Low grades but at a crap school - no problem!
Discussion
No link for this as yet, but on Breakfast News this morning they were saying the Government are considering enforcing minimum intakes by top universities of students from "disadvantaged" backgrounds.
Now this is nothing new as far as I am aware, however the bit that concerned me more was that to follow this through may require universities to allow students from "disadvantaged" backgrounds with lower grades for a subject in at the expense of "advantaged" students with higher grades!
What a crock of s
t.
ETA - title should say grades...how ironic.
Now this is nothing new as far as I am aware, however the bit that concerned me more was that to follow this through may require universities to allow students from "disadvantaged" backgrounds with lower grades for a subject in at the expense of "advantaged" students with higher grades!
What a crock of s
t.ETA - title should say grades...how ironic.
Legend83 said:
Now this is nothing new as far as I am aware, however the bit that concerned me more was that to follow this through may require universities to allow students from "disadvantaged" backgrounds with lower grades for a subject in at the expense of "advantaged" students with higher grades!
I went to a s***e school. I got ok(ish) results. I went on a degree with a number of students who got straight As at A Level and GCSE, from Grammar Schools and better schools than my own. I was the fifth highest score for my year of about two hundred and fifty students who finished that course. And in two classes I was the highest in the year.Bad schools does not mean stupid. Not all of us have mummy and daddy who can afford to send us to nice schools or afford to live in posh areas to get into a good catchment area.
I appreciate that I sound like I have a serious chip on my shoulder but it's attitudes like yours that really f**k me off. Oh no, poor person, must be thick as sh*t.
Fittster said:
It easier to get good grades from a good school. If it wasn't people wouldn't go there.
True enough but there are limits to such an 'affirmative action' programme.Universities, particularly the top ones, cannot be expected to provide remedial education at age 18 for those who have not received a proper education.
I'm all for top universities identifying students who have been poorly served by their schools but can still do as well or better than someone with better grades, but fixed quotas of 'low income' students is a recipe for the dumbing down of some of our best universities.
Jasandjules said:
I went to a s***e school. I got ok(ish) results. I went on a degree with a number of students who got straight As at A Level and GCSE, from Grammar Schools and better schools than my own. I was the fifth highest score for my year of about two hundred and fifty students who finished that course. And in two classes I was the highest in the year.
Bad schools does not mean stupid. Not all of us have mummy and daddy who can afford to send us to nice schools or afford to live in posh areas to get into a good catchment area.
I appreciate that I sound like I have a serious chip on my shoulder but it's attitudes like yours that really f**k me off. Oh no, poor person, must be thick as sh*t.
You may have gone to a sh**e school but you wouldn't have benefited from this scheme unless you were entitled to free school meals.Bad schools does not mean stupid. Not all of us have mummy and daddy who can afford to send us to nice schools or afford to live in posh areas to get into a good catchment area.
I appreciate that I sound like I have a serious chip on my shoulder but it's attitudes like yours that really f**k me off. Oh no, poor person, must be thick as sh*t.
Jasandjules said:
I went to a s***e school. I got ok(ish) results. I went on a degree with a number of students who got straight As at A Level and GCSE, from Grammar Schools and better schools than my own. I was the fifth highest score for my year of about two hundred and fifty students who finished that course. And in two classes I was the highest in the year.
Bad schools does not mean stupid. Not all of us have mummy and daddy who can afford to send us to nice schools or afford to live in posh areas to get into a good catchment area.
I appreciate that I sound like I have a serious chip on my shoulder but it's attitudes like yours that really f**k me off. Oh no, poor person, must be thick as sh*t.
Sorry, I think I must have put my point across badly as that is not what I meant at all! And not what I think!Bad schools does not mean stupid. Not all of us have mummy and daddy who can afford to send us to nice schools or afford to live in posh areas to get into a good catchment area.
I appreciate that I sound like I have a serious chip on my shoulder but it's attitudes like yours that really f**k me off. Oh no, poor person, must be thick as sh*t.
