More information can be found here: http://www.isc.co.uk/publication_4_0_0_26_976.htm

1 Not all universities used the tariff, and some higher education institutions only considered ‘A’ levels and not equivalent qualifications like BTEC level 3.
2 Some qualifications were omitted from the tariff.
3 Some focus groups wanted particular qualifications, such as music, dropped from the amended tariff. Others wanted only academic qualifications to be included.
4 Information on the UCAS site sometimes differed from that given by a particular university.
5 There was confusion about the tariff among such people as admission tutors, careers professionals, school teachers and so on.
6 Information given about particular courses was not always explicit about what admission tutors required eg certain combination of subjects for a particular degree.
7 One university was proposing to insist that all candidates from 2012 had a modern language GCSE. This was regarded as a barrier to higher education, particularly when there was no requirement for school pupils to continue studying a modern language from age 14. UCAS was unsure how such decisions made by individual universities could be accommodated in the amended tariff.

http://www.ucas.com/documents/qireview/qirsummaryfocusgroup.pdf

UCAS hopes that a final draft re an amended tariff will be available for consultation in early 2012.

The tariff in use at the moment is here:

http://www.ucas.com/students/ucas_tariff/qualifications

And info on how the tariff works is here:

http://www.ucas.com/students/ucas_tariff/how

“While the freedom of institutions to design and run their own courses is
important, it is equally important that degrees from different institutions
across the UK are broadly comparable.” (Quality Assurance Agency for
Higher Education, 2009a)

However, the Higher Education Policy Institute wonders if this commitment to comparability can be sustained:

“the UK has had a strong attachment to the principle of comparability of degree standards. However, it is increasingly doubtful whether, in a diverse mass system that incorporates significant student choice, a real degree of comparability, in the sense of equivalent levels of student learning achievement across all institutions and subjects, is practicable or even desirable. However, this need not mean a dilution of standards – minimum standards need to be maintained, and as far as possible differences in standards should be recognised and described.”

http://www.hepi.ac.uk/files/47%20Comparability%20of%20degree%20standards.pdf

Never is it discussed that many hundreds of courses at dozens of universities are in effect worthless. For example there are many computer games design courses that are not recognised by the industry. There are many law courses which are not ‘qualifying’ law degrees for the purpose of training to be a solicitor/barrister.

In addition many university courses ask for only Cs or Ds at A Level. How on earth can these be held in the same regard as a course in medicine or a rigorous subject at an elite institution requiring A*s and As? It shouldn’t be considered ‘elitist’ to say this! Is this really how far the ‘university’ label has stretched to ensure a degree for everyone?

Many so called ‘careers’ experts who appeared on TV in the days after A Level results kept telling would-be students to apply for the course they wanted as ‘the right course next year is better than the wrong course this year.’ Forget the small matter of fee increases..

It is never recognised that apprenticeships are actually incredibly competitive to get. The Guardian reported last year that BT received 24000 applications for just 220 apprenticeships.

This is as competitive as many of the graduate-level roles such law, finance, accountacy, banking etc. As a guide the top London corporate law firms receive c. 2,000-3,000 applications for c. 100 vacancies.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/EducationAndLearning/QualificationsExplained/DG_181951

The argument over BTECs demonstrates once again the government’s muddled thinking over education. On the one hand, Mr Gove praises Lord Young’s initiative to establish a chain of University Technical Colleges designed to offer vocational education to 14-19 year olds, while at the same time he denounces the vocational exams that are already in existence, does not acknowledge the work that is already being done by further education colleges in this area, and says the EBac will reinforce academic rigour.

In the meantime, the executive chairman of Google says he’s “flabbergasted” that computer science isn’t part of the core curriculum in UK schools. Yet ICT is one of the “non-preferred” subjects by top universities and it’s not in the EBac. This means that fewer pupils will study it,

http://www.britishcouncil.org/how_to_choose_the_right_subjects_at_gcse_and_a-level.pdf

I hear that this little fiddle is coming to an end though because, as you say, BTEC isn’t going to count for as much in the league tables.

Simon Hughes, the Lib Dem deputy leader recently published a document calling for earlier and better careers education.

http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6105693

But this was included in the 2009 Careers Education framework 7-19 published by the last government:

https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/Careers-ed-framework_7-19.pdf

and this document in turn grew from the earlier TVEI iniative over 25 years ago.

Perhaps, one day, careers education and guidance will be treated seriously by schools, and politicians won’t have to keep reinventing the wheel.

A lad who plays in my cricket team got top A’level grades from his comp in Wales and was studying sports journalism at a former poly. I asked him why he didn’t attend Loughborough and he replied it didn’t do his particular course. Really he would have been better off studying something more rigorous like History or Politics at a more established university if he wanted to do journalism, specialising in Sport, to enhance his job prospects. Independent schools are better at giving this information than the state sector.

OECD discussed the reasons why some students overcome their socio-economic background (PISA in Focus 5). These “resilient” students were found to be self-confident and motivated, and to attend schools that provided them with more learning time during regular school hours. Enrichment classes after school can improve equity but only if provided by a teacher from the school: OECD (PISA in Focus 3) found that “after-school classes with a teacher who is not from the school can exacerbate inequities among students”. It’s the quality, not the quantity of teaching that is important.

High-quality careers education and advice is essential to provide pupils with the skills and knowledge to plan wisely for a future career. John Hayes, the Minister for Skills and Lifelong Learning, is a passionate advocate of careers education. He has ensured that the Education Bill has a clause requiring all schools to provide independent careers advice. However, his honourable intentions are being scuppered by his own government through lack of funding and the academy programme which allows academies to save money by purchasing cheaper services. Schools may be required to provide independent advice but this could be as little as access to a website. Schools may not wish to pay for the more expensive but more worthwhile face-to-face interviews with a professional, properly trained careers adviser.

http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/26/48165173.pdf

http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/39/20/47573005.pdf

I suppose my question really ought to have been a ‘why’ rather than ‘how’.

Is educational ability really so segregated along socio-economic lines? If yes – what is to be done? Wage war on the sharp-elbowed? Parenting lessons for the deprived? Raise aspiration?

It seems from the two articles you link me to that the best thing for poor children is to disperse them from schools in ‘poor’ areas and distribute them across schools in leafier areas.

My old school has the best CVA scores for the area. So not only does it potentially start off with an advantaged intake in Year 7, it develops those talents through to Year 11 better than any other school in the area. So even the neighbouring schools with a less advantaged intake cannot improve attainment as much.

I think we also need to link up state school achievement and the wider economy. The figures for NEETs are grim reading, for example.

On A Level results day, BBC Breakfast interviewed several pupils (all state educated) who could not get a university place despite achieving A grades. In most cases this was because of A level subjects studied.

The raw figures might show a closing of the gap but state school pupils are still being handicapped when applying to university and many school leavers are without a job or training.

N.B. for the avoidance of doubt I am not laying the blame for the above paragraph at the door of state schools. I am just interested in how the independent school pupils seem to be so much better informed than state school pupils.

We all know children spend many hours on the internet and the right information is out there. Why are particularly state school pupils not accessing it or not heeding it?