Universities Should Lower Entry Requirements So Thick, But Poor, Students Get In Over Hard Working Students

7th June 2014

Social engineering laid out bare.

They just won't be happy until the country is bottom of the league.

Universities should discriminate against applicants from private schools, grammars and high-performing comprehensives, Government-funded research has suggested.

The controversial study reccomends that universities should lower their entry requirements for pupils from non-selective and poor-performing state schools because they show more ‘potential’, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

These students are ‘significantly’ more likely to graduate with a first or 2.1 in their degree than peers from private or high-achieving state schools who gained similar results at GCSE and A-level, the study of millions of school-leavers found.

They are also less likely to drop out of their degree courses part-way through.

The researchers, led by Dr Claire Crawford, claim that selective schools may be better at drawing out good results from their pupils - a so-called ‘teaching effect’.

They say that university entry grades should be lowered for pupils at comprehensives, particularly schools where pupils make poor progress, ‘in order to equalise the potential of all students being admitted to university’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2650829/Middle-class-children-best-performing-schools-miss-universities-says-government-study.html#ixzz33wZo6pLg

The alternate solution is to return to schooling selective on ability (bring back grammar schools) so that a students background is irrelevant compared to what they can do.

It has now been scientifically evidenced that grammar schools minimize the impact of economic origin on educational outcome while the mixed ability comprehensive system we currently use has a much worse outcome for those from poor backgrounds.

http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/18/esr.jcu040.short?rss=1

come on , i'm not sure they could lower the university standards much more if they tried, they know they don't want all the kids straight from school on the social but throwing them in to further education and bribing the parents with tax credits is not the way forward...

I don't get it. I'm sorry I really don't. If you want more students to enroll in the universities maybe offer of the basic classes (there were classes ranked below the typical 100 level at the community college I started at) cheaper?

And just make attending college cheaper overall. I know a lot of people who would go to college but just can't afford to. A lot of them are smart but don't have the finances or the time to go to classes while working full time.

jaded fox wrote:I don't get it. I'm sorry I really don't. If you want more students to enroll in the universities maybe offer of the basic classes (there were classes ranked below the typical 100 level at the community college I started at) cheaper?

And just make attending college cheaper overall. I know a lot of people who would go to college but just can't afford to. A lot of them are smart but don't have the finances or the time to go to classes while working full time.

It would take some working out but if the companies that required the student paid to put the student through college or university, it would stop people going on courses that do not lead to actual employment and keep all, some or most of the cost off the actual student.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

jaded fox wrote:I don't get it. I'm sorry I really don't. If you want more students to enroll in the universities maybe offer of the basic classes (there were classes ranked below the typical 100 level at the community college I started at) cheaper?

And just make attending college cheaper overall. I know a lot of people who would go to college but just can't afford to. A lot of them are smart but don't have the finances or the time to go to classes while working full time.

It would take some working out but if the companies that required the student paid to put the student through college or university, it would stop people going on courses that do not lead to actual employment and keep all, some or most of the cost off the actual student.

The problem with that is the universities often have some weird requirements for a degree. Some of the guys taking culinary studies ended up an a general anthropology class with me for their requirement. I ended up in a medical ethics class to satisfy a diversification requirement for mine.

jaded fox wrote:I don't get it. I'm sorry I really don't. If you want more students to enroll in the universities maybe offer of the basic classes (there were classes ranked below the typical 100 level at the community college I started at) cheaper?

And just make attending college cheaper overall. I know a lot of people who would go to college but just can't afford to. A lot of them are smart but don't have the finances or the time to go to classes while working full time.

I think you are missing the point slightly - it is not that they want more people enrolling its that they want more people from certain groups succeeding in getting accepted.

They want universities to say right this candidate has parents in this income bracket and went to this good secondary school and got AAA at A level while this candidate has a single unemployed parent and went to this bad secondary school and got BBC at A level - we only have one place left and it must go to the candidate with the lower grades because they come from a poorer background.

The problem is not enrolment its that the nasty universities keep picking AAA students over BBC students instead of considering what sort of life the students have and choosing the ones who have had harder lives even though their results are not as good.

jaded fox wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

It would take some working out but if the companies that required the student paid to put the student through college or university, it would stop people going on courses that do not lead to actual employment and keep all, some or most of the cost off the actual student.

