[Closed] How rubbish do you need to be not to be accepted by a University?

Media Studies...

She could have just got a place working in the cafeteria.

"Do you have £9000?"

"Yes, yes, I do"

"Well come on in my friend"

She could have just got a place [s]working in the cafeteria[/s] training as a recruitment consultant

Shouldn't employers be the ones who decide what courses are offered and the standard of eligibility.

Apart from those who self fund, then they can learn what they like.

torsoinalake - Member
"Do you have £9000?"

"Yes, yes, I do"

"Well come on in my friend"

^^^ this

universities are just another business these days

Couldn't quite believe what I was hearing!

True, doing 5 A levels for someone with that potential seems a lot. 5 A levels simultaneously is a stupid amount of work.I wonder who was advising her.

Not all further ed courses are born equally though - some will require very little to get on simply because the end result is hardly worth the paper it is written on so hardly anyone wants to go there. £30K+ worth of debt for some of these courses is a mugs game.

Shouldn't employers be the ones who decide what courses are offered and the standard of eligibility.

Employers should decide what courses universities should offer? Sure, if you want to kill off research science, the arts and humanities in one step, that'd be a good way to do it.

Universities shouldn't be in the business of vocational training, and it should be free to all.

Apart from those who self fund, then they can learn what they like.

Who isn't self funding?

i`m not rubbish* but i got worse results than her and went to uni (foundation year). am now a charted engineer

just cos they are no good at exams doesnt mean they are a waste of space.

*admittedly this could be argued.

It all depends what course you're trying to get on and at what university.

Obviously she won't be off to study pharmacy or any sort of engineering at a Russell Group university with those grades.

Even a half descent course at a half decent university is likely to set entry requirements of UCAS points requiring more than Three C's.

But there are plenty of other universities and courses which will take you on with a lot less. Some courses have an additional 'foundation year' to help those who didn't get the grades needed for the course.

She has got that B in there so she must be reasonably good at something.

Some translation for foreigners please - WTF is a "U grade" ? Does that mean you are really stupid, but not quite at Z level ?

Doesn't mean it was a decent university.

U = Unclassified (too bad even for an E)

Last week coming back from North Wales i passed my old university for the first time in 10 years and it was painfully obvious it was an education shop nowadays.

A girl interviewed on the telly last night...

"I've got an E, U, B, E and U - not what I hoped for but I've still got a place"

Couldn't quite believe what I was hearing!

Depends if the place is on a course in the 'B' subject, which she could be passionate and talented in, and the other subjects were filler she was advised to do because apparently everyone has to do a million A-levels now instead of focussing on the subjects you're good at.

Universities may want the money, but they also want students that can complete the course and achieve otherwise it reflects badly in their dropout and results tables. She may have had an unconditional offer based on interview/portfolio for all you know.

Even when I did mine last millennium they were pushing us to do 4 A-levels instead of 3, because, well 4 is better than 3 isn't it 🙁

I dropped the 4th after 8 months and I think I got better grades in the other 3 because of it, they were certainly more relevant to the course I wanted to do at Uni.

Well either:

1. within two generations we have suddenly all become much more intelligent or,
2. standards have dropped so much that university degrees which only the top 5% could achieve two generations ago is now pretty much available to anyone with £9000 a year.

Call me a cynic, but I'm going with 2.

My neighbour's son was hoping to get AAA* in maths, biology and physics to do mechanical engineering so I guess it depends on the subject (and probably the university too)

[i]How rubbish do you need to be[/i]

I don't consider someone to be 'rubbish' because they can't pass exams.

ho ho look at the stupid people with no qualifications, I'm so much better than them.

And to add to that my son needed 3 BBB's to get into uni, he got BBC but he's had a dreadful year - starting with a seizure (caused by undiagnosed type 1 diabetes) which resulted in a broken cheekbone, diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and the death of a family member - all in the lead up to his exmas. Thankfully the university were more understanding than the OP.

WTF is a "U grade" ?

Once they have ponced around with UMS (uniform mark scale - kind of massaging the results to get the number of As, Bs, Cs and so on they want) a U grade is someone who didn't manage to get 40% overall across their modules.

For context E grade needs 40%+, D 50%+, C 60%+, B 70%+, A 80%+ and A* normally 90%+ from their modules they took in the final year.

Race to the bottom. No SNC, lots of institutions have expensive buildings, staff and infrastructure to support. The small ones are really struggling... so the response is to provide as many courses as possible with low entry requirements. The problem with that is the drop out rate is horrendous and the the uni has budgeted for three years at 9k/PA.

I worked at UCAS, we saw a lot of these trends. Pretty scary out there for recruiting uni's with little brand/differentiation, Marketisation of HE is a big thing... note the number of unconditional offers which is pretty naughty really but can see more of it happening.

