Non-deprived Scottish students barred from uni places

[Sorefootouch]

The only Scottish students taken by Edinburgh university last year to study law came from deprived neighbourhoods, regardless of grades. Is this a good thing? If my child wants to go to University of Edinburgh and study law do we have to move to a deprived neighbourhood before applying? Is this fair? My child goes to an average Scottish state school and is predicted to get all A’s at higher.

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/students-from-less-deprived-background-have-door-closed-to-university-due-to-snp-funding-approach-3983059

A teaching campus in hamilton? Is that UWS as it doesn't mention anywhere but Ayr. Don't want to say what LA we are in.

Yes that's correct.

Do you have a link as the UWS site only says Ayr.

I can now see its the postgrad at lanarkshire and the undergraduate at ayr, your post did not make that clear. Its the undergraduate she wishes to do and I did say she would be 17 when she started her chosen course.

I thought it wasn’t possible to do primary teaching as an undergraduate degree? I considered it as postgrad a few years ago - was rejected outright at Edinburgh, interviewed and rejected at Dundee and got a place at Strathclyde. The latter sounded the best course to me (only one where could achieve a full MSc). I did something else instead but one of my DC has always said wants to do primary and I’d thought would need to do another degree first.

You can definitely do Primary Education as a degree

Aberdeen Glasgow, Dundee, Stirling and Queen Margaret’s all offer undergrad degrees in Primary Education (there will be others too).

DD is applying through UCAS at the moment and is having this exact dilemma - thinks she might want to be a primary teacher, but is it best to go straight for the Primary teaching degree, or do a degree in something else, and then do a post grad? The universities in Scotland which offer the full 4 year undergrad Primary teaching degree are: Strathclyde, Stirling, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Dundee, Queen Margaret, Highlands and Islands, West of Scotland.

She is applying for 3 Primary Teaching degrees (top choice Stirling) - these courses are a bit different in that the minimum entry requirements are decided not by the individual universities but by the teaching council of Scotland. For example, at Queen Margaret the minimum for their teaching degree is at least ABBB at higher, with H English at B and Nat 5 Maths at B. They also offer an "education studies" degree which covers much of the same material but without the teaching practice and which won't qualify you to be a teacher, the entry requirements for that are BBCC. Other universities like Stirling or Glasgow will ask for more than the minimum, plus perhaps an interview.

DD is also applying for 2 more general sociology style degrees to keep her options open and was advised against "wasting" an application on Edinburgh as we are in one of the least deprived areas and top performing state schools and very few children from her school ever get into Edinburgh.

I do think in general terms that widening access is a good idea and that there does seem to be some acknowledgement that kids without parents who went to university, or in schools which rarely send kids to uni face more challenges than my kids with two educated parents and a switched on school. But Edinburgh seem to have lurched so far in the opposite direction by excluding all Scottish students save the ones who are the MOST deprived.

20 years ago when I applied for the PGCE at Strathclyde (unsuccessfully), it was horrendous. The application itself, then a day of 3 stages - the group exercise where you couldn't get a word in as there was always someone shouty/talking over you/look at MEEEEE, writing a lesson plan (think mines was create a lesson using a picture of a house), then a panel interview (where the interviewers were clearly playing the role of disinterested students - staring at the ceiling whilst I was answering their questions for example). I knew half way through the day I wouldn't get a place and wasn't sure if I wanted a place anymore. (and I had tried my best to prepare by looking at the PGCE forums on TES website - these are really missed as they would be really useful for DDs insight) I later heard that back then you had to apply for the PGCE several times before getting accepted and apparently they liked resilience. I'm not sure if entering teaching is still that tough 20 years on but it seems its hard either way - either you need to be really good at English, live in a cerain postcode or go through a crazy process.

DD is applying through UCAS at the moment and is having this exact dilemma - thinks she might want to be a primary teacher, but is it best to go straight for the Primary teaching degree, or do a degree in something else, and then do a post grad?

