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

What would happen if every University required a minimum of ABB? Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Do you think it would better for higher education?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocomalbom)
    Do you think it would better for higher education?
    It would be better if they scrapped requirements all together. Replacing them with a month long assessment period, which assessed the viability of the individuals applying. The assessment could cover all the criteria required to progress well on the course. Taking the form of lectures, exams and assignments. This would put everybody on an even footing, including self taught individuals.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Do you believe A levels are a perfect judge of ability, and do you believe A level results are influenced solely by the individual candidate's capabilities?

    I get the general idea of what you're trying to do (make university education for the few, not the many) but there are better ways of doing it. I don't necessarily think any of those ways make the education system 'better'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrEFeynman)
    It would be better if they scrapped requirements all together. Replacing them with a month long assessment period, which assessed the viability of the individuals applying. The assessment could cover all the criteria required to progress well on the course. Taking the form of lectures, exams and assignments. This would put everybody on an even footing, including self taught individuals.
    Why not make it a 2 year assessment? We could call it "A-levels".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Clip)
    Why not make it a 2 year assessment? We could call it "A-levels".
    Because that is an unnecessary amount of time to assess somebodies ability to produce quality work within the field the degree is aimed at. Plus self taught people are already better equipped for university study, why should they have to go through the anal process that is A levels.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrEFeynman)
    It would be better if they scrapped requirements all together. Replacing them with a month long assessment period, which assessed the viability of the individuals applying. The assessment could cover all the criteria required to progress well on the course. Taking the form of lectures, exams and assignments. This would put everybody on an even footing, including self taught individuals.
    That would take a really long time! If each person were to do this once and get an overall score, then use this score to apply for different unis, the universities would still have to set requirements.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    No.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeBron96)
    That would take a really long time! If each person were to do this once and get an overall score, then use this score to apply for different unis, the universities would still have to set requirements.
    The assessments would be ran by the university you apply to. They would be funded through SFE, as part of the tuition fee loan.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by russellsteapot)
    Do you believe A levels are a perfect judge of ability, and do you believe A level results are influenced solely by the individual candidate's capabilities?

    I get the general idea of what you're trying to do (make university education for the few, not the many) but there are better ways of doing it. I don't necessarily think any of those ways make the education system 'better'.
    Is it not fair to say the idea of going to 'university' has been devalued over the years. Surely more competition for university places is needed.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think we need a more comprehensive assessment on the viability of a system like this but I do think it could be a good thing to require more people to get higher grades. A levels aren't that hard when you compare them to degree level work and when it comes down to it what's the point of doing a degree if you're not willing to put in the work to get a decent grade? Doing a degree because you want to put off the real world for 3 or 4 more years or because you're told that's what you're supposed to do or because you want to do it for a career is a bit preposterous. There's no drive to really achieve something, to really challenge your limits and if you won't do that at A level then why bother doing a degree?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 06shawm)
    Is it not fair to say the idea of going to 'university' has been devalued over the years. Surely more competition for university places is needed.
    Is it needed? Why?

    The same argument can be made for A levels being devalued, really. There was a time when people left school at 13/14 and only a handful made it anywhere near an A level. Nowadays, remaining in education until at least 18 is almost a necessity. I'd suggest that spreading education out is a good thing. Universities used to be incredibly elitist institutions and even 20 years ago the number of people from underprivileged backgrounds going was quite pathetic. It's quite pathetic even now, really. Introducing limits based on socially-constructed things like A level grades is a huge step backwards for social mobility.

    University has become the new A level. Rather than being 'devalued', I think it's just become normal. Which is probably a good thing on balance, even if many people go just because that's the 'normal' thing to do. Heavily-restricted access to education seems like a completely illogical step for a wealthy democracy; I do think more needs to be done to promote the alternatives to university, but as a choice, not a forced hand.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrEFeynman)
    Because that is an unnecessary amount of time to assess somebodies ability to produce quality work within the field the degree is aimed at. Plus self taught people are already better equipped for university study, why should they have to go through the anal process that is A levels.
    It's a practical impossibility. And by your rationale, self-taught people shouldn't bother going to university, they should just do distance learning.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrEFeynman)
    The assessments would be ran by the university you apply to. They would be funded through SFE, as part of the tuition fee loan.
    And how many universities would you apply to? 5 one-month assessments would just be pointless and time consuming. You'd be worn out by the time you reach the 2nd/3rd month, which would then cause a decline in your performance. You can argue that it is just as "unfair" in my opinion.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by russellsteapot)
    Is it needed? Why?

    The same argument can be made for A levels being devalued, really. There was a time when people left school at 13/14 and only a handful made it anywhere near an A level. Nowadays, remaining in education until at least 18 is almost a necessity. I'd suggest that spreading education out is a good thing. Universities used to be incredibly elitist institutions and even 20 years ago the number of people from underprivileged backgrounds going was quite pathetic. It's quite pathetic even now, really. Introducing limits based on socially-constructed things like A level grades is a huge step backwards for social mobility.

