Real problem or is this banter about home regions

[mids2019]

I feel this is an issue that has been a feature of universities for years

As a northerner going to an RG uni was socially difficult experience and I did try and suppress my accent.

I didn't mind friendly banter based on accent but did feel my background precluded me from certain peer groups.

www.theguardian.com/education/2020/oct/24/uk-top-universities-urged-act-classism-accent-prejudice?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Yes. I too have an accent that’s perceived as cheap sounding. I’m not from the north. I know exactly what some people have thought of me down the years. People make all sorts of judgements don’t they? Like not being a worthy participant in a discussion because you don’t have a PhD in the subject. Why is HE on MN so elitist? Having said that, I truly believe you have to develop a thick skin to get past elitist thoughts and be yourself. Power on through and f-ck them all!

I don't think it's surprising that the HE section will disproportionately represent posters who have themselves benefited from HE, or who work in it - whose contributions I've found immensely helpful over the years. But among these are many whose aim is to help broaden participation, correct myths and misapprehensions.
There's a big difference between being a member of some elite group and being elitist - wanting to keep others out, isn't there?

Depends on the language used and the continual references to being an “expert” and therefore always “right”. It effectively is a tactic to close down the views of others that are deemed insufficiently academic. Most issues are open to some interpretation and debate. Calling the views of others “simplistic” is elitist and frankly rather condescending and rude. It is intended to remove the wrong sort of person from the debate. A debate about feelings of exclusion at university! Obviously “simple” people and their simplistic arguments are not welcome here. By all means get your qualifications but ramming them down the throats of others in a condescending way is not attractive or necessary. Many of us might not have a PhD but we are still people who have views built on experiences. Research in social areas is only as good as the participants chosen anyway - and that isn’t a scientific cross section of all students and pupils. It cannot be. So how valuable is it?

Yes. I too have an accent that’s perceived as cheap sounding. I’m not from the north. I know exactly what some people have thought of me down the years. People make all sorts of judgements don’t they? Like not being a worthy participant in a discussion because you don’t have a PhD in the subject. Why is HE on MN so elitist? Having said that, I truly believe you have to develop a thick skin to get past elitist thoughts and be yourself. Power on through and f-ck them all!

Judgement clearly works both ways though doesn't it..... like the assumption that I'm elitist. I'm northern, speak with a northern accent ( which has been mocked over the years), I grew up on one of the most deprived estates in the uk and I'm still the only person in my family to have been to university.

I've never said you aren't worthy of participating in the discussion and i apologise if it came across that way. I'm incredibly passionate about this subject and have dedicated my career to researching, studying and teaching this subject. I get upset when people ignore the structural barriers and inequalities that exist and the challenges they create.

Discussions are two way and unfortunately I disagree with many of the points you made. You're welcome to continue to disagree with me 🤷🏼‍♀️

Research in social areas is only as good as the participants chosen anyway - and that isn’t a scientific cross section of all students and pupils. It cannot be. So how valuable is it?

This is incredibly insulting to every academic researcher out there. It's made me quite angry.

Part of the research process is ensuring its representative ( and acknowledging if it isn't). I've interviewed hundreds of students and analysed the data of hundreds of thousands of university applicants. My research is supervised, peer reviewed and published. It's used by other researchers and has influenced policy.

I am an expert in this subject. I will ( and do) listen to other perspectives but you need to come at me with evidence not anecdotes.

Again - you are the expert! Every bloody time. This is not an academic thread for academics only. Get off your high horse and engage with others. No I don’t have to give you evidence of anything. What a elitist position to take? I’m actually glad you are angry. Get off your elitist soap box. This is a site for ordinary folk too.

Someone said upthread that I would choose the "better" universities because I know the system. Well yes, I do now, but I didn't when I went to university but I was well guided by my school's careers service and sixth form tutor. At the time I was aiming for good grades and because of that I only applied to universities, I didn't put in applications for polys because I didn't think I would need to go to one, and fortunately I did get the grades for my insurance offer.

