State educaten makes pupils more likely to be successful at university

[Agggghast]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26773830

Found this interesting - is it because they are more used to learning independently?

Seriously though, I'd be interested to hear what the up to date research says/will say in terms of influential factors.

Of course, it very much depends on how one measures 'success', too.

Elibean I think it will be fascinating when it comes out (unlikely before 2015).

I agree though, that much rests on what the definition of success/achievement is taken to mean.

I wonder if, given how few SAHMs there are now, compared to when te orginal reseacrh was done, whether the mother's educational attainment will still be a large factor.

So the research shows that for the best universities going to a state school does not result in higher grades. Also it found that at any university if you get good A levels but come from a poor post code area then your degree result is worse not better than others.

I agree that grade inflation has made it harder to distinguish people. In my day 15% went to university and only a third got 2/1 or higher. One girl got a first in our year of that third of the 15%. Now about half to go university and 2/3rds get 2/1 and above and if you don't get a 2/1 many jobs are barred to you.

Part of the reason that much more than 15% go to university now is because we have much more universities. A lot of the universities used to be polytechnics and have rebranded to become universities. It is also partly because more people stay in education for longer now as we have more service based industries and less manufacturing industries.

A 2:1 from one of the 'converted from a polytechnic universities' is not considered the same as a 2:1 from an RG traditional university. Or at least that is what my lecturer friends tell me (from a mix of both types of establishments). So we have lots of people getting 2:1 classifications, but there is still some prejudice over its worth depending on where it was earned.

It's a but more complicated than that. The ex polys are generally very sound but also ex Colleges of Higher Ed are also called universities. Many degrees from these universities are vocational or practical and are good, but how do you compare?

I don't know how you compare. I personally think that a degree is a degree regardless of where it is earned, but not all employers think that and not all admissions staff think that when people apply to do masters or higher levels of study. Prejudice exists, if it didn't then we wouldn't have people aspiring to help their children achieve enough to get a place at an RG university. We also wouldn't have 6th form college lecturers who encourage children to accept an offer at Manchester University rather than Mickey Mouse University (Manchester Metropolitan University / MMU).

No one who understands the system surely can think a degree is as valuable from every institution that issues them though. I don't think excellence is prejudice. It is simply truth.

Doesn't that say something about the establishments that are dishing out degrees though? That they are doing themselves a disservice by just passing people who haven't reached an adequate level as judged by the top universities?
Are they really that desperate for students that they are willing to give anybody a 2:1?
Why is there not a national standard like there is with other qualifications?

Impatient, if you look upthread, a poster called Horse had the view you do. Many people replied to the idea that degrees have equal validity regardless of where they are from...and Horse came to see what the reality is. To those not in 'the know' it is difficult to make judgements, but there is a definite packing order. Remember, people need much higher A level grades to get into some places, but many universities award similar amounts of each class of degree, so the universities requiring higher entry grades offer degrees which are worth more in academic terms. Look up thread and you will see your view raised by others and answered.

I don't know Manchester Metropolitan but I don't think calling it Mickey Mouse University is very fair. Students have different abilities and aspirations and many new universities offer very suitable, well run courses. It is not their fault that the changes at the time meant they changed to being called universities and some qualifications which would have had titles like HND became degrees. This did away with distinctions in name only and became confusing. If you want to be a good motor sports engineer, you wouldn't go to a traditional university. If you would like to manage ultra-luxury facilities in stunning locations around the world with Oberoi or hotels, a degree from Manchester Megropolitan might be a very good starting point.

You are right. There are vocational degrees which might be useful for certain jobs.

In the wider sense of degrees being a 'currency' though, some degrees from certain places are more highly valued than others. Again, an academic degree isn't right for everyone.
The problem comes when pupils or parents think their child is going to a highly regarded academic institution when they are not, or pupils or parents believing all degrees have equal value.

Yes the snobbery is what gets me - someone who's brilliant at mechanics is 'excellent' and someone who is brilliant at mathematics is 'excellent' but neither is more 'excellent' than the other.

Most people in the real world (including mathematicians) understand this and wouldn't look down their noses at their mechanic but the world of academia seems to think it can. The system was better when polys were polys and unis were unis. Everyone knew where they stood in those days.

The deception is just not fair and has led to a generation of disappointed call centre workers.

Yes. But an Oxford Brookes Motor Sports Engineering degree is likely to allow you to be working at the Grand Prix in Malaysia or Abu Dhabi, which will be both more varied and lucrative than very many careers embarked upon after a more conventionally academic degree at what the universities themselves call 'coffee table' universities ( those whose prospectus parents are happy to leave on display on their coffee table).

