To think that anyone can get in university nowadays?

[Darkdecent]

I know a woman who's studying to be a social worker and while I don't think for one minute she's stupid I certainly wouldn't put her down as uni material.

For example, she was a strong supporter of Alfie Evans parents and was outraged when they turned his life support machine off.

Do they just let anyone in certain universities now or am I underestimating her?

Isn't it wonderful that we have the opportunity for social mobility and a mixed demographic are now entering areas of work that were otherwise elitist

The social mobility angle is an illusion.

Getting more bums on seats, often at lower ranked universities, isn't opening up professions that were once the preserve of the middle to upper classs, far from it. It ticks a box, looks good and those who have an interest in keeping the top unis for people like them can carry on as usual.

This makes interesting reading: www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/25/britains-top-jobs-still-in-hands-of-private-school-elite-study-finds

It's the perfect lie and there's no need then to do anything about real educational inequality or address many of the social issues that are linked to educational inequality.

Consider sporting competitions:

Option 1: pretend that a regional cross country competition is comparable to the Olympics. Find people from a disadvantaged background who don't lead active lives and wouldn't normally play sports. Encourage them to have a go, maybe do a 4 week training programme before the event. Pat yourself on the back for making things fair and ignore the lack of green spaces, the cost of healthy Vs unhealthy food, the effects of poverty on family time, the limited local infrastructure for swimming pools/gyms due to cuts, lack of role models or coaches in an area, ignore the impact of sedentary parents on young people etc. Meanwhile the athletes competing at a national level continue to be from privileged backgrounds where they've had access to facilities and opportunities for years.

Option 2: Actually widen participation in sport and fitness by looking at promoting a culture of activity from a young age, get into schools and support primary schools in having a rigourous PE curriculum, support sports leadership in areas of deprivation, tackle issues linked to poverty, invest in public services for health and leisure, explore what services are needed to break the cycle of poor diet and sedentary lifestyles etc. Actually work on doing more to ensure that those with sporting talent have the potential compete at a higher level by helping them to be better at sport. It won't make them Olympic athletes overnight, but it paves the way for trials at county level, national level and so on.

Most widening participation/so called social mobility work is the equivalent of option 1. It gives the illusion of progress but without meaningful change.

@lolasmiles

Degrees do open to the professions and work well for their receivers.

Other advantages are conveyed by other privileges, private school students out earn state school students, who get the same degrees from the same universities, after 3 years.

Oh and your analogy is a lot of rot

Wood, thats the thing - it isn't about qualifications. This assumption then anyone with qualifications automatically knows best is dangerous. I say this as a HCP myself..... The number of times I hear 'I will do whatever I am told...'- I always say no, I will give you all the information and options and we will make a plan together.

I don't assume that one particular person with qualifications knows best. I do assume that a whole group of people with medical qualifications are far far more likely to know best than someone who has done nothing more than a bit of searching on the Internet and doesn't even know the patient, let alone their medical history. I say this as a HCP.

I dont think the Alfie Evans thing has any relevance but yes basically anyone can get in somewhere. And its bloody unfair of the various govt bodies etc to have allowed the expansion of some institutions, where there are courses where "graduates" are never able to get better paid or graduate level work to pay off the cost of going in the first place.

They may have software to detect blatant copying, but the people writing essays for students as a business will be one step ahead and making subtle changes so that the software doesn't detect.

The software gives an indication of how similar the work is and the academics will make a judgement on whether it is too similar. I think they would have to make quite big changes for it to go undetected so really the student would be paying someone to write the essay for them.

You sound like a massive twat op!

Oh and your analogy is a lot of rot
It's a load of rot to suggest that anyone actually interested in reducing educational inequality would do well to consider changing things that could actually help students acheieve their potential instead of lowering the bar for them later?

That's the problem with social mobility and educational inequality. Too many people's response to the issues is to advocate lowering the bar for certain students and then congratulate themselves when students hit the lower bar set for them. That's the case on a systemic level and on a school level (eg. Don't teach this challenging classic text to a disadvantaged group, teach an easier book and then pat yourself on the back that they completed it, meanwhile up the road their peers are mastering more challenging material that continues to put them ahead).

@littlebb2020 😁👍

And its bloody unfair of the various govt bodies etc to have allowed the expansion of some institutions, where there are courses where "graduates" are never able to get better paid or graduate level work to pay off the cost of going in the first place.
I agree. It seemed to go hand in hand with declining investment in vocational training as well (we still have to explain at options evening that BTECs aren't lesser than GCSEs).
Anyone would think university expansion was a political decision.
Though clearly a good political decision when enough people think it's worth encouraging young people to get into tens of thousands of pounds of debt for any old course at any old university regardless of the outcome.

Insisting that its lowering the bar is ridiculous, and insidious, it means that you only value education when its delivered in a way that you deem fit.

Your analogy about the book is also bunkum, which bit of the English national curriculum or A level allows you to do that?

State school kids out perform private school kids , who got the same a level grades, at university.

Lowering the bar, and it is never far, can equalise privileges that other groups have had.

But I see you disagree with the Sutton Trust, Robbins and you know almost every study on inequalities recommendations.

Trying to protect those unearned privileges eh?

