Sadness of Open Days

[Gemauve]

So on the stand this morning at 0905, I was approached by a charming woman and her keen, enthusiastic daughter. It's the first university they're visiting, in fact the first university that either of them has ever been to, but they're really looking forward to ... and they reel off a list of good places. Daughter really wants to do our subject, and has clearly checked out the top places.

And what A Levels are you doing?

Ah.

Well, you can't come here, and for what it's worth, we're slightly more relaxed than the other places you've named and I know that you won't be able to go to any of them to do our subject or anything even vaguely related. I didn't say "and on past experience from when we were even more relaxed to the point that we might have admitted you, you would almost certainly fail, and the last cohort where we did that less than 5% of them made it to finals". Sorry.

"My school said these subjects would be ideal".

They're catastrophically wrong. Did you look at any prospectuses before choosing your subjects? No. And off they went, their hopes destroyed by 0915.

What the fuck are schools playing at? Why do they let children who don't have middle class parents get into this situation?

This makes me so angry.

As a teacher, I'm told I'm not allowed to advise students on options.

When I tried to organise a trip to a uni it was dismissed as not important.

Makes me so bloody angry.

When I tried to organise a trip to a uni it was dismissed as not important.

A generation ago, women who wanted to go into science were often told that it was a man's world and they should be a nurse instead; the generation before that, women who wanted to go to university ended up doing two year Cert Ed courses and becoming primary teachers.

Now the barrier is class, not gender. People who think they're progressive talk about "irrelevant" and "not for our students". There was a thread a few weeks ago about how unreasonable it was for schools to offer MFL as most of "our pupils" won't need them and anyway the "local university" doesn't offer MFL courses. It's as though people watched Dead Poet's Society and thought "yes, that bloody Robin Williams, coming in here, upsetting carefully crafted parental plans for their children, he should just shut up with his Captain My Captain crap". Or, more to the point, watched "Educating Rita" and thought "Getting fancy ideas instead of cooking her man's tea, who does she think she is?"

I have a PhD, so am not unversed in the ways of universities.

However I've been out of academia over 10 years. I had never heard of the Russell group until a thread on here quite recently.

So while I'm researching for my dc, how do I a). Find out that there is such a thing as a rg uni, b) find out what it means if I've never heard of it to look for it?

I might come across a prospectus that touts itself as rg, but I wouldn't attach any significance to it. In fact my first thought that it was some sort of privatisation scheme.

There was a programme on TV about 10 years ago on black students at Cambridge. One girl had been told by her school not to apply for Cambridge as it would take her away from her family when she could go to the "local" (post 1992) university instead. Fortunately, she didn't take the school's advice.
So sad that this sort of non-aspirational advice is still being provided in schools.

Headofthehive - as an adjunct, yes, in principle. Doing one or even two non-facilitating subjects at GCSE is not a deal-breaker, and doing one slightly questionable one at A-level also doesn't have to be a deal-breaker, although it may disadvantage a candidate against others with a full house of academic subjets.

But the hard truth is that schools are offering subjects without informing candidates of the implications of their choices. In RL subjects like Health and Social Care are not generally taken by the children who are also doing triple science, maths, Eng Lang and Lit, an MFL and a humanities subject, nor are they aimed at those candidates. It is good that there are qualifications aimed at children who struggle with high-level abstract thinking, but it is a scandal that children who do have that aptitude are doing those subjects without understanding the implications for their future choices.

A levels in anything other than traditional academic subjects (particularly maths and science) are pretty much a waste of time if your goal is a RG university

A levels in maths and science are pretty much a waste of time if you want to study languages, English, history, music, art, philosophy, politics...anything that needs writing (a combination of maths and science A levels with the brainy subjects wouldn't be too much of a drawback but maths and science alone... :( )

Some people believe wrong information about GCSE health and social care being a valuable qualification Other people believe wrong information (fro the government) about science and maths being the only subjects worth spit. What, exactly, is the difference between these two incidences of gullibility and wrongheadedness?

That's a shame golf! It must be difficult though, as a teacher, if you can't advise on options. Having said that it's not like you can keep on track of the latest requirements but I would have though that a uni trip and top tips like visiting open days would be very useful.

However in schools' defence, it is a minefield. When addressing a large cohort of potential sixth formers at different stages of personal development, skills, talents and aspirations it is no doubt hard to be too prescriptive. Or even be up to speed with every nuance that is required by specific universities. They can hardly stand up saying Media Studies, Business Studies et al are pretty pointless, focus on facilitating more challenging subjects when for a proportion of students they will be a good accessible way for them to study post 16.

What is needed is time on a school's curriculum dedicated to helping pupils seek out the knowledge they need to make good decisions about their futures together with better and easily accessible information for teachers. Without being denigrating to teachers their life experiences (either directly going into teaching or doing a PGCE after a first degree) are not going to adequately equip them to give good appropriate advice to their pupils.

I can remember my DS having several friendly but heated discussions with his Head of Sixth form about wanting to give up Critical Thinking at AS level, after a few months, because he did not have enough time to do this and 4 other subjects as well as voluntary work at the local hospital. The HOY kept insisting that Critical Thinking would be more useful than the volunteer work until DS produced several entry requirements for various medical schools prospectuses.

Health and Social Care is not a fast track to those jobs, but it can inspire and I'm not sure why it wouldn't be an acceptable adjunct to other more academic GCSEs.

