More information: You can crop a picture (trim slices from the side, top or bottom) by selecting on the slide the picture that you want to crop, going to the “format” menu, selecting “picture…” and in the “picture” dialog box clicking the “picture” button. This opens the crop options. The preview button allows you to see whether the crop achieves the effect you wanted. (If you have an old version of PowerPoint these controls may be located differently - refer to the PowerPoint Help menu.) Before importing a picture into your presentation save it in a suitable format (eg jpeg) at a resolution of 72 dots per inch if possible. This resolution keeps the size of the picture file small but still displays fine on screen – particularly important if you’re using several pictures, because half a dozen taken on a five megapixel digital camera and imported at full resolution could mean that your presentation is over 20 megabytes in size. This means it will take up unnecessary disk space, will be slow to open and run on many less powerful computers – and will be too big to e-mail.
No longer just for the likes of them? University access
No longer just for the likes of them? University access Danny Dorling, Department of Geography, University of Sheffield Talk to University WP team, Octagon, 11am, 20 April 2010. I suggest that the way we currently allocate university places will, in a few decades time, to come appear as perverse and haphazard as entry to elementary education prior to the 1880s now appears and as secondary education places were allocated prior to the 1960s. Perverse here means harmful to almost all, from the poorest to richest. Start with HEFCE’s revelations of spring 2010:
Recently a narrowing in inequality occurred Slight viewed in some ways, remarkable in others, but not even those in ‘pole-position’ are happy.. I’ll consider those at the ‘top’ with a typical ‘Times’ Newspaper story of spring 2010 (in five slides time) – but first what of that 15% to 19% going increase for young people (aged 18 and 19) in the worse off fifth of areas. An extra one in twenty five going in just five year. A 26% access increase…. (19-15)/15. The source here is HEFCE’s 2010 Trends report
Considering that 15% to 19% rise: It was predicted given earlier GCSEs
It looks as if it reflects ‘investment’, when a “lag” is put in, as below
But it is uneven. For the worse-off fifth: Women +5%, Men +4%. A slight widening of the gender gap
However, geographical differences in the trend are much more important. The overall rise in Yorkshire for all groups is just 4% in the last five years. To those regions and sexes that have, more is given. But – we have managed to create a system that still causes great distress – possiby most distress to those at the top…
Crude models predicting access You can predict how many you people will go to university from each area by knowing their social class background. However there are geographical effects above this. Living in an area where it has become usual to go to university, for from which youngsters want to escape more increases their chances of attending beyond the effects of social class and vice versa (Latin also puts children with usual backgrounds off places that reveal in using it…) http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/hguk/chapter1.htm
Consider a crude indicator of access inequality beyond class S. Yorks. Banbury Source: http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/hguk/chapter1.htm 4% - -4% = 8% gap “beyond class” For every 12 children 1 extra in S. Yorks. .does not go to uni.
Consider South Yorkshire and in particular Sheffield – why that gap? And why the dramatic reduction???
Government has very scant data <ul><li>Higher Education: Sheffield (PQ 29 March 2010) – Extract: </li></ul><ul><li>Mr. Betts: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills how many and what proportion of young people in (a) each Sheffield constituency and (b) the City of Sheffield have entered higher education in each year since 1998.  </li></ul><ul><li>Mr. Lammy [holding answer 25 March 2010]: The numbers of young (under 21) undergraduate entrants, from the Sheffield constituencies of Attercliffe, Brightside, Central, Hallam, Heeley and Hillsborough and Sheffield local authority, are provided in the following table. Figures are provided for the academic years 1998/99 to 2008/09. </li></ul><ul><li>Percentage change in young undergraduate entrants: 1998/99 to 2008/09 Change (percentage) Sheffield Attercliffe+74Sheffield Brightside+91Sheffield Central+78Sheffield Hallam+12Sheffield Heeley+44Sheffield Hillsborough+53Sheffield local authority+46 </li></ul><ul><li>The Department does not collect data on the number of residents in a particular area who are not in higher education, which would be necessary to calculate a proportion. It is, therefore, not possible to calculate the proportion of young people in each Sheffield constituency and Sheffield local authority who have entered higher education in each year since 1998. </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100329/text/100329w0054.htm#10033012005640 </li></ul>The next five slides consider trends in Sheffield by area – and division
