Ok I am just really confused now, are you saying the extra support for SEND is pursuit of equity & that’s a good thing - in which case I agree with you. (Whereas removing that support would be pursuit of equality over equity - and I would think a bad idea.)
Ok I am just really confused now, are you saying the extra support for SEND is pursuit of equity & that’s a good thing - in which case I agree with you. (Whereas removing that support would be pursuit of equality over equity - and I would think a bad idea.)
I am saying that the extra support is pursuit of equity, and a good thing, yes. Providing it is a case of pursuing equity over equality as I initially said, and is something I think is a good thing. I'm suggesting MtM might disagree, to be consistent.
I think I see where my wording was misleading now. The "this" in my second sentence was meant to refer to the provision, not its hypothetical removal.
Given that schools have entered in to the discussion, here's another example. Peanut allergies are common enough these days that a lot of elementary school classes contain a child who is allergic to peanuts. Small children are well-known for being generous with their hands, and less than scrupulous with washing them.
So it's pretty common for classes to tell parents not to send a peanut-based snack in with their kids, because there might be a child with a life-threatening allergy sitting next to them. It's also reasonably common to have nut-free seating for school lunch, which allows the kids who want to bring peanut butter sandwiches for lunch to do so - they just can't sit near the kids who will die if they eat peanut butter.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise - nobody is prevented from eating peanut products, but they are asked to only eat peanut products in particular places to avoid killing their classmates.
That comes back to two different definitions of fairly. Equity attempts to correct for structural inequality.
Take a 400m race, you could have everyone starts in line as they do for the 100m - they all start in line in the same place. But the curving track means those in the outer lanes run a longer distance. So that is mitigated by having a staggered start correcting for the curve - so the person on the out side lane starts ahead of the person on the inside lane. Do you think that unfair ?
No, because in a 400m race everyone should run 400m. That’s equality, and fairness. What’s not fair is saying that because some people can’t run very fast they should only have to run 200m in order to give them a chance of winning. Because if they can’t run fast enough to win over 400m then they don’t deserve to win a 400m race.
Ok - so - if child q, got a poor result in the exam she was sitting at the time she was mistreated by teachers and police, should an educational institution be able to, say, you can do this course with your 3 C result when it normally needs 3 Bs - because we are assuming you’d have got a better result if that hadn’t happened to you ?
Ok - so - if child q, got a poor result in the exam she was sitting at the time she was mistreated by teachers and police, should an educational institution be able to, say, you can do this course with your 3 C result when it normally needs 3 Bs - because we are assuming you’d have got a better result if that hadn’t happened to you ?
Well, educational institutions are allowed to admit students even if they don’t get the grades if they want to do so as it is. But my proposal would be letting her resit that exam without prejudice to her overall grade, in order to prove that the better result is the right one.
A real life example might be that my eldest got a university offer which was one grade lower than usual based on our postcode. I assume my niece who lives on a council estate in Luton had a similar experience (and her Cambridge application and offer may also have come about because of a targetted campaign to support black students in poorer areas to apply to Cambridge). These initiatives reflect the fact that children in such areas are unlikely to get high grades for a whole variety of socioeconomic and cultural reasons rather than their ability. I understand this concept very well as I wasn’t even allowed to go to college for A levels due to my working class culture yet I now have 2 degrees, a Masters and am currently doing a doctorate.
The analogy of a 400m race is faintly ridiculous because it is.
Whereas adjusting grades depending on socio-economic background isn't an analogy, is a real world example, and is worth discussing.
It's a truism that state educated students do comparatively better at degree level than their privately educated course-mates. Picking 'the best' isn't simply a question of looking at grades. Some kid from a council estate with BBB would be exactly the student who would benefit (as would the university) from equitable treatment, rather than equal.
It wasn’t meant as a boast. It is my story that I tell to the working class students that I teach (half of my undergraduate students did not go to college) - that they should not let themselves be confined by their backgrounds and their prior experiences. Many of my students with mental health challenges have spent their lives being told they are stupid and can’t achieve anything.
