COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN THE GUARDIAN
"England’s
leading universities have made “incredibly slow” progress in widening access to
students from disadvantaged backgrounds'
I frankly don't know the meaning of that.
Seems to me that university applications focus of grades,
achievements, and fit to the desired course of study.
Do we really want them to do something else?
"Disadvantaged backgrounds" is an extremely vague
phrase.
While being poor can sometimes reflect a transition period
for people - as during migration - it also in many cases reflects lack of the
basic skills required to better yourself.
Really talented people generally overcome transition period
poverty quickly. Lifetime poverty is not generally an indicator of unrecognized
talent.
Are people in that category good university prospects?
This generation and the previous one in the Western world
have seen a tremendous decline in standards in many things, but especially in
education.
In North America, grade inflation is rampant with some
Millennial types complaining to administrators or, in good old America,
actually suing them over too low a grade.
There are actually public schools in America where the
overwhelming majority of students are on “the honor roll,” of course making the
distinction meaningless.
Pretty much, North American public schools practice
"social promotion." meaning students do not fail but pass regardless
of achievement.
This rot has grown up into post-secondary
In graduate school programs, often acceptance translates
into graduation, with there being a huge reluctance to fail any non-performer.
In America, a large number of pupils get through college or
university by playing a sport with teachers not daring to give a poor grade to
a good athlete who brings attention and money to the school. Indeed, in most
such cases they were recruited and given admission for just that purpose.
Again in America, we have an entire tier of not just
second-rate, but third-rate, institutions who will take and graduate almost
anyone, just as long as the fees are paid by someone. These are often
government-created institutions, but they also include private, pretty much
for-profit operations and cannot be viewed seriously for their academics. There
is also an entire tier of religious-affiliated colleges, which, while including
some good schools, include many truly ridiculous ones.
The American armed forces, a very large body of people, also
have long used paid post-secondary educations as an incentive to join. And it
works, offering so many tens of thousands of dollars in tuition per year for
each year of service. In general, army leavers are not high-potential academic
candidates but they fill a good many seats especially at the lesser
institutions.
The respectable American class of universities protect
themselves on admissions against inflated academic school records by using
standardized test batteries to control admissions. But even the better
universities suffer to some extent by today’s expectations and demands.
They, too, use sports stars to make money from alumni who
attend events. They, too, admit some students who do not really qualify under
normal admission rules. And they, too, feel obligated to graduate low
performers who have been admitted.
It is very easy to confuse high standards for ability and
achievement with reluctance to accept deprived students. In America, this has
gone a very long way. It is not a good model to copy.
