I could have predicted this if I'd known about the Liberals' new high school accreditation policies. This is the inevitable result of weakening the public education system - instead of enforcing rigorous standards (which is why in the 1990s it wasn't actually THAT hard to get into university - I walked into SFU in 1993 with the GPA equivalent of about a 3.3... which is a B+ average, or 80-some percent in the high school scheme - and every jot of that entry GPA was honestly earned), and restricting the accreditation of private schools - they cave into the propaganda about how public education is junk and needs to be revitalized by... brilliant idea! Cutting even more money out of the public system! (Hint: An increase in funding below the inflation rate is not an increase in funding after the fall in the value of money is taken into account.)
I could have predicted this if I'd known about the Liberals' new high school accreditation policies. This is the inevitable result of weakening the public education system - instead of enforcing rigorous standards (which is why in the 1990s it wasn't actually THAT hard to get into university - I walked into SFU in 1993 with the GPA equivalent of about a 3.3... which is a B+ average, or 80-some percent in the high school scheme - and every jot of that entry GPA was honestly earned), and restricting the accreditation of private schools - they cave into the propaganda about how public education is junk and needs to be revitalized by... brilliant idea! Cutting even more money out of the public system! (Hint: An increase in funding below the inflation rate is not an increase in funding after the fall in the value of money is taken into account.)
You make an interesting point, but are you saying that it is harder to get into uni because people are "buying their way into" it? And is this practice inreasing (since you said it was easier to get in before)?
i was in a rigorous academically-focused alternative program in high school, and i had to work my ass off to get the grades (we even had grades for social/community involvement)...
i did and still do wonder whether i should've just done something easier, although they did mention in the article that the low performance rate of first-years are related to those who "cheated" their way in...so in doesn't make me feel that bad, there's probably a higher dropout rate for them.
Just because its easy doesn't necessarily mean its a better way to go... the harder something is to do, it helps you grow more as a person. A hard class will make you smarter than an easy class. You get what you put in, right?
yeah i mean i definitely see that what i've learned from those few years are reflecting through my work now.
in no way do i regret doing harder courses. i thrive off of challenges, but sometimes I can't help but think about how much less strenuous it would be to just take the easier route...
back to the article though... i wonder what schools will have to do to tackle this problem? should they start a new process where they take those who have the grades, and then they have to screen those students? I know my friend who applied for oxford had to go through a process like that with multiple interviews and such, but then again...that's Oxford. lol
Oh well, they are going to pay for it in university anyways. Personally, I worked my ass off in highschool, but it really paid off in university because half the things I learned.. I already knew. In fact, my highschool teachers did a much better job at teaching ..say.. calculus than my math prof.
You make an interesting point, but are you saying that it is harder to get into uni because people are "buying their way into" it? And is this practice inreasing (since you said it was easier to get in before)?
To some extent.
It's clear that in allowing schools to issue questionable grades, the government has effectively driven up the "cost" of getting into university by expanding the demand for what is generally a slowly increasing supply.
Example:
"Before", Student A who gets a lousy grade ends up being shunted off to a college for a couple of years to bring his or her marks up to snuff to transfer to university. This effectively reduces Student A's competition with Student B who got the proper grades. Generalized, this eases demand relative to supply.
"After", Student A can get a questionable grade, and now competes with Student B for a university spot. Generalized, demand is now increased relative to supply. So if tuition is frozen, the entry GPA rises to an almost unrealistic amount as the competition gets more intense. Or, if tuition is not frozen, then whoever's wallet can stand the cost will make it in.
The problem is, the fact that Student A will crash and burn eventually does not help Student B, because Student A has already gotten into the university system. You need to cut Student A out of the running before he or she takes up a slot.
Comments
i was in a rigorous academically-focused alternative program in high school, and i had to work my ass off to get the grades (we even had grades for social/community involvement)...
i did and still do wonder whether i should've just done something easier, although they did mention in the article that the low performance rate of first-years are related to those who "cheated" their way in...so in doesn't make me feel that bad, there's probably a higher dropout rate for them.
in no way do i regret doing harder courses. i thrive off of challenges, but sometimes I can't help but think about how much less strenuous it would be to just take the easier route...
back to the article though...
i wonder what schools will have to do to tackle this problem? should they start a new process where they take those who have the grades, and then they have to screen those students?
I know my friend who applied for oxford had to go through a process like that with multiple interviews and such, but then again...that's Oxford. lol
It's clear that in allowing schools to issue questionable grades, the government has effectively driven up the "cost" of getting into university by expanding the demand for what is generally a slowly increasing supply.
Example:
"Before", Student A who gets a lousy grade ends up being shunted off to a college for a couple of years to bring his or her marks up to snuff to transfer to university. This effectively reduces Student A's competition with Student B who got the proper grades. Generalized, this eases demand relative to supply.
"After", Student A can get a questionable grade, and now competes with Student B for a university spot. Generalized, demand is now increased relative to supply. So if tuition is frozen, the entry GPA rises to an almost unrealistic amount as the competition gets more intense. Or, if tuition is not frozen, then whoever's wallet can stand the cost will make it in.
The problem is, the fact that Student A will crash and burn eventually does not help Student B, because Student A has already gotten into the university system. You need to cut Student A out of the running before he or she takes up a slot.