The problem with that is the universities often have some weird requirements for a degree. Some of the guys taking culinary studies ended up an a general anthropology class with me for their requirement. I ended up in a medical ethics class to satisfy a diversification requirement for mine.  

maybe they do it just to push numbers in to things that are not supported sufficiently...

Kids are already spoon fed through GCSE's and A levels and some still can't score enough to get into a university so now they want to lower the entry requirements even more?



This is about getting more blacks and ethnics in there.

Tommy Monk wrote:Kids are already spoon fed through GCSE's and A levels and some still can't score enough to get into a university so now they want to lower the entry requirements even more?



This is about getting more blacks and ethnics in there.

Wow, you wanted to have proof of your racism, there it is.

sphinx wrote:

jaded fox wrote:I don't get it. I'm sorry I really don't. If you want more students to enroll in the universities maybe offer of the basic classes (there were classes ranked below the typical 100 level at the community college I started at) cheaper?

And just make attending college cheaper overall. I know a lot of people who would go to college but just can't afford to. A lot of them are smart but don't have the finances or the time to go to classes while working full time.

I think you are missing the point slightly - it is not that they want more people enrolling its that they want more people from certain groups succeeding in getting accepted.

They want universities to say right this candidate has parents in this income bracket and went to this good secondary school and got AAA at A level while this candidate has a single unemployed parent and went to this bad secondary school and got BBC at A level - we only have one place left and it must go to the candidate with the lower grades because they come from a poorer background.

The problem is not enrolment its that the nasty universities keep picking AAA students over BBC students instead of considering what sort of life the students have and choosing the ones who have had harder lives even though their results are not as good.

It is not saying that at all is it?

Did you actually read the article?


It also suggested that ‘contextual’ admissions policies which take into account the average performance of an applicant’s school are flawed.
The performance of a school – whether high or low-achieving – was said to make little difference to a pupil’s chances of achieving a first or 2.1 at university.

The report said it could not recommend ‘specific changes that should be made to the entry offers of particular universities’.
But it added: ‘These results provide suggestive evidence that universities may wish to consider lowering their entry requirements for pupils from non-selective or low-value-added state schools (relative to pupils from selective or high-value-added state schools, or independent schools) in order to equalise the potential of students being admitted from these different types of school.’





I suggest you read the article first before posting bullshit

This proves that The agenda of force multiculturalism is still alive and well, and will move any amount of goal posts and disadvantage any amount of more able and better qualified white British people to achieve this.
We can all see what is going on here, there has already been criticism of universities over the years for being 'too white', when entry is based purely on merit.
So who are the real racists again here dodge???
Disguised as helping the 'poorest' and most 'disadvantaged' bullshit, just translates directly to more blacks and ethnics being given an even bigger helping hand based on the colour of their skin being more deserving than the kids who have actually passed the exams required for entry.
How can you justify discriminating against bright kids who have passed their exams to gain entry in favour of those who are not as bright and have not passed their exams with high enough grades?
It is clearly wrong.

Tommy Monk wrote:This proves that The agenda of force multiculturalism is still alive and well, and will move any amount of goal posts and disadvantage any amount of more able and better qualified white British people to achieve this.
We can all see what is going on here, there has already been criticism of universities over the years for being 'too white', when entry is based purely on merit.
So who are the real racists again here dodge???
Disguised as helping the 'poorest' and most 'disadvantaged' bullshit, just translates directly to more blacks and ethnics being given an even bigger helping hand based on the colour of their skin being more deserving than the kids who have actually passed the exams required for entry.
How can you justify discriminating against bright kids who have passed their exams to gain entry in favour of those who are not as bright and have not passed their exams with high enough grades?
It is clearly wrong.

