Should universities academically "help" out students from poorer backgrounds.

Plans to overhaul university admission rules so applicants from disadvantaged families can get a place despite lower grades are being drawn up by Lord Mandelson, The daily mail reports. Do you agree with the plans?

The plans would see many students at high-performing independent and grammar schools who have higher grades “bumped out” from popular courses at leading universities.

Lord Mandelson says the changes are not positive discrimination, but a way of improving social mobility and weakening the middle-class grip on professional jobs.

The plans come at a time when over-subscription for universities will see thousands of people struggle to get a place this summer.

Are these plans positive discrimination? Do you think they are fair? Will they increase social mobility?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...de-head-start-applying-university-places.html

 

I disagree with this method. I think those who work hard should stay in the classes. I also think that people who need help should be given 2 or 3 chances such as probation.

 

I think Lord mandelson will be hard-pressed to find people who agree with his methods.Could never see this working.Sometimes I think people in the civil service need to be seen to be doing something, to justify their position in the civil service. This is a case-in-point in my opinion.

 

only those who score very high and can do the work, then yes but just any person just because they are poor NO

 

This is a difficult question, because poverty can cause bad education at the elementary and high school level. Lower funding for public education means teachers that aren't always that interested in teaching...and before anyone decides to call me a liar, I had personal experience with plenty such teachers. Not -all- public school teachers are horrible, no. But some aren't exactly that interested in doing their jobs, especially when they're being paid extremely low wages.

It's hard to get good grades without a good foundation. I was lucky that I have always been highly intelligent compared to my peers, but not many of my classmates were so lucky. With a better education they could have done better, I believe. The education in my state alone is atrocious, especially compared to almost anywhere else (we ranked like 40 something on the scale of education quality and test scores in the country), and most students would struggle if suddenly transplanted into another school nearly anywhere else simply because they're so behind in comparison.

On the same note, however, I would admit I would feel very slighted if dumb poor people got free grades when I've worked so hard for my own. A lot of kids need a better start, yes, but I don't think the answer is to just give them good grades when they don't have the ability. More remedial classes with less financial penalty should do the trick. If you really want to help poor kids, stop charging tuition for the foundation classes that teach things they already should know, and possibly don't because of bad education. Make sure they know the basics through this method, then the quality of education they got before doesn't matter, because the college itself can regulate the quality of the basic knowledge they want students to have before attending regular college courses. But giving them free grades? Fuck that! That's like saying to me "All your hard work isn't worth a damn, your test scores mean nothing, and your brain isn't important because you could've just been lazy and got a free ride because you're poor". I'm poor, and I'm largely self taught ( I even taught myself to read before I went to school). If I can do it, anyone can.

 

Whilst I do agree that yes, when you come from a better background, you are more likely to do well academically (dozens of factors go into this - interest from parents, home environment, even better schools) I think something like this would not benefit the majority.

There aren't enough working class students in universities. I know the governments try and have you believe that 'almost 50% of university graduates are from working class backgrounds' but that's absolute toss. In my whole time at university, I've only ever come across three people from working class backgrounds, and one of them was me.
You get intelligent poor people, of course you do, but the reason they aren't attending higher education isn't because of their grades, it's because they can't afford it. It's not academic help we need, it's financial. I'm not saying for the government to remove tuition fees altogether (although it works in other countries, including our little neighbour Scotland) but what we're paying now is a joke. I know tuition fees are ridiculous in America too, but you guys have schools which don't charge that much, right? All of ours do. It doesn't matter if you go to Oxford University or Bognor University.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that all working class people have the potential to go on and be doctors and lawyers because we all know that's bullshit. But a lot of people DO have the potential, but they favour immediate gratification. I've had so many (intelligent) working class people say to me 'why are you wasting your time at uni? That's four years and £40,000 you'll have to pay back.'

I would love to see more working class people in higher education, but lets be honest, going to university is still considered to be very middle-class.
And like DH said, having actually worked for my grades, I would hate to see someone who got a pity placement and someone who's worked harder to miss out, it doesn't matter what background they have.

 

Its true children from disadvantaged backgrounds dont do well academically. And I agree in some cases, teachers dont expect a lot from these children, and also the facilities at some these schools usually arent upto scratch. However,in the UK we have grammer schools, where you selected on merit, rather than your social background. So in principal, if you really are that smart, you could always go to a grammer school and get into a top university that way. This is one of the reasons why I disagree with lord mandelson plan.

More than blame the teachers, and facilities in poor areas, I would tend to put the most blame on the cultural aspect of working class people. Many working class people just dont see going to university as a cool thing to do. Let me give you an example: The vast majority of the traveller community in Britain never aspire to go to university. Its cultural thing, they believe once you finish school, you have to train for a specific trade. Even outside the traveller community, I believe that the vast majority of working class people think like this. And as a result some dont put as much emphasis on education

 

You have personal exsperience of the Traveller Community?

My sister is married to one and both of there daughters went to Grammar school, the eldest is in 6th form at another closer school, the other starts
6th form in Sep at Grammar.

I know this is not the main topic, but I would just like to say that most that say they are "Travellers" usually are not, wannabe be chavs is more apt!

And no I don't agree with people having a automatic direct line into Uni when they are not qualified to enter, what exactly are they proposing for the entry level?

I know that one course (Nursing) that I have looked into only requires 2 A levels or equivalent, are they talking about allowing people in from GCSEs only?

I can't really see them implementing this, not without some kind of testing structure.
Can't really see it happening to be honest, I think there needs to be more help, to allow people to be able to go to Uni (Financial) I know there is help for people in certain circumstances for certain careers, but it needs to be overall, based on the courses the students want to do, maybe a means tested thing.

 

Doesn't financial aid somewhat do that?

 

Yeah, I have personal experience with the traveller community. Even though they call themselves travellers, they have parked themselves in field not too far from where I live.And have been there for years. There ones I have come across have been builders.

 

To answer your question with another question:

When these students finish university, will the "real world" give them leniency because of a poor background?
Highly unlikely.

Therefore, I don't believe it is in the best interests of the students to artificially bolster their grades to allow entry into a course. Uni should, to some extent, reflect real life conditions.

Of course, ideally, education would be improved from the bottom up so that there is no disparity between poorer and wealthier schools, etc. That's a nice dream.

At the end of the day, not everyone is, can, nor wants to be a university graduate. It is not necessarily a mark of success to have finished uni, nor will it guarantee anything in life.

I do not have an intricate knowledge of the UK higher education system, so this may already be the case, but I would be supportive of any system that had the following elements:

* standardised testing for enrolment including general intelligence testing
* minimum education requirements
* support for any student who needs academic, emotional assistance
* equitable fee-loan scheme that requires no up-front payments (just because your parents are rich does not mean they are paying the fees)
* financial support for students to partially subsidise additional items such as books, accommodation, etc (in addition to part time work)
* optional supplementary courses to fast-track skills for minimum requirements
* broad education across the high-school system identifying opportunities and highlighting options and accessibility

Basically - make entry into university equal for everyone and not dependent on finances. A university education is reliant on academic skills to a large extent. Sometimes these are as a result of good genes and sometimes through social environment. Regardless, the purpose is still academia.