Clegg and Cameron turn on Oxford University over race/wealth status of students

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1376208/Nick-Clegg-accuses-Oxford-biased-poor-students.html

After PM's race row, Clegg wades into Oxbridge admissions row as he accuses them of being biased against poor students


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/12/article-1376208-0B81B87300000578-267_468x298.jpg
Attacking elite universities: David Cameron said Oxford Oxford has a 'disgraceful' on admitting black youngsters



Nick Clegg stepped up the Government’s attacks on elite universities tonight accusing Oxford and Cambridge of being biased against poor students. The Deputy Prime Minister brushed off a furious response from academics over David Cameron’s claim this week that Oxford has a ‘disgraceful’ record on admitting black youngsters.

Instead, Mr Clegg upped the ante, condemning both Oxford and Cambridge, where he was a student, for failing to accept significant numbers of students from the poorest homes. The Cambridge educated Deputy Prime Minister said only 40 students from families which qualify for free school meals, meaning their income is around £16,000 or less, qualified for Oxbridge last year. He told universities they would have to do ‘a lot more’ to admit students from poorer and minority backgrounds if they wanted to charge tuition fees of £9,000 a year.

‘I think the wider point that the Prime Minister was making is absolutely right,’ Mr Clegg said. ‘One of the objectives behind our controversial reforms in the funding of universities is we’re saying to universities, “look, if you want to charge graduates more money for having the benefit of going to university, you’re going to have to do a lot, lot more to get under-represented youngsters from poor backgrounds, from black, minority ethnic backgrounds into your university”.

‘And here’s a fact: last year, only 40 – four zero – children who had been on free school meals – in other words from the more disadvantaged families in this country – got into either Oxford or Cambridge, and that was a lower number than the year before. ‘So we do need to make real efforts to say to universities, if you want to continue to get support from the taxpayer to educate our young people, you’ve got to make sure that British society is better reflected in the people you take into the university in the first place.'

Tut tut tut, imagine if the BNP said something like this, as they often do, the media circus and the main political parties would be all over them like a bad rash. But as so often nowadays, tolerance and political correctness are a one way street - a club, and you are not in that club. Neither are students of any colour for that matter, because the reason why less and less people from state education are reaching high attainment marks is for a very simple reason; the abolition of the grammar schools which was enacted by the Labour Party many decades ago purely for reasons concerning equality (of which teaching is not) and by which the un-conservative Conservative Party stood by and continues to stand by while the education system fails so many of the poorest.

...oh and nothing from the Labour Party 'opposition', rather they agree (http://www.labour.org.uk/high-fees-will-make-it-harder-for-black-students-to-go-to-oxford,2011-04-12) with the Conservatives, as usual!

I have a revolutionary idea here, bring back the grammar schools and assess people on their merit/grades rather than their skin colour - anyone in agreement with me there as I just find that to be common sense? what I would like to also know though, are any of the equality drones/marxoids on here willing to defend this, or will they let it slip quietly by as they usually do and continue to vote for it?

Thoughts?

[jam666]

The revolutionary idea you propose is in the UKIP Manifesto. However i generally support the idea of grammar schools as the whole issue of statistics is a very dominent issue that needs to be dealt with. What most of the media and political partys (Top 3 mainly) are failing to address on issues such as this and female mp's in westminster or asian people on work exprience in whitehall is that it should NOT matter whether your male or female, black or white, a monkey or a dog. The person who should be picked to attend in this case oxford university should be the person MOST UP TO THE JOB.

The entire multi-culturalism policy is out-dated and unwanted by many people as most people are not racist but they simply want to be treated equally to other people of a different skill colour or ethnic background which at the moment ISN'T happening as outlined in David Camerons speech as he ISN'T helping the issue hes actually making it WORSE.

This is coming from a Conservative Party supporter aswell.

[Technologic]

You get the grades, you get the place

[AgnesIO]

Oh so because more white people who are intelligent apply, it is now not right that Oxford don't let in people with poorer grades?

As Technologic said; you get the grades, you get the place.

[GommeInc]

Equality for the sake of it, ruins it. If they were kicking out people right for the job just so they could have the token "black, lesbian, gay, transgender, asian", then it's unfair for the individual who generally has the grades and can go to these top-class universities. Are Grammar schools disappearing then? I only know of the one near my old school, which is one of the famous ones in the country, or the area at least. I can't say the people who went there necessarily got into the best colleges and unversities though. In fact, they're on par with students and others who didn't go to grammar schools in the first place.

