The Cuts. Is YOUR arse twitchin?

[eFestivals]

This isn't Victorian era Britain you know Neil.

Whatever the year, HE still works primarily on that basis.

[llcoolphil]

Whatever the year, HE still works primarily on that basis.

[eFestivals]

If there is a huge amount, show me some.

Try the Browne Report, which you cannot of read.

But it's also something which has come around every year on the news for the last ten years or so, with pupils from state schools with better results than pupils from private schools being passed over for a place at a top uni in favour of those with lower academic achievements from private schools.

I can show you some tables that show academic achievement comparisons between private and state secondary schools that shows that the privately educated fare better at getting into the best universities because they have the best academic results if you like.

What you will be showing me is a table that shows that people leave private schools with higher average results than pupils who leave state schools - yes, I know that's the case. But it's the case because those private schools do not have (or if they do, they quickly lose them again) pupils from the sub-sectors of society that do not value education as highly as them.

So that table will not be making a fair comparison, of comparing like with like.

Do you also have the tables which prove that someone from a private school with lower academic results will get a top uni place before someone with better qualifications from a state school? If not, why not? It's an essential part of the consideration.

[eFestivals]

Based on EVERY SINGLE PIECE of evidence about the impact taxing the rich has on the actual tax take, no it couldn't. Can you show me some evidence where raising income tax thresholds and rates on the top 10% of earners has ever had a significantly positive impact? No, you cant, because we are once again down to the level of discussion of 'because I said so' when the actual hard evidence says the exact opposite.

If you take (say) £50k off someone wealthy as HE fees, where is the difference with taking that £50k off them in taxes? It's exactly the same.

Any problems that exist around it are a result of how society now considers taxes (a different consideration than existed 30 years ago).

The issue with HE is one where wealth brings privilege. Charging fees for the rich is what creates that privilege, it is not what will remove it.

[eFestivals]

So what you're saying is that our academic institution selct not on merit but on family background and that admissions academics are, therefore, singularly unscrupulous in who they admit to their institution

correct - because that is the actual facts of the matter.

- and you'd like to see these unscrupulous institiutions and bodies subsidised by the state to an even greater extent than they currently are.

Just make up the idiot view contrary to what I've already specifically said, why don't you. Oh, you have already.

I've said that the opportunities for them to operate in that unscrupulous way should be removed.

And via that removal, the situation will be able to be one of academic merit and not one of privilege.

And by no longer being a situation of privilege, the whole system then opens up to everyone, because sectors of society are not put off by it being one of privilege.

Your method simply re-enforces the privileges without opening up HE to everyone.

[llcoolphil]

Sorry can I just check - when you say the Browne Report you do mean the one that recommended uncapping tuition.fees don't you? Because ig its that one there is nothing in it to support your selection claims

[worm]

Whatever the year, HE still works primarily on that basis.

[worm]

correct - because that is the actual facts of the matter.

Edited February 9, 2011 by worm

[llcoolphil]

The facts of the matter are that a university is going to take on those most suited to the course and nothing else.

[worm]

which they have given no indication they will do anything about

[Ed209]

Go and read the Browne Report. It has all the facts you need, and all the facts that you are currently missing or ignoring.

Within that you'll get to see that entrance into the 'top' Uni's is not primarily done by academic achievement, but selection via the school a person has attended.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Ed209

[eFestivals]

Sorry can I just check - when you say the Browne Report you do mean the one that recommended uncapping tuition.fees don't you? Because ig its that one there is nothing in it to support your selection claims

I'm referring to that yep, but it's possible that I've confused it with something else.

But it is very definitely the case that a student from a private school gets preference at top unis over state school pupils with everything else being equal. If this fact has passed you by then you need to do more research than you have.

[worm]

If this isn't the case, we also have to accept that academic institutions recognised universally as amongst the elite in the world have achieved this status by entire fluke because the people that work and study there do so based on background rather than ability.

[worm]

I don't know what that quote relates to really, in regards to education

[Ed209]

I'm referring to that yep, but it's possible that I've confused it with something else.

But it is very definitely the case that a student from a private school gets preference at top unis over state school pupils with everything else being equal. If this fact has passed you by then you need to do more research than you have.

