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

Tommy Monk wrote: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.

Didge wrote:Yet more bullshit and the worst anthology story I have ever heard.
Try again

Tommy Monk wrote:You forget that our so called shitty schools have been receiving millions in extra funding and recruitment of top teachers for years!!!



All this diverted from overall budget and away from other better performing kids and schools.




I'm all for a level playing field, but this has already been tipped so much that now the proposal is that some peoples goals are to be deemed worth more than others goals......

Tommy Monk wrote:

Didge wrote:Yet more bullshit and the worst anthology story I have ever heard.
Try again

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthology






Oh dear....!

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:You forget that our so called shitty schools have been receiving millions in extra funding and recruitment of top teachers for years!!!



All this diverted from overall budget and away from other better performing kids and schools.




I'm all for a level playing field, but this has already been tipped so much that now the proposal is that some peoples goals are to be deemed worth more than others goals......

They don't compare, and in ways you're probably not thinking of. It's not just the schools, it's the entire lifestyle that underprivileged kids are forced to live. They often come home to unstable households, often deal with many day-to-day struggles their privileged peers don't have to worry about, and don't come home to a family environment that values education as much as privileged kids enjoy.

Again, I will point out the OP says these kids from underperforming schools often make excellent university students. I don't see why giving them one advantage, when kids from richer areas have so many advantages, is such an unfair thing to do.

To set someone born into poverty against someone born into comfort or wealth at the same spot on the race track and call it "fair" is to fail to understand poverty, it's actually more akin to an aristocracy.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote: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.

Actually, TM, your bias is what makes you perceive the agenda you perceive.

A meritocracy is where every individual gets the same chance, but you appear to believe that means sending some students to shitty schools while others attend elite ones by virtue of being lucky enough to have wealthy parents.

But I don't know why I bother -- you don't get it, you won't get it and you're just going to reformulate what you've already said as though eventually you'll wear people down.

Didge wrote:

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.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Didge wrote:

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

    Tommy's only apparent attribute is his bigotries, esp. his racism and xenophobia.

He has no clue, no brains, little empathy or understanding, and shows little evidence of decent education or life experiences..
 
What HAS he contributed to  this site, apart from bolstering the Righteous Whinging trolls with his ultra-conservative bluster and Tory_apologist fables ?!?     

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:
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...

Didge wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:

    Tommy's only apparent attribute is his bigotries, esp. his racism and xenophobia.

He has no clue, no brains, little empathy or understanding, and shows little evidence of decent education or life experiences..
 
What HAS he contributed to  this site, apart from bolstering the Righteous Whinging trolls with his ultra-conservative bluster and Tory_apologist fables ?!?     

He claims to have an IQ over 140.

 ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/:  ://?roflmao?/: 

The saddest part is his denial he is racist, homophobic and xenophobic, where he constantly posts in his own words he is and is so stupid not to even see when he does, the poor chap.

Got to laugh mind.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:You forget that our so called shitty schools have been receiving millions in extra funding and recruitment of top teachers for years!!!



All this diverted from overall budget and away from other better performing kids and schools.




I'm all for a level playing field, but this has already been tipped so much that now the proposal is that some peoples goals are to be deemed worth more than others goals......

They don't compare, and in ways you're probably not thinking of. It's not just the schools, it's the entire lifestyle that underprivileged kids are forced to live. They often come home to unstable households, often deal with many day-to-day struggles their privileged peers don't have to worry about, and don't come home to a family environment that values education as much as privileged kids enjoy.

Again, I will point out the OP says these kids from underperforming schools often make excellent university students. I don't see why giving them one advantage, when kids from richer areas have so many advantages, is such an unfair thing to do.

To set someone born into poverty against someone born into comfort or wealth at the same spot on the race track and call it "fair" is to fail to understand poverty, it's actually more akin to an aristocracy.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote: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.

Actually, TM, your bias is what makes you perceive the agenda you perceive.

