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

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

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Out of interest, how would you classify working class? What would be the criteria?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ameritus)
    Out of interest, how would you classify working class? What would be the criteria?
    Why not look it up ?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Islander)
    Why not look it up ?
    cba
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darth Stewie)
    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?
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdamskiUK)
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rmpr97)
    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.
    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.

    What you must understand is that he (the less advantaged student), as an individual, shouldn't be treated as a better person than someone who had the 'luck' to be sent to a decent school. When it comes down to it, if the candidate produces A*s at GCSE or A-Level, then the fact that he's come from a poorer school shouldn't matter. He's worked hard, sure, but that shouldn't earn him special treatment. It means he'd be a better doctor than somebody who went to a good school and only got AAA, perhaps.

    My main problem is when a person from a weaker school turns up with AAA and gets priority over somebody else's A*AA because he has a little tick next to his name to denote his working-class background.

    Yes, he's gone to a school that's not as good as perhaps it should be; you're entirely right - it isn't his fault. It also, however, isn't the fault of the more 'lucky' student, who has worked to his potential capabilities of A*AA. Why should he be demeaned? His grades were better.

    The whole idea reeks of pseudo-communism (socialism) whereby you hold back the more able students to be replaced by weaker candidates because 'It's not fair'. They don't do this in:

    China, Japan, US - and look at what their economies are like compared to ours. Social sympathy gets a country, and its' people, nowhere.

    So once again, I wish to state that I hope that Mr. Willetts ends up in a fire. On fire. Burning. To death.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabzqt)
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    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
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdamskiUK)
    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.
    It's not holding them back, it's leveling out the playing field. Exactly, equal opportunities. Which is what doing this is. You think someone who gets A*A*A* at a **** school is just as smart as someone who gets A*A*A* at Eton. Chances are the the **** school just has higher capabilities. But a mans capabilities based on paper grades are influenced by the school you go to and how good it is. You put the Eton guy in a state school and he'd probably get A's or B's. I agree about colour with you. And again, grades are not only influenced by a mans capabilities but also their school. If state education was on par with private education then we wouldn't be having this conversation, but it isn't. Hence that needs to be accounted for when judging a mans capabilities based on his grades.

    What you must understand is that he (the less advantaged student), as an individual, shouldn't be treated as a better person than someone who had the 'luck' to be sent to a decent school. When it comes down to it, if the candidate produces A*s at GCSE or A-Level, then the fact that he's come from a poorer school shouldn't matter. He's worked hard, sure, but that shouldn't earn him special treatment. It means he'd be a better doctor than somebody who went to a good school and only got AAA, perhaps.
    Again, he isn't treated as a better individual, he's treated at someone who has had a lower standard of education but still got excellent grades which is remarkable and more of an achievement when comparing that to the grades of a private student. Again, it's not special treatment, it's showing that this guy has more raw intelligence and potential. If I give two people a calculator maths question, but only give one a calculator and the real answer is about 86 d.p. What's more impressive the person without one getting the answer to say 70 d.p or the one with a calculator who gets 86 d.p? AAA is more impressive at a **** school then a private school. That's pretty obvious.

    My main problem is when a person from a weaker school turns up with AAA and gets priority over somebody else's A*AA because he has a little tick next to his name to denote his working-class background.
    It's more about the school, not the background. A piss poor person who went to Eton will be treated the same about a rich guy who goes to Eton.

    Yes, he's gone to a school that's not as good as perhaps it should be; you're entirely right - it isn't his fault. It also, however, isn't the fault of the more 'lucky' student, who has worked to his potential capabilities of A*AA. Why should he be demeaned? His grades were better.
    He isn't being demeaned. It's clear that this person is obviously smart, but he's clearly had a helping hand is life, the better education. now if somebody gets the same grades as a private school kid, but when to a **** school, that's extraordinary and shows that that person could have more raw intelligence/potential.

    The whole idea reeks of pseudo-communism (socialism) whereby you hold back the more able students to be replaced by weaker candidates because 'It's not fair'. They don't do this in:
    No it doesn't reek of that at all. Trust me, I'm in favour of this, and I'm a staunch Conservative who hates the notion of anything printed in the Guardian yet alone something socialist.

    China, Japan, US - and look at what their economies are like compared to ours. Social sympathy gets a country, and its' people, nowhere.
    Yeah, but China has most inhabitants in poverty, with poor quality of life and no civil rights. You've seen the nets around the FoxConn buildings in China?

