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

    6
    ReputationRep:
    Dunno if there's already been a thread on this (I imagine there's been many similar debates, as the idea has been flying about for a few weeks)

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

    It's all social mobility stuff! So kids from disadvantaged backgrounds should be given an official uni applications boost (even though I imagine many admissions tutors already consider educational background in decision making/offer setting). What are people's thoughts? I just think there should be more focus on the 13 years of schooling before university

    (In oxbridge forum as Mandelson is gonna shine his uber-spotlight on Oxbridge, scary times!)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well I'm in two minds about this. The majority of me thinks that your uni entrance should have no bearing on your circumstances and it should purely be based on academic merit. There is a little niggle though that people from lesser schools are at a bit of a disadvantage to someone who pays a fortune for the best education from the best teacher. Most people will learn more if it is a small class and they get lots of extra help rather than being at the back of a 9-5 college that does no extra classes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Aye, no doubt we'll end up discussing Grammar schools soon enough. I saw the same topic on TV a week or so ago, although I can't remember the programme.

    I don't know whether giving them a "boost" is the right thing to do, but neither is favouring somebody because they're rich. Personally, I reckon it would be better to remove all Private schools and make them all state, and all equally well taught. However, this is probably nigh on impossible.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=991037

    There is another thread on this topic.
    Offline

    13
    Tbh, the logic is flawed. He thinks that if you're poor you're directly thick. If you're rich, you're directly intelligent. No, that's wrong!

    **** me! If anything he favours the chavs.

    Tbh, who is he to say this? Labour has ****** up education and this is not making it better.

    "One of the effects would be to “bump out” many middle-class candidates at high-performing independent and grammar schools from popular courses at leading universities."

    Idiot. If they are suitable, why shouldn't they get in? That's positive discrimination!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    "One of the effects would be to “bump out” many middle-class candidates at high-performing independent and grammar schools from popular courses at leading universities."

    Idiot. If they are suitable, why shouldn't they get in? That's positive discrimination!
    The point being that you increase the variety of people in professions such as medicine, the law, and academia. That can only be a good thing.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    IMO, Oxbridge should remain as is. The admissions tutors know what they are doing.

    The state school system needs an overhaul, where education is valued again. But also more in the way of vocational and skills training for students who are inclined that way.

    There is also the nature/nurture debate about intelligence. However, this article does seem to address it, with the idea that students who acheive 60% above the average would be positively benefitted.

    Even so, an Oxbridge course, you hit the ground running... there isn't time to teach a pupil from a substandard school how to write an essay... but maybe the idea from KCL would be good, a zero year to bring certain students up to the right level?
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by im so academic)
    Tbh, the logic is flawed. He thinks that if you're poor you're directly thick. If you're rich, you're directly intelligent. No, that's wrong!

    **** me! If anything he favours the chavs.

    Tbh, who is he to say this? Labour has ****** up education and this is not making it better.

    "One of the effects would be to “bump out” many middle-class candidates at high-performing independent and grammar schools from popular courses at leading universities."

    Idiot. If they are suitable, why shouldn't they get in? That's positive discrimination!
    he's saying if students from really awful schools manage to attain 60% higher than their peers, then this scheme/idea should apply.

    He's basically acknowledging that some people do have structural barriers to getting into university, such as going to a really awful school, or not having parental involvement in their learning (i would suggest it is not just poorer families in which this occurs though!)

    but there's the crux of the problem... sticking a band-aid on gaping wound... they know the state schools are in a mess, this is practically an admission of this fact. so why are they not doing something to actually even the playing field, instead of this ridiculous finger pointing and blame placed on universities.

    :rolleyes:
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Adorno)
    The point being that you increase the variety of people in professions such as medicine, the law, and academia. That can only be a good thing.
    But if that means discriminating against people with a certain income or who comes from a certain school then that's wrong.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Miss Prankster Pixie)
    he's saying if students from really awful schools manage to attain 60% higher than their peers, then this scheme/idea should apply.
    how does he decide what is an awful school? what if the top pupils are at a C/D grade level? and also, doesn't that prove that the "really awful schools" are a sham?

    He's basically acknowledging that some people do have structural barriers to getting into university, such as going to a really awful school, or not having parental involvement in their learning (i would suggest it is not just poorer families in which this occurs though!)
    really awful school =/= barrier to getting into university - in most cases.

    but there's the crux of the problem... sticking a band-aid on gaping wound... they know the state schools are in a mess, this is practically an admission of this fact. so why are they not doing something to actually even the playing field, instead of this ridiculous finger pointing and blame placed on universities.

    :rolleyes:
    yeah! e.g. sorting out primary/secondary schools? the root of the problem?

    once again this is targeting the "effect" of the cause and effect situation, rather than the "cause".

    either way,this is an unfair system.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    But if that means discriminating against people with a certain income or who comes from a certain school then that's wrong.
    Except there's already plenty of discrimination against people with a certain income or who come from certain schools - it's just it's discrimination against the poor rather than the rich. Personally, I find discrimination against the rich far more palatable than what we have presently. If you read the article it talks about the problems they have of getting doctors to work in working-class areas. This isn't a new problem: if you look at South Wales, for example, there was a shortage of doctors in the 1960s and so they brought in lots of doctors from India to plug the gap. We're now in a similar position again because the middle-class doctors from private schools don't want to practice on council estates. That's what they want to try and change.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by im so academic)
    how does he decide what is an awful school? what if the top pupils are at a C/D grade level? and also, doesn't that prove that the "really awful schools" are a sham?
    the article described how KCL have a zero-year for their medics from disadvantaged backgrounds. IMO, this is moving in the right direction (for the moment at least).


    really awful school =/= barrier to getting into university - in most cases.
    No, and i'm living proof of that.

