Positive Discrimination in Admissions: I'm Very Anrgy.

However if you have two candidates with straight As, what can you do? Both students couldn't have acheived more. Either they make the a levels harder (which I'm all for), or they bring UMS scores into account.

yes lets abolish exams and instead just auction GCSE's and A Levels on E Bay, that would be fair.

However, remember though, in life there will always be someone who seems better off than you, there's not point complaining about it, or trying to discriminate this way or that so that it aids you, discrim will always push someone away even if it helps you personally, but if you're good enough, and you've got the drive to succeed, you will be successful whatever school you're from, and if you;re that intelligent/well-rounded etc you shouldnt need positive discrimination to help you to get into the best univs.

That's an argument I've often heard in favour of private schools, but it doesn't really work. If two students acheive AAA, one from a good private school with an average of AAB, the other from a rubbish state school with an average of BC, then the state schooled applicant is almost certainly the better candidate - put in context he/she is practically a genius, while the privately schooled person is slightly above average. Obviously it isn't always as clear cut as this, but my point is that the "couldn't have done any better" argument doesn't work - circumstances can still be taken into account.

That's an argument I've often heard in favour of private schools, but it doesn't really work. If two students acheive AAA, one from a good private school with an average of AAB, the other from a rubbish state school with an average of BC, then the state schooled applicant is almost certainly the better candidate - put in context he/she is practically a genius, while the privately schooled person is slightly above average. Obviously it isn't always as clear cut as this, but my point is that the "couldn't have done any better" argument doesn't work - circumstances can still be taken into account.

So what you're saying is the priv school student should be beating the average by a large amount to show that he is indeed very clever? How exactly? You can't get higher than AAA (and alot of priv schools ban you from taking more than 4 alevels)!! It's not the priv school kids fault he's in an institution where everyone else is also very bright. Remember the range of intelligences at a comp is going to be much wider and just a couple of people getting say EE at the comp can really bring down the average there.

The standard method quoted is to judge peoples grades against the average of their school. Coupled with interviewing everyone that would make a relatively fair system

Nothing will ever be truly fair. Every system can be "cheated" Teachers predict people higher grades than they sometimes should.

Schools with little experience of university applications may write poor references, not understanding what the universities are looking for. My university asks that if you only sit 3 A-levels and no 4th AS that its put in the reference explaining whether its a school policy or not. The same applies if you sit AS and A2 at the end of the Upper 6th. That in theory is to allow them to work out whether you, or your school made the decision (with the implication that if the school offered 4 AS and you declined you would not get a place) A poor school may miss that off the reference. UCAS have to post a reminder that simply a name and phone number is not good enough for a reference as well.

Interviews can be rehearsed as well. There are whole books dedicated to coaching people through the Oxbridge admissions process. Some schools will run whole series of mock interviews, others won't.

Even with just taking exam results, there are problems, as A-levels don't necessarily relate to degree level learning. When I studied Physics for A-Level my teacher would go beyond the sylabus to explain why. It is possible to do well on some A-Levels by learning a lot of information by wrote. The gap between A Level maths and degree maths is even starker. A-Level concentrates on analytical tools etc. At degree it concentrates on proofs. Its not vital to know how to analytically integrate something, as Maple or Mathematica will do it for you. I am not stating here that A-Levels are easier/harder than they should be, but they are different. It is hard to learn a whole load of facts, especially if there is no real explanation given behind them. At my school you were not allowed to take A Level Physics, without A-Level Maths. That was not a requirement from the board, but rather the dept, who felt that they needed the calculus etc taught in maths in order to explain the Physics well

More emphasis would be placed on the interview then. And some statistical way of working it out. The question is, would the AAB candidate have got AAA if they'd had the same privilages as the private school child?

Well done on demonstrating how ignorant you are. lol.

People at private schools work damn hard for their A-levels. It's a fact. You won't understand how hard unless you've attended one of them. Alot of them have the "Play hard, work hard" ethic, and that's fair enough, others of them will have just the "work hard" ethic (the geeks). Either way, if it's a good private school they've had to do entrance exams + interview to get there, and they have had to maintain a certain standard to stay there. What does this all equate to I hear you moan? It means that from the best private schools, you'll get a bunch of very intelligent teenagers, with massively high aspirations, usually extremely competitive.

