OT - Why aren't students protesting over this?

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

You can get all the 'A' grades you like and still not be Oxbridge material, irrespective of where you come from. I can cite several examples of people with plummy accents, from fancy boarding schools who got 4 or 5 As at A level and all A or A* at GCSE and didn't get in.

The difference is that they just accepted it's because they weren't necessarily suited to the Oxbridge way, rather than saying 'oh it must be because I'm northern/black/ginger'.

Corrected for you :P

I say it tongue in cheek but it's kinda true. There are easily as many smart hard working people who don't get into Oxbridge as those who do, if not more.

It's just a particular style that they look for.

Isn't that kinda proving rjsterry's point. Whether its 'Oxbridge material' or 'needing to be suited a particular way' the end result is a form of discrimination.

Looking at said form of discrimination in more depth, it is clear that poor people, ethnic minorities and northerners are more likely to be discriminated against by these Universities because they are less likely to fit into their ideal image.

Surely it should be about academic ability and nothing else.

Of course there's discrimination! Every institution be it a company or a top university is discriminatory as they generally have more applicants than places available. Investment banks hire people from Oxford and Cambridge (and other top unis from around the world) or people with MBAs etc because they can. They discriminate against people with lesser qualifications. It's not that jobs in investment banks can only be carried out by people with enormous brains, it's simply that because there are so many applicants for these jobs, banks can hire who they perceive is the best.

rjsterry

shm_uk wrote:

"OT - Why aren't students protesting over this?"


Because it doesn't cost them financially.

Sadly, I fear you may be right.

lost_in_thought

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's just a particular style that they look for.

Yes, I believe it's 'extremely clever'... :P

In all seriousness, though, A levels aren't really a fair way to assess brainpower. I mean, when I took them, the mark for an 'A' was 70%!

70%! For goodness' sake...

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

[
Surely it should be about academic ability and nothing else.

There are many different types of academic ability.

Some unis, colleges, prefer more well rounded individuals, who can show broader interests.

Others are the opposite, they require unusual interest/ performance in a particular field.


There isn't one type of academic ability, so it's difficult to measure - so you go for what your institution values as academic.

ride_whenever

DonDaddyD wrote:

Surely it should be about academic ability and nothing else.

Not really, having watched people who were very academically gifted go through oxford practically in tears for the entire four years, I'd say suitability to the system is far more important than academic ability once you're above a certain threshold.

Clever Pun

lost_in_thought wrote:

Mr Plum wrote:

My cousin applied to Oxford after achieving 5 A grade A Level results but his application was unsuccessful. After an appeal by one of his lecturers he was reluctantly offered a place but he ended up refusing it because of the nature of the whole appeal process and instead went to Warwick where he got a first class BSc (Hons) degree. I'm sure the initial refusal had nothing to do with the fact that he grew up in a lower-working-class single parent family in Middlesbrough...

No, it almost certainly didn't.

You can get all the 'A' grades you like and still not be Oxbridge material, irrespective of where you come from. I can cite several examples of people with plummy accents, from fancy boarding schools who got 4 or 5 As at A level and all A or A* at GCSE and didn't get in.

The difference is that they just accepted it's because they weren't good enough, rather than saying 'oh it must be because I'm northern/black/ginger'.

What was that girl called? Sarah something?

but gingers aren't allowed in though right?

soundninjauk

DonDaddyD wrote:

Surely it should be about academic ability and nothing else.

Which is in itself a form of discrimination, of course.

rick_chasey

lost_in_thought wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's just a particular style that they look for.

Yes, I believe it's 'extremely clever'... :P

In all seriousness, though, A levels aren't really a fair way to assess brainpower. I mean, when I took them, the mark for an 'A' was 70%!

70%! For goodness' sake...

They were 80 when I took them...

But I do mean it. The extremely clever bit isn't enough! Hence all the extremely smart people who don't get in.

soundninjauk

rjsterry wrote:

shm_uk wrote:

"OT - Why aren't students protesting over this?"


Because it doesn't cost them financially.

Sadly, I fear you may be right.

Perhaps it's also seen as 'that's just the way things are'. The change in tuition fees is a massive shifting of the goalposts and therefore perhaps seen as just plain not fair, whereas a news story saying 'it's hard to get into Oxbridge, especially if you're a minority' doesn't really surprise anyone, whether it's accurate or not.

