Universities want a big increase in equity funding for struggling students, and say money should be targeted based on students’ NCEA results, rather than race or disability.
The government’s review of universities asked how to tackle barriers to student success.
Universities New Zealand’s submission said students who passed 90 percent of their first-year courses were most likely to be successful at university.
“UNZ did extensive work in this area in 2018 and 2019 and again in 2023. We know from that work that NCEA grades predict about 89 percent of the academic performance of students at university,” the submission said.
“When students are sorted into quintiles by their NCEA results, the bottom (fifth) quintile is disproportionately at risk of not gaining the necessary 90 percent of first year credits, followed by the second bottom (fourth) quintile.”
The report said equity funding should therefore be targeted to students with the worst school grades. . .
Giving assistance on who needs it most rather than any other criteria is sensible, but is it universities’ role to help students who aren’t up to the requirements of tertiary study?
Wouldn’t it be better for schools to educate pupils who want to go to university to the standard required and prepare those who don’t want, or are not sufficiently capable of, university study for other avenues after school?
Given how expensive university study is for taxpayers and students, wouldn’t institutions be better to direct resources to giving students the best possible education rather than diluting money and staff time on students not prepared, or able, for the academic rigour?
That doesn’t mean that pupils who don’t do as well at NCEA shouldn’t ever go to university.
Some people don’t do well at school for a variety of reasons but with time, and/or help, could succeed at tertiary study. But wouldn’t it be better to give them the assistance they need before they enrol at university so that they are ready for tertiary study when they get there, rather than after they’ve enrolled?
Ele Ludemann is a North Otago farmer and journalist, who blogs HERE - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
Simply, no.
It is not their role in any shape or form.
It is the role of firstly primary and then secondary teachers to get children to their individual academic peaks.
The universities role is then to get those academically viable for university to achieve their goal.
This is pure woke DEI CRT thinking and it fits snuggly with getting more bums on seats which of course (surprise, surprise) get the Universities more funding.
If the Universities have a large percentage of failure they seeming do not care and to my mind it is a form of fraud.
Whilst there will be notable exceptions I have seen several cases of young persons encourged into eduction way beyond their ability or temperament. They end up with years wasted, a huge debt, and menial jobs they would have grown beyond if had not frittered years "learning".
Equity as a goal is insane. Everyone has different abilities and natures. It is not possible for everyone to have equal outcomes without making us all clones and raising people in a zoo.
Post a Comment