dumbing down universities

[TheFury]

Does anyone consider how this new policy forcing universities to discriminate both against privately educated kids, or state-educated kids from top selective schools, could result in a hugely damaging brain drain as their parents simply choose foreign institutions instead.

Elite universities in America are awash with huge endowments for scholarships and they value the superb education provided by the best British schools. They will snap up all the bright students, as will other elite institutions in Australia, Israel and India (one of the most selective engineering institutions in India is already harder to get into than Oxford or Cambridge).

Britain cannot afford to lose this reservoir of often expensively educated talent. Our universities will deteriorate markedly if they are forced to take in students who are relatively ignorant and ill-educated, and if they introduce bridging courses to educate them properly first, their fees will simply soar ever higher and higher.

The British universities will be left with the dregs, and their standards will plummet just as surely as general school standards in this country have done in the past 30 years. And for the same reason. Because of meddlesome, well-intentioned politicians, whose own children always have the contacts to succeed come what may.

Think this may actually be from a letter from the head of the Independent Schools Council, Philip Cottam:

How can it be fair for universities to be pushed into rejecting candidates, whether from state or independent schools, with a mixture of A*s and As, as many already do, in favour of candidates with an A and two Bs?

He's complaining about the practice.

He's right to complain. I can copper-bottom swear that nobody in my college or discipline does this.

I know some other universities do admissions in this way - Bristol, notoriously, a while ago.

However, we also don't rate A-levels alone. We can't.

Below his letter is another urging us not to take confident people from indy schools... we really don't do so on this basis alone. We often take quite shy, closed-up people if they will have a go, however tersely. So neither of them are right about us....

Thanks sieglinde - I knew I'd read it somewhere.

I'm not sure I agree with OP anyhow, to the extent that universities are not being forced to discriminate against private or top-performing state schools. OFFA is concerned with provision for financial assistance and other initiatives to encourage a wider range of applicants.

Indeed it may even be unlawful for them to instruct admissions tutors to favour particular groups of applicants: "[Mr Hyam, chair of the Education Law Association] goes on to state that the Act ?makes it unlawful? for the Director of Fair Access to impose requirements ?affecting the academic judgments of admissions tutors concerning the criteria to be applied by those tutors in deciding to whom to make offers of places?.

Interfering with the autonomy of Admissions Tutors isn't going to solve the differences between the state and private sectors, which seem to have widened not narrowed, of late.

I agree that the real problem lies with the disparities between state and private education at secondary level; it's the gateway to the next stage. I was lucky enough to go to a good state school, but there are too few, the huge gap between private and state is shameful - bright children are losing out and we're losing out on them. Not good on any reckoning, especially when coupled with the fact that we now have an insane system where the old B grade is called an A and the old A is called an A*, so that universities and employers can distinguish between students. Again, not doing anyone any favours, least of all the disappointed three A-grade student. The last thing we need is to ask universities, drop your standards to that of the rest of the public education system. The focus should go back to the secondary schools... Not sure the latest tinkering, random free schools etc, will help.

I've discussed the question of differing entrance requirements with DS1 who attended a highly regarded academic independent day school where the majority of students achieve at least 3 A grades at A2. He has no problem with the idea that candidates who have come from poorly performing schools should be given lower offers than he would. It is appalling that so many bright students don't get the chance to reach their full potential in some of our secondary schools and that such students be regarded as the "dregs".

Can any of the academics on these threads (or anyone) tell me what the current political thinking is in the DfE about a return to the grammar school system? So many smart initiatives -and an insistence on social mobility and addressing disadvantage- but am I living in an uncluttered utopian world where it seems to me that many problems cold be solved with a return to the grammar school and direct grant system, provided only that those not able or willing to join that system should be properly provided for, which they didn't seem to be back in the old days (my days) of depressing sink secondary moderns?

Lilymaid all of mine (highly regarded state grammar where the majority etc....) agree with your DS. OP's reference to 'dregs' is appalling, but a reflection on her/ him.

Yellowstone: I doubt anyone in DofE is thinking about increasing the number of grammar schools as all major political parties have ruled that out as a policy option.

