Options

[Hiberno-Britannic Politics] - This Place Is Not A Place Of Honour

12467113

Posts

  • Options
    HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    Gosh, a meritocracy! Why has no one else thought of this?!

    If there is apparently nothing someone not born into a poor background can do to get in that is not a meritocracy.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    Are you in the US? Because in the UK universities don't run their own application processes for mainstream students, everyone applies through UCAS

    If you're independently funded then the university can do what it likes for admissions

    The funding is another part of it, since the university gets more funding for taking SIMD 10 and SIMD 20 students, provided they can show that those students then go on to succeed academically, which is where the data comes from about straight-A students from "bad" schools trending to outperform straight-A students from "good" schools

  • Options
    Kane Red RobeKane Red Robe Master of Magic ArcanusRegistered User regular
    Sounds like y'all should tax the rich to fund more universities, then everyone who wants to go study law or whatever will have a place to do so.

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    Sounds like y'all should tax the rich to fund more universities, then everyone who wants to go study law or whatever will have a place to do so.

    There are plenty of universities that teach law

    Edinburgh is just one of the most prestigious

    Edit: I suppose it's worth considering as well that Edinburgh is one the ancient universities that form part of the typical "pipeline" from certain private schools into politics and positions of corporate influence

    Scotland doesn't have an Ivy League as such, or the kind of Eton/Harrow->Oxbridge -> politics or directorship that England has, but the closest that it has would involve "Law at Edinburgh" as one of the steps

    Which is partly why it's always so over subscribed

    japan on
  • Options
    Kane Red RobeKane Red Robe Master of Magic ArcanusRegistered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    Sounds like y'all should tax the rich to fund more universities, then everyone who wants to go study law or whatever will have a place to do so.

    There are plenty of universities that teach law

    Edinburgh is just one of the most prestigious

    Oh, then this argument is silly, the "more deprived" kids need the extra prestige more than the rich kids who already have access to better connexions that will get them hired someplace prestigious after uni.

  • Options
    RazielMortemRazielMortem Registered User regular
    UK and I went to Oxford. From a poor background.

    This made me think. Now I'm a father, my world is my daughter. And even though I loathe the Tories for how they are destroying this country, how they manipulated Brexit and will doom us all, if Labour announce they will make it so only the deprived can get a top university place, regardless of merit or aptitude and told my daughter (if she is clever enough and wants it herself- if she doesnt want it then i will be proud whatever she does) she wasn't poor enough, I would vote Tory in a heartbeat and watch this country burn.
    Any policy that looks only at the background of the parents is outrageous. Smacks of 'fuck the rich' pettiness when the rich means anyone other than working class apparently.
    Test the kids, workout the smartest, let them through on their own merits OR make it a lottery. Anything else is people grinding their own axe agenda.

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    It isn't regardless of merit or aptitude, it's based on merit and a reasonable set of assumptions as to how to interpret the evidence of that merit

  • Options
    Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    It's interesting that Edinburgh doesn't have interviews as part of their admissions process if they're that oversubscribed, apart from some subjects of which law isn't one (link to their website)

    Rhesus Positive on
    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    UK and I went to Oxford. From a poor background.

    This made me think. Now I'm a father, my world is my daughter. And even though I loathe the Tories for how they are destroying this country, how they manipulated Brexit and will doom us all, if Labour announce they will make it so only the deprived can get a top university place, regardless of merit or aptitude and told my daughter (if she is clever enough and wants it herself- if she doesnt want it then i will be proud whatever she does) she wasn't poor enough, I would vote Tory in a heartbeat and watch this country burn.
    Any policy that looks only at the background of the parents is outrageous. Smacks of 'fuck the rich' pettiness when the rich means anyone other than working class apparently.
    Test the kids, workout the smartest, let them through on their own merits OR make it a lottery. Anything else is people grinding their own axe agenda.

    That's not what's happening though. It's just what people with a vested interest in inequality are telling you is happening because it's an easy sell to people's insecurity to produce exactly the reaction you're talking about.

  • Options
    RazielMortemRazielMortem Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    It isn't regardless of merit or aptitude, it's based on merit and a reasonable set of assumptions as to how to interpret the evidence of that merit

    As I said if all they have are 1000 students predicted 3 As then that's a flaw in the system. And of top universities are prohibited from further testing that's a failure of governmental policy.

