Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Getting irrtated by the governments social engineering of classes. Watch

Announcements
    • Offline

      1
      (Original post by Elipsis)
      Of course it comes from your point... The main defining difference between super rich children and super poor children who go to university is the disparity in wealth, which previously manifested itself in the poorer child needing to spend more time working alongside study.
      I don't know if you are aware that the proposals for fee increases includes conditional measures for those universities who wish to levy the top rate of £9,000 a year.

      Amongst those conditions is a requirement to offer places to those who normally would not be considered...eg those from poorly performing state secondaries who attained comparable A-level grades to those from independent and academically selective schools. The reason being that the government-sponsored research shows that despite having similar grades at the commencement of their undergraduate courses, the students from the underperforming state school go on to achieve better degree outcomes than the others.

      All things being considered....demonstrable ability and thus greater potential, coupled with measurable greater success at graduation level...it should be encumbent upon those universites to admit more of these students than those who have come from more advantaged secondary environments.

      The point you mention about very poor students is neither here nor there...we can see that those of seemingly comparable ability (at least A-level results-wise) from lesser advantaged academic backgrounds do go on to achieve more highly despite that disadvantage.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by yawn)
      I don't know if you are aware that the proposals for fee increases includes conditional measures for those universities who wish to levy the top rate of £9,000 a year.

      Amongst those conditions is a requirement to offer places to those who normally would not be considered...eg those from poorly performing state secondaries who attained comparable A-level grades to those from independent and academically selective schools. The reason being that the government-sponsored research shows that despite having similar grades at the commencement of their undergraduate courses, the students from the underperforming state school go on to achieve better degree outcomes than the others.

      All things being considered....demonstrable ability and thus greater potential, coupled with measurable greater success at graduation level...it should be encumbent upon those universites to admit more of these students than those who have come from more advantaged secondary environments.

      The point you mention about very poor students is neither here nor there...we can see that those of seemingly comparable ability (at least A-level results-wise) from lesser advantaged academic backgrounds do go on to achieve more highly despite that disadvantage.
      I was not even disagreeing with that point. I was saying that poor people don't need any more help to get to university, and university is no harder for them if they are achieving better grades. The top universities are desperate to pick children up with good a-levels from bad schools, there just aren't that many of them.
      • Offline

        1
        (Original post by Elipsis)
        I was not even disagreeing with that point. I was saying that poor people don't need any more help to get to university, and university is no harder for them if they are achieving better grades. The top universities are desperate to pick children up with good a-levels from bad schools, there just aren't that many of them.
        I'm not talking about poor people, I'm talking about those who go to underperforming state schools.

        The research does not substantiate your belief that there aren't many students who achieve good A-level results from underperforming schools. And the top universities will only consider such students providing they fulfill other criteria under the 'Special Access Scheme'...If they were that 'desperate' to admit students who have suffered disadvantage during their secondary education, there would not be a reason to encourage them to embrace such students rather than those that they do...the gap is again widening, as you probably know.
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        The problem is MP's (and yourself) assuming that the only problem is fiscal. The reality is when you're from a lower class, you're taught from a young age that "people like us" don't belong at university, and are scared away by the hefty fees totally irrespective of the support available.

        Further, there are young people being actively told not to go to university by their parents, and parents who refuse to declare their incomes so the child, although totally eligible for support in theory, can't access it because it relies on benevolent parents who want the child to get that support and go to university.

        To summarise: it's not a question of throwing more money at people. It's allocating support more wisely.

        Also, as a side note. To people saying "There's no such thing as class" - what an absolutely ridiculous statement, it really shows your ignorance. It's right up there on the retard-o-meter with declaring "there's no such thing as racism" or "there's no such thing as depression".
        Offline

        14
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by AshleyT)
        well done you!!
        And yeah, this is kind of the point i'm trying to make.
        The problem isn't financial, it's motivation(which is not going to be generated by handing out loadsa money...)! And knowledge that it IS possible with hard work and dedication!
        What motivated you to want to succeed?
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by yawn)
        I'm not talking about poor people, I'm talking about those who go to underperforming state schools.

        The research does not substantiate your belief that there aren't many students who achieve good A-level results from underperforming schools. And the top universities will only consider such students providing they fulfill other criteria under the 'Special Access Scheme'...If they were that 'desperate' to admit students who have suffered disadvantage during their secondary education, there would not be a reason to encourage them to embrace such students rather than those that they do...the gap is again widening, as you probably know.
        The special access schemes are there to lower the grades needed to gain a place at universities like Oxford and Cambridge, rather than make sure people from bad schools get in when they achieve good grades. They lower the bar. There has never been a problem for those that reach the bar. I for instance went to a terrible school and everyone I know who got good grades ended up at a good university. I'm pretty sure that it counted in our favour to go to bad schools, as some people I know were allowed to drop a grade from their offer even though the course they wanted to go on was over subscribed. Do you have any evidence that if 2 students with say AAA applied to say Imperial, one from a private school and one from the ghetto, the privately educated student would have a better chance? Or are you just presuming?
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
        What motivated you to want to succeed?
        Lots of things .