If the OP's acquaintance is one of those, I wonder that she wants to do social work, seeing as so many were eager to claim that children's health and welfare was no-one else's business except their parents. Surely they're against social services even existing? "End of". Timmy's parents don't want to take Timmy and his suspected broken leg to A&E? Well, it's up to the parents, innit? "End of".

Why do you think social workers are all about interfering? A large part of their job is recognising that parents do have rights over their children and they should only be taken away if something extremely serious has to happen for them to be taken away. Also recognising that parents have a right to challenge decisions and be able to deal with that professionally.

A lot of social work involved sourcing appropriate support for parents so an ability to empathise with parents in a difficult situation is not a minus for a social worker. Most referrals are closed NFA.

Having social workers who can see a range of viewpoints is not a bad thing. A person who supported Alfie Evan's parents with knowledge gleaned from the press is not going to have the same views as a fully trained social worker with access to all the evidence.

A person who could make a powerful argument about the rights of parents and children to have a private family life without state interference without a bloody good reason why they shouldn't have it is going to be more valuable to SW academics than someone who thinks social workers are God, judge and jury and that parents exercising their legal right to challenge their decisions is some sort of affront.

*I meant interfere as well as take away in first para

Amylox

Thank you for telling me what I think and spending so much time typing against it.

If you want to know what I think, ask me.

Well statistically in the 1980x it was 3% and the government target is now 50% but the definition on university has changed and post 18 career paths have been eroded

You’re odd example aside hmm Yes anyone who can pay can go to university. Universities still have minimum qualification standards. They still require some sort of a pass in an A-level standard subject. I doubt that any of the 25% of children who fail to get 5 grade C and above passes at GCSE (not sure what the equivalent proportion is for the new grading system) would find themselves at uni no matter how much money their parents have. At least not until they've a few more years under their belt and have other ways of demonstrating their ability as a potential mature student.

Why would I need to ask you when you've already posted it? You said very clearly you thought she was unsuitable because she'd supported Alfie Evan's parents. If you don't think it, why say it. Then complain if people disagree with you. You weren't using your inside voice y'know.

I know exactly what I said, and I'm happy with what I said. Slightly bemused that you've gone into a weird lecture on what I think of the role of the social worker. Also slightly bemused at how you've paraphrased. Talk about chip on your shoulder.

But if you like, I'll tell you now that I judge anyone who thinks "parents' choice. end of" isn't an over-simplistic viewpoint. Children aren't things. People aren't things, and a hell of a lot of abuse of children (and women) has been justified by treating them as if they are.

Coventry has a campus in London as well!

malylis
It is lowing the bar is the focus is on widening participation as far as getting bums on seats without doing anything to actually improve things for the students.
Instead of pushing lower entry courses and ticking the box for widening participation, I want to see the bigger social issue surrounding educational disadvantaged tackled and more done across education to close the gap.

It's the difference between one university having a partnership with local 6th formers, linking in with EPQ, having summer schools that help support disadvantaged students, partnering with the Brilliant Project for y7-11, schools visits, working with careers advisers to offer days for those y11s at risk of being NEET, along with giving contextual offers for disadvantaged students in the region where they've been involved with outreach programmes (brilliant university in terms of their work), and another university that does a few college visits and comes in at y12/13 selling reduced offers from already lower starting points.

The former is going to actually help the students

I can't honestly believe you look at someone saying that there's loads of social inequality issues that need tackling to reduce educational inequality, give examples and has been firmly against tokenism, bar lowering etc and take from that "you want to protect privilege".

Your analogy about the book is also bunkum, which bit of the English national curriculum or A level allows you to do that?
Not bunkum at all, I'm guessing you're not an English teacher otherwise you'd know there's free choice at KS3 and getting KS3 right feeds into GCSE. Schools choosing to study easy texts at KS3 doesn't support the same skills and knowledge development for progression to GCSE. There were two large reports on crap KS3 curriculum designs and how they don't allow students to acheieve their potential.
Curriculum choices have also become a big focus because there were concerns about schools trying to game the system, narrowing the curriculum on offer for students and limiting student opportunities in the process.

In 1980 14 percent of 18 year olds went to university, other forms of HE were counted differently about another 13 percent went on to Polys etc.

28 percent of 18 year olds went last year.

5 percent is the figure from the 50s.

Although I do think its hilarious that people who are so fucking precious about the quality of education mangle their statistics so.

The universities which have low bars almost always traditionally have, it isn't done in order to widen participation, you are confusing things there.

There have been issues with ks3, but almost any school wouldn't do that because of the issues it creates at gcse, yes there are exceptions but its not a rule (KS3 has been a mess since SATS were abolished) GCSE teaching a year early is very common.

I think you genuinely are confusing low offers with widening participation.

Universities still have minimum qualification standards. They still require some sort of a pass in an A-level standard subject. I doubt that any of the 25% of children who fail to get 5 grade C and above passes at GCSE (not sure what the equivalent proportion is for the new grading system) would find themselves at uni no matter how much money their parents have. At least not until they've a few more years under their belt and have other ways of demonstrating their ability as a potential mature student

Actually this is incorrect.

Dd did look at uni. She has 4 GCSEs but because she did a lot of ECA exams over the years which are worth UCAS points she could have gone to uni but decided against it.

She had been thinking of going to do a particular degree which might help her to get to the next level but has deferred because atm she is so busy with work.

So youe daughter did meet requirements in other ways that @oliversmumsarmy, as the poster was saying?