To think - yes, universities should take state school applicants with lower grades

[Lemiserableoldgimmer]

.. than applicants from private and grammar schools, on the basis that this new research suggests that as a group, state school pupils appear to be more able than private school applicants with identical A level and GCSE grades. More likely to get a good degree, less likely to drop out.

here

What do you think?

YANBU. It must be incredibly difficult in practice but I think it is an idea well worth considering if it allows Universities to select the brightest students.

My nephew had had an EE offer to read natural sciences in Cambridge 6 years ago.

'My nephew had had an EE offer to read natural sciences in Cambridge 6 years ago'

Christ's was the last College to still be doing this - until 2010 - but it has been phased out.

The unconditional offers currently being issued by some universities if you agree firm them are, in reality, for the benefit of the universities, not the students.

Don't the low results students just end up dropping out? The wouldn't be able to keep up. It sounds like a university scam to me, get the fees paid without having to teach so many students.

Don't the low results students just end up dropping out?

At my university, there is no correlation between entry grades and failing or dropping out. We are always trying to identify retention issues, and do the analysis every year on multiple factors.

There is only one consistent factor in failing/leaving is lack of engagement and this happens to a range of students for different reasons.

I would have thought that the kids who have had to battle against the odds to get their place are far less likely to drop out than the ones like mine, who are on train tracks to university, frankly.

The figures on drop out rates show that the more selective universities have lower rates; Oxbridge, Bristol, LSE...

The highest rates come from less selective establishments; University of West Scotland, Bolton, University of West London, Swansea Met...

However, there will more factors at play than simply lower grades, I should think. The later universities will have a higher proportion of mature students, particularly those coming to a degree via an access course. These students have a higher likelihood of dropping out.

Also often students who go to schools that haven't sent many to university, or from families who haven't find university life harder. A couple of the ones ds's school sent last year (only the second year they'd sent any) dropped out because they couldn't adjust to the life- even though they were doing OK academically. Theses kids are also more likely to go to the lower tier universities.

I totally agree with this. I went to Oxford and there were plenty of people there with three As who were really not particularly bright. Just good schools (privates and grammars), lots of coaching. They shouldn't have been there.

The difficulty is coming up with a system that really does identify the bright ones.

Mature students, who in many cases have been let down by the education they received at school. They have achieved far more just getting on a 'access' course than some students with first class honours degrees .

Thank god some 'CRAP UNIVERSITIES' will at least give people a chance.
This site that tends to have a left wing bias politically, but has a very 'Elitist' attitude to education and that is awful.

Mature students drop out because of Shit going on in their lives, maybe because they have not been taught study skills or maybe out of desperation they choose the wrong course.

Mature students should be congratulated for having the 'Bottle' to even pick a book up, never mind enrolling on a course.

Hak yes, that's correct. Also, many mature students are trying to juggle work/families with stdy, whilst trying to find the extra cash for books, transport etc.

smoke I don't think anyone said mature students shouldn't be admired. Not quite sure why you're getting so het up...

But what I will say, is that I don't think all the establishments who accept underqualifed applicants are doing it out of a sense of justice and fair play. Many are offering an extremely poor education for exacvtly the same cost as much better establishments. They are parting a certain sector of society from their money and offering something piss poor in return!

Mature students are more likely to have things come up which mean they need to intercalate, or indeed drop out - children who need them at that point more than they can manage whilst studying full-time; elderly or unwell parents, house moves, etc - IME. That's all I think anyone was saying, rather than having a downer on mature students.

'Theses kids are also more likely to go to the lower tier universities.'

I'm not sure exactly which you mean here, but some universities which are not the most selective are very good at teaching and students might not need to be such independent learners from the start. It isn't as simple as dividing between selective and not very selective. But students need a head of sixth who knows about the differences between them. I don't think that calling all places of higher education 'universities' did anyone any favours. They aren't all doing the same job.

'Many are offering an extremely poor education for exacvtly the same cost as much better establishments. They are parting a certain sector of society from their money and offering something piss poor in return!'