It never occurred to me that I wouldn't fit in. In fact the first time I realised I didn't was when I started work in a large city law firm and 2/3 of the intake of new trainee lawyers were Oxbridge and some from very privileged backgrounds indeed. I had been quite naive. I went to a Welsh university and although I didn't come across anyone who was really hard up, and there was the odd private school pupil, there was really nobody there who was from a loaded background (or if there was, you didn't know).

I didn't fit in at the law firm and spent most of my time hanging around with the secretaries and paralegals.

@Guymere

Again - you are the expert! Every bloody time. This is not an academic thread for academics only. Get off your high horse and engage with others. No I don’t have to give you evidence of anything. What a elitist position to take? I’m actually glad you are angry. Get off your elitist soap box. This is a site for ordinary folk too.

But I am. It's my job to be an expert on this subject- it's what I get paid to do! How is that elitist? You are essentially telling me I can't do my job.

I teach career development and higher education policy specialising in widening participation and fair access to higher education. Part of that job is research ... I also get commissioned by government departments and professional bodies to carry out research to influence policy. That makes me an expert.

So if someone is an expert on something are they not allowed to contribute to discussions on their specialist area?
The OP raised an interesting point , one I've researched extensively so I responded. I didn't realise I wasn't allowed 🤷🏼‍♀️

This is a site for everyone. Expertise, anecdote and opinion are all valid, and all open to being questioned.

But genuine expertise is particularly valuable. The whole point of education is about learning, and we can learn more by listening to people who've studied an area.

@Guymere

Again - you are the expert! Every bloody time. This is not an academic thread for academics only. Get off your high horse and engage with others. No I don’t have to give you evidence of anything. What a elitist position to take? I’m actually glad you are angry. Get off your elitist soap box. This is a site for ordinary folk too.

This sounds awfully like the response of someone who doesn't have anything to say, and is therefore throwing their toys out of the pram.

Why shouldn't she have a view, despite having some kind of academic background? If you disagree, just say so. Don't make it into a personal attack just because she happens to be an academic.

I've been reading this thread with interest from the start, and it's such a shame when it descends into anti-intellectualism.

'Elitism' has become a blunt term of abuse. But giving weight to expertise isn't elitism, it's more like meritocracy surely?

Ugh?! She attacked me first!!! Because I don’t have an “academic” position, no “evidence” and don’t have a PhD in the subject!!! It comes across that these threads are purely for academics and anecdotes are clearly unwelcome. Evidence is, Also, SueEllen was angry when I queried her research methods! Ffs. Just discuss issues with people without throwing in research, doctorates and a “I know better than you” ethos. Otherwise you are definitely excluding decent folk who are less well educated. Is that really what this forum is about?

Also if all research down the years actually made a difference we wouldn’t even be having this academics only discussion.

@Guymere

Ugh?! She attacked me first!!! Because I don’t have an “academic” position, no “evidence” and don’t have a PhD in the subject!!! It comes across that these threads are purely for academics and anecdotes are clearly unwelcome. Evidence is, Also, SueEllen was angry when I queried her research methods! Ffs. Just discuss issues with people without throwing in research, doctorates and a “I know better than you” ethos. Otherwise you are definitely excluding decent folk who are less well educated. Is that really what this forum is about?

Also if all research down the years actually made a difference we wouldn’t even be having this academics only discussion.

I didn't attack you. I said I felt your suggestion that students need to 'branch out' or that we should educate parents was a little simplistic and ignored the structural and cultural barriers and inequalities at play. I didn't call you simple or attack you personally and I apologised (twice) as you felt I was being nasty - although I really wasn't. I explained that his something I'm incredibly passionate about and I know that can make me seem a little over the top. But that doesn't make what I'm saying incorrect or make me any less an expert.

You, on the other hand, have attacked me personally and have been incredibly insulting.

Also if all research down the years actually made a difference we wouldn’t even be having this academics only discussion.