[Technologic]

Also I go to a good school because I want to go to a good uni.

[Fez]

You get the grades, you get the place

Simple as that really.

From 2012, if I apply for University with the same grades as some-one from a disadvantaged ethnic minority (I too will be 'disadvantaged', they will be put above me. How on Earth is that fair? If they have stronger grades then me and a better proposal then why shouldn't they go to university and vice versa.

[Nemo]

I disagree with this completely, but cant help but be somewhat happy its in my favour.

[Technologic]

Trying to cover their mistakes with more mistakes.... standard coalition strategy it seems

[ifuseekamy]

I guess they conveniently overlooked the amount of Asians at Oxbridge.

[sophiethenerd]

Intelligence should be the only factor into getting into high rate university.

[myke]

Intelligence should be the only factor into getting into high rate university.

I agree, it's kind of a silly/stupid idea. so glad I'm not applying in 2012!

[Stephen]

You get the grades, you get the place

I agree. I think it's really stupid lmao. You could have a poorish person with a brain better than more than half of the rich ***** in the world

[Cheryl]

You get the grades, you get the place

It comes down to this. At the end of the day, in a country with (just) a white majority, more should be white.

[ben]

Intelligence should be the only factor into getting into high rate university.

Well exams arnt really a test of intelligence but a test of memory in my opinion

[AgnesIO]

Well exams arnt really a test of intelligence but a test of memory in my opinion

Intelligence does come down to memory.

If you do't remember what you need to know, you will never succeed.

I mean, how do you ride a bike? You learn and remember how to. How do you walk? You learn and remember how to. How do you speak another language? You learn and REMEMBER how to.

[sophiethenerd]

Well exams arnt really a test of intelligence but a test of memory in my opinion

It depends what subject.
Languages and maths and science, yes they are memory based.
English that's writing on a topic that you have just been given so it requires some intelligence to come up with ideas.
Just my opinion.

ANYWAY *runz back to topic*

Poor people will be put of going to top uni's as they are really expensive.

[AgnesIO]

It depends what subject.
Languages and maths and science, yes they are memory based.
English that's writing on a topic that you have just been given so it requires some intelligence to come up with ideas.
Just my opinion.

ANYWAY *runz back to topic*

Poor people will be put of going to top uni's as they are really expensive.

Fortunately the government has an answer to this. Charge anyone whos parents earn a certain amount per year (like mine and many others) the full whack, then with all that money saved let the people who cannot afford it go for cheap.

******* idiots.

[Nemo]

Fortunately the government has an answer to this. Charge anyone whos parents earn a certain amount per year (like mine and many others) the full whack, then with all that money saved let the people who cannot afford it go for cheap.

******* idiots.What, that makes perfect sense to me? Why give others a disadvantage just because they cant afford it. And if you're being charged the full whack then obviously your income can support that?

[luce]

where i live (guernsey) we still have the 11+ system with a grammar school and the rest comprehensive and then 3 private schools. It worked for me as I got into the grammar school and i will be applying for cambridge in october. HOWEVER there are the few who don't get into the grammar school who should have and are therefore held back by some comprehensive morons or there are some who get into the grammar school and just trail along behind doing nothing and waste a space and the time of the teachers we have. I think 11 may be too early to judge whether the pupil is good enough or not because i scrapped in and am not sitting on all A*-A Gcses and AAAA at as after the first lot of exams. I'm lucky i scraped in but if i hadn't no doubt i'd be a average A-C student. It's impossible to get the right balance in my opinion because there will alway be the exception.

Also the other fundamental drawback is that most kids these days don't care because they've been brought up in a padded welfare state which is running out of money.

Also on uni fees why should my family be charged the full whack yes we could afford it if push came to shove but the only reason i have to pay it is because so many people are going to university to do degrees they don't need to do. Communications and Media? sorry but give me a break you don't need to study for three years to come out and be able to communicate. resources have to be used up on the wasters so the serious people who have the potential to use their degree for the good of the economy and not just go into a job that you don't need a degree for should be supported because at the end of the day they are going to be the ones paying it back to society in the form of higher taxes and efficient human capital.

so many people are scared of being seen as elitist, racist, classist. I say - grow up, who cares.

