University squeeze on children of graduates

[Lilymaid]

See article in today's Times and every other paper/news source.
There are many reasons that certain socio economic groups are less well represented in higher education - fear of the cost, poor schools in poorer areas,no family tradition/interest in education, disrupted family life etc. This will not tackle the major problems.

I actually have no issue with them collating this info after offers a re made, as it may be useful to analyse why certain sectors are not getting in to FE/HE.

However, it feels totally wrong to do it before.

The Governemnt is apparently worried that declining numbers of state educated and "lower" class kids are going to Uni. Might it just possibly be to do with the debt burden that students now have to bear?

For the record, I went to uni in the late 70s. early 80s, minimum grant (but at least I got one! ), both parents have degrees and I was state educated.

I think all idetifying details such as school name, financial information, race, gender, etc. should not be given to the people at unis until after all offers have been made. Offers should be made on an individual basis, based on what the uni read and see (at interview if applicable).

Have no problem with them analysising such details afterwards though. Think that would be very useful.

I was at uni a couple of years after you prettybird and also had non-graduate parents and a state education. However I was on a maximum grant and would have been unable to take my place up without it. My parents were both pulled from school as early as possible to provide much needed income for their families.
This is all about young people simply not considering the university experience on offer in all too many places, worth the outlay - and it will saddle them with huge debt as well.

I think that when DS1 applied through UCAS in 2005 he did not have to give his parent's occupation, although Radio 4 this morning said that this information was supplied to universities after offers were made (perhaps that has changed in the last two years). DH and I are both lucky that we went to university back in the days of grants and came out of university with no debts. DS will have debt of 3 year's of the basic student loan despite the fact that we contribute around £4000 per year towards the costs. It isn't surprising that 18 year olds from poorer homes aren't willing to take on a debt burden when they can't be sure that they will eventually be better off for having gone into higher education.

Personally I also think that it is wrong to make blanket policies like 50% of the population should go to Uni?

Why? What value is it going to add? If every second person has a adgree, what benefit does it bring when looking for a job? Let along the debt burden that it carries. As far as I can make out, they are achieving this target is by calling more an more institutions "universities" and devaluing the value of a first degree. We are fast mving to the Amercian system, where a first degree is almost an extension of school - and the Ivy league Unis are the only ones with any real value.

I remember when I was at Uni (at one of the ones that would be considered 2Ivy league in the UK), the American stduents voer for a year were shocked that even though they were 3 years into the degree in the states, they were usually put in to 1st year here - and still struggled.

Not sure where I fit in stats:

I was state education, poor area, non graduate parents - went to Uni in 1991 on full grant plus student loans

DH was state educated, better area, non graduate parents - went to uni in 1991, no grant and no need for student loans

well to put another spin on it, schools do have "feeder" universities
where the headmaster knows the professors etc. etc...

i know my school could get anyone into a certain university - a level results did not matter.

i got my sister in by ringing up my old professor when her A level results weren't up to her accepted choice.

so maybe more of this goes on than you think
and so they are trying to encourage unis to take on more and more students from other schools/backgrounds.

As an American expat to the UK, I agree 100% w/prettybird. The value of a degree there is so watered down it's required for even the most basic of jobs.

And you're seeing a swing back towards people going for skilled trades instead, as the employment opportunities are FAR greater and more flexible and financially better.

In Scotland, sudetns traditionally went to their "local" university. I went away from tradtion and deliberately went to one not in my home city, so there were no "fast tracks". And despite its reputation for being elitist, my epxerience was more that people didn't apply 'cos it would mean living away from home and the added expense that that would incur,

It's just a silly issue and sa the Times says people will just lie about things like parents' occupation. Millionaire property developer and you'll write "builder". Oxford has said it will not pass the information on colleges as they think it's such a silly plan.

The current rules already say children of poor homes don't pay the full £3000 a year new fee even on the usual deferred basis until you earn so that should surely help them. So you get 2 identical students. One has poor parents who help him but he pays much lower fees. Another has rich parents but they choose not to give him a penny and his fees are £3000 a year. Even that is rather unfair.

I wonder how they will check anyway. Cuold you not just put on the form parents dinner lady, unemployed and no degrees?

It's silly and a total waste of taxpayers' money. The state should invest in education and maximising opportunities at primary and secondary level, not try to compensate for its earlier failures when students are 18 and moving on to higher education.

Yes, it's too late. A child who has been failed at primary and state level even if they did well on an IQ test at university level .. you can't by that stage undo the harm done, the inability to write good essays etc.