My point was this:
Lets assume the requirement to get onto a Law degree at a good university is AAB. I think they were suggesting that a student from poorer school could be accepted if they got ABB over a student from a wealthier school who got AAB.
What is the point in minimum requirements in this case?
Legend83 said:
Sorry, I think I must have put my point across badly as that is not what I meant at all! And not what I think!
My point was this:
Lets assume the requirement to get onto a Law degree at a good university is AAB. I think they were suggesting that a student from poorer school could be accepted if they got ABB over a student from a wealthier school who got AAB.
What is the point in minimum requirements in this case?
It's likely that the candidate from the poorer school is brighter.......it's a much greater achievement to get ABB from a poor school (where the mean might be BCC), than AAB from a top school (where the mean might be ABB).My point was this:
Lets assume the requirement to get onto a Law degree at a good university is AAB. I think they were suggesting that a student from poorer school could be accepted if they got ABB over a student from a wealthier school who got AAB.
What is the point in minimum requirements in this case?
baz1985 said:
It's likely that the candidate from the poorer school is brighter.......it's a much greater achievement to get ABB from a poor school (where the mean might be BCC), than AAB from a top school (where the mean might be ABB).
That could well be the case for many students, but the disadvantage of some sort of quota, is that it is not the case for all.Moreover the whole point of a grade is to show a level reached and for some University courses that is a minimum level needed to move forward at a higher level. should top universities have to run remedial courses in Maths for example for a maths or physics degree.
Furthermore this scheme is not adjusting for schooling but income.
baz1985 said:
Legend83 said:
Sorry, I think I must have put my point across badly as that is not what I meant at all! And not what I think!
My point was this:
Lets assume the requirement to get onto a Law degree at a good university is AAB. I think they were suggesting that a student from poorer school could be accepted if they got ABB over a student from a wealthier school who got AAB.
What is the point in minimum requirements in this case?
It's likely that the candidate from the poorer school is brighter.......it's a much greater achievement to get ABB from a poor school (where the mean might be BCC), than AAB from a top school (where the mean might be ABB).My point was this:
Lets assume the requirement to get onto a Law degree at a good university is AAB. I think they were suggesting that a student from poorer school could be accepted if they got ABB over a student from a wealthier school who got AAB.
What is the point in minimum requirements in this case?
Most professors at my uni didn't 'like' exams, since they are a very bad way of measuring intelligence (rather measuring capacity to retain information), but they are cheap, quick, and relatively easy methods of an approximate measurement of intellect.
I can just see a large hole being dug here, with people sending their kids to a 'bad' school for their last year, to get good grades, to get in to a better university.... Where does it end?
baz1985 said:
It's likely that the candidate from the poorer school is brighter.......it's a much greater achievement to get ABB from a poor school (where the mean might be BCC), than AAB from a top school (where the mean might be ABB).
So do they need to have two sets of requirements? One for rich schools, one for poor? Who decides where to draw the line?Universities don't care about the mean results of a school - they look at absolute values, hence the minimum requirements.
Can of worms I know.
Fittster said:
It easier to get good grades from a good school. If it wasn't people wouldn't go there.
Not necessarily. I went to the worst school in our borough for instance (and that's not an exaggeration), but being reasonably bright got into all the top classes.Top classes got the decent teachers and got the decent results.
Everyone else got bouncers.
So if a child from a lower middle-income manages to scrape into private school, they will be discriminated against just because their parents managed to save up enough for a good education. Sounds like another Nu Labour policy of squeezing the middlies out into poverty. Agree with Tonks, we should be looking at the problem of Grade Inflation and why a 2:1 (from a redbrick or ex-poly) is easier to achieve today than 10 or 20 years ago - this is the real problem for the end-consumer and employers.
Edited by fido on Wednesday 9th February 10:18
JagLover said:
baz1985 said:
It's likely that the candidate from the poorer school is brighter.......it's a much greater achievement to get ABB from a poor school (where the mean might be BCC), than AAB from a top school (where the mean might be ABB).