[AgnesIO]

Also on uni fees why should my family be charged the full whack yes we could afford it if push came to shove but the only reason i have to pay it is because so many people are going to university to do degrees they don't need to do. Communications and Media? sorry but give me a break you don't need to study for three years to come out and be able to communicate. resources have to be used up on the wasters so the serious people who have the potential to use their degree for the good of the economy and not just go into a job that you don't need a degree for should be supported because at the end of the day they are going to be the ones paying it back to society in the form of higher taxes and efficient human capital.

so many people are scared of being seen as elitist, racist, classist. I say - grow up, who cares.

I used to dislike you. But actually your posts make a lot of sense. Repped.


What, that makes perfect sense to me? Why give others a disadvantage just because they cant afford it. And if you're being charged the full whack then obviously your income can support that?

Because, believe it or not, just because my parents get a decent income, doesn't mean they can just throw out 30k for me to go to University. Believe it or not, just because my parents earn over 50k a year, does not mean they can throw money at whatever they feel like.

Let me tell you this. When I was younger, if I did nothing to earn it, I would get £5 a month pocket money. Many friends of mine, who I am not scared to say were not in as fortunate position as my family was, got six times that - for doing nothing.

Look at the EMA system. I had many friends getting given the full whack. My parents wouldn't just give me £30 a week or whatever it was for going to sixth form. What did I get? Nothing. I will get loans in general, my parents il supportme a bit, but how comes it is right for someone who is not spoilt, despite the fact their parents have money, to have to get in huge amounts of debt to go to university, yet those who are not as fortunate to start off with, don't have to pay the same amount.

Sorry, but anyone who thinks that is fair is an imbecile.

[Andy-]

I agree with those of use who said you get the grades you get the place as it is the most fairest way to decide who gets a place.

[sophiethenerd]

Yeah I am not poor enough to get the support but in no way can my parents afford to send me to a top rate uni (Lucky I don't wanna go to one. Drama schools ftw)

[ifuseekamy]

What, that makes perfect sense to me? Why give others a disadvantage just because they cant afford it. And if you're being charged the full whack then obviously your income can support that?
But that's why they get a loan and loads of grants. University was free from like the 60s to 90s and yet most poor people still went to work down the mines.

[beth]

i find cameron/clegg talking about fair policies on entrance to schools laughable considering their life experience. but find me a politician who hasn't passed through a nice public school aha.

[luce]

i find cameron/clegg talking about fair policies on entrance to schools laughable considering their life experience. but find me a politician who hasn't passed through a nice public school aha.

i just find it funny when cameron talks about fair opportunities when he was groomed from the start he's a stereotypical Tory leader private schooled and cambridge to do a degree like Politics, Psychology and Sociology then having a safe seat in parliament in a nice upper class area with all the Eton boys running around. I have nothing against oxford and cambridge but i don't think people should be groomed to go there and get into government. In my opinion he can't get what it's like to go through the system normally because he's never done it. I met an MP for Labour south wales when i went to parliament on budget day and she has a humble background not poor by comprehensively educated and was a french teacher in her constituency but now is a labour MP in a safe seat, because she made it safe. I would rather have someone with a real passion for politics in my local area and someone who has lived her and been there for a while to represent me rather than someone who has been groomed through the elitist system and is now in my area because it's safe.

[GommeInc]

Intelligence does come down to memory.

If you do't remember what you need to know, you will never succeed.

I mean, how do you ride a bike? You learn and remember how to. How do you walk? You learn and remember how to. How do you speak another language? You learn and REMEMBER how to.
I think he meant short-term memory. Loads of people doing Uni degrees don't care what they're writing about half the time and end up just wanting a degree at the end of the day. Picking a module that is slightly interesting is just a bonus. I find quite a few people are "intelligent" because they put what they know into practice, than remember a line in a book that they will no doubt forget in the future. It depends how you look at intelligence though, both of you are correct :P

[luce]

I think he meant short-term memory. Loads of people doing Uni degrees don't care what they're writing about half the time and end up just wanting a degree at the end of the day. Picking a module that is slightly interesting is just a bonus. I find quite a few people are "intelligent" because they put what they know into practice, than remember a line in a book that they will no doubt forget in the future. It depends how you look at intelligence though, both of you are correct :P

Yeah i think anyone can remember something like parrot fashion like you could teacher a child to speak out Pi to the first 50 decimals as it first words if you wanted to however i think it's putting what you know into practice which is intelligence. Like GCSEs is all basically information retention however a level i find you more have to put it into practice in essays and such :)

[Nemo]

Because, believe it or not, just because my parents get a decent income, doesn't mean they can just throw out 30k for me to go to University. Believe it or not, just because my parents earn over 50k a year, does not mean they can throw money at whatever they feel like.