Again another one that has not read the article who just exposed himself as racist again and has nothing to do with multiculturalism, that is a poor deflection attempt by yet again an exposed racist to the points being made in the article, lets read some more shall we for the ignorant here:




The report said it could not recommend ‘specific changes that should be made to the entry offers of particular universities’.
But it added: ‘These results provide suggestive evidence that universities may wish to consider lowering their entry requirements for pupils from non-selective or low-value-added state schools (relative to pupils from selective or high-value-added state schools, or independent schools) in order to equalise the potential of students being admitted from these different types of school.’
It said pupils from state grammars should be ‘excluded from receiving these lower offers’.


According to the reasech, which tracked millions of school-leavers over several years, those from selective private or state schools or comprehensives with low numbers of pupils on free school meals are ‘significantly more likely to drop out, significantly less likely to complete their degree and significantly less likely to graduate with a first or a 2.1’ than their counterparts with similar results in non-selective or lower-performing schools.
Among pupils with similar grades, pupils from selective independent schools were 6.4 percentage points less likely to complete their degree and 10.3 percentage points less likely to graduate with a first or 2.1.
‘Those from non-selective or low-value-added state schools could be regarded as having higher “potential” than those from selective or high-value-added state schools or independent schools’, the report said.
It suggested that private and selective schools ‘may be better at producing good grades at GCSE for their pupils than others, meaning that a pupil of given ability will obtain higher grades at a selective school than a non-selective community school’.

This is an argument for more grammar schools, not lowering entry requirements of universities.



And we all know what this is about.



As I said before, universities have been criticised for being too white and not having enough blacks ethnicp etc before now.


Just like the Devon school...

Tommy Monk wrote:This is an argument for more grammar schools, not lowering entry requirements of universities.And we all know what this is about. As I said before, universities have been criticised for being too white and not having enough blacks ethnicp etc before now.
Just like the Devon school...

Yet more bollocks, based now upon his own delusional racist views and no where in this does it go on about ethnicity, which proves again how you just makes things up as you go along :


It suggested that private and selective schools ‘may be better at producing good grades at GCSE for their pupils than others, meaning that a pupil of given ability will obtain higher grades at a selective school than a non-selective community school’.

Thus creating the argument for more selective schools.

Option 1 ask universities to judge the quality of schools and guess whether applicants would have got higher grades if they had gone to a selective school.

Option 2 put every child in a selective school so every child gets as high a grade as possible.

sphinx wrote:Thus creating the argument for more selective schools.

Option 1 ask universities to judge the quality of schools and guess whether applicants would have got higher grades if they had gone to a selective school.

Option 2 put every child in a selective school so every child gets as high a grade as possible.

Not at all, what it is doing is showing that a school can produce better grades but that pupils can be as intelligent or as capable of the same in lesser schools and hence why the requirements systems is utterly flawed.

At least you have dropped your other bullshit part, that is a start, well done

We all know that the vast majority of poorest and most deprived areas are full of all the hard working highly skilled and well needed immigrants, so any attempt to move the goal posts on lowering university admission grades to help these poor and disadvantaged is obviously about getting more of these blacks and ethnics in universities.

Tommy Monk wrote:We all know that the vast majority of poorest and most deprived areas are full of all the hard working highly skilled and well needed immigrants, so any attempt to move the goal posts on lowering university admission grades to help these poor and disadvantaged is obviously about getting more of these blacks and ethnics in universities.

Dear me, someone really cannot read and just makes up more bullshit with every post, so no we do not all think as you do, deluded and paranoid as you are.

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:Thus creating the argument for more selective schools.

Option 1 ask universities to judge the quality of schools and guess whether applicants would have got higher grades if they had gone to a selective school.

Option 2 put every child in a selective school so every child gets as high a grade as possible.

Not at all, what it is doing is showing that a school can produce better grades but that pupils can be as intelligent or as capable of the same in lesser schools and hence why the requirements systems is utterly flawed.

At least you have dropped your other bullshit part, that is a start, well done

So you are of the opinion that the only thing of importance in university is intelligence?

Does it not occur to you that the pupils in the better schools getting better grades are entering university better prepared regardless of their equal intelligence?

Are you really arguing for a system where the top tier of education is making selection judgements based on the quality of the lower tiers of education instead of demanding that the lower tiers of education are pulled up and made equal in quality?