It is the same reason I tell them I have bipolar disorder.
The analogy of a 400m race is faintly ridiculous because it is.
Whereas adjusting grades depending on socio-economic background isn't an analogy, is a real world example, and is worth discussing.
It's a truism that state educated students do comparatively better at degree level than their privately educated course-mates. Picking 'the best' isn't simply a question of looking at grades. Some kid from a council estate with BBB would be exactly the student who would benefit (as would the university) from equitable treatment, rather than equal.
This. I'd be much more interested in objections to real world differential university offers and extra help for SEND students than a hypothetical 400m race with differential starting points.
I went to a (in retrospect) very rough rural comp. Managed to get across the county border to a sixth form college, and with what would be considered less than stellar A levels (BCC, iirc), into a decent redbrick university, and ended up with a PhD.
I'm not saying to say that it was all my own work. There was a lot of generous forbearance on the part of lecturers and teachers while I learned how to learn. But it wasn't until my final undergraduate year that I finally hit my stride.
I count myself lucky. But I'd like to extend that good fortune to others who don't even have the meagre resources that I started out with.
One thing you might imagine would be that a selective university might be wanting to admit the set of students who will turn in to the best graduates. In other words, they want their output to be the best they can get, and want to select the set of students who are most likely to achieve that.
(I don't think this has to be the goal of a university, but assume for the sake of argument that it is.)
If all your prospective students come from the same backgrounds, then perhaps their previous exam performance is a reasonable predictor of their final degree class (although even then, I could point you at some people who got very good A-levels by virtue of a lot of rote learning, but weren't able to think critically, and so finished up with a fairly grotty degree.) But if, as in the examples given by @Heavenlyannie or @Doc Tor, for example, you've got people with different backgrounds, then previous exam score is a less good predictor of degree class or success. Making lower offers by postcode is a somewhat crude way of producing a better predictor than raw exam results. It's still not a great predictor, but it's better than a raw A-level score.
There's also the fact that for some subjects A-Level results are really poor predictors. Take maths (a subject I know well): pretty much the entirety of A-Level maths and further maths (and Scottish Higher and Advanced Higher for that matter) is what is called at degree level "mathematical methods". It's a case of recognise the problem, follow the process, get the answer. It requires a good memory and a facility for mathematical concepts, but it's a world away from degree level pure mathematics, which is pretty much all about proof. Being able to grind your way through integration by parts tells you bugger all about your ability to leap off from "for epsilon > 0..." successfully. I'm told computer science degrees have one of the worst problems in this regard, as school qualifications give next to no idea of who will turn out to be a competent coder, so compsci departments are left with the dilemma of failing people who are otherwise intelligent, worked hard, did their assignments etc. or passing people who can't actually perform one of the core functions associated with the subject.
I'm told computer science degrees have one of the worst problems in this regard, as school qualifications give next to no idea of who will turn out to be a competent coder, so compsci departments are left with the dilemma of failing people who are otherwise intelligent, worked hard, did their assignments etc. or passing people who can't actually perform one of the core functions associated with the subject.
As you say, even at the university level there's a lot of tension between assigning grades to indicate competence vs assigning grades to indicate that someone showed up diligently.
(And for a lot of future careers, the ability to show up and work diligently is actually more important than brilliance, but it does rather raise the question of what a degree actually means.)
I'm told computer science degrees have one of the worst problems in this regard, as school qualifications give next to no idea of who will turn out to be a competent coder
Well, this is not unlikely anyway, compsci can be largely maths, which is why a lot of universities have a separate software engineering degree.
I'm told computer science degrees have one of the worst problems in this regard, as school qualifications give next to no idea of who will turn out to be a competent coder
Well, this is not unlikely anyway, compsci can be largely maths, which is why a lot of universities have a separate software engineering degree.
