Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not that bad, Drama school is like 80-100 applicants fighting for 1 place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Btw, to make matters worse, if Mandelson gets his way, applicants from poor families get a two-grade "headstart".

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle6788798.ece

    How does he know if an applicant is "poor" or not?

    What if there was a family earning e.g. £75,000 (rich family) but had 6 children?

    Or what if there was a family earning e.g. £25,000 (poor family), with one child?
    they might do a simple calculation to decide, like, 75,000 divided by 6.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    These threads make me sad
    If I dont get into a good course this year, reapplying to the same places was my backup plan but this seems like a **** plan considering the increased competition.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wizz_kid)
    Nope. We are talking about clearing here arent we? If someone's offer is AAB and they happened to get AAC by a close margin, they should be allowed in. However they cant this year coz the labour government doesnt find it appropriate to invest enough courses for higher education because of which there will be many students taking gap years when they could have gone uni.

    Imagine some 1 in the above situation. Surely they would be very p*ssed coz they missed their offer narrowly and have to take a gap year coz
    a) Their uni is oversubscribed for that course than usual

    b) There are not enough places in clearing/too competitive.

    So they end up wasting a year by taking a gap year when they could have done something fruitful.

    All of this can be avoided if and only if the labour government wakes up and starts investing more in higher education sensibly.
    Sorry where has it been said that if a course is not fully subscribed that someone won't get in with a near miss?

    Where has it been said that if a course last year or in previous years was fully subscribed that more people would be allowed in with a near miss?

    What funding change has been made?

    They might be pissed but it is their fault, clearing is the xmas sale of uni places. It's like you're saying I have the right to be annoyed with the government because Paul Smith has had a good year and there are no cut price Mini wallets in the sale.

    Before 2004 Bath had clearing places for chemistry, since 2005 it has not because it has been fully subscribed. Why should rubbish people be allowed in? How does a course increase its capacity? Labs on Saturdays?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wizz_kid)
    Nope. We were talking about clearing wernt we? If someone's offer is AAB and they happened to get AAC by a close margin, they should be allowed in.

    All of this can be avoided if and only if the labour government wakes up and starts investing more in higher education sensibly.
    Is that really fair to the AAC student who didnt get an offer before someone was supposed to get AAB? What if the AAC student got AAB - why should the AAC student get it?

    Again, where are the stats of money to unis between 92 and 97 then 05 onwards?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piiineapple)
    labour...
    THIS.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    THIS.
    Any stats on the difference between this year and pre 1997?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Sorry where has it been said that if a course is not fully subscribed that someone won't get in with a near miss?
    Sorry, thats not the point! The point is that the govnt should have spent more on top unis so that they take take in more people than usual to meet the high demand of places.


    (Original post by Quady)


    They might be pissed but it is their fault, clearing is the xmas sale of uni places. It's like you're saying I have the right to be annoyed with the government because Paul Smith has had a good year and there are no cut price Mini wallets in the sale.

    Before 2004 Bath had clearing places for chemistry, since 2005 it has not because it has been fully subscribed. Why should rubbish people be allowed in? How does a course increase its capacity? Labs on Saturdays?


    Thats true. I agree with u on the last bit. Why should rubbish people be allowed in? They shouldnt! If i was an oxford medic who worked his arse off to get AAA, y should someone with ABB be let in?

    That statement is true theoretically. However in real life, sh*t happens! One small mistake in the June exams could make or break the rest of your life.

    Hence, i believe that the govt should spend more on top unis so that they can afford to take in more people. As a result, if some one misses their offer narrowly e.g. instead of gettin AAA, say that person got AAB due to one mistake in one module. That person has got an excellent UCAS application (very good gcses etc etc). So my question is, would it be justified to reject him just coz he missed him offer narrowly and the uni cant afford to let more people in? Surely not!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Any stats on the difference between this year and pre 1997?
    you don't honestly think this isn't the fault of the labour government? Look them up yourself.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wizz_kid)
    Sorry, thats not the point! The point is that the govnt should have spent more on top unis so that they take take in more people than usual to meet the high demand of places.

    Thats true. I agree with u on the last bit. Why should rubbish people be allowed in? They shouldnt! If i was an oxford medic who worked his arse off to get AAA, y should someone with ABB be let in?

    That statement is true theoretically. However in real life, sh*t happens! One small mistake in the June exams could make or break the rest of your life.