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


Not at all, what it is doing is showing that a school can produce better grades but that pupils can be as intelligent or as capable of the same in lesser schools and hence why the requirements systems is utterly flawed.

At least you have dropped your other bullshit part, that is a start, well done

So you are of the opinion that the only thing of importance in university is intelligence?
Nope, you assertion not mine 

Does it not occur to you that the pupils in the better schools getting better grades are entering university better prepared regardless of their equal intelligence?
How are they better prepared, that is complete gobbledygook

Are you really arguing for a system where the top tier of education is making selection judgements based on the quality of the lower tiers of education instead of demanding that the lower tiers of education are pulled up and made equal in quality?

I am asking for a system that judges the pupil on their abilities and does not discriminate against them because of the school they attended

Results in exams are partially a measure of ability and partially a measure of the quality of preparation for said exam, preparation being made up of the teaching and effort put in.

If 2 pupils of equal intelligence get different results in an identical exam because they come from different schools then a major part of that is due to quality of preparation.

Effort put in is down to the individual - maybe you would like to argue how an individual not prepared to put the effort in to get the necessary grade at A is going to put the necessary (increased) effort in to get a degree.

Quality of teaching is down to the school.  

The problem being that the preparation at the lower level is what forms the foundation of understanding at the higher level.  Where that foundation is weak because of poor preparation at the lower level it becomes difficult or impossible to build understanding on it without having to go back and redo the foundation.

Calling for universities to take candidates from poorer educational backgrounds on lower results is basically asking the universities to redo the jobs the schools should have done in the first place.  Yes being of equal ability such candidates can achieve equal outcome, however only at the price of much increased input by the universities and effort from themselves.

Why are we asking universities to redo the work when we should be demanding that the schools do it properly in the first place?

sphinx wrote:Results in exams are partially a measure of ability and partially a measure of the quality of preparation for said exam, preparation being made up of the teaching and effort put in.

If 2 pupils of equal intelligence get different results in an identical exam because they come from different schools then a major part of that is due to quality of preparation.

Balderdash, that is a poor assumption, there maybe a variety of reasons.
The rest of your post was also nonsense when as seen you miss the point of what is being stated in the article, but hey ho not suprised, as seen you did not read through the article.
A school maybe doing bad because of the pupils itself, which could have little bearing on the how the school is run, but that some of the students just do not care and thus bring down the level of the school with disruption, not matter if they are expelled disruption has occurred, so again you have a very narrow minded view on Schools, when there is many reasons behind a schools failing or class as such.

So of interest, this school has been downgrade and you can explain to me why?

http://www.goldenhillock.bham.sch.uk/images/LATEST_NEWS/PVET%20Statement%20on%20GHS%205th%20June%202014.pdf


Would they now be disadvantaged because of a report which people are debating if it is valid, as seen this school does not seem to have done anything bad to receive being placed inadequate, but now these pupils will be disadvantaged because of this seeking further education, is that fair to them?

Back in my day, I don't think there was a standard requirement for University. You had an interview and they decided what grades they wanted you to get for A levels.

I don't think that blanket discrimination would work though - that would be unfair to the pupils from these "better" schools.

Surely it is quite straight forward....

either you have OR you do not have the required grades ...

it IS NOT the universities place to "bring up to the required level" failures.

IF you dont have the grades...then settle down, and do the resists...THEN reapply...
if you fail those...then perhaps uni aint for you...

or perhaps try the OU...

talk about "dumbing down"

what with the present crop of utterly pointless and useless degrees (media studies comes to mind...along with a whole host of other stuff that should be no better than what USED to be the old HNC. I.E vocational training...let me tell you HNC was not, is not and never was or will be the equivalent of a degree. considering it so degrades "true degrees" and devalues the whole system of H.E

Didge wrote:

sphinx wrote:Results in exams are partially a measure of ability and partially a measure of the quality of preparation for said exam, preparation being made up of the teaching and effort put in.

If 2 pupils of equal intelligence get different results in an identical exam because they come from different schools then a major part of that is due to quality of preparation.

