To wonder why there is a trend to downgrade education?

[Ididntseeitsoitdidnthappen]

It seems a week can't go by without some cry or other for the elite universities to drop their grade tariffs to allow more people in.

Whilst I agree a more varied student base would be beneficial why isn't the call for state school standards to be pulled up so more of those pupils get the required grades rather than drop the entrance level? Would the answer be to stream kids at 11 as they did for a previous generation - it seemed to work and I know very few people who went through that system who failed to see the benefits of it.

AIBU to think we shouldn't downgrade entry levels and should instead bring up education standards and ditch the comprehensive system?

"Would the answer be to stream kids at 11 as they did for a previous generation - it seemed to work and I know very few people who went through that system who failed to see the benefits of it."

Do you talk to the people who failed the 11+? No. Thought not. Nobody every waxes lyrical about the return of Secondary Modern schools!

And where is the evidence that elite universities are dropping their entry requirements? Or are being asked to do so?

Not against streaming, but Streaming at 11 is akin to throwing a big proportion of children on the educational scrap heap. Better to constantly assess a child's development and adjust teaching reqs than stick them all in pigeonholes at such a young age. Many boys for example do worse in such systems as they develop later.
Also, calls for unis to be more inc is not asking them to drop entry requirements necessarily. I think this is more to do with state school pupils not getting into top unis because despite having amazing grades they haven't had the benefit of Oxbridge coaching that the privately educated may have had. Hence they sometimes do worse at interview. I fully agree that admissions tutors should be geared more to looking at potential as this may redress the balance.

Btw, I say this as someone who was privately educated and saw the energy and resource that went into preparing us for university. Friends who went to state school invariably had to request Ucas forms and were lucky if they got any help to apply, never mind interview prep etc. I agree in an ideal world we would just make our state educational system better, but it doesn't look like that's happening anytime soon?

Of course the ideal is to make state education better but this won't happen overnight and probably needs more funding to achieve and how we do that is a big debate. In the mean time the argument for Uni applications isn't about redressing the lack of support state students have got so we can be fair but is arhat because private school students are on smaller classes and have better resources and more support and are working in a better environment with more academic peers they do better that state school counterparts so if you want the best students you should accept lower grades from someone who has got them in more difficult circumstances. Interestingly stats show that if you take two students at the same Uni with the same A-level grades athe state school student will typically out perform the private school student.

Some of the talk of lowering grade entry for state pupils from lower performing schools is because the universities themselves have found those pupils to have better self-motivation than those from schools with better average grades. Self motivation leads to better results at university.

Yes, many schools need to improve but it wouldn't help to write off those who haven't had the best starts.

Ididntsee. You are quite right it is time to ditch 'comprehensive' education it has not worked Hakluyt has read some of my posts from recent threads.

We need education that is geared to the students/pupils abilities, we need selection at 11 be that academic or vocational. The 11+ needs to stay or be introduced in other areas. however, it needs to be changed in how it selects pupils , the selection should not be over a couple of random tests but over a more considered criteria including the 'potential' of the child . There should be allowances for 'bright' children with learning difficulties.

There is some nonsense sprouted about modern schools being worse then comprehensives, it comes down to the individual school concerned . The truth is some of the most 'outstanding' schools in the country are secondary modern schools ( don't believe me ) I will name three Wellington Altrincham Coombe Girls Kingston and Hillview Tonbridge . There are others as well , Conversely some of the worst schools in the country are comprehensive schools in areas that have been 'comprehensive' for over 40 years.

I don't know about other universities but my husband was involved in the admission for Oxford one year (he conducted interviews and helped in deciding on candidates for one college). From his experience the university went out if their way to accept the best candidates and state school students were actually ranked separately from independent school and given a large advantage. (So fir example the person who was the best state school tudent was considered equal to the best private school student even thiugh their actual scores were much lower). Oxford sets its own exams since having perfect marks at Alevel isn't sufficient to demonstrate that you'll be up to the demands of the course.

The admission system is rather complicated since there are lots of individual colleges but a massive effort was made to ensure that good enough students from state schools got a place in a college, even if it wasn't the one they'd originally selected.

There were also certain flags (any student from a failing school, any student who had been in care etc.) which pretty much guaranteed a tudent a place if they were judged to be able to cope with the course. (The course is very demanding and there's no point accepting a student who will fail)

Having taught undergrads at Oxford myself a major problem is that he course really does start off at high speed and kids that have been to good schools have an 18year advantage over poorly educated students. There's no way a university can redress that imbalance during a three or four year course. If your basic knowledge is shaky you really will struggle much more than someone of equal ability from an independent school.

I think what is really needed is to identify very able students early (preferably before secondary school) and really invest ensure they're able to meet their potential. Often by the time they're 18 it's too Kate to catch up its the privately educated peers (unless they've studied a lot independent,y or are just remarkably talented).

I would add that another part of the problem is attitude. I found during my teaching that there was more of an attitude from independently educated students were much more likely to be confident that they deserved to be the. They'd always expected to go to a good university so it was no surprise when they did. Other students were sometimes under ethe impression that they'd some how got in by mistake (even when they were just as able) and I hunk it hinders them am bit and makes them much less likely to ask for help out of fear of being "found out".