That could well be the case for many students, but the disadvantage of some sort of quota, is that it is not the case for all.Moreover the whole point of a grade is to show a level reached and for some University courses that is a minimum level needed to move forward at a higher level. should top universities have to run remedial courses in Maths for example for a maths or physics degree.
Furthermore this scheme is not adjusting for schooling but income.
The issue will be deciding which schools qualify, with the current apply before you get your grades no matter how the system works if you don't think you will get even close to the minimum you won't apply. Think about it if Oxbridge and Durham are known for wanting AAA and you are convinced you won't get that then you won't apply.
tinman0 said:
Fittster said:
It easier to get good grades from a good school. If it wasn't people wouldn't go there.
Not necessarily. I went to the worst school in our borough for instance (and that's not an exaggeration), but being reasonably bright got into all the top classes.Top classes got the decent teachers and got the decent results.
Everyone else got bouncers.
Fittster said:
It easier to get good grades from a good school. If it wasn't people wouldn't go there.
So what? Just because it is harder (i.e. takes more effort) to achieve a given grade in one particular school does not mean you achieved a higher standard of learning. That's why standardised testing exists in the first place. Universities are interested in the standard attained by an individual, not what amount of effort has gone into attaining it. This kind of ant-meritocratic social engineering is very very damaging for society as a whole because your success in life has less to do with how good you are at something and more about your background. Surely that's a backwards step?Also, what are the factors involved in how difficult it was to achieve your grades? Is it just the secondary school you went to, your family income, number of parents, the sets you were placed in (and thus your primary school), any disabilities you may have...? It's impossible to devise a system to even moderately accurately model this.
None of this is to say that there is not a huge problem with relative attainment between students from different schools (which is mainly a proxy for economic and social background). But address the cause, don't paper over the symptom! IMO the most serious problem in need of addressing is simply parents' views of the benefits of education and hard work. If your parents, you mates and their parents all think those who achieve well are worthy of scorn instead of emulation, you'll always have this problem. And right now, the culture of envy and blame is pretty rife.
bogwoppit said:
So what? Just because it is harder (i.e. takes more effort) to achieve a given grade in one particular school does not mean you achieved a higher standard of learning. That's why standardised testing exists in the first place. Universities are interested in the standard attained by an individual, not what amount of effort has gone into attaining it. This kind of ant-meritocratic social engineering is very very damaging for society as a whole because your success in life has less to do with how good you are at something and more about your background. Surely that's a backwards step?
Also, what are the factors involved in how difficult it was to achieve your grades? Is it just the secondary school you went to, your family income, number of parents, the sets you were placed in (and thus your primary school), any disabilities you may have...? It's impossible to devise a system to even moderately accurately model this.
None of this is to say that there is not a huge problem with relative attainment between students from different schools (which is mainly a proxy for economic and social background). But address the cause, don't paper over the symptom! IMO the most serious problem in need of addressing is simply parents' views of the benefits of education and hard work. If your parents, you mates and their parents all think those who achieve well are worthy of scorn instead of emulation, you'll always have this problem. And right now, the culture of envy and blame is pretty rife.
Completely agree.Also, what are the factors involved in how difficult it was to achieve your grades? Is it just the secondary school you went to, your family income, number of parents, the sets you were placed in (and thus your primary school), any disabilities you may have...? It's impossible to devise a system to even moderately accurately model this.
None of this is to say that there is not a huge problem with relative attainment between students from different schools (which is mainly a proxy for economic and social background). But address the cause, don't paper over the symptom! IMO the most serious problem in need of addressing is simply parents' views of the benefits of education and hard work. If your parents, you mates and their parents all think those who achieve well are worthy of scorn instead of emulation, you'll always have this problem. And right now, the culture of envy and blame is pretty rife.
It is a lazy way of temporarily avoiding the need to tackle the grass-roots issues of quality in primary / secondary schools and attitudes of family and society towards success.
