Positive Discrimination in Admissions: I'm Very Anrgy. Watch

This discussion is closed.
faa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#81
Report 14 years ago
#81
(Original post by TheWolf)
well said
thanks, but its true! Im at a private college now, and ive been to two state schools, and i can honestly say at those state schools the teachers didnt give a **** (all but two) and nor did the pupils! It was simply a job to the teachers! You had the odd one or two pupils that really tried, but the rest had the attitude of "this is just school". At a private school pupils realise how important education is, how much their parents have paid and that you have to work hard to achieve things, you cant just rely on self-pitty!
0
Airport Fairy
Badges:
#82
Report 14 years ago
#82
(Original post by faa)
i hope this isnt taken the wrong way, but-

The place should go to the person with the best intelligence/grades

It should not matter how/where they got it. If one guy went to private school and got excellent grades, and another went to state school and got ok grades, it doesnt mean that the latter guy would have done better in a private school! At the end of the day you want the best person in the course/job and the only thing you should look at is illness, apart from that. the best grades count!

If not, does this mean that asylum seekers should be given oxford places, just because they COULD have done well, had they have been given an education! All the IF's and MAYBE's should be taken away.

We're not talking about universities offering places to state school pupils with much lower grades, but what you have to realise is that grades and intelligence don't always match up, and if a private school student got AAB, for example, whereas a similar state school student got ABB, the state school student might be far and away more intelligent and more deserving of the place, but have slightly lower grades because they had achieved them in adverse circumstances. What universities are trying to decide is not which candidate has got/will get better grades at A-level, but which one is more likely to succeed at university, where you have to put the effort in by yourself, and motivate yourself to work hard even though there's no one breathing down your neck. The idea is that state school students are often much better equipped to deal with university study because they've already been doing it for so long, and if they have a really good personal statement, the admissions tutors like the sound of the person, and their grades are only marginally lower, they're actually likely to be a far safer bet than someone who might only have got those grades due to intensive supervision and pressure.

Don't you get it people? They're not trying to judge you on your success so far, but on your potential to succeed on their degree course. State school students are STATISTICALLY more likely to do well at degree level, even if they have slightly lower grades at A-level, so why shouldn't they discriminate in favour of people who have already proved that they are self-motivated by succeeding within the state system, rather than choosing a candidate whose work ethic is an unknown quantity? Yes, it's likely that they are self-motivated anyway. But the possibility that a private school student will not be able to cope with independent study is greater than that of a state school student, because private school students have had much more support so far. The good candidates from private schools could include people who would already have dropped out by this stage, had they been allowed to sink and fail in the comprehensive system.
faa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#83
Report 14 years ago
#83
firstly, yes i can see your point, but:

a vast majority of private school pupils have studied 9am till 5pm sometimes (we study till 6pm), some saturdays too, and if the grades are achieved- they should not be over-looked just because a state pupil "might" do better. If you are talking about GCSE grades, i cudnt agree with you more, but at A Level- if you really want an A grade, it is up to you to get it- not your school. It doesnt matter what school you go to
0
faa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#84
Report 14 years ago
#84
here is a fact, pupils at private schools that dont put in any effort dont get good grades! So on this assumption, what makes going to a private school automatically get you a good education? Effort is required too
0
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#85
Report 14 years ago
#85
Personally, I think the government should only subsidise those that have attended a state school at university, and put in stringent codes of conduct to ensure that each admission is treated on merit - that would increase the number of disadvantaged students in our top universities - by reducing the number of public/private school wasters who are merely at uni as a rite of passage.
0
faa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#86
Report 14 years ago
#86
yes- i totally agree. Not all people from private schools should even go to uni! Some are just bums who's parents wanted them to go there and they want to be pimps or something (exaggerated i know!lol). That is why i said, whoever is the best student should get the place, no matter their background!
0
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#87
Report 14 years ago
#87
(Original post by faa)
That is why i said, whoever is the best student should get the place, no matter their background!
Yes, but I don't see why the state should suddenly have to subsidise those that have chosen to opt out of the state education system at a previous juncture. If we have people with high expectations of their children involved in state schools, they will get better. The financial burden of £10-13K a year fees at university would make people think twice about going private in order to get their children there. I feel it is irresponsible for a government which is apparently committed to increasing standards in state education to allow commercial provision of education, which can only weaken the state sector.
0
Airport Fairy
Badges:
#88
Report 14 years ago
#88
(Original post by ChemistBoy)
Personally, I think the government should only subsidise those that have attended a state school at university, and put in stringent codes of conduct to ensure that each admission is treated on merit - that would increase the number of disadvantaged students in our top universities - by reducing the number of public/private school wasters who are merely at uni as a rite of passage.

No, I totally disagree with you here. What if you went to a rough comprehensive in a bad area and were mercilessly bullied for wanting to work hard and do well? Just imagine your life was made a misery on a day to day basis, and so your parents decided that the only alternative was to send you privately. So your parents both start saving every penny they have and you never have anything nice. You can never go on holiday, you can't buy new clothes all the time, your parents both have to drive clapped-out old cars and when it comes to birthdays and Christmas, you just don't get as much as your friends do. Your quality of life is poorer because your parents are putting all the money they have into your education. Is it then fair to say that you can't have any university funding from the government, just because you didn't stick it out in a school that made you miserable? I know lots of people in this situation who moved to small, middle-class private schools, paying maybe £6000 per year, which meant that they could still go if their parents weren't rich, but it drained them financially.

