Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • TSR Community Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    There have been calls to bring in quotas to try and prevent elite universities from being dominated by a certain group of "privileged" students.

    80% and 79% Oxbridge candidates admitted between 2010 and 2015 were from the top twos social classes. More offers were made to Eton pupils than young people eligible for free school meals and just 1.5% of the offers made by Oxbridge were to black British students.

    Chief leader writer at the Observer Sonia Sodha suggests that "This situation calls for the reintroduction of a cap on student numbers, and strict quotas for every university that stipulate the number of students they must take from working-class backgrounds"

    You can read more on the story here.

    What do you make of this? Should quotas be introduced? Do you think the current system is fair?
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    No quotas, people should get in and feel like they got in by their own merits.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with quotas is that they don't address the root cause of the inequity in admissions which is the systemic barriers to achievement placed before students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and minority ethnic backgrounds. By the very structure of "modern society" such students are unable to move into more affluent areas with "better" schools due to the extreme limitations on their parents working conditions, and thus consistently have lower attainment regardless of individual ability - and so are less prepared for and thus less able to complete the degree programmes in question.

    This is clearly beyond the students' control, but until universities leverage their political power to force politicians to acknowledge the issues and implement policy to remove these barriers, the problem will remain - no matter how many quotas, Oxbridge interview technique sessions, funded open day attendances and university rep visits to lower performing schools they put in place. It is a policy issues that needs to be addressed by politicians, not foisted off as the fault of the universities who are otherwise powerless (beyond the aforementioned political power - particularly Oxbridge given it's many alumni in that area) to make any long term change.
    Online

    7
    ReputationRep:
    It's interesting that the OP links to a Guardian article which begins by talking about Norwegian football because football is an area where they are free to choose the best footballers for the team, based solely on ability,rather than attempting to make the football team entirely representative of the overall population. F1 drivers are not chosen to ensure diversity but because they can win races.

    So why shouldn't the same be true for universities? Having the current system where universities have to bow to OFFA's demands for 'representation' in terms of admissions is in complete contradiction to the need to choose the best based on academic merit.

    To make it fair, everyone should be treated the same and OFFA should use their firepower to open up the admissions process at Oxbridge to independent scrutiny to ensure that all admission decisions are taken purely on merit and free of prejudice. Currently, decisions are taken seemingly on an arbitrary basis behind closed doors and complete records supporting decisions are not kept. The current system opens the system to accusations of both prejudice and nepotism.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    there is no reason why Oxford & Cambridge should not open a few new colleges exclusively for students from the lowest attaining backgrounds. these could be sponsored by football clubs or clothing brands...
    Online

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artful_lounger)
    The problem with quotas is that they don't address the root cause of the inequity in admissions which is the systemic barriers to achievement placed before students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and minority ethnic backgrounds. By the very structure of "modern society" such students are unable to move into more affluent areas with "better" schools due to the extreme limitations on their parents working conditions, and thus consistently have lower attainment regardless of individual ability - and so are less prepared for and thus less able to complete the degree programmes in question.

    This is clearly beyond the students' control, but until universities leverage their political power to force politicians to acknowledge the issues and implement policy to remove these barriers, the problem will remain - no matter how many quotas, Oxbridge interview technique sessions, funded open day attendances and university rep visits to lower performing schools they put in place. It is a policy issues that needs to be addressed by politicians, not foisted off as the fault of the universities who are otherwise powerless to make any long term change.
    Agreed.

    And the divisions for the quotas are too crude. State school poor/ Private school: good is a case in point. For example, some state schools are in very wealthy areas (for example the one David Lammy moved to for his own children) and some private schools are struggling to the extent they are going bankrupt with all the disruption that causes. Some parents have a stark choice: local sink school or go private. Others have access to the best state selective grammars in the country. So it is not fair to simply tell Cambridge to increase state school entrants.

    Oxford's attempt to take more students from POLAR 1-3 tries to get round this but is also too crude a measure. One disadvantaged family may live in a one-bed flat in a POLAR 5 area. Wealthy landlords could abuse the system by claiming one of their POLAR 1 addresses as their own.