It is something to think through carefully. This is very much anecdotal, my cousins fiance is a fully qualified primary school teacher in their mid/late 20s, done their NQT, has had 5-6 years of temporary positions, great feedback and reviews, and just cannot secure a permanent role. They say there are lots of qualified primary school teachers in the same position, currently they are doing a minimum wage job while looking for another primary teaching role.

Logically, to me doing another degree might leave options open to her is she changes her mind or needs to go in another direction, but maybe the Primary teacher degree is better regarded. Might be worth asking teachers for their thoughts.

She has 5 UCAS choices and is applying for 3 teaching degrees and 2 sociology style degrees - she is keeping her options open. her concern is that she embarks on a 4 year teacher training degree then decides after 4 years it's not for her. It will limit choices thereafter. One of the degrees she is looking at in Stirling offers a great deal of flexibility in the first 2 years with electives, although she would be nominally on a "sociology" degree, only a third of it is that subject, and two thirds taken from a huge choice list containing everything from maths to French.

But Edinburgh seem to have lurched so far in the opposite direction by excluding all Scottish students save the ones who are the MOST deprived.

Except they haven’t. They are excluding all Scottish students save the ones who live in areas with the highest proportion of deprivation. The majority of deprived students are also excluded because they don’t live in these areas.

I noticed professional qualifications in health and social work (and possibly teaching) seems to be a bit different to other degrees as you are judged on your ability to enter the profession too. At some universities wider admission candidates not felt suitable for these jobs are offered other courses instead. That might mean they don’t fill up with just priority applicants?

In terms of doing another degree first in primary teaching, some may have added value for your career eg languages

Yes, that is a very good point @Shelefttheweb . The current policy isn’t fair to anyone, but it is particularly unfair to those it claims to be helping.

Personally I wish they would just bring back means tested grants.

You’re right, those who are paying the highest rate of tax in the UK, including stamp duty, should also then have to pay for their children to get education in a chosen institution.

What is the point of anyone striving to earn a lot in this country!

Should the same people start lying for certain NHS treatments too?

I really don’t mind paying for my kids education. I really do mind paying for my kids education while the SNP tell everyone that it’s free.

Your child can access free education.

It's just not at the prestigious RG uni you believe they deserve. 👍

"deserve" - you mean because they have the grades to get in that they have worked just as hard for as a child living in the area of greatest deprivation?

Your final statement is suspiciously close to Boris Johnson’s!

The use of simd for everything is also total madness. Just because someone lives in a low simd level place, doesn’t necessarily mean that they are poor. It is a broad stroke where things like train station locality is taken into consideration.

I also work in a good school, with lots of placing requests. So Those pupils whose parents have opted for this option will still benefit from all the flags, a good school and yet access course easier than their peers just because of where they live. But many of their parents have decent paid jobs. But simd index obviously can’t account for salaries etc.

That's the debate though. It's easy to achieve grades when cossetted by Mummy&Daddy, private schools, smaller classes, extra tuition, no adult-type worries/concerns.

Children from the most deprived areas don't have these advantages. Therefore their achievements are, obviously, far greater in terms of obtaining those grades against an extremely different background i.e. either they are naturally/ exceptionally gifted or really determined grafters. Either of which, imo, deserves a place at a prestigious uni.

I'd go as far as to say anyone with all the advantages outlined above who have had to 'work hard' to achieve the required grades probably isn't really bright enough to be a uni anyway.

So don’t you agree that it’s a shame the hard working and disadvantage kids you describe won’t get in either, because they don’t live in the right postcode?

We're in SIMD 9 apparently but my DPs are in SIMD 2 (they are well off but their postcode says otherwise. Maybe I should pretend she lives with them, how easy is that to do? (half joking)

It is a shame, I agree.

However, as I reminded the OP, the other kids will get places at other unis, just not the RG ones to which the OP believes she is entitled.