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

    13
    Btw, a comment about this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ty-places.html

    "Mandelson wants to turn the spotlight onto Oxbridge admissions".

    FFS if anything they have the fairest of them all, i.e. the admission tests and interviewing more applicants than any other uni!

    ****.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think we should just scrap compulsory education for all people below a certain income bracket. And by that, I mean my income bracket. I shouldn't have to associate with these people.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammythedodger)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8192234.stm

    I'm not sure if there is already a thread about this, but I am furious at the idea. I've just finished school at 18, but how is this right?

    They say it helps social mobility. It was the Labour Party who abolished grammar schools which actually helped social mobility (facts and figures I'm afraid, not just personal opinion). Some people are left behind, but the majority are do worse because they don't put the effort in or just simply are not acadmeic - neither of which are a reason to give them a "head start".
    They shoudl work on improving students grades through helping them actually do better on their own merits than just introducing state sactioned grade-cheating.

    Opinions?
    The facts show a vastly different picture (with up to 95% middle-class intake), unless you have different stats?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roubiliac)
    I will put your ignorance of the old grammar school system down to the fact that you are very young. Grammar school provision was at the expense of the vast majority of children who were sent to Secondary Modern schools, where they were not allowed to take O levels. Fact not personal opinion. Furthermore Grammar school provision was different in different authorities. You obviously are unaware that in the whole of Cheshire for instance there were only ever 2 grammar schools. Thus a very small number of pupils went and the vast majority of children wre condemned to secondary moderns. Your supposed data is wrong anyway. There were only ever a tiny numberr of working class children who passed the 11 plus. Oh and finally, The Tories abolished more Grammar schools under Thatcher than any Labour administration!
    Hello... at what point did I ever say bring back the tripartite system?!?
    I said bring back grammar schools, I didn't say send off everyone who doesn't get in to go down the mines
    I want a system of grammar schools, religious schools and community schools (non-selective).

    And no, your wrong, grammar schools were a great system of social mobility... the problem was that those who didn't get in where completely totally screwed. Now almost everyone in the state system is semi-screwed.
    We've moved a system where the bottom 4/5ths of state school kids were screwed, were almost now every is!

    As I said somewhere else on this thread, I'm sure you've seen the report that shows less people from poorer backgrounds becoming accountants, judges, lawyers etc etc. Social mobility has decreased substantially sicne the 1970s.

    And once again... hello... Labour literally abolish every single grammar in the country, as in, EVERY single one. Thatcher allowed counties to bring back selective schools if they wanted (which about 6 did properly, another 4-5 brought back a few).
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Zap Brannigan)
    I think we should just scrap compulsory education for all people below a certain income bracket. And by that, I mean my income bracket. I shouldn't have to associate with these people.
    Hmm, controversial much? :p:

    Imo, all chavs to be deported to Iraq etc where:

    • they can use their stabbing and shooting kills
    • no education - because they don't care about it anyway
    • they can do whatever they want to
    • they can get wasted/high/laid as much as they like

    etc
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    grammar schools were a disgrace, one test could put the smartest child into a school were he is expected to do bad. it was badly structured and the children are too young to be seperated. remember every child is born equal, apart from genes etc, for this reason there should be no separation, it IS societies fault that one child will later be imprisoned and another will be a binman, teacher, police, doctor, shopkeeper etc-all useful members of society.
    What are you talking about?

    "Every child is born equal, for this reason there should be no separation"? But you acknolwedge yourself that genes vary. Therefore, some children are more intelligent than others. It makes sense to educate the intelligent ones together, doesn't it? so they can go at a pace which suits them. In the same way, it is no use for the less academic if they are continually forced to move between topics without understanding them.