And you need a head of sixth who can advise about this too.

This just sounds very archaic. Apart from the usual suspects its not as if Uni's are swarming with private/grammar school educated students anyway, there are people from all walks of life there.

Unis aren't. But the top ones are.

The best students should be let in, not the ones with the highest grades. It's obvious from this money can buy you a place at a good Uni. if B state school pupils do as well as a A private school pupils, that should be taken into account.

Yabu. The focus should be on making state schools better, not handicapping private school pupils to compensate for state education for being inferior!

And if people feel that a levels are provable not a reliable indication of ability, they should be calling for the exam to be changed, not for the grades to be treated differently if you're rich/poor.

I'm also sceptical about this as I would I imagine this greater 'ability' shown by state pupils once at uni is in some cases down to a greater drive to prove themselves, in contrast to some private pupils who will have been so hot houses they'll slack off once they escape parental supervision.

But more than anything I believe this kind of discriminatory social engineering is just morally wrong, especially when it ignores - in fact encourages, in this case- the root cause, which is that a lot of state schools just aren't about enough.

Yes the focus should be to make state schools better, but that will take years. In the mean time I'm glad that some state school pupils are given lower offers.

Yabu. The focus should be on making state schools better, not handicapping private school pupils to compensate for state education for being inferior

It's now 25 years since I left state school and apparently they still haven't managed to improve them. So, 25 years of bright state-school-educated kids not getting into uni because they don't have the advantages that privately educated kids have.

Apart from anything, what a complete waste of intelligence.

I'm also sceptical about this as I would I imagine this greater 'ability' shown by state pupils once at uni is in some cases down to a greater drive to prove themselves, in contrast to some private pupils who will have been so hot houses they'll slack off once they escape parental supervision.

the claim is almost the opposite of this. Take a group of B students from private and state education. The point is that those privately educated B students got that grade from natural ability + a lot of resources + a lot of prodding, whereas the state educated ones got it mainly from natural ability. Now you throw all those people into the same setting, where they have the same resources. The ones who mainly made it through natural ability will go farther.

YABU

You're basically saying that we shouldn;t have to work as hard, and that we aren't as capable so it's patronising. I went to a real shitty school but got the grades

I don't know how it stands up that if DD1 comes out with BBB ( hopefully A in Chemistry if everything goes right) that because she went to a Secondary Modern, that her grades will better than DD2 and DS should they achieve the same. This will be unfair on DD2 and DS, to be 'marked down' just because they went to a grammar. The amount of effort required is just the same, whether the pupil attends a Private, Grammar or Modern school. The real difference is the quality of teaching the pupil gets.
My DD has almost had one to one teaching in chemistry for two years due to there only being 5 students taking it at A level ( one of the reasons she refused my pushing of DD2s grammar to her). This shows that with the right teaching, the type of school does not matter, I do not believe DD would have achieved more at the grammar ( 1A* 4A 4Bs) Gcse . DD has also benefited from being praised at regular times by the head, form teachers and subject teachers. The head even rung her last week to wish her good luck for her exams.

The elitism of one university (Cambridge) raised its head a couple of years ago when possibly the brightest pupil the school has had, went for an interview , she came back so demoralised that she 'jacked' in going to any university . A very bright girl working in a shoe shop, 'what a waste'.

YABU

"You're basically saying that we shouldn;t have to work as hard, and that we aren't as capable so it's patronising. I went to a real shitty school but got the grades"

Oh, ffs- nobody is saying anything of the sort. Can't you be bothered to read the thread?

I read the OP's comments as I'm replying to the OP.

Smokepole- I hv one in grammar and one not too. This isn't about your children or mine- who I presume are generally well supported, privileged children with space to work, enough to eat yadda yadda yadda.

This is about the children in your non grammar school child's school who don't have the advantages yours and mine have. It's about redressing the balance a bit.

Shouldn't the focus be on making sure that state school pupils get a decent education, so that they don't have to be at a disadvantage?