    Hence, i believe that the govt should spend more on top unis so that they can afford to take in more people. As a result, if some one misses their offer narrowly e.g. instead of gettin AAA, say that person got AAB due to one mistake in one module. That person has got an excellent UCAS application (very good gcses etc etc). So my question is, would it be justified to reject him just coz he missed him offer narrowly and the uni cant afford to let more people in? Surely not!
    Well they are funding an extra 10k places (and I don't have stats on the difference between this and last years), sure it won't cover the increase but theres a lot of pensioners out there trying to live in a low interest environment and a lot of people being put out of work to support. We can't borrow 200% GDP, or can we....?

    Top unis can't, theres only a finite amount of space, you're medic example being a good example.

    I agree they shouldn't be let gop - thats the entire point of an insurance, this shouldn't be about firm choices but about missing insurance choices so its not a single grade miss.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    you don't honestly think this isn't the fault of the labour government? Look them up yourself.
    Don't honestly think what is the fault of the current govt?

    That unis can't expand by 30% in a year?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Don't honestly think what is the fault of the current govt?

    That unis can't expand by 30% in a year?
    do you think that is possible?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    do you think that is possible?
    Not really no I don't think unis are setup for flexible scalable demand. They are based around physical environments.

    Could a football team increase capacity by 15k for a couple of years then reduce it back again?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Not really no I don't think unis are setup for flexible scalable demand. They are based around physical environments.

    Could a football team increase capacity by 15k for a couple of years then reduce it back again?
    I fail to see what that metaphor is trying to point out. One key tool for sustainable long term economic growth is investment in education. The labour government have taken this to ridiculous proportions. In South korea it is possible, with 90% of people going to higher education, however here it is not because we simply do not have the same economic structure as them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Well they are funding an extra 10k places (and I don't have stats on the difference between this and last years), sure it won't cover the increase but theres a lot of pensioners out there trying to live in a low interest environment and a lot of people being put out of work to support. We can't borrow 200% GDP, or can we....?

    Top unis can't, theres only a finite amount of space, you're medic example being a good example.

    I agree they shouldn't be let gop - thats the entire point of an insurance, this shouldn't be about firm choices but about missing insurance choices so its not a single grade miss.
    Right!

    You seem to be a hardcore labour supporter. I am just doing my research atm for the next general elections so that i know whom iam voting for.

    So y should i vote for labour and not conservative in the next general elections?

    Thanks!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    I fail to see what that metaphor is trying to point out. One key tool for sustainable long term economic growth is investment in education. The labour government have taken this to ridiculous proportions. In South korea it is possible, with 90% of people going to higher education, however here it is not because we simply do not have the same economic structure as them.
    And you believe that a different administration would have pushed more money into HE? I would have thought that would only have been true if the other administration had not had a cap on fees which is unlikely but possibly true.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'd love to punch whoever said every cloud has a silver lining....
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    And you believe that a different administration would have pushed more money into HE? I would have thought that would only have been true if the other administration had not had a cap on fees which is unlikely but possibly true.
    no.... I think a different administration would not have pushed more money into HE...
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wizz_kid)
    Right!

    You seem to be a hardcore labour supporter. I am just doing my research atm for the next general elections so that i know whom iam voting for.

    So y should i vote for labour and not conservative in the next general elections?

    Thanks!
    More faulty logic...

    I was questioning whether this administation has done more or less than the presumptive conservative alternative would have done. This admin increased spending by more (as a % of GDP) to unis than the last conservative one, so I'm curious why saying 'labour' is enough to win the debate... just seems like lazy analysis.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M_E_X)
    What has this got to do with labour at all?
    It's not like Gordon Brown has told universities to accept less people, is it?
    On some levels, yes he has. Universities have been capped this year for the number of students that take into the first year. A policy set up and enforced by the government. So fewer students were going to get in anyway as a.) less places and b.) on the whole higher conditional offers. Added to this the sheer increase in numbers applying because they think it's better to stay in education rather than find a job during a recession and the whole thing spirals out of control.

    Far more mature students are going back to education because the job market's dire and international students are heading to the UK because of how weak the pound is. Universitiy education is still pretty cheap in the UK compared to elsewhere.

    And the deciding factor - far fewer places available in clearing, even at the unis completely off students' radars. So as a total whole, there will be people this year who will not be going to any university.

    The extra 10 000 places that people keep talking about is negated by the fact that universities were capped for their official intakes between September 08 and January 09. The fact that they've now funded these places actually means that on some levels, they've just removed the cap they imposed themselves.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: August 16, 2009
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
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

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

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.