    University has become the new A level. Rather than being 'devalued', I think it's just become normal. Which is probably a good thing on balance, even if many people go just because that's the 'normal' thing to do. Heavily-restricted access to education seems like a completely illogical step for a wealthy democracy; I do think more needs to be done to promote the alternatives to university, but as a choice, not a forced hand.
    I still honestly think that is a possible option. As you said, A levels are being devalued therefore surely everyone should be capable of getting grades in that range to be able to cope with a degree at university. I think the reforms won't have a massive effect since the difficulty of the exams isn't going to change since they are using a similar specification anyway.

    Could the reason for that being the fact the education system in England has vastly improved in comparison to back then. Back then, there was never a focus on how important education was in comparison to now where it is pretty much impossible to get somewhere if your not educated to a certain level. Universities should select students on merit alone and not their social background. My point being that due to the sheer number of 'universities' out there, it does ultimately devalue the idea of going to university since it is allowing people to study courses that were once quite prestigious like law with mediocre grades.

    I totally agree that alternatives to university should be more widely advertised as a viable alternative and not deemed to be the weaker option. When I was in sixth form they were against apprenticeships and people that did want to take this option were not given much support.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 06shawm)
    I still honestly think that is a possible option. As you said, A levels are being devalued therefore surely everyone should be capable of getting grades in that range to be able to cope with a degree at university. I think the reforms won't have a massive effect since the difficulty of the exams isn't going to change since they are using a similar specification anyway.

    Could the reason for that being the fact the education system in England has vastly improved in comparison to back then. Back then, there was never a focus on how important education was in comparison to now where it is pretty much impossible to get somewhere if your not educated to a certain level. Universities should select students on merit alone and not their social background. My point being that due to the sheer number of 'universities' out there, it does ultimately devalue the idea of going to university since it is allowing people to study courses that were once quite prestigious like law with mediocre grades.

    I totally agree that alternatives to university should be more widely advertised as a viable alternative and not deemed to be the weaker option. When I was in sixth form they were against apprenticeships and people that did want to take this option were not given much support.
    The point I was making was that it's far easier to pop out ABB if you're going to either a private school or a high-performing state school. ABB will be bottom tier in some schools, and in others it'll represent the best students, based solely on the quality of teaching, exam preparation, surroundings, resources, etc. A level devaluation has nothing to do with how easy it is to get ABB and everything to do with the fact that everyone takes them. Should the worst student at a great private school get the opportunity, whilst a probably more 'able' student who has had two years of **** education in a **** area be denied a university education because they got BBB? That's what happens when you limit places. Socioeconomic status will always confer an advantage onto people, but there's no reason to make it even worse.

    Going to university shouldn't be about 'prestige'. It should be about education. If someone needs 'prestige' to wave around, they're overcompensating for their lack of ability. I don't understand why you feel university should be this exclusive zone for a handful of students only; it seems counter-productive for a society to block further education for a majority of the population. Surely if more people get a better education it (in theory) is going to be better for the whole of society?

    The only arguments I can see in favour of limiting university places (apart from economic ones) are from people who think it devalues their own achievement in going to university, inevitably because they feel their grades make them 'better' than those at lower universities. I can't help but think it just shows a lack of faith in their own abilities to sell themselves and their qualities. If someone is that good, they'll do well irrespective of how many people did the same course at a different university with lower entry requirements.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    If this was the case then I'd be pissed because I would of missed out by 1 grade and my hope of becoming a teacher would be destroyed instantly.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrEFeynman)
    The assessments would be ran by the university you apply to. They would be funded through SFE, as part of the tuition fee loan.
    run*
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocomalbom)
    Do you think it would better for higher education?
    Millions more would be in apprenticeships, menial jobs, and unemployed. There would be hundreds of universities shutting down due to lack of demand.

    The UK would fall dramatically in overall education worldwide tables and the population wouldn't be very educated.

    It's a prospect I do not want to think about.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chocomalbom)
    Do you think it would better for higher education?
    My guess is that it would return us to the 1980s (when I first tried university) where the minority of school leavers went to uni. You'd need alternatives for those who didn't, as back then there apprenticeships were common and vocational training was available at polys. There was also a lot less automation/computerisation and so there were more entry-level jobs for 16-21 year olds.

    If you just increased uni entry requirements in isolation, there would be a massive hike in youth unemployment, costing the country millions (if not billions) in benefits. There's no longer any infrastructure to give an alternative to benefits for most 16-21 year olds if they don't get into uni.

    Let's face it - restricting uni entry has been tried and is failing. Labour turned unis into a holding pen for the young unemployed. The ConDems derided this and capped student numbers in the mid-and low-rank grades. They then saw a massive rise in youth unemployment due to a lack of alternatives and are now removing the cap.

    Bottom line is that in the short-term (probably not the long-term, but that's for a different parliament to clean up) it costs the State less to have someone in uni than on benefits. No politician is going to restrict uni to the top-scoring students again.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    I think it would either cause a massive inflation in A grades or a significant amount of people not getting into uni. BBB would probably be better with allowances down to CCC dependent on references from each teacher.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.