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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As long as poor kids can still get in its ok.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I think it would be a real shame if that happened.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    Yeah, maybe, but like I've said several times, what if the AAA student is extremely bright...like the rest of his/her year, whereas the AAB is actually only of average intelligence, but is compared with his/her school year group that is full of plonkers.
    Then you're making as big a generalisation as you've accused the selection committees of. What if? is a great statement- we simply do not know. It may be that the AAB student isn't AAA material, we'll never know completely. But to make a statement like yours discards the work of the social scientists who believe the educational environment to be important in a child's attainment- and thus can't rule out potential in later life beyond the grades shown in a far from perfect school, by someone still amongst their formative years.

    Assuming that someone is 'complete' at 18 years old, is foolish. University admission should seek to find the greatest potential for future academic excellence, not to discriminate on the basis of a grade margin. The chances of one school having so many extremely bright students, in gleaming labs with one to one tuition, while another 20 miles away having so many 'plonkers', and also happening to have vandalism, poor facilities and larger class sizes, is extremely low, and universities quite rightly recognise that. If the AAB student was a 'plonker' and their AAA counterpart was 'extremely bright', why, pray tell, are some of the world's best academics across the disciplines holding degrees from UEA, Stirling, Strathclyde? Because they'll always be thicker than their AAA counterpart?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chillaxer)
    How's it funded, national or state level?
    The 'state' refers to a governing body, which may be devolved to an actual US state, or kept within central government. 'The state' does not equate to a state within the USA, when we're using economic definitions. But to answer your question, educational funding in the U.S. is usually the responsibility of the individual state, in this case, California. By doing so, they can charge those from California less than students applying from Oregon, or similar.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    That would be awful, only rich people could go. :sad:
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I think that would be a bad idea. Money shouldn't provide an additional barrier to one of the best universities. If only rich people can afford it, it won't do much good for social mobility.
    Offline

    14
    I would like to see this happen - it would free up the current state subsidies to be better spent elsewhere.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    Fair enough, but that's still discounting the fact that the AAA student will still most likely have worked extremely hard for those grades. On top of that, their parents aren't always extremely wealthy, they'll often have gone into dept to keep their children in good private schools to guarantee them the best possible education. Can you really justify disadvantaging these students when applying for university, just because their parents actually decided to put education in front of other aspects of life?

    I accept that's a massive generalisation, but a nonetheless sizable proportion of private students are currently in that situation.

    By the way, I don't think students are 'complete' by 18, but nor do I think students who, although they haven't performed extremely highly, have outperformed the rest of their school's yeargroup should receive undue favourable treatment in relation to other, higher-performing students from better schools (state or private).
    Some parents no doubt go into debt in order to give their kids the best possible education, some would love the choice of being able to- had they not already found themselves barely above water without even thinking about spending an extra 100k in education fees on the kids. The proportion of those who can afford to take on debt of that magnitude is much smaller than those who can't.

    It's not about unfavourable attention either- its about recognising potential. It's also about recognising a hindrance where it presents itself. It's like two athletes, starting at the same time: One crosses the finish line in 10 seconds, the other in 11. But the second athlete had to jump over ten hurdles, and run an extra ten metres. Which ones better? By your logic, the one that got the lowest time, its as black and white as that. To put it bluntly though, thats just wrong- education and schooling are infinitely more complex than three grades on a bit of paper make out, and its up to the universities to work out if they'd trade a drop in grades against the circumstances in which they were achieved.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    Some parents no doubt go into debt in order to give their kids the best possible education, some would love the choice of being able to- had they not already found themselves barely above water without even thinking about spending an extra 100k in education fees on the kids. The proportion of those who can afford to take on debt of that magnitude is much smaller than those who can't.

    It's not about unfavourable attention either- its about recognising potential. It's also about recognising a hindrance where it presents itself. It's like two athletes, starting at the same time: One crosses the finish line in 10 seconds, the other in 11. But the second athlete had to jump over ten hurdles, and run an extra ten metres. Which ones better? By your logic, the one that got the lowest time, its as black and white as that. To put it bluntly though, thats just wrong- education and schooling are infinitely more complex than three grades on a bit of paper make out, and its up to the universities to work out if they'd trade a drop in grades against the circumstances in which they were achieved.
    No no, this analogy is flawed, its like saying there are two athletes, one from a poor background, and one from a rich backround with a personal trainer and home gym. If the rich athlete won the race, they are fastest. End of. The race was fair, as are exams, people all sit the same exams. Only the quickest deserve the place at oxford.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    But that places at a massive disadvantage that 50% of students whose parents have possibly gone into dept paying their school bills in order to ensure they get the best possibly education for their children, and who have worked their arses off throughout school to achieve those grades.

