Pericles has made an interesting and intelligent post.
But...

"I would personally be very upset to invest heavily in the education of my child, only to find that the standards at university level had to be reduced, in order to cater for a proportion of the less clever."

What exactly does that mean?
Is the standard of education itself being jeopardised here, or a piece of paper?
Will the amount of data your child might ingest be reduced, because of lowered entrance levels?
Will your child learn less?
Is it the value of the education which concerns you, or the value of the piece of paper issued at the end of that education?
I would suggest this argument is about a level playing field. As an egalitarian, I agree university places should be awarded on ability, but what if financially poor -but good- students are disadvantaged by simple circumstance?
It seems to me a lower entrance level may increase the failure rate, but so what?
At least, they were given a chance.

I reject the notion that proportional allocation would dumb down the universities. There is ample evidence (from memory see Bob Birrel’s report ‘Unequal Access to Tertiary Education in Victoria’) showing that, with everything else being equal, public school students tend to fare better at university than those from private schools. One could hazard a guess and say it is because they have had to work harder to excel.

Melbourne University has gone some way toward redressing some of the recognised inequity with its Access Melbourne initiative. It aims to have 20% of the intake come through this program in which “Students will be selected on a combination of their ENTER score or equivalent, and a consideration of the information they provide in relation to established criteria of disadvantage.”. I’m not sure in doing so the University feels they are dumbing down the institution.

While the initiative seems welcome I rail against the ‘cap-in-hand’ notion it propagates.

If some parents want to try and outspend others for the best chance at a top end place then let them, that is their choice, let the market forces rule so to speak, but let them do it within their own sector. The majority of us either can’t afford or don’t want to play that game and as a society we have worked to keep the market at bay from some of our institutions, often with noble intentions, so just allow us our due and a fair proportion of tertiary places for our children without the labels of envy or greed or accusations of wanting to reduce everything to the one level.

Hi Foxy,

I am still getting to the bottom of what happened but from my limited grasp I would say the problem lay at the state level as they were coordinating the distribution of the funds. There were other things at play but I won't go into them here.

I spoke to everyone from the principal, to state and federal bureaucrats, state and federal politicians or their officers, right through to Julia Gillard's office. Although smaller amounts were bandied about I just kept repeating that anything less than the full $200,000 was unacceptable. In the end the result was what was due but it took quite a deal of time on the phone. I didn't get the sense that the pollies were the problem but I called on them to fix it and in the end it happened.

Dear csteele,

Well done!

That just proves that parent involvement
in their children's schools does pay off.

Your family must be very proud of you.

Fair question, Grim.

>>"I would personally be very upset to invest heavily in the education of my child, only to find that the standards at university level had to be reduced, in order to cater for a proportion of the less clever." What exactly does that mean?<<

The way I see it is this.

If you assume that the current measurement of "smarts" is an accurate measurement of a person's ability to meet the challenges of a university education, then it follows that a lower score indicates a lower capability.

If you then proceed to allow lower scores to reach university, there would be two possible outcomes: the lower scorers don't get the full benefit of a university education, or the university spends increased resources on bringing these folk up to speed.

In our culture, the latter is far more likely a "solution" than the former. Hence my suggestion that the "smart" might stand to lose on the deal.

There is of course an alternative approach.

If the current selection method is not providing the desired social outcome, change it.

csteele puts this position quite firmly.

>>The majority of us either can’t afford or don’t want to play that game and as a society we have worked to keep the market at bay from some of our institutions, often with noble intentions, so just allow us our due and a fair proportion of tertiary places for our children without the labels of envy or greed or accusations of wanting to reduce everything to the one level.<<

If the objective of universities is simply to "provide tertiary places", then I agree completely. Do not let a lack of money come between a child and a "tertiary place".

But if the objective is a little more, shall we say, educationally challenging, then surely there should be a modicum of measurement along the way?

And while that remains the case, people with the means to advantage their children through paid tuition will continue to do so.