Mr Plum

Headhuunter wrote:

Of course there's discrimination! Every institution be it a company or a top university is discriminatory as they generally have more applicants than places available. Investment banks hire people from Oxford and Cambridge (and other top unis from around the world) or people with MBAs etc because they can. They discriminate against people with lesser qualifications. It's not that jobs in investment banks can only be carried out by people with enormous brains, it's simply that because there are so many applicants for these jobs, banks can hire who they perceive is the best.

Then we end up in a vicious circle. The question is about whether an educational institution that receives large amounts of public funding should discriminate in such a way.

lost_in_thought

Clever Pun wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Mr Plum wrote:

My cousin applied to Oxford after achieving 5 A grade A Level results but his application was unsuccessful. After an appeal by one of his lecturers he was reluctantly offered a place but he ended up refusing it because of the nature of the whole appeal process and instead went to Warwick where he got a first class BSc (Hons) degree. I'm sure the initial refusal had nothing to do with the fact that he grew up in a lower-working-class single parent family in Middlesbrough...

No, it almost certainly didn't.

You can get all the 'A' grades you like and still not be Oxbridge material, irrespective of where you come from. I can cite several examples of people with plummy accents, from fancy boarding schools who got 4 or 5 As at A level and all A or A* at GCSE and didn't get in.

The difference is that they just accepted it's because they weren't good enough, rather than saying 'oh it must be because I'm northern/black/ginger'.

What was that girl called? Sarah something?

but gingers aren't allowed in though right?

Oh goodness me no.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

I don't know the ins and outs of admissions at Oxford, Cambridge or Hull, but if all race, wealth (how's that measured anyway) and schooling details are stripped from applications and the make up is still skewed, what would you suggest? Positive discrimination (which, in my mind, is as bad as any other from of discrimination)? Watering down entry criteria for some?

Wow.

How about just having an enterance criteria that doesn't depend on:

Race
Wealth
Schooling (grades not withstanding)

Jesus.

Jesus indeed. FFS at least try to comprehend what I'm saying before your usual boring stance. What if, stripping out all of those elements, the end result is still the same?

DonDaddyD

Oh boy.

Headhuunter wrote:

Of course there's discrimination! Every institution be it a company or a top university is discriminatory as they generally have more applicants than places available. Investment banks hire people from Oxford and Cambridge (and other top unis from around the world) or people with MBAs etc because they can. They discriminate against people with lesser qualifications. It's not that jobs in investment banks can only be carried out by people with enormous brains, it's simply that because there are so many applicants for these jobs, banks can hire who they perceive is the best.

OK, I think what you are calling discrimination I would call a selection process to find the best candidate.

By discrimination, of which I believe some Universities and Institutions partake, I mean actively excluding viable candidates based on aspects that do not directly relate to their ability to succeed in whatever they are applying for.

I.e: Black and white candidate. Both equal on paper but the white person gets selected over the black person. Multiply that kind of thing happening by a factor of 10 and you can call that discrimination.

Now if the white person was less qualified on paper than the black person and still got the job. I'd call that prejudice or racism.

Which is in itself a form of discrimination, of course.

Yes, if you want to over react, of course. See above. A generally identified selection process is not discrimination.

Not really, having watched people who were very academically gifted go through oxford practically in tears for the entire four years, I'd say suitability to the system is far more important than academic ability once you're above a certain threshold.

You are there to get a qualification. You need a qualification to get on the course. You do not know how the person will respond to the lifestyle until they experience it, this will be the first time they experience said lifestyle.

In the face of uncertainty the only measurable certainty is their already gained qualifications and previously proven academic ability. These are the things hopeful students should be judged on. Not an uninformed assumption of how well someone thinks they'll survive at Uni.

There are many different types of academic ability.

Some unis, colleges, prefer more well rounded individuals, who can show broader interests.

Others are the opposite, they require unusual interest/ performance in a particular field.

There isn't one type of academic ability, so it's difficult to measure - so you go for what your institution values as academic.

Read above.

Its an educational qualification and entry is obtainable via meeting the enterance criteria - i.e. grades. Then the selection process should be about grades nothing else.

bigmat

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

I don't know the ins and outs of admissions at Oxford, Cambridge or Hull, but if all race, wealth (how's that measured anyway) and schooling details are stripped from applications and the make up is still skewed, what would you suggest? Positive discrimination (which, in my mind, is as bad as any other from of discrimination)? Watering down entry criteria for some?

