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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm glad we don't follow the English system and still have academic selection (Although if Catriona ******* Ruane gets her way...). It allows working class pupils (such as myself) an opportunity to get into the best schools and get a shot at Oxbridge, not because of where I live or how much my parents earn, but because of my own academic ability. If the government tried to give me a two grade head start because I'm from a low income family I'd be more than offended.

    The stereotype that poor = chav is also really irritating, also that if you lived on a council estate you must be a chav. I am both and am nowhere near a scally, thank you very much. Although it is amusing to see the reactions of middle-class people at school when I tell them I used to live on the scalliest estate in the entire area!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Personally i think it's a ridiculous idea.

    But i'm amused by the number of times the word 'chav' has been used to describe poor people in this thread, it's like some of you have never experienced the real world at all.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theciz)
    I'm glad we don't follow the English system and still have academic selection (Although if Catriona ******* Ruane gets her way...). It allows working class pupils (such as myself) an opportunity to get into the best schools and get a shot at Oxbridge, not because of where I live or how much my parents earn, but because of my own academic ability. If the government tried to give me a two grade head start because I'm from a low income family I'd be more than offended.

    The stereotype that poor = chav is also really irritating, also that if you lived on a council estate you must be a chav. I am both and am nowhere near a scally, thank you very much. Although it is amusing to see the reactions of middle-class people at school when I tell them I used to live on the scalliest estate in the entire area!
    yes, that's why I think we should reintroduce grammars in England.

    It's also worth noting that Northern Ireland (with that "failure" of a grammar school system :rolleyes: ) outperforms us in England every year in public exams. (I know there could be and ARE other factors, but the school system is a major factor.)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    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.
    what if there are no grammar schools within your local area, in my London Borough there are none, and well if your put into a normally school, after you have taken all the "gifted" children out, your not giving a good working environment, for those left behind because that failed by 1% say, or that student say messed about all his school life, gets to GCSE age and goes hold on what am i doing, i want to make something of my life and walks away with 10 A*, we shouldn't have selective schools, as well each child should be allowed top class education no matter what, funded by the state
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonty99)
    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?
    genes vary, toxic drugs vary etc etc all from before birth. genes make a small difference usually apart from rain man. breeding a genious family and putting their children in slums will make them underachieve, so genes have little impact, mostly its interactions espescially parening and the environment. so...i was making the point that there shouldnt really be intelligent ones and not intelligent ones as they both have good potential when born. leaving that aside, we have several different qualifications for the "less academic" who cant keep up, so in a way they are separated. if a child fails a test but is smart then they are disadvantaged by being shoved aside into the lower schools, along with similarly disadvantaged children, in a bad environment with no competition, because of this they will likely fail the next test.
    so we cant avoid the fact that children 0-13 shouldnt be disadvantaged
    by their environment, we are losing potentially great people.
    i am however keen about changing the current system as it is also crap.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    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.
    I don't think anyone really sees the problem, that if (to make a fair experiment) the 2 students are CLONES, with the same level of self motivation, the one in a private school is MORE LIKELY to do better than the one in disruptive classes. And to get the same grades, this identical student would have to work harder in a state school.
    And I'm in a fairly good school but (not blaming anyone, 100% my fault) I was capable of good grades, however if I was in a school where I wasn't allowed out till I finished my homework, I could have got about 5 more A*s, and that's reality for most people. For A levels, I'm guessing a bad school would ON AVERAGE disadvantage an AVERAGE student by 2 grades, so this boost makes sense. If you sent some Chavmaster to Eton, then they'd probably be able to get 2 better grades out of them. FORGET self motivation, it's a simple fact that for most people, your school affects your grades. Even a study showed borderline pupils in grammar schools were a year ahead than their state school friends with similar talent. It really does, I see it with my friends, average ones in good schools get pulled up while clever ones in bad schools get pulled down. That's why there's access schemes, etc. This is just another access scheme, which does make things more fair.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigDave56)
    Decent state schools in the first place is the answer. Bring back Grammer schools and improve comps.
    ironic :p: , but I totally agree with you, more grammar schools would help bring equality in education between rich and poor students
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Since when does family income affect a childs ability to succeed in education? Absolute nonsense.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Sometimes I wonder what thought processes lead to an idea such as this...it's ridicculous. The labour party wanting social mobility is only natural...but grades should be awarded on merit of achievment; ambition, ability and effort...these are the skills that will make a sucessful university student and/or valuable member of the workforce. If someone is just handed extra grades it makes the entire education system a farce...and means the working population of the future would be less prepared, less able and less motivated and that doesnt even account for those who actually earn their grades...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    LOL at the number of people who didn't bother to read the article past the headline/summary.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oh-WOW)
    That is rather unfair.
    My mum and dad are not overly well of. They're middle class. But they've worked very hard for the money they've got. Neither were brought up in middle class families. They both grew up on farms and had little money. Dad still works on a farm and does not get paid well but my mum h as studied very hard over the years as a nurse. Shes done various diplomas and due to this is well paid for a nurse. And because of this I would get penalised. I would have to work harder at school to get better grades because of these proposals. while having to also work at my part time job because i don't qualify for ema or grants for uni. and my mum and dad can't afford to fund university.
    I'm in the same boat as you my friend. My parents earn only £500 a year over the limit (my mums a nurse too, and my dad was a farmer, is now a dc), yet i've got to find over a grand a year to cover the accomodation costs alone on top of the loan! I've just worked 12 days straight at my lifeguard job to get some extra money for myself to pay for it, and if i ended up at uni having worked so hard for my aab and worked for money at the same time, i think i'd feel a little hard done by if there was someone sat next to me on all all the bursaries and that and had their grade upped by two.
    I'm all for people earning below x-amount getting grants as i believe everyone should have uni open to them, i'm just dubious about the current boundaries and 'grade - upping' especially in the curent economic climate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    CAN I PLEASE STRESS TO EVERYBODY THAT THIS IS ONLY AN IDEA. IT'S NOT A POLICY. THE TITLE IS MISLESDING.

