The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Couldn't see a topic.
How unfair and crap, breaking manifesto pledges tsk tsk.
But he'll win because all his Blairites and Blairettes will support him.
Bah
How unfair and crap, breaking manifesto pledges tsk tsk.
But he'll win because all his Blairites and Blairettes will support him.
Bah
Page:
Well, fair enough.
At the end of the day though, you really need some indication of how worthwhile it is for someone to go to university. It's simply not economically viable to let everyone go along who wants to. Since A-level grades are the best indication we really have at the moment, we have to go on them.
At the end of the day though, you really need some indication of how worthwhile it is for someone to go to university. It's simply not economically viable to let everyone go along who wants to. Since A-level grades are the best indication we really have at the moment, we have to go on them.
Making it less intellectually accessible is actually worse than any financial change imaginable because it is a return to the bad old days where only the rich went to University.
If your family has money odds are you live in a good area or can afford to send children to private schools. Generally schools in good (in financial terms) areas and private schools have better resources, hence better education, hence pupils stand better academic chance of getting into University.
If you live in a crap (financial) area then unless you are exceptionally talented the odds are your education suffers through lack of resources, hence you are less able, less chance of a University place.
Basically the town I live in has two major secondary schools. One is on the generally well off nice part of the town, the other in the less well off. As someone who had the choice of which to go to and who visited both I can tell you the one in the nice part of town had tons more of everything and that was the one I went to. Every year that one gets better results than the other, and year on year that one continues to add new stuff like computer rooms, darkroom, sports stuff etc
Same, bascially, with colleges/sixth forms. They may be free in most cases but you still have to access them and that, depending on location, takes money.
As it is, University level work in my opinion bears little resemblance to anything you will do at A Level and hence A Level's seems a rather poor judge of ability really. A Level is basically just advanced GCSE stuff and doesn't really encourage a great deal of your own thinking, at University you have greater freedom to approach questions and to chose the areas you study.
If your family has money odds are you live in a good area or can afford to send children to private schools. Generally schools in good (in financial terms) areas and private schools have better resources, hence better education, hence pupils stand better academic chance of getting into University.
If you live in a crap (financial) area then unless you are exceptionally talented the odds are your education suffers through lack of resources, hence you are less able, less chance of a University place.
Basically the town I live in has two major secondary schools. One is on the generally well off nice part of the town, the other in the less well off. As someone who had the choice of which to go to and who visited both I can tell you the one in the nice part of town had tons more of everything and that was the one I went to. Every year that one gets better results than the other, and year on year that one continues to add new stuff like computer rooms, darkroom, sports stuff etc
Same, bascially, with colleges/sixth forms. They may be free in most cases but you still have to access them and that, depending on location, takes money.
As it is, University level work in my opinion bears little resemblance to anything you will do at A Level and hence A Level's seems a rather poor judge of ability really. A Level is basically just advanced GCSE stuff and doesn't really encourage a great deal of your own thinking, at University you have greater freedom to approach questions and to chose the areas you study.
Belldandy wrote:
"Something like University is not just something people "try for" most people want to go if they are applying in the first place. I know for a fact that the lowest grades of the people on my course that got in were BBB. And it's not exactly a top university, yet only around 1 in 4 people applying got a place. So, by your own theory, if we reduced the places on the course, from the 80 ish now, to 60, that makes it more accessible?"
Firstly, the applicants per place figure is more than a little misleading. Most uni's will claim something like 5-20 applicants poer place, depending on the popularity of the course. I can only assume these figures are derived from the fact that each student applyies for about six uni's. Seeing as over 40% of the population end up going for university places, I can't imagine that there are a huge number of people who apply, but fail to get a place in any university at all. Regardless of how that does indeed work, my main point here is to follow...
If your course requires the equivalent of BBB and takes in 80 students who meet that, then fine. They're all clearly able and deserve a place, and I see no need to reduce the number of places on that course at all.
What I'm not so happy about, are courses requiring the equivalent of DDD, for which your average monkey could most likely qualify. It's courses like these that should have their standards upped, and then if they can't fill the places as a result, they should reduce the number of places on their course.
