St Andrews - diverse?

[hmmm]

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/ ... 17,00.html

Oh dear. St Andrews came out worst in Scotland and only a handful beat it overall in the UK with regard to the percentage of students from state schools and those from working class backgrounds.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/ ... 02,00.html

I realise this was in the news a few days ago, but no one seems to have commented on it. Makes you wonder about those who moan about St Andrews changing for the worse, when in reality it still has a long way to go.

As for the non-completion figures, it has also been reported that the drop out rates for uni's in Scotland overall has steadily increased since so many more people started coming to uni (over 50% in Scotland now).

[immunodiffusion]

[s]Unregisted User hmmm wrote on 20:47, 13th Dec 2003:
this was in the news a few days ago, but no one seems to have commented on it.

There already was a thread on this topic:
http://www.thesinner.co.uk/messageboard ... hread=6945

[The Cellar Bar]

[s]Unregisted User hmmm wrote on 20:47, 13th Dec 2003:
Makes you wonder about those who moan about St Andrews changing for the worse, when in reality it still has a long way to go.

I wasn't exactly sure what was meant from the above but overall only 13% of students coming from a definition of "working class", in comparison with other University numbers is, in some ways, going as low as you can get without scraping one's butt on the bottom rung!!
What it does tend to reflect would be the perception of St. Andrews in their eyes and also the selecting practices of the University itself.
The figures will be around somewhere but what would be also interesting to see would be the "Home" student figures, a breakdown of Scots and others , for instance and those from abroad. Not so that we can go down the road of actively excluding non-Scots students, which would be plain wrong for the traditional make-up of St. Andrews but to put more flesh on the bare bones.
Particularly because the figures talk of "State" schools, for instance. That's an easy enough definition within UK itself, but doesn't necessarily indicate the same thing elsewhere. "State", if it simply means "non-fee paying" or "private" can cover a multitude of sins and I don't doubt that there are "State" schools elsewhere that, for instance, draw their population from the same background as private schools here, set the same levels of expectations and, loosely speaking, "breed" the same sort of attitude that has been found to be "vexing" here on occassions.
What isn't in doubt is that the overall nature of the University has peceptibly changed over the past 5 years or so and that it isn't helped by a Librarian/Princ who told visiting, prospective, American students from some of the private schools out there that quote in some cases, all you need to be accepted is to be able to sign your name end quote. Great advert for a University that still has some pride in itself and its graduates in some quarters.

[pinhead]

Should a more talented student from a wealthier background, be rejected so that a less talented student from a poor background can be accepted to balance statistics like these? I thought the aim of the 'better' universities was to offer the best possible oppurtunities to the most talented students regardless of their background...

[tintin]

Just spoke to a lay preacher to the University (whose name escapes me so that's not much use, but he was at Chapel today) and he made the interesting point that in all this debate about widening acces, St. Andrews has quite a few inescapable difficulties. For example, it is very easy for Glasgow, Edinburgh and the likes to draw from underprivileged backgrounds, because they are situated in such big cites. Secondly, St. Andrews is so far away from anywhere that only those who are more geographically mobile will be able to come, because of things like having to pay rent (can't live at home) and the actual cost of travel here.

Oh, and on a completely different note, it really irritates me when [those] people who are always complaining about how poor they are at University (i.e. they claim they came from underprivileged backgrounds) always seem to have the money to waste on arcade games, cigarettes and beer in the Union, none of which are necessities for student life. Books are.

[Pussycat]

[s]pinhead wrote on 13:29, 14th Dec 2003:
Should a more talented student from a wealthier background, be rejected so that a less talented student from a poor background can be accepted to balance statistics like these? I thought the aim of the 'better' universities was to offer the best possible oppurtunities to the most talented students regardless of their background...


Indeed it is. However the idea is not to just accept more students from certain backgrounds but to attract more in the first place. If more were attracted then those who applied would be diverse enough already for no positive discrimination arguments to crop up. Intelligence should have little correlation with background (in a perfect world). Entrant grades for universities in Scotland do not vary very much. St Andrews and Edinburgh I think have the highest but even then (looking at Higher requirements) not much is needed. Yet still this University has a tiny amount of working class people.

The state schools figure is usually disregarded as it is not an accurate measurement of background at all, but does anyone know how the working class figure is figured out? I think the university should seek to make itself look more accessible. However if it does so and the figures do not change greatly then perhaps the old reputation of St Andrews will just always put some people off.

The positive discrimination remarks in the media seem mostly to be directed at comments by some English universities and has led to people recommending A levels be scrapped in favour of SATs. This is apparently to avoid universities basing their primary decisions on predicted grades rather than actual achieved grades.

