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

[NotanOtter]

Seems a heap of proverbial to me....

I have to say that in the state run comp that I work in none of the maths or science departments are unqualified.

I have, on times taught GCSE physics, but while I don't have a degree in it, I had an A level in it (from the dark ages) and I was more than competent to teach it. All of our AS/A2 classes are taught by subject specialists

Maritanbishop, woudl you care to share with us the national % of physics or maths teachers with no qualification in the subject ?
Or perhaps the % of maths lessons taught by teachers whose degree was in PE ?

I'm interested to see why you think we do so badly compared not only to almost all other developed countries, but places far worse off than us.

I have taught Maths while 'unqualified' to do so, being a science teacher by training and a biologist (well, biochemist), by degree. I taught only years 7 and 8, and I have to say I greatly enjoyed it and think I did a pretty good job. I may not be a mathematician, but I was very familiar with everything I taught, much more so than with Ecology which I had to teach in Biology, and had a fair amount of teaching experience as well. Was it ideal? Perhaps not, and I certainly wouldn't have wanted to go any further, but I could find more enthusiasm for teaching space, shape and measure than I could for teaching succession on sand dunes, so I don't think the children were too hard done by.

DC, I'm a science teacher not a national statistician!

Why wouldI have those figures? I'm just stateing that where I work* (please read there is a good chap) this doesn't happen. And I work in a very run of the mill comp/

And none of our maths lessons are taught by the PE staff.

We do have one of the scoence teachers who teaches maths, but he has a joint honours degree./

We do worse, because we set the bar too low, and have arsehole rules on behaviour policies

Gosh, MB, are you sure you don't have those figures tucked into one of the pockets of your lab coat?

FWIW: I have worked on admissions before and as far as I could tell the only thing that mattered was whether the student made

the grade and looked as if they might benefit from further study. For my subject at least admissions is a nightmare--hundreds of students

chasing too few places--it's a question of totting up the points, checking the references and rubber stamping the application (although I

have a friend who swears blind that in her Dept. they eliminate all the applicants who claim to be affiliated to Christian Churches--but

that's a whole other can of worms)--no time at all to be figuring out whether they fit some ideal profile in terms of race, class, education experience.

I was talking to a senior person involved heavily in admissions at Bristol Uni the other day and they told me that when they got a sheaf of applications the first ones to go into the bin were those from children with double barrelled names. then they chucked out any from Eton, Westminster, St Pauls Girls or Wycombe Abbey.

I was slightly shocked.

I've been saying for years that I expect my children (ie well off, privately educated) are very likely to end up in university in the States. By the time they get there it will probably be fairly comparable in cost, but US universities haven't suffered from appalling funding cuts over decades (I'd like my kid to have more than 8 hours tuition per week if I'm going to be paying for it) and have a wider spread of subjects in the first couple of years which has to be more interesting.

I was interested to see that 6 kids from Marlborough were off to US universities out of last year's exodus. It is definitely an increasing trend.

How many kids will actually not know what education their parents had because they have no contact with that parent?

With so many children from broken homes that must be an increasing statistic.

And TBH how many parents discuss their academic achievements with their kids - I know mine did not!

I have to say, I fail to understand the logic that says the information will be used and a person whose parents do not have degrees will be preferred, but that does not mean a person whose parents do have degrees will not lose a place because of it. That's simply impossible, unless places at specific universities are unlimited, which they aren't.
To be honest, the levels of debt incurred by all students these days is far, far more likely to put off students from poor homes than anything else.

I have a BA, my XP has a BA (plus post-grad professional qualifications) and my DP has a MA. Both are high earners. That's not including my brother's or my cousins educational attainments. I don't see that this will affect my DD's chances in HE any way as if she's refused a place in the UK due to her extended families academic qualifications, we'll look at study options abroad for her if she wants to study at tertiary level (this would be my preferred option but she must make this decision for herself).

As someone else said, the govt knows all this information already so it's futile to rant against it. Personally I think the best way to widen participation is to abolish tution fees and don't make loans almost compulsory. The govt might find HE take up from the 'non-traditional classes' rises as a result.

ALoha, that's what Blair may be getting right. If your parents are very poor then the fees and what you borrow aren't £3000, they are less and I thnk you can get grants too. That is for very low incomes. If you are rich but your parents don't support you at all you pay te £3000 a year fee plus borrow via student loans for your maintenance too. none of the fees now are paid (unless you choose to pay them) when you start either, just when you start to earn so in some ways that is may be easier, although not as easy in my day when there were full grants and no fees.

What I meant is this, Aloha.