Let me tell you this. When I was younger, if I did nothing to earn it, I would get £5 a month pocket money. Many friends of mine, who I am not scared to say were not in as fortunate position as my family was, got six times that - for doing nothing.

Look at the EMA system. I had many friends getting given the full whack. My parents wouldn't just give me £30 a week or whatever it was for going to sixth form. What did I get? Nothing. I will get loans in general, my parents il supportme a bit, but how comes it is right for someone who is not spoilt, despite the fact their parents have money, to have to get in huge amounts of debt to go to university, yet those who are not as fortunate to start off with, don't have to pay the same amount.

Sorry, but anyone who thinks that is fair is an imbecile.
They're not spending £30k in a year though are they? Its at maximum £9k a year, and its not even paying during the year. Its afterwards which is YOUR debt. They dont have to pay anything, except for your living fees which i dont seeas being something you shouldnt have to pay if you can afford it.

Ya great you got pocket money, guess what? i didnt get pocket money. I dont know what kind of scams these families are pulling because my family has NEVER been in such a financially secure situation where i can get £30 pocket money.

Wahey the ol' EMA has been pulled out, i think anyone brings this out has to be an imbecile. Your parents dont give you £30 a week, fair enough, but think about that stretched across your entire life. How many extra luxuries have you recieved during your life that someone for example in my position will not have gotten? When i was younger all of my family (3 of us) had to sleep on one mattress because thats all we could afford. You've had luxuries and pocket money and quite a lot during your life. To say that life is unfair and you dont get anything because a few poor kids get £30 a week for 2 years, IF they go into full time education and IF they dont have any absents on that week, is frankly ridiculous to say. I do agree that EMA is probably a tad too high and obviously not a lot of it goes on maintaining ones education (unless u count the fact people wont be getting a job to support their social life), but this isnt a discussion about that.

Sure, you might not be spoilt, but you still have money. Perhaps the threshold could be changed somewhat but that's how it is. You'll be able to pay it back otherwise you wouldnt be going, but im assuming you are, so it obviously isnt that crippling.

I will neither respond nor read your reply since i honestly couldnt give a damn about any of this since nothing i say will change therefore im just wasting my time, but have at it anyway.

[jam666]

They're not spending £30k in a year though are they? Its at maximum £9k a year, and its not even paying during the year. Its afterwards which is YOUR debt. They dont have to pay anything, except for your living fees which i dont seeas being something you shouldnt have to pay if you can afford it.

Ya great you got pocket money, guess what? i didnt get pocket money. I dont know what kind of scams these families are pulling because my family has NEVER been in such a financially secure situation where i can get £30 pocket money.

Wahey the ol' EMA has been pulled out, i think anyone brings this out has to be an imbecile. Your parents dont give you £30 a week, fair enough, but think about that stretched across your entire life. How many extra luxuries have you recieved during your life that someone for example in my position will not have gotten? When i was younger all of my family (3 of us) had to sleep on one mattress because thats all we could afford. You've had luxuries and pocket money and quite a lot during your life. To say that life is unfair and you dont get anything because a few poor kids get £30 a week for 2 years, IF they go into full time education and IF they dont have any absents on that week, is frankly ridiculous to say. I do agree that EMA is probably a tad too high and obviously not a lot of it goes on maintaining ones education (unless u count the fact people wont be getting a job to support their social life), but this isnt a discussion about that.

Sure, you might not be spoilt, but you still have money. Perhaps the threshold could be changed somewhat but that's how it is. You'll be able to pay it back otherwise you wouldnt be going, but im assuming you are, so it obviously isnt that crippling.

I will neither respond nor read your reply since i honestly couldnt give a damn about any of this since nothing i say will change therefore im just wasting my time, but have at it anyway.