    I completely agree that intelligent students should go to the best universities. However, I disagree that students who may be only slightly above average intelligence but who are much more intelligent than the rest of their year be given a clear advantage in comparison with students who may be much brighter, but who just happen to attend a school where average IQ is also a lot higher...
    You're confusing intelligence with good grades, the two are entirely separate. At a good private school a student who is pretty much average intelligence will have a good chance of getting three As, at a not-so-good state school you need to be really smart to get three As. Thus a triple A student from a bad state school will be favoured over a triple A student from a private school, because they have had to show more intelligence to achieve the same grades. No disrespect to anyone at a private school with good grades, you should definitely be proud of them and I take nothing away from your achievment, BUT Oxford doesn't just want to continue the trend of richer people achieving more due to privilege. Do you see what I am saying? Not that less intelligent people are being picked because they are at a state school, but that the same achievment is often more valuable from a less good state school than from a private school or indeed a particularly successful state school.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PeterGriffin)
    No no, this analogy is flawed, its like saying there are two athletes, one from a poor background, and one from a rich backround with a personal trainer and home gym. If the rich athlete won the race, they are fastest. End of. The race was fair, as are exams, people all sit the same exams. Only the quickest deserve the place at oxford.
    It's essentially the same analogy- that one person has to go through more to reach the same benchmark as the other, be it advantages (the personal trainer) or hurdles (no access to facilities or something stopping them train). The point which underpins them is still identical- universities have an obligation to seek out potential, not to discriminate over six years of education through a few marks in one exam, and a recognition of the effort it took to reach that level from the point in which they started, by looking at other factors round about the applicants grades. No amount of saying 'end of' will change that.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    But how can a claim to meritocracy be justified when students who have achieved different standards, be it as it may that they've had differing levels of input, are being compared as like-for-like candidates?

    If anything, I think that's more biased. Parents pay thousands and thousands of pounds (often going into dept to do so)to guarantee their children a better education than the government can give them in the state sector, in order to improve their chances of finishing Sixth form at the kind of level that will improve their chances of going to the university of their choice, and now the government is putting all those students at a disadvantage by saying that even if state students don't achieve as highly as their private counterparts, they deserve the top university places anyway because they've out-performed the rest of their year group in their own school - be it as it may that the rest of that year is completely thick and he or she is actually only an average student? Where's the justice in that.
    Meritocracy is demonstrated by talent and ability. To achieve high-grades within the scope of a private education is relatively easy compared to being in a state environment. You’re usually in a small classroom with large amounts of attention and time from a highly qualified teacher who is in no way lacking in resources to aide your education. It is a reflection of the institution they attended, not the individual’s ability or talents in contrast to an individual who performs in a state institution demonstrates their own intellectual ability by doing well. Therefore the latter represents a much greater potential. Not to mention, I doubt anyone here is saying rate them by different standards, but just by examining the top uni courses an obvious bias exists towards private students due to entry requiring numerous high-level GCSE’s/Foreign Languages and A-Levels you’d never find in a normal 6th Form or College.

    I’ll leave it at that to be honest. I don’t know where you get this idea that the privileged are persecuted. Education should favour those with the greatest potential not the biggest wallet. So what if they have to go Warwick instead of Cambridge? No one would shed tears over that.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    Easily the smartest thing Peter Griffin ever said :yep:
    Laud those that agree with you, deride those that don't. Funny that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    there only way they will go private is if they put up massive bursaries - and the only way that is going to happen is if the like double their endowments - that isn't something you can just "do". They need a hell of a lot of money before they are even in a position to do it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can the university actually go private if it wanted to? Does it have that autonomy? I don't understand how it can 'threaten' to go private when the government is funding it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PeterGriffin)
    No no, this analogy is flawed, its like saying there are two athletes, one from a poor background, and one from a rich backround with a personal trainer and home gym. If the rich athlete won the race, they are fastest. End of. The race was fair, as are exams, people all sit the same exams. Only the quickest deserve the place at oxford.
    That's a fundamental misunderstanding.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I know this might sound dumb, but I've no idea....

    1)If this were to happen and undergrad tuition fees skyrocketed, would postgrad courses do the same?

    2)Also, say they didn't go private but the government took a cap off tuition fees would the unis charge what they like for Masters and PHD's or is it just undergrad degrees which will become more expensive?

    As I said, sorry if it sounds silly but I only ever hear of tuition fee increases in regards to undergrads.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A privatised university system :coma:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i mean the huge american ivy league universities all have huge private fundings from people who have been to these universities. And most people who have had such an education go on to be successful therefore prehaps earning a fair amount of money. Therefore it has become a culture in america for most old boys and girls to donate quite hansomley to their previous university.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0404343m)
    It's essentially the same analogy- that one person has to go through more to reach the same benchmark as the other, be it advantages (the personal trainer) or hurdles (no access to facilities or something stopping them train). The point which underpins them is still identical- universities have an obligation to seek out potential, not to discriminate over six years of education through a few marks in one exam, and a recognition of the effort it took to reach that level from the point in which they started, by looking at other factors round about the applicants grades. No amount of saying 'end of' will change that.
    A few marks, how many extra marks does it take for a private school student to be brighter? 1,2,10,20? This is a VERY slippery slope.

    I ran 1000m in 4min recently, toughist thing i've done in ages, dosn't make me an olympic athlete. Effort required is irrelivent
 
 
 
  • 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
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
  • 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.