1 / 10

D isadvantaged youth – in search for specific

D isadvantaged youth – in search for specific. Krzysztof Wasielewski Institute Sociology Nicolaus Copernicus University E-mail: kwasielewski@wp.pl. Factors influencing youth 's access to higher education. Activities of non-public education (2012 – 330 private universities ) ;

stillman-tyrone
Télécharger la présentation

D isadvantaged youth – in search for specific

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Disadvantaged youth – in search for specific Krzysztof Wasielewski InstituteSociology Nicolaus Copernicus University E-mail: kwasielewski@wp.pl

  2. Factors influencing youth's access to higher education Activities of non-public education (2012 – 330 privateuniversities); Massificationof education (1989 – 400.000 students, 2012 – 1.8 mln); High educational aspirations (70% of 16 years-old want diploma of universitiy); High rates of scholarization (55% - scholarizationrateat the level of HE); Regional differentiation of the school network and universities; Meritocratic rules in the economy (economyneedsprofessionals); Highly valued education; Demographic decline (since 2000 alluniversitieshas a moreplaces for studentsthanallcohorts of 19-olds).

  3. Disadvantagesyouth – mainquestions(not soobvious) Aboutdiagnosis: Do we have young people excluded from access to higher education? (Especially, in context of massification of HE) Who are the young people excluded? Where are they from? But: We donthave a basicinformationsaboutinequalities in acces to HE. We haveonlyknowledg form someregiontenden, someuniversities. Letseebasictendencies,

  4. Place of living/residence and universitieslevel (w %)Survey: a biography of 30-year-olds in two regions, N: 707

  5. Status of the family of origin and university level (%)Survey: a biography of 30-year-olds in two regions, N: 707

  6. The percentage of rural youth at the Nicolaus Copernicus University (fullpopulation) • But: • internaldiversity of faculties, departments, studies, f.e.: maths – 40%, englishfilology – 16%

  7. Student`smarksat the Nicolaus Copernicus University(in %) • Whoearns: • Boys with badmarks from ruralarea • Wholost: • University – lowerquality of students

  8. Status of family origin of studentsat the Nicolaus Copernicus University • But: • Pooryouth from ruralarea and pooryouth from the Torun (place of university)

  9. The main problem areas Aboutsupportinstruments: What kind of support instruments have? 1. Social scholarschip; 2. Scholarships for learning achievements (only 1,000 per year); 3. Scholarships funded by NGOs; 4. Scholarships funded by local government. Whatistheireffectiveness? We do not know!

  10. Summary: Whatcan/shouldwe do? We need an efficient system for the diagnosis capacity of young people,not the school units; We need educational counselors (and professional) in each school; Greaterinvolvement of universities in the search for talented youth and the acquisition of the studies; We need bettersystem of information on higher education, scholarships, dormitories in the regions, ruralareasand marginalized groups; We need to reduce the internal differentiation lower and upper secondary education.

More Related