Katie Hopkins, Access and Rousseau

   Today, Katie Hopkins came to my university and she debated on social class and social mobility. She was her usual lovely self (insert heavy sarcasm) and some of the highlights during the debate included her saying that she would get rid of the NHS, the Minister for Women and Environment Minister if she was put into power, and how students at this particular university should not care about access issues as we're in the 'top percent' of the country, have bright futures ahead of us and shouldn't worry about others. I think she thought that we'd be flattered by her words, patronising tone and general flippant attitude but she was so so wrong and put in her place many times.

  Some of the things that she said that really irked me were her views on the admission process and access scheme. She said that if she was in charge of this process, and there were two potential students with identical grades called George and Charmayne for example, she would pick George due to his name as that sounds 'more right' for the university than Charmayne. She is also against the way that the university takes into account the different academic backgrounds of students while considering them. For example, let's say Charmayne was from a very low achieving school, where no student has ever been to Oxford and George is from one of the best private schools in the country. Normal admissions tutors would take this into account and be more likely to favour Charmayne over George in this situation. Why, you ask? This is because the fact that Charmayne has identical grades to George despite the poor quality of her school shows that she is a hard worker, independent and quite bright, whereas George could have just had things handed to him on a plate due to the many opportunities available at his private school. Despite all this, Katie Hopkins would still pick George over Charmayne. This really angered me because in this kind of scenario, I'm the Charmayne.

  I've been at this university for over two months now and in my time here, access has really begun to mean a lot to me. This is because the university is not as elitist and unreachable as the press (coughDAILYMAILcough) would make people believe; there are many bright students from poor achieving schools who could get in but people like Katie Hopkins do not help in dispelling the myth about the university only being for Etonians and students from independent schools. It's sad that many people think this; most people at my secondary school believed this and the students that I tutor every week at a local secondary school also believe this. If people like Katie Hopkins had their way, the university would only accept these kind of students but thankfully, she's not the one making the admissions decisions.

Isn't he a looker?

  This is why I try to do as much access and outreach stuff as I can, so that I can reach the Charmaynes out there and convince them to apply as they have the grades and they just need the encouragement and knowledge of the fact that the university doesn't look down on them due to their school. Yes, it's true that there can often be inequality in the the schooling system as more schools know the ins and outs of the application process etc than others. This inequality brings me to Rousseau, the philosopher that I'm studying this week, whose 18th century work, 'Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men' was very appropriate for the week. I'd really recommend it; it's a very interesting read and wayyy easier to understand than Descartes!

 So, how do I sum up all of this? Katie Hopkins is very wrong in her ideas, which are very laughable as she often contradicts herself, access is an issue that is very close to my heart and something that I'll always try to help improve and Rousseau is a-okay. Finally, if you class yourself as a Charmayne and you're not sure where to apply and think you're not good enough to aim as high as possible, this song is for you. Peace out and enjoy.