Nick Clegg: Universities to lower entrance requirements for poorer students only

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354726/Nick-Clegg-Universities-lower-entrance-requirements-poorer-students-only.html

Nick Clegg orders universities to lower entrance requirements - but only for poorer students


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/08/article-0-08911A1D000005DC-77_468x331.jpg
Nick Clegg, who was educated at Cambridge University, insists there is a bias in higher education.



Nick Clegg is to make an explosive attack on British universities as ‘instruments of social segregation’ as he orders them to stop taking so many middle-class students. The Deputy Prime Minister will this week insist that top institutions must ‘throw open their doors’ and lower their entrance requirements for the less well-off. It could mean top institutions such as Oxford and Cambridge, that usually ask for three As at A-level, accepting disadvantaged students with only ** and Cs.

Universities that want to charge tuition fees of £6,000 or more will be forced to sign up to ‘access agreements’, ensuring they admit more students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The move will prompt fears that bright pupils from good schools or middle-class homes could lose out on sought-after places. Cambridge University today revealed it is planning to charge students the maximum £9,000 in tuition fees from next year. Poorer students would be offered reductions of up to £3,000 per year, plus bursaries of up to £1,625.

Mr Clegg will on Thursday write to the Office of Fair Access – the body set up by Labour to police university admissions – setting out the new system. Institutions are expected to be allowed to draw up their own methods of broadening their intake. But critics fear teenagers from comprehensives will increasingly be given easier A-level offers than candidates from fee-paying schools. One headmaster suggested to the Times that universities that usually ask for three As at A-level from candidates could accept disadvantaged pupils with ** and Cs.

Another ridiculous policy that is going to be imposed by a group of left wing politicians who simply do not understand why the education system (or anything else for that matter) is such a disaster, the reason being for poorer students not doing as well is solely because all three main parties abolished the grammar schools in this country which greatly enchanced social mobility for those who were poorest meaning that if you were poor but clever, you could go to a grammar school free of charge.

The system we have now (incidently the system that the Soviet Union had and which East German parents abolished as soon as the Berlin wall fell and replaced it with the grammar system) is the comprehensive system which in reality means in order to get into a good school and recieve a good education you have to either go private or buy into the expensive catchment area of a good comprehensive - meaning the poorest get the worst deal.

The policy Mr Clegg is proposing is similar to communism when you think about it; in other words it does not matter how good you are for the job/placement but what social status you have/had/your parents have. The notion that 'everyone is equal' (except the ruling class who agree with me in private on grammar schools hence why they mostly send their own children to the two examples I gave you) is just like the notion that a binman should be paid what a brain surgeon is paid.

So yet again, a problem created by the political class being made worse by the political class. Why should private schooled, clever children pay for the mistakes of successive government after government who have failed at managing the state education system? they shouldn't.

Thoughts, should C/B students be given placements over A grade students?

[cocaine]

this a ******* joke, you strive to get the best grades you possibly can while someone in the lower income brackets could potentially take your place for coasting through a levels achieving two grades lower!?

[Hecktix]

******* IDIOTS. Just another example that this coalition have no ******* idea. Insult Labour all you want Dan, but even Labour wouldn't be stupid enough to go for a policy like this.

I've said it before and i'll say it again - whether someone goes to university should be based on their intelligence, not the size of their parents wallet.

[-:Undertaker:-]

******* IDIOTS. Just another example that this coalition have no ******* idea. Insult Labour all you want Dan, but even Labour wouldn't be stupid enough to go for a policy like this.

I've said it before and i'll say it again - whether someone goes to university should be based on their intelligence, not the size of their parents wallet.

But Labour produced the report recommending university fees' in the first place, along with Gordon Brown making attacks on this very issue. We also had David Miliband a few months ago suggesting that private companies should only pay their top employees x20 times as much as they pay their lowest. These people are all the same, the reason for this lays with the state school system - of which all three parties refuse to bring the grammar schools back because Nick Clegg does have a point, just he will not rectify the problem at the heart of it nor will Cameron or Miliband.

This is what you people want; 'equality' - enjoy it especially as you are now all having a taste of it yourselves.

[dbgtz]

But Labour produced the report recommending university fees' in the first place, along with Gordon Brown making attacks on this very issue. We also had David Miliband a few months ago suggesting that private companies should only pay their top employees x20 times as much as they pay their lowest. These people are all the same, the reason for this lays with the state school system - of which all three parties refuse to bring the grammar schools back because Nick Clegg does have a point, just he will not rectify the problem at the heart of it nor will Cameron or Miliband.

This is what you people want; 'equality' - enjoy it.