They're certainly not handed the grades on a plate (look at how awfully Harry did in his a-levels, and he went to the most famous priv/pub school in the country). And if you've ever experienced the level of education at a good private school, you'll realise it reallly isn't that good at all. Alot of the teachers would fit in perfecty at the local comp. You do get a couple of good ones, but this applies to comps too, where you may come across a couple of passionate teachers. The difference is that the private school teachers have probs been educated at Oxbridge/top London unis/other v good unis. Now, this may mean they know their subject but some of them are terrible at trying to get their knowledge across. Some are so overly interested in doing the problems deeply in say chemistry, that they can't give you the simple things...the foundations. So why DO pupils get such good grades at private school? I personally feel it's because everyone is so competitive that they feed of each other in this sense. If someone's aspirations go up, everyone else's seem to increase too, to keep up!The tend to work harder on the subject, the crapper the teacher is, because quite a few have their parents breathing down their backs with the whole "we've paid all this money blablabla", and they can't risk it. At comps you're more likely to get a range of students, some who are competitive and have drive, just like in a priv school, but there are others who skip lessons and couldn't give a damn. In this way people feel less encouraged to aim high from there, even if they are pretty intelligent.

Either way, you can't assume one is more intelligent than the other because of "ifs" ie "if he'd had the chance at a priv school, he'd have AAAA not AABB" or "if he'd gone to the local comp he'd have AABB not AAAA", because it's all hypothetical and there are so many variables in any one person's life/background. How do you know that the comp guy's parents havent paid for him to have tutoring on weekday evenings for example? How can u assume that the priv guys parents are rich just cuz he attends a priv school? He may have a scholarship, be on grants, his parents may have v low paid jobs and they might live in a tiny flat. See everything isn't as black and white as you think. Just saying " if 2 people have the same grades and the same ECs, but one is from comp and one from priv, I think they should take the comp one", isn't fair because you have to take account of both their backgrounds in more detail if you're going to start this positive discrim malarkey.

PS: I also hate the way some people make excuses for why they've done so badly in school and in life generally....eg "I didnt get a proper education, my school was so crap, if i'd had a priv school edu i'd be at oxbridge now". I'm not accusing you ppl of doing it on this thread because we are sposed to be debating this topic here after all.

However, remember though, in life there will always be someone who seems better off than you, there's not point complaining about it, or trying to discriminate this way or that so that it aids you, discrim will always push someone away even if it helps you personally, but if you're good enough, and you've got the drive to succeed, you will be successful whatever school you're from, and if you;re that intelligent/well-rounded etc you shouldnt need positive discrimination to help you to get into the best univs.

So what you're saying is the priv school student should be beating the average by a large amount to show that he is indeed very clever? How exactly? You can't get higher than AAA (and alot of priv schools ban you from taking more than 4 alevels)!! It's not the priv school kids fault he's in an institution where everyone else is also very bright. Remember the range of intelligences at a comp is going to be much wider and just a couple of people getting say EE at the comp can really bring down the average there.

Circumstances do differ, but how can you acheive more than all As? What if you school can't timetable more than four subjects? Yes you can do it out of school, but what if you parents can't afford it? The same goes for extra curriculars. Not everyone at a private school is well enough to have had stabs at extra curriculars while they were young.

I actually think we should go onto a points system, why disguse a large bandwith of exam performances with grades? Most other countries have a points system (IB, SATs, etc).

if positive discrimination means when theres two students of similar ability, and one is from a well off background, and the other from a poorer background, i don't think its wrong to give the opportunity to the poorer student, as the student from the better off background will probably have many more opportunities available to him/her.

You're both just repeating yourselves.

And

"If we pay more money, I think we deserve to get better grades"

isn't ignorant? Or have you no sense of humour?

