Social Engineering........

I am presuming that there will be opportunities for resits and it will not simply be based on first try.

I guess things have changed - at one time many fewer people went to university and there was a limited rage of subjects, mainly academic; now there is a very wide range of subjects that fall under the degree umbrella, so it makes sense for the admission conditions to reflect that. The government can't have it both ways: wanting expanded degree diversity whilst also upping the admission criteria.

My DD has an MA, and no GCSE maths after 3 failed
attempts.

growstuff

Germanshepherdsmum

I agree. What sort of university gives a place on the basis of 2 E grades anyway?

When I went to university, 2Es was the minimum. Some of the most prestigious universities used to give 2E offers after interview.

Yup, me too. 1969. 'Prestigious' university too. First choice.
Only sadness was the need to cancel the other 5 offers, as was stipulated.

But Gloranny, I am confused. In your previous post you said Sadly everything now is viewed through the same lens of commercialism and even education has become simply a way to make more money. Now you are arguing the opposite.

I do not think anything has changed. Today's graduates are no different to those of any previous generation. They hope that their studies will open up a new future where they can better themselves economically and also contribute to the welfare of the country. Those two aims are not incompatible.

M0nica

Oh, come on, as long as degrees and education became a means of self improvement and been open to a wider range of society, which takes us back into the 19th century when London University and other 'red brick' universities had their first beginnings, their main purpose has been to give a wider and wider section of society access to a better education that will enable them to get into better jobs, earn better incomes and enable their children to do the same.

Do you think those politicians of both parties who brought in the system of fee paying and maintenance grants for university students after the war, did it so that students could study for the sake of obtaining knowledge with no thought of how they would earn their livings afterwards?

Of course they didn't. Successive governments opened up and paid for university education to increase the supply of educated people in the work force so that they and the country could benefit economically from their expertise, and while I agree that many people then as now wanted to contribute to society, but to suggest that then they would rather live in a hovel, on bread and water, than sully their hands dedicated to the advancement of mankind by accepting a better paid job, is tosh. Almost all of us wanted to progress our careers, and get better pay. That doesn't conflict with us also wanting to have interesting and worthwhile jobs that contribute to society.

I went to university in the early 1960s, barely 15 years after the government support of students started. All the talk then was of the 'brain drain'. How students with their university studies paid for by the state, instead of staying in this country and so to speak 'paying it back' were in fact graduating on one day and the next were on a plane to the US having been offered salaries far in excess of anything they could earn in the UK. In fact it was suggested that to try to stop this, graduates, particularly doctors should be expected to work in the UK for at least six years after graduating before they could work in any other country. of course that did not happen, instead doctors, engineers and other graduates with useful degrees flowed out to the US, Canada and Australia and we imported doctors, engineers and other graduaates from commonwealth countries to replace them.

Lovely idea Glorianny but, sadly, just not true.

I don't think I suggested that anyone wanted to live in a hovel, simply that the sole purpose of education was not simply to enable one to make as much money as possible. Of course it was economically advantageous both to the individual and society to have an educated population. However the reasons for the "brain drain" were not just the high salaries being offered by the US but the amount of money being invested in research in that country, so it was the opportunities as much as the salaries which drew the scientists.
I think very few students embarked on their studies seeing their degree as a passport simply to a higher salary. Education was valued as much for itself as for the economic benefits it brought and many used their qualification to benefit society.
The fact that some chose to act differently doesn't detract from the many who chose to work in public service.

When my daughter was at college studying for her A levels their lectures were continually being held up by people who did not have an understanding of English. I experienced the same when I was doing my MSc (self funded). My group work was based on the quality of the whole group and when you are struggling to make people understand or have a discussion, you suffer with your marks.
Not everybody will be good at everything but if you have dyslexia/ADHD etc there are likely to be arrangements made so you are able to attain the required qualifications.
Quite frankly, an E at A level is abysmal. If you can't achieve more than that, then you are probably likely to fail at Uni.

There have always be different requirements for mature students, is that going to change too? My husband failed his A levels at 18 but was able to demonstrate his expertise in the workplace to show he had the ability the Uni needed when he was 39. He gained a First for his first degree and got his MSC, going on to get a good job where he obtained his Chartered Professional Status. I would like to see people who mature later being given a chance to make good.

Oh, come on, as long as degrees and education became a means of self improvement and been open to a wider range of society, which takes us back into the 19th century when London University and other 'red brick' universities had their first beginnings, their main purpose has been to give a wider and wider section of society access to a better education that will enable them to get into better jobs, earn better incomes and enable their children to do the same.

