http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22950148
Many UK universities do not consider candidates' backgrounds when offering places, research suggests.
any views?
Good. Should be on merit only.
Most universities do apply some kind of 'contextual factors' to applications. They are mostly quite open about it - eg. our ones are listed here: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/ugstudy/applying/ourpolicies.aspx
Not involved admissions myself, but a funny thing there about 'honing their personal statements' - I've met people in very competitive, high profile departments who said that they pretty much don't consider personal statements at all, considering them to essentially cause a bias for heavily coached private school pupils. They get so many candidates applying vs the number of places that other than taking account of any contextual factors, they pretty much go on the grades.
Same with candidate interviews, most universities dumped interviews a few years back for similar reasons; I understand at LSE they studied students who had been interviewed and compared with non-interviewed students and found they actually got better students in the end by not interviewing. I've done an Oxbridge interview, and frankly it is a silly and unnerving experience for someone coming from a state school - whereas if you'd gone to a fancy boarding school, it'd just be another trip to a fancy old building with names painted on boards outside the doors.
shouldnt matter..
results and personality/extra curriculars. MEans test their familys ability to support by all means but just because they grew up in a family whos parents didnt go to uni and earn minimum wage shouldnt give them any more right to go to uni than bob whos parents earn 2000000 a year but has the same grades.
Some people go through hell to go to uni, i dont under stand why we would treat anyone any different when it comes to entries - doesnt strike me as fair , where there is a will there is a way.
Good. Should be on merit only.
So you think that someone who has looked after a sick parent for the last 5 years, managed to get decent A levels despite a terrible state school education and being so poor that they had to work throughout their a-levels is seriously not going to be cleverer / more worthy of 'merit' than someone with the same A level results who went to Eton, had plenty of time, and had private coaching throughout the holidays? Seriously?
If universities had any balls, they'd actively and openly profile schools and be clear that they require higher grades from schools where pupils are likely to have had an easier ride. As it is, they are scared of the outcry from the private schools, so private school pupils still have a massive advantage in admissions to the top universities, despite evidence that once they get there, the state school pupils do better which makes it pretty clear how poor our current systems are at identifying actual merit.
I think university SHOULD be a meritocracy but that means no old-boy network just as much as it means no quotas for segments of society that need filling either.
More than three quarters (78%) of admissions tutors said they did not look at data on whether applicants' parents had been to university and only about a third (35%) considered that "evidence of success through a difficult start or background" was important.
"Most" do not apparently Joe.
I do not understand how people can equate exam performance with merit in such a direct manner as Joe has explained.
just as much as it means no quotas for segments of society that need filling either.
or shouldnt the uni's be trying a little harder to actually get the brightest pupils?
More than three quarters (78%) of admissions tutors said they did not look at data on whether applicants' parents had been to university and only about a third (35%) considered that "evidence of success through a difficult start or background" was important.
So they looked at the candidate in front of them, well done at resisting social engineering
results and personality/extra curriculars
Results are inflated for rich kids by spending large amounts of money private schooling. So pretty obviously two kids with the same results from different backgrounds will be differently clever. This is borne out by the evidence on how much better state school kids with the same results do once they get to the university.
Extra curricular activities = inflated for rich kids by spending large amounts of money on private schooling or out of school activities, and on their parents arranging internships with members of their personal network. Poor kids don't have the same opportunities. No real reason other than snobbery to look at them all that much.
Personality = Code-word for similar background to the interviewer / from 'the right' background. We're hopefully past the days of people not being allowed into Oxbridge because they weren't 'clubbable'*, but realistically however hard we try, we're all biased to like people who are most like us more.
In true STW style, I've not read the article.... but I was sat on an advisory panel for an engineering dept. at Russell group University the other day and was told that extra curricular activities can count as part of the candidates UCAS points - e.g grade whatever piano is equiv to X UCAS points and can be included as part of the students total. This means that the University can make points offers much higher than could be achieved from exam grades alone and they use these extra curricular points as a first-cut guide to the student much more than the personal statements. Not saying it's right/wrong, but they are oversubscribed by ~20:1....
So they looked at the candidate in front of them, well done at resisting social engineering
so they took a simplistic easy option and gave a place to the less bright kid and so reinforced social immobility
if it was a degree in looking after a sick parent then yes i can see how it can be applied to an application for a degree.....
"Most" do not apparently Joe.
I believe that many essentially just apply a particular fixed and very narrow set of criteria (e.g. Coming from particular high poverty postcodes or schools), or things like being a parent, easily measurable so that they catch the very worst of the worst circumstances, but don't apply anything else.
strangly
is very close to something at my school at the moment and he's applying to do Medicine.someone who has looked after a sick parent for the last 5 years, managed to get decent A levels
Some people go through hell to go to uni, i dont under stand why we would treat anyone any different when it comes to entries - doesnt strike me as fair , where there is a will there is a way
Ah great so we can all go to eton then and get the advantage that that conveys?
