Positive Discrimination in Admissions: I'm Very Anrgy.

Tbh, i think more of the exam should be synoptic. Then there'd be less students who can get As without understanding most of the syllabus.

Only if you take grades as the be-all and end-all of everything, which personally I don't. The circumstances in which the grades were achieved are just as important.



As an AAA candidate who went to a state school which was only actually able to teach me one of my three subjects, I can conclusively say that had I not been as naturally gifted in my subjects and worked extremely hard I would have been lucky to achieve BFF. Not to be big headed, but would I say I'm a better candidate than some rich kid who went to a private school with the luxury of well-taught lessons? - Damn right I would!

I think its disgusting that people are not treated the same whether they go to state or public schools, and i go to a state school! just because somebody has money to pay for a better education it doesnt mean that somebody who didnt pay for theirs is a better candidate and dont even get me started on ethnic minorities, surely they should be treated no better either, if they can get the grades then fine but doing worse and getting the place because of your ethnic background really sucks! Politicians are in a total mess about higher education. What happened to apprenteships(sp?), Tony Blair's ridiculous idea of half of young people going to university will simply lead to a degradation of a hard worked for degree, surely a lot of young people would be better off working and doing practical jobs rather than being lectured into going to university and debt leading to a dead end job anyway because their degree is worthless

As easy as it is for you to state this like a parrot, I was delving into the reasons why this may not be appropriate. You might like to consider them before quoting what the "standard" is. If this is your answer to everything ie, it's the "standard" then I don't know why you're even debating this topic.

In your particular case, then yes, you seem better than most candidates from a good school. But not all state schools are that bad, and most I assume, are able to teach classes compatently. Neither are all private schools good. Your case is exceptional, and you can't apply it to the majority of UCAS applications, which is what we're dealing with here. The admissions tutor doesn't get a break down of what each school is like, they glance and see 'state' and 'independent'.

Now if the rich kid happened to have knocked up a couple of medals in the international maths olympiad, then I'm inclined to disagree with your last opinion.

Picking up on the edit-

I'm in Scotland so this doesn't really apply. Higher and Advanced Higher are the equivalents of AS and A level respectively and are seperate 1-year qualifications each examined in papers (usually 1 or 2 for sciences/maths etc, more for languages obviously) covering the whole course at the end of the year. It is a better system in my opinion, there's less scope for holes in knowledge.

But most cases are somewhere between the two extremes, and in my opinion for two candidates with the same grades the one from the school "lower down the line" is usually the better of the two, at least when we are simply looking at grades and background. Of course, interview may show this not to be the case, though of course this can work either way. As for your final point, that depends. Do you think I'd have been given the opportunity or (given that I had to teach myself 2 subjects) even the time to do so?

I have no idea why you are babbling about asdasdagaga to me, I didn't say that lol.

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.

Still waiting for a response to this...or don't you read the post that a person is replying to?

Why? Even if he did f*ck all work?

That is the biggest load of crap I've ever heard. If you work harder you deserve to get better grades, not if you pay more money. What makes people think that just because they have more money it means they are somehow entitled to a better education. Anyone who wants to learn is entitled to a good education, rich or not.

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

I'd like to see how you'd get on at a bog-standard comprehensive then. If I'd been to a private fee-paying sixth form I would probbably have done better in my ASs, but my family can't afford £10,000 a year so I'm at a comprehensive instead, despite my GCSEs being more than adequate to get into that school and passing the interview. Buying education isn't a luxuary many people can afford, and I don't see why there shouldn't be a bit of positive discrimmination in favour of the state school pupils where class conditions are often cramped and classrooms aren't as well equiped. I was in a class of about 35 in my biology lessons last year and its a fairly safe bet that your school doesn't have that problem.

My mum is a teacher, and has been working in state schools for over 20 years. She's just moved to a private girls school because she needed more hours. According to her, the school is very beautiful, and looks just like a dolls house, but most of the teachers are stuck in the dark ages, terrified of technology and totally unimaginative. She also said that most of those teachers would fry in a comprehensive. She said the kids in state schools would just "eat them for breakfast".

Apparently the facilities are also dreadful. She's trying to teach modern languages with no projector, a very old rubbish tape recorder she found in a cupboard somewhere, and in some rooms, not even a whiteboard.

One of the other teachers, who has taught in comprehensives as well, said to her that it would be a waste of money sending a really bright child to that school, because they didn't need it.

When she repeated all this to me, I said, "So what are these parents paying all that money for then?"

In a word: small classes. The difference between a comprehensive and a private school is the individual care and attention each pupil gets. She has 2 people in her year 11 German class, and 3 in her year 10 French class. It's basically private tuition. That's why private schools get better grades out of people. They can spend the time nurturing individuals. In comprehensives, you get better teachers, but less individual help.

Statistics show that people from state schools often do better at university than people with the same A-level grades from private schools. Why? Because you don't get one to one tuition at most universities. You'll be in lectures with huge numbers of people, and individual support is minimal. You have to do the work on your own, like you do in a comprehensive.

Oxford and Cambridge pride themselves on their tutorial system. The interviews are supposed to replicate tutorials to a certain extent, so that the admissions tutor can see how well a student responds to that kind of teaching. Maybe this is why people from private schools are more likely to get a place at Oxford or Cambridge. They are already used to the tutorial system, as for some subjects, they will have been taught almost individually at school, so they are already comfortable with learning in the intense, one to one environment. People from state schools are used to learning in a completely different way, so they cannot be as well prepared for the interview. My English teacher said that when she sees who gets into Oxbridge and who doesn't, it's clear that it has nothing to do with ability. So what are they looking for? If they really do take the people who, according to them, are the best candidates, then the "best candidates" must be the people who are already used to the Oxbridge style, i.e. private school students, who have been taught in this way for years, probably by people who went to Oxbridge themselves.

Sorry if I'm drifting off the point, but other universities have a different teaching style, which is more suited to people who have been state educated. In their experience, these people are more likely to succeed at their chosen course. So if Candidate X has AAA at A-level and was privately educated, and Candidate Y has the same grades and was state educated and they have to choose one, it seems logical that they pick the candidate who is statistically more likely to do well on their course.

What do you think?

First of all, it doesn't have to cost £10,000 per year. Schools have scholarships and bursaries, so if you're smart enough you can still go. Often kids that just scrape into private schools don't do that well anyway.

You could be the smartest kid in the country and not be able to go.

How many of those scholarships / bursaries cover everything? Not many.

You also have to have parents who will find out about the schools and allow you to apply. Then they have to allow you to attend.

Do you realise many people survive on incomes of less than £10000 pa? So even if a burdary gave 90% of cost's kids from low income families still couldn't attend.

An education in a private school is something only a privileged few will ever have, if you have been lucky enough to attend a school with small classes, good facilities and teachers who actually know what they are doing (whether private or state) then be thankful.

Stop moaning that a university may take a student from an underprivilledged background. I'ts not going to stop you getting in. Let's face it you will still get into uni. You will till have the benefit of your private education. You will have the chance to do as well, or as badly in uni as the state pupil sitting next to you does.

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!

Tbh, i think more of the exam should be synoptic. Then there'd be less students who can get As without understanding most of the syllabus.

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 without an interview! You can't assume automatically that one student is 'obviously better' than the other.

Blame Tony Blair for getting rid of assisted places. I had several friends who weren't paying anything to be at my (private) school. Also, there was a scholarship exam anyone could take for their place to be paid for (obviously they would have to be a very bright student to win though, as there is only one place).