Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Toffee_Kid)
    Exactly how do you 'know' that some pupils from private schools get rejected because of what school they are from, as oppose to being faced with a better candidate? You don't, so please don't state speculative comments as fact.

    Getting a place at university depends on a lot more than just grades, hence the whole personal statement + references lark. An AAB/ABB/possibly-lower-depending-on-the-subject candidate with more work experience, an obvious passion for their subject and a better prepared application can be more qualified for a course than an AAA candidate with not all/ none of the above.

    Of course every application should be marked based on the applicant's individual merits, however it also makes sense to presume that a pupil from a bad school will have to work a lot harder to acheive good grades than a pupil from a good school *regardless of whether or not this good school is privately funded*.
    yeah fairplay, bit worrying to hear tho.
    otherwise your argument is probably the most logical in the thread.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This article really irked me:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...-rejected.html

    So, I fit the same academic criteria as him, yet he says he's "met all their targets"? There are other things to consider such as the PS. And he hasn't even heard back from two of the unis he applied to yet?! It's not private school students that annoy me, it's people like this...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AshleyT)
    You're definition of 'awful' will be different to ours.

    My A level english teacher:
    - Didn't show up to school for two weeks because she broke up with her boyfriend.
    - Then would go back out with someone else and then break up...again not come to school for about 1-2 weeks.
    - Then proceeded only to discuss her boyfriend relationships in lessons for a further two weeks - a month.
    - Would do hand stands and yoga in class...
    - Was late most days so we only had one lesson a week from her because the other ones she tended to miss from being late.
    - Didn't even study English at university...she did 'cultural arts' or something.

    She was awesome fun but we learn't NOTHING. I stopped going to her lessons in the end and started teaching myself in the library instead during the lesson.
    fml. reallly? wow.
    ok no i take back the awful teacher bit then
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rite)
    Isn't the problem low-quality public schools rather than high-quality private schools? Surely you should be raising the standards in order to have everyone on the same level rather than lowering them. Positive discrimination is just avoiding the problem.
    This.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by luuucyx)
    trust me, teachers are most definitely not of a much higher standard. some are good, but we do have some reaaallyy awful ones.
    I'd love love love to know what a Private School definition of a "reaaallyy awful" teacher is.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MewMachine)
    This article really irked me:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...-rejected.html

    So, I fit the same academic criteria as him, yet he says he's "met all their targets"? There are other things to consider such as the PS. And he hasn't even heard back from two of the unis he applied to yet?! It's not private school students that annoy me, it's people like this...
    When I went for my interview at Oxford, I met an American at the college where I was interviewed who was under the impression that since I was predicted the right grades, I should get a place. It took a while for him to understand that all the people around us were predicted the same grades, and that the interviewers were looking for something beyond what you have already achieved.

    Law is an extremely popular subject at most universities, with less than 20% of people who apply to Oxford getting offers. Surely Mr Henley should understand this?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loafer)


    EDIT: i am surprised by how many people here agree with this.

    if you are an intelligent person you will be clever enough to realise that doing well in exams is very important and you will study hard enough to achieve good grades. Who gives a **** what your teachers were like. they are YOUR qualifications - YOU have the responsibility to make sure you do well! not your teachers.
    This debate isn't about the fate of motivated pupils;they'll usually do well, as you say. The issue is the fate of the less motivated pupils, the ones who don't put in much effort out of school and whatnot; that they'll do better in Private Schools than in State Schools. You can't possibly disagree with that, because it's the observable truth.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by doivid)
    When I went for my interview at Oxford, I met an American at the college where I was interviewed who was under the impression that since I was predicted the right grades, I should get a place. It took a while for him to understand that all the people around us were predicted the same grades, and that the interviewers were looking for something beyond what you have already achieved.

    Law is an extremely popular subject at most universities, with less than 20% of people who apply to Oxford getting offers. Surely Mr Henley should understand this?
    You would think so, wouldn't you? Also, it would be extremely risky to apply to unis which are all very popular for law, like he seems to have doneMy school certainly discouraged people from applying to unis which were all considered "high risk" especially for subjects such as Law, surely a private school would have done this as well? He seems to think he is entitled to a place based solely on his grades. Congratulations on your offer btw
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Revolution is my Name)
    This debate isn't about the fate of motivated pupils;they'll usually do well, as you say. The issue is the fate of the less motivated pupils, the ones who don't put in much effort out of school and whatnot; that they'll do better in Private Schools than in State Schools. You can't possibly disagree with that, because it's the observable truth.
    exactly my point.

    why should people that arent motivated to learn and work hard get preferential treatment by admissions?

    nobody doubts that there are many very intelligent motivated people at state schools, and they have a fair chance of getting a place at a top university.