This isn't equality, it's them being ******s. To be quite honest, I don't actually think universities would follow this. I just don't understand what people don't get about "pay afterwards when you have a job" seriously.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This isn't equality, it's them being ******s. To be quite honest, I don't actually think universities would follow this. I just don't understand what people don't get about "pay afterwards when you have a job" seriously.

It isn't equality no because it doesn't apply to them as their children will not be affected by this, but in their strange world they do (would you believe) view policies such as this as 'equality' - the same reasons they gave for abolishing the grammar schools which created this very problem we have now.

[Hecktix]

But Labour produced the report recommending university fees' in the first place, along with Gordon Brown making attacks on this very issue. We also had David Miliband a few months ago suggesting that private companies should only pay their top employees x20 times as much as they pay their lowest. These people are all the same, the reason for this lays with the state school system - of which all three parties refuse to bring the grammar schools back because Nick Clegg does have a point, just he will not rectify the problem at the heart of it nor will Cameron or Miliband.

This is what you people want; 'equality' - enjoy it especially as you are now all having a taste of it yourselves.

Tuition fees are one thing, which in my opinion everyone can get used to and put up with - the Government have reasons for raising fees, I believe taking it out on future generations is the wrong thing to do however you can see the reasoning behind tuition fee rises. I agree that with any party in power tuition fees would have risen.

Giving poorer students lower entry requirements to get into university won't rectify this problem in anyway, everyone will still be able to afford to go to university with the loans system however this is just pure discrimination to encourage poorer people to go to University - it's a quick fix to a statistical problem of poorer students not getting into the top universities, when in reality making Universities take a quota of each class would be much more fair, for instance Cambridge & Oxford are two I know for sure have to accept a certain amount of students from state schools - this is certainly much fairer.

I didn't work my arse off to get the grades to get into my university to be joined by people who cruised here two grades lower because they are a little bit poorer. Then of course we have that lovely argument of what is poor. This just sums the coalition up altogether.

This, is something completely different

[Fez]

As someone from this 'poorer students' gap, I should be cheering for this as it puts me right upon Oxbridge's doorstep. I have the same expected grades that a middle class or upper class boy at my ability would have, yet I would be put first. I should be happy, I should be selfish - but it's not how we make progress. I'm no socialist, I do lean capitalist when it comes to my values, but I do not feel I would earn or deserve this as an individual. You can preach multiculturalism has failed all you want Cameron, but policies like this just hammer home why it's failed and why the class divide is as big, and will grow bigger, as it has ever been.

The VAT raise butchered the working class.
The rise in tuition fees and this policy butchered the middle class.

I actually can't think of one instance where the government has hurt the upper classes harder. Higher taxes, yes, but the class divides you could argue fuel aggressive competitor-ship between employers and employees. It means we have employees striving to learn and be educated and to be all amazing to work hard, and we have employers who are expecting people to work very hard to get as much money as possible. Higher taxes for the rich means that class divide comes down, but not in the right area.

Oh and we also have that giant elephant of the European Union sitting in the corner sucking its thumb while the Euro quietly dies and the European economy collapses in on itself.

What a lovely, spineless government we have in power.

EDIT: Thoughts, should C/B students be given placements over A grade students?

No. Academic ability over anything else regardless of background, race or beliefs.

[Catzsy]

But Labour produced the report recommending university fees' in the first place, along with Gordon Brown making attacks on this very issue. We also had David Miliband a few months ago suggesting that private companies should only pay their top employees x20 times as much as they pay their lowest. These people are all the same, the reason for this lays with the state school system - of which all three parties refuse to bring the grammar schools back because Nick Clegg does have a point, just he will not rectify the problem at the heart of it nor will Cameron or Miliband.

This is what you people want; 'equality' - enjoy it especially as you are now all having a taste of it yourselves.

I don't think any of us expect to lower standards under the banner of equality. Help with fees is all we ask for for the less advantaged students who match the full criteria for entrance to the universities. If anything that is unequal.

[Fez]

"No. Academic ability over anything else regardless of background, race or beliefs."

Would like to add perhaps B grade students should be given some leverage if they are disabled, not physically but in some sense have something that they've massively conquered. Background may have some exceptions if they come from literal poverty. BBB or BBC at the very least in their A levels.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't think any of us expect to lower standards under the banner of equality. Help with fees is all we ask for for the less advantaged students who match the full criteria for entrance to the universities. If anything that is unequal.

The reason why we have this problem is because of the policies concerning state education of which the likes of yourself support.

But don't worry, just like with all the moaning on this forum and in general over tuition fees, you will simply go out again at the next election and vote for the party again [Labour] which a) suggested the rise in the first place & b) will not commit itself to reversing the changes made in tuition fees by this government because in reality it was going to do the exact same but because it wants your votes it will pretend to oppose them.