Wow.

How about just having an enterance criteria that doesn't depend on:

Race
Wealth
Schooling (grades not withstanding)

Jesus.

Jesus indeed. FFS at least try to comprehend what I'm saying before your usual boring stance. What if, stripping out all of those elements, the end result is still the same?

If that was all "stripped out" then there wouldn't be a problem, would there? Isn't that just proposing what DDD wants? As far as I can see, the "end result " would only be the same if there is an inherent genetic lack of ability in certain ethnic groups when compared to others. I don't even want to go there...

feltkuota

DDD,

If said universities have 500 applicants for 30 slots all with the same grades how do they then determine which to take? First come first served? No need for an interview? Drawn from a hat?

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

W1 wrote:

I don't know the ins and outs of admissions at Oxford, Cambridge or Hull, but if all race, wealth (how's that measured anyway) and schooling details are stripped from applications and the make up is still skewed, what would you suggest? Positive discrimination (which, in my mind, is as bad as any other from of discrimination)? Watering down entry criteria for some?

Wow.

How about just having an enterance criteria that doesn't depend on:

Race
Wealth
Schooling (grades not withstanding)

Jesus.

Jesus indeed. FFS at least try to comprehend what I'm saying before your usual boring stance. What if, stripping out all of those elements, the end result is still the same?

See my post about Yale, which seems to put a lot more effort into finding those who would make good students rather than waiting for them to apply. There's also the point about Oxbridge 'marketing' itself to all sections of the community equally - something that it doesn't seem to be doing.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

There are many different types of academic ability.

Some unis, colleges, prefer more well rounded individuals, who can show broader interests.

Others are the opposite, they require unusual interest/ performance in a particular field.

There isn't one type of academic ability, so it's difficult to measure - so you go for what your institution values as academic.

Read above.

Its an educational qualification and entry is obtainable via meeting the enterance criteria - i.e. grades. Then the selection process should be about grades nothing else.

That's I think where your fundamentally differ from the universities.

They provide a course, at the end of which, you can get a qualifaction to show you completed the course at a certain proficiency.

It is not about the qualification in the Universities eyes. It is about providing a particular environment for intellectual and academic prowess to flourish.

Ask any proper lecturer "will this be in the exam?" and you will be given very short shrift.

DonDaddyD

I cannot help feel that some of you are overplaying the discrimination card.

How can refusal to a University because you don't meet entrance critieria i.e. don't have the right grades be discrimination?

Equally, if you are refused a job because you don't have the right previous experience and/or qualifications, how can this be discrimination.

What are you being discriminated against, not being the right candidate.

Completely different to actually having the right experience and/or qualifications and still not being considered because of something unrelated like gender, ethnicity. Then, that would be discrimination.

bigmat

feltkuota wrote:

DDD,

If said universities have 500 applicants for 30 slots all with the same grades how do they then determine which to take? First come first served? No need for an interview? Drawn from a hat?

Tell you what, why not base it on who has the precocious self confident poise and mannerisms and entrance interview coaching that can best be gained from attending a public school - that sounds fair!

rjsterry

feltkuota wrote:

DDD,

If said universities have 500 applicants for 30 slots all with the same grades how do they then determine which to take? First come first served? No need for an interview? Drawn from a hat?

This is a problem that admissions tutors have to deal with even when all applicants are white middle class southerners, and it's what the interview is for.

DonDaddyD

feltkuota wrote:

DDD,

If said universities have 500 applicants for 30 slots all with the same grades how do they then determine which to take? First come first served? No need for an interview? Drawn from a hat?

I don't know look at their GCSE's, SATs, extra-curricular activities to determine who has the more relevant experience for the course?

At that level it shouldn't be about the persons background because then we have the situation we have now where the top Universities only hiring posh folk to maintain their 'superior' image.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

I cannot help feel that some of you are overplaying the discrimination card.

How can refusal to a University because you don't meet entrance critieria i.e. don't have the right grades be discrimination?

Equally, if you are refused a job because you don't have the right previous experience and/or qualifications, how can this be discrimination.

What are you being discriminated against, not being the right candidate.

Completely different to actually having the right experience and/or qualifications and still not being considered because of something unrelated like gender, ethnicity. Then, that would be discrimination.