    But a disadvantaged background can be a barrier to getting into the TOP universities.

    As a for instance, there are some schools who will not teach above a certain level. they just won't do it. i've been through that system, and had to teach myelf, luckily as a mature student, i knew what i was doing, but that is not the case for all standard age students.

    There was another person I read about who, despite having 9 As for GCSE, and 4 As for A-level, their college told them they would not support their application to Oxbridge, as it would take too much time/effort for the college.

    I'm not in support of Mandelson's scheme... I think it's a load of horse-s***. But I do think there needs to be some way of bringing students up to the standards they are capable of.

    See my post above the one where I replied to you: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...24&postcount=7
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    really awful school =/= barrier to getting into university - in most cases.
    The whole point here is to help pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds gain entry into the most academic and prestigious universities; where there is a barrier to entry. What you are saying here goes against a lot of the research and statistics that point to the opposite conclusion.

    I would question anyone who thinks that because this isn't targeting the root cause it is a bad idea. Treating the root cause will take several years (probably an election too) and does not treat the 'symptoms' immediately. When I look at how representative the best universities are in this country, I consider that a failure of the university system as much as a failure of the state education system.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Miss Prankster Pixie)
    the article described how KCL have a zero-year for their medics from disadvantaged backgrounds. IMO, this is moving in the right direction (for the moment at least).
    and who's going to pay for this?


    No, and i'm living proof of that.

    But a disadvantaged background can be a barrier to getting into the TOP universities.

    As a for instance, there are some schools who will not teach above a certain level. they just won't do it. i've been through that system, and had to teach myelf, luckily as a mature student, i knew what i was doing, but that is not the case for all standard age students.

    There was another person I read about who, despite having 9 As for GCSE, and 4 As for A-level, their college told them they would not support their application to Oxbridge, as it would take too much time/effort for the college.

    I'm not in support of Mandelson's scheme... I think it's a load of horse-s***. But I do think there needs to be some way of bringing students up to the standards they are capable of.

    See my post above the one where I replied to you: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...24&postcount=7
    tbh, I agree with you. I'm living proof as well. I'm living it - now. likewise, I don't think that bumping grades is going to solve the answer, but what I do believe in is improving schools IN THE FIRST PLACE - the root of the problem.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Why are these idiots in charge? I can't tell you how angry it makes me..
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Fiasco)
    The whole point here is to help pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds gain entry into the most academic and prestigious universities; where there is a barrier to entry. What you are saying here goes against a lot of the research and statistics that point to the opposite conclusion.

    I would question anyone who thinks that because this isn't targeting the root cause it is a bad idea. Treating the root cause will take several years (probably an election too) and does not treat the 'symptoms' immediately. When I look at how representative the best universities are in this country, I consider that a failure of the university system as much as a failure of the state education system.
    note I said "into university" NOT "most academic and prestigious universities" - because yeah, you're right! it is a barrier to entry! not against you on that - because it's true!

    but tbh, you are right about the second point, but this is not the way forward. however surely it would be better for treating the root cause that benefits the long term rather than this system which benefits the short term?

    and yeah, the whole education system in this country is just screwed. just screwed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It all comes down to the fact that schools are crap, and Oxford cannot magically take students that don't exist. If there are a higher proportion of private educated students getting the top grades, then more private educated students will study at Oxford.

    The problem is the schools, not Oxford.

    Also, I think, perhaps even more important is the parents and familial environment. Working class people with no experience of higher education, and even more telling, no desire or inclination, will have a hugely detrimental effect on the children.

    How can we expect more poor students when for most of them, their schools are crap and their parents don't support them?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Xerophelistica)
    Why are these idiots in charge? I can't tell you how angry it makes me..
    will conservative be any better? because tbh, that's our only option left and I don't think he really means what he says about "education, education, education".
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by im so academic)
    will conservative be any better? because tbh, that's our only option left and I don't think he really means what he says about "education, education, education".
    In my opinion, this isn't even an issue about parties, it's an issue about common sense. People in this thread have summed it up better than I would be able to when they talk about how it's the school's problem, not Oxford's problem.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Tipareth)
    It all comes down to the fact that schools are crap, and Oxford cannot magically take students that don't exist. If there are a higher proportion of private educated students getting the top grades, then more private educated students will study at Oxford.

    The problem is the schools, not Oxford.

    Also, I think, perhaps even more important is the parents and familial environment. Working class people with no experience of higher education, and even more telling, no desire or inclination, will have a hugely detrimental effect on the children.

    How can we expect more poor students when for most of them, their schools are crap and their parents don't support them?
    :ditto:

    tbh, if we go to the very core of the problems, it's the kids of today!

    I don't think half even care about education, and the other problems (e.g. the schools) doesn't make it better.

    tbh, it's also because of the lack of discipline.

    nowadays kids can run riots, do illegal things (drugs etc) and no one gives a crap. why? no control or discipline whatsoever.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.