Sheffield: Road traffic casualties 2005–2007: children aged 0–10 <ul><li>Brightside 69 </li></ul><ul><li>Attercliffe 67 </li></ul><ul><li>Central 54 </li></ul><ul><li>Heeley 42 </li></ul><ul><li>Hillsborough 30 </li></ul><ul><li>Hallam 11 </li></ul>Next slide: from age 15 we can forecast futures Between dental record at age 5 and school records from age 11, inequalities are most starkly shown by RTA:
A way forward – given the funding review - please think more local <ul><li>One tangible geographical step forward from abstract wishes is to consider your local area – what happened to the chances of the great great grandchildren of those who paid their penny subscription to build a university in Sheffield? </li></ul><ul><li>Or, in Oxford, to those hundreds of thousands of offspring of the ‘bedders’ </li></ul>
HEFCE benchmarks ignore geography (as they stand), thus: <ul><li>In 2009 Sheffield appeared in 2 nd place amongst Russell Group (+ York = RGY) Universities in how it was taking 8.2% of students from low participation neighbourhoods (target was 7.1%). But the university sits on the edge of one of the largest ‘seas’ of such neighbourhoods. Its rank out of all universities was 66 th . </li></ul>
Geography matters: Look at the proportions attending private schools at age 15 2% in S. Yorks. Banbury: 9%+ Source: http://www.sasi.group.shef.ac.uk/hguk/chapter1.htm Low participation ridge
From state schools or colleges <ul><li>Sheffield has risen from 4 th to 3 rd placed amongst RGY universities (85 th amongst all England’s in taking 85.7% from state schools given a benchmark of 81.5% (note 93% of a children go). But this is hardly surprising given its geography – in a “state school sea”. </li></ul>For every child in Britain that attends a private school (7%) Sheffield takes – pro rata – two children (14.3% of entry).
Parents from working classes <ul><li>Of the RGY universities Sheffield is 7 th by social class origin of parents, taking 20.7% of “NSEC 4-7”, benchmark 22.9%, full English ranking 93 rd . Proportion slipping from 21.3% in 2008, but rank not slipping as the source class group shrinks. All unsurprising. Northern upper-middle class parents use state schools far more. </li></ul>
Conclusions <ul><li>Try to think outside of RGY and outside 2010 </li></ul><ul><li>Do think of the people of Sheffield; not an abstract </li></ul><ul><li>It may be harder then to be too complacent? </li></ul><ul><li>Who needs to ‘Dream bigger dreams’? – ‘us’ or ‘them’. </li></ul><ul><li>Whose dreams are bigger in the first place? </li></ul>Be aware of how little many UK graduates know, but how superior they have been taught to feel. This is not their fault but due context. An example: “ Simon” B 30 Jan 2010, 12:19AM “ And yeah yeah, I know the increase perfectly matches the increase in GCSE scores but that just shows it's all smoke and mirrors because GCSE and GCEs have been getting steadily easier over the past 30 years. I can't believe that Dorling seriously believes the tripe he's peddling. As an aside I don't quite understand where Dorling gets his figures from. More of the wealthier students go to university. The gap between rich and poor has actually widened over the past 15 years so how does he come to the conclusion that " most additional university places have gone to students from poorer neighbourhoods " Therer has been a slightly bigger increase in the proportion of poorer students going than wealthier students but given that the absolute number is smaller, in numbers terms many more of the additional places must have gone to wealthier students. Dorling is obviously no mathematician. ..” The article said the absolute number change was greater – possibly for the first time ever recorded – but maybe I should have repeated it three times?! http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2010/jan/28/labours-great-successes-university-access-danny-dorling [ Article concerned 2005-10 change]
Further reading if interested: <ul><li>The return to elitism in education , Soundings, Issue 44, March 2010: </li></ul><ul><li>“ A society's attitudes to innate intelligence are closely correlated with its levels of inequality, writes Danny Dorling. In Britain, the backlash against comprehensive education has created a market-based system in which schools and universities compete for money and students”. http://www.eurozine.com/authors/dorling.html </li></ul><ul><li>With Ben Hennig, (2010). Angles, Saxons, Inequality, and Educational Mobility in England and Germany , Social Europe Journal , Online Debate Article. </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.social-europe.eu/category/good-society-debate/ </li></ul><ul><li>Tall tales and ripping yarns (2010) Adults Learning Magazine, an article on why </li></ul><ul><li>inequality persists, and what can education do to challenge it http://www.niace.org.uk/publications/adults-learning </li></ul>