    If someone mucked up the test, but did very well at their secondary school, they could transfer to the grammar after a year. I thought that was reasonably commonplace?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robin22391)
    grammar schools were a disgrace, one test could put the smartest child into a school were he is expected to do bad. it was badly structured and the children are too young to be seperated. remember every child is born equal, apart from genes etc, for this reason there should be no separation, it IS societies fault that one child will later be imprisoned and another will be a binman, teacher, police, doctor, shopkeeper etc-all useful members of society.
    No, secondary moderns and the tripartite system was a disgrace. Grammar schools were far better ways of social mobility, read my various other replies to find out why.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jismith1989)
    The facts show a vastly different picture (with up to 95% middle-class intake), unless you have different stats?
    A quote from a report of the LSE's social mobility report:

    "Reference to research by LSE that reveals that the ending of educational selection has actually reduced opportunities for the poor and widened the class gulf. The LSE report shows conclusively that the 11-plus was an 'escape route' and removing it has undermined social mobility."
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    No it isn't!

    It's just a message from the government, to the people who don't give two ***** about education saying, "you've done bad in education. don't worry. you don't need to work hard. we'll simply give you a grade boost and let you into the top unis".

    money =/= advantage

    you can have ALL the money in the world, the best teaching, the best facilities - but if you don't give a **** about your education, trust me, you are not an advantage.

    likewise, if you grow up in a poor neighbourhood, bad schooling, no academic environment, if you really wanted to go to uni you would've worked hard REGARDLESS of anything else.

    ffs you can have everything in the world, but the only thing that's going to get you there is hard work. fact. don't tell me a private schooler can get in with no school, because 1) that's patronising to the private schooler, likewise it's patronising to say "oh you're working class, you're stupid, here, have AAA".

    it's not balancing both sides, but making things a hell of a lot worse. it's a stupid idea.

    has anyone seen How The Other Half Live? that's supposed to be the standard reflection of the average poor family - and let me tell you for a fact, they really are not.

    living in a bad area =/= poor

    likewise

    poor =/= stupid

    yes, if you're poor you may be disadvantage for obvious reasons, but do you think this system is going to make it any better? NO.

    if we want to balance out both sides - FFS IMPROVE THE DAMN EDUCATION SYSTEM!

    this doesn't start at secondary - HELL NO, it starts from the root of primary. because apparently I think it was a 1/3 of all 11 year olds can't do basic maths/read/write (apologies for wrong statistics) and tbh, 50% of school leavers can't get CCCCC inc. maths and english.

    you really think grade boost is going to solve this ******* problem?

    NO! Improve the damn schools because frankly, some 16 year olds atm can't do basic maths and english and Labour wants 50% to enter university.

    yeah right, what about funding for those places LET ALONE the standards in this country?

    it's true! exams are getting easier! look at any past paper from decades ago and you'll see how easier we got it today!

    yet still school leavers can't do basic maths and english?

    I tell you why, the system is ****** up and today's generation are more interested in getting: laid, wasted, high, going out.

    not academia or education. so stop giving these people a grade boost.

    and I bet you're going to say, "not all state pupils are like this". I KNOW that. because why? they don't NEED this grade boost in the first place because they are self-motivated etc etc.

    basically unis want the best people, the ones with potential - not a string of straight A grades. just go to the oxbridge forum to see how true that is.

    /rant
    They're not giving 'dumb kids a chance to become clever' by the grade boost, but clever kids with potential, who had a rubbish disadvantaged educationl. Believe me some things you cannot self teach, for example the only way I can understand maths is to have someone EXPLAIN it to me, and my maths teacher is **** so I got my mum to do this and went on the internet, however without my mum I would have got A or B, not A*, as nothing on the internet can stand in front of me and explain to me why things work.
    And what you are saying is unfair, that people must be self motivated, blah blah. Do you honestly think every public schooler with AAA is self motivated? Some got AAA JUST BECAUSE their parents locked them in their room for 4 hours. Or the school did.

    Now if you still don't believe me, lets do an example: 2 pupils of exactly the same IQ/potential, etc. Pupil A goes to a great school so goes home, does 2 hours of homework, understands everything and gets 3As. Pupil B goes to a crap school where half the teachers are supplies, so when he goes home he has to spend 4 hours, 2 doing the homework and 2 teaching himself what he missed to get 3As. Now why does B have to work harder than A for the same result, just because his parents live in a rough area. Because life's unfair? If B worked for 2 hours a night the same as A did, he'd get ABB, so isn't that discrimination to make him work twice as hard for the same uni place? If his offer was ABB he would be exactly as capable as Pupil A who's parents are rich.

