In article , Ian Tindale
writes
If you had left home and were earning, there came a point that parental
income wasn't counted at all - which most students seemed to think was
a "good thing".

It was, because you were unlikely to be near the minimum (and, IIRC, you
were assessed on expected income *while at college*, not on the income
in the years just before). But it took more than just a gap year to get
you to that state - again IIRC, it was 3 years unless you could show
special circumstances like being married and set up in your own home.


Interesting. I'm married, 'set up in our own home' and now at 44, last
September embarked upon a Masters at our local uni, part time. No help with
fees, grants or anything (which is a bit tight as I've not had much work
lately either). It's costing a bloody fortune, I don't mind telling.

Indeed, I don't think *anyone* is arguing that the funding available
today is a patch on what it was a generation ago.

But much of the reason for that is the greatly increased numbers going
to University.
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"

Meldrew of Meldreth wrote:
writes
By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant
number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further
education or vocational training, perhaps; not University).

But wouldn't they be better at determining whether or not they benefit?

Who is "they"? The University admissions process, or the potential
students?

The potential students. The University admissions process is not capable
of doing that, and nor could it be made capable at a reasonable cost (if
at all).

How does ease of determining how deserving they are alter the original
proposition?

Which proposition did you consider to be original?

Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not
anyone else considers them deserving of it. If the admissions process
(assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them
doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not.

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not
anyone else considers them deserving of it. If the admissions process
(assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them
doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not.

You seem to be saying that anyone should be allowed to do any University
course of their own choice with no hurdles placed in their way at all,
i.e. with no academic selection nor by them having to pay for it.

Is that actually what you mean?

regards

Stephen

In article , Aidan Stanger
writes

By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant
number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further
education or vocational training, perhaps; not University).

But wouldn't they be better at determining whether or not they benefit?

Who is "they"? The University admissions process, or the potential
students?

The potential students. The University admissions process is not capable
of doing that, and nor could it be made capable at a reasonable cost (if
at all).

Oh, I thought that's what admissions interviews were for.

How does ease of determining how deserving they are alter the original
proposition?

Which proposition did you consider to be original?

The original proposition (original = "what started this discussion", not
"novel") was that not everyone would benefit from a University education
(whereas they probably would from nursery education).

Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not
anyone else considers them deserving of it.

If the courses are inappropriate to their needs, that seems a bit of a
waste of everyone's time.

If the admissions process
(assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them
doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not.

Yes, all I'm saying is that the admissions process should weed out those
for whom a University education is inappropriate.

The dropout rate from many of the more recent Universities demonstrates
that they are currently accepting some students who perhaps shouldn't
have been there.

"Nearly 40% of students are dropping out of some universities
because of high debts, poor teaching or an inability to cope
with their coursework, according to new figures published last
week.

"Critics claim one of the reasons behind the high drop-out rate
is that too many students are being admitted who cannot cope.

http://www.iee.org/OnComms/Circuit/benefits/dropout.cfm
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"

In message , Meldrew
of Meldreth writes

Oh, I thought that's what admissions interviews were for.

Did you not see the Schwarz Report last year?

http://education.guardian.co.uk/univ...359591,00.html

--
Paul Terry

In article , Paul Terry
writes
Did you not see the Schwarz Report last year?

http://education.guardian.co.uk/univ...0670,1359591,0
0.html

As it happens, I didn't. But it's still a load of tosh.
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"

In article ,
Meldrew of Meldreth wrote:

Yes, all I'm saying is that the admissions process should weed out those
for whom a University education is inappropriate.

Even better would be the scenario where there wouldn't be significant
levels of unsuitable applicants because those not suited for University
education would have alternative viable and rewarding opportunities to
pursue (ie. vocational training, apprenticeships etc.)

In article , Espen H.
Koht writes
Even better would be the scenario where there wouldn't be significant
levels of unsuitable applicants because those not suited for University
education would have alternative viable and rewarding opportunities to
pursue (ie. vocational training, apprenticeships etc.)

Yes, I agree.
--
"now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing"

Meldrew of Meldreth wrote:

In article , Espen H.
Koht writes
Even better would be the scenario where there wouldn't be significant
levels of unsuitable applicants because those not suited for University
education would have alternative viable and rewarding opportunities to
pursue (ie. vocational training, apprenticeships etc.)

Yes, I agree.

Part of the missing driver for that would be to reverse the current tendency
for HR departments and recruitment 'consultants' to operate within a purely
tick-box mentality. In other words, hand-in-hand with these "alternative
viable and rewarding opportunities to pursue" would have to be a
recognition of the true value and worth of these opportunity paths, by the
working sector at large. That ain't gonna happen any time soon in the
current cherry-pick climate if even simple prejudices such as age-ism and
other arbitrary demarcations are operating so strongly. It's yet another
way of cleaving the piles of applicants CVs to look through, through
entrenched use of now-acceptable snobbishness.
--
Ian Tindale

Ian Tindale wrote:
Clive D. W. Feather wrote:


In article , Roland
Perry writes

If you had left home and were earning, there came a point that parental
income wasn't counted at all - which most students seemed to think was
a "good thing".

It was, because you were unlikely to be near the minimum (and, IIRC, you
were assessed on expected income *while at college*, not on the income
in the years just before). But it took more than just a gap year to get
you to that state - again IIRC, it was 3 years unless you could show
special circumstances like being married and set up in your own home.



Interesting. I'm married, 'set up in our own home' and now at 44, last
September embarked upon a Masters at our local uni, part time. No help with
fees, grants or anything (which is a bit tight as I've not had much work
lately either). It's costing a bloody fortune, I don't mind telling.

But that's a second degree. I wasn't aware that grants or student loans
or whatever have ever been applicable to second degrees.

Robin