Lowering university entry requirements by up to two A-level grades would be a travesty of justice to those who have proved their academic abilities,
but are rejected to make way for a student with inferior grades simply because he or she is from a deprived background.
This is one ploy Labour is no doubt hoping will help overcome its difficulty in filling university places as our hard-up students simply cannot afford the debt caused by funding their £3,000 a year tuition fees. It means they start their working life worrying about paying back debts totaling thousands of pounds.
Besides, I cannot imagine any student feeling any sense of accomplishment having gained a place under preferential treatment, a place has to be awarded on ability fair and square. Why can’t our late developers, those from failing schools or who face disability or sickness, be given further help to meet the required grades, perhaps an extension of time, or personal tuition?
Is another reason Labour is keen on this because they feel guilty about their failing schools? So why aren’t those with potential identified at their schools and given encouragement then to prove themselves, being transferred to a better school and offered the same opportunities to succeed? If they are clever and determined enough, they will get the grades and earn a place the same way as their peers.
Sneaking in with lower grades will make them they feel academically inferior, they will be pitched against classmates who achieved much better results the hard way. Will they, in fact, be able to keep up with the work?
These plans discriminate against those who have worked hard for a uni place. In the past, there have always been students who have excelled from deprived backgrounds and their success has been quite inspirational, it has never stopped them seeking further education.
While on the subject of uni funding, can anyone explain why EU students can have free tuititon in Scotland, yet those from England have to pay?
Yes because Scotland was always closer to Europe than England, politically and as the EU is France and being anti-English, Scotland is the toast of Europe.
I agree with you totally, Ellee. The only criterion for awarding university places should be ability. You are spot-on in what you say about students who get in with lower grades perhaps not coping with the work. I know, from my FE teaching experience, the extent to which mainstream students are already spoonfed and have to be “helped” to the point where you are almost doing the work for them. I used to worry sick about how they would cope at university, where no such support would be in place. We weren’t doing them any favours. Students with special needs should, of course, receive the support that they need and I have to say that I found that they usually did.
Universities are already overflowing with thicko’s that shouldn’t be there. Why lumber them with even more?
WL, perhaps you should pass on your insightful comments gained from personal experience to the Government.
And Daily Pundit, I love the way you always get straight to the point.
I agree that students should be admitted on the basis of ability – their academic ability . This does not necessarily equate with A level score which may reflect more their parents’ ability to pay for their education. Why should those students of equal academic ability but from a disadvantaged background have to jump through more hoops to get to university than an advantaged one?
Hypocentre, That’s why I feel that teachers should be offering more support and identifying talented students from disadvantaged backgrounds who should be helped at an earlier stage than uni, ideally when they are starting secondary school, so they can either be offered a place at a better school or given extra coaching to help them achieve the required grades for uni.
University places are meant to be given to those with high academic learning, not dumbed down. Labour betrayed a lot of people with the removal of assisted places.
You mentioned about free tuition in Scotland, but not to those in England. This new cancer drug is something else that cannot be found in England but is available in Scotland.
Well before they do any thing else why dont they just reform the applications process i.e. UCAS. Having just been through the chaos last year it is a joke. I was predicted ABB in A levels but ended up getting AAA, thus if i had been predicted that i would have applied to better unis. As it is many pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are predicted lower grades than those at private schools, this means they wont even get offers from the top unis as they feel that these people wont get the grades. Secondly its the 3,000 a year of which i am the first year of victims that is putting many people off uni as they dont want to be saddled with such debt. What they need are exmas to be marked quicker and applications to be made when people actually have their results to hand as that is the only fair way.
wow, after that rant im half tempted to start blogging again!
Political Teenager, I did return to your site after receiving your comment to see if your blog was up and running again. You have mentioned some very relevant points, I hope David Willetts – or is it Boris – takes note!
Hi again Ellee – do you agree that Tory candidates should be selected on ability? Should we have an A List of uni students? LOL
Hi SIM UEA, Most certainly, Tory candidates are selected on ability. Allowing uni students to be given places which they have not earned on exam results would create a tier system, which I am against. I feel they should all be admitted on equal ability.
If Grammar schools were available to academically stretch children from ‘deprived backgrounds’, would they still need to lower University entry requirements!?!
I don’t want pilots or surgeons can nearly land aircraft or can nearly operate successfully!
Snafu, That’s a good point because they can hardly be given second-rate degrees on account of coming from a deprived background. If they failed, that would defeat the whole object of the exercise.
But ARE Tories selected on ability. Say that the ‘A’ List contained 50 women and 50 men. If the man who came 51st (hence not on the list) was more able than the woman who came 50th or maybe even 49th, 48th etc. wouldn’t that be selection by background? I’m pretty sure that if you ranked all Tory candidates by merit then the top 150 or so wouldn’t be 60% female. Men (white, middle class ones at that) are now discriminated against.