There could be a certain amount of truth to this contention, that the British university system is staffed by the ignorant. We think particularly of Bath Spa University which has been offering £750 sign ups to new students – commit to the government paying £27,000 in fees, you paying that back in dribs and drabs, and we’ll give you £750 in cash now.
Hmm, actually, that’s a very decent gaming of the system, not a sign of ignorance at all. However, Labour really is making this assumption, of ignorance:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] The Labour party is demanding an inquiry into GCSE reforms that it says are putting state school pupils at a disadvantage by forcing them to sit harder exams than students in the private sector. The Department for Education describes the reformed GCSEs, which started to be introduced last year, as “gold standard”. But official figures show that many independent schools are opting for internationally recognised GCSEs (IGCSEs), which are being phased out of state schools at the behest of the government because it considers them less robust. The consequence, according to critics, is that private school pupils are being afforded an advantage over state school students in the race for university places. The shadow education secretary, Angela Rayner MP, said: “We cannot have an education system with different rules for the privileged few. It is totally wrong that Tory reforms are putting state school pupils at a disadvantage compared to their counterparts who can afford a private education. [/perfectpullquote]Think through the logic being used here. OK, accept that IGCSE is easier, that the state schools have to take the harder GCSEs. How is it that this could be a disadvantage to those state school pupils? Only if those running the university admission system were ignorant. As we’ve said elsewhere:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] Does this give those private sector pupils an advantage when applying to university? Well, only if those running the universities are entire fools. People applying to Britain’s gilded cloisters come from all sorts of educational backgrounds. There will be those who have come up through the British school system, those from various remnants of the colonial schooling system, baccalaureates, perhaps the international bac, we’re sure that here will be graduates of Finland’s famously egalitarian system, of Sweden’s variation, or Russia’s and so on. Even some who managed to scrape through American high school. That is, those who select pupils for entry into the universities are already well versed in the intricacies of different sets of qualifications. Thus entirely capable of distinguishing between 15 A*s at IGCSE and 5 Cs at GCSE. Actually, if they can’t, then what are they doing there? To believe what is being claimed is that the universities are being run by those entirely unqualified to do so. [/perfectpullquote]It’s a fairly extreme assumption being made there by Labour, isn’t it?
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
Tim, your premise assumes that the Leftie who thought up this dig at the Tory government paid any attention to the implications of the drivel they spouted.
Like the Graudian, maintaining consistency of thought is not a strength of these people.
"It’s a fairly extreme assumption being made there by Labour, isn’t it?"
Or by you. You're assuming it's possible to discriminate precisely and accurately between pretty similar sets of qualifications.
You're also assuming what the government says about the relative merits of the qualifications is actually true.
You're also assuming that all syllabus structures are equally easy to teach/learn, for any given amount of knowledge or skill imparted.
It is entirely possible that [something] is objectively a better way to teach people than the government-preferred scheme, and that the schools with the choice, and the universities, will prefer those qualifications for very good reasons.
Personally I remain entirely unconvinced that private schools offer any return on the investment at all, after normalising for parental influence - compare to state schools where the parents care - and networking effects (because going to Eton will at least mean you have good contacts). Better sports facilities, though.
"different rules for the privileged few"? If it is, in fact, just a few why be concerned about about it. Concentrate on the vast hordes instead.