I appreciate that you need verying requirements to match up well to varying student ability, but the problem is that the lower end of the scale encompasses far too many people.
On the other point...
Belldandy wrote:
"Flawed argument because no one can buy their way into a university. You do not simply attach a blank cheque to your UCAS application and hope it buys your place. Everyone in University today is their already because of their academic qualities. Yes, the financial implications will put people off, but their is help available for the poorest and student loans do exist. In the USA there is little of this kind of help beyond scholarships which are definitely for the few and not intended to make places accessible more."
Fair enough, I exagerrated to make a point. I'd just like to see less people put off by financial worries.
I'd better clarify my intended meaning of the word 'accessable', too.
I'd like to see university education being more financially accesable, but less intellectually accesable.
"Something like University is not just something people "try for" most people want to go if they are applying in the first place. I know for a fact that the lowest grades of the people on my course that got in were BBB. And it's not exactly a top university, yet only around 1 in 4 people applying got a place. So, by your own theory, if we reduced the places on the course, from the 80 ish now, to 60, that makes it more accessible?"
Firstly, the applicants per place figure is more than a little misleading. Most uni's will claim something like 5-20 applicants poer place, depending on the popularity of the course. I can only assume these figures are derived from the fact that each student applyies for about six uni's. Seeing as over 40% of the population end up going for university places, I can't imagine that there are a huge number of people who apply, but fail to get a place in any university at all. Regardless of how that does indeed work, my main point here is to follow...
If your course requires the equivalent of BBB and takes in 80 students who meet that, then fine. They're all clearly able and deserve a place, and I see no need to reduce the number of places on that course at all.
What I'm not so happy about, are courses requiring the equivalent of DDD, for which your average monkey could most likely qualify. It's courses like these that should have their standards upped, and then if they can't fill the places as a result, they should reduce the number of places on their course.
I appreciate that you need verying requirements to match up well to varying student ability, but the problem is that the lower end of the scale encompasses far too many people.
On the other point...
Belldandy wrote:
"Flawed argument because no one can buy their way into a university. You do not simply attach a blank cheque to your UCAS application and hope it buys your place. Everyone in University today is their already because of their academic qualities. Yes, the financial implications will put people off, but their is help available for the poorest and student loans do exist. In the USA there is little of this kind of help beyond scholarships which are definitely for the few and not intended to make places accessible more."
Fair enough, I exagerrated to make a point. I'd just like to see less people put off by financial worries.
I'd better clarify my intended meaning of the word 'accessable', too.
I'd like to see university education being more financially accesable, but less intellectually accesable.
VenomByte wrote:
> Assuming that reducing the number of students getting into
> universities will lower overheads and reduce or eliminate fees, which
> seems a logical conclusion, then making it harder to get into
> universities puts more people in a position where they can apply.
> They won't be put off by the cost. Less will get in, but more will
> have the opprtunity to try.
So, in a scheme which defies logic, we make it harder to get into a University by increasing the grades needed, take away or reduce fees, and more people will apply, but there will be less places overall anyway?
Something like University is not just something people "try for" most people want to go if they are applying in the first place. I know for a fact that the lowest grades of the people on my course that got in were BBB. And it's not exactly a top university, yet only around 1 in 4 people applying got a place. So, by your own theory, if we reduced the places on the course, from the 80 ish now, to 60, that makes it more accessible?
As it is I believe the government is missing the point. Tuition fees are not the problem as if you're family does not have a pile of cash you do not even pay them! It is student loans which are the problem because they burden graduates from poorer backgrounds who may not fancy leaving with about 10 000 debt, in addition the maximum loan does not really cover realistic costs for students if their parents cannot loan or give them extra money. A lot of people are not too keen on living in a kind of student poverty for three years whilst their non-Uni friends go out and get jobs which bring in real money.
Personally - and this is seperate from my opinion on what the future of any system should be and why - as a student whose tuition fees are paid for by the LEA, and who has a student loan and a little help from his parents,I think the current system, whilst not brilliant, is not too bad. Sure, I have a debt when I leave (and Mr Blair lost his vote from me by doing the interest rate, no doubt the same for many other students) but I know that the career I get when I finish will be far better than had I not gone to University, especially in the long term.
