Apparently leading universities are biased against applicants from poorer backgrounds; or so says John Denham, the Universities Secretary. This is an argument that comes up time and time again, and every time it does I just don’t get it. Just because leading universities have fewer students from more deprived backgrounds than other universities doesn’t in and of itself indicate bias.
The reality is that universities like
If there’s a problem, and I’m sure we can all agree there is, then it’s that state schools are underperforming to worrying degree and not providing children from poorer backgrounds with the education they deserve.
Perhaps we should get that sorted, rather than attempting to create educational equality by bringing everyone down to a lower standard.
I have always been disgusted that children from poorer families are given an education at all. It only gives them aspirations that they cannot attain and words they cannot pronounce.
ReplyDeleteThey're not better educated. They've been primed to pass exams and they are more confident, probably because they have grown up in an environment in which their parents tell them that they're socially better than people who go to state schools.
ReplyDeleteI read the problem is that students from poorer backgrounds who achieve the necessary entry requirements are shunned over students from richer backgrounds who achieve the same grades (the three As, or whatever it is).
ReplyDeleteWhat cobblers the last 3 posts are!
ReplyDeleteChildren from my part of East London who came from extremely deprived backgrounds got into the best Universities in the 50's and early 60's because they had had a wonderful education in fine Grammar Schools - where the teachers in many cases still wore gowns indeed, and taught the pupil not the background.
If you believe that Universities are really picking by social class nowadays, you are bonkers.
Radio 4's 'Thinking Allowed' recently did a series of three programmes with Frank Field, and David Willets talking to academics. In one programme, I think the 5th September one, Mr Field made the point that when poorer students decide not to go to university they are making a perfectly logical choice, as a university degree no longer guarentees a better income.
ReplyDeleteIn essence Universities have to get "bums on seats" to ensure that they get their full government funding and it also has to be acknowledged that some of the newer universities(ex-polytechnics) have difficulties getting entrants, even more so now the government has altered student funding 2006 onwards. In addition some of the degrees offered by such institutions are a complete waste of 3 years effort and are totally unattractive to employers.
ReplyDeleteThe key to all this is the Admissions Tutor in each university - he or she can and does undoubtedly shade the offers to reflect an entrants background; school etc. The argument being that it's not where you are but how far and how difficult the journey has been to get there. So an entrant from a public school would have to get 3 As but a candidate say from a low rated comprehensive would be offered the same place for a B and 2 C's. Nothing new with this but obviously the government want's more kids to go to university and they are pushed down the academic route by their schools instead of the vocational. They either then drop out after their first year with the associated label of being a "failure" or must do a foundation year prior to enrolling on their
degree course proper.
So it's not that kids from poorer or less academic backgrounds are shunned because they aren't - just the opposite as indicated but its the fact that some are better suited for a vocational course and should never have been encouraged to apply for university in the first place. That's the real failure of the government's policy
But Judith, you are wrong,cobbling is a dying art and there are no longer "loads" of them. If only the lower orders would learn something useful instead of getting a "degree" in hamburger preparation or watching Neighbours or some other rubbish course, then we might return to some sort of equilibrium.
ReplyDeleteAs it is a tradesperson told me that their daughter was going to "University" to study hairdressing, which will not only deprive a gay person of a job, but will cost the taxpayer dearly in enquiries about what we did on our holidays.
It's time people were "glad to be gamma"
Shane, I think you're wrong on the crucial point of your post.
ReplyDeleteyou're confusing several concepts here - "best students" and "better education", as you write, and also, I suspect, the concept of "most intelligent students".
research by the Higher education Funding Council demonstrates that there is a "polishing effect" of public schools. crudely put, two pupils of equal intelligence sent to a crap comprehensive and to eton will (probably) end up with different A level grades - but that doesn't mean that the etonian s more intelligent or has more potential than the comprehensive school pupil.
You say that "the best pupils are more likely to come from private schools", whereas what i think you mean is that a lot of the pupils with the highest grades are likely to come from private schools.
All we can say with any certainty about children who go to private schools at age 11 is that their parents can afford to pay the fees. Other more intelligent schildren might not be at the private school due to their parents' lack of money. once at the private school, the "coaching" effect kicks in - and that's what the parents are paying for, quite understandably!
Research by Robin Naylor and Jeremy Smith of Warwick University concluded that 'A-level results were a product of potential ability and coaching, he said. The better the coaching, the lower the natural ability a student needed to get the A-level grades necessary to gain a university place. However, once at university, potential ability came to the fore' [Daily Telegraph, 7 December 2002]
If private schools are able to "polish" their pupils so that they can get better results with the same work and the same intelligence, then all that demonstrates is that examinations are too predictable (and coursework is especially predictable).
ReplyDeleteBut of course these exams have been made more predictable and narrower by government who have been trying to make it easier for state school pupils to get good grades! It is government that have put in the shortcuts. Private schools are just better at exploiting them. After all, they deliver what parents want and parents expect good grades for those exhorbitant fees.
So the answer is to get the government out of managing schools (simply introduce a tax funded voucher scheme for children to go to an independent school), and almost as importantly, away from managing the exam system. Then universities will be able to select students on the basis of individual talent without having to second guess how a pupil got a certain grade.
But I don't see the Tories willing to do this so I imagine the problems are going to remain for some time.
WILLIAM here again from earlier.
ReplyDeleteThere's a tiny flaw with the idea that one can make all schools as good as the private schools by making all schools private.
Parents don't pay more money to have a "private education", they pay more money to have smaller class sizes, social selection, a similar filtered peer group etc.
So even if every state school became somewhere between "fairly good" and "excellent", about 5 per cent of parents would still pay a premium to get a "better" education (reputation, results, social brownie points, old-boy network) - that's why people earn more money!
i know people who would send their kids to eton regardless of how good the free comprehensive school is in their town. it's because they want the cachet and the social connections - and, of course, it's a good school with fantastic facilities. if you have 25k+ lying around after tax, why not spend it on that? if you're a 300k barrister from the middle class, it's a no-brainer.
Come on, I thought you guys were conservatives! You're starting to think like liberals, or socialists!
The problem is that if you have had a crap education, expecting a university to turn the situation around in 3 years is not reasonable. What people in that situation need is another go at pre-university education.
ReplyDeleteFor Oxford and Cambridge, repeated studies have shown that students from the state sector *who actually apply* have a slightly greater chance than privately educated children. Yes, one problem is that a large number of state school students with high grades don't tick the box on the form to apply to Oxbridge.
Frank Field is right by the way. In the City/High end white collar work, applications are filtered by university before they go near decision makers. Usually it is done by admin people in HR. Apply to a city bank if you don't have a degree from a *good* university and the application goes straight in the bin. A degree in Surfing from Little-Puddlington-Upon-Sea Uni gets you less than nothing.
Judith,
ReplyDeleteIn this century, stating what one has read doesn't imply belief in it; i was merely pointing out that the definitions of the post may've been short-sighted.
Now go back to sleep.