I say again, you all rant and rave about so-called 'equality' but when it starts to affect you; its a different kettle of fish.


Tuition fees are one thing, which in my opinion everyone can get used to and put up with - the Government have reasons for raising fees, I believe taking it out on future generations is the wrong thing to do however you can see the reasoning behind tuition fee rises. I agree that with any party in power tuition fees would have risen.

Giving poorer students lower entry requirements to get into university won't rectify this problem in anyway, everyone will still be able to afford to go to university with the loans system however this is just pure discrimination to encourage poorer people to go to University - it's a quick fix to a statistical problem of poorer students not getting into the top universities, when in reality making Universities take a quota of each class would be much more fair, for instance Cambridge & Oxford are two I know for sure have to accept a certain amount of students from state schools - this is certainly much fairer.

I didn't work my arse off to get the grades to get into my university to be joined by people who cruised here two grades lower because they are a little bit poorer. Then of course we have that lovely argument of what is poor. This just sums the coalition up altogether.

This, is something completely different

I agree with you, but if you do not want this to continue then you must vote for other parties other than the main trio.

..otherwise, well it's pointless complaining isn't it?

[FlyingJesus]

Helping more with fees is one thing (which I'm not 100% opposed to or in agreement with) but any "equality" legislation that tampers with actual results and acceptances can only do harm - not just to the more able yet more affluent students who lose out on placements but also to the universities who will either see less able students failing and therefore suffer worse averages or bring down the targets and suffer a loss of standing

[Fez]

I agree with the paying fees business they're doing, nobody pays until they're earning above £21,000, that's fine. It's the actual system of getting the degree that's just completely ill-minded.

[Chippiewill]

This is probably intended to combat the problem of more prosperous families buying an advantage into university, but by trying to make it fairer they're just creating the problem again except now they're only affecting a minority but to a far greater degree. Why should I have to work harder because my parents earn more? This is basically the exact opposite of what they should be doing as this is just another reason for students not to work as hard.


I agree with you, but if you do not want this to continue then you must vote for other parties other than the main trio.

..otherwise, well it's pointless complaining isn't it?
It's probably easier to convince a few hundred people than several millions.

[Nuxty]

Would this give poorer students the message that they don't need to work as hard in order to get into good universities? Thats the way I am seeing it. I think it will basically put the poorer students off working as hard as they know that not as much would be expected from them??

I think the idea is pathetic, I agree with what Oli said, a quote would be good. Cambridge and Oxford do this I believe, a guy from Churchill College popped into my school last week and gave a talk on it and he said that 70% of students at Oxbridge come from State Schools. I think its a silly decision and it won't help.

In my own personal opinion, I don't believe that any entry requirement should be below BBB for any course at any uni.

[Catzsy]

The reason why we have this problem is because of the policies concerning state education of which the likes of yourself support.

But don't worry, just like with all the moaning on this forum and in general over tuition fees, you will simply go out again at the next election and vote for the party again [Labour] which a) suggested the rise in the first place & b) will not commit itself to reversing the changes made in tuition fees by this government because in reality it was going to do the exact same but because it wants your votes it will pretend to oppose them.

I say again, you all rant and rave about so-called 'equality' but when it starts to affect you; its a different kettle of fish.



I agree with you, but if you do not want this to continue then you must vote for other parties other than the main trio.

..otherwise, well it's pointless complaining isn't it?

No its isn't - I didn't vote for this lot and even when Labour are in again if I don't agree with a policy I will say so and that's my right as a citizen of this country. If you had to agree with all policies to vote for a PP no one would ever vote. I vote to whoever is closest to my views & opinons.

say again, you all rant and rave about so-called 'equality' but when it starts to affect you; its a different kettle of fish.

This has nothing to do with equality and I am not a member of the NIMBY brigade. I am sure that if this happens the lesser qualified students will suffer enormously unless they are going to downgrade the curriculum.

[Jam]

Ballsed my exams up, but I'd rather take a job at retail than ever be £21K in debt, don't see why family's in debt to begin with should think any other.

[Inseriousity.]

Won't work in practice. Are any of our policitians practical?

[Technologic]

No universities will agree to this. The best get into the best unis, that's how it is and that's how it should stay.

[MrPinkPanther]

This article is 100% true. Daily Mail certified.

[GommeInc]

There's not a lot of news about this policy, considering it should be quite big :/ Only places that report it are the Daily Mail, some newspapers which vaguely mention it and HabboxForum :P

[MrPinkPanther]

There's not a lot of news about this policy, considering it should be quite big :/ Only places that report it are the Daily Mail, some newspapers which vaguely mention it and HabboxForum :P
I wonder why...