> Which is fairer, going to university based entirely on your academic
> potential, or based instead less on academic potential and more on
> your financial background?
Flawed argument because no one can buy their way into a university. You do not simply attach a blank cheque to your UCAS application and hope it buys your place. Everyone in University today is their already because of their academic qualities. Yes, the financial implications will put people off, but their is help available for the poorest and student loans do exist. In the USA there is little of this kind of help beyond scholarships which are definitely for the few and not intended to make places accessible more.
The whole debate also misses another point - A Levels. There is little to no financial help available for those who cannot live with parents or relatives - not all parents can afford or are prepared to support children another 2 years after compulsory education ends. Surely a more pressing concern would be to better support those students who cannot even get A Levels first, which are essentially the building blocks of a university place anyway, ?
On top of all this, as I think Biggles has already pointed to, there are too many graduates in some areas anyway, but not enough in others. I don't know about anyone else here, but I'll wager that the Media Studies course where I am has the most students of any course going. And sure, peolpe can say the course is useless but if it is what they want to do then who has the right to come along and say "nah, half of you shouldn't even be here" ? Anything which further limits university places is not by any conceivable way creating greater accessibility.
> Assuming that reducing the number of students getting into
> universities will lower overheads and reduce or eliminate fees, which
> seems a logical conclusion, then making it harder to get into
> universities puts more people in a position where they can apply.
> They won't be put off by the cost. Less will get in, but more will
> have the opprtunity to try.
So, in a scheme which defies logic, we make it harder to get into a University by increasing the grades needed, take away or reduce fees, and more people will apply, but there will be less places overall anyway?
Something like University is not just something people "try for" most people want to go if they are applying in the first place. I know for a fact that the lowest grades of the people on my course that got in were BBB. And it's not exactly a top university, yet only around 1 in 4 people applying got a place. So, by your own theory, if we reduced the places on the course, from the 80 ish now, to 60, that makes it more accessible?
As it is I believe the government is missing the point. Tuition fees are not the problem as if you're family does not have a pile of cash you do not even pay them! It is student loans which are the problem because they burden graduates from poorer backgrounds who may not fancy leaving with about 10 000 debt, in addition the maximum loan does not really cover realistic costs for students if their parents cannot loan or give them extra money. A lot of people are not too keen on living in a kind of student poverty for three years whilst their non-Uni friends go out and get jobs which bring in real money.
Personally - and this is seperate from my opinion on what the future of any system should be and why - as a student whose tuition fees are paid for by the LEA, and who has a student loan and a little help from his parents,I think the current system, whilst not brilliant, is not too bad. Sure, I have a debt when I leave (and Mr Blair lost his vote from me by doing the interest rate, no doubt the same for many other students) but I know that the career I get when I finish will be far better than had I not gone to University, especially in the long term.
> Which is fairer, going to university based entirely on your academic
> potential, or based instead less on academic potential and more on
> your financial background?
Flawed argument because no one can buy their way into a university. You do not simply attach a blank cheque to your UCAS application and hope it buys your place. Everyone in University today is their already because of their academic qualities. Yes, the financial implications will put people off, but their is help available for the poorest and student loans do exist. In the USA there is little of this kind of help beyond scholarships which are definitely for the few and not intended to make places accessible more.
The whole debate also misses another point - A Levels. There is little to no financial help available for those who cannot live with parents or relatives - not all parents can afford or are prepared to support children another 2 years after compulsory education ends. Surely a more pressing concern would be to better support those students who cannot even get A Levels first, which are essentially the building blocks of a university place anyway, ?
On top of all this, as I think Biggles has already pointed to, there are too many graduates in some areas anyway, but not enough in others. I don't know about anyone else here, but I'll wager that the Media Studies course where I am has the most students of any course going. And sure, peolpe can say the course is useless but if it is what they want to do then who has the right to come along and say "nah, half of you shouldn't even be here" ? Anything which further limits university places is not by any conceivable way creating greater accessibility.
Hmm, I must admit I'm all for the determining factor not being class but ability. Not solely intelligence, but ability on the whole.
It's not as much of a problem in Scotland as our tuition fees are payed for by the Scottish Executive (or so I believe) but even the point about student loan rates is still important : and indeed I didn't know until now.
And indeed, where are all the jobs for these graduates? If 50% of youths go to uni, my opinion is that 25% leave and go into a job where they didn't need the degree and indeed would have been higher in the company had they started earlier instead of going to uni
Quite shocking really. Blair apparently sees top up fees not as a break in his manifesto though, because that manifesto was for this leadership term and the fees won't appear until the next one, with a different manifesto (namely a truthful one).
Seems a bit underhand if not sly to be using the date of introduction of top up fees instead of when they were first seriously discussed as to when the manifesto applies but hey, there you go.
Then again, I've still got a year of wholesome high school to go.
It's not as much of a problem in Scotland as our tuition fees are payed for by the Scottish Executive (or so I believe) but even the point about student loan rates is still important : and indeed I didn't know until now.
And indeed, where are all the jobs for these graduates? If 50% of youths go to uni, my opinion is that 25% leave and go into a job where they didn't need the degree and indeed would have been higher in the company had they started earlier instead of going to uni
Quite shocking really. Blair apparently sees top up fees not as a break in his manifesto though, because that manifesto was for this leadership term and the fees won't appear until the next one, with a different manifesto (namely a truthful one).
Seems a bit underhand if not sly to be using the date of introduction of top up fees instead of when they were first seriously discussed as to when the manifesto applies but hey, there you go.
Then again, I've still got a year of wholesome high school to go.
Icarus wrote:
> Isn't it an institute?
Yep, one of the mental variety.
> Isn't it an institute?
Yep, one of the mental variety.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> University is ridiculously easy to get into though. You'd be
> surprised what cretins I bump into sometimes.
>
> Of course, my University is hardly Cambridge.
Isn't it an institute?
> University is ridiculously easy to get into though. You'd be
> surprised what cretins I bump into sometimes.
>
> Of course, my University is hardly Cambridge.
Isn't it an institute?
What annoys me is that, after the agreed top up fees of £3,000 (though the unis can change this in the future), the Government has to force unis to pay bursaries to poor students, therefore negating some of the extra cash from the top up fees.
With this they have 2 choices - risk getting slaughtered in the next report on "the percentage of working class who went to the uni" by admitting more "better off" students (hence not having to pay the bursaries and having more cash for other resources), or manually making sure that they have crossed the "acceptable" threshold for poor students, regardless on whether they're clever, or show any potential or not.
With this they have 2 choices - risk getting slaughtered in the next report on "the percentage of working class who went to the uni" by admitting more "better off" students (hence not having to pay the bursaries and having more cash for other resources), or manually making sure that they have crossed the "acceptable" threshold for poor students, regardless on whether they're clever, or show any potential or not.
University is ridiculously easy to get into though. You'd be surprised what cretins I bump into sometimes.
Of course, my University is hardly Cambridge.
Of course, my University is hardly Cambridge.
Yukikaze wrote:
> So, just how does making University harder to get into make it more
> accessable? Many many people every year do not get into University,
> so it makes no difference.
Assuming that reducing the number of students getting into universities will lower overheads and reduce or eliminate fees, which seems a logical conclusion, then making it harder to get into universities puts more people in a position where they can apply. They won't be put off by the cost. Less will get in, but more will have the opprtunity to try.
Which is fairer, going to university based entirely on your academic potential, or based instead less on academic potential and more on your financial background?
> So, just how does making University harder to get into make it more
> accessable? Many many people every year do not get into University,
> so it makes no difference.
Assuming that reducing the number of students getting into universities will lower overheads and reduce or eliminate fees, which seems a logical conclusion, then making it harder to get into universities puts more people in a position where they can apply. They won't be put off by the cost. Less will get in, but more will have the opprtunity to try.
Which is fairer, going to university based entirely on your academic potential, or based instead less on academic potential and more on your financial background?
Page: