Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...-protests.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

    "Under rules introduced last year, universities wanting to charge higher tuition fees of up to £9,000 a year are expected to recruit more low-income students, with their attendance at state school being one of the major criteria.
    Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, suggested that tutors should be willing to offer places to students from state schools on the basis of lower A-level grades than they would require from privately educated candidates. The reforms provoked protests from elite universities and leading independent schools.
    Head teachers accused the Government of pursuing a “Communist-style” agenda of social engineering, while about half of Britain’s leading universities boycotted the state school target this year.
    Critics said it was not possible to make a “crude” judgment that the poorest pupils always attended state schools while the richest were privately educated."

    Thoughts, anyone?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    it was a good idea of the government, but was always going to fail and be ignored.

    The problem is same same with any rule like this. For example if you have to have a minimum of x amount of women in the cabinet, yes it helps with equality. BUT what if it just happens that there aren't enough suitable women? We end up with someone rubbish in charge of a department. And this applies if it was the other way round - if government had always been run by women and then a rule saying x amount of men had to be in the cabinet, sometimes there just wouldn't be enough good men.


    It's a similar principle. Making things fairer, doesn't always mean the best people will get the job/uni place. Positive descrimination is stil descrimination and doesn't work.

    If a course has requirements, then it should give people who meet them a place, without prioritising them to the rich.

    But like others have said, what needs addressing is why so many uni places go to private school kids - state schools need improving. In my town there's 3 high schools. I went to the best out of the 3, but only about 50% of kids got 5 gcses! for english maths and science, there were 2 lots of 5 sets. The top set did the higher tier, the rest did foundation. Hardly anyone in set 3 or below passed the exams.

    A girl transferred from a private school. There she was on track to get a B/C in english so was in the 3rd set. When she moved to my school, she was put in the top set automatically! The same with maths and science, she was predicted a C so was in the 4th set. When she came to my school she was moved into the second set for both!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If the university website says "Entry requirements: X,Y,Z grades in the following subjects" then that should be their entry requirement. No point in recruiting anyone based on their household, or their place of education. They advertise exactly what they want, so students know what is expected of them. If they don't make the cut, then that's not the university's fault... Similarly, they shouldn't just let in students because they need to fill a quota.

    They should be allowed to set their own standards, but they should be clear and they must be able to prove why a state school educated, poor person, with AAA grades was allowed, or was not allowed, admittance against a privately schooled rich person with the same AAA grades and a similar lifestyle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Positive discrimination is still discrimination.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I think the idea of quotas in anything is the lazy/cheap alternative to solving a problem to be honest.

    Instead of forcing Universities to take on a minimum number of people from state schools, the better solution would be to look at why state schools get less kids into university than private schools, and then work on trying to improve the situation so that state schools rival private ones in their performance.

    Unfortunately though, that approach costs a hell of a lot more than quotas, so from the economic stand-point I can see why quotas are a half-decent idea, in the short term at least. Long term I think they simply aren't as good a fix as working from the ground up.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anony.mouse)
    it was a good idea of the government, but was always going to fail and be ignored.

    The problem is same same with any rule like this. For example if you have to have a minimum of x amount of women in the cabinet, yes it helps with equality. BUT what if it just happens that there aren't enough suitable women? We end up with someone rubbish in charge of a department. And this applies if it was the other way round - if government had always been run by women and then a rule saying x amount of men had to be in the cabinet, sometimes there just wouldn't be enough good men.


    It's a similar principle. Making things fairer, doesn't always mean the best people will get the job/uni place.
    The difference between gender and schooling discrimination is that a woman will have the same background as a man in that they'll each have a mother and a father, whereas it's quite typical for people who benefited from private school to also send their kids to private school, and they'll send their kids and so on, so discrepancies build up. Yes, the lack of role models of your gender can make your path less clear, but you haven't been disadvantaged because of your parents in the way private schooling does.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    The difference between gender and schooling discrimination is that a woman will have the same background as a man in that they'll each have a mother and a father, whereas it's quite typical for people who benefited from private school to also send their kids to private school, and they'll send their kids and so on, so discrepancies build up. Yes, the lack of role models of your gender can make your path less clear, but you haven't been disadvantaged because of your parents in the way private schooling does.
    Exactly. I disagree with positive discrimination on the basis of gender, I feel that it's patronising and that whoever is best suited to a job should be accepted, regardless of gender, as this will benefit the country the most. However, the problem with university admissions is that it is not the best people who are being accepted, it is the superficially 'best candidates', and in order to be one of the best candidates you must attain a certain standard that is undeniably easier to reach when you have received a private education. Whilst I think that the state system needs to be invested in more, we can't just expect state schools to improve magically, universities need to do more to ensure that the most intellectually capable people are accepted.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with Quotas is that they are unlikely to be filled with the people they want to fill them. If the aim is to have broader social mobility or to get more poor people to go to university, quotas from state schools isnt the best way of doing it as the small number of elite schools in wealthy catchment areas would just dominate, replacing an out of touch unrepresentative public schoolboy with an unrepresentative State School child, meaning that many will just start sending their smart kids to state rather than private school.

    If it is a wider process, then generally the people who will get the good spots will be the children of immegrants who usually have a lot higher work ethic and parents willing to spend a ridiculous amount of time with the sole intention of getting their kids into university

    The only really meritocratic option is to bring back grammer schools but replace the 11+ with yearly tests and an early entrance exam, but that would be quite politically unpopular.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    it was a stupid idea in the first place, you shouldnt get into uni just because youre poor...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    The difference between gender and schooling discrimination is that a woman will have the same background as a man in that they'll each have a mother and a father, whereas it's quite typical for people who benefited from private school to also send their kids to private school, and they'll send their kids and so on, so discrepancies build up. Yes, the lack of role models of your gender can make your path less clear, but you haven't been disadvantaged because of your parents in the way private schooling does.
    True, but I was explaining how positive descrimination doesn't work.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anony.mouse)
    True, but I was explaining how positive descrimination doesn't work.
    It's not perfect, but it can counterbalance a social inequality. You can see the cycle of "rich --> send kids to private school --> better chance of university --> better chance to be rich --> send kids to private school" can't you? Those who aren't in the cycle will fall behind those who are inside (with some exceptions) and that gap will widen over time unless something is done. The easiest way to get someone into that cycle is to stick them into university, though of course improving state schools is something that needs to be done too.
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • 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.