    Assumptions that affect kid's futures? No. Just no.

  • Options
    RazielMortemRazielMortem Registered User regular
    Also the assumption is ludicrous. Being poor doesn't make you better.

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    Also the assumption is ludicrous. Being poor doesn't make you better.

    No one is saying that. What they're saying is getting 5 A's in a bad school is more impressive than getting 5 A's in a good school with more support and tutors and whatnot. It's the same as saying running a mile uphill is more impressive than running a mile on level ground. Both are running a mile but one is objectively harder than the other.

    Casual on
  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    Alternatively, the whole system is weighed down in bullshit.
    Is the quality of teaching better at 'top' universities, or do they simply get better results by virtue of having the best students to start with? Is there anything that separates an Edinburgh (or Oxbridge) degree from others, or is it largely just self-perpetuating 'prestige'? Oxbridge is a particular peeve of mine as they got so much special treatment relative to everyone else.

    altid on
  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    Also the assumption is ludicrous. Being poor doesn't make you better.

    No, but high performance in adverse circumstances is strong evidence of aptitude

    Assumption was a poor choice of words, it is the experience, backed by data, of universities with contextual admissions policies that they get better performing students by weighting their exam results in this way

    Also the Scottish exam system is distinct from the English. I've lost touch with it because it's changed since I went through it but typically for a uni like Edinburgh you will have the results your application is based on at the point of application because you will have stayed on for a sixth year

    You can apply direct from fifth year at 16, which would involve predicted grades but that's not a common entry pathway for the prestige unis

  • Options
    RazielMortemRazielMortem Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    UK and I went to Oxford. From a poor background.

    This made me think. Now I'm a father, my world is my daughter. And even though I loathe the Tories for how they are destroying this country, how they manipulated Brexit and will doom us all, if Labour announce they will make it so only the deprived can get a top university place, regardless of merit or aptitude and told my daughter (if she is clever enough and wants it herself- if she doesnt want it then i will be proud whatever she does) she wasn't poor enough, I would vote Tory in a heartbeat and watch this country burn.
    Any policy that looks only at the background of the parents is outrageous. Smacks of 'fuck the rich' pettiness when the rich means anyone other than working class apparently.
    Test the kids, workout the smartest, let them through on their own merits OR make it a lottery. Anything else is people grinding their own axe agenda.

    That's not what's happening though. It's just what people with a vested interest in inequality are telling you is happening because it's an easy sell to people's insecurity to produce exactly the reaction you're talking about.

    As I said, can't read article. I'm just commenting on the general concept of the applicants accepted were all from deprived backgrounds. Maybe they were the best 100! But I would expect oversubscribed top universities to test further. And even then, it takes luck. And that Sucks! Life shouldn't be a lottery for kids.

  • Options
    Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    Historically, for the less privileged, a lottery would be an improvement

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Options
    Kane Red RobeKane Red Robe Master of Magic ArcanusRegistered User regular
    Also the assumption is ludicrous. Being poor doesn't make you better.

    It does make it so you have less help getting top marks though. So in effect, on average, it kinda does mean that poor kids with top marks will be better students than rich kids with top marks.

    To use myself as an example, if I needed help with school I could turn to my grandpa, who was a retired educator, or my dad who is an engineer, or my aunt, who is a librarian. If instead I was the kid of a single mum working two jobs and didn't have a huge family of upper middle class educated folks to fall back on it would have been up to me to figure it out.

  • Options
    CasualCasual Wiggle Wiggle Wiggle Flap Flap Flap Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    altid wrote: »
    Alternatively, the whole system is weighed down in bullshit.
    Is the quality of teaching better at 'top' universities, or do they simply get better results by virtue of having the best students to start with? Is there anything that separates an Edinburgh (or Oxbridge) degree from others, or is it largely just self-perpetuating 'prestige'? Oxbridge is a particular peeve of mine as they got so much special treatment relative to everyone else.