Fittster said:
tinman0 said:
Fittster said:
It easier to get good grades from a good school. If it wasn't people wouldn't go there.
Not necessarily. I went to the worst school in our borough for instance (and that's not an exaggeration), but being reasonably bright got into all the top classes.Top classes got the decent teachers and got the decent results.
Everyone else got bouncers.
Children from poor families can do well at school, but like most things in life they have to put the work in, and actually shine. Sitting around telling everyone you are bright ain't going to cut it.
Bending university intakes to suit a social agenda does no one any good. It simply fuels this whole attitude that because you are poor you have to be given everything.
Much like our welfare culture which has been a stunning success. Welfare education at it's worst.
At GKT just before I graduated I belive they had started offering places on the medical degree course for kids from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Iirc, the entry grade was CC rather than the usual AAB (although AAA is expected). They do a foundation year prior to starting the degree (same as individuals who were applying with less than ideal A levels - humanities or transferring from another degree course) which gets them 'up to speed'.
My (now) ex girlfriend was PR officer for GKT for a number of years. Apparently the disadvantaged kids were fairly crap and majority dropped out after a year or two. Not sure if they still run the course.
Iirc, the entry grade was CC rather than the usual AAB (although AAA is expected). They do a foundation year prior to starting the degree (same as individuals who were applying with less than ideal A levels - humanities or transferring from another degree course) which gets them 'up to speed'.
My (now) ex girlfriend was PR officer for GKT for a number of years. Apparently the disadvantaged kids were fairly crap and majority dropped out after a year or two. Not sure if they still run the course.
Legend83 said:
So do they need to have two sets of requirements? One for rich schools, one for poor? Who decides where to draw the line?
Universities don't care about the mean results of a school - they look at absolute values, hence the minimum requirements.
Can of worms I know.
No, they can just use the system some have at the moment. Many universities don't list "minimum entry requirements" (well they do but that's usually in terms of having a GCSE C in Maths and English); instead the prospectus states that the "typical offer" is BBB/BBBB for instance. They do this to encourage applicants to apply where they can then assess their overall application - not just the grades but also the personal statement (more important than the former for some universities), referee statements and interviews if they do them.Universities don't care about the mean results of a school - they look at absolute values, hence the minimum requirements.
Can of worms I know.
If there's a A*A*A* student they really want, they might make a conditional offer of BBB to ease the pressure and encourage the applicant to take make them their firm. A not so impressive A*A*A* candidiate might get the A*A*A* offer to ensure they're any good. On the other hand, if there's an ABB candidiate with a strong personal statement or who did well at interview, they can also make a ABB offer. Thus offers are not necessarily indicative of the actual calibre of students. It's this sort of system that makes the likes of Edinburgh and Bath far more competitive than Oxbridge - because far fewer peope attempt to apply to Oxbridge in the first place reducing the competition for places.
The main problem with English universities, however, is that they're relying on predicted A Level results to make offers. There is evidence that poor schools are more likely to under predict top results than top schools. Quite apart from this is the issue of A Level's being a pretty poor courses. A change to a system where most applicants are applying with grades in the bag (as happens in Scotland) would help everyone. The other issue is that poor schools and poor parents do not encourage pupils to think about university - some even go so far as to say "why would you want to go to university, you're betraying your class". Hence at the moment, much of the "Widening Participation" effort is going to schools and informing students about their choices and giving them a flavour of university life.
Any half decent school can impart education to a prescribed curriculum. The success depends on the work rate of the student. In school it usually means parents putting in a lot of work with the students at home. Any rich kid can get into a top uni with the eligible grades...but it is the work put in that defines the end result.
No need for reservation..just make sure your kids work hard.
Oh and before you come up with an excuse to say that the current curriculum goes over your heads....think about the concept of learning today's curriculum with the kids at home!!!
No need for reservation..just make sure your kids work hard.
Oh and before you come up with an excuse to say that the current curriculum goes over your heads....think about the concept of learning today's curriculum with the kids at home!!!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff