I noticed this story on the bbc yesterday, and it seems to sum up the issue reasonably well:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12409428
To start with, I go to a public (fee paying) school in an area where local schools are rubbish. I have been here ever since we moved here from a different area. My parents would not have sent me to a public school if the state schools were any good, but they didn't really have any choice. (My dad had to live where we do for work reasons).
It seems to me that students attending fee paying schools are going to be disadvantaged in the new system - in fact, I don't see how they couldn't be disadvantaged if intake of poor students must increase at the top Universities.
I'm sure there will be some people who think that is fine, because they think that students like me are advantaged already, and should be brought back in line with students who had 'fewer opportunities'. I have several problems with this:
- Why should students who attend a top state school (many state schools are better than independent schools) be treated in a different manner to students who went to a school with similar outcomes, but simply paid for their education?
-Why should the decisions of the parents that were often made with their childs best interests at heart, and at great personal expense now be the cause of their child being discriminated against in the university admissions process?
-If the issue is about some children having greater opportunity, then will students who had fantastic support from their family be treated differently to students whose family are completely opposed to the whole idea of education? Will students from supportive but poor backgrounds who worked hard and gained a bursary at a public school now be disadvantaged compared to a similar student who a) lived in a different area, and ended up going to a better state school, or b) just went to the rubbish local school.
-I can say from experience that just going to a fee paying school is no guarantee of good careers advice, or getting good grades. I have had rubbish career advice, and had to work very hard for my A levels, and tbh it feels as if that hard work is being undervalued, and someone who might get lower grades than me (and have not worked as hard) would be valued more highly by a university simply because they didn't pay for their education.
-Some politicians have spoken about how they think potential should be valued over past achievement or something like that. But, By setting these targets, they would actively be encouraging Universities to look at factors other than this 'potential' that they are supposed to be looking for.
-Sometimes the argument about the high proportion of students at Oxbridge who were independently schooled is used as 'evidence' of them discrimination towards students from certain backgrounds. I don't think this stands up seeing as the independent sector gets much better grades on average than the average state school, which to my mind indicates a higher proportion of motivated students with 'potential'. I doubt very much that admissions staff let students in just because they went to an independent school. To my mind, if students from state schools or Independent schools aren't good enough to get in, then that's the end of it.
I just generally see the whole policy as being generally rubbish, and I can't really see any good things about setting targets for the number of poor students each University should admit at all. They should be allowed to admit who they want, without fear of reprisals.
So does anyone feel like defending this idea? Or have any other points?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12409428
To start with, I go to a public (fee paying) school in an area where local schools are rubbish. I have been here ever since we moved here from a different area. My parents would not have sent me to a public school if the state schools were any good, but they didn't really have any choice. (My dad had to live where we do for work reasons).
It seems to me that students attending fee paying schools are going to be disadvantaged in the new system - in fact, I don't see how they couldn't be disadvantaged if intake of poor students must increase at the top Universities.
I'm sure there will be some people who think that is fine, because they think that students like me are advantaged already, and should be brought back in line with students who had 'fewer opportunities'. I have several problems with this:
- Why should students who attend a top state school (many state schools are better than independent schools) be treated in a different manner to students who went to a school with similar outcomes, but simply paid for their education?
-Why should the decisions of the parents that were often made with their childs best interests at heart, and at great personal expense now be the cause of their child being discriminated against in the university admissions process?
-If the issue is about some children having greater opportunity, then will students who had fantastic support from their family be treated differently to students whose family are completely opposed to the whole idea of education? Will students from supportive but poor backgrounds who worked hard and gained a bursary at a public school now be disadvantaged compared to a similar student who a) lived in a different area, and ended up going to a better state school, or b) just went to the rubbish local school.
-I can say from experience that just going to a fee paying school is no guarantee of good careers advice, or getting good grades. I have had rubbish career advice, and had to work very hard for my A levels, and tbh it feels as if that hard work is being undervalued, and someone who might get lower grades than me (and have not worked as hard) would be valued more highly by a university simply because they didn't pay for their education.
-Some politicians have spoken about how they think potential should be valued over past achievement or something like that. But, By setting these targets, they would actively be encouraging Universities to look at factors other than this 'potential' that they are supposed to be looking for.
-Sometimes the argument about the high proportion of students at Oxbridge who were independently schooled is used as 'evidence' of them discrimination towards students from certain backgrounds. I don't think this stands up seeing as the independent sector gets much better grades on average than the average state school, which to my mind indicates a higher proportion of motivated students with 'potential'. I doubt very much that admissions staff let students in just because they went to an independent school. To my mind, if students from state schools or Independent schools aren't good enough to get in, then that's the end of it.
I just generally see the whole policy as being generally rubbish, and I can't really see any good things about setting targets for the number of poor students each University should admit at all. They should be allowed to admit who they want, without fear of reprisals.
So does anyone feel like defending this idea? Or have any other points?