My eldest is expecting to go to Sheffield to read Computer Science. They insist on applicants having maths A Level (they even have a lower standard offer if you're taking Further Maths). They do not require you to have Computer Science A Level.
Perhaps maths competence is a better predictor of degree performance than computing competence at A level?
Perhaps maths competence is a better predictor of degree performance than computing competence at A level?
I think that's the combination of Computer Science A Level being largely useless (except for the super motivated who know enough already because of their own fiddling), and Computer Science Degrees often being less about coding than the science of computing (as they arguably should be).
Perhaps maths competence is a better predictor of degree performance than computing competence at A level?
I think that's the combination of Computer Science A Level being largely useless (except for the super motivated who know enough already because of their own fiddling), and Computer Science Degrees often being less about coding than the science of computing (as they arguably should be).
A number of his classmates taking CS but not Maths have discovered this.
A number of his classmates taking CS but not Maths have discovered this.
That sounds almost as odd a choice as the people who take A-level physics but not maths. I mean you can, and I had a few classmates who did, but I've always been confused by that.
Ok - so - if child q, got a poor result in the exam she was sitting at the time she was mistreated by teachers and police, should an educational institution be able to, say, you can do this course with your 3 C result when it normally needs 3 Bs - because we are assuming you’d have got a better result if that hadn’t happened to you ?
Well, educational institutions are allowed to admit students even if they don’t get the grades if they want to do so as it is. But my proposal would be letting her resit that exam without prejudice to her overall grade, in order to prove that the better result is the right one.
But surely this *is* equity rather than equality?
Do you oppose reasonable adjustments for disabled students such as coloured overlays for laptop screens (to help dyslexic students)? That's also equity.
Ok - so - if child q, got a poor result in the exam she was sitting at the time she was mistreated by teachers and police, should an educational institution be able to, say, you can do this course with your 3 C result when it normally needs 3 Bs - because we are assuming you’d have got a better result if that hadn’t happened to you ?
Well, educational institutions are allowed to admit students even if they don’t get the grades if they want to do so as it is. But my proposal would be letting her resit that exam without prejudice to her overall grade, in order to prove that the better result is the right one.
But surely this *is* equity rather than equality?
I feel like there's a difference between removing artificial and/or external obstacles to success (allowing the resit under fairer conditions) and letting people succeed despite poorer performance (admitting the student regardless of their lower grades). I'm all about equality of opportunity, but very much not equality of outcome.
Do you oppose reasonable adjustments for disabled students such as coloured overlays for laptop screens (to help dyslexic students)? That's also equity.
I'd be a massive hypocrite to oppose reasonable adjustments given that I have them in my workplace to help me cope with my mental health condition. But I still need to be capable of doing my job to a high standard, and if I couldn't do that even with reasonable adjustments then I shouldn't be doing it in the first place. My condition may mean I need to be treated differently to my coworkers in order to achieve a certain standard, but it doesn't absolve me from the requirement to achieve that standard in the first place.
Ok - so - if child q, got a poor result in the exam she was sitting at the time she was mistreated by teachers and police, should an educational institution be able to, say, you can do this course with your 3 C result when it normally needs 3 Bs - because we are assuming you’d have got a better result if that hadn’t happened to you ?
Well, educational institutions are allowed to admit students even if they don’t get the grades if they want to do so as it is. But my proposal would be letting her resit that exam without prejudice to her overall grade, in order to prove that the better result is the right one.
But surely this *is* equity rather than equality?
I feel like there's a difference between removing artificial and/or external obstacles to success (allowing the resit under fairer conditions) and letting people succeed despite poorer performance (admitting the student regardless of their lower grades). I'm all about equality of opportunity, but very much not equality of outcome.
Do you oppose reasonable adjustments for disabled students such as coloured overlays for laptop screens (to help dyslexic students)? That's also equity.
I'd be a massive hypocrite to oppose reasonable adjustments given that I have them in my workplace to help me cope with my mental health condition. But I still need to be capable of doing my job to a high standard, and if I couldn't do that even with reasonable adjustments then I shouldn't be doing it in the first place. My condition may mean I need to be treated differently to my coworkers in order to achieve a certain standard, but it doesn't absolve me from the requirement to achieve that standard in the first place.
But....that's what equity is. Equality would be treating you exactly the same as your colleagues with no allowances made for disability. Equity doesn't mean everyone gets the same results, it means everyone gets the opportunity to get the same results.
I feel like there's a difference between removing artificial and/or external obstacles to success (allowing the resit under fairer conditions) and letting people succeed despite poorer performance (admitting the student regardless of their lower grades). I'm all about equality of opportunity, but very much not equality of outcome.
I think you want the university to select the best students, right? What you want is for the university to look at all the people who apply to study subject X at it, and admit the set of candidates that are most likely to succeed and end up with the best degrees in X at the end of their studies.
If that's what you want, then the data says that to achieve that, you need to admit the sort of student who managed to get Bs and Cs at A-level despite low expectations and little support in preference to the sort of student who managed to get As and Bs with a lot of intensive coaching.
I feel like there's a difference between removing artificial and/or external obstacles to success (allowing the resit under fairer conditions) and letting people succeed despite poorer performance (admitting the student regardless of their lower grades). I'm all about equality of opportunity, but very much not equality of outcome.
I think you want the university to select the best students, right? What you want is for the university to look at all the people who apply to study subject X at it, and admit the set of candidates that are most likely to succeed and end up with the best degrees in X at the end of their studies.
If that's what you want, then the data says that to achieve that, you need to admit the sort of student who managed to get Bs and Cs at A-level despite low expectations and little support in preference to the sort of student who managed to get As and Bs with a lot of intensive coaching.
Actually, you need to go further. If a student who will do fantastically well at university doesn't go because "university isn't for people like me" then you're not going to get the best people doing as well as they can at university. How do you address those attitudes? Some of it will be promoting role models, the "people like me" who have gone to university. Some of it would be deliberately creating spaces for the "people like me" through scholarships and other opportunities not open to those who consider it normal to go to university. Some of it will be offering lower grades for admission. Some of it would be addressing the prejudice and bullying of other students (and staff) who will express the "university isn't for people like you" lies. These, and more, are needed to give people who should be at university a leg up.
No one - except you, @Marvin the Martian - is suggesting that equity involves allowing people to do a piss-poor job (*flails in the government's direction*). If anything, equity involves people doing a better job. How many workers (including yourself here) have been denied the opportunity to show just how well they can do because equitable practices hadn't been in place?
Actually, you need to go further. If a student who will do fantastically well at university doesn't go because "university isn't for people like me" then you're not going to get the best people doing as well as they can at university.
I agree. My post was intended to be necessary, but not sufficient. I merely wanted to point out to @Marvin the Martian that selecting the set of applicants with the best A-level grades doesn't do a good job of selecting the set of applicants who will be most likely to get a good degree - and that it is in fact relatively straightforward to compare degree outcomes with A-level grades for applicants from different backgrounds, and so produce a weighting function to apply to A-level grades to produce a better estimator of success.
This does not by any means say that you've done everything you should to attract people who should be good applicants, or even that you've done enough regarding prejudice and expectations, and so on.
But it's an absolute data-driven minimum that you need to do in order to end up with the best graduates. If you are not weighting your applicants like this, you're just wrong.
The plain fact is that a student who gets As and Bs given little support and low expectations is significantly better than a student who gets As and Bs after intensive coaching. And if you say "these students got the same grades, therefore they are the same" then you're wrong.
No one - except you, @Marvin the Martian - is suggesting that equity involves allowing people to do a piss-poor job
Isn't that what allowing entry to university for people who don't achieve the required entry qualifications is?
Let me clarify.