A meritocracy is where every individual gets the same chance, but you appear to believe that means sending some students to shitty schools while others attend elite ones by virtue of being lucky enough to have wealthy parents.

But I don't know why I bother -- you don't get it, you won't get it and you're just going to reformulate what you've already said as though eventually you'll wear people down.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Actually, TM, your bias is what makes you perceive the agenda you perceive.

A meritocracy is where every individual gets the same chance, but you appear to believe that means sending some students to shitty schools while others attend elite ones by virtue of being lucky enough to have wealthy parents.

But I don't know why I bother -- you don't get it, you won't get it and you're just going to reformulate what you've already said as though eventually you'll wear people down.

I don't get it either. I don't get why you're so obsessed with "rich" versus "poor". What about those who go to "elite" schools but are bullied? What about those who to to "elite" schools but simply don't have the brains to do well academically? What if they just don't have any interest in academic stuff?  

How are children sent to "shitty" schools? Do you think poor people sit there and say - well we're poor so we'll send our children to a shitty school? Surely they go to a school which is available to them. Some teachers might be bad, some might be good. What you're not taking into account is the personality of the child. I know people who went off the rails despite having "respectable" parents, even rich parents.

You seem to think that everyone must be exactly the same in order for society to work. Well it doesn't work that way. All children are given the chance to go to school, and whether they pay attention or not is largely down to them. By the time they reach A levels they are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves if they want to do well in them or not.  

victorisnotamused wrote:
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" .....

.......

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't get it either. I don't get why you're so obsessed with "rich" versus "poor". What about those who go to "elite" schools but are bullied? What about those who to to "elite" schools but simply don't have the brains to do well academically? What if they just don't have any interest in academic stuff?  

How are children sent to "shitty" schools? Do you think poor people sit there and say - well we're poor so we'll send our children to a shitty school? Surely they go to a school which is available to them. Some teachers might be bad, some might be good. What you're not taking into account is the personality of the child. I know people who went off the rails despite having "respectable" parents, even rich parents.

You seem to think that everyone must be exactly the same in order for society to work. Well it doesn't work that way. All children are given the chance to go to school, and whether they pay attention or not is largely down to them. By the time they reach A levels they are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves if they want to do well in them or not.  

Utterly absurd and do not get the point Ben is making, so kids get bullied at elite schools, how does that have any relevance to Kids all having the same chances?
There is none, all you are doing is saying that some privileged children get bullied, it still does not mean they have not had an advantage over many other children the point you are missing.
Ben is speaking of where social standing and wealth do not play a part in who decides which children go to which schools. This has nothing to do with some children paying attention, that is another moot point because other children do pay attention and yet are still disadvantaged compared to children with wealthy parents. What you are in fact saying is that money talks, not equality

Lone Wolf wrote:

victorisnotamused wrote:
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" .....

.......

  

I AGREE with the gist of Victor's points here...

I noticed when and where a few Aussie uni's had lowered some of their entry requirements for several courses back in the late '90s/early noughties ~ with the same 'noble intention' of allowing more disadvantaged students the chance to enter University studies.. AND, it didn't hurt if they happened to increase their total student intakes at the same times.

HOWEVER, in most cases the outcomes weren't what they were hoping for = the rate of dropouts and fails went up  while in several cases the Uni's themselves, and not just the faculties involved, dropped in their overall rankings..

OVER the last couple of years, most of these institutions have started increasing their entry standards back to where they were before, and concentrating more on quality teaching and outcomes, again.     

(Unfortunately, the new tory gov'mnt down here is now trying to wind the H.E. system back to the 1940s/50s/60s ~ and again make it that much harder for ordinary citizens to even afford entry, by re-instating financial roadblocks and restraints in their way..).