    "Business Secretary Lord Mandelson is looking at the idea, and a variety of others, to increase social mobility."

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8192234.stm

    So, let's not panic, yet. Personally I think this is positive discrimination too far. However, I would perhaps support a short term measure of a one grade head start. It has been proven that those who have grade BBB at a poor school are more likely to do better at uni than private school kid also on BBB.

    I think Les Ebdon gets it spot on when he says:

    "I think what all universities are in the business of looking for is potential among the students rather than achievement."
    Offline

    0
    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:
    What have poor kids got to do with chavs? Are you suggesting poor people are criminals?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by GeorgEGNT)
    Since when does family income affect a childs ability to succeed in education? Absolute nonsense.
    if parents have the money to pay a tutor the pupil will do better

    2 same children different universes

    universe 1- child gets tutor
    universe 2- child doesnt

    who does better?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just Another Student)
    I'm not saying that the proposal is fantastic and after 12 years of New Labour we shouldn't have poor kids and poor schools.
    Ad Hominem isn’t my thing but that really is a silly thing to say. In what sense was “New Labour” ever touted as a silver bullet to poverty? Challenges do not remain static; there is no finite list to which any government can work its way through. Poverty is relative and it would not be conductive of an adult discussion to compare and talk about poverty over say the past 8 years with what we see today; especially after the numerous ladders which have been thrown down to the lower echelons of society.

    To that you could say we have seen a decline in social mobility, and we have. That does not negate the fact that statutory obligations now exist and precedents have been set that guarantee education and training up to 19 and entitlement provisions like the winter fuel allowances EMA grants or University grants. Is it perfect no, but who expected perfection?

    (Original post by Just Another Student)
    Of course discrimination is discrimination whatever way you look at it, so this is a bit of a catch 22 situation. It's about picking the fairest option. I'd go with Mandy's one and hurry up and get schools improving so this policy can go to bed
    Again, this is short sited; discrimination certainly isn’t discrimination as you put it. In your next sentence you say “it’s about picking the fairest option”; in what sense therefore could you start the paragraph with “discrimination is discrimination” as if it were chiefly a negative thing? The fairest option more often than not requires an element of discrimination to re-level the playing field, which i would argue will not be level until we overhaul capitalism. (but thats just me)

    You conclude with support for the policy as long as it is “put to bed” after a time, again this assumes that such measures are silver bullets to poverty; they are not. Such measures will always be needed. If universities were selecting upon potential such measures wouldn’t be needed in the first place. There is no end game there will always be people in this situation who ought to be given an opportunity to change their lot.

    I personally don’t think a two grade inflation is required just simply a statuary requirement that universities select a certain percentage of pupils from certain bands within society. With a top up system of academically untapped students and bourgeois spoilt brats.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I just love how they talk about "positive discrimination" - its still discrimination whether its positive or negative and is therefore inherently wrong!

    Oh and life's unfair, get over it :P My mum worked her bum off when we were little to save up to pay for a private school education for us, and we are just over the income limit so dont receive grants or anything, and yeh we struggle, but I worked damn HARD for my grades, and noone is going to take that achievement away from me by saying "oh its cos you went to private school" - no, no, I WORKED for my grades, as anyone can do anywhere! Equally some people at my school didn't work hard and therefore didn't get good grades. And if my mum has saved up that money to pay for me to go to private school thats her choice, its her money, she has worked for it so can spend it how she likes, and I'd have been really peeved if some tosser from state school who hadn't worked half as hard as I did got into uni ahead of me simply cos of this grade bump, its ridiculous - anyone can get the grades they want from any school if they just put the effort in! And life isn't fair and equal and never will be, the government should stop discriminating against middle class families who have worked hard to send their children to private school, its their money and their choice.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Just Another Student)
    What have poor kids got to do with chavs? Are you suggesting poor people are criminals?
    Are you suggesting all chavs are criminals?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Are you suggesting all chavs are criminals?
    Depends what you are defining as a chav? Some people say it is background some people say it means thugs. I say the word chav is a word with no meaning.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Those who equate "less economically well" to "chavs" are ******* morons.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B6ENH)
    Then when the student starts higher education they might find it too difficult because they haven't got the necessary grade profile they need as a foundation to build their studies on.
    For 90% of degrees at 90% of uni's you don't need a "foundation" to build your studies on. That is what your first year, which again in the vast majoirty of cases does not count towards your degree is for.
 
 
 
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
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.