Let's say there are 10 places on a particular course. 7 of those might be filled easily by students with straight As or As and Bs. There might be 4 candidates for the remaining 3 places. Two might have two Bs and a C (which is probably somewhere around the 'normal' offer for this course). Again, they'd get a place. So far no-one has looked at the education background question; it has all been done on merit. The remaining two candidates have a B and two Cs. They'd both be considered for a place in clearing, because they nearly made the grade. One has been to a private school which sends a large number of students to HE every year and has highly qualified parents, while the other has been to the local college which only sends a small percentage of its students on to HE and has parents who haven't been to university themselves. The place might then be offered (and it would still depend on all other things being equal in terms of the personal statement and such like) to the person whose parents were less qualified, on the grounds that with appropriate stimulation this person might flourish and reach her/his full potential, whereas the other student might already have reached her/his full potential, having received fairly intensive tuition at school and a lot of support at home.

That's how I understand it anyway.

why not just let people go to which every uni they wanted and have exams at the end of the first year to see stayed or left?

maisym - thats what we currently call A levels it should distinguish the wheat from the chaff when it comes to chosing a university.

ONLY the very old universities, the very famous universities, the universities - which by their very name guarentee great careers... well those universities have limited resources and give their resources to the richer families when pupils are tied with same 10 A* hence the positive discrimination. but its just another ill conceived plan. How many times have degrees on here been mocked for being so easy to attain?

But 50% of those at Oxford and Cambridge at least went to state schools so it's not exactly a bastion solely private wealth and privilege.

going to a state school doesn't mean disadvantage, it rather depends on te school, the area etc. hence why house prices rise around those who get excellent results - excluding the families who are poorer for the most part, and only state educating those parents who can afford a half mill mortgage

That's true but I think on the whole most very very bright children can get through if they get a reasonable start a primary school. I don't know what proportion of children are intelligent enough to benefit from the very best universities across all social classes (and it may be successfull richer cleverer parents have cleverer children anyway genetically which is a separate issue) but if we assumed it were equal between classes and wealth bands (which I would dispute) then we need to ensure that same percentage from the very worst bits of the underclass, terrible school, awful home life etc get a reasonable chance of getting to a good university. Although those who really are terribly bright like that even if they don't get to university usually do well anyway without a degree.

agreed. the person who is naturally bright will probably do well. but i would argue that the naturally bright are few and far between, and that most people of average intelligence have to work hard.

i am astonished at your assertion that " successfull richer cleverer parents have cleverer children anyway genetically "

i am astonished anyone actually thinks like that at all, and that you cannot actually see what ones wealth affords rich children over other children.

A rather high proportion of that 50% of Oxbridge students from state schools aren't really very deprived. Many went to private schools and then state 6th form colleges. Others went to high performing state grammers (usually in Buckinghamshire). Others, like me, went to bog standard comps but had 2 Oxford educated parents, which is hardly a deprived background, educationally.

I'd be all for the new regulations, but as others involved in university admissions have said, many admissions tutors already look at background as an indication.

My very left-wing husband said last night that he's hoping for a couple of tory governments between now and when DS applies (if he chooses to go).

DS starts at fee paying school next year. We're doing it mainly because of class sizes and wraparound care. But I'm not arrogant enough or naive enough to believe that it wont give him an edge over those kids whose parents have no choice but to send them to a sink comprehensive. (Though not necessarily those who have gone to a good state school)

why? tory govts

Because he thinks they are much more likely to use the private sector and will try to reverse/block/change this if it goes too far.

FWIW, one of the reasons we liked the school we chose was that at various times of the year it allowed kids from a primary in a deprived area to use its facilities. I would like to see this encouraged more from the private sector.

Gosh! My grammar is shocking today!

So, does that mean that my dd whose paternal grandfather was a coalminer and maternal grandfather worked in a smelter for 45 years could face discrimination because her parents both have a PhD?

I find that rather depressing.

It's not discriminating against children with 2 PhD parents. It's accepting that those children have a huge educational advantage, they don't need any extra bumping up the system.

My children have 2 parents with prestigious degrees and PhD, I am perfectly happy for them to be measured slightly (and it is only going to be slightly, as Ellbell says) more stringently than children with parents with no educational qualifications.

hm, he can't be very left wing, then can he?

On my comment asking if "successfull richer cleverer parents have cleverer children anyway genetically " I though in general if two parents have n IQ of 80 the children's IQ would be may be slightly higher but unlikely to be very high. It's why some adopted children just aren't like the birth children of their parents sometimes. But I think IQ tends to level to the average so people like my sister (who went to Oxford herself) choosing a donor father from a sperm bank cannot guarantee the children will have a high IQ.

So it's not a perfect science - be clever and marry a clever man and even if you place your child in a the worst home in England it's essential IQ will be high but I think it does work out on the whole over all that cleverer people have cleverer children and therefore they tend some of them, the materialistic ones of us, to be "successful" and so our children are.