When I started University I didn't go straight from school like most people do. I wasted a year of A-levels and instead went to college for another two years and messed around with computers instead,. This meant that when I did finally enter University I was 19 rather than 18. This isn't really a meaningful point, but what struck me as annoying at the time was that I was an adult, I was independent, I could vote, I could get loans, I could go to war and die for my country and yet, when it came to applying for a grant it was not me that was assessed but my parents.
To me, as a young adult this was patronising. The state had decided that whilst in all meaningful circumstances I was an adult, when it came to getting help through University I was not an adult at all. I was infanticised as merely a unit of my parents (limited) wealth. What irked even more was that my mother was not working anymore (she was dying of cancer) but her salary in the previous tax year where she was working was counted by the system as a means to calculate their joint wealth. The result was that I didn't get a full grant.
Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not bothered by that fact per se because when I was an University I did what many students do and got myself a job, whilst hocking myself to the hilt as well. What always got me ranting though was this assumption by the state that my parents would pay the shortfall for my University education. Now I was lucky, my Dad did help me out of a hole on more than one ocassion, but there remained this assumption by the state that he would.
The reason I raise this is because this morning's Times carries a story suggesting this pernicious and unfair assumption is now going to be applied - not to means-testing for funding - but extended into the very process of applying for University at UCAS. Essentially, if a prospective undergraduate's parents are professional graduates themselves, then they will have to disclose it on the application form. This is being proposed in the name of fairness and equality to access, but whatever way you dress it up it is straight out discrimination steeped in the politics of envy.
More though it belittles and actually dehumanises the undergraduates applying. Where the grant system treats undergrads as children and starts from the assumption that they are the sum of their parents wealth, this move assumes their access to University should be based upon the sum of their parents experience. It actually represents the very worst type of social engineering, because instead of treating undergrads as autonomous individuals, it treats them as simple units of historical production within the quasi-scientific hyperbole that is historical determinism.
11 comments:
Given that I went to public school but neither of my parents went to university (my father had a place at Oxford, at his father's old college, but never went - I imagine there is no box to tick for that) I wonder what the "system" would have made of me. I agree, though, it is insulting that decisions about a student's admission to a particular university should have anything to do with their parents education.
I cannot help but agree with you on this one. I heard it on the radio and couldn't believe that it would be true...
Surely no-one could be so stupid and crassly unfair as to deny someone university access because their parents were educated?
What do you suggest then Dizzy , that working class non graduate tax payers continue to finance middleclass grads to go sking and Partay
What infantilises you is that fact you aren`t supprorting yourself...as any fuel do know .Otherwise you wouldn`t have a begging bowl out at all
Was discussing this piece of unpleasant social engineering, which could only be thought up or implemented while we have a Labour government with the other half last night.
Conclusion, we decided that if every parent wrote "none of your bloody business and of no relevance to my child's application form" it might make the point!
I wonder if this is one of those decisions which will ultimately achieve the precise opposite of what was intended.
I can imagine the uproar if an employer started asking questions about an appliants parents, and yet this will go through with barely a ripple.
Universities are perfectly entitled to judge potential instead of current achievement if they want (indeed, there are some entirely defensible arguments to that end) but this method of judging underlying potential is just stupid.
Just think, when you take that pointless Arts degree that nobody can actually fail, you not only go into debt with no benefit to yourself, you also screw things up for your kids because you're allegedly a graduate.
Will some parents jobs be more values than other and for that matter - how?
If my dad was a soldier was that better than if he was a succesful drug dealer? More money in the latter job.
And what if my father was a mean barstard who wouldn't help in any way?
seems odd.
What do you suggest then Dizzy , that working class non graduate tax payers continue to finance middleclass grads to go sking and Partay
WTF does that have to do with the argument about how 18 years olds are assessed as units of their parents wealth? I think you've completly missed the point I was making mate and hit the keyboard without engaging the brain first.
What infantilises you is that fact you aren`t supprorting yourself
I got a job you deaf and blind tit.
Otherwise you wouldn`t have a begging bowl out at all
I didn't have a begging bowl out. The local LEA sent me forms to fill in in order to get my fees paid etc. I duly filled them in. No begging involved, but then as I already said, you seem to have completely ignored the point I was making regarding historical determinism.
My experience of the grant system was put there to explain how undergrads used to be considered adults in all aspects of their life except when it came to them filling in their form and their parents welath was suddenly important. I don't think that's right philosophical.
It is basically marxist historical materialism driving the means test. This doesn;t mean that I'm saying that it should be altered so everyone get's treated the same thereby costing more money, that is a leap on inference on your part. Especially as the system doesn't even exist anymore so it's totally moot.
Mmmmm. Let's go back to what Andrew Adonis ex Liberal ex SDP unelected Labour Poli is trying to achieve here.
That is to accept the truism that potential at UG is seaparate from specific performance at AL. In fact results of research show that many of the triple-A students driven to that by professional parents or hothousing schools brain grade rather badly.
Whereas many of the less pushed students who have less books in their home, less degrees in their parents' bureaux, less Michelin Stars in the school canteen (lovely sports teas at Marlborough and Stowe btw, moderate at Millfield, garbage at alma mater) ... well anyway these people may get the starred firsts and go on to achieve greatness on their merits rather than on who they know.
As an Alumnus of Manchester and supporting their 2020 plan to cram the place with Nobel Prize Winners I'd also like to see them include students like me 30 years ago and especially my mate Bern who had everything stacked against him but is now a very successful academic.
In a competitive Tory worldview surely University's as economically driven institutions and Businesses (ditto) wish to cover themselves with glory and money not necessarily in that order and if they chuck a few bonus points at potential they know they will get the best students available for their courses or jobs ... as opposed to the shiniest and most successfully crammed ones.
Once upon a time I used to help train and brief trainers, managers and elected members in Town Halls about Equal Opps and Anti-Racism. There was often some resistance to the principles and even to the legal requirements.
But if you pointed out to recalcitrant employers with an eye for their own success that picking from a talent pool 150% bigger (i.e. not just white men) would give them a better chance of achieving their business aims effectively.
Here endeth the sermon. Will blog this over at mine in a bit. It's not there yet.
I blogged Blair's Comic Relief Turn and reckoned he was asking for a "monstering of spoofs" - none visible yet. Is charidee that good a protection from ultras?
Hardly a sermon, you missed the point about the fundamental philosophical assumptions underlying this change.
I don't know if this is the point Mr Paul sought to make, but I think a justification (though I don't think this is why the government's doing it) might be that, of two apparently equally qualified candidates, one's apparently overcome various difficulties in attaining his qualifications and the other chap didn't have to overcome them, you might take this as further evidence of the commitment or ability of the former (however, it's not evidence of any lesser commitment or ability on the part of the former, though, which is where the argument starts to run into problems).
As to Mr Paul's point about cramming the place with (potential?) Nobel prize winners, I'd have thought that a university would want to pay more attention to its admissions policy for post-graduate research students than try to decide such matters at the undergraduate admissions level. If a university really wanted to attract talented undergraduates, however, I'd have thought awarding full and generous scholarships, regardless of students' background, by competitive examination on top of their A level results would be a good way to do it.
Post a Comment