    It's a self perpetuating cycle of what you said but also mainly the networking opportunities of the prestige schools. Doesn't matter whether you're talking about Oxbridge or US ivy league schools the point is not that they teach things other places don't it's that the alumni form back scratching networks with each other that make them more successful post-grad. This feeds into the myth that graduates from prestige unis are just "better" and around and around it goes.

    Casual on
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    I mean, I feel like that article is more decrying that there are fewer spots for legacies than anything actually concrete.

    Do you choose your concentration before you start attending the school?

  • Options
    Rhesus PositiveRhesus Positive GNU Terry Pratchett Registered User regular
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    I mean, I feel like that article is more decrying that there are fewer spots for legacies than anything actually concrete.

    Do you choose your concentration before you start attending the school?

    Yeah - you apply for a specific course, so Law at Edinburgh or Natural Sciences at Cambridge or English Literature at York or what have you

    [Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
  • Options
    altidaltid Registered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    altid wrote: »
    Alternatively, the whole system is weighed down in bullshit.
    Is the quality of teaching better at 'top' universities, or do they simply get better results by virtue of having the best students to start with? Is there anything that separates an Edinburgh (or Oxbridge) degree from others, or is it largely just self-perpetuating 'prestige'? Oxbridge is a particular peeve of mine as they got so much special treatment relative to everyone else.

    It's a self perpetuating cycle of what you said but also mainly the networking opportunities of the prestige schools. Doesn't matter whether you're talking about Oxbridge or US ivy league schools the point is not that they teach things other places don't it's that the alumni form back scratching networks with each other that make them more successful post-grad. This feeds into the myth that graduates from prestige unis are just "better" and around and around it goes.

    And that's how you end up with the tory party (well, after you add private schools to the mix). It's about as far away from meritocracy as you can get. Bonus points if they go into 'journalism' where they can swan about getting jobs from their mates without any real talent.

  • Options
    BurnageBurnage Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    It isn't regardless of merit or aptitude, it's based on merit and a reasonable set of assumptions as to how to interpret the evidence of that merit

    As I said if all they have are 1000 students predicted 3 As then that's a flaw in the system. And of top universities are prohibited from further testing that's a failure of governmental policy.

    Assumptions that affect kid's futures? No. Just no.

    I just want to point out that the University and College Union has already just announced another 18 days of strike, in part due to excessive workloads, so any proposal that universities should introduce a swathe of new assessments to further vet applicants because A levels are Not Enough will likely go down like a lead balloon.

  • Options
    daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Burnage wrote: »
    Then the criteria is bad. They should be able to distinguish aptitude. And I find the idea 'poor kids make better students' pretty disgusting and offensive. Kids should not be measured by their parents.

    Universities have a limited capacity to directly measure aptitude in applicants beyond looking at formal exam results, which aren't especially fine grained.

    Hell, the joke about Harvard is that they could fill their entire freshmen class with left-handed violinists who got perfect SAT scores and 4.0 GPAs (all A's). At some point, supply and demand are so out of whack that you're just winging it. And that's on top of the fact that the ability to text students for 'merit' is dubious at best after a certain point.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
  • Options
    Redcoat-13Redcoat-13 Registered User regular
    UK and I went to Oxford. From a poor background.

    This made me think. Now I'm a father, my world is my daughter. And even though I loathe the Tories for how they are destroying this country, how they manipulated Brexit and will doom us all, if Labour announce they will make it so only the deprived can get a top university place, regardless of merit or aptitude and told my daughter (if she is clever enough and wants it herself- if she doesn't want it then i will be proud whatever she does) she wasn't poor enough, I would vote Tory in a heartbeat and watch this country burn.
    Any policy that looks only at the background of the parents is outrageous. Smacks of 'fuck the rich' pettiness when the rich means anyone other than working class apparently.
    Test the kids, workout the smartest, let them through on their own merits OR make it a lottery. Anything else is people grinding their own axe agenda.

    Oxford until very recently, were very poor at admitting candidates from State Schools, and then from certain backgrounds.

    Now it varies from department to department. Some are very proactive at going out trying to attract students (some candidates simply don't apply because of Oxford's reputation, when in reality, they would stand a good chance of getting in), others are not; my gut feeling on the latter is that the over-subscribed subjects, Oxford could be doing better.

    I mean, if there's a 70:30 split of Public School:State School, then there probably is something wrong with the admission process.