Lilymaid: Admissions tutors already have the freedom to vary offers in that way, depending on the actual field of candidates presenting for the specific course in that specific year. I support that. But I would not support central Government direction of admissions tutors.

meditrina I'm aware of that but I haven't seen a properly articulated justification for it which is probably overdue, given the almost daily exhortations by ministers to increase social mobility.

meditrina I'm not sure that an Oxford tutor in the 2011 admissions round could have handed out an offer for much less than AAA without a ton of bricks having fallen on her or him.

OP, there is no policy forcing universities to discriminate against privately educated kids or those from selective schools. You shouldn't believe the Telegraph. Neither Offa nor the government is interfering in admissions policies. To do so would be unlawful but is also not really in tune with Willetts' wider agenda.

On contextual data (making different offers to students from different backgrounds), there is evidence that bright children from comprehensive schools at top universities are more likely to get firsts than their privately educated peers. I don't think that's controversial. But no-one is forcing universities to use contextual data if they don't want to.

Dear Mummytime, please email me at [email protected] to let me know of this non-selective state school that gets at least 10 children a year into Oxbridge. As a mother of two Year 5 pupils I am really, really anxious to know. Are you absolutely sure it is non-selective? Or are there other criteria for selection, other than academic? I would be abjectly, abjectly, grateful to know.

Fury you will probably have to live in a really tight catchment area maybe within a 1 mile radius of the school and pay over the odds for a house there. Also this catchment can change yearly so unless you live right on the doorstep there is no guarantee your dc will get in. This is my experience of trying to find a good state school that I'll be happy to send my dc to which doesn't select on religion or ability.

Yellowstone: if you think there's any truth in Kora's post above, an AAA offer now is in line with a BBB offer of the 80s. Unless they return to the EE offer (unlikely), is there really much lower they can go?

Anyone know how widely A* is being required in offers this year?

I do think admissions tutors are overwhelmingly interested in getting the brightest and the best onto their courses, and there is so much going on to get more people to apply. The key has to be, though, the quality of education to that point.

The fury,

There are schools like that in Harpenden. They certainly exist in other places too.

You provide no evidence for the drop in school standards. It is hard to compare since 30 years ago there was less testing and so many kids left school without a single qualification.

You imagine that universities are these massive places of social engineering. They are not. University tutors want to make their lives easy like anyone and they only admit students who they think can manage the course (except at the bottom end of the scale I suspect). The idea that Bristol has ever used positive discrimination to admit more state school pupils on a grand scale is simply not true.

Universities are trying to widen access but most of these efforts are trying to get bright pupils to apply to the more prestigious universities, it is not an open door. Part of the problem is that some groups of kids are discouraged even from applying and if you haven?t got a ticket you can?t win the lottery. Anecdotal evidence is just that. In these days of grade inflation it is harder for universities to make meaningful discrimination between students and there will be anomalies, but it is far from intentional. Getting into Oxbridge has always been a bit of a lottery, a tutor once said to me that there were one or two outstanding candidates and the others were all solid but it was hard to choose the final number. Increasingly some of the Russell group courses and things like medicine are also a bit of a lottery and I would advise any student who doesn?t get and offer to get their grades and try again.

I am worried about universities, but from the point of view of the withdrawing of funding from the arts and limited funding for science. The 9k fees could result in trying to cram as many people as possible into a course that is popular to maximise the cash, hardly a good solution. It will also mean that more universities shut expensive undersubscribed courses which are central to the ecconomic growth of the country (like Chemistry at Exeter).

Sorry about the massive post.

The Fury yes there are schools like that. One in a less salubrious part of London has been in the news quite a bit lately; it has a truly exceptional head. It's not in a leafy suburb and it has a properly comprehensive intake but it seems to weave magic for the kids. I think I remember reading that the head said the school provided a grammar school education to a comprehensive intake.

But what interests me most is the fact that your two are in Year 5. That's quite young for a parent to be fixated on Oxford and Cambridge....

meditrina, judging by the offers to students from school, the A* is being used moderately in offers this year. There were about 20 universities named in the papers early in this UCAS cycle who were supposed to be using it in offers for their most competitive courses for 2011, but I think the majority may be saving it to unleash next year rather than this.

