[Closed] How rubbish do you need to be not to be accepted by a University?

Media Studies...

She could have just got a place working in the cafeteria.

"Do you have £9000?"

"Yes, yes, I do"

"Well come on in my friend"

She could have just got a place [s]working in the cafeteria[/s] training as a recruitment consultant

Shouldn't employers be the ones who decide what courses are offered and the standard of eligibility.

Apart from those who self fund, then they can learn what they like.

torsoinalake - Member
"Do you have £9000?"

"Yes, yes, I do"

"Well come on in my friend"

^^^ this

universities are just another business these days

Couldn't quite believe what I was hearing!

True, doing 5 A levels for someone with that potential seems a lot. 5 A levels simultaneously is a stupid amount of work.I wonder who was advising her.

Not all further ed courses are born equally though - some will require very little to get on simply because the end result is hardly worth the paper it is written on so hardly anyone wants to go there. £30K+ worth of debt for some of these courses is a mugs game.

Shouldn't employers be the ones who decide what courses are offered and the standard of eligibility.

Employers should decide what courses universities should offer? Sure, if you want to kill off research science, the arts and humanities in one step, that'd be a good way to do it.

Universities shouldn't be in the business of vocational training, and it should be free to all.

Apart from those who self fund, then they can learn what they like.

Who isn't self funding?

i`m not rubbish* but i got worse results than her and went to uni (foundation year). am now a charted engineer

just cos they are no good at exams doesnt mean they are a waste of space.

*admittedly this could be argued.

It all depends what course you're trying to get on and at what university.

Obviously she won't be off to study pharmacy or any sort of engineering at a Russell Group university with those grades.

Even a half descent course at a half decent university is likely to set entry requirements of UCAS points requiring more than Three C's.

But there are plenty of other universities and courses which will take you on with a lot less. Some courses have an additional 'foundation year' to help those who didn't get the grades needed for the course.

She has got that B in there so she must be reasonably good at something.

Some translation for foreigners please - WTF is a "U grade" ? Does that mean you are really stupid, but not quite at Z level ?

Doesn't mean it was a decent university.

U = Unclassified (too bad even for an E)

Last week coming back from North Wales i passed my old university for the first time in 10 years and it was painfully obvious it was an education shop nowadays.

A girl interviewed on the telly last night...

"I've got an E, U, B, E and U - not what I hoped for but I've still got a place"

Couldn't quite believe what I was hearing!

Depends if the place is on a course in the 'B' subject, which she could be passionate and talented in, and the other subjects were filler she was advised to do because apparently everyone has to do a million A-levels now instead of focussing on the subjects you're good at.

Universities may want the money, but they also want students that can complete the course and achieve otherwise it reflects badly in their dropout and results tables. She may have had an unconditional offer based on interview/portfolio for all you know.

Even when I did mine last millennium they were pushing us to do 4 A-levels instead of 3, because, well 4 is better than 3 isn't it 🙁

I dropped the 4th after 8 months and I think I got better grades in the other 3 because of it, they were certainly more relevant to the course I wanted to do at Uni.

Well either:

1. within two generations we have suddenly all become much more intelligent or,
2. standards have dropped so much that university degrees which only the top 5% could achieve two generations ago is now pretty much available to anyone with £9000 a year.

Call me a cynic, but I'm going with 2.

My neighbour's son was hoping to get AAA* in maths, biology and physics to do mechanical engineering so I guess it depends on the subject (and probably the university too)

[i]How rubbish do you need to be[/i]

I don't consider someone to be 'rubbish' because they can't pass exams.

ho ho look at the stupid people with no qualifications, I'm so much better than them.

And to add to that my son needed 3 BBB's to get into uni, he got BBC but he's had a dreadful year - starting with a seizure (caused by undiagnosed type 1 diabetes) which resulted in a broken cheekbone, diagnosed with type 1 diabetes and the death of a family member - all in the lead up to his exmas. Thankfully the university were more understanding than the OP.

WTF is a "U grade" ?