The problem is that you can only do a certain number of GCSE's. If you do all the traditional subjects plus something like health and welfare, you are either doing a huge number of GCSE's or you are narrowing your choices even earlier.

A generation ago I was pushed into science Gemauve, there was a campaign I believe called WISE, women into science and engineering. I would have been much better served by doing nursing! I don't speak for everyone of course but that was my experience.

Hear hear narvine.

Whilst it is an absolute travesty that kids are being advised that Health and Social Care A Level is suitable for a would-be medic, it is equally a travesty that kids who want to do something non medic/Oxford-y are being told that anything other than A Levels from the Informed Choices booklet and a 1st/2:1 from an RG is a complete and utter waste of their time and money.

And whilst I would never, ever, defend anyone who says 'Oxford isn't for the likes of you', kids have got to be happy and feel they fit in at the university they go to. and those from BME and/or lower socio-economic backgrounds leave part the way through their degrees in far higher proportions than their white MC counterparts. And more so the more 'elite' the institution.

Pretty much all UK universities have the power to transform lives, of both those that attend, and future generations. But they have to stay long enough to graduate!

Oooh, I've been nodding along sagely, but I realise I didn't really know what the facilitating subjects were.
Where is the list that ranks the following:
RS, Philosophy, Government and Politics, Sociology, Psychology,
Theatre Studies, Drama. I thought there was a massive difference between those subjects and often tell people so

Economics isn't on that list either but seems to be v well thought of in its own right (I know it's not a prerequisite for studying Economics)

The alumni magazine of my old (private) school is full of smiling sixth formers having little school organised get togethers with ex pupils who are now at Oxbridge/studying medicine/law/working in finance etc.

Presumably the parents of these girls are quite clued up - if all you need to do is check out a university website, why is the school bothering? Presumably because even if your parents have expected you to go to Oxbridge since birth, these kind of visits make a difference.

I think Theatre Studies falls into a slightly different category.

Subjects like Art/Textiles/Home Ec (if that is still what it is called)/Theatre Studies may not be counted as full subjects if you are applying for an academic course because of the practical content. However, they won't hinder you if for instance you want to go to Art College or study drama.

And whilst I would never, ever, defend anyone who says 'Oxford isn't for the likes of you', kids have got to be happy and feel they fit in at the university they go to. and those from BME and/or lower socio-economic backgrounds leave part the way through their degrees in far higher proportions than their white MC counterparts. And more so the more 'elite' the institution.

And therefore ....?

Really don't like where you're going with this ...

That's the Trinity list seriously - much more informative than the facilitating list imo.

Trinity list

Facilitating subjects booklet

Surely you don't need to have a middle class and/or university educated parent to realise that A levels in anything other than traditional academic subjects (particularly maths and science) are pretty much a waste of time if your goal is a RG university?

I saw myself as a relative clued up parent, DS attended a well-regarded and high achieving secondary school and neither of us had heard of RG until he was attending for interview.

It was over 20 years, since I had been immersed in FE myself, any knowledge or information I had acquired about good subject choices then I rightly considered would be out of date. my natural inclination would be to think the school would be more informed than I was. Fortunately as a "mc" parent I had enough skills and a healthy dose of cynicism to enable me to do a bit of my own research to help my DS. Someone up thread made the point about the unknown unknowns and it was fortuitous that a number of decisions (without having the correct info available) my DS made, did not hamper his chances to achieve his aspirations. My guidance and a large dose of good luck, rather than his school IMO.

What I'm saying zero is that it is very very easy for you and I and all the other posters here to state with absolute conviction that going to Cambridge and being a pioneer amongst your BME, council estate, single parent cleaner, peers is categorically the right thing to do, when you're that person it's bloody hard to be the only one, and perhaps we should recognize that other outcomes for that person are just as valid without sneering at their choices.

After all dropping out is far more a waste than going somewhere you feel more comfortable and staying.

I agree titchy!

Following Titchy's logic I shouldn't have attended the higher education institutions I did but instead gone to a lower ranking institution, and waited for my children and grand-children to make the step up to the top institutions and jobs.

This logic seems to ignore the fact that kids from low socio-economic backgrounds can actually be very, very bright, and fit into an academic institution where the people around them are as bright as they are. I was happy for the first time in my life when I went to Cambridge and was finally around people who were similar to me (academically).

when you're that person it's bloody hard to be the only one

Except you aren't the only one, unless you've just fallen into a time machine and woken up in the author's notes of Lucky Jim.

It's difficult to advise your children isn't it? We all have different experiences which colour our judgement to some extent. Also there are those unknowns...which can alter the desirability of a course or career quite substantially!
I just want my children to be happy and fulfilled, whatever they do.
The same advice clearly doesn't suit everyone who appears to be in the same position.

that going to Cambridge and being a pioneer amongst your BME, council estate, single parent cleaner, peers

• love the way you run those all together.

You are on such outrageously dangerous ground ...

perhaps we should recognize that other outcomes for that person ...

(Someone on the Internet is wronger than a wrong thing. Surely I've been here long enough to know when to step away?)

I am very sad to discover that views like this exist. Here.

And if BME/lower socio-economic students are more likely to drop out of elite institutions the urgent issue is to fix the elite institutions, get more BME students to go there, not stop them going.

It's like saying that women are much more likely to drop out of science careers so women should set their sights lower and not go into science, instead of actually fixing the leaky pipeline.