Discrimination on the basis of academic ability is a perfectly valid form of discrimination; discrimination is not necessarily a negative thing.

the dictionary on my computer wrote:

2 recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another : discrimination between right and wrong | young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations.
• the ability to discern what is of high quality; good judgment or taste : those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination.
• Psychology the ability to distinguish between different stimuli : [as adj. ] discrimination learning.

rick_chasey

DonDaddyD wrote:

At that level it shouldn't be about the person because then we have the situation we have now where the top Universities only hiring posh folk to maintain their 'superior' image.

That's not the case...

The issue is structural, not institutional.

soundninjauk

DonDaddyD wrote:

feltkuota wrote:

DDD,

If said universities have 500 applicants for 30 slots all with the same grades how do they then determine which to take? First come first served? No need for an interview? Drawn from a hat?

I don't know look at their GCSE's, SATs, extra-curricular activities to determine who has the more relevant experience for the course?

At that level it shouldn't be about the person because then we have the situation we have now where the top Universities only hiring posh folk to maintain their 'superior' image.

Perhaps some stuck in the mud admissions tutors who don't like change see these people as 'the right candidate'?

That's not to say they are of course. I remember hearing when I was applying for universities that some public school people had extreme difficulty when they got to university, as the requirements for independent thought and dynamism weren't passed on to them at their schools, which I also remember were referred to as 'exam factories' that concentrated on teaching people exactly what they needed to get As, and nothing more.

bigmat

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I cannot help feel that some of you are overplaying the discrimination card.

How can refusal to a University because you don't meet entrance critieria i.e. don't have the right grades be discrimination?

Equally, if you are refused a job because you don't have the right previous experience and/or qualifications, how can this be discrimination.

What are you being discriminated against, not being the right candidate.

Completely different to actually having the right experience and/or qualifications and still not being considered because of something unrelated like gender, ethnicity. Then, that would be discrimination.

Discrimination on the basis of academic ability is a perfectly valid form of discrimination; discrimination is not necessarily a negative thing.

the dictionary on my computer wrote:

2 recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another : discrimination between right and wrong | young children have difficulties in making fine discriminations.
• the ability to discern what is of high quality; good judgment or taste : those who could afford to buy showed little taste or discrimination.
• Psychology the ability to distinguish between different stimuli : [as adj. ] discrimination learning.

Agreed. The law protects against discrimination broadly for things that you can't change - gender, disability, race, now age. Those are the things that are generally deemed to be out of order.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

feltkuota wrote:

DDD,

If said universities have 500 applicants for 30 slots all with the same grades how do they then determine which to take? First come first served? No need for an interview? Drawn from a hat?

I don't know look at their GCSE's, SATs, extra-curricular activities to determine who has the more relevant experience for the course?

At that level it shouldn't be about the persons background because then we have the situation we have now where the top Universities only hiring posh folk to maintain their 'superior' image.

Exam results only give you part if the picture - some would say only the bit that tells you how good someone is at passing exams. And frankly, by the time you get to University, your GCSE grades are almost irrelevant. It has to be about the person, but the person as a potential student, rather than their socio-economic or racial background.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry,

I'm going to go as far as to say that being refused something because you do not meet the right criteria is not discrimination in the context of prejudicial discrimination, which is what I understand we are talking about.

Universities discriminating against individuals for things above and beyond the set entrance criteria. You could argue is a form of prejudice.

This however, is completely different to excluding people from consideration because they do not meet the entrance criteria (or in headhunters example job specification). This I do not percieve as discrimination.

soundninjauk

rjsterry wrote:

Exam results only give you part if the picture - some would say only the bit that tells you how good someone is at passing exams.

This is what I was trying to say.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

feltkuota wrote:

DDD,

If said universities have 500 applicants for 30 slots all with the same grades how do they then determine which to take? First come first served? No need for an interview? Drawn from a hat?

I don't know look at their GCSE's, SATs, extra-curricular activities to determine who has the more relevant experience for the course?

At that level it shouldn't be about the persons background because then we have the situation we have now where the top Universities only hiring posh folk to maintain their 'superior' image.

Exam results only give you part if the picture - some would say only the bit that tells you how good someone is at passing exams. And frankly, by the time you get to University, your GCSE grades are almost irrelevant. It has to be about the person, but the person as a potential student, rather than their socio-economic or racial background.

I can dig that.

pbt150

From the horse's mouth:

http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/behind_the_he ... 01307.html

You can make a lot of headlines using carefully chosen statistics.