Are we elitist?

[Super Jock]

So now Fife Park is getting dumped, and the University "can't afford" to provide anything as cheap, the numbers of people who aren't as financially flexible will be looking to attend universities cheaper or closer to home. I'm curious as to what other students think... what's our priorities.

Is university just a service and privilege for those who can:

1. Afford it?
2. Show academic intelligence way beyond their peers to deserve it?
3. Everyone?

Is option one is elitist? So is option two really...

I'm from a poorer family, went to a crap school. I wasn't that intelligent when I first came here and I feel I was rather lucky to get in to be honest. I think university has taught me to use my brain and made me smarter. So therefore it's my thinking that option three is the most important of the three...

St Andrews has the rep. of 1+2, I feel people like brian lang do genuinely feel this way when they are on the brink of breaking a promise only made three years ago.



[hr]

http://standrews.facebook.com/profile.php?id=37104907

[WashingtonIrving]

I think in a perfect world it should be based purely on 2. Certainly, the idea that a university education should be open only to those who can afford it disgusts me. However, I do think that the idea of sending everyone to university is misguided in the extreme.

As you say, the inequalities in our school system don't help. Surely we can all agree that the main criterion for entry to a top-class university should be academic ability? Unfortunately, given that somebody who performs well at a poor school may well be smarter than someone who does well at a good school, its impossible really to measure.

2 is, of course, elitist, but elitism doesn't have to be bad. Part of the problem is that, for many kids, not going to university is seen as some kind of failure. I don't know about anybody else, but once I got past 16 at school it was assumed that most of us would go to University.

[hr]

"I said farewell honey, I'll see you Judgment Day"

[theonlyone]

The short answer is yes we are elitist.

Only today was it on the news that even by the age of 5 poorer students who were brighter than their richer peers were being pushed a side and let down in this country. So it is not just St Andrews. It is Britain and I daresay the world. Money mad the lot of them.

[Frank]

Yes, we're elitist. Society doesn't appear to help much though.

That is, the configuration of 'family' puts us at quite a disadvatnage in terms of equality. You might be possessed of one of the most potentially capable brains in the entire world, but it's for nout if parents encourage you to be a lout.

That is not to display any correlation between academic status/wealth or class background, but as a stance (and excepting for fortunate exceptons) it appears to be true.

No, I think we're elitist and a combination of all three is paramount.

1- We must accept that this university depends on finances. If we can support as many students as possible without degrading quality, we should. But how much quality should be sacrificed to include anyone disadvantaged under our 'system'.

2- We must accept people of top academic performace. Similarly, however, we must accept that our ability to measure academic performance is very limited. It's a gamble, and I honestly suspect we'd be better off with a wider variety of students than the elite of the elitre. (We're not likely to attract that lot from Oxbridge anyway...)

3- Everyone who displays both capacity, potential and willingness to learn should be considered for placement. Second guessing the applications system is one thing, but I don't think it should be pursued too far. If there could be a 'potential probe' test to measure how likely a candidate is to benefit from us, I'd say we go for the people who we can benefit best. But by the same token, that's a big ambiguity in what constitutes benefit (hopeless to mediocre or mediocre to fantastic?)

No, we're elitsit, but so long as we're continually approaching it with a bit of sensibility then I've faith we'll be getting there.

I must confess, however, to having oommented a couple of times that:

"Doesn't it feel good to be at an institution that doesn't need to advertise itself?" (re: Abertay/etc TV adverts)

A shameful comment, in a manner of speaking, but it is quite reassuring to know that I came to St Andrews knowing that, from my year at school, I'd essentially be going it alone. It's an adventure!

[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."