Surely you should get better grades from a better place to be considered the same
It is like giving someone a 40 lb bike and someone else a 25 lb bike and claiming the race is fair and the fastest ruder is the best
think university SHOULD be a meritocracy
]It should but when you get such a fantastic head start it is about you being privledged and getting a better start rather than you being better
the point is it is probably* harder to be on free school meals and come from a council estate and go to a bog standard comp and get A's than it is to be the child of a millionaire who sends you to the best education money can by. Perhaps in this scenrio C's a re as good or better than an a from eton?? who knows
* there is no probably
if it was a degree in looking after a sick parent then yes i can see how it can be applied to an application for a degree..
What a silly comment. Is it not obvious that it is harder to get a particular A level grade if you have half the time free than someone else, have to miss school for medical appointments etc. Thus meaning that someone who manages to get that grade whilst in those circumstances is going to be a lot brighter than someone who isn't?
It never ceases to amaze me how far from my views other peoples views are. Anyway thanks for posting I have finished faculty dt now and am off home. (I know I know I should stop being naughty).
I've done an Oxbridge interview, and frankly it is a silly and unnerving experience for someone coming from a state school - whereas if you'd gone to a fancy boarding school, it'd just be another trip to a fancy old building with names painted on boards outside the doors.
I'm from a bog standard comp, not the worst, not the best.
We (state schoopl kids seemed to get put together on one day) got absolutely hammered the night before in the pub, got through the exam at 8:30 the next morning, the interviews through the rest of the day were no better/worse than any I've gone to for a real job (actualy far closer to real interviews than other Uni's were). Then put the wind up the eaton, abingdon, repton candidates (who really were a charicature of themselves) by heading back out to the pub straight after dinner.
Got an offer, but went to Sheffield instead.
What a silly comment. Is it not obvious that it is harder to get a particular A level grade if you have half the time free than someone else, have to miss school for medical appointments etc. Thus meaning that someone who manages to get that grade whilst in those circumstances is going to be a lot brighter than someone who isn't?
Should the admissions tutor give the place to the kid with 4 A's who couldn't possibly have done any more, or the kid with 4 B's and a sob story? How do you justify that to the first kid, sory your parents aren't sick enough?
Personal background:
Parents never went to Uni (Dad a mechanic and Mum a housewife / admin)
Left school at 15 with no qualifications due to years of bullying
Got a some O levels after going to a FE college for a year
Started A levels but significant health problem meant missing almost all of the first year
Had to complete 3 A levels in one year
Achieved top grades due to hard bl**dy work and determination. Offered place at top Uni based purely on grades.
Would I have wanted 'poor' or 'difficult' background to be taken into account - No. I got my place based on merit, equal to everyone else. There are so many other things that young people's grades might be affected by, regardless of income or background (for example school bullying), you can't account for everything.
Okay. If you allow/force universities to round up the grades of pupils from crap schools, what's the incentive to make the schools less crap?
Remember, these are the same schools that kids who aren't headed for university tend to leave still functionally illiterate.
I do love a good "I did it despite this that and tbe other so everyone else should" post top work well done.
Should the admissions tutor give the place to the kid with 4 A's who couldn't possibly have done any more, or the kid with 4 B's and a sob story? How do you justify that to the first kid, sory your parents aren't sick enough?
you say the evidence shows that the other guy will probably do better so thanks but no thanks.
Do you believe that exams results from school are a completely objective assessment of someones intelligence and ability to learn?
Should the admissions tutor give the place to the kid with 4 A's who couldn't possibly have done any more, or the kid with 4 B's and a sob story
Sob story :rolls eyes: it is obvious you don't want an answer to your loaded question
Would I have wanted 'poor' or 'difficult' background to be taken into account - No. I got my place based on merit, equal to everyone else.
No you made it harder for yoyuself as a quick look at the % from private or state at the top universities will show. you had to do more. Who knows who else from your school would have done as you hasd you all been getting a 30 k per annum education?
There are so many other things that young people's grades might be affected by, regardless of income or background (for example school bullying), you can't account for everything.
So we should do nothing because we cannot do everything?
Okay. If you allow/force universities to round up the grades of pupils from crap schools, what's the incentive to make the schools less crap?
Is this daft loaded question day?
The alternative is to punish a bright kids for going to a crap school - is it their fault they went to the crap school? Was it not harder to get good grades at the crap school than the good school - is this really your argument?
Remember, these are the same schools that kids who aren't headed for university tend to leave still functionally illiterate.
