The Cuts. Is YOUR arse twitchin?

[worm]

how about comparing it to other, more 'succesful' countries

[eFestivals]

one thing that seems to be agreed is that any tinkering with the system would be more productive if it was done at the beginning, rather than the closing stages of an education

Exactly!!

But it needs to be more than simply trying to raise the standards of state education, because of the preference shown by unis to those from private schools. Raising the standards of state education doesn't gain the better students from the state system the access to the top unis that they deserve on merit.

And it's just as important to address perceptions of any system as it is the actual system. By the charging of fees for anyone it gains a perception of being an institution for those with money, and from that those without money self-exclude.

[worm]

So 'because I said so' it is then. The problem you have is grasping the concept that sometimes people do know more than you.

[Ed209]

.... 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]

No, you're lacking the fact that admission tutors do no offer places based on the school they attended and instead base it academic performance, performance in interviews, personal statements etc...

Obviously independent schools can provide much greater support in the application process, e.g. better advice on the universities to apply to, get them better grades, prepare them for interviews, provide greater help with the applications and personal statements etc ... hence they are more likely to get through the admissions procedure, that's a different "fact" to yours though

[eFestivals]

Exactly!

So we need to get people of a less privileged background the necessary schooling and experiences to euip them for better universities. To do this, we can remove the funding of the elite and give it to those of a poor background.

1. it needs more than upping the schooling of those in the state sector. It requires the top unis to operate an even entrance policy, something which they currently don't.

2. how are the 'elite' to be identified, and charged in a way that is fair (without an arbitrary threshold which penalises the not-so-rich at the same level as the hugely-rich)?

3. how are the problems of perception of privilege removed that are caused by the charging of fees for any?

Without those things being well addressed then we end up with a system that has much the same outcome as exists now.

[worm]

except for most kids there will be a massive increase in fees and the debt they'll be dragging around most of their life.

[eFestivals]

No, you're lacking the fact that admission tutors do no offer places based on the school they attended and instead base it academic performance, performance in interviews, personal statements etc...

And you're lacking the facts which show the top unis operate a preference.

The preference might just be there because those of privileged backgrounds match what an admissions officer think a person should be to attend that uni, but the preference is very definitely there. It is not a system that operates purely on academic merit.

Obviously independent schools can provide much greater support in the application process, e.g. better advice on the universities to apply to, get them better grades, prepare them for interviews, provide greater help with the applications and personal statements etc ... hence they are more likely to get through the admissions procedure, that's a different "fact" to yours though

It's not simply being properly prep-ed for the admissions process. The problem is deeper than just that.

[worm]

I've said, I feel very negative (on this subject)

and it's because every british government is so arrogant, they think they can come up with a better system than the better ones that are already in place, and they fail... massively

Edited February 9, 2011 by worm

[eFestivals]

This has been put to him three times now. Better school equals better chances of passing the interview. Ergo, get kids into better schools!

"better school" - what is a better school?

The point of schooling is to raise the academic level of any attendee. The top unis do not operate their admissions on simply academic level.

There is a culture within those academic institutions, where the result of that culture is to give preference to those applicants who best conform to that culture. And that's got f**k all to do with academic merit.

[worm]

1. it needs more than upping the schooling of those in the state sector. It requires the top unis to operate an even entrance policy, something which they currently don't.

Edited February 9, 2011 by worm

[worm]

"better school" - what is a better school?

[worm]

I'm totally down with you on this Phil and recognise that Neil et al are spouting misinformed and detracting garbage. However, I would point out that alongside funding areas of poverty and social vehicles like equal opportunity there is an assumption that those of wealthy backgrounds are automatically funded by parents and that they have a decent upbringing.

So fistly, what do we do about those with family wealth that is not being afforded to them, and secondly, as there's no such thing as a decent upbringing what do we do about securing lower level knowledge while allowing for varied background experiences.

[eFestivals]

Kids from a poorer background need to be educated to the entry standard that rich kids are, which requires better schooling at a lower level.

what part of "and when they are they still don't get an equal opportunity of access to HE" are you failing to understand?