Some people are just not tough enough to cope with comprehensives. Other people happen to live in areas where the local comprehensive is so bad it's simply not an option. It's a really, really stupid idea, possibly the worst I've seen in any thread relating to this topic.

The only real solution would be to completely re-vamp the whole education system as we know it today. For fairness, we need selective state schools across the country, not just in certain areas. Instead of three comprehensives in a town, there should be a grammar school for the high-fliers, an ordinary but nurturing kind of school for middle-of-the-range kids, and a more vocational, practical kind of school for kids who are just not suited to academic study.

In the grammar schools, students would take GCSEs and A-levels in traditional, academic subjects, or possibly a broader, baccalaureate type qualification so that they can obtain higher level qualifications in arts, humanities and sciences. They should all be required to take at least one modern language to at least GCSE level, and all the GCSE exams would be higher level papers.

In the intermediate schools, students would be required to take GCSEs in the full range of subjects, but perhaps not so many, perhaps not necessarily a language for example, and decent qualifications in skills such as IT, to help them get office jobs after they leave school. At 16, depending on their results, they could either take traditional A-level subjects or vocational A-levels, or just leave and find a job.

In the practical-type schools, students would take GCSEs in English, Maths and Science and perhaps two or three other subjects if they wanted to, with the emphasis on building up a strong set of core skills so that they were literate and numerate. Then they would also take different levels of vocational subjects in whatever area interested them, such as mechanics, hairdressing, catering, plumbing and electrics, agriculture etc to give them specific skills that they might actually use in their careers, rather than forcing them to study French or German, or History, or any other academic subject which they are just not interested in. They could perhaps have a four day week with compulsory work experience on the fifth day. They would all receive intensive IT and communication training, and their English GCSE (or equivalent qualification) would concentrate on teaching them how to write letters and other business related skills, rather than analysing a novel.

The system should also be fairly flexible, so that, intellect allowing, students could switch from one type of school to another without too much difficulty, as long as they did it at the right stage. This would avoid people being in the wrong type of school simply because they had one bad day and failed an exam. Conversely, if someone decided that the academic school was too much of a struggle, or if their family situation made it impractical for them to stay, or even if they were brilliantly clever but absolutely certain that they wanted to follow a certain career path for which it would be more appropriate to go to the vocational school, they could change too.

I know I've kind of drifted off-topic here, but this is really the only way to ensure fairness for everybody within the state system and would improve the quality of education in the UK beyond recognition. The government should stop trying to get 50% to go to university. They don't need to. Why not concentrate on giving people what's right for them? Why not just close down all the mickey mouse universities, thus giving the degree back its prestige, and allowing more funding for everybody? What's the point of subsidising someone to take a worthless degree, only to find themselves mocked and laughed at by potential employers, unable to find a job, and on the dole? Wouldn't it have been better to encourage them to take a different path earlier on, before all that money had been wasted?

From the point of view of university admissions tutors, this would make their job a lot easier, as they'd know that all the people applying would have received a fairly universal standard of education and that none of them had had a constant battle against disruption from badly-behaved students and teachers getting nervous breakdowns. It would also mean that a lot of private schools would become surplus to requirements, because they would no longer offer a better education. The only reason for going to a private school then would be if your parents were complete snobs who just had to keep up with the Joneses.
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#89
Report 14 years ago
#89
(Original post by Airport Fairy)
No, I totally disagree with you here. What if you went to a rough comprehensive in a bad area and were mercilessly bullied for wanting to work hard and do well? Just imagine your life was made a misery on a day to day basis, and so your parents decided that the only alternative was to send you privately. So your parents both start saving every penny they have and you never have anything nice. You can never go on holiday, you can't buy new clothes all the time, your parents both have to drive clapped-out old cars and when it comes to birthdays and Christmas, you just don't get as much as your friends do. Your quality of life is poorer because your parents are putting all the money they have into your education. Is it then fair to say that you can't have any university funding from the government, just because you didn't stick it out in a school that made you miserable? I know lots of people in this situation who moved to small, middle-class private schools, paying maybe £6000 per year, which meant that they could still go if their parents weren't rich, but it drained them financially.
Tough, private and public schools are not state sector, if you take your child out of state education you are damaging that education (why do you think the comprehesive is in such a bad state? Because motivated parents aren't fighting for improvements they are taking the easy way out and opting out). Think about how much better the state system would be if all the money spent on private education was put in the state sector?

Some people are just not tough enough to cope with comprehensives. Other people happen to live in areas where the local comprehensive is so bad it's simply not an option. It's a really, really stupid idea, possibly the worst I've seen in any thread relating to this topic.