    The only fair way is to admit by academic excellence alone and raise the standard of education provision prior to university.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Don't rep my comment, it's specifically railing against your brand of ignorant bigotry, not defending it.

    To write it in a form you might understand, I'm saying that that the people in power should be helping those it has spent the last 600+ years subjugating rise to their full potential which has and is continually being denied to them. I'm specifically saying that they shouldn't be left high and dry under the faulty reasoning that it's the marginalised group's fault they can't achieve the same level of attainment as those who form the dominant power group, which does include working class white men and women as well as middle class and bourgeois "elites".

    Quotas don't address that problem and hence perpetuate it. I'm not disagreeing with them because I have any illusions as to it being some form of reverse racism where BME and other students are afforded opportunities at the cost of others (who in your rhetoric are inevitably white people, especially men) who deserve them more.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    there is no reason why Oxford & Cambridge should not open a few new colleges exclusively for students from the lowest attaining backgrounds. these could be sponsored by football clubs or clothing brands...
    hehe. Other than a few tens of millions of pounds and a few acres of real estate. Perhaps Gap College might be an appropriate start for such an initiative, or River Island Hall, or maybe Next College. Presumably FCUK wouldn't be acceptable.
    Online

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artful_lounger)
    Don't rep my comment, it's specifically railing against your brand of ignorant bigotry, not defending it.

    To write it in a form you might understand...
    If I could take the rep back I would, unlike you I don't set out to cause offence.

    I believe that people should be treated fairly and without prejudice regardless of the colour of their skin. Your opinion may differ from mine, but that doesn't make me an ignorant bigot.

    And did you notice something? I managed to express an opinion without hurling personal abuse: perhaps you should try it sometime.

    P.S. A Community Assistant posting personal abuse - is that part of your role?
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it's fair to rag on oxbridge when the problem permeates our entire education system which is hugely unequal it's disgusting.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, let's try to resolve inequality by introducing more inequality. Why would you want forced diversity anyway? Diversity is only meaningful when it comes naturally. There is no problem with having a group far more prevalent than others, provided the applications process provides a level playing field.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Haven't read the story (at work atm) but (as a poor ethnic minority disabled LGBT student) I strongly believe there should NOT be ANY positive discrimination or quotas at Oxbridge :nope: Access initiatives, yes, but no quotas :nope:
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    there is no reason why Oxford & Cambridge should not open a few new colleges exclusively for students from the lowest attaining backgrounds. these could be sponsored by football clubs or clothing brands...
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    hehe. Other than a few tens of millions of pounds and a few acres of real estate. Perhaps Gap College might be an appropriate start for such an initiative, or River Island Hall, or maybe Next College. Presumably FCUK wouldn't be acceptable.
    Why not FMCGs too? For example:
    Kellogg College.

    Oh wait...
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I don't believe that Oxbridge should have to bring in quotas, the best people should be accepted no matter where they are from.
    However I think a good idea would be for Oxbridge, and other top universities, to run more programmes in state schools or deprived areas to 'train' those people and give them a better chance of being accepted into one of the elite universities. For example they could introduce many more workshops, application/interview training, holiday schools etc.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AllonsEnfants!)
    If I could take the rep back I would, unlike you I don't set out to cause offence.

    I believe that people should be treated fairly and without prejudice regardless of the colour of their skin. Your opinion may differ from mine, but that doesn't make me an ignorant bigot.

    And did you notice something? I managed to express an opinion without hurling personal abuse: perhaps you should try it sometime.
    Without continuing to go off-topic, your comments on other threads make it very clear you have no interest in anything other than continuing the degradation of marginalised groups by ignoring the fundamental race issues at hand and perpetuating the equally damaging and racist approach of "colour blindness" by pretending that you don't see race at all and thus it is not an issue.

    This is while using Western white standards as the metric to compare others and holding and furthering the view that deviation from this as being bad and the fault of those failing to live up to these standards - despite the fact that necessarily impossible to do so due to the entrenched racial dynamics of the country (and many others, albeit with different characteristics). Quotas are not bad because "sad little white child" can't get in because of them, quotas are bad because it doesn't do anything to help marginalised groups and merely sweeps the problem under the table.

