Schools and teachers are not to blame for social immobility, disadvantage and poverty. This is a grass roots social problem, so blame can really only be apportioned in one direction – towards the Government; past, present and future.
There is an implication here that schools and teachers carry a bias. Teachers want to teach and they want ALL their pupils to succeed regardless of their social status. The suggestion that they can and should ‘do more’ for those with less is insulting to the profession.
The government needs to cut the red tape, unify the system and support teachers better instead of always making them the scapegoats for problems which are totally unconnected to the classroom.
Why does the government want to fill the nation with undergraduates? Nonsense politicising AGAIN. “removing the cap on aspiration”. What utter nonsense from the Department of Education and Skills in the run up to an election.
Who’s going to pay? We’ll be creating a graduate population with crippling debt and questionable qualifications. Let’s not forget that students don’t feature on unemployment figures. The government knows that private providers can already smell the money. Very convenient that it makes them look good and costs them little.
Short-termist nonsense from government as ever.
Does nobody in these departments ever start a meeting by considering what would be best for these human beings who they are pushing to becoming undergraduates? Vocational training perhaps? Employment?
If I were applying to be an undergraduate in late 2012 (thank God I’m not!) I too would look very carefully at the institutions and courses. With so much likely debt it is very important to choose a course that carries some weight after graduation. Only then can you begin to pay back that massive loan!
At least this is an indication that students are thinking about the courses they are applying for and not just ducking out of work for a few years and (dare I say it) having fun.
At least I was fortunate enough to be able to study and have fun without accruing enormous debt. Those were the halcyon days of student grants and before tuition fees had to be paid by the student.
This is an inevitable consequence of ever inflated tuition fees. The study shows that higher ranked universities still have strong demand for places. Perhaps candidates are measuring the worth of the qualifications they will get against the crippling debt they will carry afterwards?
Employers will always recognise the quality of a degree from Oxford and Cambridge (as well as other top institutions). Student’s realise that these qualifications will open doors in the future.
A degree from a lower ranked university is unlikely to create the same opportunities but will generate the same debt.
Increasing fees means increasing graduate debt, a situation that will inevitably discourage more disadvantaged students from applying for University places. It also helps to create a class divide in the system. Having a competitive pricing environment for degree courses makes for an extremely unbalanced system. Surely students should be encouraged to apply for the best institution academically, not thrown into a monetary decision? If tuition fees must be paid should they not be fixed to avoid this?