You just have to love the Torygraph. One of their headlines this morning is "University elite forced to take fixed quotas of state pupils" Shock! Horror! The article goes on to tell us that private school headmasters have condemned the move as 'dangerous social engineering'.
What are these people expecting? The cast of Shameless having a bevvy on the quad? A white transit van rolled up outside the main gates?
It is true to say that there are problems inherent with positive discrimination. I saw the same thing in India - some students were angry that there education may be compromised by the University having to hire a certain number of 'scheduled caste' (low caste and Dalit) lecturers and staff, even if they were not capable of taking an university class to the same standard as the other, more privileged and by extension, better trained, lecturers. Why compromise education standards for the sake of statistics?
If positive discrimination does not come into force then the opportunity for the marginalised groups in a society will never arise. It is wrong to presume that just because the rest of the institutions have not yet caught up to the same level of equality of service provision a person should be excluded for the rest of their life. Failed by the system once, does not equate with removal from that system. It was not that person's 'fault' that they were overlooked along with millions of others when the policy makers were mapping out their lives. These young people that the Telegraph and the rest of the Tory backbench are so worried about deserve just as much opportunity to education as the glorious alumni of Eton and Marlborough. The little hoodlums that they fear turning up and graffiti-ing the ancient walls of learning (you can take the kid out of boredom, but you can't take boredom out the kid, unless they are Banksy) are probably not the sort of kids from state schools that are going to apply. The teens who decide to risk their 'street cred' by applying to Oxbridge are ultimately going to be the brightest of the bunch, with the most to give. They will probably be highly ambitious and very capable in social and academic situations. They will have excelled beyond the standard of their peers. Not only that, but they are prepared to go some way to paying the soon-to-be exorbitant fees. Even with a 2/3 discount, you are still looking at £3000 a year before living costs. Why would someone place themselves under tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt unless they really, really wanted to do it? You would have to believe to the depths of your being that putting yourself at that risk was worth every penny of interest that you would be paying back for the years after you graduate. You would need to know that the choice would immeasurably improve your life, even more than going to another, cheaper, university would do.
To make such a decision cannot be easy at the best of times. So why on earth should it be made harder for those who wish it? Positive discrimination is often deplored in that it 'punishes' the worthy (read: rich). There is a reason why these people are known as 'privileged', and that privilege does not just vanish into thin air at the merest hint of its assumptions being a little eroded in a token gesture of supposed increasing social mobility.
A merit system would be fabulous. If only we could treat everyone equally! But that is not the case in education, as in many things. Some people will have better qualifications than others by virtue of them being sent to a school with greater access to education, resources and opportunity. They will be guaranteed to get the grades they need to get to a very good university, if not a top one. Some others will have gone to the nearest state school, despite it not being very good for teaching, despite there being a problem of access, despite it being ignored by the local authority as a social black-spot. What is preventing these other, unfortunate souls from these great houses of learning? Money, social class, environment...the list can go on and on.
What is 'expected' of them and their parents is wholly different. Until both sets of children have access to equal education standards, equal social and academic opportunities, equal ability teachers all with a commitment and passion for their jobs...then there really is no point in getting all huffy when a government that has already done enough to damage poor and disadvantaged pupils chances of being able to go to university attempts a feeble back-track by forcing some institutions to let in some of the brightest kids in the country.
What are these people expecting? The cast of Shameless having a bevvy on the quad? A white transit van rolled up outside the main gates?
It is true to say that there are problems inherent with positive discrimination. I saw the same thing in India - some students were angry that there education may be compromised by the University having to hire a certain number of 'scheduled caste' (low caste and Dalit) lecturers and staff, even if they were not capable of taking an university class to the same standard as the other, more privileged and by extension, better trained, lecturers. Why compromise education standards for the sake of statistics?
If positive discrimination does not come into force then the opportunity for the marginalised groups in a society will never arise. It is wrong to presume that just because the rest of the institutions have not yet caught up to the same level of equality of service provision a person should be excluded for the rest of their life. Failed by the system once, does not equate with removal from that system. It was not that person's 'fault' that they were overlooked along with millions of others when the policy makers were mapping out their lives. These young people that the Telegraph and the rest of the Tory backbench are so worried about deserve just as much opportunity to education as the glorious alumni of Eton and Marlborough. The little hoodlums that they fear turning up and graffiti-ing the ancient walls of learning (you can take the kid out of boredom, but you can't take boredom out the kid, unless they are Banksy) are probably not the sort of kids from state schools that are going to apply. The teens who decide to risk their 'street cred' by applying to Oxbridge are ultimately going to be the brightest of the bunch, with the most to give. They will probably be highly ambitious and very capable in social and academic situations. They will have excelled beyond the standard of their peers. Not only that, but they are prepared to go some way to paying the soon-to-be exorbitant fees. Even with a 2/3 discount, you are still looking at £3000 a year before living costs. Why would someone place themselves under tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt unless they really, really wanted to do it? You would have to believe to the depths of your being that putting yourself at that risk was worth every penny of interest that you would be paying back for the years after you graduate. You would need to know that the choice would immeasurably improve your life, even more than going to another, cheaper, university would do.
To make such a decision cannot be easy at the best of times. So why on earth should it be made harder for those who wish it? Positive discrimination is often deplored in that it 'punishes' the worthy (read: rich). There is a reason why these people are known as 'privileged', and that privilege does not just vanish into thin air at the merest hint of its assumptions being a little eroded in a token gesture of supposed increasing social mobility.
A merit system would be fabulous. If only we could treat everyone equally! But that is not the case in education, as in many things. Some people will have better qualifications than others by virtue of them being sent to a school with greater access to education, resources and opportunity. They will be guaranteed to get the grades they need to get to a very good university, if not a top one. Some others will have gone to the nearest state school, despite it not being very good for teaching, despite there being a problem of access, despite it being ignored by the local authority as a social black-spot. What is preventing these other, unfortunate souls from these great houses of learning? Money, social class, environment...the list can go on and on.
What is 'expected' of them and their parents is wholly different. Until both sets of children have access to equal education standards, equal social and academic opportunities, equal ability teachers all with a commitment and passion for their jobs...then there really is no point in getting all huffy when a government that has already done enough to damage poor and disadvantaged pupils chances of being able to go to university attempts a feeble back-track by forcing some institutions to let in some of the brightest kids in the country.
No comments:
Post a Comment