Have you realised that some of our society are just not very bright/able?
Some folk will not achieve literacy - you have seen a standard distribution I assume?
Okay. If you allow/force universities to round up the grades of pupils from crap schools, what's the incentive to make the schools less crap?
Remember, these are the same schools that kids who aren't headed for university tend to leave still functionally illiterate.
very little of the judgement of schools is based on such things and it could also be part of the answer could it not?
The question is if you should have received the same offer to go to university (in terms of A-level grades) as someone from a more privileged background. The broad answer to this is no, and this is currently university policy anywhere serious (the contextual data flags Joemarshall mentions above).Would I have wanted 'poor' or 'difficult' background to be taken into account - No. I got my place based on merit, equal to everyone else. There are so many other things that young people's grades might be affected by, regardless of income or background (for example school bullying), you can't account for everything.
The harder part of the question is in the detail of how you weight these factors. Currently we're only talking the difference of 1 grade or so - so 4Bs can never become 4As, but an offer of AAB might become an offer of ABB.
We interview all of our applicants (not in a selection sense, it's more of a sales pitch). The difference in educational background can be absolutely vast, it's really striking. I interviewed a lad boarding at Stowe back to back with someone from a poor inner-London comp earlier this year. An offer of AAB versus ABB doesn't begin to bridge the gap between the quality of education they have received. Likewise, if they were to both get AAB then the difference in potential between the two will be similarly massive.
My post was not a "I did it so everyone else should', it was to broaden the debate to consider:
- not everyone with a 'difficult' background would necessarily want it to be 'taken into account'
- that factors other than parental education or family background can have a greater impact on academic performance - in my case the issue that had the greatest effect on my education was bullying - something which transcends social demographics
Ah, the good old bell curve, I've read a book about that. A great way to justify to yourself different treatment based on the prejudice du jour.
I have no hairs, slightly overweight, not rich, come from developing country, nearly rob a bank or sold my body to fund my education but deep down I am really eager to join the top unis ... my A levels result is so so but I know I can make it ... Clarks shoes are popular where I come from.
My background dictates that I do not come from privilege environment but I know I am a cleaver boy/girl ... does that mean the top uni should offer me lower entrance grades to join them because of that?
Oh ya ... I is not white and a non-Eu ...
If you do not give me a lower offer you are discriminating ...
🙄
Ah, the good old bell curve, I've read a book about that. A great way to justify to yourself different treatment based on the prejudice du jour.
care to expand on this so we can get some idea of what your trying to say?
Same for the post above but with bells on!
anagallis_arvensis - MemberSame for the post above but with bells on!
[b]Only A level results (or those with similar standard) should be taken into consideration the rest irrelevant.[/b]
The rest of the information is irrelevant really even if you are half dead or dying. If you are dying then perhaps on compassionate ground offer you a place ...
🙄
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve[/url]
This book came out in the mid nineties, looking at which social groups tended to appear in the tails of the distribution, how that might be predicted, and what, if anything, ought to be done about it. Caused a bit of a tiz, not a great read, either.
Difficult one this, I'd certainly argue that with a state education system that is supposed to set strong levels of attainment that contextual data being used for entry to university would be pointless?
With the angry but excellent teaching crew on here I'm amazed it's an issue...
Seriously though grades, aptitude tests and personal statement should really be the only means for judging entry, interviews for some programmes (Medicine, Nursing etc...)
A strong candidate will shine through regardless of background, the real problem is teaching young people from a less advantaged background how to game the system and make their application look as good, it's not difficult, but it takes time, from parents, teachers and universities to do this.
As well as strong grades, good written English, a passion for the course subject and a positive attitude to study are key to landing a place, suggests a poll of admissions officers.
As a list of primary criteria, this sounds pretty sensible to me.
The government wants institutions to broaden access to higher education to include more, poorer students.
The place to achieve this is in secondary education not in tertiary education. This argument is treating the symptom not the cause.
Of course, candidates at independent schools have access to some benefits. But equally they have some disadvantages - schools are much less likely to spoon feed, exam boards will be chosen that are more difficult (eg Pre U, IB) etc. These may pale into insignificance versus the real challenges that some face, but the idea that people simply walk into top Unis without doing any work simply because of their school is ridiculous. Looking at the hours that students put into preparing for exams themselves, I can vouch for that.
So a state school should be able to provide the same education and support as one that charges per pupil more than I earn? Thats not going to happen. You really believe that some fee paying schools didadvantage the kids?
schools are much less likely to spoon feed, exam boards will be chosen that are more difficult (eg Pre U, IB) etc.
They do harder exams if they think it is more likely to get university offers and make it easier to get in. And as for not spoon feeding, the more intensive teaching and support offered by private scools is often said to lead to studnts who are less capable of independent thought when they get to uni - at least that is one of the reasons cited for them doing less well in many university courses.
