If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Student Access Inequality "Exposed"
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
Story.
Now obviously the reason why people from poor backgrounds are less likely to go to university is because they are not welcomed there, and that they don't think that it's for them.
It's not that people from poor backgrounds oftenaren't as academically gifted, is it? Oh no, not at all.
In this context I don't care why they aren't good enough to get to uni (probably because stupid parents breed stupid children, because they don't help their children enough), but academic achievement in poor areas is lower. That means they are less uited to uni. Seems reasonable to me.
Fuckwits.
Now obviously the reason why people from poor backgrounds are less likely to go to university is because they are not welcomed there, and that they don't think that it's for them.
It's not that people from poor backgrounds oftenaren't as academically gifted, is it? Oh no, not at all.
In this context I don't care why they aren't good enough to get to uni (probably because stupid parents breed stupid children, because they don't help their children enough), but academic achievement in poor areas is lower. That means they are less uited to uni. Seems reasonable to me.
Fuckwits.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
OI poor doesnt mean stupid, my opinion of u has now fallen scum.....
a thick rich kid can get into uni, i know of loads of them..... if a thick poor person cant get in fair enough, but i know quite clever hard working people who are put off uni even though they culd do well
To some people poor may mean living in a council house, or buying a second hand car each time, or not going abroad on holidays. To others being poor may mean not speaking the Queen's English or not having two cars in the family, or buying clothes from New Look rather than some fancy department store. What is poor? Poor is relative.
That aside, I think Kermit makes a good point in a way that has angered a few people. People from disadvantaged backgrounds (which includes those whose parents are economically inactive) do tend to do less well educationally because often they are offered less enouragement at home. Children tend to learn by example, and if your parents are economically inactive then where is your motivation to be anything else? Often dreams of something more are met with contempt when you come from that kind of background.
However, there will always be exceptions to the rule. We could all give stories of 'rich' people who've done nothing with their lives or 'poor' people who've worked damn hard to get into university and get the education they desire.
On t'sick?
Oh, and invest in lifelong education schemes for those who realise the value of education later.
hence starting the cycle.
now obviously bad schooling leads to less people from areas with bad schools going to uni, does it not?
interesting...
so you're implying that those from less afluent areas have lower academic aspirations?
could this be because of their parents occupations, purhaps in less academic work places, giving the children a different role model for things other than academic succes?
nope, just seems like basic social science to me :yes:
same here, explain yourself kermit?
Definately, and the Open University and many others offer part-time degrees in 6 years, typically costing £500 a year. So much more impressive to prospective employers, and so much easier on the pocket.
I am not suggesting that poor people are stupid, I should make that clear.
However, due to resources (both school and especially parental) and difficult social circumstances, many are so far behind academically that they are simply not good enough to go to university.
My point is that people who are not reaching a certain level academically should not be going to university, and the Government should not be forcing universities to lower their entrance grades in order to accomodate people who cannot pass their A'Levels to a good standard. And whilst I appreciate that some people may be late developers, my opinion is that if you aren't good enough to get half-decent A'Levels by the time you are 18 you will never be good enough.
Basically my point is that instead of making sure that the most "naturally-bright" pupils fulfil their potential in school, the Government is incorrectly focusing on University attendance, and is forcing universities to accept "quotas", regardless of actual ability. Instead of dragging people up to a standard, the Government is dragging the standar down to fit people who, with all due respect, simply aren't good enough.
Personally I think that university, in an academic sense, is fit for only about 20% of the population, and that many people are forced into uni when they shouldn't be there. Drop-out rates would back this up. Instead of training people in non-academic areas, which is what we should be doing from about age 14, the Government is both cheapening degree qualifications and consigning people without a degree to the scrapheap.