We are talking about generations of inequalities- we have made a difference but we've not solved all of the problems yet. They take generations to become ingrained and therefore can take generations to change.

All I can say is, it really doesn't read like that to me, @Guymere. She's only explained what she knows. And I agree with @ErrolTheDragon that there's a huge difference between someone being elitist, and someone sharing specialist knowledge.

FWIW we don't know for certain who each other is on here. I doubt it, but it's perfectly possible @SueEllenMishke is actually a truck driver who just happens to picked up a wide knowledge of this subject. It doesn't matter. She's not saying 'I'm an academic so listen to me and agree with me'. She's saying 'here's what I know, and by the way, this is the reason I know it'. Agree or disagree, but it's not fair just to rant at her.

Thanks sarah
I've never been called elitist before - what with growing up on a council estate, attending an ex-poly and speaking with a broad northern accent!

I think that anecdotes and debate can be complimentary to academic study. Academic research can provide a quantitative broad picture of an issue while anecdotes allow personal insight.

Cologne - in many ways your experience mirrors mine (scientific/medical field). In some ways you do not realise your social background until surrounded by others from differing backgrounds.

SueEllen

I suppose academic research should ultimately feed into government policy to address educational inequality. However does this have large political element to it?

Parties of different stripes may approach these issues differently and in general the solutions could be contentious. It takes a hell of a lot to change the status quo.

If we were to float the question 'should oxbridge applicants be offered a lower admission offer if they come from a deprived background?' you will get a host of different answers.

I think the push back to a number of sources advocating improved access to higher education is that you may inadvertently be advocating positive discrimination or social engineering. Could this be reason for slow progress in changes of social mobility?

There is intellectual elitism at oxbridge by definition. The universties discriminate on intellectual ability by setting an academic standard for entrance.

However I think the debate surrounds social elitism. As there is a correlation between family background etc and academic achievement there are overlaps between the two forms. Challenging.

Courses which require being able to hit the ground running with specific knowledge and skills surely shouldn't be made to drop those requirements. One way for universities to ameliorate failings in secondary education is various types of foundation course - I believe oxford is (or has?) introduced something of the sort. But the issue there is that students who need this extra teaching because of disadvantage shouldn't have to take out an extra years tuition and maintenance loan. (I'm not sure if the oxford scheme includes bursaries?)

suppose academic research should ultimately feed into government policy to address educational inequality. However does this have large political element to it?

Parties of different stripes may approach these issues differently and in general the solutions could be contentious. It takes a hell of a lot to change the status quo.

Academic research isn't typically political and if it is, that needs to be made clear throughout but it can be used( or otherwise) to inform governments policy. All academic research which involves people is subject to ethical approval and any biases are addressed as part of this.
Although, research is often ignored by political parties especially when it comes to education!

If we were to float the question 'should oxbridge applicants be offered a lower admission offer if they come from a deprived background?' you will get a host of different answers.

Contextual offers exist and have done for years. These are individual to the university and are aimed to address the specific inequalities at that institution. However, a big part of the issue is getting certain students to apply in the first place!!

I think the push back to a number of sources advocating improved access to higher education is that you may inadvertently be advocating positive discrimination or social engineering. Could this be reason for slow progress in changes of social mobility?

I disagree, we aren't advocating positive discrimination ( which is illegal) and it's certainly not social engineering. It's simply making sure that people aren't facing inequalities or discrimination due to where they were born, the school they attended or their parents education.
Another area I'm involved in is women's careers development and the same principles apply. It's widely accepted that women should not be discriminated against in education or work - the same should apply for social class.

cologne, it depends on the kind of city London firm. I was at one of the best (I am a lawyer) and am from NE England. Our department was a complete mixture of people actually, gay, straight, one was a lady who trained in her 40s and had children - so a mature trainee, North, South.

The thread is interesting. It is certainly the case that some people have more expertise than others in certain areas. I am a UK expert in a few of my legal fields. It would obviously be wrong and weird for anyone to say they knew more about that area if they did not. However I welcome everyone debating my areas and if people can find any mistakes in my work that's great as I want anything wrong to be corrected always. I have nothing to prove.

It is slightly complex for lawyers as we are paid to ensure a comma in a £10m agreement is in the right place and does not lose the client £100m in damages. So just like needing surgeons whose hands don't shake when cutting open the chest, we do in the law need people who can write English in a way that does not lose the clients millions of pounds. That is one reason applications for jobs are rejected even if there is just one typo not because the firms are being "classist" but because it matters in the job and at age 22 it is a bit late to be teaching remedial English.

SueEllen

Good points about improving access generally.

One thing that concerns me slightly about contexualisation of grades is that in effect you are allowing some one from a deprived with slightly lower grades to enter a university.

If the number of places at elite universities are constant (approximately) then allowing a student from a deprived background to enter with a reduced tariff will mean that someone from a more conventional background to lose out.

For instancence two Cambridge applicants (one from a deprived background one from traditional) narrowly miss out on places due to grades but there is contexualusation offered to the deprived one of the two so a place is made for her bot not for the other applicant?
I can see how contextualisation of grades can be perceived as a form if positive discrimination by some

In a sense this may allow some resentment to build up amongst traditional applicants especially when some of the contexulisation criteria are vague as well as its application.

There is a need to allow more working class children with the appropriate ability to attend elite universities but I think the solution is to expand the number of places rather than modifying entry standards (even if done for entirely laudable reasons)

When oxbridge proudly state ever increasing proportions of state school applicants how do the parents of children at independent schools feel when their children narrowly miss out on places ? Would it not be natural to feel some sort of discrimination is at play?

Xenia - of course law demands a degree of grammatical exactitude and employers will be looking for these skills.

However could one not argue that the skills for being a good lawyer will be found in both middle and working classes. You can both be eloquent and precise in your writing with an accent.

I believe the thinking behind contextualised offers is recognising that those from state schools are disadvantaged.
If they had the opportunity to attend a private school then they could achieve the top grades.
Contextualisation balances this discrepancy out.

@Rummikub

I believe the thinking behind contextualised offers is recognising that those from state schools are disadvantaged. If they had the opportunity to attend a private school then they could achieve the top grades. Contextualisation balances this discrepancy out.

Yes - I think it's about recognising the potential represented by the grades in the context of the relative privilege or deprivation.

When oxbridge proudly state ever increasing proportions of state school applicants how do the parents of children at independent schools feel when their children narrowly miss out on places ? Would it not be natural to feel some sort of discrimination is at play?

There is sometimes an element of this on the 'oxbridge admissions' types of threads.... generally rebutted, one way or another. But at the moment afaik neither oxford nor Cambridge make contextual offers as such. Oxford does some contextualising re who gets an interview, and Cambridge does its 'summer pool' differently to give offers to 'deprived' applicants who didn't get an offer in January but who have achieved the standard offer grades. They still want everyone starting with excellent achieved grades.

Errol and Rumi

I actually think on the whole levelling the playing field slightly is to be applauded but then I have left wing views.

However l am conscious there will be differing views on this and I am sure independent school leaders would voice some sort of opposition. Indeed there have been heads of independent schools that have vocalised their concerns.

The two means of contextualisation mentioned could from a certain perspective (not my own) be viewed as discriminatory. The Cambridge summer pool allowing offers to be made to applicants who were rejected post interview if they make the appropriate grades could look like bypassing the interview assessment entirely as you are simply looking at grades. Again this is an opportunity given to the socially disadvantaged and not to the adavntaged.

It is also suggested Oxford are more likely to interview the socially disadvantaged (or your chances of an interview are enhanced by being disadvantaged) which again could be described as positive discrimination from a certain viewpoint.

Again I understand the motivation for this approach (and it won't just be Oxford and Cambridge) and I personally laud it but I can see how this is not entirely without controversy.

I understand that no matter the background of the applicant the standards are high but Oxbridge select and reject on very fine margins.