I'm not saying kids don't work at private schools, just that the level of relevant aptitude required to get onto a university course from a private school is lower than that from a state school - that's just a fact, shows up in the results, nothing to argue about.
Back in a minute gents, I'm just off to get some ketchup for the record breaking chip on joemarshall's shoulder. 😆
One of my ex's worked in admissions for a well known Oxbridge uni.
She wasn't "privileged" and didn't care what background you came from.
If someone was exceptionally bright and managed to get top grades despite looking after all their sick relatives then that would come out during the admissions process.
Could you explain why you think he's got a chip on his shoulder hes just presented a few facts and figures.
joemarshall - Member
They do harder exams if they think it is more likely to get university offers and make it easier to get in.
In my experience, that is DEFINITELY not the case. Hence the conflict with some parents.
And as for not spoon feeding, the more intensive teaching and support offered by private scools is often said to lead to studnts who are less capable of independent thought when they get to uni - at least that is one of the reasons cited for them doing less well in many university courses.
In my experience, that is also not the case at all. A lot of extra-curricula work (extended essays etc) is designed to prepare people for the extra rigours of University study. Many members of staff deliberately choose to spend a great deal of time off-curriculum and deliberately choose books that go well beyond the needs of the chosen exam. I wonder if that helps at all? I would be interested to read the studies suggesting that pupils from independent schools are less capable. If true, then something needs to be done...
I'm not saying kids don't work at private schools, just that the level of relevant aptitude required to get onto a university course from a private school is lower than that from a state school - that's just a fact,
Excuse me for missing that 'fact'. Again would be great to see the research. An ex poster used to go on about how people only got into Eton, Winchester etc due to family connections and money. Went pretty quiet when I posted examples of the entrance exams. Family connections died a death a long time ago in my experience.
edit: from the end of the BBC article: "It is about offering places based on an applicant's abilities and potential to succeed." Again, a sound basis IMO.
Teamhurtmore does your experience extend to state education and whats done there. Extra curricular study is very limited. People must send kids to private schools for some reason. I am totally ignorant of the private school system though.
anagallis_arvensis - Member
You really believe that some fee paying schools didadvantage the kids?
100% yes. That is why it is not "always" the correct choice for a child whatever the ability to pay/parents wishes etc. And within the independent sector there are also major differences in how children are educated and prepared/spoon fed for exams. Hence sweeping generalisations are unlikely to be helpful IMO.
Sweeping generalisations like kids from poorer families do worse in education are useful imo to help try and get the best outcomes for the most people.
Yes, directly (limited) and indirectly much more (brother and SIL, governor and headmistress in state sector) - hence lots of family discussions on these topics. I really dont want to go into the pros and cons here, because these debates tend to get unnecessarily "heated". But my experience is very different to joe's obviously - indeed the whole debate about spoon feeding and subsequent uni success was discussed en famille very recently. It was one of my nephew's friends who was spoon fed through A levels (in a v successful state school) who told us that she found Uni very difficult as she was total unprepared. Now this has no bearing on being a state school per se - that is more likely a coincidence. But more that spoon feeding kids through A levels in whatever school is ultimately counter-productive.
There are very good reasons why people send children to private schools - but those who believe that it will result in spoon feeding and automatic Uni entry are most likely to be very disappointed in their investment (sic).
Edit AA, re earlier post about disadvataging kids, my response was in relation to some kids, not all. Different pupils require different types of schools to bring out the best in them IMO.
People must send kids to private schools for some reason.
I imagine because, as this thread suggests, people think that they offer a better education and ability to get into University. We are talking about positively discriminating in favour of state schools which to me implies that they put their pupils at a disadvantage compared to the private sector.
In answer to the OP, it is a difficult question. It would be nice to think that potential could be assessed and the places given out on a more equal footing. I would be interested in the mechanics of it though. If you went to a state school, how many UCAS points is that worth?
I would guess in reality it could be used to decide split decisions and borderline cases.
FWIW I went to Durham, well known for taking a high number of private school pupils (who failed to get into Oxbridge 😉 ) and after 6 months you probably couldn't pick the state vs privately educated ones based on performance, attitude or anything else. Largely it seemed random.
More time and better resources would enable me to spoonfeed less. I could send them off to research for example. But limited contact time and limited preparation time prevent this. I would love to spend a day or two at some top private schools to find out what they do. It was also noticeable in my previous academic life that ex public school kids had very different attitudes to education. Not always for the better. They seemed weaker but more confident as a sweeping generalisation.
As for heated debate I am avoiding the rugby thread for that reason although very kittle debate happens there just mudslinging. You are at least presenting a considered case.