Balderdash, that is a poor assumption, there maybe a variety of reasons.
The rest of your post was also nonsense when as seen you miss the point of what is being stated in the article, but hey ho not suprised, as seen you did not read through the article.
A school maybe doing bad because of the pupils itself, which could have little bearing on the how the school is run, but that some of the students just do not care and thus bring down the level of the school with disruption, not matter if they are expelled disruption has occurred, so again you have a very narrow minded view on Schools, when there is many reasons behind a schools failing or class as such.

So of interest, this school has been downgrade and you can explain to me why?

http://www.goldenhillock.bham.sch.uk/images/LATEST_NEWS/PVET%20Statement%20on%20GHS%205th%20June%202014.pdf


Would they now be disadvantaged because of a report which people are debating if it is valid, as seen this school does not seem to have done anything bad to receive being placed inadequate, but now these pupils will be disadvantaged because of this seeking further education, is that fair to them?

Make up your mind will you - either pupils do badly because of their schools and so should not be required to achieve the same grades to get to university or schools do badly because of their pupils and then where is your argument for said pupils getting into university with lower grades.

By the time someone is doing A levels, they should pretty much be able to work on their own anyway and not rely too much on the teachers.

Raggamuffin wrote:By the time someone is doing A levels, they should pretty much be able to work on their own anyway and not rely too much on the teachers.

They need the teachers to tell them what they should be working on and explain how they should be working on it.

At university they will attend lectures where they will be given a topic and told what is required and they are expected to know how to produce that. If different methods of working have not been introduced at GCSE and enlarge up at A level they will not be able to produce what is required.

Just the same as if methods are not introduced at GCSE then they will not be understood when enlarged up at A level.

sphinx wrote:

Didge wrote:


Balderdash, that is a poor assumption, there maybe a variety of reasons.
The rest of your post was also nonsense when as seen you miss the point of what is being stated in the article, but hey ho not suprised, as seen you did not read through the article.
A school maybe doing bad because of the pupils itself, which could have little bearing on the how the school is run, but that some of the students just do not care and thus bring down the level of the school with disruption, not matter if they are expelled disruption has occurred, so again you have a very narrow minded view on Schools, when there is many reasons behind a schools failing or class as such.

So of interest, this school has been downgrade and you can explain to me why?

http://www.goldenhillock.bham.sch.uk/images/LATEST_NEWS/PVET%20Statement%20on%20GHS%205th%20June%202014.pdf


Would they now be disadvantaged because of a report which people are debating if it is valid, as seen this school does not seem to have done anything bad to receive being placed inadequate, but now these pupils will be disadvantaged because of this seeking further education, is that fair to them?

Make up your mind will you - either pupils do badly because of their schools and so should not be required to achieve the same grades to get to university or schools do badly because of their pupils and then where is your argument for said pupils getting into university with lower grades.

Wow, that shows you know little of how there can varying situations hence why you did not respond to the point in regards to the school linked shown.

Try again

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:By the time someone is doing A levels, they should pretty much be able to work on their own anyway and not rely too much on the teachers.

They need the teachers to tell them what they should be working on and explain how they should be working on it.

At university they will attend lectures where they will be given a topic and told what is required and they are expected to know how to produce that.  If different methods of working have not been introduced at GCSE and enlarge up at A level they will not be able to produce what is required.

Just the same as if methods are not introduced at GCSE then they will not be understood when enlarged up at A level.

They don't need to be spoon fed though.

universities should lower their entry requirements for pupils from non-selective and poor-performing state schools because they show more ‘potential’, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

These students are ‘significantly’ more likely to graduate with a first or 2.1 in their degree than peers from private or high-achieving state schools who gained similar results at GCSE and A-level, the study of millions of school-leavers found.

They are also less likely to drop out of their degree courses part-way through.

Doesn't sound like they're "thick" at all unless I missed something ...

Raggamuffin wrote:

sphinx wrote:

They need the teachers to tell them what they should be working on and explain how they should be working on it.

At university they will attend lectures where they will be given a topic and told what is required and they are expected to know how to produce that.  If different methods of working have not been introduced at GCSE and enlarge up at A level they will not be able to produce what is required.

Just the same as if methods are not introduced at GCSE then they will not be understood when enlarged up at A level.

They don't need to be spoon fed though.