I'm sorry but you are completely deluded on the whole issue at hand. Society and life in general is NOT about rich or poor. Believe or not you can be "poor" and be rich just as you can be "rich" but poor. You may find that hard to be believe and quite a shocking thing for me to say but it is actually 100% true.

The matter boils down to money management. If your parents earn 50k a year but they dont manage their money properly then you'll have decreased living standards. However if your parents earn 15k a year and do manage their money properly I guarantee you will have a much higher standard of living than the parents who earn 50k.

I'm simply using this as an example but the vast majority earn x2 - x3 more than my family does (because my parents dont need to work due to proceeds from business in the 90's hence our income is zero) as we keep expenditure down and save save save, were not rich by any means compared to people like my friends but I can certainly tell you I have a much higher standard of living than they do (infact, they actually think im loaded because I never seem short of money, But I can safely say i am far from loaded).

[alexxxxx]

Cameron and Clegg need to sort out social imbalances in education before it gets to the stage where people apply for university.

At university I find that people from private and state schools have different skills.

And I also think that private schools for 6th forms are a waste of time in terms of grades and working, it's about the person at that point.

[FlyingJesus]

What, that makes perfect sense to me? Why give others a disadvantage just because they cant afford it. And if you're being charged the full whack then obviously your income can support that?

Why give you an advantage over others just because your parents don't earn as much? There is next to no financial incentive to do well these days because if you're at the lowest level with a rubbish job you just get everything free anyway

On the main point, the report said that Oxford or Cambridge (can't remember which) had only admitted 1 black person last year and that's where it stemmed from, but that's actually not the case at all - only 1 on census stated themselves as being of black Caribbean descent, but there were a number of students who identified themselves as black African, black British and so forth. Giving a tangible advantage to students simply BECAUSE they're poor/black/disabled/etc is far worse than not allowing them in due to their exam results as it displaces a potential student who has actually got the grades and worked to be there

[sophiethenerd]

I am disabled (slightly) and If I was just let in because of that I would feel that was wrong. When people say not letting a person of a different race in university is racist (even if they were not let in due to grades) then the people are being racist as race has nothing to do with university places.

[Mark]

Imo, leave the guys alone and let them do their job, they can't make everyone happy but we've got another few years with them in party so just accept it lol.

[AgnesIO]

Imo, leave the guys alone and let them do their job, they can't make everyone happy but we've got another few years with them in party so just accept it lol.

Not if the coalition ends.

They are targeting Oxbridge to cover their mistakes.

They are manipulating data, then ************ about it.

[Moh]

Seams that they're trying to get on the good side of students.

Doing this will only cause the university's to accept poor people over than people who have the grades just to please the government. I still don't see what the fuss is about the tuition fees. £9,000 a year for two of the best university's in the world is a bargain. For that standard in any other country would cost at least double that amount. They don't charge that amount just so poor students can't get in, they charge that because they need to. Some of the professors at Cambridge are on around £60k+ a year, they still need paying.

If I was poor and had the grades to get in, why should I have any priority to people who have the money and the same grades? That's just hypercritical.

When you apply, you don't even give them your financial details?

[AgnesIO]

Seams that they're trying to get on the good side of students.

Doing this will only cause the university's to accept poor people over than people who have the grades just to please the government. I still don't see what the fuss is about the tuition fees. £9,000 a year for two of the best university's in the world is a bargain. For that standard in any other country would cost at least double that amount. They don't charge that amount just so poor students can't get in, they charge that because they need to. Some of the professors at Cambridge are on around £60k+ a year, they still need paying.

If I was poor and had the grades to get in, why should I have any priority to people who have the money and the same grades? That's just hypercritical.

When you apply, you don't even give them your financial details?

9k for virtually every other uni in the UK on the other hand, isn't.

[Moh]

9k for virtually every other uni in the UK on the other hand, isn't.

When the cap was £6k, not many unis actually changed that. Same with the cap of £9k.

[Robbie]

When you apply, you don't even give them your financial details?

They base it off your school and college and where you live to a certain extent.

[alexxxxx]

When the cap was £6k, not many unis actually changed that. Same with the cap of £9k.

the cap has never been £6k, it was ~£3.5k and a few years before that £1k.