To think universities should state separate entry criteria for Indies?

[Wacamole]

DD who is on track for 3A*s at A’level, thought she’d give Oxbridge a go after being encouraged by her teachers. All very excited, doing super curriculars etc. Only just been told she doesn’t meet minimum entry criteria that would be expected from an Indy, which is straight 9s. She doesn’t have straight 9s, she has straight 8s (couple of nines), not only that, the course she wanted to apply for at Cambridge doesn’t require Maths at all, but school has advised they won’t even look at her if she doesn’t do Maths AND Further Maths. She is doing neither. Apparently an EPQ is also mandatory even though none of this is mentioned on Cambridge website.

All this second guessing, reading between the lines has been really confusing.
I have no issue with universities asking for higher entry criteria for students from indies for obvious reasons but wish they would be more transparent and state this on their ‘Entry requirements’ same way they state contextual offers?

I think Doctors are well paid. And truly most people would think the same. It is hardly a job without status, a good pension and a very decent salary. It is certainly far better paid than most teachers or nurses.

I would want young women to aspire to earning well too. It is very possible to earn very well and like what you do.

I do agree, and I have always said to dd that she should depend on herself financially rather than a partner. She has this model in me anyway, as I have always been the main breadwinner in our family.

However, I still think it's important for kids to know that a lucrative career isn't essential. You need to earn enough to live a reasonably comfortable life, so money should certainly be considered, but once you have reached a certain level, more money won't make you happier.

I actually disagree with that. I am very happy having plenty of money. It does make me far happier. I have massive amount of choice regarding what to do with it. I like that.

The big issue is where you need to live and how much you are prepared to commute, if that is necessary. If you earn well as a Doctor in an area of low housing cost, you truly are blessed. If you earn as a lower paid professional in London, you might be renting well into middle age unless you inherit money or are given a healthy deposit earlier. For some DC a lucrative career (and I inlcude being a medic in that) is pretty much essential. Especially if parents are in social housing. Where housing is cheaper, it is not essential. This might well explain why parents in London and the SE are far more frazzled about schools and education in general.

No point beating around the bush.

Real wages have been falling for decades. Inequality has been growing. We are not a society creating enough opportunities for the younger generation or for average people.

Education serves as a gate keeper to an economic caste system in the UK (and America too). It’s no surprise that who gets places where has become tense, fought over and political. It will only get worse, if other things in society don’t change.

@PresentingPercy

An average consultant earns 100K (more with specialised work/ private practice). Medicine is a very well regarded profession that chance be undeniably well paid (compared to the average). I guess the salary puts you in the top 5% - 1% of earners. I guess that is why I mentioned medic demographics earlier (30 years ago private school attendees made up a fair proportion of the working body.by

I think when the public here about poorly paid NHS staff (COVID pay rise demands etc) they do not differentiate between the wide range of salaries given.

I actually disagree with that. I am very happy having plenty of money. It does make me far happier. I have massive amount of choice regarding what to do with it. I like that.

Fair enough. But at a population level, I believe that the research indicates that more money doesn't lead to increased happiness beyond a certain threshold.

In my own life, a lucrative, high status job certainly didn't turn out to be the route to happiness. I hated the working culture, disliked a lot of my colleagues and found a lot of the work quite pointless. It has been far more important for me to find rewarding work that pays the bills but will never make me rich. We are still comfortable from a financial perspective,, though, and that is obviously hugely important - I'm not under the illusion that poverty is fun for anyone.

Of course, the ideal is to find a highly paid career that is also rewarding, enjoyable and meaningful, and some people are lucky enough to hit that jackpot. Lucky them!

@Empressofthemundane

Exactly. Education is a gate keeper to an economic caste system. (Perhaps it has replaced hereditary passing of wealth which was common place in earlier centuries)

So are you saying widening participation in higher education is some kind of silent revolution?

@PresentingPercy

To the point. I think that money can make you possibly happier; what is definitely true is that lack of money can bring a huge amount of misery.

Who are buying all those lottery tickets (not me I only but occasionally and never win)

@mids2019 you said it when you said compared to the average. But not when compared to bankers/ lawyers or many other city jobs eg starting salary of a city lawyer is around £85K. Starting salary of a F1 doctor -around £28?

what is definitely true is that lack of money can bring a huge amount of misery.

Yes, I think this is certainly true. The question is whether, once you have reached a certain threshold, more money will continue to make you happier. The research indicates otherwise.

Lottery winners are interesting, too - I believe that studies have shown that, after the initial euphoria, they are not actually any happier as a result of their win. But I imagine most ticket buyers believe that they would buck that trend.

Perhaps it has replaced hereditary passing of wealth which was common place in earlier centuries

Absolutely.

@chopc.....granted early salaries for doctors aren't fantastic but essentially they are still in training. Most doctors I would assume would aspire to be a consultant (which is fairly acheivable) and be on a comfortable salary for the majority of their career.

