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

Minister calls for measures to help White Working Class Males get into University Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bc001)
    But they wouldn't be unsuited to the courses lol. Its silly to conflate vocational jobs with an undergrad degree.
    I'm not talking about vocational here.

    What I'm saying is, if you stop the most qualified people from becoming doctors due to quotas, you'll end up with less qualified people filling their place, and we end up with less qualified doctors.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    How about means tested education so that parents at top schools pay what they can afford but entry is based purely on merit. The rich parents can console themselves with the knowledge that their house alarm systems are now far less likely to be tested by intelligent criminals.
    Like Eton, Winchester, Rugby and Harrow are going to agree to that lol. They are private essentially recession proof institutions (as are all the top traditional English private schools).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sheldor)
    I'm not talking about vocational here.

    What I'm saying is, if you stop the most qualified people from becoming doctors due to quotas, you'll end up with less qualified people filling their place, and we end up with less qualified doctors.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    THose that would make crap doctors would get weeded out very early into their degree. You seem to think that the university application system is adept at filtering the top talent from the bottom, and indeed that there is actually top talented people and a clear hierarchy of ability. This is absolutely not the case.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bc001)
    THose that would make crap doctors would get weeded out very early into their degree. You seem to think that the university application system is adept at filtering the top talent from the bottom, and indeed that there is actually top talented people and a clear hierarchy of ability. This is absolutely not the case.
    But if we then had to get rid of all the people we'd let into uni because we had to have more state schoolers, we'd have less doctors. Why not just let people in based on merit and what they can do? There's no point letting someone in if they just don't have the potential. Why not fix primary and secondary school education instead, so those pupils can get there by their own merit?

    Your post doesn't make much sense. So, are you saying that there are or aren't talented people, or are you talking about something else...?(Sorry, the word order is quite confusing.)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bc001)
    It wouldn't destroy meritocracy. It essentially says to people who have inordinate amounts of money spent on their education that they have to be top of the pile of their equals - e.g. people who also have had inordinate amounts of money spent on their education. And there would be no barrier if parents decided to send their kid to a normal state school, which they could easily do.
    Yes it would. Just because a student is at a private school it doesn't mean they magically get good grades. They have to put in work--lots, and lots of work. That's why students at these schools are so successful: they both understand that they need to work hard to get the results they want and actually put that work in. It might be an environment slightly more conducive to good work, but it's not as if the schools have agreements with exam boards to give their students automatic A* grades or something :P

    There are a lot of people, too, at private schools because of bursaries. I went to my school on a full bursary--I could never have afforded to go there otherwise. Would I too be confined by this regressive quota system?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bc001)
    1) When universities only look at post GCSE results, then an 80:20 mix would be fair. But they look at GCSEs so the 93:7 is still relevant.

    2) No - the admissions system is set up to suit people with rich enough parents to send them to fee paying schools.

    3) With whose money would they do this? Tax the rich out of private schools
    1) What I'm getting at is that in terms of people who actually apply to university (ie, the people who universities are able to give offers to) the ratio is far from 7:93. So to peg admissions to that ratio would be bizarre, arbitrary, and unmeritocratic.

    2) That simply isn't true. Everyone sits the same exams. Everyone goes through the same application process. Universities (especially Oxbridge) bend over backwards to make it as easy as possible for applicants from less privileged backgrounds to apply and they take special consideration of the quality (or lack of) of an applicant's school into account. The reason why there are so many privately-educated students at universities is because there are disproportionately more of these students getting the top grades and actually applying in the first place. Look at this really helpful report from Cabridge's admissions office: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/a..._pi_report.pdf

