ReallyReallyGoodMeat

... is talking out of his ****, suggesting Universities should lower their grades for poorer kids. I didn't realise Universities were charities! This is just discrimination against the not-poor!

Surely going to Oxbridge is an aspiration, in part due to how tough it is to get in and how clever you need to be go get there - this would completely blow that out of the water.

Not to mention the amount of resentment it would cause against the poor kid who got in with inferior grades to everyone else.

Who is this government advisor and how much are they paying him to come up with bollox!?

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Yes, I resent Charlie boy because he got into Cambridge with grades that wouldn't have got ME into a CAT at that time.....

Martin2005

I think the intent is absolutely right, the execution though is off the mark

Dingdongler

We've been talking about this for years haven't we?

To some extent it was done informally years ago when I was applying. Kids from state schools were cut some extra slack when given offers.

What is being suggested though is positive discrimination and as such is a minefield, by definition another demographic will be disadvantaged as a result.

On the whole I'm NOT in favour of such social engineering. Where does it end? If 'poorer' children are allowed into Uni with lower grades then why not drop the entry requirements for them when applying for jobs straight out of school?

Let them join the police force, civil service etc with lower entry criteria than 'richer' pupils? How would that work?

The real answer has to be to improve the performance of all schools/expand grammar schools/state funding of the brighter students to attend private schools

jonc

Not sure what all the fuss is about, this has been going on for many years with year on year rises of higher pass rates in GCSE's and A Levels. It's all very well paying universities to take on students with lower grades, but with many students coming out of university with massive debts and tuition fees, how are those from a poorer background going to cope with university life during and after graduation!!

PeteBrant

Through Student loans? They pay back 8% of any earnings over £21,000 per annum for a maximum of 25 years.

The worse thing the Government did was get rid of EMA - That gave kids from pooere backgrounds the chance to go into college and have some money, easing the pressure on them to go out and earn straight away at 16.

Leslie

Hard to believe that people like that can get into any kind of position of power. The man is a prat to put it politely!

I came from a very poor family, but the 11+ got me into a very good school and I had an excellent education. Very difficult for my parents to support me at the time.

I had no favours as far as my education was concerned and I would never expected such a thing anyway.

What on earth is to point of pushing people who are not suited to academical education into artificially high qualifications when they would not be suited to it and would do better concentrating on a more practical side where they would be happier and would have a better sense of achievement.

Les

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

It's actually pretty condescending too, suggesting that if you are poor the only way you'll get to university is if you get a helping hand. The last thing the poor need is more dependency on the state.

You get out what you put in when it comes to education, do the work and put the time in, and you can get to the uni you want, regardless of income.

Stats may show the poorer not getting into the better universities as their grades aren't as high, but shirley that's a reflection on the school/parents/pupil? Am I missing something?!

Martin2005

Yes - missing the nuance of the problem I think

I don't think it's their intention that poor stupid kids go to Oxbridge. They're trying to help the smart kids from poor backgrounds, I don't see how anyone can have a problem with that in principle.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

They are introducing discrimination into the system, that is not a principle I agree with. Surely if the kid is smart enough they will get to university if they wish to go, where does their background come into this?

PeteBrant

The link between private education and better exam result is proven beyond doubt.
The opportunities for those from an underprivileged background are far less. Not least from the quality of the schools, the teachers and the other students in the school.
When from a poorer background, the pressure on you to go out and earn money is greater, because the family cannot support you not working. That's why EMA worked. It gave kids that wouldn't not have had the choice ordinarily, a chance of further education. Not due to intelligence or ability, but down to sheer finanacial pressure to work.

Oh, and the last thing we need is more grammer schools and a return to 11+ which made the monumentally stupid assumption that at 11, kids had all developed at the same rate and reached the same potential.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

You seem to be implying it is more financial than acadamic for why poorer kids don't go on to university education - so why then would lowering the entry requirements for poor kids have anything to do with that?!

Often the reason for high grade entry is so that the university knows you are intelligent enough to handle the course - I know, how about we teach the poorer kids an easier syllabus! That will work!

Dingdongler

Could you please show me the evidence that EMA 'worked'. And please define 'worked' while you are at it.

Cheers

PeteBrant

I dont think they should - But there are other recommendations in the Milburn report.

