0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.
Anecdotal evidence is useless.That said, I'll give you my anecdote. My sister won a scholarship to a fee paying school in Herts. She won a scholarship for tennis, still it cost my dad a pretty penny.I did better than her at uni but she went to the USA because of her tennis. She won a few things.My experience of private education is that it is a million miles ahead of state school. But the biggest difference, is the attitude of the teachers. It's a different world.So much more supportive. So much more focussed.
Quote from: River Don on September 28, 2023, 10:32:25 pmAnecdotal evidence is useless.That said, I'll give you my anecdote. My sister won a scholarship to a fee paying school in Herts. She won a scholarship for tennis, still it cost my dad a pretty penny.I did better than her at uni but she went to the USA because of her tennis. She won a few things.My experience of private education is that it is a million miles ahead of state school. But the biggest difference, is the attitude of the teachers. It's a different world.So much more supportive. So much more focussed. I’ve never worked in a private school, but rather than it being the attitude of the teachers that’s better, I suspect it’s more that there is more support for teachers to allow them to be more compassionate and supportive. No teacher worth their salt doesn’t want to be compassionate and supportive, and focussed on the child.
BTW I think smaller classes makes a huge difference too.
TommyInterestingly it's also true that anyone aspiring to Oxbridge has far better prospects of being accepted if they apply from the state sector than they do from the private sector. The latter is actually a millstone in the Oxbridge applications process.I'm not sure what evidence you are basing that on, but it is flatly contradicted by Oxford's own data.https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-typeCurrently, about 6.5% of kids go to private schools.Last year 24.5% of all applications to Oxford came from private schools.31.9% of UK new starters at Oxford came from private schools.So clearly, the proportion of private school kids who get Oxford places after applying is higher than the proportion of state school kids who do. 20.4% against 16.9%.So in the case of Oxford at least, your claim is demonstrably wrong.And here's the really damning point.Of all the Oxford applicants who get AAA or better at A-Level (the traditional requirement) 79.1% come from state schools, whereas 20.9% come from private schools. BUT, of the new intake last year, 68.1% came from state schools and 31.9% from private schools.So, not only are you more likely to perform better at a private school, because of the resources. If you come from a private school and get the same A level results as a kid who went to a state school, with worse resources, you are much, much more likely to get into Oxford. Whether that is an old school tie thing, or an assessment by Oxford that a private school prepares the person overall better to succeed at Oxford I couldn't say. But it is a demonstrable fact in Oxford's own data.Pay for a private education by all means. But don't try to play down the huge advantage that gives your kids. It's there in the data.
''There are however a minority of parents like myself and my wife who both work our b*llocks off to be able to send her there. Drop her off earliest and last to pick her up because we're both working to send her there. Its people like us (which cumulatively adds up to quite a lot of people across the country) who will suffer''Sounds like you need a union Tommy C.