Once they have ponced around with UMS (uniform mark scale - kind of massaging the results to get the number of As, Bs, Cs and so on they want) a U grade is someone who didn't manage to get 40% overall across their modules.

For context E grade needs 40%+, D 50%+, C 60%+, B 70%+, A 80%+ and A* normally 90%+ from their modules they took in the final year.

Race to the bottom. No SNC, lots of institutions have expensive buildings, staff and infrastructure to support. The small ones are really struggling... so the response is to provide as many courses as possible with low entry requirements. The problem with that is the drop out rate is horrendous and the the uni has budgeted for three years at 9k/PA.

I worked at UCAS, we saw a lot of these trends. Pretty scary out there for recruiting uni's with little brand/differentiation, Marketisation of HE is a big thing... note the number of unconditional offers which is pretty naughty really but can see more of it happening.

Call me a cynic, but I'm going with 2.

or 3. In a generation the proportion of kids who go to uni has tripled (most consider this a good thing) without some weird genetic engineering going on to make our offspring any brighter. People who were not considered bright enough to continue in education had they finished school in the 80's now have places open to them. Not sure this is a bad thing but you do need to adjust your concept of the 'value' of a degree.

OP that person has clearly done too many subjects. They do have a "B" in something so perhaps they chose other subjects poorly. Many U.S. Colleges have a system where they will take just about anyone but you have to pass the exams to pass each year, not a bad system I think.

Of course standards are lower, exams where made easier to "broaden access" and the distinction between Universities and Ploytechnics was removed. We have large numbers of "Universities" dependent on foreign students being granted entry visas and paying high fees, as above very much a business and not educational establishments

in 1997 (before tuition fees) i was offered a place based on B,B,C, grades. I got C, C, U and was let in anyway (although the U was later regraded)

I notice that these days Salford uni is somewhere near the bottom of the pile! 😆

note the number of unconditional offers which is pretty naughty really but can see more of it happening.

Not convinced, when I was applying, of the 6 Chemical/Process Engineering courses I applied for, I think 2 offered unconditional offers, presumably because the people applying were targeting AAA and in reality it didn't matter if you missed that by a bit due to a bad day in the exam.

or 3. In a generation the proportion of kids who go to uni has tripled (most consider this a good thing) without some weird genetic engineering going on to make our offspring any brighter. People who were not considered bright enough to continue in education had they finished school in the 80's now have places open to them. Not sure this is a bad thing but you do need to adjust your concept of the 'value' of a degree.

Or teaching has just got better?

In a generation they're no longer allowed to hit pupils with a cane, take kids to Benidorm in term time, eat junk food in school, smoke in the corridors, etc etc etc, and on the positive side kids have access to huge volumes of material online for revision beyond just highlighting and copying out page after page.

I seem to remember when I was doing the round of UCAS interviews, I went to an open day at Kingston Uni & even though most places wanted a minimum of 3C grades to do Mech Eng (I think Imperial wanted AAB) the bloke who interviewed me at Kingston said that they would offer me a place with 3 E grades.

To be honest, as a result of the interview a lot of universities decide that they want a particular student above and beyond any of the grades they may get.
A friend of my sister got straight A's at a-level and it was never in any doubt that she was going to do well. She ended up at Oxford, but after her interview they offered her a place based on her getting 3 E grades as they had obviously decided that she was 'Oxford material'
Perhaps the person in question was deemed to be a 'better' student than just her grades would suggest?

Thanks ! Must update my CV - you have a low threshold for an A in this country I just got a lot smarter on paper.

Who isn't self funding?

after her interview they offered her a place based on her getting 3 E grades as they had obviously decided that she was 'Oxford material'

that's really interesting. some of my friends had oxbridge interviews (again, in the 90s) and despite all being straight A students doing extra a-levels and advanced maths etc, none got through the interview. One (a working class geordie) felt so out of place there he said he wouldn't be able to bear actually studying there. Perhaps unsurprisingly he didn't get an offer. But i'm really surprised to hear they'll make offers like EEE if they like someone. Potentially a good thing really, if they're seeing the inherent talent in someone. Or a bad thing, if they're seeing the inherent 'our sort of chap'...