        1. My grandparents on my dads side were the only ones that were nice to me, telling me when i was young that i'd do well in life and encouraging me etc. So when they died(died quite young too at 60) i wanted to make them proud.
        2. I wanted to get out of my ****ty area.
        3. I wanted to prove wrong the family on my mums side who had always said when i was younger i'd 'end up like my Dad' and would be pregnant by the time i was 14 etc.
        4. Wanted to make something of myself.
        5. Wanted to be in a position to help others(probably the biggest one that drove me).
        6. Wanted everything i'd been through (domestic violence, refuges, family suicides, abuse etc) to have not been for nothing. I wanted something positive to have come out of it all.

        So yeah, that drove me hard...and not even my mum trying to kill herself about 5 times during my final a-levels was enough to stop me ....

        If she had of course it would have since i'd have had to look after my little brother till he was old enough.

        But it didn't happen so :cool:
        • Thread Starter
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by screenager2004)
        The problem is MP's (and yourself) assuming that the only problem is fiscal. The reality is when you're from a lower class, you're taught from a young age that "people like us" don't belong at university, and are scared away by the hefty fees totally irrespective of the support available.

        Further, there are young people being actively told not to go to university by their parents, and parents who refuse to declare their incomes so the child, although totally eligible for support in theory, can't access it because it relies on benevolent parents who want the child to get that support and go to university.

        To summarise: it's not a question of throwing more money at people. It's allocating support more wisely.

        Also, as a side note. To people saying "There's no such thing as class" - what an absolutely ridiculous statement, it really shows your ignorance. It's right up there on the retard-o-meter with declaring "there's no such thing as racism" or "there's no such thing as depression".
        I completely agree and it's kind of the point i was trying to make as well (im not great at explaining myself although tried to explain this with 'the 13 years olds are told by their parents 'University is for the rich'...aka we're told by parents it's not achievable)

        finance wise it's not hard...but many don't know this because they don't even contemplate the thought of University when grown up with the idea it's not possible or the idea is put down.

        I personally think instead of chucking more money to people - it should be used more for support, getting people out to give talks at schools maybe? And Primary school talks on Uni are important imo. If it's known from a young age if you work hard enough it's achievable, it could grant motivation and hope...something to work towards in life .
        Offline

        2
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by ttx)
        25 weeks ? - most English universities have a year length of between 38-40 weeks.

        But here's the breakdown the University of Manchester gives for yearly costs:

        Accommodation £3,700
        Meals £1,450
        Books and stationery £360
        Clothes £360
        Local transport £490
        Other general living expenses £1,340
        (eg photocopying and printing, laundry, phone calls, consumables, entertainment, sports, cooking equipment etc)
        I think the money you've allocated for meals is far too much. You should be spending about £20-£25 a week on food. For 40 weeks that comes to £800. £490 seems a lot for one year as well on transport. Surely a yearly pass comes to less than that?

        I did spend more on books, simply because I wanted my own copies but if I didn't have the money I could have used the library books.
        • Offline

          1
          Originally Posted by Elipsis
          The special access schemes are there to lower the grades needed to gain a place at universities like Oxford and Cambridge, rather than make sure people from bad schools get in when they achieve good grades. They lower the bar. There has never been a problem for those that reach the bar. I for instance went to a terrible school and everyone I know who got good grades ended up at a good university. I'm pretty sure that it counted in our favour to go to bad schools, as some people I know were allowed to drop a grade from their offer even though the course they wanted to go on was over subscribed.
          Special access schemes do not necessarily provide for accepting lower grades from the applicant than to others who don't qualify for such access. Have a look at Cambridge university's information and you'll see that fact in black and white. It is for those whose schools do not have a history of sending many students onto Higher Education and students who are the first in their families to go on to HE...or for those who have suffered particular difficulties with their A-level courses through ill-health etc.

          (Original post by Elipsis)
          . Do you have any evidence that if 2 students with say AAA applied to say Imperial, one from a private school and one from the ghetto, the privately educated student would have a better chance? Or are you just presuming?
          If Imperial produced statistics showing the numbers of students in each intake year detailing whether they came from an independent school or an inner city state school and the offer requirements, then that would be the evidence one way or the other.

          I agree that it is not good to make presumptions especially where there is valid evidence available, but you are making as much as a presumption as you claim I am!

          One can look at such evidence from the websites of Cambridge and Oxford, and both show that first year undergraduates are overwhelmingly from independent schools. But if the government is true to their word, then the swingeing increase in fees by those universities intending to charge £9,000 a year (as a start...) will have to be matched with much greater provision for those from underperforming state schools.
          Offline

          18
          ReputationRep:
          Studying at UCL would've been impossible without summer work and this is from somebody with a fairly spartan lifestyle.

          OK if you can get said part time work. This was before all the bursary + increased loans came in, though. One thing I can certainly say of 2005 top up fees: would've made london a lot more affordable to study at.
          Offline

          18
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by yawn)
          One can look at such evidence from the websites of Cambridge and Oxford, and both show that first year undergraduates are overwhelmingly from independent schools.
          It's a lot to do with the depressing lack of assistance with interviews and application forms that you get at state schools.

          Private schools know the end goal. The one closest to me forces extra curric down peoples throats, gives individual guidance on university choices, coaching for interviews and pretty much writes their PS for them (not to mention their coursework, but that's another debate...)

          At what is considered a "good" comp school I had to do the above alone. Obviously perfectly possible, but it's harder and so less people will manage it and the end result is less polished. The hoops I had to jump through to simply take my bmat were unbelievable.
          Offline

          0
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by yawn)
          Special access schemes do not necessarily provide for accepting lower grades from the applicant than to others who don't qualify for such access. Have a look at Cambridge university's information and you'll see that fact in black and white. It is for those whose schools do not have a history of sending many students onto Higher Education and students who are the first in their families to go on to HE...or for those who have suffered particular difficulties with their A-level courses through ill-health etc.



          If Imperial produced statistics showing the numbers of students in each intake year detailing whether they came from an independent school or an inner city state school and the offer requirements, then that would be the evidence one way or the other.

          I agree that it is not good to make presumptions especially where there is valid evidence available, but you are making as much as a presumption as you claim I am!

          One can look at such evidence from the websites of Cambridge and Oxford, and both show that first year undergraduates are overwhelmingly from independent schools. But if the government is true to their word, then the swingeing increase in fees by those universities intending to charge £9,000 a year (as a start...) will have to be matched with much greater provision for those from underperforming state schools.
          I already know quite a lot about special access because a lot of students from my college attempted to use it to get into Cambridge and Oxford. 9/10 if you qualify for special access it comes with BBB grades or even grades as low as EE. You are making the classic mistake of looking at the intake of top universities, seeing that it is disproportionately from independents, and filling in the gaps that there must be good students from bad schools being rejected. The top uni's are climbing over themselves to get the cleverest students from the worst schools, but there just aren't that many of them. Not one person at my old school got the 3 or 4 A's necessary to get into a top university, 2 people at my college did and they were inundated with offers from top universities, many of them dropping their grades to make sure the best and brightest got in.
          • Offline

            1
            (Original post by Elipsis)
            I already know quite a lot about special access because a lot of students from my college attempted to use it to get into Cambridge and Oxford. 9/10 if you qualify for special access it comes with BBB grades or even grades as low as EE. You are making the classic mistake of looking at the intake of top universities, seeing that it is disproportionately from independents, and filling in the gaps that there must be good students from bad schools being rejected. The top uni's are climbing over themselves to get the cleverest students from the worst schools, but there just aren't that many of them. Not one person at my old school got the 3 or 4 A's necessary to get into a top university, 2 people at my college did and they were inundated with offers from top universities, many of them dropping their grades to make sure the best and brightest got in.
            Not wanting to get into a circulitous and fruitless debate with you that is not really relevant to the outcome of the government sponsored research, it is just as well, is it not, that top unis will have to pay more attention to those applicants from underperforming state schools who attain similar grades to those from independent and academically selective schools...because they achieve better outcomes at the end of their uni study, so essentially are more academically able in the first place?
            • Offline

              1
              (Original post by Llamageddon)
              It's a lot to do with the depressing lack of assistance with interviews and application forms that you get at state schools.

              Private schools know the end goal. The one closest to me forces extra curric down peoples throats, gives individual guidance on university choices, coaching for interviews and pretty much writes their PS for them (not to mention their coursework, but that's another debate...)

              At what is considered a "good" comp school I had to do the above alone. Obviously perfectly possible, but it's harder and so less people will manage it and the end result is less polished. The hoops I had to jump through to simply take my bmat were unbelievable.
              I totally empathise. However, the latest research should prompt the government into ensuring that the potentially most able are given places in preference to those who achieve their results by being 'spoonfed' - particularly since the government sponsored the research in the first place.

              There is no 'spoonfeeding' at Higher level...each individual is ultimately responsible for their own attainment...and that would appear to be why the student with equivalent grades coming from an underperforming school gets a higher class of degree...although without reading through all the research, one cannot say for sure.
              Offline

              0
              ReputationRep:
              This is a good troll.
              Offline

              0
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by yawn)
              I totally empathise. However, the latest research should prompt the government into ensuring that the potentially most able are given places in preference to those who achieve their results by being 'spoonfed' - particularly since the government sponsored the research in the first place.

              There is no 'spoonfeeding' at Higher level...each individual is ultimately responsible for their own attainment...and that would appear to be why the student with equivalent grades coming from an underperforming school gets a higher class of degree...although without reading through all the research, one cannot say for sure.
              There is no doubt you need to be an absolute genius to get good grades at some schools, and when their potential is completely uncapped at university because they aren't being held back they will excel. But what needs to happen is the bad schools improve, rather than creating a 2 tier system where universities give different offers to those from bad schools to those from private schools.
              Offline

              14
              ReputationRep:
              (Original post by AshleyT)
              Lots of things .

              1. My grandparents on my dads side were the only ones that were nice to me, telling me when i was young that i'd do well in life and encouraging me etc. So when they died(died quite young too at 60) i wanted to make them proud.
              2. I wanted to get out of my ****ty area.
              3. I wanted to prove wrong the family on my mums side who had always said when i was younger i'd 'end up like my Dad' and would be pregnant by the time i was 14 etc.
              4. Wanted to make something of myself.
              5. Wanted to be in a position to help others(probably the biggest one that drove me).
              6. Wanted everything i'd been through (domestic violence, refuges, family suicides, abuse etc) to have not been for nothing. I wanted something positive to have come out of it all.

              So yeah, that drove me hard...and not even my mum trying to kill herself about 5 times during my final a-levels was enough to stop me ....

              If she had of course it would have since i'd have had to look after my little brother till he was old enough.

              But it didn't happen so :cool:
              Wow that's very inspirational, keep it up !
              • Offline

                1
                (Original post by Elipsis)
                There is no doubt you need to be an absolute genius to get good grades at some schools, and when their potential is completely uncapped at university because they aren't being held back they will excel. But what needs to happen is the bad schools improve, rather than creating a 2 tier system where universities give different offers to those from bad schools to those from private schools.
                I agree, ideally all schools would be good schools, but that isn't going to happen in the short term, particularly with the removal of funding for 'Building Schools for the Future' and a reduction in real terms of ring-fenced funding to LA's. Additionally, LA's will have less to do more with, and there will be a need to spread their grants further whilst cutting back wherever they can.

                If we look at the best of private schools, we can see that it is the monies they have to spend on those schools that help to create excellence in education...and to deny that money is unnecessary to achieve that excellence is at best, naive and at worst, disingenuous.
                Offline

                0
                ReputationRep:
                (Original post by yawn)
                I agree, ideally all schools would be good schools, but that isn't going to happen in the short term, particularly with the removal of funding for 'Building Schools for the Future' and a reduction in real terms of ring-fenced funding to LA's. Additionally, LA's will have less to do more with, and there will be a need to spread their grants further whilst cutting back wherever they can.

                If we look at the best of private schools, we can see that it is the monies they have to spend on those schools that help to create excellence in education...and to deny that money is unnecessary to achieve that excellence is at best, naive and at worst, disingenuous.
                No it isn't at all. Grammar schools of the past had far less funding than some inner city comprehensives today. We can therefore glean from this that it is the schools intake rather than the money we throw at it which is important. If we swapped the students from Eton with the students from a school in Brixton, Eton's grades would plummet and Brixton's grades would go wildly up. Labour have shown that it isn't money that is necessary by spending billions extra with no increase in the quality of education - thereby disproving your theory that schools are bad because of underfunding.

                A few bad families can drag down any school. Private schools are good because they are an avenue for the middle class to segregate their children from children from less caring homes. If it were a case of funding and not intake why would state schools in Guildford whose intake includes virtually no free school meal children get nigh on 100% pass rates at GCSE whilst schools in inner city Birmingham who have over 50% free school meal intake have lower than 10% pass rates at GCSE, when the inner city school in Birmingham gets more funding? There is clearly a direct correlation between the catchment area and the quality of the school, rather than there being any funding issues.

                A lot of children at my school were from foster families and clearly had no frontal lobe development - meaning they had no empathy or understanding of behavioural codes, which often resulted in them throwing chairs at teachers, smashing other students heads into railings, stealing, starting fires etc. All stuff that simply does not happen at private schools. The biggest problem with bad state schools is that over half the lesson is wasted on crowd control. My maths teacher came from an extremely prestigious grammar school where she got 95% pass rates at GCSE, and then she came to my school where she enjoyed identical facilities (plus some extra more modern amenities like an interactive whiteboard, and more up to date text books), and she got below 30% pass rates.
               
               
               
              Reply
              Submit reply
              TSR Support Team

              We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

              Updated: December 8, 2010
            • See more of what you like on The Student Room

              You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

            • Poll
              Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
              Useful resources

              Groups associated with this forum:

              View associated groups
            • See more of what you like on The Student Room

              You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

            • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

              Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

              Quick reply
              Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.