Turn on thread page Beta
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    This is just another way of showing how labour are failing. They claim state schools are as good as private schools at educating kids. So, why do kids from poor backgrounds (who, generally speaking) will go to state schools NEED a headstart if they're being educated just as well?

    Someone posted earlier: bring back grammar schools for smart, but poorer students. Totally agree, though in the nancy pantsy politically correct world of labour government that would be discrimination between clever and thick kids. (Can you tell I dont like labour?!!) I also agree with what someone said about kids who would "benefit" from this possibly wouldnt want to, as it could mean they went to a good university but not on their own merits - something which would personally haunt me.

    Top university places should be for the people who get the best exam results. End of story.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by creak)
    Could any of those expressing such 'outrage' at this idea please explain to me exactly what the proposals being made are, and how exactly they will impact on the grades of 'poorer' students? The only mention of a two grade 'head start' is in the opening paragraph, and maybe I'm missing something but there's no more information than that in this article; the rest is horribly vague. So what exactly is it you're all screaming about?
    Yeap, the article is stupidly vague.

    (Original post by Jonty99)
    Maybe. You can't assume. It's not fair on those who ARE middleclass, seeing their achievements get devalued based on guesswork.
    That's why I pointed out earlier that I only agreed in principle with the following since the article only vaguely mentions something or other about grades:
    Mr Ebdon said: "I think what all universities are in the business of looking for is potential among the students rather than achievement."

    However he added that because students from better background achieved more did not mean that they had a higher potential.
    Some students will do poorly at school because of a lack of guidance from parents and teachers, instead of a lack of talent/potential; it is these students that you want to get into university.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anony mouse)
    I am not surprised. This is the mentality of socialism.
    Disagree.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Why does everyone forget this: No National Curriculum! No "one-size-fits-all" strategy!
    I don't think the NC makes much of a difference because for GCSEs and A Levels there isn't one.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by philjw)
    No, they're not academically equal. If they were academically equal they'd have the same grades. Life isn't Billy Elliot and universities can't dole out extra UCAS points for "trying hard" - everyone's got some sort of sob story they can tell about how they could have done better if they went to a better school/had more money/had both parents still around/didn't have so many days off sick/had been fed more Marmite when they were younger...
    Again, you're trying to simplify something very complex. There's more to academic attainment than natural ability!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    While we can't know what grades someone would get living in different situations, there's plenty of sociological evidence to show working-class people are disadvantaged by the education system, which I'm not going to again. Besides, middle-class grades wouldn't change; they'd just have to compete against people they should be competing against anyway if the system was fair. Which is surely positive for the country as the people who are best for the job would get the position, rather than the one with richer parents.

    Oh, and grammar schools really don't work.
    Elaborate?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Schmokie Dragon)
    This kind of thing makes me angry. Instead of dealing with the problem properly, politicians think 'levelling the playing field' or 'giving less advantaged students a boost' is the way to solve the issue. No, it just screws over people who have really worked to be where they are. Sometimes a survival-of-the-fittest system is better than positive descrimination or manipulation, however 'unfair' it might seem.

    No. Improve education, make student loans at a level accessible to everyone and accept the fact that some students don't have the motivation or the brains to make it to decent universities.
    Well said. A problem does exist and, to an extent, it needs to be addressed.

    However, artificially "bumping up" grades corrupts the whole nature of the qualification and undervalues the efforts of those who have worked their utmost.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Elipsis)
    I'm going to retire before my kids turn 16, and send them to private school whilst claiming a 2 grade bonus and EMA. I hate this country.
    :rolleyes:

    If you don't like it here, feel free to leave, nobody's stopping you!

    Hmm, haven't read the BBC article just yet. Time to get cracking :ninja:

    Hmm, having read the article, i'm not sure where i stand. Instead of being somewhat unfair to middle class candidates who have got the grades, they should push the already qualified GPs to go and work in the lower class areas; a much cheaper response in terms of political capital.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexlemon2)
    I would assume it would be one of their grades bumped up by 2, surely it cannot be as rediculous to assume a CCC grade student would be bumped up to AAA :eek:

    Rediculous proposal.
    I think this is exactly what it is saying. I know Leeds Uni have a similar programme at the moment where students of surrounding schools who come from low-income families can sign up to so that their offers are up to 2 grades less. I am not entirely sure what it entails, I just know a friend of mine sent in an essay (which she had a couple of months to write) - nothing academic - then her offer for radiography went from BCC to DDD.