I guess everything is relative.....medics are paid well in relation to other public sector employees but probably not compared to city lawyers (however are all these lawyers London based and are we talking about an elite within the profession)?

My great grandmother had to mark an X on my granny's birth cert in 1899 presumably because she could not write. The 1870 UK education act I think helped ensure universal education in the UK. By hte 1890s on my father's die they were seeing education as a key to doing better - solicitor and nurse qualified in the 1890s and my grandfather who left school at 12 in the 1890s sought a professional career of sorts - because a surveyor, valuer, sat on the local council, Justice of the Peace. We kept that going down that branch - 2 of his sons were doctors and then my sibling and then later I and 4 (hopefully) of my children lawyers. My mother also did well with the 11 plus exam and became a teacher. So definitely that education getting people out of poverty in our family from the 1890s never mint 2021 was the key.

(My doctor sibling is a consultant - NHS with much private work too which I believe is much more than the NHS salary even so full time doctor can do well and huge numbers of new lawyers are on the minimum wage and some barristers doing legal aid can earn less than teachers - it is a very very patchy picture as to who does well in the law)

@chopc starting basic salary for F1 is just over £24,000. Not enough to start paying off the student loan. Assume they shift stuff ? Not there yet as I looked just now - DD not got a clue.
@CinnamonJellyBeans no I won't add where a student is in a reference as admissions tutors have told me not to. Because it's a load bull. Unless someone has come top of every test since day dot who says they are top. Because they came top in one set of tests, or a mock. There are usually a bunch of students vying for the top 20 slots each year, not all in the same class. And in a cohort of 1,800 like my DDs 6th form there were hundreds getting similar scores - who is top ? Means nothing, adds nothing and I can use the limited word count to say more useful info, such as competitions and certificates achieved and areas they have shown real strength in. I write about 150 each year - 22 got Oxbridge offers out of 31 applications so it works for us.
And why why why is money so important? Yes have enough to live but some people are perfectly happy having a holiday a year and driving an old banger. Not all poor people aspire to be stinking rich - comfortable yes, but that means different things to different people.

Who is partricipating in the research? Is it people who do not have the money yet? I have yet to see anyone with serious money who is not happy with that scenaio. However, I can see people with failed marriages and all sorts of health issues from a variety of backgrounds and wealth. Even wealth might make that easier to bear!

Passing of wealth from one generation to the next is extremely commonplace. How on earth do you think DC live in London? Have you not heard of the Bank of Mum and Dad? It is very much alive and it passes wealth down through families. Except where there is no wealth. I really do think that people with no wealth behind them have the most to gain from education. They can be the last to see it.

I would be over the moon with a big lottery win. I think people have very little imagination with money. I have lots of imagination and it would please me a lot. It depends what happiness is too. I think the big problem is going from nothing to £millions is how you cope with friends and family. You become "not one of us" because choices have opened up that others can only dream about. The lottery winnings are frequently not more than earning a very good salary would be for 20 years over and above an average salary. So why is not an education and getting a very good job not seen as winning the lottery? I think it is equivalent. Just takes more effort and ambition over a longer period (and probably brains!).

The reason some employees earn more than others is scarsity value. There are relatively few earning ultra high salaries very quickly. No Dr earns £28,000 for more than 5 minutes. Cetainly not a slarary I recognise from London - where you would have to compare salaries if you are talking about City workers. Doctors earn more after 5 years than any other degree. Just not more than any other job. The doctors did have the choice of doing something else though. They chose not to.

The high taxes paid by City workers helps pay for the NHS. More tax is taken from the 40% payers than all the 20% payers put together. we have 35% of people in this country paying no income tax at all. We need high earners. Or public sector employees will not have jobs if we lose high earning jobs. In additon, the trainee salaries for lawyers are not £85,000. They get to that fairly quickly after qualification though but Job certainty is not there and the lifestyle is very hard.

@mids2019 I am saying that education is becoming much more than education itself, it’s becoming a gate people have to clear to be able to participate in society, own a home and have a secure old age.

The more opportunities shrink, the more people fight for the scraps. There is a lot of heat on elite university places (and I think this includes more than just Oxbridge) because it gets more and more competitive to be able to own a home, save for a pension etc. Never mind a blue stockinged love of learning!

The average person is by definition average. The vast majority of us should have the opportunity to live secure, productive and dignified lives.

Limiting people’s access to this only to those who succeed in some sort of Hunger Games style tournament for elite uni places is a sign of societal failure and puts a lot of pressure on universities to be more than places of learning and knowledge generation.