[ifuseekamy]

This is stupid, unlike the government who just see grades as statistics they can throw around to pretend they're running the country great, they don't mean as much in the real world where you have to go through applications, personal statements and interviews which are ultimately the final decision. All it'll mean is universities will be more oversubscribed than ever.

[Chippiewill]

There's not a lot of news about this policy, considering it should be quite big :/ Only places that report it are the Daily Mail, some newspapers which vaguely mention it and HabboxForum :P

That is because either:

a) HxF members are at University.
b) HxF members are going to University soon.
c) HxF members are going to University in a few years.
d) HxF members are like sheep.
e) The daily mail has to take digs at the government because they have to.

[Grig]

Awful, first fess now this. Whatever will they think of next. If you are poor and work your arse off, get good grades- you can still get into Oxbridge and just use the student loans.

Most idiotic idea ever imo.

[GommeInc]

That is because either:

a) HxF members are at University.
b) HxF members are going to University soon.
c) HxF members are going to University in a few years.
d) HxF members are like sheep.
e) The daily mail has to take digs at the government because they have to.
a) Google "poorer students university Clegg" and you'll get Habbox Forum reporting on it.
b) Go on major news websites and they don't mention anything on this policy change.
c) Go on NUS and you will also not see any mention of it.
d) I don't think THAT many people are concerned about University.
e) The above was irrelevant, not many people have talked about the policy change here on on HxF, in fact, this is the only thread about the policy change so your point made no sense.
f) The Daily Mail can take digs at the Government, indeed, but it's pointless if you have no resources and references. It's also incredibly annoying when a newspaper is the only one making up the poppycock story reporting the story.

I have one more point that you, which by definition makes my e-penis considerably larger than yours.

Anyway, this story seems bogus. No major newspapers are reporting it, and the National Union of Students makes no mention of this, and they are the #1 source for anything student related.

EDIT: In fact, the NUS have reported that Cambridge is unsurprisingly going to charge students the £9k tuition.

[Chippiewill]

a) Google "poorer students university Clegg" and you'll get Habbox Forum reporting on it.
b) Go on major news websites and they don't mention anything on this policy change.
c) Go on NUS and you will also not see any mention of it.
d) I don't think THAT many people are concerned about University.
e) The above was irrelevant, not many people have talked about the policy change here on on HxF, in fact, this is the only thread about the policy change so your point made no sense.
f) The Daily Mail can take digs at the Government, indeed, but it's pointless if you have no resources and references. It's also incredibly annoying when a newspaper is the only one making up the poppycock story reporting the story.

a) Learn how google does search rankings and you'll see why, that and Jin is awesome at SEO
b) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354726/Nick-Clegg-orders-universities-lower-entrance-requirements-poor-students.html
c) They're biased
d) That's why I said sheep.
e) That point made no sense
f) Sorry, did you want to not know about the twin towers attacks just because there's only one newspaper reporting it?
g) My e-penis is 10x Superior because of this pointless point which by that means that it is not pointless.. hassah!

Although, I thought universities already did this?

[GommeInc]

a) Learn how google does search rankings and you'll see why, that and Jin is awesome at SEO
b) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354726/Nick-Clegg-orders-universities-lower-entrance-requirements-poor-students.html
c) They're biased
d) That's why I said sheep.
e) That point made no sense
f) Sorry, did you want to not know about the twin towers attacks just because there's only one newspaper reporting it?
g) My e-penis is 10x Superior because of this pointless point which by that means that it is not pointless.. hassah!

Although, I thought universities already did this?
a) IF there was any news on this, then HxF wouldn't be near the top of the list ;) BBC, NUS, local and national newspapers appear to not know of this story, probably because it doesn't exist.
b) One place, that's a lot :rolleyes: It would be a huge story if it existed, seeing as the University Tuition fees are a big thing right now.
c) No they're not, especially not the NUS who probably would support or report on the story to gage what other students think. Bias is a poor excuse.
d) Irrelevant, especially when you said many people would care when they clearly do not.
e) It was referring to your irrelevant point about people caring, when they do not.
f) Ha, loads of places report on that. Thousands of journalists, millions of the public who reported it and billions of people who were informed it by the media, family, friends and the general global audience. Your point is irrelevant.
g) I never made a point about my penis, it wasn't listed. I was staing my list is bigger than yours because there is no evidence of Nick Clegg saying this. If he did, the National Union of Students, National Union of Teachers, the BBC and hundreds of other blogs, newspapers and media based companies would have reported it.

EDIT: In fact, Clegg never even said this. Clegg was commenting on Cambridge and Oxford going ahead with charging students for £9k entrance/tuitions etc etc. He was blasting the fact they're unfair on poorer students, NOT all universities in general. It's about money, not the grades the poor students have.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12409419