At present everyone is marked by the same measure. What Milburn is trying to say is that is it unfair to do so. In other words, given the background and facilites of some of the poorer area, it is nigh on impossible for a student from one of the deprived areas to match the grades of someone from, say, Eton or Harrow.
This doesn't make them less intelligent; swap the kids around and the end result would be the same.

He is right in this, but I don't think the answer is to reduce the entry requirements but to improve the facilties and opportunities for kids froma poorer background.

ReallyReallyGoodMeat

Ok, I am clearer now. My main issue with his proposals is the 'means-tested' entry grade.

PeteBrant

EMA gave an opportunity to kids that had the ability to do well in further education to attend college ( you only got EMA money if you attained the pass mark and attended every day and on time) rather than go stright out to work at 16 and sacrifice any possbility of college.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3638739.stm

There is lots of evidence that the system did exactly what it was designe dto; encoure poorer kids into further education. In Wales for example in 2003 82% of accepted applicants qualified for the top rate of EMA .

Hope that helps.

Martin2005

I think that they're actually trying (clumsily) to take out some of the discrimination in the system.
You have kind of implied it yourself, a child from a poor background needs to work much harder that one from a more privileged one

Tidgy

university should be available to those who are bright enough to be there, shouldn;t be about being able to afford it or not. Lowering grades for cheap entry is bollox in my view, if they can;t make the grade, they dont get in.

Leslie

The 11+ was an intelligence test and was pretty successful in general.

Les

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

It's reasonably well know that Oxford, Cambridge etc tend to be populated by rich kids / the children of rich parents which does seem a tad out of order for those of us less well off. The principle of what the Govt is attempting is therefore sound imho albeit rather than lower the grades for poorer kids perhaps a better solution is just to pick people at random to go there ie rather than it be down to who can afford the best / most expensive education for their child?

TX.

Terminator X

iTrader: (7)

The point though tidgy is that the brightest kids tend to come from private education = monied families. All they are trying to do is let "others" in which must be a Good Thing? If it were my call I'd simply select 25%, say, of the intake at random rather than base it on grades.

TX.

Leslie

I would have thought that an intelligence test such as the 11+ was pretty well classless.

The idea, which was incidentally introduced by a Labour government, was to give the chance of a higher education to those who were most likely to get the best out of it.

Les

tarmac terror

iTrader: (2)

It was Les, but from what I remember of it almost 30 years ago when I did it, was that a whole year of school was spent focussing on how to pass a test, rather than learning anything new.

My employer keeps sending me on mandatory courses where you get talked at for hours about things which are in my view utter drivel. A recent one was equality - what intrigued me was that having been forced to attend these pointless sessions in the past, the focus was on equality of opportunity, several years later, and the focus has now shifted to equality of outcome. In the context of education I think equality of outcome has existed for years as I haven't heard anyone ever say they failed to obtain a degree having stayed the course. In my view, most degrees are at best, university attendance certificates.

ALi-B

iTrader: (1)

Surely this lowering of acedemic standards has already happened, when all the ex-polytechnics turned into universities and started dishing out mickey-mouse degrees?

AndyC_772

iTrader: (2)

That may be true of a mickey mouse degree in some fluffy subject from an ex Poly, but definitely not in the case of a proper degree from a real university.

The entrance requirements are an absolute pre-requisite for making sure those students who get on to the course in the first place are the ones who are going to be able to complete it. If a student drops out or fails the course it's a waste of everyone's time and resources.

tarmac terror

iTrader: (2)

As I have posted on here several times before - there are only three professions where a degree is essential - Law, Medicine, Engineering.

I don't entirely agree with the statement above, universities are funded based on numbers of students, if the bar is set too high for entry and the university / college fails to attract sufficient student numbers, it becomes less viable to run the course. I have often seen mature students taken onto a course who have no qualifications whatsoever. On the other hand, there are quota's agreed between the university and department for education, which if exceeded, the university is penalised for exceeding its allocated budget. I was a part time lecturer in Informatics, until recent years, the third level courses were always oversubscribed at the beginning of the year, knowing full well by the end of the first semester, the numbers would have dropped back close to an anticipated level for various reasons.

Leslie

Yes I can understand your concern about the modern idea to coach the child into being able to pass a particular test. That would prove nothing and would destroy the object of the exercise anyway.

In my time we had no coaching whatsoever for the 11+, in fact it was hardly even mentioned and we were taught the standard subjects that you might expect at school.

Les