Do you think those politicians of both parties who brought in the system of fee paying and maintenance grants for university students after the war, did it so that students could study for the sake of obtaining knowledge with no thought of how they would earn their livings afterwards?

Of course they didn't. Successive governments opened up and paid for university education to increase the supply of educated people in the work force so that they and the country could benefit economically from their expertise, and while I agree that many people then as now wanted to contribute to society, but to suggest that then they would rather live in a hovel, on bread and water, than sully their hands dedicated to the advancement of mankind by accepting a better paid job, is tosh. Almost all of us wanted to progress our careers, and get better pay. That doesn't conflict with us also wanting to have interesting and worthwhile jobs that contribute to society.

I went to university in the early 1960s, barely 15 years after the government support of students started. All the talk then was of the 'brain drain'. How students with their university studies paid for by the state, instead of staying in this country and so to speak 'paying it back' were in fact graduating on one day and the next were on a plane to the US having been offered salaries far in excess of anything they could earn in the UK. In fact it was suggested that to try to stop this, graduates, particularly doctors should be expected to work in the UK for at least six years after graduating before they could work in any other country. of course that did not happen, instead doctors, engineers and other graduates with useful degrees flowed out to the US, Canada and Australia and we imported doctors, engineers and other graduaates from commonwealth countries to replace them.

Lovely idea Glorianny but, sadly, just not true.

I remember a time when it wasn't the amount you would earn that counted but the value of the job you were aiming for and the contribution you made to a better society. Sadly everything now is viewed through the same lens of commercialism and even education has become simply a way to make more money.

The OU offers grants and those studying for it can also apply for some government funding.

But the fact of the matter is that 600 people graduated the day DD did and the university holds about 20 graduation ceremonies a year, which means 12,000 graduates a year - and those are just those attending graduation ceremonies, many graduate 'in absentia' .

The people who do OU degrees are not the'rich' or those already well off because they do not need an extra degree, The majority of students who can see that a degree will improve their careers and earning prospects and somehow manage to make the sacrifices that paying the fees cost, for the benefits having it will give them.

DD started her degree earning around the average wage in this country and started it not long after she was seriously injured in a car accident, so not in the best of health. DD's degree studies got her a new and better paid job several years before she completed her degree, which helped pay the fees, and since completing her degree three years ago her career has soared and is now in a very well paid job that she could not have imagined having 5 years ago.

Her story is typical of so many OU students.

foxie48 How good to hear your own positive story of helping people obtain qualifications, despite facing many difficulties. What you have done and said is far more use to those struggling to get ahead despite all kinds of difficulties. than listening to all the Job's comforters on this thread.

Germanshepherdsmum

It depends on how you define 'education'. A university degree isn't essential as a pathway to many well paid jobs.

That's true

If you are lucky you could join a firm which offers a chance to take a career-based degree as well as working and earning a salary.
The competition is quite fierce though

I've skip read through the consultation document and tbh I can't find anything that says the MER for English and maths has to be gained first time, I may have missed it. what I did notice is that there will be an opportunity for any student up to 19 to study for these and that after the age of 25 the MERs would not apply. In the late 80's early 90's I worked in FE and was responsible for the college's access to higher education courses, which if successfully completed, gave people who had not gained the minimum academic requirements to apply for a university degree course, the opportunity to enter university. There was a focus on ensuring that these students had the necessary skills to succeed at University, literacy and numeracy was key. No fees in those days but it was still a huge commitment as many were single parents and without exception all the students I worked with came from disadvantaged backgrounds. It was very important that if they got a uni place (and the college had links with local universities) that we didn't set them up for failure as they had already experienced that in previous academic settings. tbh I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for a grade 4 GCSE, very few students obtain a place without this and as I read it, they can work towards this minimum qualification up to the age of 19 as part of their continuing education or apply 25+ without provided they can provide evidence of capability to cope with their chosen course. I actually think it is immoral for uni's to take on students who will struggle with the course, load them with debt and then if they do manage to graduate have given them little to enhance their career prospects.

It depends on how you define 'education'. A university degree isn't essential as a pathway to many well paid jobs.

OU qualifications still cost money. How many people with families could afford to spend £3000+ a year on studying? A 6 year degree would set you back almost £20,000. Still putting education out of the reach of the poorest.

