Treat white working-class boys like ethnic minority, Willetts tells universities

Out of interest, how would you classify working class? What would be the criteria?

Why not look it up ?

it isn't, kids don't have a say what background they are born into and telling kids who go to the better state or private schools that their grades are worth "less" than someone else's based on nothing more than their parents socio-economic status is wrong. Universities are not here to fix our countries education system and trying to use them in that manner is nothing short of a cop out to avoid dealing with the actual problem.

I mean if you want to start labeling grades from the same course differently based on who gets them surely we also have to start discriminating against naturally smart people? A kid with an IQ of 165 will obviously have a huge advantage over say a kid with an IQ of 100 at school and the kid with an IQ of 100 will have to work a lot harder to get the same grades so surely that should be taken into account?

As a wishful Medicine applicant, I hate the idea of being up against students who get a mark next to their name to give them a bonus just because they went to a **** school.

If they wanted to study medicine throughout GCSE and A-Levels like I did and do, they would have stayed at home and caught up/revised like I had to do if I fell behind.

Sod your socialist views Willetts, I hope you die in a fire.

It's hardly socialist, given that capitalism only really works with equality of opportunity. Plus Willetts is a Tory, I'm sure he's a socialist with socialist views.

It's not about catching up and revising and being lazy. It's about showing potential and being fair. Of course A*'s are more impressive at a poor state school then it is at Eton, the state school has worse facilities, teachers, resources and learning environment.

The person hasn't fallen behind, they're automatically behind of virtue by going to a poor school of no fault of their own. Is it fair that they're disadvantaged from top uni places? Same way people who go to private schools have not worked for that and they have a peg in-front, even with acknowledging that top grades at poor schools are more impressive people who go to better schools still have a head start.

surely the school they went to should also be taken into account?

why?

If they made the cut through exams and workloads to enter the uni why does it matter what school they went to?

I come from a working class background and i think this is woefully unfair - if a child rich or poor does well in school to gain entry to high ranked uni - then let them in, whether black, white, chinese etc etc etc

Holding back the wealthy/more advantaged for the sake of weaker candidates isn't a right-wing theme. Don't fall into the pit of ignorance where you believe that a man stands only for what his party does. Capitalism works under the basis of a free market and equal opportunities as far as a MAN'S CAPABILITIES takes him. Not how far society carries him. Capitalism works under the notion of no parliament restrictions in terms of equal opportunities. For instance, because a student is black doesn't mean he shouldn't get the University spot. His colour, or creed, shouldn't be a hindrance to his education. What should be, however, are his grades.

people at high ranking schools will have help in every aspect of their application. they will recieve more resources. they will have better teachers. there will be more discipline in class. if they are applying to oxbridge or medicine, they will have much more help with the interviews.

now someone at a extremely poor school will have none (or very little) of this.

I should know. I've had the misfortune of going to a bad school and the fortune of going to a very good school.

you're telling me that an application of someone from a high ranking school and a very poor school should be taken completely equally, when clearly, their education has not been equal.

Are not all exams equal? Or do different schools do different papers? (this isnt sarcasm)

In short yes. Why should high ranking universities only accept those who come from higher/better schools than those who dont? If someone from a poorer background has gained the significant grades to get into the uni despite the hardships you described then yes absolutely they should be allowed to go.

By your arguement only those from richer backgrounds and higher level schools should be allowed in places like cambridge and Oxbridge - in which case a child is damned from birth through no fault of their own to never go on to realise their fullest potentional.

And it could be argued that those who have gained the requirements to get into a top uni DESPITE these disadvantages is a better entrant than those who get help all the way.

The idea that university is only for those with money is archaic and frankly horrible. How can it ever be expected to draw shut the poor rich divide if those who are poor are always going to be told - sit there and know your place, your poor and therefore no use

Well, I'm really confused now. I thought your original post was disagreeing with me. It turns out we've both got the wrong end of the stick.

I am supporting working class, poor school background people getting a bit of an advantage when applying to uni.

read through my posts again.

I agree, they aren't here to fix our education system. But then again, looking at a candidates background is an option. I don't think it's unfair to say that a student who went to a terrible school but received good grades should be given credit for it.

Your point about IQ is ridiculous. I made a moderate point, that a students school should be considered in their application, and you are suddenly accusing me of wanting some kind of state which evaluates students every predetermined attribute. It's a complete strawman.

It's not saying that people who go to better schools are worth less. It's saying that it's possible that somebody who got AAA at a poor state school, has more potential then somebody who got A*A*A* at Eton, because getting those grades are significantly harder at poor state schools and it's fair they should be given an opportunity.

Nobody is talking about academic strength, it's more raw talent and potential. Although you could spin it to merit. It's harder to get AAA at a poor state school then it is to get those same grades at Eton.

Its exactly the same though, children have no control over the families they were born into and have a very limited amount of control over what school they attend so it is perfectly reasonable to consider the quality of education someone receives in the UK as identical to their natural intelligence, a factor that they have no control over. Telling a child who attended a private school your A*A*A* is worth the same as someone else's AAA despite you both sitting the exact same exam because of the school you attend is discriminating against someone based on an unchangeable factor.