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


Utterly absurd and do not get the point Ben is making, so kids get bullied at elite schools, how does that have any relevance to Kids all having the same chances?
There is none, all you are doing is saying that some privileged children get bullied, it still does not mean they have not had an advantage over many other children the point you are missing.
Ben is speaking of where social standing and wealth do not play a part in who decides which children go to which schools. This has nothing to do with some children paying attention, that is another moot point because other children do pay attention and yet are still disadvantaged compared to children with wealthy parents. What you are in fact saying is that money talks, not equality

You think a kid who is bullied is going to be able to concentrate on their school work?
Again that has utterly no relevance to children advantaged and disavantaged

I don't get this "advantage" you and Ben keep bleating about. Having rich parents does not mean one is rich themselves. In fact, they might have less chances because their parents decide which school they're going to, and they decide how their child is going to behave, regardless of their personality.
WTF sorry had to laugh, they are advantaged because of the parents wealth

How are "poor" children at a disadvantage? They go to school, they have the same chance as anyone else. What they do with that chance is up to them.
Because they do not have the benefit of money which can buy the best education, how you cannot even see that is incredible

It's the same when they go to University. They can choose to live the "student life" and do very little work, or they can decide to work hard and get a good degree.
Again irrelevant, we are talking about rich children are advantaged due to the parents wealth who again can buy the best to teach

Why do people think that a degree gives someone an advantage anyway? It might do if the career they want depends on having a degree, but other than that, it doesn't really. I know people who have done well, but it's not because they have a degree, it's because they have ambition. You can't buy drive and ambition.

Raggamuffin wrote:Don't bother trolling me Didge. You had your answer, and insulting me will make no difference to my opinions.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Don't bother trolling me Didge. You had your answer, and insulting me will make no difference to my opinions.

You need to grow up, this is a forum where people debate, if you do not like debating, then I fail to understand why you are here.

Hey ho, hope you realise you are allowed to debate here, it seems this is your get out of jail card every time you cannot counter something.

Score

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

You need to grow up, this is a forum where people debate, if you do not like debating, then I fail to understand why you are here.

Hey ho, hope you realise you are allowed to debate here, it seems this is your get out of jail card every time you cannot counter something.

Score

You don't debate, you just insult people. You're rubbish at debating actually - it's more like trolling.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

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 ...

Lone Wolf wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:


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

 
   THOSE that I found to be most patently "thick" on this thread were the likes of the heavenlyfraudster, Baggshermuffins, and L'ilAndy himself !!!

THOSE Righteous Whingeing bozos have plenty to say on the subject of highr education, when at the same time I consistently get this nagging feeling that those ignorant clods have never even been near a Uni' in their lives..

THOSE such as Ben, Didge and Victor on the other hand ~ who have obviously studied at uni' at some time in their lives ~ have also had markedly less to say on this topic. And when they do it has been much more succinct, clear and to the point..   

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:
 
   THOSE that I found to be most patently "thick" on this thread were the likes of the heavenlyfraudster, Baggshermuffins, and L'ilAndy himself !!!

THOSE Righteous Whingeing bozos have plenty to say on the subject of highr education, when at the same time I consistently get this nagging feeling that those ignorant clods have never even been near a Uni' in their lives..

THOSE such as Ben, Didge and Victor on the other hand ~ who have obviously studied at uni' at some time in their lives ~ have also had markedly less to say on this topic. And when they do it has been much more succinct, clear and to the point..   

If you're referring to me, I went to University, and so did many of my friends.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If you're referring to me, I went to University, and so did many of my friends.

  

IF you look above, Raggs', you will notice that I had second thoughts and deleted your name !

But just not quick enough, as you beat me to the punch..     

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lone Wolf wrote:
  

IF you look above, Raggs', you will notice that I had second thoughts and deleted your name !

But just not quick enough, as you beat me to the punch..     

Why did you change your mind?

Lone Wolf wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why did you change your mind?

  

YOUR dialogues on here against Didge and Ben..

YOU don't deserve to be put on the same level as the likes of heavenly, Tommy or L'ilAndy here.     

Didge wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anthology
Oh dear....!

Yes oh dear the worst we have heard ha ha ha

Tommy Monk wrote:What next?