    BUT why should the students who do not care enough about their studies to put in enough time to get decent grades be prioritised above people who do revise hard enough to get good grades (who happen to go to a private school). these (you say) unmotivated (i say unintelligent) people have an unfairly high chance of getting a place due to this apparent Labour policy of 'widening participation'.
    Offline

    14
    and yes, there are QUOTAS of state school pupils that top universities are expected to adher to.

    there is even a government dept devoted to this the Office For Fair Access.

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...tate-pupils.do

    these quotas do not take how strong the applicants are from either system. they simply say that x MANY STUDENTS SHOULD BE FROM STATE SCHOOL THIS YEAR with no regard to how strong the crop is from the state school that year.

    would you object if they had quotas saying 'x many students must be black' or 'x many south americans'?
    of course, because it is unfair on people who have worked hard enough to be accepted - but are not because a less qualified candidate is from a worse school or ethnic background.

    any sort of quota is unfair. best universities for the best candidates.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revolution is my Name)
    I'd love love love to know what a Private School definition of a "reaaallyy awful" teacher is.
    Hey you know you really making me want to puke up my guts. I'm actually gonna vomit out my intestines and its really really nasty...yuck...

    Yeah so anyway you're not in a postion to say because you've obviously not seen how bad our teachers can be so.. you know... stop swearing at people on an internet forum and stop making me sick out my insides please..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loafer)
    exactly my point.

    why should people that arent motivated to learn and work hard get preferential treatment by admissions?

    nobody doubts that there are many very intelligent motivated people at state schools, and they have a fair chance of getting a place at a top university.

    BUT why should the students who do not care enough about their studies to put in enough time to get decent grades be prioritised above people who do revise hard enough to get good grades (who happen to go to a private school). these (you say) unmotivated (i say unintelligent) people have an unfairly high chance of getting a place due to this apparent Labour policy of 'widening participation'.
    I never said that. If somebody is intelligent, hard-working and goes to a private school, then they'll obviously get top-notch grades (i.e. perhaps all A*'s). Someone who doesn't fit any of those criteria won't, and that would leave a sufficient gap that there would be no confusion about who was more deserving of a place (e.g. I'm not condoning giving preferential treatment to a State School pupil with 1A* over a Private School pupil with 11). However, if two people had the same grades, then I can't see why it is unfair that the State School pupil should be given preferential treatment, which is the point I was trying to make, and that you failed to address.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think the issue is very complex, but broadly speaking I think it is unfair that someone is discriminated against due to the school they have been sent to. Speaking from personal there is no way my father (who is a priest) could have afforded to send me to private school without the 50% bursaries and scholarships I have received to study at private school. I don't see, when I have simply excelled to a greater extent than most state school students, I should be discriminated against (seeing as I earned my place at those schools). I got a rejection letter from Bristol yesterday... despite having A and A* grades in all my subjects (and none of them were anything like media studies).... better than the average offer they receive and respond to. Why? I think it is because I attended private school. My opinion is that if two students have equal grades... only then should schooling be taken into consideration. If a state school student has AAB and a private school student has AAA then the private school student should be preferred unless they write a bad personal statement. If they both have AAA then it should be down to context (personal statement, jobs etc.) but the state school student should get some extra credit. The whole point of grades and centralised exams is that they offer an objective standard that is quantitative. Any judgement based of schooling is qualitative and you can't use it to discriminate against applicants with a better knowledge of their subjects which, no matter what anyone says, is reflected quantitatively by their grades. The most relevant question is: what difference does private schooling make? I am slightly tempted to say... for the students who get straight A's not that much. Private schools, truth be told, are generally nicer places with better support for students who need it. I am glad I had the oppotunity be schooled in an ordered environment. That said, the students who excell should excell whatever school they go to. Believe me... there are some truly atrocious teachers and students both at state and private schools. Does teaching make a lot of difference? Yes... for the weaker students. The truth is if someone is capable of attaining an A* grade they should be capable of achieving it largely through their own effort. I feel that Labour (and by the way I'm not a right-winger) has always taken the diversionary and counter-intuitive approach... instead of spending money on improving state schools and opening up new grammar schools for the better students, they close grammar schools and penalise students who do well at private schools... just so they don't have to fork out any money on improving the education system. They would prefer a world where merit is discouraged so everyone is 'equally bad'... yet Tony Blair went to Eaton. I feel about anyone who say's 'I'm clever enough to get AAA but I got CCC'- don't kid yourself... if you're clever enough... prove it. I kind of have a similar feeling about people who say 'I got BBB at state school, but if I went to private school I would have got AAA'- you really don't know that, there is no way you can know that and there is no way that universities can know that either (although now they seem to think they can). I don't really have a chip on my shoulder about getting rejected... I just think my opinion is quite logical... unlike recent educational policies.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tombarlow123)
    Hey you know you really making me want to puke up my guts. I'm actually gonna vomit out my intestines and its really really nasty...yuck...