    I, personally, think it is totally unfair. Especially on all those students who actually work for their grades! Plus, these kids that get a headstart, probably won't get through uni (I realise this might not be the case, but if they can't get in without the grades, they will struggle), and then what if they are not allowed to go back or drop -out? They've wasted a spot which a hard-working student could have had.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    People get greades according to how hard they work and the education they are provided, so surely, the government shoul simply improve education, that way it would just be according to how hard we work (and natural ability which i not effected by how much money we have). I have NO idea if this would benefit me, due to my parent being divorces and of different "classes", but I think it's a very silly plan since people in state schools, sixth forms and college still get As and A*s.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    Again, you're trying to simplify something very complex. There's more to academic attainment than natural ability!
    And you're confused. "Trying hard" and getting ABB does not make you the academic equal of someone with AAA. I'm not saying anything about the (extremely nebulous) concept of natural ability. I'm saying someone with ABB is not the academic equal of someone with AAA, and you're saying they are if they've tried really hard. What piffle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)


    If you don't like it here, feel free to leave, nobody's stopping you!
    Last time I checked this country was a democracy, and this thread was asking for opinions on government policy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Im confused. There's gota be a definative line between poor and not poor here then. So if a family desperately wants their child to go to university, they just get crappy jobs or make themselves poorer. How is that going to help?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    It's the opposite of assuming working-class people are 'thick'. The scheme recognises that in the current system, grades aren't awarded based on someone's natural ability, but from their background. I'm interested in the 'sociological crap' you could bring in to support your argument, as most sociological studies in this area show that working-class children are disadvantaged by the education system, and would actually support these measures.
    Huh?

    Explain that please.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Hmm, having read the article, i'm not sure where i stand. Instead of being somewhat unfair to middle class candidates who have got the grades, they should push the already qualified GPs to go and work in the lower class areas; a much cheaper response in terms of political capital.
    Yes, exactly. Whilst the proposals are ridiculous and would take an upheaval to enforce, the government has been pushed into a corner to look for solutions to a difficult problem. It's the GPs that have already qualified that are causing the problem; in refusing to work in lower income areas there is a shortage of healthcare coverage, and the government should really grab this bull by its horns.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiritedAway)
    They've wasted a spot which a hard-working student could have had.
    This happens all the time with the crap that is predicated grades. Someone gets predicted AAA but then cocks up their exams for whatever reasons; at the same time someone gets predicted BBB so therefore can't apply/gets rejected from same place the predicted AAA student applied to but then gets AAA in their exams...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pangea)
    This is just another way of showing how labour are failing. They claim state schools are as good as private schools at educating kids. So, why do kids from poor backgrounds (who, generally speaking) will go to state schools NEED a headstart if they're being educated just as well?
    Labour don't make that claim though, do they. No one does.

    As an aside, could any of the pro-grammar lobby in here show that the grammar system has improved social mobility in those areas of the UK that still have state-funded grammar schools, compared to the areas that don't?
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by rockrunride)
    Yes, exactly. Whilst the proposals are ridiculous and would take an upheaval to enforce, the government has been pushed into a corner to look for solutions to a difficult problem. It's the GPs that have already qualified that are causing the problem; in refusing to work in lower income areas there is a shortage of healthcare coverage, and the government should really grab this bull by its horns.
    Do the GPs have some sort of union? Because otherwise the government could surely stop financing GPs opening in areas already covered?

    (Original post by Elipsis)
    Last time I checked this country was a democracy, and this thread was asking for opinions on government policy.
    Lol dude, i was just doing what righties say with regards to immigrants: "If you don't like this country how it is, you can leave" :yes: It's teh humah! :woo:

    (Original post by Creak)
    As an aside, could any of the pro-grammar lobby in here show that the grammar system has improved social mobility in those areas of the UK that still have state-funded grammar schools, compared to the areas that don't?
    Before i begin, my views do not represent those of my party, who tell me i have a Tory education policy But even so, i go to a Grammar School. If by social mobility you mean the ability of poor kids to get into good schooling, then the grammar system as it stands is a complete farce. Almost all of the kids in my school are middle class kids, because their parents can afford to send their sons to private tutoring or are determined enough to push their kids to achieve. However, back when the grammar system was present across the board, this was hardly the case. People simply took the test and were selected based on their intellect, and the effect of "parental pressure", which is always present to varying degrees, would have been somewhat ameliorated anyway because of the greater number of places available; the smart or hard working kids as well as the kids forced by their parents got in :yes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArtGoblin)
    But surely someone who's had to fight all these factors, and has still come out with decent grades is academically equal to the middle-class pupil who has been helped by his parents, is more respected by the teachers and has the material benefits of coming from a higher income family. If their positions were switched, then it is highly likely their grades would too. Isn't it wrong to deny the working-class student a chance to study at the country's best universities and to get a higher paid job just because someone else happened to have been born in a family that gave them these advantages?
    You just paint everyone with the same brush. Plenty from poor backgrounds could get CCC. What's distinguishing between the ones who are actually clever and the wasters who shouldn't even be considering going to university.

    I'm quickly becoming fed up with this country's university obsession. Not everyone is book-smart.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    You know what, why is this wrong?
    What's wrong is that if private school students are spoonfed to get 3As that's fine, but a clever kid from a crap state school has to work their ass off to get 3As. Now isn't that double standards? If state school students worked the same amount as private schoolers, they'd probably get about 2 grades lower. If you put 100 private schoolers into a crap state school, half of them would fail instantly. So if they'd been born to someone else, they wouldn't have had a chance to go to a top uni just because of their school. Why can private school people be spoonfed and have good teaching, while a state school person has to put up with loud classes, bad teachers and makee the time up on their own? That's truly unfair, don't you think.
 
 
 
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 13, 2009
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
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.