    Or the US? What with people there literally starving and unable to get basic medical treatment and dying? You'd like that?

    So once again, I wish to state that I hope that Mr. Willetts ends up in a fire. On fire. Burning. To death.
    Mature one you are. 'I disagree with this guy because he's in favour of equality of opportunity and leveling up the playing field so he should die in a fire.'
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabzqt)
    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
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by silverbolt)
    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.

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Universities are not here to make up for the fallacies in our education system.

    They need to tackle the root causes working against boys and causing them to under perform.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabzqt)
    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.

    Oooops, well least we've cleared that up
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Positive discrimination is always wrong. let's look at Newtonian principles on a philospohical level: "every action has an equal and opposite reaction"- so by giving x group an advantage you are giving everybody else an equal disadvantage.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Watch out, I'm a feminist! :woo:


    It's a recognised phenomenon that young males do find it difficult to keep up with their female peers. Females have now overtaken them in mainstream mathematics and science scores too.

    However, I don't think the target should be universities - it should be the schools. There should be a change in public perception, but we can't kid ourselves that this will happen any time soon. There's many studies showing that when you alert a young boy to these prejudices he will perform poorly in academic tests, however when you reverse them he can perform to the same level as the female students.

    It is a problem, but I'm not sure if this is the answer.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    What Willets is talking about is the working-classes generally. The majority of ethnic minorities are found in working-class environments, and therefore it would be unfair to only target certain peoples in such areas. This is surely a good thing. An A from Eton is not the same as an A from an average college in a city. The brightest should be encouraged/helped where they can, that is only right, but I also stand by standards being upheld. Quota filling is morally wrong. Universities should be free to offer places to who they want; whether this is to 100 bright people from a working-class position or 1000. Bright students will do well at uni regardless of academic background.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabzqt)
    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.

    (Original post by rmpr97)
    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.

    Whichever way you spin it A*A*A* trumps AAA, the person who got A*A*A* knows more about the subject and is stronger academically therefore they should be deemed better in the eyes of the university in regards to academic achievement, denying that person a place and giving it to the person with AAA because of their socio-economic background is no better than giving someone a place because they are white. Potential achievements mean very little at that stage in life, hell i would say nearly every child has the potential to become an oxbridge level candidate if you go back far enough but for whatever reason very few ever reach that potential.

    I'm not saying our state education system is fine and there is a massive disparity in the quality of education some children receive but forcing universities to take on people with lower grades because of their socio-economic status is discrimination and completely unfair to the students who should have got in but didn't because of what family they were born into.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Darth Stewie)
    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.
    The point is not the grade though, it's the raw intelligence/potential that the grade given the contextual factors indicate the candidate to having. Good grade at **** school = really smart dude. Good grade at Eton = 50% smart, 50% teaching and facilities and resources.
    Whichever way you spin it A*A*A* trumps AAA, the person who got A*A*A* knows more about the subject and is stronger academically therefore they should be deemed better in the eyes of the university in regards to academic achievement, denying that person a place and giving it to the person with AAA because of their socio-economic background is no better than giving someone a place because they are white. Potential achievements mean very little at that stage in life, hell i would say nearly every child has the potential to become an oxbridge level candidate if you go back far enough but for whatever reason very few ever reach that potential.
    Again, it's not about being stronger academically, it's about the person having more potential and raw intelligence which the uni can mould to what it wants. And that greater raw potential and intelligence is indicated by good grades coupled with contextual factors.


    I'm not saying our state education system is fine and there is a massive disparity in the quality of education some children receive but forcing universities to take on people with lower grades because of their socio-economic status is discrimination and completely unfair to the students who should have got in but didn't because of what family they were born into.
    Nobody is forcing them, they do it by choice already, because they can see that **** school AAA has more raw intelligence that A*AA at excellent school. And again, it's not discrimination, because say Oxford want the creme de la creme, and if you're at a private school its A*A*A* and you're expected to get that because or the resources they hold. However AAA at a **** school, shows this person would be part of the creme de la creme and would of probably got A*A*A* if they went to a top private school rather than a **** state school.

    It's completely fair. How is it fair that a just as intelligent person from a poor socio-economic background is denied a top uni place because poor teaching lowered their grade but had they had a good education they'd get that A*?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    So how does one target 'white working class boys'? How does one target any race?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 6, 2013
  • 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
  • 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.