    Lastly, did you see the Oxbridge study that showed on average a state schooler has to get 2 grades higher than a private schooler for the same place at uni, (all other factors included), maybe this policy is just making up for this.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Argh this makes me angry too! Sure it may not be someones fault if they went to a poor school with bad teaching and got ABB (or lower), yet others from more fortunate backgrounds maybe, who worked hard to get AAA still go on the same course when the standard offer is AAA...

    It makes the A-levels into a farce, where the poor get it easier...Oh the irony.

    Edit: Sorry the post above mine is quite convincing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammythedodger)
    Hello... at what point did I ever say bring back the tripartite system?!?
    I said bring back grammar schools, I didn't say send off everyone who doesn't get in to go down the mines
    I want a system of grammar schools, religious schools and community schools (non-selective).

    And no, your wrong, grammar schools were a great system of social mobility... the problem was that those who didn't get in where completely totally screwed. Now almost everyone in the state system is semi-screwed.
    We've moved a system where the bottom 4/5ths of state school kids were screwed, were almost now every is!

    As I said somewhere else on this thread, I'm sure you've seen the report that shows less people from poorer backgrounds becoming accountants, judges, lawyers etc etc. Social mobility has decreased substantially sicne the 1970s.

    And once again... hello... Labour literally abolish every single grammar in the country, as in, EVERY single one. Thatcher allowed counties to bring back selective schools if they wanted (which about 6 did properly, another 4-5 brought back a few).

    i think everyone has in mind the school system, including you, that is like the old one but it doesnt screw the lives of those who dont get in.
    this could work.

    what is holding back the schools nowadys isnt underachievers its the ones who are at school only because they have to be by law, these children should not exist as every child is born equal. those children who schools wont chuck out because it ruins their record are the problem, many are violent to the teachers and other pupils and are disruptive. they should be in a school that is equipped for their personality, they shouldnt have to... i know. once they are out of the way the wellbeing of most of the class will be increased, concentration will go up, grades will improve and graduates will be more willing to teach. then hopefully the natural teachers of the world will be willing to work in a job that will now pay more. thus we remove all those rubbish maths teachers.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    More chavs failing their degrees then. Honestly, what system would justly turn a C into an A, or a D into a B? :indiff: That's, like, insane innit bro?

    Oh, and grammar schools should be brought back in. But to stop all the whiny socialists who go on about the chavs being "left behind" there should be entry points after the 11+ at 13 and 16. :indiff:
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by sorafdfs)
    They should just accept it's because the working-class is ridden with chavs. Most don't care about education, they care about leaving and getting a full time job at Primark and getting pregnant. Stick with funding free trips to theme parks and cinemas in hopes that the "ADD ridden underachievers" will suddenly become straight A students.

    And before you start whinging, I am working class. Have fun computing that x
    I agree, this won't help the chavs at all. However, I do agree with Katie Ivens that the main issue is the quality of teaching at schools.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    More chavs failing their degrees then. Honestly, what system would justly turn a C into an A, or a D into a B? :indiff: That's, like, insane innit bro?

    Oh, and grammar schools should be brought back in. But to stop all the whiny socialists who go on about the chavs being "left behind" there should be entry points after the 11+ at 13 and 16. :indiff:
    Yeah, that'd be fair. Anyway, I think people overestimate how screwed the people who didn't get into a grammar school would be. They can still sit GCSEs etc lol. One size doesn't fit all.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Someone has probably already said this, but I can't be arsed to spend half an hour to trawl through the thread to find out.

    Wouldn't it make more sense instead to ensure that bright kids from disadvantaged backgrounds get the education that they need to fulfil their potential prior to even getting to GCSE's, never mind university? Otherwise I suppose what you would be trying to do is shove a new engine in an otherwise knackered old sports car, the damage has already been done and trying to 'fix it' with one hit is going to cause more problems than good.


    IoW, have compulsory selection across the education system. Bring private day schools into the state education system, remove their charitable status by making them 'proper' schools, and have half of their intake made up of LEA funded students that have been sifted according to ability, rather than sifted according to mummy and daddy's bank balance and/or pushiness...


    Likewise you need to ensure that those who are less suited to academic study are taught a curriculum that best suits their inherent skills. Nobody is born a useless waster, they are just made so by a lack of appropriate opportunities or support, the later quite often being lacking from their parents, so the education and social services system ought to step in proactively to fill that void rather than let children slide into what amounts to nothingness, or perhaps even worse than that...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marsha2112)
    They're not giving 'dumb kids a chance to become clever' by the grade boost, but clever kids with potential, who had a rubbish disadvantaged educationl. Believe me some things you cannot self teach, for example the only way I can understand maths is to have someone EXPLAIN it to me, and my maths teacher is **** so I got my mum to do this and went on the internet, however without my mum I would have got A or B, not A*, as nothing on the internet can stand in front of me and explain to me why things work.
    And what you are saying is unfair, that people must be self motivated, blah blah. Do you honestly think every public schooler with AAA is self motivated? Some got AAA JUST BECAUSE their parents locked them in their room for 4 hours. Or the school did.

    Now if you still don't believe me, lets do an example: 2 pupils of exactly the same IQ/potential, etc. Pupil A goes to a great school so goes home, does 2 hours of homework, understands everything and gets 3As. Pupil B goes to a crap school where half the teachers are supplies, so when he goes home he has to spend 4 hours, 2 doing the homework and 2 teaching himself what he missed to get 3As. Now why does B have to work harder than A for the same result, just because his parents live in a rough area. Because life's unfair? If B worked for 2 hours a night the same as A did, he'd get ABB, so isn't that discrimination to make him work twice as hard for the same uni place? If his offer was ABB he would be exactly as capable as Pupil A who's parents are rich.

    Lastly, did you see the Oxbridge study that showed on average a state schooler has to get 2 grades higher than a private schooler for the same place at uni, (all other factors included), maybe this policy is just making up for this.
    yes.

    one child should not be disadvantaged

    what if all you others were adopted as newborns by chinese miners, would you grow up to go to university, or be a miner etc.

    comparison: adopted by middle-upperclass go to eton and cambridge.
    adopted by a one parent family of 7 in possilpark glasgow...

    this should not be a certainty for people in this country, were you are born shouldnt decide this. imagine all the inventors and great scientists lost because they were disadvantaged as 0-13 year-olds
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    god why do people rope the less well off= chavs, some people need get off their middle classes glass, and see the real world

    this is a bit over the top, if they made education a lot fairer, its not grammar schools that will do, all this 11+ stuff, cos you can fail that and still be a very good student, but get written off at 11 is well shocking, as well everyone flowers at a different rate

    all this postcode stuff, yes the middle class love this, people buying up the houses in a area near a good school, just to get a postcode within that area, so they can send their child to that school, which people who can't afford to live there are well pushed out

    this whole thing is pretty bad, and well i come from a school that lower then average GCSE, more kids failed maths and english then passed, even small number got a C or above

    but then people in this thread seem to be pretty offensive to the well less off, its not easy for some, some have to balance more then just getting the marks they need for uni
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Marsha2112)
    They're not giving 'dumb kids a chance to become clever' by the grade boost, but clever kids with potential, who had a rubbish disadvantaged educationl. Believe me some things you cannot self teach, for example the only way I can understand maths is to have someone EXPLAIN it to me, and my maths teacher is **** so I got my mum to do this and went on the internet, however without my mum I would have got A or B, not A*, as nothing on the internet can stand in front of me and explain to me why things work.
    And what you are saying is unfair, that people must be self motivated, blah blah. Do you honestly think every public schooler with AAA is self motivated? Some got AAA JUST BECAUSE their parents locked them in their room for 4 hours. Or the school did.

    Now if you still don't believe me, lets do an example: 2 pupils of exactly the same IQ/potential, etc. Pupil A goes to a great school so goes home, does 2 hours of homework, understands everything and gets 3As. Pupil B goes to a crap school where half the teachers are supplies, so when he goes home he has to spend 4 hours, 2 doing the homework and 2 teaching himself what he missed to get 3As. Now why does B have to work harder than A for the same result, just because his parents live in a rough area. Because life's unfair? If B worked for 2 hours a night the same as A did, he'd get ABB, so isn't that discrimination to make him work twice as hard for the same uni place? If his offer was ABB he would be exactly as capable as Pupil A who's parents are rich.

