government assumptions about poorer students

[brizzledrizzle]

"The idea of scrapping fees completely was "snake oil", he said.

"If it's free, numbers will be capped," he said, arguing that fewer places would mean a narrowing of access for poorer applicants."

Sam Gyimah claims that this would happen if tuition fees were scrapped. I agree that places would be reduced but he is implyng that poorer applicants have worse A level results - why is there always this assumption?

I would imagine it is because the statistics bear it out, on average children from lower income families get lower grades prior to university when compared to those from higher income families.

There has been some argument about the extent to which there should be adjustment in the required grades depending on background but there are no easy answers there.

Because it is true on a macro level.

My brother got a first in his chemistry degree (which is uses more maths than science confusingly). In high school he got a B in maths. It was the highest result in his entire year, in fact no one else in the year got a B even. It was a very deprived high school in a very deprived area.

I dont think people presume kids from poor backgrounds get poor results but i do think there are many reasons why a child one would perform below their ability at poor schools and above it at very good schools.

It is fact poorer average results come from poorer areas and schools but that doesnt mean people are saying if you go a shit school or if you are poor you will get shit results.

No one in my brother school wanted to learn - it wasnt worth the bullying that went with being a "swot" for most. That meant disruptive children and disheartened teachers. Im not surprised no one got better than a B tbh.

Because when there were no fees AND grants there were denographics who were LESS likely to go to uni than kids from those demographics.

The increase is not down to reintroducing fees though..

I hate that there’s such a cut off. It means if your slightly over your a lot worse off.

There’s assumptions the other way that your parents will and can support you.

On a population level, children from disadvantaged backgrounds do tend to get worse results. Universities know this and will sometimes make slightly lower offers (e.g. ABB instead of AAB) to disadvantaged students.

However, if the government wanted to, it could have a cap on student numbers, with incentives for widening participation, or even a quota of students who must have received pupil premium or come from low income households or are the first in their family to go to uni, or something.

It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Also, there were student quotas until fairly recently, and students from lower income backgrounds did still manage to go to uni in the 00s.

Because they do, generally. Not all, but overall.

Isn't it just Newspeak? 'Scrap fees so poorer students go to uni', 'Oh no, they'd be the ones worse off' followed by a non-sense explanation.

Having been involved with social mobility for my job, I can tell you that he is sort of right and yet so fundamentally wrong. Certainly scrapping fees on its own would not address the many other barriers. The inequity starts long before the kids are even in secondary school though and if I soend too long thonking about it in any depth, I get so depressed....
Sorry for being a misery on a snowy evening