    Also if it wasn't clear, white people are not a marginalised group by any reason except being a member of another marginalised group - and even then these frequently flagrantly engage in casual racism, be it white women playing into the "men of colour as sexual aggressors", white gay men saying that it's "just a preference" to completely refuse to date black men and not acknowledge the damaging white Anglo-European beauty standards which are at best the cause of this and that these need to be unlearned, white working class people acting as those immigrants of colour are the reason they can't get a job.

    For the record, I will abuse those who use their privileged position to abuse, or further the abuse of, marginalised people until my dying breath. You don't want that? Stop being a bigot, and I'll happily save my breath.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artful_lounger)
    Without continuing to go off-topic, your comments on other threads make it very clear you have no interest in anything other than continuing the degradation of marginalised groups by ignoring the fundamental race issues at hand and perpetuating the equally damaging and racist approach of "colour blindness" by pretending that you don't see race at all and thus it is not an issue.

    This is while using Western white standards as the metric to compare others and holding and furthering the view that deviation from this as being bad and the fault of those failing to live up to these standards - despite the fact that necessarily impossible to do so due to the entrenched racial dynamics of the country (and many others, albeit with different characteristics). Quotas are not bad because "sad little white child" can't get in because of them, quotas are bad because it doesn't do anything to help marginalised groups and merely sweeps the problem under the table.

    Also if it wasn't clear, white people are not a marginalised group by any reason except being a member of another marginalised group - and even then these frequently flagrantly engage in casual racism, be it white women playing into the "men of colour as sexual aggressors", white gay men saying that it's "just a preference" to completely refuse to date black men and not acknowledge the damaging white Anglo-European beauty standards which are at best the cause of this and that these need to be unlearned, white working class people acting as those immigrants of colour are the reason they can't get a job.

    For the record, I will abuse those who use their privileged position to abuse, or further the abuse of, marginalised people until my dying breath. You don't want that? Stop being a bigot, and I'll happily save my breath.
    The other poster, from what I gather, was merely suggesting that the admissions process concentrate more on maintaining a level playing field. I see nothing awry with this, and you have not addressed his argument, rather claiming such a suggestion to be a mortal sin, and bordering on personal attack in an accusation of personal attack.

    Quotas are not bad because "sad little white child" can't get in because of them, quotas are bad because it doesn't do anything to help marginalised groups and merely sweeps the problem under the table.
    Are you kidding me? You're saying it's ok that competent white children are discriminated against in favour of marginalised groups? The fact that you emphasised "sad little white child" indicates that fairness is not really an issue for you. White children should have equal opportunity to ethnic minorities and quotas prevent this on the basis of their race. This is a problem, and is racism. This isn't "reverse racism" or "kind of racism", it's racism. Speaking from a (pretty vapid but oh well) moral standpoint, this is no worse than discriminating against ethnic minorities on the basis of their race. Are their applications worth any less because they're ""better equipped to handle rejection""?

    Also if it wasn't clear, white people are not a marginalised group by any reason except being a member of another marginalised group
    Quotas seek to change this.

    flagrantly engage in casual racism,
    Casual racism (jokes etc.) against white individuals is becoming increasingly frequent among "non-whites" and even whites. Obviously, this isn't nearly as prominent, though if we continue attempting to counter inequality, with shifting the inequality the other way, this may indeed be the case.

    white gay men saying that it's "just a preference" to completely refuse to date black men
    They're entitled to date whomever they wish, even if their selection is on the basis of race, this is off-topic.

    For the record, I will abuse those who use their privileged position to abuse, or further the abuse of, marginalised people until my dying breath. You don't want that? Stop being a bigot, and I'll happily save my breath.
    You are going the wrong way about it. You haven't really addressed their argument in a collected manner, at all, rather taking a moral high horse and dodging their points.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Online

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artful_lounger)
    Without continuing to go off-topic, your comments on other threads make it very clear you have no interest in anything other than continuing the degradation of marginalised groups by ignoring the fundamental race issues at hand and perpetuating the equally damaging and racist approach of "colour blindness" by pretending that you don't see race at all and thus it is not an issue.