If someone needs reasonable adjustments or support to achieve the required level of performance then they should be given those adjustments or support. But they should still, ultimately, be judged on whether they achieve that level or not. We shouldn't just give them a free pass on the basis of an assumption that they would have achieved that level had they not faced the impediments they faced.
No one - except you, @Marvin the Martian - is suggesting that equity involves allowing people to do a piss-poor job
Isn't that what allowing entry to university for people who don't achieve the required entry qualifications is?
Could you read my last couple of posts, and address the point I made? A-level grades are not some kind of fundamental ontological truth. They're an imperfect measure of someone's ability. The data held by the universities themselves tells you that weighting A-level scores by the student's background produces a better (but still imperfect) estimator of someone's ability.
We shouldn't just give them a free pass on the basis of an assumption that they would have achieved that level had they not faced the impediments they faced.
Again, no one *except you* is suggesting that. Please read what we're saying.
and that it is in fact relatively straightforward to compare degree outcomes with A-level grades for applicants from different backgrounds
Actually, it's not. Even after controlling for all other sociological factors, degree outcomes are noticeably worse for BAME students than white ones. The question of why that is, and what can be done to correct it, is currently exercising a lot of very clever people at a lot of universities.
We shouldn't just give them a free pass on the basis of an assumption that they would have achieved that level had they not faced the impediments they faced.
Again, no one *except you* is suggesting that. Please read what we're saying.
It's literally what was said in the post that started this line of discussion:
Ok - so - if child q, got a poor result in the exam she was sitting at the time she was mistreated by teachers and police, should an educational institution be able to, say, you can do this course with your 3 C result when it normally needs 3 Bs - because we are assuming you’d have got a better result if that hadn’t happened to you ?
We shouldn't just give them a free pass on the basis of an assumption that they would have achieved that level had they not faced the impediments they faced.
Again, no one *except you* is suggesting that. Please read what we're saying.
It's literally what was said in the post that started this line of discussion:
Ok - so - if child q, got a poor result in the exam she was sitting at the time she was mistreated by teachers and police, should an educational institution be able to, say, you can do this course with your 3 C result when it normally needs 3 Bs - because we are assuming you’d have got a better result if that hadn’t happened to you ?
(emphasis mine)
To echo @Doublethink, a 3C student from an economically deprived post code/low achievement school getting on a course where they will absolutely have to compete at the same level as a 3B student from a private school is pretty much as far from a 'free pass' as I can imagine.
The 'free pass' title would be better applied to the private school entrant who (used to - they've phased them out now) got the offer of 2E for Oxbridge, and are now running the country.
We shouldn't just give them a free pass on the basis of an assumption that they would have achieved that level had they not faced the impediments they faced.
Again, no one *except you* is suggesting that. Please read what we're saying.
It's literally what was said in the post that started this line of discussion:
Ok - so - if child q, got a poor result in the exam she was sitting at the time she was mistreated by teachers and police, should an educational institution be able to, say, you can do this course with your 3 C result when it normally needs 3 Bs - because we are assuming you’d have got a better result if that hadn’t happened to you ?
(emphasis mine)
To echo @Doublethink, a 3C student from an economically deprived post code/low achievement school getting on a course where they will absolutely have to compete at the same level as a 3B student from a private school is pretty much as far from a 'free pass' as I can imagine.
The 'free pass' title would be better applied to the private school entrant who (used to - they've phased them out now) got the offer of 2E for Oxbridge, and are now running the country.
Hey! They paid for that unfair advantage fair and square! And you want to take it from them, you commie bastard!
And in reality, entry requirements that are adjusted for circumstances are not *that* much lower - if you think BBB instead of A*AA is a 'free pass' then clearly you haven't done A Levels anytime recently.
Nobody has suggested that equity means everyone gets the same outcome regardless of effort. I've seen zero evidence that this is an actual thing outside of your posts.
Comments
I am saying that the extra support is pursuit of equity, and a good thing, yes. Providing it is a case of pursuing equity over equality as I initially said, and is something I think is a good thing. I'm suggesting MtM might disagree, to be consistent.
