To think concealing institutions would promote equality

[ChilledBee]

Imagine if when you applied for a school, university or job, you could only put your expected/achieved grades but not where you got it from, do you think it would improve equality?

If you/your child went to/attends a "top" institution, would you care if you/they couldn't state that on their applications?

No. It would remove the incentive to go to a good university and would just drag everything down.

You are assuming that those people get top jobs by applying for jobs
They dont
Nepotism means that some people never apply for a job. Somebody they know introduces them to someone else.
Filling in the application would he a formality only so wouldn't make any difference

This wouldn't really work.

Most employers know that a First from, say, Middlesex University, is equivalent to a 2/2 from somewhere like Kings College London. The qualification is completely linked to the awarding body, which in most cases is the university itself.

As a recruiting manager I need this information to be able to score applications properly.

If awarding bodies are standardised, you'd know the person did well where they went and you'd have to look at other aspects of their application.

Nepotism would be less obstructive in a more equal society for several reasons. It would exist, but equality would mean it wouldn't matter as much because there would be no significantly disadvantaged group.

If awarding bodies are standardised, you'd know the person did well where they went and you'd have to look at other aspects of their application.

Care to explain how you’re going to “standardise” the examination processes of Oxford and Wolverhampton?

Your point re nepotism doesn't make sense.

The group that's disadvantaged is the group that isnt part of it. Nepotism, isnt a think in the work place just because someone went to a good university.

In your world people will still go to cambridge, because you make a lot of connections there. Families who have gone there for years will continue to do so. Wether they can write the name on a CV or not. So nepotism wouldn't stop or become something that is a great advantage.

Also where would the incentives of universities to become better? Or for the students to want a particular uni.

This is just a race to the bottom.

You'd need to start by standardising the courses, then people could be sure they were comparing like for like.

I'm not sure we are even close to that

People would want to be better because that's human nature. Some people are content not to have/achieve much and that's okay too. The same goes for institutions.

All university degrees have to meet certain standards to warrant the title of degree. If you can be assured those standards are apt, there would be little need to know much more than their grade.

People would attend universities based on their specialities and perhaps convenience/interest.

Disadvantaged groups are rarely in a place where they can give anyone else a "leg up". In a more equal society, we would have more diversity at those levels thus nepotism via institution or familial or social ties would be less of a problem.

I want to know if a job applicant got their 4 A grade A levels from the local comprehensive, or the local expensive crammer. The former, a lot of respect, the latter, nothing special.

All university degrees have to meet certain standards to warrant the title of degree. If you can be assured those standards are apt, there would be little need to know much more than their grade.

That’s a complete fantasy. What exactly do you think university rankings are about?

But if institution A asks AAB and institution B CCD, then clearly the standard of their intake is different

Universities are not all equal. They all churn out students with firsts & 2.1s despite better ranked unis having intakes of students who have top grades, and low ranked unis accepting people with much poorer grades. That's only possible if it's easier to achieve that first at the lower ranked uni.

Not all degrees are equal, some are far more rigorous than others. This idea is just a race to the bottom. If you want a better job, go to a better university.

And yes I would be very annoyed if I couldn't list my uni on my CV. And I'm realistic. My red brick uni was decent, but my relative who studied at Oxbridge definitely had to do more to get the same grade there.

@bluebeck
"Most employers know that a First from, say, Middlesex University, is equivalent to a 2/2 from somewhere like Kings College London. The qualification is completely linked to the awarding body, which in most cases is the university itself."

I actually have degrees from equivalents of both places you mention, and completely agree with what you say.

"Most employers know that a First from, say, Middlesex University, is equivalent to a 2/2 from somewhere like Kings College London. The qualification is completely linked to the awarding body, which in most cases is the university itself."

This is why I get pretty angry at the people who have encouraged the belief that s degree (any degree) is everything. I actually think overall it hurts poorer people. They are more likely to have lower grades (often in subjects higher ranked universities disregard) so are disproportionately represented at lower ranked universities. This means they disregard some quite reasonably paid skilled occupations not requiring a degree, and instead end up with a pile of expensive debt in a 'graduate" job paying less.

Why would you need to rank universities? If you did, I guess you could count how many people get 1sts under a standardised system.

Poorer people aren't less intelligent so shouldn't have worse grades. If they do, the reasons why need addressing. They need more state money from a younger age.

So how does standardising universities work? Do we say the only people allowed to do maths degrees have to be of Cambridge standard? Or do we lower the entrance requirements to the lowest denominator?

Does the person that attended a failing school, followed by a low ranking university that was the only affordable option not get any credit for their achievements?

Why would you need to rank universities? If you did, I guess you could count how many people get 1sts under a standardised system.

Are you serious? Have you ever been inside a university?

Poorer people aren't less intelligent so shouldn't have worse grades.
If they do, the reasons why need addressing.

No shit Sherlock. But there is a genetic component to academic ability (note I do not say "intelligence"), and a correlation between academic success and adult earning. Parental support also helps with academic achievement a parent of low academic aptitude is likely to earn less. They may not be as well equipped to support with homework. They may be less knowledgeable to assist their offspring make choices that lead long term to higher earnings etc (e.g. awareness of high paying career paths). Homes in poverty may be more stressful etc, poorer nutrition, all affecting school performance.

They need more state money from a younger age.

They already get more. Benefits. Free hours at nursery. Pupil premium. But the government doesn't have enough money to do any more. The government is skint.

*@bluebeck
"Most employers know that a First from, say, Middlesex University, is equivalent to a 2/2 from somewhere like Kings College London. The qualification is completely linked to the awarding body, which in most cases is the university itself."

I actually have degrees from equivalents of both places you mention, and completely agree with what you say.*

One of my degrees is actually from one of those places and another from the equivalent of the other and I totally agree. One asked for weekly essays, reading beyond the reading list, and generally a broad understanding of the subject as a whole. The other handed out 2:1s for remembering a series of facts. The idea that my qualifications from those two institutions are comparable is ridiculous.

I don't doubt at all that there is a level of elitism that needs addressing but for humanities degrees at least you'd be doing everyone involved a massive disservice by pretending all universities are equal. If you want to fix it, stop parents and secondary schools in deprived areas telling kids that they're best off at their local shit uni where they can get a nice easy conditional offer and not have to move away from home. Finance their A level studies so they don't have to take a part time job that gradually expands into their study time just so that they can afford a basic social life. While we're at it fund early years properly so that kids from households without a high level of education don't start school already behind the offspring of graduates.

For humanities degrees at least you'd be doing everyone involved a massive disservice by pretending all universities are equal. If you want to fix it, stop parents and secondary schools in deprived areas telling kids that they're best off at their local shit uni where they can get a nice easy conditional offer and not have to move away from home. Finance their A level studies so they don't have to take a part time job that gradually expands into their study time just so that they can afford a basic social life. While we're at it fund early years properly so that kids from households without a high level of education don't start school already behind the offspring of graduates.

Well said.

But the government doesn't have enough money to do any more. The government is skint

Bullshit.

You're just embarrassing yourself now.

Katalavenete do you really think government is the only thing stopping poorer kids achieving on a par with richer kids?

I'll reword. The government has finite resources, has to maximise benefit to the greatest number of people etc. This means prioritising investment where it is expected to have the greatest return (whether economic, social, or admittedly sometimes political). I suspect some of the gap that currently needs bridging is a bit endemic and linked to general facts of living in poverty, which is a much bigger more expensive problem than just school attainment.

I don't feel embarrassed, thus I have not embarrassed myself. You're welcome.