According to asdasdagaga 'Harry' (who ever he is) should have 5 A grades because of the cost of his education.

Let me see, so a school that only takes high ability children, makes them keep to a certain standard while at school produces "a bunch of very intelligent teenagers, with massively high aspirations, usually extremely competitive." Thes teenagers also have parents who say, "we've paid all this money blablabla".

And this is opposed to a comprehensive, which by definition takes a broad spectrum of children, and turns out "a range of students, some who are competitive and have drive, just like in a priv school, but there are others who skip lessons and couldn't give a damn."


Well thank you for clearing that up.

BTW where did :

[INDENT]"See everything isn't as black and white as you think. Just saying " if 2 people have the same grades and the same ECs, but one is from comp and one from priv, I think they should take the comp one", isn't fair because you have to take account of both their backgrounds in more detail if you're going to start this positive discrim malarkey."[/INDENT]

come from?

reason for edit: typos

The standard method quoted is to judge peoples grades against the average of their school. Coupled with interviewing everyone that would make a relatively fair system

Nothing will ever be truly fair. Every system can be "cheated" Teachers predict people higher grades than they sometimes should.

Schools with little experience of university applications may write poor references, not understanding what the universities are looking for. My university asks that if you only sit 3 A-levels and no 4th AS that its put in the reference explaining whether its a school policy or not. The same applies if you sit AS and A2 at the end of the Upper 6th. That in theory is to allow them to work out whether you, or your school made the decision (with the implication that if the school offered 4 AS and you declined you would not get a place) A poor school may miss that off the reference. UCAS have to post a reminder that simply a name and phone number is not good enough for a reference as well.

Interviews can be rehearsed as well. There are whole books dedicated to coaching people through the Oxbridge admissions process. Some schools will run whole series of mock interviews, others won't.

Even with just taking exam results, there are problems, as A-levels don't necessarily relate to degree level learning. When I studied Physics for A-Level my teacher would go beyond the sylabus to explain why. It is possible to do well on some A-Levels by learning a lot of information by wrote. The gap between A Level maths and degree maths is even starker. A-Level concentrates on analytical tools etc. At degree it concentrates on proofs. Its not vital to know how to analytically integrate something, as Maple or Mathematica will do it for you. I am not stating here that A-Levels are easier/harder than they should be, but they are different. It is hard to learn a whole load of facts, especially if there is no real explanation given behind them. At my school you were not allowed to take A Level Physics, without A-Level Maths. That was not a requirement from the board, but rather the dept, who felt that they needed the calculus etc taught in maths in order to explain the Physics well

You're both just repeating yourselves.

Well done on taking a quote completely out of context.

By disagreeing with Sashh are you implying that you agree with asdasdagaga's statement - that people who pay more are automatically entitled to higher grades?

Yes...so you actually get the points we're trying to tell you. How exactly, Calumc, is the candidate with all As going to do better without an interview? If there are possibilities, then I'd concede your argument was valid.

Ugh. You've missed the point! We all know that you "can't get better than all As", it's common sense, but when comparing candidates it really doesn't matter as it applies to all of them regardless of what school they went to. If you have two candidates, one from a rubbish state school, the other from a very good private school, both getting AAA, NEITHER could have achieved better in the subjects they took, so this CANNOT BE PART OF THE COMPARISON (yet you CONSTANTLY repeat it!). The fact remains that the candidate from the worse school is likely to be far more naturally gifted and/or hard working (how else did they compensate for the difference between schools?) and therefore more deserving of the place.

I think you've missed my point there. What I SAID was that positive discrimination with the current UCAS system, can only take place if candidates acheive less than all As. With straight As, they'd need to bring in tests/or interviews!.

You insinuate that the candidate from the worse school should merit the place. You seem to think that with AAA, the candidate from the poorer school is likely to be far more gifted and harder working. More motivated perhaps, but certainly not far harder working, what they may do in their spare time constitutes as normal homework for the better school. As for gifted, no one can tell unless they're part of an national olympiad team or have similar acheivements unless they get an interview! You can't assume automatically that one student is 'obviously better' than the other.