The only real solution would be to completely re-vamp the whole education system as we know it today. For fairness, we need selective state schools across the country, not just in certain areas. Instead of three comprehensives in a town, there should be a grammar school for the high-fliers, an ordinary but nurturing kind of school for middle-of-the-range kids, and a more vocational, practical kind of school for kids who are just not suited to academic study.
I completely agree, that doesn't go against what I have suggested at all. We should look at continental methods of education where vocational training is taken very seriously. Clearly you assume that this change in policy would not be accompanied by a change in the education system. We need to ensure fairness, but also we should not subsidise those who choose to seek education at a private business and thus damage the state sector.


The only reason for going to a private school then would be if your parents were complete snobs who just had to keep up with the Joneses.
Which seems to be a major reason anyway.

The fact is we need to re-engage parents with state school education, where standards can be controlled and regulated. Independant schooling only promotes socio-economic elitism.
0
Tajel
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#90
Report 14 years ago
#90
(Original post by ChemistBoy)
Think about how much better the state system would be if all the money spent on private education was put in the state sector?
Well, maybe, but that's never going to happen. Who would *voluntarily* pay the equivalent of school fees to their local comp if they didn't have to?



(Original post by ChemistBoy)
We should look at continental methods of education where vocational training is taken very seriously.
As opposed to the UK where vocational courses are being turned into degrees utterly unsuited to a university style education? Agreed.
0
ChemistBoy
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#91
Report 14 years ago
#91
(Original post by Tajel)
Well, maybe, but that's never going to happen. Who would *voluntarily* pay the equivalent of school fees to their local comp if they didn't have to?
True, but we could charge them more tax (heehee!)

As opposed to the UK where vocational courses are being turned into degrees utterly unsuited to a university style education? Agreed.
Exactly, we don't need a degree in building.
0
faa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#92
Report 14 years ago
#92
Ok- this is the problem with our education system-

primary/secondary education is owned/run by government and tertiary (universities) arent!

This means that universities set-out to make money!

Thus, universities will create every type of degree, however pointless and impractical they are- just to raise revenue.

Firstly, i think that you should not be allowed to go to university with less than CCC. This will make all those who are only going for a piss-up, work hard to go!

It will reduce the number of **** universities, mean more money can be given to the stronger universities and improve the quality.

Students should be aware at the age of 14 that their GCSE results will be one of the most important things universities will look at. I was never told this and i wish i had been!

They should also be told what qualifications are considered weak by top univerisites, if they wish to go there.

Also- no more of this "must take a foreign language". That is nonsense. Why learn a foreign langauge when we may never leave this country! Leave it to those who want to do them!

Remove R.S, Art and Music from compulsory yr7-9 curriculums and add in more maths, science and english lessons. Take GCSE's in years 9 and 10 and prepare for A Levels in yr 11
0
faa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#93
Report 14 years ago
#93
eg: DDD for Economics at Dundee (quoted from "Hot courses")

do you really think this person could handle economic data (persuming they will study economics!) with those grades? It is a waste of government funds and other funds,plus it devalues an economics degree! If they cant even get CCC at A Level, the only degree they could pass would be a pointless one!
0
faa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#94
Report 14 years ago
#94
ok- greenwich- 160 Ucas points= CC or DDE

Still a bit pathetic, dont you think?
0
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#95
Report 14 years ago
#95
(Original post by ChemistBoy)
Tough, private and public schools are not state sector, if you take your child out of state education you are damaging that education (why do you think the comprehesive is in such a bad state? Because motivated parents aren't fighting for improvements they are taking the easy way out and opting out). Think about how much better the state system would be if all the money spent on private education was put in the state sector?
You do know that people at independent schools are still paying the taxes for the local comp, dont you? Therefore if you let in the 8% or so of students in private education...state education in certain areas would just get even wose. And if these people stay in state education, what makes you think there'll be a bigger funding per head?

You'll tend to find comprehensives are only bad when they're in awful areas. I know the ones surrounding council estates have very poor track records whereas the ones in the middle class areas tend to do very well. Perhaps its not the schooling, and more parental attitude? I'm in no way saying all working class parents don't care about their kids education, just the majority of them seem to care less.
0
faa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#96
Report 14 years ago
#96
What kind of economics could they study without doing any A Level maths?!
0
faa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#97
Report 14 years ago
#97
FAO (person saying about area of school Vs achievement)

If they lowered the doll money, then any parents living on council estates would give their kids a kick up the arse to do well at school, or the whole family'll be poor!
0
faa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#98
Report 14 years ago
#98
im using the same presumptions that someone who hires graduates would use, ie is the university good? is the class of degree good? is the degree subject good?
0
Mysticmin
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#99
Report 14 years ago
#99
(Original post by faa)
FAO (person saying about area of school Vs achievement)

If they lowered the doll money, then any parents living on council estates would give their kids a kick up the arse to do well at school, or the whole family'll be poor!
Doubt it somehow, they'd be too worried about how to eat for the next week. It's more to do with the parents having no experience of academic success, and the benefits it brings.
0
faa
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#100
Report 14 years ago
#100
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
btw - do you read the daily mail?
only if im round my nans or at work, not being a snob, but if i do buy a paper, its the FT. whys that?
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (261)
26.69%
No (717)
73.31%

Watched Threads

View All