LokaNova et Freelang

bonjour j'ai un essai a faire et le sujet est : Is everyboby equally equipped to take up further education ? je ne pense pas avoir fais trop de faute en tout cas j'espere .


In my opinion, it is an illusion to think that everyboby is equally equipped to take up further education.

On the one hand, there is a large inequality in schools in the United Kingdom and France.
In fact, in these countries there is selection is based on marks obtained at the "A Levels". Moreover there are quotas. Therefore, a few students can go to the University. These students who go to the most famous Universities are often upper class' children .
As in the UK , French students can get grants to help them pay for their studies, in fact the government suggests federal grants for most students whose parents have low incomes.But those grants are not enough to cover all the expenses, therefore, students do not have equal access to the same schools. Wealthy's students go to famous Universities, while less wealthy students go to the " public schools" .

To my mind, rich students are prepared to study for a long time. Parents urge them to study. So they help their children all of the time and can pay teachers to help them when they don't understand something.
Also, foreign parents who don't speak the language of the country can't help their children. These parents have often modest incomes and suggest to their children to study for only a short time so that they can work .

However, the government is trying to reduce this inequality. The government has taken measures to enable a student with low incomes to obtain federal grants or loans ,but this inequality presist. In fact schools are classed each years according to marks obtained at the A-Levels .Schools best classed are often private school .
Then there is not only the social ladder which is at strake. In fact the environment which child evolve is important for his futur. And this factor nobody can’t change him, not even governmentt.
So we can conclude that access to education is fiwed and unfair .


Thank you very much

Juste une remarque au niveau du fond : quand on te pose une question comme ça, c'est assez maladroit de donner son avis dès la première phrase. Il ne faut pas se jeter sur le sujet comme ça, mais essayer de poser une problématique. En l'occurrence, ça paraît assez évident que non, tout le monde n'est pas "équipé" pareil, mais on peut pousser un peu la réflexion et se demander à quoi ça servirait que tout le monde fasse des études longues, si ceux qui ont l'envie de faire des études longues en ont les moyens, si oui dans quelle mesure, si la longueur des études est toujours justifiée, si elle n'a pas tendance à se rallonger, etc.

Les essais en anglais n'étant pas notés que sur la forme mais aussi sur le fond, autant partir sur une bonne base, avec une argumentation bien posée et bien articulée.

Hi Sabrina,

I just made a few changes and corrected some small spelling and gramatical errors for you.

"On the one hand... " should always be followed by "On the other" - "On the one hand the French education system is biased towards the middle classes. On the other hand, there is only so much a government can do to influence the anti-education cluture found in some working class families".

good luck

Paul (upper middle class, public school, redbrick university)
==================

In my opinion, it is an illusion to think that everybody is equally equipped to take up further education.

On the one hand, there are great inequalities in schools in the United Kingdom and France.
In fact, in these countries selection for further education is based on marks obtained at "A Levels". Moreover there are quotas. Therefore, only a few students can go on to University. The students who go to the most famous Universities are often upper class children.
As in the UK , French students can get grants to help them pay for their studies, in fact the government gives grants for most students whose parents are on low incomes. But these grants are not enough to cover all the costs of attending university, therefore, students do not have equal access to the same educational opportunity. Wealthy students go to famous Universities, while less wealthy students go to the "public schools".

To my mind, rich students are prepared to study for a long time. Parents urge them to study. So they help their children all of the time and can pay teachers to help them when they don't understand something.
Also, foreign parents who don't speak the language of the country can't help their children. These parents often have modest incomes and prefer their children to study only for a short time so that they can go into paid work sooner.

However, the government is trying to reduce this inequality. The government has taken measures to enable a student with low incomes to obtain federal grants or loans ,but inequality presist. In fact schools are ranked each year according to marks obtained at the A-Levels. Schools at the top of the league tables are often private schools.
Then there is not only the social ladder which is at stake. In fact the environment in which childen develop is important for his future. And this factor is moe difficult to change, not even government has much influence.
So we can conclude that access to education is flawed and unfair .

pour commencer merci a tout les deux de votre aide .
Puis je suis tout a fait d'accord avec vous Beaumont je saute sur mon sujet mais si je pousse la reflexion , je trouve que je m'eloigne du sujet des le debut mais je le vois bien en elargissement a la fin . Je comprend tres bien que donner mon avis des le debut c'est maladroit mais pour celui la en tout cas je ne vois pas . Mais j'y reflechirais
En tout cas encore merci a tout les deux et bonnes fetes

Une observation: en angleterre le terme 'public school' signifie - paradoxalement - une école privée (normalement une école qui précede l'université).

Donc on peut pas dire

Wealthy students go to famous Universities, while less wealthy students go to the "public schools".

Cependant, vu qu'on parle de l'enseignement tertiaire, je crois que tu veux dire quelque chose comme:
Wealthy students go to the traditional redbrick universities, while less wealthy students go to the newer universities.

Il faut que tu saches que la plupart de 'newer universities' sont devenus des universités d'un seul coup grace à un décret (vers la fin des années 1980s si je ne me trompe pas) - elles s'appaleient des 'polytechnics' avant. dans les yeux des beaucoup, ces nouvelles universités sont moins prestigeuses (à forte raison dans la plupart des cas!!).

This isn't really true. University fees for students from within the EC are fixed by the government at about £3400 per year (€4500) - one large university (Leeds Metropolitian) charges less than this. UK Students from families on low incomes get their fees reduced by up to 40%.

I think the reason that the top universities tend to take students from public schools is more cultural. Students from working class backgrounds are less likely to apply in the first place - partly because universities like Oxford and Cambridge focus on more academic subjects (which are easier to learn in the small classes found in public schools) and partly because the university traditions and student lifestyle aren't as attractive to many students whose families don't have "Oxbridge" experience.

Yours etc.

Paul
"Latin is a dead language, as dead as dead can be. First it killed the Romans, now it's killing me."

(What isnt true? That there are no economic barriers to a university education??)

Access to education is far from equal. The inequality starts from a young age.

And having money buys a better secondary education, even if it is just to get into a good university.

As far as tertiary education is concerned, I also agree that cultural factors come into play, especially for Oxbridge. However, I also believe the working class intake of redbrick universities would shoot up if the economic barriers were removed.

It is naive to think that there people who are not put off attending universities for financial reasons. For a start, as mentioned in the previous post, tuition fees are only part of the costs. There are living costs to pay. Fine, you can get a government-backed loan to pay for part of these costs, but this is a LOAN not a studentship. Here again, children from a privileged background, with the right connections, are more likely to be able to find jobs commensurate with their experience and skills, and pay off their loans quicker.

I totally agree that the economic disadvantage in education starts in access to pre-school education and continues through state primary and secondary schools. What isn't true is Sabrina's idea that access to top universities in the UK is determined by wealth and priviledge alone.

Of course there are many financial barriers to higher education - principally the cost of living - but these exist as much for students attending the London's South Bank University as those studying at the London School of Economics.

Higher education in the UK is more accessible for children from low income families than ever before. It is children from large middle class families that are most likely to be forced out of higher education on economic grounds - no matter which university they attend.

The economic advantage of attending university should easily cover the cost of a loan. The loan is only repaid once the graduate has a job.

It's not ideal - but it will increase access to HE for the most disadvantaged. All in all it is a very anglo-saxon answer - My kids live in Spain - I'd much prefer them to attend university in the UK than Spain. Better a high quality degree and a job that adds value to society than a mediocre education and thousands of unemployed graduates.