Some of those 'average' people go on to become very wealthy. Academic success leads to certain roles but so does academic failure. Many hairdressers go on to own their own businesses and run many salons. Plumbers, carpenters, shop fitters can go on to earn fortunes through pure hard work.
Just because school is not a success does not mean you can't be. I drum this into students every year and some actually listen. The lad who left and started helping a local gardener now drives a flash car (no clue what it is but has those wing door things). Employs 42 people nationwide. The girl who was a total nightmare at school is now a top tattoo artist, travelling all over the world (paid for by her v wealthy clients). Yes many don't do this well but that's because a lot don't believe they can.
Education is about more than just the ability to pass exams. If that's all it does then it's failed.

Junior doctor salaries. Not sure these are that high for 23-30 year olds after 5 years+ of training.

Who is partricipating in the research? Is it people who do not have the money yet?

No, they have studied lots of wealthy people too. There are lots of studies which all seem to point to roughly the same conclusion - that you need to earn above a certain threshold to achieve optimum happiness, but beyond that threshold, more money doesn't correlate with more happiness, and it doesn't actually make people as happy as they think it will.

As for the lottery thing - I think the point is that we all think that we would have no trouble managing that kind of win, and I include myself in that. (Will admit to occasionally buying the odd ticket!) However, the research into actual lottery winners suggests that it doesn't lead to an increase in happiness for most winners. I'm sure that there must be exceptions, and I cling to the notion that I would be one of them.

They would not feature highly in the destinations of deprived area DC. Especially the two universities in London. So one suspects all the new recruits are from relatively similar backgrounds.

What!

I recognise that Percy is an expert in higher education but this time you are well off the mark. Are you sure you have got this right.

One issue Oxbridge has with recruitment is that many London DC from poorer backgrounds prefer to live at home and so aim for local universities. Equally many DC from ethnic minorities feel that they will be more comfortable in London. UCL and LSE have achieved plaudits for their outreach activities.

There may be a missing middle of kids who go to University partly for "the experience" and decide that London is too diffuse and too expensive, but LSE manages to recruit both rich and poor, diluted by the 70% of students who come from overseas.

They also acknowledge a problem is recruiting white working class kids from the north. For those thinking of applying it is worth asking about bursaries. (And they have a Northern Soc.)

So DS' close friends included two first generation Londoners (and almost certainly first generation University), one from Eastern Europe and the other from Asia, as well as a Chinese boy whose parents owned a restaurant in mid Wales. Quite possibly none had the confidence to apply for Oxbridge, or felt the need. LSE was so diverse that the state/private divide appeared relegated as a quaint British thing.

I think that is because the winners tend to be people with no money much in the first place. If you have a good education, and money, you will have ideas and ambition for spending the money. Charity immediately springs to mind. There are all sorts of projects out there desperately needing money. The idea of giving should make lots of people happy. What actually happens is families arguing and friends falling away. If you have money in the first, place, a lottery win is a bonus. It does not define you.

I am also going to say that, in this day and age, driving an old banger is wrong if you can afford better. In fact it is vital not too. One thing money can buy is an electric car. An old banger, driven by comfortably off folk, is no longer a badge of honour. It is not acceptable. We have friends that truly take no interest in cars and do not drive much - except in town. They pollute eveywhere they go. Past schools, in queues, outside doctors' surgeries. All because they are too mean to buy an elecric car - which they could easily afford. That attitude is what really annoys me.

@Needmoresleep
I was not talking about DC from London. We were talking about areas of the country where salaries are less and there are large swathes of schools who do not send DC to universities in the south. I think you have misunderstood that section of the discussion. So many families will not consider London.

The Centre for Economic Performance looked at where poorer DC go last year (2020). Poorer London students were more likley to go to South Bank - not UCL. Yes, there is outreach. The report questioned how effective it was, especially in regard to northern students. Lots fomthe north will not even get as far as looking at bursaries.

@Empressofthemundane

I like the comparison to hunger games....(hopefully this does not become literal but it would test the ingenuity of candidates).

One of my old teachers (very much in the past) have us a paper making the same points that you did. Education is being used not only as a way to enlighten the individual but to act as a filter to professions and societal status in general.

In theory students should be selecting courses based on a love for the subject and an intense desire to learn it in depth to enhance their human experience.......

However there are reasons someone may choose to study English at Oxford rather than the University of Hertfordshire (grades allowing ) and possibly some of that reason may be on future employability (we are only undergraduates for 3 years on average). It does then seem that you get that intense competition for university places not necessarily for the most noble of reasons.

I find it interesting that Oxbridge is actually the more affordable of universities given subsidised accommodation and bursaries etc.

I was (am?) working class from North East.....London did seem prohibitively expensive and remote. I was rejected from Cambridge (pooled but not selected) but didn't consider Imperial simply because of cost and location.

I know a lot of people that consider the local ex poly as natural educational progression. Some do not want to leave their host communities and I think there may be a sense of 'being above your station' if applying to higher tariff institutions.

For some a social fit is important and I think universities have done well in dispelling myths about their social make up but are these myths completely dispelled?