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?

But what about the ones just above pupil premium or those in the middle in average or shite schools.The two ends of the spectrum get catered for and they don't.

Hakluyt In the end you are proposing deliberately to refuse a place to an applicant because of that applicant's school. And that cannot be right.

Level up, don't level down. Improve the state schools. It takes longer, it costs more, it's not glamorous, it doesn't create headlines, but it is the right way to go.

And lower offers to pupil premium applicants is surely a good place to start?

I agree but it's only a start and not the end. We need to support these applicants through university when they go there or they will be at high risk of dropping out. The £9k fees are probably not helping matters either.

University is only a stepping stone to a job. I think it is at that point that a private education comes into its own. Students who have been educated privately have a whole network of contacts at their disposal, their own and those of their parents. The old boy network is as alive and well as it ever was. They also probably have the means at their disposal to take advantage of internships. If needs be the bank of mum and dad can step in to subsidise housing in London.

A privately educated student with an indifferent degree is probably going to be better off in the jobs market than his state school educated peer with a better degree.

Now how you compensate for that disadvantage I just don't know.

Also re pupil premium isn't it based on kids who have had fsm in the past 6 years and includes forces kids?Surely that is open to abuse.For some families it would be worth taking a hit for a year.

As an ex forces kid myself the question re needing a leg up at uni is interesting.Yes we had a shite education which did have an impact but re being needy of this extra support maybe not.Not sure.

"Hakluyt In the end you are proposing deliberately to refuse a place to an applicant because of that applicant's school. And that cannot be right"

No I'm not. I'm proposing that a child from a disadvantaged background who has by definition overcome significant difficulties to even get to the point of applying to university should be given -I can' think of the right word- a bit of extra consideration over, say, my child, who has been on a smooth easy path to university since birth.

But not being disadvantaged doesn't mean you've had an easy ride.You might be not well off yourself, have unsupportive parents,a trauma or attended shite/ average schools.Kids at both ends of the spectrum having a leg up will impact those in the middle many of whom won't have had an easy ride into uni.

Hakluyt If that extra consideration leads to a place than someone else who has not had the extra consideration does not get that place.

And what Retropear said.

"Hakluyt If that extra consideration leads to a place than someone else who has not had the extra consideration does not get that place."

The person who doesn't get the place has already had advantages the person who gets it hasn't.

What happens now is that all the advantage goes one way. This way, just sometimes it will go the other way- which actually just means things are level. Or nearer level.

University is not only a stepping stone to a job. I am glad I was brought up to value education in its own right.

Universities should not lower their places. I feel it makes degrees less valuable, as every Tom, Dick or Harry can get a degree. Years ago only the creme la creme (the brightest, and most academic) used to go to the 'Red Brick' universities. Whatever the persons background, it should be on their ability.

But it's not a guarantee that they have had an advantage and the rich in the private or best state schools will still get their places.The places will go from those in the middle.

It's not about masses of people, it's about individuals. You don't correct unfairness with unfairness.

In any event you are making assumptions about the "advantaged" person which may be wholly incorrect.

Also I suspect many will just apply to unis abroad thus downgrading the reputation of British unis even further.

And yes I have friends on pp who get pissed off with everybody assuming their kids are disadvantaged and they don't care about education.

"Years ago only the creme la creme (the brightest, and most academic) used to go to the 'Red Brick' universities."

Really? In my day the crime de la creme rather looked down on Red Bricks. But I am very old............

What I meant Hak are places like Oxford, Cambridge, London, Bath, Durham you catch my drift

Yes they did, primarily Oxbridge, but other older universities

In those other Universities, you still had to have high academic ability

Ah. I think you might mean Russell Group- not red brick?

Ok sorry I thought that they were the same

Ask yourselves - is this how China, South Korea, Singapore etc educate their children?
Do Chinese and Korean students struggle with UK degrees? Yes they do

Yes, and wouldnt we all struggle, if we were sent round the other side of the world, to a country where we know little about the culture, have to learn a new language and character set, both written and spoken?! Im doing my PhD at a Uni with a high % intake of overseas and they are amazing.