It tends to depend on whether they received the spoon feeding when it was appropriate - if their "poorly performing" school failed to introduce methods at GCSE and enlarge on them at A level then the university is going to have to do this spoon feeding because otherwise they are not going to be able to do the necessary work properly.

If some does not show them how to do stuff they are going to struggle. It is supposed to be the schools that show them - but some schools dont, so they do not get such good grades and now the idea is that the university looks at the less good grades and says ah it is simply they were not shown how to do stuff so we should let them in and then we can show them how to do the stuff the kids from the good schools were shown to do before reaching us and they will do just as well.

My idea is to get the poorly performing schools to perform better so all the kids are shown what to do at the same point in their education.

sphinx wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

They don't need to be spoon fed though.

It tends to depend on whether they received the spoon feeding when it was appropriate - if their "poorly performing" school failed to introduce methods at GCSE and enlarge on them at A level then the university is going to have to do this spoon feeding because otherwise they are not going to be able to do the necessary work properly.

If some does not show them how to do stuff they are going to struggle.  It is supposed to be the schools that show them - but some schools dont, so they do not get such good grades and now the idea is that the university looks at the less good grades and says ah it is simply they were not shown how to do stuff so we should let them in and then we can show them how to do the stuff the kids from the good schools were shown to do before reaching us and they will do just as well.

My idea is to get the poorly performing schools to perform better so all the kids are shown what to do at the same point in their education.

Well if they're doing A levels, they presumably passed enough GCSEs. When I was at school there was a big difference between O levels and A levels. We were expected to think for ourselves when doing A levels, and it took a lot to get an A grade in those days. One of the most useful things a teacher could do was try to anticipate which questions would be asked in an exam paper.   

It was all exam-based then of course, and I think it's a bit different these days.

A levels are modular now in easy bite size chunks, GCSE's are about as easy as can be made, with about half the exam result based on 'course' work, or copying out of a book or off the net in other words.



I remember a few years ago when a group of a level maths students were made to sit an old o level as an experiment and they all failed it dismally.


Just shows the dumbing down has been going on for a long time.


We have heard loads about how employers have been getting school leavesp with string of exam passes but who couldn't read and write properly or understand basic maths.


But with all this dumbing down, universities are still too white British so the progressives have thought up this other way of getting more blacks and ethnics in there, it's basically a handicap system, blame the school for the poor results rather than the pupils who just don't do very well because they don't really have the ability, then make this shit grade worth more.


All in The name of equality mind...



It fucking stinks!



ANd means that brighter and more able kids who have worked hard and achieved the necessary grades lose out in place of the worse kids with the shittier grades, who might have also worked hard and had loads of help but just didn't make the grade.

BigAndy9 wrote:7th June 2014

Social engineering laid out bare.

They just won't be happy until the country is bottom of the league.

Universities should discriminate against applicants from private schools, grammars and high-performing comprehensives, Government-funded research has suggested.

The controversial study reccomends that universities should lower their entry requirements for pupils from non-selective and poor-performing state schools because they show more ‘potential’, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

These students are ‘significantly’ more likely to graduate with a first or 2.1 in their degree than peers from private or high-achieving state schools who gained similar results at GCSE and A-level, the study of millions of school-leavers found.

They are also less likely to drop out of their degree courses part-way through.

The researchers, led by Dr Claire Crawford, claim that selective schools may be better at drawing out good results from their pupils - a so-called ‘teaching effect’.

They say that university entry grades should be lowered for pupils at comprehensives, particularly schools where pupils make poor progress, ‘in order to equalise the potential of all students being admitted to university’.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2650829/Middle-class-children-best-performing-schools-miss-universities-says-government-study.html#ixzz33wZo6pLg

It is rather a shame that those on the right do nothing but perpetually run this great nation down, the sadness is deep within them, struggling in the darkness of ignorance.

Great Britain has three universities in the world top ten, that's pretty cool, our teachers are well trained, and thanks to a Labour government that rebuilt 4000 schools after the decay and clusterfuck inflicted on us by the tories, we're in better shape now than we've ever been.

Our education system might be a tad perfunctory, probably more complicated than most and definitely more complicated than need be, but when you consider the general direction of travel, it's par for the course.