Poorer kids being given a ten meter head start at the 100m sprint?




You forget that there are a limited number of places at universities, they set the entry requirements, if you don't meet the grades then tough, study harder, re take the exams and re apply next year.


If you still don't meet the grades, maybe that is because you just aren't clever enough.

Joy Division wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:What next?


Poorer kids being given a ten meter head start at the 100m sprint?




You forget that there are a limited number of places at universities, they set the entry requirements, if you don't meet the grades then tough, study harder, re take the exams and re apply next year.


If you still don't meet the grades, maybe that is because you just aren't clever enough.

I don't suppose it's crossed your mind that most people just can't afford the tuition fees, or the payments on a loan for tuition fees Tommy.

Tour views are quite clear on this in that you only believe in these who have money should be given the opportunity to study,,,the words ' equal opportunities' don't mean shit to you do they Tommy?

Tommy Monk wrote:The equal opportunity is The passing of The exams and meeting entry requirements based on ability, not money or parents wealth.


I know plenty of people who went to University, and none of them could be considered wealthy backgrounds, all working class.

Tommy Monk wrote:Everyone can get student loan.


Some even get sponsorship and fees paid for them.


And that is a totally different argument to the op.

Joy Division wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Everyone can get student loan.


Some even get sponsorship and fees paid for them.


And that is a totally different argument to the op.

Do you think everyone can afford a student loan Tommy?, especially since the fees trebled under this coalition government.


What your really hitting at IS poorer students, your a hater of the poor just like some others on here Tommy..

Children of the Thatcher era who laughed and sneered at the poor as well as who created the Yuppy society and propped up the rich pricks.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Joy Division wrote:


Do you think everyone can afford a student loan Tommy?, especially since the fees trebled under this coalition government.


What your really hitting at IS poorer students, your a hater of the poor just like some others on here Tommy..

Children of the Thatcher era who laughed and sneered at the poor as well as who created the Yuppy society and propped up the rich pricks.

Anyone can get a student loan - it's not a question of affording it. That's the point of loans - you get one if you can't afford the fees yourself.

Do you think that everyone who was around in the Thatcher era were laughing at the poor? People did go to university then you know - even poor people.

Joy Division wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Anyone can get a student loan - it's not a question of affording it. That's the point of loans - you get one if you can't afford the fees yourself.

Do you think that everyone who was around in the Thatcher era were laughing at the poor? People did go to university then you know - even poor people.

" it's not a question of affording it'  


So if folk can't afford a loan then how can they possibly study?


Thatcher did create the Yuppy society...your older than me so you must remember it even more than me.


And yes ...poor people did also go to Uni then, but that was quite a while before the tuition fees rocketed up to the tune of £ 9,000.

Joy Division wrote:They still have to pay it back don't they?..and please don't tell me every student even with a top degree go right into a job which matches their degree,more indeed any job...


Not to mention if they don't find their qualified line of work,they incur mounting interest fees on their loans.

I knew a guy who worked in Mcdonalds even though he had not long qualified as a lawyer.


As for Thatcher, I was highlighting how she created the Yuppy culture and despised the poor.

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

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, the message of this "research" appears to be that those who go to university from State schools and who have similar A level results to those who do not are less likely to drop out, and are more likely to get a higher grade in their degree. So what is the point of lowering the entry requirements for those from State schools? It doesn't appear to be about grades at all.

Perhaps the question should be asked - why are those from private schools more likely to drop out?

victorisnotamused wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, the message of this "research" appears to be that those who go to university from State schools and who have similar A level results to those who do not are less likely to drop out, and are more likely to get a higher grade in their degree. So what is the point of lowering the entry requirements for those from State schools? It doesn't appear to be about grades at all.

Perhaps the question should be asked - why are those from private schools more likely to drop out?

I would guess because a large proportion of them are spoilt brats that have never even had to wipe their own arse and have had anything and everything they want provided on a plate.
They think the world is there "just for the taking" , and are shocked into incompetence when the reality dawns on them....