[The Cellar Bar]

[s]pinhead wrote on 13:29, 14th Dec 2003:
Should a more talented student from a wealthier background, be rejected so that a less talented student from a poor background can be accepted to balance statistics like these? I thought the aim of the 'better' universities was to offer the best possible oppurtunities to the most talented students regardless of their background...

for a variety of reasons, it's absolutely essential that the most talented do get places.
What has been the problem over the years is that a)that the talented from "poorer" backgrounds haven't felt that University has been the place for them and that b) some Universtities haven't felt inclined to offer even the opportunity to invite them. Which is about as diplomatic a way as I can find for some of the more restrictive practices of these places over the years!
In some ways, it also depends on what you mean by talented. It's difficult to know just how many graduates we need in Classics or Art History or Politics but that area of "arts" has dominated the direction of some Universities in the past. Whereas Medicine, Engineering, languages and the Sciences in general have continued to be areas in which the country as a whole has struggled over the years. Yet they are probably more needed than yet another consultant for Sotheby's or yet another market trader on the Stock Exchange.
We need talent from as many directions as possible to continue as a civilised society and overlooking the growth of talent in schools across the board is a dangerous mistake. It's similar to discriminating against women who form more than half the population of the country in the first place. University is only the last link in the chain that begins in Primary school and if the idea of going on to University isn't nurtured from that stage onwards, we're likely to continue to see one part of the sector dominating applications.

[Pussycat]

[s]tintin wrote on 14:22, 14th Dec 2003:
Oh, and on a completely different note, it really irritates me when people who are always complaining about how poor they are at University (i.e. they claim they came from underprivileged backgrounds) always seem to have the money to waste on arcade games, cigarettes and beer in the Union, none of which are necessities for student life. Books are.


Just as it irritates me when people assume that all poor students are actually fibbing about their financial status and actually spend it on the above things mentioned. There are those who are broke because of their spending, that's their choice. There are others who are skint from the beginning.

Generalisations are bad and often false. And they annoy me greatly. If you mean some people then say "some", not "all".

[Guided By Vices]

[s]Pussycat wrote on 14:32, 14th Dec 2003:
The state schools figure is usually disregarded as it is not an accurate measurement of background at all, but does anyone know how the working class figure is figured out?

I think on this survey (and on many similar ones) it was something to do with the profession of the parents so working class would be any work classified as 'unskilled' or 'semi-skilled' rather than 'professional'. Aside from the problems of these definitions and the confusion of situations where parents do different sorts of work, these categories don't necessarily correlate with wealth. A builder might be far more wealthy than a church minister but the latter would be considered middle class and the former working class. It's all cobblers really.

[immunodiffusion]

[s]Guided By Vices wrote on 15:40, 14th Dec 2003:
these categories don't necessarily correlate with wealth. A builder might be far more wealthy than a church minister but the latter would be considered middle class and the former working class.

No, they don't correlate with wealth, but class and wealth are different things. Socioeconomic class is based on your parents occupation because that (to some extent) reflects your social, economic, educational and cultural upbringing. Whilst a church minister may be poorer than a builder, a church minister would (generally) be more likely to have "middle class" views, aspirations and life.

In terms of education, university entry correlates much better with socioeconomic class than wealth. ie you find that people from socioeconomic class I, II and III(a) - managerial, professional and clerical workers - are more likely to go to university than those from III(b), IV and V - non-clerical skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled workers. Eg the son of a poor vicar is likely to go to university because he will have middle-class cultural expectations - maybe wanting to follow in his parents footsteps at university. The son of a rich builder is less likely to go to university even if he were bright enough because he has not been brought up with the idea that university is a "good thing" and will see that one can get rich without a university education. Therefore the use of socio-economic class figures is used rather than purely wealth figures.

[Guided By Vices]

[s]immunodiffusion wrote on 18:07, 14th Dec 2003:
[s]Guided By Vices wrote on 15:40, 14th Dec 2003:[i]
these categories don't necessarily correlate with wealth. A builder might be far more wealthy than a church minister but the latter would be considered middle class and the former working class.

No, they don't correlate with wealth, but class and wealth are different things. Socioeconomic class is based on your parents occupation because that (to some extent) reflects your social, economic, educational and cultural upbringing. Whilst a church minister may be poorer than a builder, a church minister would (generally) be more likely to have "middle class" views, aspirations and life.[/i]

I think this is exactly what I was pointing out, as is clear from the example that I use. My concern was that others on the thread were tending to conflate the two things rather more readily than they should. Hopefully between us we've sorted them out on that though.