As regards the whole "going to uni" thing, I do feel that nowadays students need to consider whether Uni is the right HE option for them. It just seems to be a default choice instead of thinking

1. What am I good at? Where do my talents lie?
2. What is my career path.
3. How will my HE choice enable me to get closer to that general direction of travel?

If they dont know the answers to the above then they are putting the (very expensive) cart before the horse. We know more now than ever about mentoring young people to think for themselves about their future.

IME too many students pick courses without asking themselves what they will do with the qualification. "Um, its just seems like an interesting course". Fine, if they want £26000 of student debt, go right ahead. Its akin to throwing mud at the wall and hoping something sticks.

My DP and I have spoken with DS (local comp educated) about options. We helped him to understand what Uni is about and how there are alternatives like apprenticeships and vocational paths. I said to DP privately that I thought DS isnt cut out for lectures, essays etc however he is passionate about engineering, physics, from a very practical perspective. He is going into AS year in Sept with a strong commitment towards an engineering apprenticeship with 3 possible companies interested in him.

The major disruption needs to be the move away from "teaching to the test". It harks back to the Industrial Age! Helpful to Michael Gove and his ilk to spout stats and put people into convenient boxes. The world is changing, we are in the Information Age where technology can enable a totally different kind of education. it may take time for Governments to catch up but we need to maximise individual talent better than everyone being marked identically.

Its like telling a monkey, a fish and an elephant to climb a tree and failing the fish and the elephant because they aren't as talented as the monkey!

(Haven't read full thread yet) I'm afraid it just isn't that simple. Of course a child who completes a private school education is more likely to achieve the best grade they are possible of for many reasons including smaller class size. If they weren't there would be little reason paying for the education.

However, I am state school educated and have finished my degree and in many cases it is not helping university educated people to get a job. I didn't attend Cambridge but know of three people who did who after one - two years are still waiting to get a job with a first. What we need to be focusing on changing right now is the expectation that everyone can afford to do unpaid internships for a year. This sections out those with money from those that can't without taking ability or the effort put in at university into consideration. It is much worse in some industries than others. Until now we have not had the money for me to do unpaid internships and therefore I have been unable to get a job. The internships are competitive in themselves and tend to be for between 1-4 months so to get the 'years experience' you may need to wait over a year. Companies are famous for over working you and 'travel expenses paid' here (London) usually only means within certain zones. Unfortunately unless living in a city there seem to be very few internships on offer but jobs still want you to have done them which means graduates have no money to pay to live in an area to get experience unless they families are already there or they take a paid job that has nothing to do with their degree (low level retail, pub work etc) that does not give them the time to commit to an internship.

Sorry for the essay, but ime university is currently pretty worthless anyway and apprenticeships are the way forward, we need to address internships before we think about our children going to university or it won't really matter anyway - unless we have the money to support them through over a year of unpaid work in an area we may not live in. (My sister did an apprenticeship and is now happy and earning and progressing while I am sat at home applying desperately for jobs and now internships and will be ford the foreseeable future.)

Completely agree smokeandglitter. Very few of my friend's children who have graduated in the last couple of years are doing 'graduate' jobs. Many are doing what they probably would have done without a degree, but obviously are now doing that job with a huge debt.

A local M & S is staffed almost exclusively by graduates, that includes 'shelf replenishers'.

We used to laugh about needing a degree to work in a call centre in India. It is now the reality here.

I honestly think that this is more of an issue than agonising about grades. The question needs to be asked what is uni for.

I went to uni in the 70s. I value the education and the experience highly. However I walked into a graduate job and had no debt. Quite a different experience.

I think you find that if 2 people got the same grades, 1 from state and 1 from private; they would probably favour the state student, as they had achieved the same as private but without the extras private educated students receive naturally in their schools.