[worm]

I'm referring to that yep, but it's possible that I've confused it with something else.

But it is very definitely the case that a student from a private school gets preference at top unis over state school pupils with everything else being equal. If this fact has passed you by then you need to do more research than you have.

[eFestivals]

When you present a "fact" like that that no one else believes, and then provide a reference that doesn't back up your claim, its your job to show us the right reference, not ours to go trawling around trying to find it.

It's my job only if I'm your teacher and this is nursery school. In the adult world, people find their own points of reference and work from them.

But anyway, do I care enough to educate those who don't care enough to absorb information as it passes them in real time? Nope.

[worm]

It's my job only if I'm your teacher and this is nursery school. In the adult world, people find their own points of reference and work from them.

But anyway, do I care enough to educate those who don't care enough to absorb information as it passes them in real time? Nope.

[Ed209]

I hope you're adult enough to pick up your dummy.

[eFestivals]

Because of the schooling they had beforehand, not because they are the elite. So put funding towards better schooling and backgrounds instead of free university for the rich.

Nope - that would be them working on merit alone, a way they don't work - as proven by the candidates they accept and reject.

So put funding towards better schooling and backgrounds instead of free university for the rich.

I've at no point said that there's other areas before uni that don't also need addressing. I've in fact said that they do.

But in regard to what you are disingenuously calling "free university for the rich", that is not what I am advocating. I am advocating "free university for all" (for all those that achieve the required level on merit alone).

The point is that by charging some - the rich - it has the effect of closing off uni for the poor, and social mobility on merit is lessened because of it. By charging for some students it presents uni to all as being a thing of privilege rather than something of right, and from that the poorer sections of society self-exclude themselves.

Phil's idea is one that penalises the rich by charging them (which I've no problem with in essence, but it can be done in different ways - by higher taxation for higher earners) but which also penalises the poor by presenting to them the idea that Uni is one of privilege via which they self-exclude.

It's also the case that - as used to happen back in the days of grants (when the richer types didn't get grants) - plenty of those higher earners wouldn't pay for their kids to go to Uni. This also works against the idea of a meritocracy, more so in modern terms where more than just the support costs of uni are placed onto attendees.

I wish for no one to be excluded by any method either explicit or implicit if they reach the required level, either rich or poor.

[eFestivals]

I hope you're adult enough to pick up your dummy.

Shame you're not adult enough to pick up the facts as they go past your nose.

[eFestivals]

Based on EVERY SINGLE PIECE of evidence about the impact taxing the rich has on the actual tax take, no it couldn't. Can you show me some evidence where raising income tax thresholds and rates on the top 10% of earners has ever had a significantly positive impact? No, you cant, because we are once again down to the level of discussion of 'because I said so' when the actual hard evidence says the exact opposite.

I've just given this some more thought.

While it's true that the richest try to avoid taxes, the exact same problem would exist in regard to fees. For either higher taxation on the basis of them being rich of for paying uni fees on the basis of them being rich, they have to firstly identified as rich so that the money can be taken from them - and if they'll make the effort to hide from one they'll make the same effort to hide from the other.

Taxation of higher earners is simple to administer. Collecting uni fees from 'the rich' is a nightmare to administer - particularly if a sliding scale of fees is used so that the not-so-rich aren't paying the same rate as the hugely-rich.

Back in the days of students getting grants there were problems firstly with high earning people lying about their income so that their kids might get a grant when they shouldn't, or refusing to support their kid at Uni which excluded kids who would have otherwise gone.

From all angles, charging 'the rich' is a poor way to go for getting the best outcome on merit for all student.

[llcoolphil]

It's my job only if I'm your teacher and this is nursery school. In the adult world, people find their own points of reference and work from them.

But anyway, do I care enough to educate those who don't care enough to absorb information as it passes them in real time? Nope.

[eFestivals]

The problem you have is grasping the concept that sometimes people do know more than you.

.... and it can aldso be true that they don't.

You're certainly lacking the fact that the top unis give preference to applicants from private schools - which is an important factor in a proper consideration of the issue, and important in reaching a better and workable solution.

[worm]

but the schooling they will have had beforehand is more than likely because they are 'the elite'...