What does everyone think about the new 'declare your parents education' UCAS rule?

[NotanOtter]

Seems a heap of proverbial to me....

Wonder what happens to applications if you left it off???

Why do they want to know?

For real?
I'd have never got to uni if they'd had that when I applied!

Is it taken into account when giving students places - which way round?

I think the idea is to target 'disadvantaged' children whose parents didn't go to university - like Prince William

an earlier thread here has a link to the Times articel

But Prince Charles did go to University, didn't he.
Both my parents went to Cambridge, and both were professionals, so would have counted against me. But went to a state school, so would have made up points there!

An ill-conceived attempt to help the disadvantaged? Schools have always been known as part of the process so admissions tutors could already discount or give credit according to which school you went to. Now they can do so on the likelihood of whether your parents have coached you, or helped you with coursework? Eventually they will want to know whether you were given omega 3 or your mother ate fish in pg.

It's not about penalising anyone, but about giving extra credit to those whose parents didn't go to university I assume. They have given guidance based on applicants' secondary schools for this reason for years - so, for example, if someone applies from a crappy comp they might be offered a place if they get CCC rather than BBC.

What has happened to the achievement of the individual potential student or is it all the same old shite that if your parents have degrees you've got an unfair advantage

Think it is mad and won't necessarily help disadvantaged children anyway.

Besides I know of some very successful and wealthy adults who have not been to university - does than mean their children will be treated more favourably too?

Apparently Cambridge actually did do this until recently - here

LOL @ Ladymuck's omega 3 comment. It's the same logic, isn't it?

I think they're also looking at the barrier that exists in some families to higher education - the Times article referred to the heightened difficulty in breaking the mold as it were. Referred to Neil Kinnock's statement that he was the first Kinnock ever to go to University. Whereas for me, Isuppose there was never any doubt that I would go and I was fortunate to come from a background where I was surrounded by resources to boost my educational performance.

Not sure I agree with it. But not sure Idon't IYSWIM.

I have already decided that if it were me I would just lie. Who could ever know whether you went to university or not?

A bit like the means tested grant system which was much abused, this will just turn into a circus of lies and nonsense.

If people are prepared to move house or 'bed and breakfast' to get into the school of their choice, what is to stop Tarquin saying that mummy and daddy don't have a degree? And who could blame him?

cam - but a child whose parents didn't go to university who gets CCC at A level HAS acheived more than a similar child whose parents did go, simply because their parents are likely to have been more supportive of their education. Obviously there are exceptions in both directions, but there are also lots of smokers who don't get cancer.

It's not an ideal way to do it, but it is probably fairer overall than ignoring parents' acheivements.

I mean the second child's parents are likely to have been more supportive obviously

I have just read the newspaper link from Kathy - I just hate the way people talk about "middle class parents" almost as a term of abuse - what on earth is wrong with caring about and encouraging your child's education, isn't this what the government/teachers want us all to do? Makes us sound like we are all neurotic (well, I probably am, but that's different matter!)

Well if it's true, it's absolutely disgusting. Total no-brainer. People should get in on their own merit. It would be quite possible, with a better system of interviews, potential tests etc to separate those who might have been spoonfed through A levels at private school from those who may have lower grades from a state school but be more intelligent. The parent thing is a TOTAL red herring. Why the f*ck should anyone be penalised because they had bright parents? Duh!

But that barrier isn't about the application process and whether a kinnock would get in - the barrier is more in overcoming the pupils and family preconceptions that kinnock jr would leave school and get a job at 16 or 18. Even funding the course doesn't overcome the lack of a salary for 3 years. Obviously it all comes together years later when grads can earn more, but if all of your mates were earning £25k as nannies and car mechanics whilst you're at "school" until you're 22, then I don't think some extra questions on the application form will make the difference.

My parents refused to fund me after 16. Their view was that if I was bright I would be able to get a job and get promoted. I had to take on an evening job to support myself through A levels. The application form defintely wasn't the problem...

if they are goingto look at parental university attendance etc they should look at when parents went if someone's parent has struggled to put themselves through uni then it unfair to penalise their child

Ah, positive discrimination at its best.

Just pisses people off or makes them feel patronised, IMO.

I think the point is that the current system isn't entirely based on merit. Bright working class kids don't have the same opportunities as middle class kids.

Although no doubt middle class parents will work out a way to get round the new system...