If 50% of [people are in uni, it doesn't mean 50% of people are good enough for the degree, and it's damned hard to fail a degree, so that means a degree isn't worth as much. And it also means that those without degrees will find it even harder to ever get a decent job.
still doesn't mean they don't deserve the chance, it could be that it's because of these disadvantages that they aren't getting as good grades, thats why i think that universities should take these things into perspective when letting people in, if these people go to uni where they're more likely to learn than if they were living in a house with two alcoholic parents with no moneyt and if they do well then let them stay, if it's clear that they only did alright in their a-levels and that was the limit of their intelligence, kick them out and put them into a different scheme, maybe learning a trade or other skills, not sure really.
yeh but give them the chance to get into student loan debt and then be told to go away?
yes the kids should be given the chance, but the chance and the oppertunity to achieve at school, rather than an effective right of attendance to a university
You were asked if there's a link between class(whatever that means in the modern society that Blagsta doesn't live in)/wealth and intelligence. Answer or be damned. To hell with ye you pervert.
free for the first year if you do good, you pay for it in the future, if you do bad, fuck off but it was free at least, there would have to be a load of thngs to be sorted out before something like that could happen but it seems like a good idea.
again i say inference, it's a skill that most don't have these days
Turlough: it's a tough call, because I do firmly believe that everyone deserves a chance. It's just that if people aren't getting decent A'Level (or equivalent) results then they are not equipped for university demands, no matter how much "natural" talent they may have. If you can't write essays, can't count well and don't have a reasonable vocabulary then you shouldn't be at university.
I fully support the idea that people from low-income families should be encouraged to go to university, as ambition is the cure to most low-level anti-social behaviour. My worry is a) that university standards will be lowered to accomodate these people as "quotas", and b) that, because of the focus on university, those who cannot or choose not to attend university will be cast on the scrapheap.
would you suggest splitting uni's into two seperate systems, good unis for good grade achievers that only offer degrees that are demanding and will need the brains, then uni's for mickey mouse degrees that offer low demanding intellectual ability, this way, smart people from lower classes could get into the top uni's and not so smart people from lower classes can get into the second one, i'm talking shit aren't i?
I'm not sure what my solution would be, but the old divide between "academic" universities and "vocational" polytechnics was certainly a useful one. As for "Mickey Mouse" degrees, they should not get state funding. Though I'd hate to be the one who had to decide what was pointless and what wasn't.
I just think that the focus on university as the be-all and end-all is unfortunate, as all it does is lower standards on university courses and lower prospects for those who choose not to attend university.
I need to be careful what I say, really, because I swear blind that my Durham offer was lowered from the norm because of which school I attended and which city it was in.
true, tony blair is urging us all to go to university, there's only so much a university degree can offer in terms of the job market and isn't there already a massive shortage in skills trades like joiners and sparkers, maybe the government should focus on this more.
The German system is best: at 14, you can choose to go into a trade school, an academic school, or one that's a bit of both.
Makes so much sense, I've lost count of the number of people I've heard on the bus who've said that all they wanna do is learn a trade and earn some money. Academia holds nothing for them, so why force them to stay in it?
yes i've read of that system elsewhere and it sounds good, we need a change of attitude whenit comes to education in this country, in fact we need a change of attitude to alot of things, hopefully some day things will be sorted but i'll be waiting eagerly till then, i'm away to bed, good night.
Isn't Blagsta's question perfectly reasonable? Your meaning was clear - poor people ARE often lacking in academic ability - justify it.
You added "they aren't good enough to get into university (probably because stupid parents breed stupid children...)". Please explain. I've seen in my own life that people from all kinds of backgrounds and with all kinds of parental obstacles, can be outstanding - so is there a genetic basis to intelligence as you imply? Justify yourself - do stupid parents produce stupid children and how have you arrived at your definition of 'stupid' and your understanding of genetic inheritance of intelligence?
And (to give you an escape from your arguments) why no mention of...hold on...no...there isn't one- you think that stupid people - who CAN'T produce intelligent children, are failing in life because they're the product of stupid parents who couldn't produce intelligent children. Endless cycle of dumbo's is your summing up of much of humanity?