Must update my CV - you have a low threshold for an A in this country I just got a lot smarter on paper.

Great example of why on-paper qualifications can be a terrible judge of ability! 🙂

Or teaching has just got better?

In a generation they're no longer allowed to hit pupils with a cane, take kids to Benidorm in term time, eat junk food in school, smoke in the corridors, etc etc etc, and on the positive side kids have access to huge volumes of material online for revision beyond just highlighting and copying out page after page.

Well, I'm obviously going to agree that teaching has got better seeings as I am one 😉

However in this context it is not relevant. What we are discussing here is that kids can get into uni on lower grades than they could a generation ago. Better teaching taken out of context of the whole picture would mean the opposite was true.

Not convinced, when I was applying, of the 6 Chemical/Process Engineering courses I applied for, I think 2 offered unconditional offers, presumably because the people applying were targeting AAA and in reality it didn't matter if you missed that by a bit due to a bad day in the exam

Yeah well AAA (and laterly AAB ABB) are gold standard - although don't get me started on predicted grades - so uni's will take a punt esp if you interview well. The difference now I suspect is those unconditional offers are being offered to far lower predicted grades across a wide range of courses.

hels - Member
Some translation for foreigners please - WTF is a "U grade" ? Does that mean you are really stupid, but not quite at Z level ?

you can get it somewhere if you are:

Rich and thick

Poor and Clever

Poor and creditworthy

. Or a bad thing, if they're seeing the inherent 'our sort of chap'...

THere's a huge push for widening participation. Regulated as well in terms of funding. Oxford and Cambridge are very proud of their WP numbers. I think what's happening in HE now is actually going to make thing worse.

Those grades would have been overkill compared to the offers that Thames Poly and another one* gave me.

2 E's was all I needed, and I'd go as far as saying that that was effectively just to qualify for the student grant.

(* forget which, and I didn't even bother going to the open day - they just made an offer)

Might be operated as businesses now, but even back in the olden days of student grants, they got a fee per student from HM govt (probably via LEA), so still in their interests to optimise number of students on the course for £££.

PS that was for a proper Engineering course too. Not Media Studies or Environmental Science.

standards have dropped so much that university degrees which only the top 5% could achieve two generations ago is now pretty much available to anyone with £9000 a year.

When I were a lad only 5% went to university but a lot more went to polytechnics, colleges of technology and technical colleges to do degrees, HNCs and HNDs and ONCs and ONDs. These were all renamed to university and degree respectively, mainly to appeal to the foreign student market who needed their qualification to mean something in their own country or elsewhere.

Mind you, you could get into a decent medical school with three Ds if you were happy to be a vet or dentist.

[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamburger_University ]Did she say which university?[/url] (not to be confused with the University of Hamburg)

Or teaching has just got better?

Even less probably, teachers used to be the bulk of graduates (when they were the top 5%) whereas now they are much less selective.

Basically at anywhere other than the top half dozen universities, a modern degree is nowhere near as rigorous as they were 50 years ago.

Alex - Member

Race to the bottom

Not really... But there's more of a divide, you might say there's a race away from the middle. Low entry requirements devalue your courses as do high dropout rates and poor outcomes, and poor employability. So you do get the degree shops at one end, but at the other universities have to work hard to maintain standards and perceptions. Fundamentally it's the other side of people "shopping" for degrees, at one end you're buying the cheapest beans because it's all you can have, at the other end you're looking for the five star reviews.

(And then, it goes weird at the very top end where the brands/reputations are so established, basically different logic applies.)

We're likely to exit clearing with spaces still to fill, having turned away a ton of students who didn't meet our standards. And our requirements are way up on when I studied here- the equivalent to the course I did now requires AAAB to get in, I wouldn't have got in at all!

It's an oddly virtuous and vicious circle. Or figure 8, with sticky outy bit. And lots of ways in which it does and doesn't work like the retail metaphor.

I think its worth saying that to a certain extent University has had to take up the slack left by the collapse in companies offering apprenticeships

I would also say that A-level students work harder than they did 20 or 30 years ago. The AS and modular courses have helped students to work harder. I hope we don't loose this as we go back to linear

regarding previous posts above, back in my day, Oxford had their own exam/interview system and the standard offer of 2 Es was a formality presumably due to some govt bureacracy (eg eligibility for grant/loan or something). It did make the last couple of terms quite relaxed (the offer came though just before Christmas).

NW - that's a fair analysis. I still believe we're creating (at least) a 2 tier system. I appreciate this kind of existed anyway - even outside of Russell Group, etc. And I wonder if you did an analysis across all your entry profiles, you'd see the same grade inflation. Maybe if you're in the top tier you would 😉

I'm not sure it's virtuous and I'm not sure the 'decisions' being made by 18 year olds are as informed as they should be. While broadly in favour of the marketisation, I do believe those on the margins will be more poorly served.

One thing I would take issue with is EVERY uni I've dealt with says they turn people away in clearing. But that's a decision based entirely on the financial risk of those students dropping out early and leaving a hole i y2/y3 finances.

Anyway we're kind of getting off the point.... 😉

The idea that university has become easier to get into is pretty laughable - maybe the really bad ones.

I have a doctor friend, back in the 80's he studied medicine on BCC. Try getting into a middle rank poly to study a science with that grade inflated in real terms now - and you will more often than not fall flat on your arse.

There are of course universities that are exploiting the system and letting anyone in, however there are also a LOT more competent students vying for the top and middle ranking universities.

NW - that's a fair analysis. I still believe we're creating (at least) a 2 tier system. I appreciate this kind of existed anyway - even outside of Russell Group, etc. And I wonder if you did an analysis across all your entry profiles, you'd see the same grade inflation. Maybe if you're in the top tier you would

I'm not sure it's virtuous and I'm not sure the 'decisions' being made by 18 year olds are as informed as they should be. While broadly in favour of the marketisation, I do believe those on the margins will be more poorly served.

I'm not in favor of a tiered system at all, people change and develop at different rates. Why is Biomedical Science at Birmingham University any different to Biomed at another? They are both regulated degrees with set standards - why should the Birmingham degree be considered to be better? The answer is not to introduce more elitism and less social mobility, but to introduce more regulation so that employers can be sure of the quality of a degree.

Throughout the world, many countries with perfectly good higher education systems (Spain - might not be as prestigious as the UK though) have a culture whereby you just go to the university that is closest to your home town. There is less of a divide between the universities - so why could we not operate on a similar principle and judge people on their grades as opposed to the university they went to?

Not all universities are equal. Back in the day the bad ones were called colleges or polys

I needed 2 As and 2 Bs to get into my Uni, and I was one of the thickest folks there.

I got one E (Art) and an O level grade at A level (maths).
I went to Oxford Ploy and did a HND.

It really didn't matter that much in the end..

Back in the day the bad ones were called colleges or polys

err not really..

Alex - Member

I still believe we're creating (at least) a 2 tier system. I appreciate this kind of existed anyway - even outside of Russell Group, etc. And I wonder if you did an analysis across all your entry profiles, you'd see the same grade inflation. Maybe if you're in the top tier you would

Aye, we definitely have at least 3 distinct tiers but possibly more. But thing is, once you've got a load of tiers, as long as you've got no yawning gaps that's just good coverage. In Scotland I'd say we're developing gaps more or less because our midrange has raised its game, I don't know the RUK marketplace the same way. But then we've also done a lot to improve college as an option (and to improve college-uni articulation) which lifts that up. Not perfect for sure.

Alex - Member

I'm not sure it's virtuous and I'm not sure the 'decisions' being made by 18 year olds are as informed as they should be.

The reason I say virtuous is that it's a little feedback loop, good performing universities have less room to slip up now than they once did so there's a constant reinforcement of good performance. And midrange unis have more capacity to perform better and push us.

Absolutely agree with the choice making, especially in clearing. IMO it's enormously better than it was when I was choosing, just because of the access to information but it's still so troublesome. And not just how kids choose, but how they rule themselves out. Maths is the worst for this imo, kids lose interest at an early age, basically as soon as it gets past everyday applicable maths... And then there's a big gap before the value of maths to engineering, sciences etc becomes obvious, where they lose the motivation to learn. I chose subjects at standard grade because of the teachers I liked and what my mates were doing and those decisions rule you out of choices too!

Trouble is I don't think anyone has any idea how to fix this- it can be improved and we do so all the time but the entire process is basically imperfect. The growth of gap years and deferred entry is great though imo, I'd like deferred entry be the norm with a working gap year or two. But that still doesn't resolve the school choices problem. Kids make choices at such an early age that are hard to overcome later.

I think a move away from the assumption "You go to school, then you go to uni" is overdue, we have so many other ways and there shouldn't be any stigma to it, when college entry tends to make such a good student... But mostly we just talk about gap yahs, and not about all the other ways to do it.

I'm probably biased but I like the Scottish 4-year degree, it gives us a lot more margin for course changes. We can do fairly straightforward swaps between aligned subjects but it's also easier to do wholesale changes of direction. Obviously it has downsides too!

Alex - Member

One thing I would take issue with is EVERY uni I've dealt with says they turn people away in clearing. But that's a decision based entirely on the financial risk of those students dropping out early and leaving a hole i y2/y3 finances.

MMM, OK, there's a lot in this comment and some I'm just going to totally disagree with. For one thing there's a bunch of reasons to want to avoid students dropping out and finance is only one, progression rates are a metric in most of the league tables frinstance, and it's disruptive for teaching to have underperforming students. But the entire situation's less simple. (we'll often fill dropped-out places with 2nd or 3rd year entry students or transfers anyway)

In our case, we're not just turning away clearing applicants- that's just part of the game really, I doubt any uni accepts every one. We're going to have unfilled places full stop. That's not because of finance- we lose out for that. It's because we're not lowering standards. And we'll not be alone in that.

Not all are equal - which makes a mockery of them charging the same price etc.

Tom, why should someone else determine which uni I can/should go to. It's my education not their's

There has to be a major, major shake up soon - more two year courses, an end to the pretence that there is a semblance of equality, more innovative structure, more on-line courses. Academics need to embrace the cold winds of change and resources d quickly before their jobs disappear completely, many are good at lecturing not these topics, at least the business departments are - now is the time to actually do something.

Loads of close misses among friends and some remarkable saves including Oxford being generous to one candidate who missed his grades. NW are you being as generous as Edin Uni, they have accepted several near misses yesterday

Ah should have realised you were talking about a Scottish institution. Completely agree education is better integrated than England (and to an extent Wales and NI as well). I prefer the Scottish system which is far less prescriptive and allows students to follow a thread rather than being regimented into a set of modules without that granularity of choice.

Again wandering of the point completely and I've no idea if it's practical really, but I do like the idea of Post Qualification selection. It'd be a bunfight with 400,000+ students every year but I wonder if it'd be simpler/cleaner/fairer(?) in the long term. The whole application system is based on the digitisation of a part system - would we really start again from there?

I take the point re: turning people away in that I used the word 'entirely'. Certainly the metrics measuring 'quality' within institutions are of course tied to their initial intake regardless, ironically, of how good the teaching is when they get there.

There is so much that is 'right' about UK HE (in all its forms) but also so much inertia to fixing what is wrong. With the continuing commercialisation, it's hard to see how we're going to get 160+ institutions to agree on anything as it'll put some at a commercial disadvantage and I certainly could see a few failing or having to merge.

Oh a mate of mines lad had done very well with his A levels and is going to his first choice Uni. After a gap year that is 6 months in NZ, 3 months in Canada. Different world!

Tom, why should someone else determine which uni I can/should go to. It's my education not their's

For the same reason most people just go to their local 6th form. Cost.

There has to be a major, major shake up soon - more two year courses, an end to the pretence that there is a semblance of equality,

If we regulated more degrees, then there would be more certainty in regards to the quality of a degree. But we have a market driven attitude in the UK that won't allow that to happen.

The system is run on silly, somewhat outdated notions of how and when people become successful. Many people still think that academic success is something entirely inborn - something that is part of your character that follows you for the rest of your life. In reality people are molded by their situation and circumstances - whilst IQ is not very malleable, self-discipline is and it is highly dependent on circumstance. It is something a lot of people (men especially) only learn later on in life - and it has been shown time and time again that self-discipline is much more important in attaining good grades than a high IQ.

So why do we have a system that judges people from the age of 18, why do I have a friend who went to an ex-poly and then Kings College London - where he gained a distinction at masters level - who still gets turned down for graduate positions because his UCAS points weren't high enough?

The whole system is bollocks and I find the types who usually defend it are the ex-public schoolboys who are served well by the system.

Well either:

1. within two generations we have suddenly all become much more intelligent or,
2. standards have dropped so much that university degrees which only the top 5% could achieve two generations ago is now pretty much available to anyone with £9000 a year.

Call me a cynic, but I'm going with 2.

Nah, it's just far more competitive nowadays, kids are expected to work much harder during school and much harder at home too - my 9 year old does more homework than I did at a-level, he's also talking private tuition because he's only 6 months ahead of the curve (Wife's idea).

It doesn't help that his school sits in the catchment for 2 comps, one is very good, one is 'okay' the very good one claims a very complex and fair criteria for entry, but behind closed doors they try to take the best and the brightest to ensure the best results, which keeps them as the 'very good' school - the system is terrible really, but sometimes you just have to play the game.

As for the OP's question, there's a young lad who works with us part-time, he wanted a Computer Science Course, they provisionally accepted him based on his expected AAB results, helped by the fact he's been working here for 12 months doing frontline IT support - he didn't do as well as expected and got ACD - they rejected him instantly, so did his second choice, only leaving him with a place at the local 'former Poly' and they want him to do a foundation course for a year, he might as well do re-sits.

Not all are equal - which makes a mockery of them charging the same price etc.

I don't agree. When i went to uni they all cost the same: therefore i chose the course which suited my requirements. no other differentiation

Now there is the issue of value: Course A: 9k, first choice all being equal, but course B: not as good but only 6k/ year.

not really a problem for the richest students, but it will be a thought process for poorer students, reducing the equality in education.

Back in the 80s Sheffield University Material Science department had a policy of taking 2 people with bad grades a year. They selected based on potential and made it very clear to those that they took that they had to work hard or leave. In the year I'm thinking of, one of the guys got a 2.1 and another a first.

Some people screw up there A levels. It shouldn't screw up their life.

but behind closed doors they try to take the best and the brightest to ensure the best results, which keeps them as the 'very good' school - the system is terrible really, but sometimes you just have to play the game.

That's not how the game is played these days - it's all about the value added. What you want to cherry pick are the bright underachievers. Those that are already achieving well are a nightmare - the only way is down. Not good for your VA stats, which of course is the only thing that matters 😉

Back in the 80s Sheffield University Material Science department had a policy of taking 2 people with bad grades a year. They selected based on potential and made it very clear to those that they took that they had to work hard or leave. In the year I'm thinking of, one of the guys got a 2.1 and another a first.

Some people screw up there A levels. It shouldn't screw up their life.

This. +1

teamhurtmore - Member

NW are you being as generous as Edin Uni, they have accepted several near misses yesterday

We're not generous but remember 1st year entry to a Scottish uni isn't directly comparable to an English one, so a grade that comes up short for one can still be a credable grade for another. (a lot of A-level students would usually be candidates for 2nd year entry) Also in the case of a really near miss we can look at the wider picture, grades aren't everything.

I missed this one earlier

footflaps - Member

Well either:

1. within two generations we have suddenly all become much more intelligent or,
2. standards have dropped so much that university degrees which only the top 5% could achieve two generations ago is now pretty much available to anyone with £9000 a year.

Call me a cynic, but I'm going with 2.

