to axe 40 jobs after channel posts heavy lossesLast reply 4 minutes ago
Rwanda bill likely to be stalled at least till April after seven defeats in the LordsPosted 10 minutes ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 45 minutes ago
Bank Of england degree apprenticeship 2024Last reply 50 minutes ago
Feeling inferior compared to syrians as a half moroccan/half whiteLast reply 52 minutes ago
Edexcel A Level Business Paper 1 (9BS0 01) - 14th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 56 minutes ago
LSE International Social and Public Policy and Economics (LLK1) 2024 ThreadLast reply 58 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 59 minutes ago
Atkins Degree Apprenticeship 2024Last reply 1 hour ago
Official University of St Andrews Applicant Thread for 2024Trending
Last reply 1 week ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 1 month ago
Do employers care more about the degree subject or the uni you went to?Last reply 1 month ago
Schools failing bright pupils says teen taking 28 a levelsTrending
Last reply 1 week ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Last reply 1 month ago
Do employers care more about the degree subject or the uni you went to?Last reply 1 month ago
Schools failing bright pupils says teen taking 28 a levels