    Oxford University, will be stronger for having people from all walks of life.

    Incidentally, I'd argue that the UK's political (Tory at any rate) class is awful, and it is a scandal so many can be traced back to certain schools / universities.

    PSN Fleety2009
  • Options
    Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    And the Universities doing further testing outwith the standard curriculum immediately puts a massive advantage to those who are connected and can afford tutors.

  • Options
    SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    The Netherlands tried aptitude measurements for med school.
    The problem is that it means rich people are then coaching their teens to volunteer at relevant charities, get a professional to help write a cv and cover letter, and do mock trainings for the interview.

    On top of that testing soft criteria makes it more likely to select from your own bubble. Aka white rich people select the kids of white rich people

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • Options
    CorlisCorlis Registered User regular
    It all hinges on how honest that tweeter was when they said that "every" place has gone to a poor or more deprived student.

    If literally 100% of all the slots went to the poor or more deprived students, such that not a single student from a richer background got in, then that is absurd. If a university has more excellent applicants than they can take in and they cannot easily distinguish which ones are the very best, then a lottery system sounds like a preferable option.

    However, if the tweeter is exaggerating to rile people up (as he may well be) and the truth is just that a higher percentage of poor and more disadvantaged students got in then he would like (but not 100%), then that sounds fine to me.

    But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
    I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    japan wrote: »
    Sounds like y'all should tax the rich to fund more universities, then everyone who wants to go study law or whatever will have a place to do so.

    There are plenty of universities that teach law

    Edinburgh is just one of the most prestigious

    Edit: I suppose it's worth considering as well that Edinburgh is one the ancient universities that form part of the typical "pipeline" from certain private schools into politics and positions of corporate influence

    Scotland doesn't have an Ivy League as such, or the kind of Eton/Harrow->Oxbridge -> politics or directorship that England has, but the closest that it has would involve "Law at Edinburgh" as one of the steps

    Which is partly why it's always so over subscribed

    Wait a second. Are you telling me that it isn't what you know, but who you know that matters in a meritocracy?

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    regardless of merit or aptitude

    Why do you keep making this false and utterly refuted claim?

    Also, check the online services section of your local library. It will probably give you free access to the article.

  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Corlis wrote: »
    It all hinges on how honest that tweeter was when they said that "every" place has gone to a poor or more deprived student.

    If literally 100% of all the slots went to the poor or more deprived students, such that not a single student from a richer background got in, then that is absurd. If a university has more excellent applicants than they can take in and they cannot easily distinguish which ones are the very best, then a lottery system sounds like a preferable option.

    However, if the tweeter is exaggerating to rile people up (as he may well be) and the truth is just that a higher percentage of poor and more disadvantaged students got in then he would like (but not 100%), then that sounds fine to me.

    Also, if privileged children only make up 10% of admissions, that would seem strange but as a percentage of population that would seem proportional or maybe even still over represented.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    RazielMortemRazielMortem Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    moniker wrote: »
    regardless of merit or aptitude

    Why do you keep making this false and utterly refuted claim?

    Also, check the online services section of your local library. It will probably give you free access to the article.


    1. false and utterly refuted what? Your comment doesn't make sense out of context
    2. Why would I do so?

    RazielMortem on
  • Options
    GdiguyGdiguy San Diego, CARegistered User regular
    Casual wrote: »
    Also the assumption is ludicrous. Being poor doesn't make you better.

    No one is saying that. What they're saying is getting 5 A's in a bad school is more impressive than getting 5 A's in a good school with more support and tutors and whatnot. It's the same as saying running a mile uphill is more impressive than running a mile on level ground. Both are running a mile but one is objectively harder than the other.

    The problem, though, is that if '5 As' is as good as you can possibly do in a good school with support etc, then you've effectively made it impossible for non-poor students to excel enough to get in

    That's the problem - you're completely right (that's the whole point of Affirmative Action generally, that we need to reward students who achieve despite obstacles), but the big-picture issue is also that if you take it too far you can get a situation of 'if I'm upper-middle class, I can get perfect grades and perfect SAT scores and do all this other stuff and still not be able to compete', which breeds resentment (since it's also true that those privileged students didn't get to choose being born into those situations either, and if there's literally no way they can get in then they're not going to bother trying)

  • Options
    CaptainBeyondCaptainBeyond I've been out walking Registered User regular
    ‘If I’m going to have to settle for the second-best law university like a poor I’m not going to bother’

    Hell of a take

  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited January 2023
    ‘If I’m going to have to settle for the second-best law university like a poor I’m not going to bother’

    Hell of a take

    Trust in the Free Market until its their future on the line.