Or 3, there were a huge number of kids who could have attained a degree but never got the chance. Only 5% could gain that degree but that wasn't an academic restriction, it was scarcity and lack of opportunity.

Cheers NW, this was two English students who just missed graded (one a B instead of an A and the other an M1 pre U instead of A - bloody pre Us!!!!) not a Scottish student.

Grades aren't everything - try telling Exeter when you are one mark off!!! 😉

Now there is the issue of value: Course A: 9k, first choice all being equal, but course B: not as good but only 6k/ year.

Great, people have a choice, My niece recently chose a two year degree. Cheaper, more relevant to what she wanted to do. Better choice etc...

In the past value was hidden away. Now it's more transparent.

I prefer the Scottish system which is far less prescriptive and allows students to follow a thread rather than being regimented into a set of modules without that granularity of choice.

Even my masters, which you;d normally expect to be quite specialised was quite modular, and the degree title conferred depended on which combinations of modules you selected. You just needed to choose the right number with the possibility to exchange big project for on the job project if you did day release, or exchange half the modules for research work instead.

Think all the Polys used to work n that basis, even to the extent that you could move from Poly to Poly and take module credits with you.

Anyone who thinks any education establishment isn't money orientated is frankly deluded.

From primary schools with no budget unless they have classes of 35 to further/ higher education places thinking there are a buusiness.

teamhurtmore - Member

Cheers NW, this was two English students who just missed graded (one a B instead of an A and the other an M1 pre U instead of A - bloody pre Us!!!!) not a Scottish student.

Pre U can **** off tbh 😆 I can't comment on its fitness as an education but afaic CIE see their role in the world as being to irritate university admissions teams.

Dont - it was a sore point (stil is) with son #1 and the very inflexible aforementioned University. Plus son #2 has several friends also with one dreaded M1 - WTF is it, A or B???? Sorry, you are not in even though you may have some D2s too.

Nightmare

Environmental Science.

You do realize that an Environmental Science course, whilst not what I studied, includes a tonne of chemistry yes? Plus some statistics, geology etc etc etc thrown in - they tend to be very interdisciplinary courses that cover aspects of a lot of the hard sciences. And that environmental science graduates are in pretty high demand because of the regulation involved in industry etc.

It's hardly comparable to media studies. In fact I'd go as far as saying that fellow Biologists tend to be softer in the head than environmental science grads.

I got 2 highers both C, now got a PhD. also just because you got good grades at school doesn't mean you'll do well at university. Its a totally different environment. If you were to see how thick some medical students can be, you'd never see a doctor.

bigdean - Member

Anyone who thinks any education establishment isn't money orientated is frankly deluded.

From primary schools with no budget unless they have classes of 35 to further/ higher education places thinking there are a buusiness.

They're all money-minded, as you say they have to be to survive so a bit silly to criticise that. But that doesn't mean they're available to be bought and sold.

Simple example; we want to recruit more RUK and International students, and among the reasons for that are financial reasons. But that doesn't mean we'll accept an unfit student just because we make money off them. We're just very keen to make money from good students 😉 So to increase numbers, we keep standards the same but we work harder to attract more students to apply.

Sad to put it in such terms, but, so it is. There's many nonfinancial reasons too of course, university strategy is based on many considerations.

. If you were to see how thick some medical students can be, you'd never see a doctor.

My old GP diagnosed my father's heart attack as indigestion so I visit with eyes wide open. He's OK now having had a stent fitted but no thanks to the GP, that was sorted after he went into arrest in a hospital a few days later. Dead by some measures.

Thanks ! Must update my CV - you have a low threshold for an A in this country I just got a lot smarter on paper.

Yet still too stupid to work out it would depend on how hard the questions are.

but behind closed doors they try to take the best and the brightest to ensure the best results, which keeps them as the 'very good' school - the system is terrible really, but sometimes you just have to play the game.
That's not how the game is played these days - it's all about the value added. What you want to cherry pick are the bright underachievers. Those that are already achieving well are a nightmare - the only way is down. Not good for your VA stats, which of course is the only thing that matters

I was under the impresion most just wanted as many pupils as possible