Call me a cynic, but I'm going with 2.

or 3. In a generation the proportion of kids who go to uni has tripled (most consider this a good thing) without some weird genetic engineering going on to make our offspring any brighter. People who were not considered bright enough to continue in education had they finished school in the 80's now have places open to them. Not sure this is a bad thing but you do need to adjust your concept of the 'value' of a degree.

OP that person has clearly done too many subjects. They do have a "B" in something so perhaps they chose other subjects poorly. Many U.S. Colleges have a system where they will take just about anyone but you have to pass the exams to pass each year, not a bad system I think.

Of course standards are lower, exams where made easier to "broaden access" and the distinction between Universities and Ploytechnics was removed. We have large numbers of "Universities" dependent on foreign students being granted entry visas and paying high fees, as above very much a business and not educational establishments

in 1997 (before tuition fees) i was offered a place based on B,B,C, grades. I got C, C, U and was let in anyway (although the U was later regraded)

I notice that these days Salford uni is somewhere near the bottom of the pile! 😆

note the number of unconditional offers which is pretty naughty really but can see more of it happening.

Not convinced, when I was applying, of the 6 Chemical/Process Engineering courses I applied for, I think 2 offered unconditional offers, presumably because the people applying were targeting AAA and in reality it didn't matter if you missed that by a bit due to a bad day in the exam.

or 3. In a generation the proportion of kids who go to uni has tripled (most consider this a good thing) without some weird genetic engineering going on to make our offspring any brighter. People who were not considered bright enough to continue in education had they finished school in the 80's now have places open to them. Not sure this is a bad thing but you do need to adjust your concept of the 'value' of a degree.

Or teaching has just got better?

In a generation they're no longer allowed to hit pupils with a cane, take kids to Benidorm in term time, eat junk food in school, smoke in the corridors, etc etc etc, and on the positive side kids have access to huge volumes of material online for revision beyond just highlighting and copying out page after page.

I seem to remember when I was doing the round of UCAS interviews, I went to an open day at Kingston Uni & even though most places wanted a minimum of 3C grades to do Mech Eng (I think Imperial wanted AAB) the bloke who interviewed me at Kingston said that they would offer me a place with 3 E grades.

To be honest, as a result of the interview a lot of universities decide that they want a particular student above and beyond any of the grades they may get.
A friend of my sister got straight A's at a-level and it was never in any doubt that she was going to do well. She ended up at Oxford, but after her interview they offered her a place based on her getting 3 E grades as they had obviously decided that she was 'Oxford material'
Perhaps the person in question was deemed to be a 'better' student than just her grades would suggest?

Thanks ! Must update my CV - you have a low threshold for an A in this country I just got a lot smarter on paper.

Who isn't self funding?

after her interview they offered her a place based on her getting 3 E grades as they had obviously decided that she was 'Oxford material'

that's really interesting. some of my friends had oxbridge interviews (again, in the 90s) and despite all being straight A students doing extra a-levels and advanced maths etc, none got through the interview. One (a working class geordie) felt so out of place there he said he wouldn't be able to bear actually studying there. Perhaps unsurprisingly he didn't get an offer. But i'm really surprised to hear they'll make offers like EEE if they like someone. Potentially a good thing really, if they're seeing the inherent talent in someone. Or a bad thing, if they're seeing the inherent 'our sort of chap'...

Must update my CV - you have a low threshold for an A in this country I just got a lot smarter on paper.

Great example of why on-paper qualifications can be a terrible judge of ability! 🙂

Or teaching has just got better?

In a generation they're no longer allowed to hit pupils with a cane, take kids to Benidorm in term time, eat junk food in school, smoke in the corridors, etc etc etc, and on the positive side kids have access to huge volumes of material online for revision beyond just highlighting and copying out page after page.

Well, I'm obviously going to agree that teaching has got better seeings as I am one 😉

However in this context it is not relevant. What we are discussing here is that kids can get into uni on lower grades than they could a generation ago. Better teaching taken out of context of the whole picture would mean the opposite was true.

Not convinced, when I was applying, of the 6 Chemical/Process Engineering courses I applied for, I think 2 offered unconditional offers, presumably because the people applying were targeting AAA and in reality it didn't matter if you missed that by a bit due to a bad day in the exam

Yeah well AAA (and laterly AAB ABB) are gold standard - although don't get me started on predicted grades - so uni's will take a punt esp if you interview well. The difference now I suspect is those unconditional offers are being offered to far lower predicted grades across a wide range of courses.

hels - Member
Some translation for foreigners please - WTF is a "U grade" ? Does that mean you are really stupid, but not quite at Z level ?

you can get it somewhere if you are:

Rich and thick

Poor and Clever

Poor and creditworthy

. Or a bad thing, if they're seeing the inherent 'our sort of chap'...

THere's a huge push for widening participation. Regulated as well in terms of funding. Oxford and Cambridge are very proud of their WP numbers. I think what's happening in HE now is actually going to make thing worse.