I don't think anyone at all disputes the key to fair admissions lies in the education provided at school.

Although I don't agree with the comment 'dregs' I am shocked on MN on how people talk about private school kids as if they can't be bright or that they are spoon fed.

My dss go to private school and I work full time to pay their fees (yes I can hear the comments - I work FT to live!) We all do the best for our children, my ds1 has friends at his school who are tutored as well as going to a 'good' school. We don't. But then my friend worked at a selective secondary and now both her daughters are there and her not so bright daughter in yr6 is now flying in yr10. Again I am paying as my dss wouldn't get into that school.

I will be insensed if just because I tried to do the best for my son means that he will not get a university place because of the school he went to.

The right child/young adult should get admitted to the right course with the right academic ability. No matter which school they went to.

BTW, I didn't get a grant many moons ago as my father 'earnt too much', we will have to fund our boys through uni if they go as well. Oh well a few more years of working full time then!!

The Fury, helpful tip from an older mother: save the Oxbridge angst if possible for that week in December after interviews and before offers are made when your DC claim that no-one has ever done a stupider interview than them in the history of the university and that the tutors just gazed at them pityingly before hurrying them out (etc.). That week is more than stressful enough.

I would warn that in some career areas there is a prejudice against Oxbridge educated, white, middle class, heterosexual especially male.

Watfordmummy, thing is that lots can't afford schoolfees even By working full-time, even BY not taking holidays etc. Hence the unhappy-sounding posts.

Some sensible truisms might include: there are good and bad schools in all sectors, and I have certainly seen some awful but very well-regarded private schools, BUT it's a source of anxiety for everyone that the private sector seems to be pulling so far ahead academically - just in terms of raw results and sense of entitlement - because most people will NEVER be able to afford it. Hence there's real and legitimate concern about the waste of talent etc.

Nobody knows what to do. Bringing back grammars tends to be greeted with howls, and I see why; no other reforms or spendings have done much to improve the overall situation; there are brilliant state schools, but not all state schools are brilliant, and no-one knows how to make them so.

The 'totally' comprehensive schools that get 10+ into oxbridge each year are effectively selecting at 6th form level. They are allowed to set an entrance requirement into the sixth form and those that do not meet it have to leave. a large outside intake occurs with a minimum gcse grade set. However, the new school referred to above (in east london I think) seems to have truly worked miracles with a very comprehensive intake. But I do believe they had top streams for kids with this potential.

Gooseburybushes
What professions are they? Not politics I think.

Lazy mum - not true of my kids school. Yes it does take a number of ex-private school pupils, but it is going to have to restricted these numbers further as most pupils now stay on at the school. Previously they pretty much replaced those who want of very vocational courses, or preferred a local sixth form college.
The school does have some joint preparation for Oxbridge with local private schools.

Watford mummy
Oxbridge takes 50% or so state pupils. 10% of children are educated in the private sector. The idea that private school pupils are discriminated against is silly. It amazes me how these stories and the Laura Spence one apparently proving the opposite are taken up. There are always anomalies, it isn't a perfect system but really there is no social engineering on either side.

I think there is a bigger problem with the dumbing down of the British education system (as indicated by recent OECD report) in that no other country I know of have also done so. We can all argue whether a A grade from an independent school is the equivalent of a B from a state school but the bigger picture is whether a A from a Uk school is of the same standard as a A grade from a German or a singaporean school or whether our university degree are equivalent to those of other countries. Our dc are going to have to compete for jobs a lot more with those from outside the UK and I worry that the UK educational standards are now so much lower than other countries. I work in the NHS and in the last 10years I've noticed a lot more very well qualified foreign professionals being employed, my dh works in the city and again they don't care where you're from as long as you've got the skills they want. I think the one unique selling point of private schools is they don't have to teach to the national curriculum and have the freedom to teach beyond it in order to stretch their pupils. This government needs to urgently address the issue of teaching and examination standards in state schools otherwise we will have a whole generation who will be seriously disadvantaged compared to other competing countries