I think I see where my wording was misleading now. The "this" in my second sentence was meant to refer to the provision, not its hypothetical removal.
So it's pretty common for classes to tell parents not to send a peanut-based snack in with their kids, because there might be a child with a life-threatening allergy sitting next to them. It's also reasonably common to have nut-free seating for school lunch, which allows the kids who want to bring peanut butter sandwiches for lunch to do so - they just can't sit near the kids who will die if they eat peanut butter.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable compromise - nobody is prevented from eating peanut products, but they are asked to only eat peanut products in particular places to avoid killing their classmates.
No, because in a 400m race everyone should run 400m. That’s equality, and fairness. What’s not fair is saying that because some people can’t run very fast they should only have to run 200m in order to give them a chance of winning. Because if they can’t run fast enough to win over 400m then they don’t deserve to win a 400m race.
I am trying to find an example or analogy that connects with Marvin about why I think equity is important - do you have something better ?
Well, educational institutions are allowed to admit students even if they don’t get the grades if they want to do so as it is. But my proposal would be letting her resit that exam without prejudice to her overall grade, in order to prove that the better result is the right one.
A non-starter in my limited experience; poor runners will be abused by coaches because they are below par.
Whereas adjusting grades depending on socio-economic background isn't an analogy, is a real world example, and is worth discussing.
It's a truism that state educated students do comparatively better at degree level than their privately educated course-mates. Picking 'the best' isn't simply a question of looking at grades. Some kid from a council estate with BBB would be exactly the student who would benefit (as would the university) from equitable treatment, rather than equal.
It is the same reason I tell them I have bipolar disorder.
This. I'd be much more interested in objections to real world differential university offers and extra help for SEND students than a hypothetical 400m race with differential starting points.
I'm not saying to say that it was all my own work. There was a lot of generous forbearance on the part of lecturers and teachers while I learned how to learn. But it wasn't until my final undergraduate year that I finally hit my stride.
I count myself lucky. But I'd like to extend that good fortune to others who don't even have the meagre resources that I started out with.
(I don't think this has to be the goal of a university, but assume for the sake of argument that it is.)
If all your prospective students come from the same backgrounds, then perhaps their previous exam performance is a reasonable predictor of their final degree class (although even then, I could point you at some people who got very good A-levels by virtue of a lot of rote learning, but weren't able to think critically, and so finished up with a fairly grotty degree.) But if, as in the examples given by @Heavenlyannie or @Doc Tor, for example, you've got people with different backgrounds, then previous exam score is a less good predictor of degree class or success. Making lower offers by postcode is a somewhat crude way of producing a better predictor than raw exam results. It's still not a great predictor, but it's better than a raw A-level score.
As you say, even at the university level there's a lot of tension between assigning grades to indicate competence vs assigning grades to indicate that someone showed up diligently.
(And for a lot of future careers, the ability to show up and work diligently is actually more important than brilliance, but it does rather raise the question of what a degree actually means.)
Well, this is not unlikely anyway, compsci can be largely maths, which is why a lot of universities have a separate software engineering degree.
My eldest is expecting to go to Sheffield to read Computer Science. They insist on applicants having maths A Level (they even have a lower standard offer if you're taking Further Maths). They do not require you to have Computer Science A Level.
Perhaps maths competence is a better predictor of degree performance than computing competence at A level?
I think that's the combination of Computer Science A Level being largely useless (except for the super motivated who know enough already because of their own fiddling), and Computer Science Degrees often being less about coding than the science of computing (as they arguably should be).
A number of his classmates taking CS but not Maths have discovered this.
Doublethink, Admin
Tubbs
Temp Host
That sounds almost as odd a choice as the people who take A-level physics but not maths. I mean you can, and I had a few classmates who did, but I've always been confused by that.
Gwai,
Epiphanies Host
But surely this *is* equity rather than equality?