    New schools can and do spin up when there is demand, they just dont have the alumni networks for easy placement.

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    If you want to go to Edinburgh and literally nothing else will do, there is the option of taking an unfunded place and paying yourself, where you (I presume) will follow the international admission track

  • Options
    SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Part of the problem is that in the UK the circumstances of your birth greatly determine the quality of your education, your education basically dictates your life options, and we essentially have zero real viable system for adult retraining. Once you've moved into the world of having to pay rent and live, you're basically stuck with the qualifications you have most of the time

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Gdiguy wrote: »
    Casual wrote: »
    Also the assumption is ludicrous. Being poor doesn't make you better.

    No one is saying that. What they're saying is getting 5 A's in a bad school is more impressive than getting 5 A's in a good school with more support and tutors and whatnot. It's the same as saying running a mile uphill is more impressive than running a mile on level ground. Both are running a mile but one is objectively harder than the other.

    The problem, though, is that if '5 As' is as good as you can possibly do in a good school with support etc, then you've effectively made it impossible for non-poor students to excel enough to get in

    That's the problem - you're completely right (that's the whole point of Affirmative Action generally, that we need to reward students who achieve despite obstacles), but the big-picture issue is also that if you take it too far you can get a situation of 'if I'm upper-middle class, I can get perfect grades and perfect SAT scores and do all this other stuff and still not be able to compete', which breeds resentment (since it's also true that those privileged students didn't get to choose being born into those situations either, and if there's literally no way they can get in then they're not going to bother trying)

    Why are you assuming that this makes it impossible for those other students to get in?

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    regardless of merit or aptitude

    Why do you keep making this false and utterly refuted claim?

    Also, check the online services section of your local library. It will probably give you free access to the article.


    1. false and utterly refuted what? Your comment doesn't make sense out of context
    2. Why would I do so?

    You keep lying and saying that the students being admitted from disadvantaged backgrounds did not have the same aptitude as the students from advantaged backgrounds who did not get one of the limited slots. Despite it being explained that all students being admitted are qualified to be admitted. Or invent a hypothetical where a preference for admitting qualified students from disadvantaged backgrounds will slip down the slope to admitting unqualified students for some reason.

  • Options
    RazielMortemRazielMortem Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    regardless of merit or aptitude

    Why do you keep making this false and utterly refuted claim?

    Also, check the online services section of your local library. It will probably give you free access to the article.


    1. false and utterly refuted what? Your comment doesn't make sense out of context
    2. Why would I do so?

    You keep lying and saying that the students being admitted from disadvantaged backgrounds did not have the same aptitude as the students from advantaged backgrounds who did not get one of the limited slots. Despite it being explained that all students being admitted are qualified to be admitted. Or invent a hypothetical where a preference for admitting qualified students from disadvantaged backgrounds will slip down the slope to admitting unqualified students for some reason.

    My dude, I didn't ever say any of that. I think you are confused. I said, several times, that unis should have the ability to distinguish students who all present as identical. In fact my point was their background should be irrelevant. I accept Affirmative Action is something we should promote. I protest that it should be 100% of admittance.
    Maybe dial back the language buddy.

  • Options
    japanjapan Registered User regular
    None of this is new, is the thing. There are a lot of Scottish universities with contextual admission policies (I would hazard to say most, if not all), mostly based on work done by Dundee and others on widening access from the late nineties and early 00's. The formal framework for it came a bit later but certainly contextual admission has been a relatively standard practice for about ten years

    The Scotsman is only kicking off because this is an unusual year in that there is a prestigious course at a university their demographic considers emblematic where all the places went to students with a contextual admissions flag. They wouldn't care if it was Napier, or Glasgow Caledonian

Sign In or Register to comment.