University Selection Processes

[Nihilego]

Ok so this is a very experimental thread since I'm gonna bring up an English issue in a predominately American forum, but we'll see how it goes because I think it's something anyone can discuss with a bit of understanding.

So, there are suggestions in England that some of our universities will prefer a state school student to a private school student. Before continuing, I'll define both of these, since our terms for schools are a bit weird.

A state school is, simply put, free education. It's what the majority of people in this country attend because it's, well, free. But, being government funded, they tend not to have the resources of a private school. In general it can be assumed that a state school will not have facilities, staff, or organisation on the level of those which a private school will have.

A private school is the opposite - a school where you must pay to attend, but in return you get improved standards in terms of facilities, staff and organisation. Generally students in a private school will have more lessons in a day than a state school one with smaller class sizes and easier access to one-on-one teaching. This is aka a public school in England, confusingly.

So with that explained, it's generally implied that a private school student will have had a better education and will achieve better grades than a state school student. As private school is generally only for the wealthy and those who can gain scholarships, discussion's arisen as to whether or not universities should prefer state school students to private school students as private school students may be at an unfair advantage.

What do you think? Is it acceptable for universities to look more favourably on people who don't have the advantages which private schools offer?

 

[Archer]

You can have all the resources you want, but at the top end of school, the amount of effort that a student puts in makes the biggest difference. I like the system here in Australia. Your final exams give you a country-wide score, which you can use to enter. A course at a particular uni might require an ATAR score of 85 to get into. You get 85+, you're in. Get below, you're out. There are rural/socio-economic bonuses to level the playing field (which I like to call the Bogan Bonus), but it just bumps up certain people, rather than making it harder for the people who did well in better circumstances.

 

[Esper]

Short answer: yes, it is okay for them to look more favorably if there is a big imbalance and they're trying to find a way to correct it.


Rambly answer: I wasn't reading too carefully at the beginning and thought you were talking about free vs. paid universities because that's where I assumed there would be big differences, not in high school. Is there really such a difference in quality between public state and private schools in England?

In my town there were three high schools, two public (as in American public, free, state, whatever) and one private high school. I never knew or heard of there being much of a difference in the quality of education. But I guess if there is one over in your corner the best thing to do would be to improve the quality of the free schools.

I dunno. I'm having a hard time understanding how big a problem this might be since there are all kinds of things I know, but only about American schools, like how the top so many students of any high school, regardless of the quality of that school, usually get big scholarships and can go most anywhere they want. We've also got community colleges for people and in general being at a bad high school isn't an academic death sentence.

Is the case in England one that there are so many private schools that there isn't physically room for anyone else in university and that anyone going to a state school knows they have almost no chance to go on to a university?

 

[droomph]

blehhhhhh

I think that if you really cared to go to a university you would find time on your own to improve your skills. Maybe spend a couple bucks, yes, but here in the age of the Internet many things you can use well for free (like, on YouTube there's a crashcourse channel where they teach you biology and history). This will require a computer, yes, but most schools will have the funding to get at least a couple computers, I'm sure you can arrange some time with that computer if you can't afford one of your own.

But if you were biased against even though you did all that I mentioned above then that's a problem.

 

[Magdalena~]

If state-school students are suffering academically, the solution is to improve the quality of the education available to them, not to lower standards.

I've never heard of a difference in actual quality of education, though, between free schools and private schools. It's my understanding that American schools with less "amenities" tend to get higher grades because the students are less distracted by luxury and just simply do their work (just something I've heard--I'm really unsure lol). But that of course is assuming grades and aptitude/learning are synonymous, which of course they're not.
Ummm, not sure where I was going with this, but like I said, if the quality of state schools is a serious issue, they should fix that issue directly by providing state-school students with the same opportunities as private-school students for gaining a proper (high school) education.

 

[Cherrim]

I think it's important for there to be a balance. I know for a fact that there are some private schools where you can essentially pay for a high school degree and good marks. Heck, the same thing happens for free in some public schools where the school will curve or inflate marks to make their students look better. So while it may appear on the surface that a private school student will have a better education because they were rewarded more opportunity by going to a richer school, that's not always the case. (It's probably the case more often than not, sure, but it's not a given.)

Universities here take not only marks and extracurricular activities into consideration when they look at a student's grades, but they'll also look at their school. They look at the students they've accepted from that school in the past and look at how well they're doing in their university career and make assumptions about the quality of their high school education from that. So if someone who was admitted with a high school average of 80% from School A is doing better than someone who had a high school average of 96% from School B, they'll probably rank School A higher than School B when they look at the next batch of students.

We don't really have standardized testing here and I assume this system works well enough in Canada. (We do have standardized tests but they happen in grades 9 and 10 so I don't consider them very relevant to university applications at all.)