    Lastly, did you see the Oxbridge study that showed on average a state schooler has to get 2 grades higher than a private schooler for the same place at uni, (all other factors included), maybe this policy is just making up for this.
    Now I respect that you have a tough time, hell I could be in the category. But do you know what you proved - you're a state schooler with self-motivation so you don't need the grade boost. What are you trying to say - you need it?

    I didn't say every public schooler was self-motivated but I do believe they worked hard because at the end of the day, regardless of anything else, it's what you put on the damn exam paper that gives you your A.

    Tbh, that's life! There's NO formula that if you put in X amount of hours, you get this! I can't that, you can't and neither can the government can with this system.

    At the end of the day, everyone has to put in different amounts of work to get what they want, because, hello, we're all different! I don't think you've grasped that point yet. Because tbh, your example can go the other way, i.e.:

    2 pupils of exactly the same IQ/potential etc. Pupil A goes to a great school so goes home, does 3 hours of homework, but *doesn't* understand everything and he missed to get 3As. Pupil B goes to a crap school where half the teachers are supplies, so when he goes he has to spend 3 hours, 1.5 for doing the homework and 1.5 to self-teach. He gets 3As. (To make things fair they do the same amount of work). Now because of the system, why should Pupil B get the grade boost because of his background, when Pupil A clearly struggled and is not entitled to it? Isn't that unfair and discriminating *against* people from great schools? I.e. one of the biggest flaws in this system?

    Btw, tbh, how the bloody **** is that discrimination to make him (in response to your Q at the end) work twice as hard for the same uni place? WHAT A FAIL! Of course, in life, people have to work harder than others because ffs we're all different! We're not all robots that compute at the same time as others! Personally, if someone is made to "work harder" for the same uni place, that's to ******* see if they are capable of that place. If you're not, you don't get in. Simple as that. And tbh, isn't it fair that the uni actually gave the ******* offer in the first place to SEE if he had true potential? If you want to get in, work ******* hard for it. And that brings me back to the point of regardless of anything, you have put in sheer hard work. I can't change the fact that it's fact people put in different amounts of work. Why? It's common sense! What you put in, you get out - FOR YOU. Who gives a **** a private school pupil does 2 hours a night whereas you do 4? What's for him. This is YOU! In fact, school backgrounds doesn't even have to come into this:

    Pupil C and D have same income/potential etc etc, both go to the SAME state school but C has to put in 4 hours a night, one puts in 2. Get AAA. Isn't that just life?

    This is REALITY! But this is not about working harder/less than the other applicant. **** no. It's about working for YOU. What YOU put in is what YOU get out.

    Any more questions? Because tbh, life isn't fair and it will never be. Society is flawed and the UK education system is screwed. That's how it is. In fact everything isn't fair. Life isn't something you can coast through. Everything YOU put in is what YOU get out of.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by robinson999)
    god why do people rope the less well off= chavs, some people need get off their middle classes glass, and see the real world

    this is a bit over the top, if they made education a lot fairer, its not grammar schools that will do, all this 11+ stuff, cos you can fail that and still be a very good student, but get written off at 11 is well shocking, as well everyone flowers at a different rate

    all this postcode stuff, yes the middle class love this, people buying up the houses in a area near a good school, just to get a postcode within that area, so they can send their child to that school, which people who can't afford to live there are well pushed out

    this whole thing is pretty bad, and well i come from a school that lower then average GCSE, more kids failed maths and english then passed, even small number got a C or above

    but then people in this thread seem to be pretty offensive to the well less off, its not easy for some, some have to balance more then just getting the marks they need for uni
    That's why we should have grammar schools, but if people don't do well in the 11+, they can transfer to the grammar at the end of a year if they do well in exams.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I don't know why people have this random belief that if grammar schools were brought back in, they'd be exactly like the old system.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
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 13, 2009
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • 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.