A question that researchers should be looking in to.

Oh right - you say you have the solution, but now you admit that you don't.

Do we need another level of bureaucracy with it's associated expenses (which could instead be spent giving the education to others that we're all in agreement on) to charge the rich when that extra level of bureaucracy will bring about nothing different to what can be achieved with the bureaucracy that already exists (the taxation system)?

Or if we go with Phil's idea of specific fixed fees for the rich, that's actually letting the richest off some of their obligation to society, because they pay only the fees, but don't pay for the full lifetime financial benefit they get from their education. Or is it that he really wants to let some off the hook from their responsibility to society (which is exactly why Dave Moron likes fixed fees but hates taxation as a way to pay for HE)?

The fact is that a system much as Phil is suggesting used to exist until around 1990. There's a reason why it doesn't exist now.

Unsure of what you mean.

Glad to see you've been paying such close attention to all I've been saying ..... yet without you paying that attention, you're able to say continually that I'm wrong with my ideas.

I'm very glad to see that your expensive education has been of such deep and meaningful academic benefit to you.

Someone able to tell another that they're wrong when they admit to not having paid attention to know that they're wrong has a very worthwhile view on things.

[worm]

what part of "and when they are they still don't get an equal opportunity of access to HE" are you failing to understand?

[eFestivals]

The bit that's fabricated bullshit, which is all of it.

Just because it's something you don't know of doesn't make what I say as wrong! It's something that comes around every year. And because you miss that fact every year, just think how many other relevant facts you're missing too.

[worm]

Oh right - you say you have the solution, but now you admit that you don't.

Edited February 9, 2011 by worm

[worm]

Just because it's something you don't know of doesn't make what I say as wrong!

[eFestivals]

What a complete waste of three paragraphs.

I wasted many more than 3 paragraphs saying the thing that passed you by entirely and despite it passing you by so you cannot fully understand the points I've made you're able to say that I'm wrong.

I'm sure your lecturers would be very impressed at how deeply their efforts to educate you have worked.

Still, it must be great in your universe where the academics don't have to know the subject to give their conclusions. No wonder you describe yourself as an academic.

[worm]

I wasted many more than 3 paragraphs saying the thing that passed you by entirely and despite it passing you by so you cannot fully understand the points I've made you're able to say that I'm wrong.

I'm sure your lecturers would be very impressed at how deeply their efforts to educate you have worked.

Still, it must be great in your universe where the academics don't have to know the subject to give their conclusions. No wonder you describe yourself as an academic.

[llcoolphil]

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.

[llcoolphil]

which they have given no indication they will do anything about

the only thing that is at issue here is money... cold cash. Whether it improves anything I don't believe comes into it for more than nano-second

Edited February 10, 2011 by llcoolphil

[eFestivals]

Again, that is just about as wrong as you can get it.

If it's so wrong ... have you seen the news today (oh boy )?

Why are the top unis being told that they have to take in a greater number of 'poor kids' if they want to charge £9k a year in fees?

As you've already said - if your version of things is true - this would mean that our 'about the best in the world' universities will no longer be that, because they'd be accepting lower grade students via which those Uni's current high standards would fall.

And, that would ultimately result in them not being able to charge those higher fees, cos who would pay those high fees for a uni which was the same standard as others charging lower fees? From every angle - if your version of things is true - it's a stupid and counter-productive method which undermines everything it sets out to achieve.

Or could it be - just perhaps - that both the govt and the unis know that they can take in more kids from poorer backgrounds and maintain the same standards at those Unis?

Which of course gets to mean that currently kids from poorer backgrounds but with equal or better academic standards are being discriminated against in favour of those from the 'right' backgrounds.

So... have you seen the news today (oh boy)?

Edited February 10, 2011 by eFestivals

[llcoolphil]

So... have you seen the news today (oh boy)?

[llcoolphil]

the article seems to confirm that the government don't give a shit about making anything more equal...

did I miss something?

Maybe abolishing fees won't make much difference to balancing out the inequalities. Raising them certainly won't either