Those grades would have been overkill compared to the offers that Thames Poly and another one* gave me.

2 E's was all I needed, and I'd go as far as saying that that was effectively just to qualify for the student grant.

(* forget which, and I didn't even bother going to the open day - they just made an offer)

Might be operated as businesses now, but even back in the olden days of student grants, they got a fee per student from HM govt (probably via LEA), so still in their interests to optimise number of students on the course for £££.

PS that was for a proper Engineering course too. Not Media Studies or Environmental Science.

standards have dropped so much that university degrees which only the top 5% could achieve two generations ago is now pretty much available to anyone with £9000 a year.

When I were a lad only 5% went to university but a lot more went to polytechnics, colleges of technology and technical colleges to do degrees, HNCs and HNDs and ONCs and ONDs. These were all renamed to university and degree respectively, mainly to appeal to the foreign student market who needed their qualification to mean something in their own country or elsewhere.

Mind you, you could get into a decent medical school with three Ds if you were happy to be a vet or dentist.

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_University ]Did she say which university?[/url] (not to be confused with the University of Hamburg)

Or teaching has just got better?

Even less probably, teachers used to be the bulk of graduates (when they were the top 5%) whereas now they are much less selective.

Basically at anywhere other than the top half dozen universities, a modern degree is nowhere near as rigorous as they were 50 years ago.

Alex - Member

Race to the bottom

Not really... But there's more of a divide, you might say there's a race away from the middle. Low entry requirements devalue your courses as do high dropout rates and poor outcomes, and poor employability. So you do get the degree shops at one end, but at the other universities have to work hard to maintain standards and perceptions. Fundamentally it's the other side of people "shopping" for degrees, at one end you're buying the cheapest beans because it's all you can have, at the other end you're looking for the five star reviews.

(And then, it goes weird at the very top end where the brands/reputations are so established, basically different logic applies.)

We're likely to exit clearing with spaces still to fill, having turned away a ton of students who didn't meet our standards. And our requirements are way up on when I studied here- the equivalent to the course I did now requires AAAB to get in, I wouldn't have got in at all!

It's an oddly virtuous and vicious circle. Or figure 8, with sticky outy bit. And lots of ways in which it does and doesn't work like the retail metaphor.

I think its worth saying that to a certain extent University has had to take up the slack left by the collapse in companies offering apprenticeships

I would also say that A-level students work harder than they did 20 or 30 years ago. The AS and modular courses have helped students to work harder. I hope we don't loose this as we go back to linear

regarding previous posts above, back in my day, Oxford had their own exam/interview system and the standard offer of 2 Es was a formality presumably due to some govt bureacracy (eg eligibility for grant/loan or something). It did make the last couple of terms quite relaxed (the offer came though just before Christmas).

NW - that's a fair analysis. I still believe we're creating (at least) a 2 tier system. I appreciate this kind of existed anyway - even outside of Russell Group, etc. And I wonder if you did an analysis across all your entry profiles, you'd see the same grade inflation. Maybe if you're in the top tier you would 😉

I'm not sure it's virtuous and I'm not sure the 'decisions' being made by 18 year olds are as informed as they should be. While broadly in favour of the marketisation, I do believe those on the margins will be more poorly served.

One thing I would take issue with is EVERY uni I've dealt with says they turn people away in clearing. But that's a decision based entirely on the financial risk of those students dropping out early and leaving a hole i y2/y3 finances.

Anyway we're kind of getting off the point.... 😉

The idea that university has become easier to get into is pretty laughable - maybe the really bad ones.

I have a doctor friend, back in the 80's he studied medicine on BCC. Try getting into a middle rank poly to study a science with that grade inflated in real terms now - and you will more often than not fall flat on your arse.

There are of course universities that are exploiting the system and letting anyone in, however there are also a LOT more competent students vying for the top and middle ranking universities.

NW - that's a fair analysis. I still believe we're creating (at least) a 2 tier system. I appreciate this kind of existed anyway - even outside of Russell Group, etc. And I wonder if you did an analysis across all your entry profiles, you'd see the same grade inflation. Maybe if you're in the top tier you would

I'm not sure it's virtuous and I'm not sure the 'decisions' being made by 18 year olds are as informed as they should be. While broadly in favour of the marketisation, I do believe those on the margins will be more poorly served.

I'm not in favor of a tiered system at all, people change and develop at different rates. Why is Biomedical Science at Birmingham University any different to Biomed at another? They are both regulated degrees with set standards - why should the Birmingham degree be considered to be better? The answer is not to introduce more elitism and less social mobility, but to introduce more regulation so that employers can be sure of the quality of a degree.

Throughout the world, many countries with perfectly good higher education systems (Spain - might not be as prestigious as the UK though) have a culture whereby you just go to the university that is closest to your home town. There is less of a divide between the universities - so why could we not operate on a similar principle and judge people on their grades as opposed to the university they went to?