Under labour our international league ratings plummeted.

Tommy Monk wrote:Kids are already spoon fed through GCSE's and A levels and some still can't score enough to get into a university so now they want to lower the entry requirements even more?



This is about getting more blacks and ethnics in there.

Hi. I'm going to assume that you would consider me an "ethnic" and I got into college just fine with current standards. Thanks for that lovely show of racism though.

sphinx wrote:

I think you are missing the point slightly - it is not that they want more people enrolling its that they want more people from certain groups succeeding in getting accepted.

They want universities to say right this candidate has parents in this income bracket and went to this good secondary school and got AAA at A level while this candidate has a single unemployed parent and went to this bad secondary school and got BBC at A level - we only have one place left and it must go to the candidate with the lower grades because they come from a poorer background.

The problem is not enrolment its that the nasty universities keep picking AAA students over BBC students instead of considering what sort of life the students have and choosing the ones who have had harder lives even though their results are not as good.

I kind of went off on a side rant with the cost of college. What I was trying to say is offer more of the pre-college (it was called that in my school) level courses to let the students from lower preforming school catch up and see if they really can cut it. IF they do have the potential that will get them up to speed.

Jaded fox, you got in on merit, not being given special treatment and lower entry requirements because of skin colour, correct?


The leftie progressives want the latter, and at the expense of brighter and more able kids who have achieved the necessary grades.


The grades required for entry are same for everyone, and if that means more of some ethnicity and less of others then that is purely reflective of ability and achievement.


To me this proposal is politically correct social engineering.



The more you give a leg up to some, the more you are discriminating against others for not fitting the set criteria deemed worthy enough for special treatment.

Tommy, why do you automatically assume it will only be non-white kids who get a boost from this? Are there no poor white people in the UK?

I don't think Universities should take into account what school someone went to, or how poor or rich they are. The point of an interview is to see if someone would be a credit to the university, and if they're likely to do well, and not just academically. If a University thinks someone would, they may well ask for lowish A level grades. At least that's how it used to be.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think Universities should take into account what school someone went to, or how poor or rich they are. The point of an interview is to see if someone would be a credit to the university, and if they're likely to do well, and not just academically. If a University thinks someone would, they may well ask for lowish A level grades. At least that's how it used to be.

The study cited in the OP says that students from lower economic levels or worse-off schools actually often make better university students, doesn't it?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think Universities should take into account what school someone went to, or how poor or rich they are. The point of an interview is to see if someone would be a credit to the university, and if they're likely to do well, and not just academically. If a University thinks someone would, they may well ask for lowish A level grades. At least that's how it used to be.

The study cited in the OP says that students from lower economic levels or worse-off schools actually often make better university students, doesn't it?

Yes, I think it did. However, that's not the same as discriminating in their favour because of the school they went to. This research sounds a bit daft to me. Government-sponsored research huh?

If it's not picking on the Muslims and blacks, it's pick on the poor.

We have previously heard how universities are being criticised for being too white.



Overwhelming majority of so called poor and disadvantaged places and schools are full of The hard working and highly skilled well needed immigrants we are constantly told that therse foreigners are.



Although ending up creating the poor and disadvantaged areas and schools.




This is classic double speak and the agenda is clear.

Oh dear more racism.

Anti white British racism, clear agenda of making universities less white and more multicultural as per the agenda....

Tommy Monk wrote:Anti white British racism, clear agenda of making universities less white and more multicultural as per the agenda....

Nobody brought into this debate any claims of racial views and yet you did with two times exposing your racist views on people.
So now you are claiming there is an agenda against the vast majority white population, by whites themselves, being as there are 87% whites in this country to be racist to themselves. Please explain how that works where people who are white are racist to themselves?
Or is it a case of the reality you are just a vile racist low life, who as seen has been exposed again as a racist?

We can all see what the agenda is here dodge....



I believe in a meritocracy.



Universities set entry requirements.



Either pass and apply or don't.

No all we see is countless evidence of your racism, and then how you poorly feign innocence by detracting from your poor racist posts.

You are a racist, and you exposed this badly today