    3) Maybe more money should be put into education overall. Like I said, abolishing Ofsted wouldn't be a bad place to start. A lot of the things I think should be done would require more political backbone than actual cash.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    How about means tested education so that parents at top schools pay what they can afford but entry is based purely on merit. The rich parents can console themselves with the knowledge that their house alarm systems are now far less likely to be tested by intelligent criminals.
    ...That's how it works already at a lot of private schools. My parents couldn't afford it so I was awarded one of my school's full bursaries.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TritonSails)
    Yes it would. Just because a student is at a private school it doesn't mean they magically get good grades. They have to put in work--lots, and lots of work. That's why students at these schools are so successful: they both understand that they need to work hard to get the results they want and actually put that work in. It might be an environment slightly more conducive to good work, but it's not as if the schools have agreements with exam boards to give their students automatic A* grades or something :P

    There are a lot of people, too, at private schools because of bursaries. I went to my school on a full bursary--I could never have afforded to go there otherwise. Would I too be confined by this regressive quota system?
    i agree with everything you've said, but a lot of private schools are selective. whilst kids arent guarenteed a*'s and a's and have to work for them and understand the need to work for them there is still a wider ability range in non selective state schools - my mum is as teacher in one and gets hard working kids who still get C's and D's.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackM95)
    David Willets the Universities Minister has said there is a worryingly large amount of white working class boy's missing out on university and has suggested that they should be treated the same as other ethnic minority groups; citing a huge waste of talent among this under-represented group in higher education.

    Opinions?

    Here are the links: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ass-white-boys
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ckgrounds.html
    Well yes, they should be treated the same as minority groups... and white females, and asians, and yellow and green striped transgender malaysians. No ethnic group should be given any advantage, everyone should be judged based on academic merit.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bc001)
    Like Eton, Winchester, Rugby and Harrow are going to agree to that lol. They are private essentially recession proof institutions (as are all the top traditional English private schools).
    The only reason theyre the best schools is that they attract top teachers. You could spend a lot on new top schools and then attract teachers with more money and more capable pupils until they became established as the new top schools. Then those that you mention would gradually become finishing schools for tim nice but dim while the smarter kids from all backgrounds would be sent to the schools that gave them the best prospects.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TritonSails)
    1) What I'm getting at is that in terms of people who actually apply to university (ie, the people who universities are able to give offers to) the ratio is far from 7:93. So to peg admissions to that ratio would be bizarre, arbitrary, and unmeritocratic.

    2) That simply isn't true. Everyone sits the same exams. Everyone goes through the same application process. Universities (especially Oxbridge) bend over backwards to make it as easy as possible for applicants from less privileged backgrounds to apply and they take special consideration of the quality (or lack of) of an applicant's school into account. The reason why there are so many privately-educated students at universities is because there are disproportionately more of these students getting the top grades and actually applying in the first place. Look at this really helpful report from Cabridge's admissions office: http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/a..._pi_report.pdf

    3) Maybe more money should be put into education overall. Like I said, abolishing Ofsted wouldn't be a bad place to start. A lot of the things I think should be done would require more political backbone than actual cash.
    You never did say why though. What's the reason for wanting to abolish ofsted?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    The only reason theyre the best schools is that they attract top teachers. You could spend a lot on new top schools and then attract teachers with more money and more capable pupils until they became established as the new top schools. Then those that you mention would gradually become finishing schools for tim nice but dim while the smarter kids from all backgrounds would be sent to the schools that gave them the best prospects.
    If you think it is because they attract the best teachers you have no idea. If you ask the parents who send their kids to Eton, they certainly won't say 'the teachers'.

    I don't think you grasp the nature of schools like Eton lol. If you are a Saudi Prince or own half of Cornwall its neither here nor there whether your kids go to a school which gives them the 'best' prospects, because the prospects are their already. These are schools for, the odd scholarship student notwithstanding, the people who are already sorted and who don't need 'prospects' in the conventional schooling sense.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bc001)
    If you think it is because they attract the best teachers you have no idea. If you ask the parents who send their kids to Eton, they certainly won't say 'the teachers'.