    Yeah so anyway you're not in a postion to say because you've obviously not seen how bad our teachers can be so.. you know... stop swearing at people on an internet forum and stop making me sick out my insides please..
    :lolwut: I was just seeking some clarification. If they gave me an answer, then I could either say "fair enough", or "actually, your definition of a really awful teacher is quite close to a state school definition of an average teacher".
    I'm afraid I can't control the fact that you have an extraordinarily weak stomach, nor that some people make me sufficiently angry that I feel the need to swear.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Haha mate there's no way anyones gonna read that, its too long. Mind you mines probaly gonna get deleted cause i said 'puke' and some pretty nasty graphic stuff actually..god shouldn't have done it really..
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by loafer)
    and yes, there are QUOTAS of state school pupils that top universities are expected to adher to.

    there is even a government dept devoted to this the Office For Fair Access.

    http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...tate-pupils.do

    these quotas do not take how strong the applicants are from either system. they simply say that x MANY STUDENTS SHOULD BE FROM STATE SCHOOL THIS YEAR with no regard to how strong the crop is from the state school that year.

    would you object if they had quotas saying 'x many students must be black' or 'x many south americans'?
    of course, because it is unfair on people who have worked hard enough to be accepted - but are not because a less qualified candidate is from a worse school or ethnic background.

    any sort of quota is unfair. best universities for the best candidates.
    Erm, that article doesn't even mention quotas once. A "target" is a very different thing from a quota.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Revolution is my Name)
    I never said that. If somebody is intelligent, hard-working and goes to a private school, then they'll obviously get top-notch grades (i.e. perhaps all A*'s). Someone who doesn't fit any of those criteria won't, and that would leave a sufficient gap that there would be no confusion about who was more deserving of a place (e.g. I'm not condoning giving preferential treatment to a State School pupil with 1A* over a Private School pupil with 11). However, if two people had the same grades, then I can't see why it is unfair that the State School pupil should be given preferential treatment, which is the point I was trying to make, and that you failed to address.
    because you are talking about an irrelevant situation. two candidates will never be exactly level - after grades, a face to face interview and possibly a test for some courses.

    furthermore, that is not how this quota system works. the grades and relvative qualifications are irrelevant.

    'x many students in the intake of 2011 MUST be from state school'

    that is what the universities face. not 'if two candidates are somehow exactly equal you should choose the state educated one'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revolution is my Name)
    :lolwut: I was just seeking some clarification. If they gave me an answer, then I could either say "fair enough", or "actually, your definition of a really awful teacher is quite close to a state school definition of an average teacher".
    I'm afraid I can't control the fact that you have an extraordinarily weak stomach, nor that some people make me sufficiently angry that I feel the need to swear.
    Nah my stomachs not weak, i actually sat through 2G1C and enjoyed it so...yeah...

    No but i went to state school very briefly and don't recall teachers basically doing anything worse than not turning up once or twice. Oh and at private schools you don't even have to qualified so once we got this guy who faked being in the army and having any qualifications and ended up being a paedo - i quite liked him, but apparently thats illegal - so that was fairly bad
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tombarlow123)
    Nah my stomachs not weak, i actually sat through 2G1C and enjoyed it so...yeah...

    No but i went to state school very briefly and don't recall teachers basically doing anything worse than not turning up once or twice. Oh and at private schools you don't even have to qualified so once we got this guy who faked being in the army and having any qualifications and ended up being a paedo - i quite liked him, but apparently thats illegal - so that was fairly bad
    That doesn't prove that there are "really awful" teachers at Private Schools though. I mean, there was a paedo at my school a few years ago, so obviously that's not a problem unique to Private Schools, and also I hardly see how that makes them an awful teacher in terms of the quality of teaching that they deliver, which is what this debate's about.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Revolution is my Name)
    Erm, that article doesn't even mention quotas once. A "target" is a very different thing from a quota.
    LOL. tell that to the hundreds of articles that mention quotas from oxford university, the cherwell, britannica and the guardian then, they call it a quota. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...idgeandelitism

    Leading academics have called for an end to 'unworkable' government quotas that require universities to accept more students from state schools and fewer from private schools.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,204

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

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

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