Lou Thompson writes: >Yeah, and if we could just keep women and those nasty poor people out of >school like in the good old days, we wouldn't have to worry about >accusations that tests discriminate against them! That's not what I was arguing. If we could shift the emphasis from lowering the standard for students from 'disadvantaged' (however you care to define it) backgrounds to providing the support for enabling them to reach a higher one, then everybody is a winner: from the students who would have proper degrees as distinct from mickey mouse ones to employers who would know that graduates can offer genuinely marketable skills. If the liberal elite is right, then why is it that alumni from Oxbridge typically end up earning three times more than those from the institution where I teach within two years of graduating? The answer is that they're wrong and that, frankly, earning an Oxbridge degree is a hell of a lot tougher. I passionately believe that as one of those 'nasty poor people' who took myself from comprehensive school leaver to PhD by working 100 hour weeks, anyone should be able to do the same thing. But they have to have what it takes, and they have to be prepared to put in those 100 hour weeks. And as for the women issue, feminist educationalists I've read argue that exams shouldn't be used because they put women at a psychological disadvantage. As I said, the same research reveals that continually assessed coursework inflicts an equivalent disadvantage on men. But female academics seem to have no problem whatsoever in teaching 100% coursework modules in the light of this research, whereas anyone who proposes a 100% exam assessment process is instinctively branded a sexist. Double standards or what? If you get to a situation whereby someone is allowed to gain a qualification through less attainment than someone else because they are perceived to have come from a less advantaged background, then the employment market which is buying that qualification will start to distrust it. As an employer, I woudn't care whether someone grew up in a council house or Hampton Court Palace ; whether they're male, female or hermaphrodite; black, white or purple; gay, straight or like shagging goats. What matters is what they, as a graduate, can and can't do relative to a school leaver. That's why zero tolerance on plagiarism - through a combination of assessment techniques that inhibit it, detection tools and an 'academic death penalty' for those who are found to have knowingly done it - is about the only way we have of defeating this problem. Leo ---- Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu