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

Intellectual elitism is what Uni should be about - not a means to educate everyone Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I have a biography style book on Einstein and his influence on Physics that you may be interested in looking up. I can't remember exactly what it says but I seem to recall it mentioning Einsteins early education ane even producing a copy of one of his report cards. It is called '100 Years of Relativity'.
    Thanks . But Einstein was actually a plagiarist.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RocketCiaranJ)
    Yes, but everything really has a chain effect. While a top university might not judge a person, directly, based on their GCSEs, a bad grade can prevent a person from going to a decent sixth form. A more affluent family will be capable of offering personal tutors to compensate for a bad sixth form. Thus, it will be more easy to become an A*A*A* person if you're rich.
    You do understand what I'm saying right? That universities can look at their data of degree performance and find out that students whose parents are on £100k+ and got A*A*A* performed only as well as students whose parents are on £10k- and got A*AB? And so make offers correspondingly? And so the fact that 'it will be more easy to become an A*A*A* person if you're rich' is compensated for?

    I mean, sure getting poor GCSEs might dissuade some otherwise bright students. I don't claim this will eradicate ALL inequality or privilege, but it will certainly remove a large portion of it.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Very interesting stuff there but I'm inclined to disagree. I tend to judge books on Amazon by the reading the 5 star and 1 star reviews and for me the 1 stars have it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    You do understand what I'm saying right? That universities can look at their data of degree performance and find out that students whose parents are on £100k+ and got A*A*A* performed only as well as students whose parents are on £10k- and got A*AB? And so make offers correspondingly? And so the fact that 'it will be more easy to become an A*A*A* person if you're rich' is compensated for?

    I mean, sure getting poor GCSEs might dissuade some otherwise bright students. I don't claim this will eradicate ALL inequality or privilege, but it will certainly remove a large portion of it.
    Agreed. However, I think by asking for A*A*A* students, you are asking for utter perfection. As you have stated, the exams are flawed; an intelligent person can miss out on a grade through careless mistakes. Your method might remove some inequality, but it nonetheless increases the possibility of overlooking the next Einstein - who may mess up an exam. Now if you're saying that we should change the exams, then that's a different thread.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Very interesting stuff there but I'm inclined to disagree. I tend to judge books on Amazon by the reading the 5 star and 1 star reviews and for me the 1 stars have it.
    Yep, the book is terribly written. Still, take a look through the net for supporting sources.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Nope, university education should be available for anyone who is capable and wants to further his or her education and provided they meet the entry requirement.

    Why should you restrict people's ambition to attend university if they can?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RocketCiaranJ)
    Agreed. However, I think by asking for A*A*A* students, you are asking for utter perfection. As you have stated, the exams are flawed; an intelligent person can miss out on a grade through careless mistakes. Your method might remove some inequality, but it nonetheless increases the possibility of overlooking the next Einstein - who may mess up an exam. Now if you're saying that we should change the exams, then that's a different thread.
    For the third time this thread, I'm not saying it should be A*A*A* students only. I only used that as an example.

    Personally, though, I find it difficult to understand how someone can truly study degree level material without at least an A in their most relevant A Level (e.g. English for an English degree, Physics for a Physics degree, etc).
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RocketCiaranJ)
    Yep, the book is terribly written. Still, take a look through the net for supporting sources.
    Tomorrow maybe (tired now *yawn*).
    What concerns me is (especially as someone keenly interested in Physics who is currently deciding wether or not I want to devote my life to it) that if whatever supposed evidence in that book is true why there hasn't been some big uproar about it. I highly doubt he was able to somehow trick the entire scientific community. What credentials does the book's author have? I suspect this is simply a case of scientists 'standing on the shoulders of giants' which is of course, nothing new.

    Its probably a thread worthy topic.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    For the third time this thread, I'm not saying it should be A*A*A* students only. I only used that as an example.

    Personally, though, I find it difficult to understand how someone can truly study degree level material without at least an A in their most relevant A Level (e.g. English for an English degree, Physics for a Physics degree, etc).
    Agreed. So where would you set the standard?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    Tomorrow maybe (tired now *yawn*).
    What concerns me is (especially as someone keenly interested in Physics who is currently deciding wether or not I want to devote my life to it) that if whatever supposed evidence in that book is true why there hasn't been some big uproar about it. I highly doubt he was able to somehow trick the entire scientific community. What credentials does the book's author have? I suspect this is simply a case of scientists 'standing on the shoulders of giants' which is of course, nothing new.

    Its probably a thread worthy topic.
    There are many reasons for Einstein's ability to do this.
    1. Many assumed anything anti-Einstein to be Nazi propaganda.
    2. He formed a role model for kids everywhere.
    3. Following the Nazi holocaust, speaking out against the Jewish genius was a total NO NO, for anyone.
    4. The science was sound, and thus he tricked the scientific community. There was no way for them to know the origin of his theory.

    Anyway, thread started.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    true - education is a privilege, not a right
    it is basically a gamble to invest money in something like education
    and you can't give everybody money to gamble
    No you are wrong. As quoted from the UN 'Education is a right, like the right to have proper food or a roof over your head. Article 26 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to education”.'

    Also we need to invest in our young as they will reap rewards for the country in the future. Funding all areas ensures all areas will see rewards in the future and maintain a diversified economy.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    University has become a place for the masses. This has ultimately devalued the idea of what going to university is about. I do feel we need more rigorous methods to select the best students (regardless of social status) wether this be through increasing academic requirements or interviewing for a wider number of degrees. At the moment it is leading students with worthless degrees into a saturated job market.

    The big question is how is this going to be resolved?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    To all the short sighted people who want to limit university places to STEM subjects only.....

    If the only students allowed into uni where STEM students I shudder to think of the state of the country in ten years time. We could make cool technology but would lack people with the organisational, leadership, economic degrees to push this technology forwards.

    We would have no good lawyers. All our barristers and judges would only be educated to A -level. Our history and English teachers would only be educated to A -level in their subjects.

    We would lose a vault of knowledge and opportunity. We would have no degree educated counsellors or therapists. We would produce poorer artwork as a country and lose money as a result.

    Graduate employers who look for humanities grads or social science grads would be forced to choose STEM graduates who may not have the skill sets required for the job.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alwayslearning1)
    No you are wrong. As quoted from the UN 'Education is a right, like the right to have proper food or a roof over your head. Article 26 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “everyone has the right to education”.'

    Also we need to invest in our young as they will reap rewards for the country in the future. Funding all areas ensures all areas will see rewards in the future and maintain a diversified economy.
    so a meaningless piece of paper says "education is a right" - oh okay, I guess that means every african child is gonna get their healthy share of...oh.
    you know the UN can't actually enforce anything, right? it might as well just be an thuper thpecial advisory body, or more like the international naggers club
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BenAssirati)
    I highly doubt photographers and farmers need a degree to be able to do their jobs. They are going to uni for the sake of going.
    Not really for the sake of it - by sending everyone to uni, the entry requirements for decent jobs have been inflated way beyond what they need to be and it is ever tougher to work your way up from the bottom. If anything uni is more of a necessity for those looking to go into less productive fields, since at least with productive fields your contributions can be quantified and you can move up that way.

    Technically speaking, photographers and farmers (and most jobs, in fact) require zero education beyond the basic reading and writing, but I'm sure you wouldn't advise a budding photographer to check out of school at 16 and sack off GCSEs in favour of portfolio-building.

    The ******* with sending everyone to uni is that it is privatising education by the back door and mortgaging people's futures. In a mature economy with bad demographic trends such as ours you have to artificially inflate the price of basic necessities.

    So they diddled everyone in the generation before us with Right to Buy, so everyone had to get on the bandwagon before house prices went out of their reach and then they spend the rest of their lives working to pay off the mortgage to the worst landlord ever: the bank.

    Now that little scam has been and gone, the price of simple shelter has gone stratospheric and new class divides are opening depending on whether your parents can leverage their own house to help get one for you, they are trying to do the same with tuition fees. Make it so everyone has to go to uni to get a foot in the door and you get to collect rent off them for the rest of their lives for the privilege of being given a passport (not a plane ticket or a road map, mind) to just the possibility of upward mobility in the job market.
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Not really for the sake of it - by sending everyone to uni, the entry requirements for decent jobs have been inflated way beyond what they need to be and it is ever tougher to work your way up from the bottom. If anything uni is more of a necessity for those looking to go into less productive fields, since at least with productive fields your contributions can be quantified and you can move up that way.

    Technically speaking, photographers and farmers (and most jobs, in fact) require zero education beyond the basic reading and writing, but I'm sure you wouldn't advise a budding photographer to check out of school at 16 and sack off GCSEs in favour of portfolio-building.

    The ******* with sending everyone to uni is that it is privatising education by the back door and mortgaging people's futures. In a mature economy with bad demographic trends such as ours you have to artificially inflate the price of basic necessities.

    So they diddled everyone in the generation before us with Right to Buy, so everyone had to get on the bandwagon before house prices went out of their reach and then they spend the rest of their lives working to pay off the mortgage to the worst landlord ever: the bank.

    Now that little scam has been and gone, the price of simple shelter has gone stratospheric and new class divides are opening depending on whether your parents can leverage their own house to help get one for you, they are trying to do the same with tuition fees. Make it so everyone has to go to uni to get a foot in the door and you get to collect rent off them for the rest of their lives for the privilege of being given a passport (not a plane ticket or a road map, mind) to just the possibility of upward mobility in the job market.
    Good point for the education up to 18, because I highly value having at least a basic education in most of the general areas of life such as literacy and numeracy (as well as history, languages etc). In terms of university, I actually think building up a portfolio or getting work experience is much more important than a degree for those areas.

    For the rest of your rant about university conspiracies and scams:

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Certainly I do not take the view that only the hardest STEM subjects should be studied. There is obvious value in the arts and social sciences, and that value is academic. The reason that universities exist is not to produce people with skills to perform jobs (though this is a side effect). At least, you would struggle to find any good professor who thought that the purpose of studying a maths degree - about as hard STEM as you can get - was to go into finance/do something non-academic. When students study physics, they do not do so because studying physics makes one more employable (though it does), they do so because learning for learnings sake is innately valuable to us as human beings.

    This then, is why there are plenty on subjects that are not STEM that are worth studying. It is worth studying and researching music or literature, even though those studies do not translate over into the real world, because they are intellectually stimulating and interesting, and they fulfil the fundamental human desire to observe, analyse, understand and create. These are the reasons that academia and higher education should exist.

    With that in mind, there is a good argument against certain subjects being studied at universities. Take for example photography. The issue with a photography degree is that the field is not nearly large enough to justify being a subject. The actual academic work is a strict subset of the work done in an art degree, as is the artistic element of the practical work. The technical element on the other hand is not what universities should be for. I.e. the list of grand and central-to-the-human-condition goals that universities are meant to fill which I compiled above does not include teaching students how to operate a camera.

    In terms of finance, I am of the mind that a government should fund its citizens higher education for the same reason it funds schooling, because as human beings we should have the right to engage deeply and meaningfully with ideas, which is what the purpose of universities is.

    So in short, I think there are good arguments for removing the study of certain subjects from universities, and for the government providing at least the current level of loans to students, on the grounds that academic study is integral to what it means to be human.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BenAssirati)
    Good point for the education up to 18, because I highly value having at least a basic education in most of the general areas of life such as literacy and numeracy (as well as history, languages etc). In terms of university, I actually think building up a portfolio or getting work experience is much more important than a degree for those areas.

    For the rest of your rant about university conspiracies and scams:

    Well you need to think on a systemic level and apply game theory if you want to understand politics, demographics, economics. If you won't consider the systemic implications of devaluing degrees then you really are not qualified (heh) to comment on when people would do best to leave education.

    And no it's not a conscious conspiracy, it's something that has arisen at a micro scale because it benefits the parties involved. And being a mature/stagnant economy with a fair amount of regulation and a demographic crisis brewing is surely a major factor in what has caused this bubble to inflate now.

    Portfolios and work experience yes, but in some industries more than others. It works in young, growing, vibrant, diversified industries like IT and where you are directly responsible for creating things. But for old, established, highly regulated, monopolistic professional industries like law or finance you will find that even the opportunities to get work experience themselves are heavily regulated, so you get your undergrad-only summer vacation schemes.

    Sure you can get a ****muncher job in these areas and you might get lucky and work your way up in a small growing company if it's a time of market upheaval, but it's very unorthodox and basically hit and hope.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    It is very noticeable that almost the only people calling for a reduction in higher education are young people who believe (not necessarily rightly) that they would still be entering higher education in any more restrictive system. You will not find any political party, employers' organisation, trades union or universities calling for this. In other words this is a call for the entrenchment of a monopolistic privilege in favour of those seeking the change.

    Personally, I think too many people are entering higher education and that many are entering to read the wrong things, but I think that is because of lack of market awareness. I think both schools and universities contribute to misleading young people about job prospects.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I have a biography style book on Einstein and his influence on Physics that you may be interested in looking up. I can't remember exactly what it says but I seem to recall it mentioning Einsteins early education ane even producing a copy of one of his report cards. It is called '100 Years of Relativity'.
    It's his report card that made me ask for a source. It was quite a while ago, but I'm sure I remember seeing his report card and he actually did very well.

    In fact I just googled it to make sure, here's the card:

    Name:  18kwmssimlx39jpg.jpg
Views: 89
Size:  48.1 KB
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    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.