 

[TRIFORCE89]

If you're smart, you're smart. If you've got the grades, I think that's all that should matter. No preference given to either school.

We have private schools here too. The only government intervention is with credit distribution. The private schools can set their own curriculum, hire whoever they want, and operate however they please. But, the criteria for earning a credit has to at least meet the government's guidelines for the public-funding schools - in terms of difficult, hours, workload, etc. You need the credits to graduate and apply for a post-secondary education, so that's why that standard is there. So, if a private school student meets that standard, I don't see why they should be overlooked for a "state school" student. Or the reverse situation either.

If you meet the requirements, that's all that should matter.

 

[Oryx]

Wow, it seems a lot of people have had different experiences of private schools than I have. I think most people here didn't live in a bad school district, which is the difference. In my district, my mom gave up a lot for me to go to a private school, because the public school was absolutely terrible. While I had to study hard to get good grades in private school, in public school I didn't even have to know when the tests were to get a good grade on them. Where I live they were massively different experiences and an A in one does not equal an A in the other.

I've never heard of a difference in actual quality of education, though, between free schools and private schools. It's my understanding that American schools with less "amenities" tend to get higher grades because the students are less distracted by luxury and just simply do their work (just something I've heard--I'm really unsure lol). But that of course is assuming grades and aptitude/learning are synonymous, which of course they're not.

Just pointing out that I've never heard this ever, as someone who has had a lot of experience with the two different types (I've been to 3 different private schools and 6 public ones). The "amenities" you talk about are books, computers, things that help academically. I've never heard of anyone in private school becoming lazy because they have enough books to be able to keep one at home and one at school, while I've never heard of public school students working harder because they have to share books since they can't even afford enough for everyone.

If you're smart, you're smart. If you've got the grades, I think that's all that should matter. No preference given to either school.

Grades aren't the same from school to school, at least here. For example, a local public high school uses the 10 point grading system while my high school used a 7 point grading system. Some schools use pluses and minuses, some only use pluses, some use neither. Some have weighted GPAs (more difficult classes are worth more points), some have unweighted GPAs. And even if all those are the same, there are individual teachers that may be more subjective or objective, that have a teaching style that helps one type of student but not another, etc. An A in one school isn't the same as an A in another.

A school has to be considered in some kind of way when considering college. However, there has to be more research done than "they're smart cause they go there". They should take into account the overall difficulty of the school, the rank of the student among the rest of the school (rank is often more important than objective grades), and other such nuances. My question is: in England, how difficult is it to get into a private school on a scholarship?

 

[TRIFORCE89]

Grades aren't the same from school to school, at least here. For example, a local public high school uses the 10 point grading system while my high school used a 7 point grading system. Some schools use pluses and minuses, some only use pluses, some use neither. Some have weighted GPAs (more difficult classes are worth more points), some have unweighted GPAs. And even if all those are the same, there are individual teachers that may be more subjective or objective, that have a teaching style that helps one type of student but not another, etc. An A in one school isn't the same as an A in another.

I'd assume there is some math that can be applied to convert one grading scheme to another. My university uses a 9-point scale. Most other universities I know around here use a 4-point scale. If I were to transfer to another school, it is possible to convert my grades.

My school courses are based on 3-, 6-, and 9- credits. Others uses half and whole credits. Again, the powers that be are able to convert all of that.

The school should be considered though, yes. If you're from a school with a bad reputation or where it's known that everyone skates through or buys their way through, I'm sure that's a factor.

 

[Alex]

I went to a public school in Canada. I wasn't the head of the class, I in fact took studying very lightly in high school, and it was a 4-year progression of me having less and less motivation. I think I hardly studied for any of my finals in grade 12. I don't personally consider my high school education to have been good, but that's because I didn't put the effort into it. Plenty of my fellow graduates were accepted into Canada's best Universities. One went to Yale. My friend's sister, who was two years ahead of me, was accepted to Cambridge.

The grades don't lie. No matter where the student studied, it's the principle's job to make sure his employees are in fact teaching the way they should, and providing the students with the information they need to succeed. If they can't allow the students to pull the marks they need, they should not be teaching.

But I spose my public school isn't one to speak for all public schools. And I think that's where your country's uncertainty stems from. There's a mentality that goes into private schools where, since the teachers are obviously being compensated more generously, they obviously teach more knowledge of some sort. A well-compensated teacher can teach just as terribly as a badly compensated bad teacher. Again, it's all in the marks.

Conclusion, there should be no bias. Assume that all the teachers in the high school education system are awful and that the students pulling high grades have done so for themselves using external sources such as libraries and the Internet. Then you're admitting the winners.