    I don't think you grasp the nature of schools like Eton lol. If you are a Saudi Prince or own half of Cornwall its neither here nor there whether your kids go to a school which gives them the 'best' prospects, because the prospects are their already. These are schools for, the odd scholarship student notwithstanding, the people who are already sorted and who don't need 'prospects' in the conventional schooling sense.
    So kids at Eton have no interest in winning nobel prizes and such like because theyre already "sorted"? That's ridiculous. They wouldn't be "sorted" for very long if that's how they thought.

    For me its simply about managing the country in such a way as to make it as successful as possible. Its pretty plain to see that the country would do best with a system that filled the best schools with the best teachers and best pupils. That's not to say that a good amount of the kids already at such schools wouldn't fit into the best pupils category. It would be good for them too because class dimwits would be replaced with people more able to contribute to the school as well as society at large.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bc001)
    If you think it is because they attract the best teachers you have no idea. If you ask the parents who send their kids to Eton, they certainly won't say 'the teachers'.

    I don't think you grasp the nature of schools like Eton lol. If you are a Saudi Prince or own half of Cornwall its neither here nor there whether your kids go to a school which gives them the 'best' prospects, because the prospects are their already. These are schools for, the odd scholarship student notwithstanding, the people who are already sorted and who don't need 'prospects' in the conventional schooling sense.
    There are very few schools like Eton. That's a school at the very highest tier of public schools. The vast majority of public schools don't ever really have any Saudi princes--they tend to cater to middle to upper-middle class types. Doctors, lawyers, that sort of thing, but there are also parents with worse-paid jobs who just value their children's education so much that they make sacrifices in order to pay fees (and also people like me on full/partial bursaries). The reason why these people are willing to spend money to send their children to these schools is because they believe that doing so will give their children the best education and the best prospects available in the area. What you're describing is the exception, not the rule.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by green.tea)
    So kids at Eton have no interest in winning nobel prizes and such like because theyre already "sorted"? That's ridiculous. They wouldn't be "sorted" for very long if that's how they thought.

    For me its simply about managing the country in such a way as to make it as successful as possible. Its pretty plain to see that the country would do best with a system that filled the best schools with the best teachers and best pupils. That's not to say that a good amount of the kids already at such schools wouldn't fit into the best pupils category. It would be good for them too because class dimwits would be replaced with people more able to contribute to the school as well as society at large.
    er what % of people want to win nobel prizes anyway.

    And yeah, they are sorted because their parents are rich and well connected. Jack Whitehall's comedy career ladder is a useful example of this lol.

    I guess thats where we differ, i think the best way is to select the best x percent of various groups proportionately. e.g. 93% state school 7% private school at each university.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TritonSails)
    There are very few schools like Eton. That's a school at the very highest tier of public schools. The vast majority of public schools don't ever really have any Saudi princes--they tend to cater to middle to upper-middle class types. Doctors, lawyers, that sort of thing, but there are also parents with worse-paid jobs who just value their children's education so much that they make sacrifices in order to pay fees (and also people like me on full/partial bursaries). The reason why these people are willing to spend money to send their children to these schools is because they believe that doing so will give their children the best education and the best prospects available in the area. What you're describing is the exception, not the rule.
    I know. I was responding to the idea that the gov recruiting Eton's and similar teachers and setting them up in state schools wouldn't improve education of working class kids, because Eton and the like aren't about good teaching in the GCSE and ALevel sense.

    The average private school is more about education in the state school sense - getting a good UCAS statement with a few ECs.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bc001)
    er what % of people want to win nobel prizes anyway.

    And yeah, they are sorted because their parents are rich and well connected. Jack Whitehall's comedy career ladder is a useful example of this lol.

    I guess thats where we differ, i think the best way is to select the best x percent of various groups proportionately. e.g. 93% state school 7% private school at each university.
    Say you had 1000 people capable of being top brain surgeons. 500 already in the top tier of schooling, 300 in the tier beneath and then the rest scattered throughout the lower half. It is in the interest of society that all these people fulfill their potential. In the current system the 50 or so in the very worst schools its unlikely they would and we would instead have 50 people from the higher tiers who have less potential. Even if you distort the system to get those 50 people to brain surgeon schools they still wont fulfill their potential to the point of an equal intellect from the top tier because they lack the early year nurturing and in the worst cases possibly also nutrition (which would explain why the smart gene would appear to have suddenly popped up from nowhere flyn effecty type stuff).

    Your ridiculous idea would mean that about 3 of the 500 at the top schools would fulfill their potential.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JackM95)
    David Willets the Universities Minister has said there is a worryingly large amount of white working class boy's missing out on university and has suggested that they should be treated the same as other ethnic minority groups; citing a huge waste of talent among this under-represented group in higher education.

    Opinions?

    Here are the links: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/...ass-white-boys
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ckgrounds.html
    There are advantages and disadvantages about this. I think one of the advantage is it may solve the problem of white working class boys are underachieve at school as the offical statistics show. However, is it really fair that making it easy for them? How about others?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I hope no one mines me butting in four days late to this thread. I was just reading, and being working class myself, and wanting to go to university I figured maybe I had something to contribute.

    I am now 21, I want to go to university I always wanted to go point blank. My GCSE’s were not what most of you would call good I didn’t get 5 A to Cs. While my family, parents etc. are generally supportive of education and my wish to go to university there certainly were no “dinner table” discussions about it. I then went to college to study computing purely on the advice of the Connexions service run by the government. It was a ten minute conversation with someone I had never met all I basically had to tell her was I liked computers. I left that someone put out after it finished it didn’t inspire me at all despite good grades on my part. The tutors were more about putting us down for being failures and heading for ‘menial’ jobs.

    My parents again while supportive didn’t go to university themselves. Thus my main problem seems to be not lack of will to do the work (as I am sure some would think having not done A Levels) but more what work do I do? Being working class there seems a strong cultural emphasis on the “practical” use of education to make money here and now. Personally any courses I am somewhat interested in are academic and therefore alienating and somewhat daunting. Id argue it’s akin to stepping out of your culture or going to live in another country.

    I’m currently paying for private tuition in English and Maths, id ague it’s not laziness of the working class it’s the cultural differences in regards to education. As an example I can tell you all now certain uni courses I would feel it was wrong for someone like me to take, yes even today in 2012.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sylar2010)
    I hope no one mines me butting in four days late to this thread. I was just reading, and being working class myself, and wanting to go to university I figured maybe I had something to contribute.

    I am now 21, I want to go to university I always wanted to go point blank. My GCSE’s were not what most of you would call good I didn’t get 5 A to Cs. While my family, parents etc. are generally supportive of education and my wish to go to university there certainly were no “dinner table” discussions about it. I then went to college to study computing purely on the advice of the Connexions service run by the government. It was a ten minute conversation with someone I had never met all I basically had to tell her was I liked computers. I left that someone put out after it finished it didn’t inspire me at all despite good grades on my part. The tutors were more about putting us down for being failures and heading for ‘menial’ jobs.

    My parents again while supportive didn’t go to university themselves. Thus my main problem seems to be not lack of will to do the work (as I am sure some would think having not done A Levels) but more what work do I do? Being working class there seems a strong cultural emphasis on the “practical” use of education to make money here and now. Personally any courses I am somewhat interested in are academic and therefore alienating and somewhat daunting. Id argue it’s akin to stepping out of your culture or going to live in another country.

    I’m currently paying for private tuition in English and Maths, id ague it’s not laziness of the working class it’s the cultural differences in regards to education. As an example I can tell you all now certain uni courses I would feel it was wrong for someone like me to take, yes even today in 2012.
    You shouldn't let such attitudes hold you back in any way. There is a widespread hostility towards students in working class quarters. They live in such a small ignorant world where degrees are being replaced by NVQ's and things like that. I think you should perhaps consider that a lot of the people doing rubbish like American Studies probably have enough to mean they wont need to rely on their degree for income but apart from practical concerns such as that you should do any subject you like.
 
 
 
  • 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
    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.