Lord Mandelson to favour poor

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.

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.

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).

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/showpost.php?p=20511224&postcount=7

In my opinion, Oxbridge need to take into account an applicant's school before deciding anything. At the moment, state school people do (on average) better at tripos than private school people with the same grades. So it seems Oxbridge need to adjust their admissions policy slightly in favour of state schools slightly (or, more specifically, the less good state schools) (so that the distribution of state school results is the same as private school results).

In my opinion, Oxbridge need to take into account an applicant's school before deciding anything. At the moment, state school people do (on average) better at tripos than private school people with the same grades. So it seems Oxbridge need to adjust their admissions policy slightly in favour of state schools slightly (or, more specifically, the less good state schools) (so that the distribution of state school results is the same as private school results).

Ahem, they do take into account! Well, I know that Cambridge offers the Special Access Scheme if your education is disrupted so instead of adjust the admissions policy, surely this is better?

In addition, they have got to start looking at offering foundation year courses for people who are perhaps extremely intelligent but have had disrupted (if they are not already doing so). But Mandelson's scheme sounds OK. I'd have no problem with it provided Cambridge or Oxford offered 'catch-up' courses to people who they deemed clever enough but not quite ready for university.

Umm, excuse me, how are we going to fund this? Taxes? You really think that would be popular now? Putting the education budget or whatever into this? No. Invest it in improving secondary schools and in primary schools to ensure children can read/write/do basic maths at 11 and get 5Cs inc. English and Maths at 16 as apparently - 50% of school leavers can't do that!

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!

In my opinion, Oxbridge need to take into account an applicant's school before deciding anything. At the moment, state school people do (on average) better at tripos than private school people with the same grades. So it seems Oxbridge need to adjust their admissions policy slightly in favour of state schools slightly (or, more specifically, the less good state schools) (so that the distribution of state school results is the same as private school results).

In addition, they have got to start looking at offering foundation year courses for people who are perhaps extremely intelligent but have had disrupted (if they are not already doing so). But Mandelson's scheme sounds OK. I'd have no problem with it provided Cambridge or Oxford offered 'catch-up' courses to people who they deemed clever enough but not quite ready for university.

Oxford's system has changed slightly so that information about all applicants' schooling is at hand. Afaik, they now do this so that people who look promising but who come from disadvantaged educational backgrounds won't be excluded from the interview process

I'm not in favour of Mandelson's scheme at all. Partly because of the problems of gaps in knowledge (which would hopefully be covered by the foundation years if they were to be introduced but there is the possibility that people may be put off by having to do extra years and get into more debt, esp. for courses like Medicine) but also because of the stigma that could be attached to such students. Whilst I've had few negative remarks about my A Level grades, I got told by my own tutorial partner that I didn't deserve to be here and it's not pleasant

I think that people who went to Westminster or St Paul's or whatever need to man the **** up and accept that they had a damn privileged upbringing and that not everyone was as lucky as them. If someone says you don't deserve to be at Oxford I think it says more about where they deserve to be than anything else (academically as well as morally).

If lowering admissions standards for people at rubbish schools means that there are fewer of that sort of person at Oxbridge, I'm all for it.

In addition, if you survive 7 years of an inner city comp, I'm sure you would acquire the necessary skills in beating someone to death with your bare hands to deal with that situation quickly and maturely.

Just a hunch, but I don't think your school was really what Arrogant Git had in mind when he was talking about tough inner city comprehensives. >_____>

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.

Completely agreed - but I bet most doctors who were once from the working class would not want to work in these council estates either...

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/life_and_style/education/article6788798.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!)

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.

In my opinion, Oxbridge need to take into account an applicant's school before deciding anything. At the moment, state school people do (on average) better at tripos than private school people with the same grades. So it seems Oxbridge need to adjust their admissions policy slightly in favour of state schools slightly (or, more specifically, the less good state schools) (so that the distribution of state school results is the same as private school results).

In addition, they have got to start looking at offering foundation year courses for people who are perhaps extremely intelligent but have had disrupted (if they are not already doing so). But Mandelson's scheme sounds OK. I'd have no problem with it provided Cambridge or Oxford offered 'catch-up' courses to people who they deemed clever enough but not quite ready for university.

Really? That's a very interesting point if it's true. Source?

I like your copy and paste.

It's hardly a "little niggle" though. It's a massive problem. I think something needs doing about it, although to an extent it is.

Having said that, these proposals completely corrupt the idea of qualifications and patronise on all levels.

Page 41.

It's pretty well documented and sort of obvious (but I did sort of conflate tripos with degree course, forgive me).

It closes up a lot (but not completely) towards the top end, but down towards the lower end there's a massive difference between state school and private school performance at higher education.

And, since that only focusses on state schools v private schools, if you're comparing St Snob's Boy's School to Scumbag Comprehensive in Luton or somewhere similarly ****, you can probably consider the grade difference between 'equivalent abilities' to be higher.




But if a course has requirements AAB and you went to scumbag comp and you have (or expect to get) ABB, you're going to have as good adjusted grades as someone with AAB from St Snob's. But you wouldn't be in a position to apply to that course while the public school person would. If you allow the use of the adjusted (fair) score, you can apply to courses more in keeping with your ability.

A-levels aren't like driving tests. They aren't certificates of competence. They qualify you for piss all. They are more indicators of potential rather than anything else. So it seems fair to adjust based on the school someone went to.

So long as we don't reach a point where we are admitting people who can't cope with the course (in which case we should be looking at providing catch-up courses), I'm all for this.