And Manchester Met is no 9 in the Complete University Guide league table for hospitality degrees.

'coffee table universities'

for most jobs, i dont think it really matters all that much, a degree is a degree. maybe you even do yourself a favour getting a first at a uni with more generous standards as a lot of employers will be impressed

the 'big' employers wont recruit from a lot of unis, but most people dont/will never work for a major multinat at graduate or above entry level. so if that was your ambition, you would need to know that

i just think it affects studies like these if it is assumed all 2:1s are at the same standard

But I agree that not enough people realise that a chemistry degree will allow you to apply to be trained as a cosmetic chemist at Estée Lauder, but you you will be able to change your mind and do other chemistry related careers while a degree in cosmetic chemistry will have narrower career options.

However, what is Mickey Mouse about this at De Montfort? Just as long as you know the score.

www.dmu.ac.uk/study/courses/undergraduate-courses/pharmaceutical-and-cosmetic-science.aspx

Agree, most people are not going to be top academics or top in the most highly paid professions.
Many people getting degrees today, still end up in the jobs they would have done 30 years ago without a degree, but perhaps one is expected in those jobs now.

Having a good degree from a highly regarded university does give more options and allow people access to those top jobs. Many people with great degrees still don't go into highly competitive industries fora variety of reasons, but they had the choice to.....that is important.

The world is a judgey place. So whether its using the place someone got a degree from, to decide if they are short listed for an interview, or just the judging we do about each other when we chat and eventually find out where other mums went to university, we all make judgements.

Certain elements of society are perhaps more aware and judgey about all this than most sections. Those working in academia are clearly very aware of it all, as are teachers in independent schools that send many pupils to top universities and those working in highly competitive professions, are also very aware of the pecking order. Probably most people never give it a second thought. Parents with teenage children making GCSE and A Level and degree choices need to be informed at this crucial stage of their childrens life.

Employers need some way to differentiate between candidates, when a highly academic person is required. Degree classification alone does not tell much of a story anymore, but institution attended still does.

For borderline candidates, going for a slightly easier to get onto course at a better university, is often better than going for a very popular course at a less well regarded place.....only applies to subjects which don't lead directly into jobs and which would give equally valued transferable skills which employers will value. I'm clearly not advocating choosing a course that a student is not suited to or won't like, but sometimes there can be a couple of grades difference in offers, for courses which have many similarities and which will be judged equally by employers.

Going to a better regarded university for an easier course might be a plan for non vocational subjects - Won't get into Oxbridge for English? How does Classics/ASNAC /Theology sound? But you'd have to want to read them almost as much as you want to read English.

But if you want to be an international engineer with BP, you'd be mad to do something else in order to get into Oxbridge /imperial , rather than take Aberdeen or Robert Gordon.

Yes, agree. I did say it only applied to subjects which don't lead directly to jobs. The examples you give as alternatives to English at Oxford are good ones. I think a number of people choose Theology or Classics each year as they are a bit less competitive. These will still gain the kudos and give the transferable skills though, to open doors to a wide range of top jobs.

It's the private schools that know this,isn't it. They guide the borderline cases towards the slightly easier to get onto courses at the best places. Likewise, someone may choose to do Archaeology instead of History at a RG Uni because the offer will be a bit lower, but they will still have an arts degree from a good university. May well open more doors than History from a lesser place. Again, all within reason. No good at all if you don't like the subject,n would be no good at it, or it isn't going to be appropriate for the job you want to do (assuming you know, which many 18 year olds don't)

I'm not sure it is the top private schools that push students do this exactly. I think it is the parents - though they might ask advice about what subject their child is going to have a better chance of being accepted for. I think the best schools want their students to read the subjects they like best.

Yes I expect it is the parents. The schools though know how to help the pupils achieve places at the top universities, if that is more important to them than subject.

for sure I was smarter at uni than private ed kids,I'd brains,but they had connections
Theyd heaps of ego and self aggrandising,but I'm quite driven cause I never feel good enough
It's not a level playing field when you've got minimal background support

What, you know for a fact that you were smarter than every single student from private school and every single one of them had 'connections', huge egos and a tendency to self-aggrandisement? Massive generalisation perhaps ?

To be fair, singersgirl, this whole thread is about massive generalisations.

All this research - is it not an indication that too many people are going to university and not all of them are very good at designing research projects? I mean, has this research actually told us anything new or unexpected, or just revealed its numerous shortcomings?