Do you oppose reasonable adjustments for disabled students such as coloured overlays for laptop screens (to help dyslexic students)? That's also equity.
I feel like there's a difference between removing artificial and/or external obstacles to success (allowing the resit under fairer conditions) and letting people succeed despite poorer performance (admitting the student regardless of their lower grades). I'm all about equality of opportunity, but very much not equality of outcome.
I'd be a massive hypocrite to oppose reasonable adjustments given that I have them in my workplace to help me cope with my mental health condition. But I still need to be capable of doing my job to a high standard, and if I couldn't do that even with reasonable adjustments then I shouldn't be doing it in the first place. My condition may mean I need to be treated differently to my coworkers in order to achieve a certain standard, but it doesn't absolve me from the requirement to achieve that standard in the first place.
But....that's what equity is. Equality would be treating you exactly the same as your colleagues with no allowances made for disability. Equity doesn't mean everyone gets the same results, it means everyone gets the opportunity to get the same results.
I think you want the university to select the best students, right? What you want is for the university to look at all the people who apply to study subject X at it, and admit the set of candidates that are most likely to succeed and end up with the best degrees in X at the end of their studies.
If that's what you want, then the data says that to achieve that, you need to admit the sort of student who managed to get Bs and Cs at A-level despite low expectations and little support in preference to the sort of student who managed to get As and Bs with a lot of intensive coaching.
Equity is often phrased in terms of equality of outcomes, hence my reluctance to accept it over equality.
I agree. My post was intended to be necessary, but not sufficient. I merely wanted to point out to @Marvin the Martian that selecting the set of applicants with the best A-level grades doesn't do a good job of selecting the set of applicants who will be most likely to get a good degree - and that it is in fact relatively straightforward to compare degree outcomes with A-level grades for applicants from different backgrounds, and so produce a weighting function to apply to A-level grades to produce a better estimator of success.
This does not by any means say that you've done everything you should to attract people who should be good applicants, or even that you've done enough regarding prejudice and expectations, and so on.
But it's an absolute data-driven minimum that you need to do in order to end up with the best graduates. If you are not weighting your applicants like this, you're just wrong.
The plain fact is that a student who gets As and Bs given little support and low expectations is significantly better than a student who gets As and Bs after intensive coaching. And if you say "these students got the same grades, therefore they are the same" then you're wrong.
Isn't that what allowing entry to university for people who don't achieve the required entry qualifications is?
Let me clarify.
If someone needs reasonable adjustments or support to achieve the required level of performance then they should be given those adjustments or support. But they should still, ultimately, be judged on whether they achieve that level or not. We shouldn't just give them a free pass on the basis of an assumption that they would have achieved that level had they not faced the impediments they faced.
Could you read my last couple of posts, and address the point I made? A-level grades are not some kind of fundamental ontological truth. They're an imperfect measure of someone's ability. The data held by the universities themselves tells you that weighting A-level scores by the student's background produces a better (but still imperfect) estimator of someone's ability.
Again, no one *except you* is suggesting that. Please read what we're saying.
Actually, it's not. Even after controlling for all other sociological factors, degree outcomes are noticeably worse for BAME students than white ones. The question of why that is, and what can be done to correct it, is currently exercising a lot of very clever people at a lot of universities.
It's literally what was said in the post that started this line of discussion:
To echo @Doublethink, a 3C student from an economically deprived post code/low achievement school getting on a course where they will absolutely have to compete at the same level as a 3B student from a private school is pretty much as far from a 'free pass' as I can imagine.
The 'free pass' title would be better applied to the private school entrant who (used to - they've phased them out now) got the offer of 2E for Oxbridge, and are now running the country.
Hey! They paid for that unfair advantage fair and square! And you want to take it from them, you commie bastard!
Nobody has suggested that equity means everyone gets the same outcome regardless of effort. I've seen zero evidence that this is an actual thing outside of your posts.
Joking aside, this is definitely part of the narrative. If you take away someone's privilege, they'll call it oppression.