    This is while using Western white standards as the metric to compare others and holding and furthering the view that deviation from this as being bad and the fault of those failing to live up to these standards - despite the fact that necessarily impossible to do so due to the entrenched racial dynamics of the country (and many others, albeit with different characteristics). Quotas are not bad because "sad little white child" can't get in because of them, quotas are bad because it doesn't do anything to help marginalised groups and merely sweeps the problem under the table.

    Also if it wasn't clear, white people are not a marginalised group by any reason except being a member of another marginalised group - and even then these frequently flagrantly engage in casual racism, be it white women playing into the "men of colour as sexual aggressors", white gay men saying that it's "just a preference" to completely refuse to date black men and not acknowledge the damaging white Anglo-European beauty standards which are at best the cause of this and that these need to be unlearned, white working class people acting as those immigrants of colour are the reason they can't get a job.

    For the record, I will abuse those who use their privileged position to abuse, or further the abuse of, marginalised people until my dying breath. You don't want that? Stop being a bigot, and I'll happily save my breath.
    Roughly translated as: blah, blah, blah,(spit),blah (spit),blah .

    Your rhetoric is so hate-filled that its meaning gets lost in translation.

    But the comment that is more worrying to me and no doubt to other users of this forum is:

    For the record, I will abuse those who use their privileged position to abuse, or further the abuse of, marginalised people until my dying breath.

    Firstly, as a Community Assistant, you have a more privileged position than me on TSR. Secondly, I have never furthered the abuse of marginalised people: it's a pretty defamatory accusation so I think you should refer me to the particular numbered post that does so.

    But it's not just the defamatory accusation you make, the most concerning of all is that you declare that it is your intention to abuse people on TSR. Unfortunately, the thing is, I may be wrong, but I would have thought such an avowed intention does not sit well with your position as Community Assistant for the TSR: a forum which is open to all and seeks to provide a safe forum where people can express opinions free from bullying and abuse such as yours.

    Now if I were TSR, I would be seriously taking a look at your posts to see if the views you express so forcibly match the impression they want to give. They want to encourage people to use this forum not allow people like you to scare them off.
    Online

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _gcx)
    The other poster, from what I gather, was merely suggesting that the admissions process concentrate more on maintaining a level playing field. I see nothing awry with this, and you have not addressed his argument, rather claiming such a suggestion to be a mortal sin, and bordering on personal attack in an accusation of personal attack.



    Are you kidding me? You're saying it's ok that competent white children are discriminated against in favour of marginalised groups? The fact that you emphasised "sad little white child" indicates that fairness is not really an issue for you. White children should have equal opportunity to ethnic minorities and quotas prevent this on the basis of their race. This is a problem, and is racism. This isn't "reverse racism" or "kind of racism", it's racism. Speaking from a (pretty vapid but oh well) moral standpoint, this is no worse than discriminating against ethnic minorities on the basis of their race. Are their applications worth any less because they're ""better equipped to handle rejection""?



    Quotas seek to change this.



    Casual racism (jokes etc.) against white individuals is becoming increasingly frequent among "non-whites" and even whites. Obviously, this isn't nearly as prominent, though if we continue attempting to counter inequality, with shifting the inequality the other way, this may indeed be the case.



    They're entitled to date whomever they wish, even if their selection is on the basis of race, this is off-topic.



    You are going the wrong way about it. You haven't really addressed their argument in a collected manner, at all, rather taking a moral high horse and dodging their points.
    Thank you gcx, I appreciate your intervention.

    And well done on ploughing through their verbose post to give such a reasoned response; I gave up after the first few insults.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    You literally have made about 20 comments on another thread espousing offensive ideas and commentary, some of which have actually been removed by moderators due to the offensive nature of the commentary.

    My intention is to defend those from abuse and being intolerant of intolerance is the first step towards that.
 
 
 
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: November 1, 2017
  • 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
    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.