You do not need to give up everything and spend three years, usually in your late teens/early 20s at university to get a degree.

Last weekend we attended DD's graduation ceremony. The university she was graduating from was the Open University. Like all the other graduands at her ceremony and at the 20 or more graduations the OU has all round the country had studied for their degrees over seven or eight years, while holding down a full time job. Others were also studying round running homes, bringing up children, through disability and illness.

Although the OU is the main provider of part time degrees many other universities, provide them as well. DH did one about 20 years ago, going off on foreign business trips with his books and course material packed in his computer bag.

Long before the OU, Birkbeck College, part of the University of London, offered degrees by post. Back in the late 1940s, my uncle, an army officer, combined his military duties, with studying for a degree in mathematics.

I think the biggest obstacle facing those coming from impoverished backgrounds face is all those comfortably off well educated bien-pensants constantly telling them that they are doomed to a live of poverty becuase they will never have any opportunity to rise.

I will not pretend life is easy for those who struggle with adverse backgrounds, but having seen the journey my own family has made over several generations in rising from poverty to comfort and affluence and known others who have also made that rise, telling everyone they are doomed and bound to fail, instead of understanding and admitting the problems but encourage them to make the effort and make real efforts to find them the opportunities they need.

I have a friend who left school with no qualifications. She worked in shops then after she had her children began working as a foster mother. She was persuaded to take on a social work degree and got it. The experience and understanding she brought to her job outweighed any lack of qualifications for university she had. She said the other day that she wouldn't do it now because they couldn't have afforded a loan. She had a full grant. How much skill and expertise are we willing to dump?

I thought universities only accepted grades A-C. Every university department sets the level of A level grades required for each course and clearing is all about those who quite literally do not make the grade and do not have the grades required to meet a grade conditional offer, looking for somewhere that will accept them with lower grades.

DS is an academic at a Russell Group university and the last I heard for his faculty they required AAB grades to get a place.

Back in the early 60s I did one A level in the First year Sixth, so already had one Alevel when I went for my university interview, I was offered my place, contingent on me merely passing one more A level, no grade specified.

"If I were 16 today, this government would be condemning me to living on benefits for the rest of my life, instead of being able to lift myself up out of poverty through education."

I left school with no qualifications - have never claimed benefits in my life (except when I was being treated for cancer). I now have a comfortable lifestyle - probably because I was raised to believe not to expect to have anything handed to me but to work for what I wanted

I’m amazed at that growstuff.

Germanshepherdsmum

I agree. What sort of university gives a place on the basis of 2 E grades anyway?

When I went to university, 2Es was the minimum. Some of the most prestigious universities used to give 2E offers after interview.

I was on track to fail my Maths at a secondary comp and was put into a lower group and tutor group with a really nice teacher who made me believe in my ability to at least get stuff right in Maths and I remarkably got a B! (I still cannot believe it decades later )

someone with 2 E @ A level would have to do a foundation course before a foundation year surely?

I agree. What sort of university gives a place on the basis of 2 E grades anyway?

I was looking out of the windows clearly at the start of secondary (private boarding…) school in maths and failed O level maths twice . Came home went to grammar school and whilst getting on fine with my A levels Dad got me a tutor who explained some very basic stuff t me so I passed ! Eg those problems about men mowing fields etc..I thought you just kind of guessed?

I don’t think this measure excludes resits I really don’t

NotSpaghetti

The BBC says Students who lack English and maths GCSEs, or two A-levels at grade E, would not qualify for a student loan in England, under new plans.
It says there will be exemptions.
I understand there will also be a consultation paper.

With two Es, should they be considering University at all? Back in the day one had to have English and Maths to study any subject, I recall sweating blood to get a friend's son through Maths when he really couldn't care less but he wanted to study Music so, sorry folks, this is not a wicked Boris thing.

My dyslexic son would never have qualified for university under this system. He did get a B Tech which got him in, but that was thanks to an understanding and considerate FE college which appreciated his difficulties were not a measure of either his intelligence or his ability. The number of talented and able students this will cause real problems for is enormous.

Casdon

Ailidh

When I went to university, Maths and English at 'O' level (as it was then) was a requirement. I hadn't realized it had stopped being.

It still is Ailidh (or equivalent, eg BTech, which they are also getting rid of), but there isn’t a requirement for you to pass first time. There never was as I remember it, lots of people resat Match’s and English GCEs in the sixth form and then went on to university.

Ah. Thank you.