Maybe just a sense of humour then, your hard luck story certainly needs one
Billy, you've read the same article as I've read in The Guardian and quoted from it. I've also read The Spectators twist on it too. You can spin this either way depending on the argument you're trying to make.Yes, there is still a disproportionately high number of pupils from private school getting into Oxbridge. But that is because it has historically always been so. That trend reversal we're starting to see is a direct result of privately educated pupils being actively discriminated against compared to their state educated peers. I quote the Head of Cambridge admissions..."We have to keep making it very, very clear we are intending to reduce over time the number of people who are coming from independent school backgrounds into places like Oxford or Cambridge."They cannot achieve that without a programme of active discrimination based background, not results. Ergo, you're now at an advantage is you go to a state school. You'll have read about the examples of parents pulling their kids out of private schools and sending them to a state sixth form. Why do you suppose they're doing that? They are now actively discriminating based on background, not ability and that is demonstrably true. They've admitted it. What your seing in the stats is the start of that but it's a process they intend to continue with and accelerate.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 29, 2023, 12:24:00 amTommyInterestingly it's also true that anyone aspiring to Oxbridge has far better prospects of being accepted if they apply from the state sector than they do from the private sector. The latter is actually a millstone in the Oxbridge applications process.I'm not sure what evidence you are basing that on, but it is flatly contradicted by Oxford's own data.https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-typeCurrently, about 6.5% of kids go to private schools.Last year 24.5% of all applications to Oxford came from private schools.31.9% of UK new starters at Oxford came from private schools.So clearly, the proportion of private school kids who get Oxford places after applying is higher than the proportion of state school kids who do. 20.4% against 16.9%.So in the case of Oxford at least, your claim is demonstrably wrong.And here's the really damning point.Of all the Oxford applicants who get AAA or better at A-Level (the traditional requirement) 79.1% come from state schools, whereas 20.9% come from private schools. BUT, of the new intake last year, 68.1% came from state schools and 31.9% from private schools.So, not only are you more likely to perform better at a private school, because of the resources. If you come from a private school and get the same A level results as a kid who went to a state school, with worse resources, you are much, much more likely to get into Oxford. Whether that is an old school tie thing, or an assessment by Oxford that a private school prepares the person overall better to succeed at Oxford I couldn't say. But it is a demonstrable fact in Oxford's own data.Pay for a private education by all means. But don't try to play down the huge advantage that gives your kids. It's there in the data.Billy, you've read the same article as I've read in The Guardian and quoted from it. I've also read The Spectators twist on it too. You can spin this either way depending on the argument you're trying to make.Yes, there is still a disproportionately high number of pupils from private school getting into Oxbridge. But that is because it has historically always been so. That trend reversal we're starting to see is a direct result of privately educated pupils being actively discriminated against compared to their state educated peers. I quote the Head of Cambridge admissions..."We have to keep making it very, very clear we are intending to reduce over time the number of people who are coming from independent school backgrounds into places like Oxford or Cambridge."They cannot achieve that without a programme of active discrimination based background, not results. Ergo, you're now at an advantage is you go to a state school. You'll have read about the examples of parents pulling their kids out of private schools and sending them to a state sixth form. Why do you suppose they're doing that? They are now actively discriminating based on background, not ability and that is demonstrably true. They've admitted it. What your seing in the stats is the start of that but it's a process they intend to continue with and accelerate.
Quote from: TommyC on September 29, 2023, 06:40:47 amQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 29, 2023, 12:24:00 amTommyInterestingly it's also true that anyone aspiring to Oxbridge has far better prospects of being accepted if they apply from the state sector than they do from the private sector. The latter is actually a millstone in the Oxbridge applications process.I'm not sure what evidence you are basing that on, but it is flatly contradicted by Oxford's own data.https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-typeCurrently, about 6.5% of kids go to private schools.Last year 24.5% of all applications to Oxford came from private schools.31.9% of UK new starters at Oxford came from private schools.So clearly, the proportion of private school kids who get Oxford places after applying is higher than the proportion of state school kids who do. 20.4% against 16.9%.So in the case of Oxford at least, your claim is demonstrably wrong.And here's the really damning point.Of all the Oxford applicants who get AAA or better at A-Level (the traditional requirement) 79.1% come from state schools, whereas 20.9% come from private schools. BUT, of the new intake last year, 68.1% came from state schools and 31.9% from private schools.So, not only are you more likely to perform better at a private school, because of the resources. If you come from a private school and get the same A level results as a kid who went to a state school, with worse resources, you are much, much more likely to get into Oxford. Whether that is an old school tie thing, or an assessment by Oxford that a private school prepares the person overall better to succeed at Oxford I couldn't say. But it is a demonstrable fact in Oxford's own data.Pay for a private education by all means. But don't try to play down the huge advantage that gives your kids. It's there in the data.Billy, you've read the same article as I've read in The Guardian and quoted from it. I've also read The Spectators twist on it too. You can spin this either way depending on the argument you're trying to make.Yes, there is still a disproportionately high number of pupils from private school getting into Oxbridge. But that is because it has historically always been so. That trend reversal we're starting to see is a direct result of privately educated pupils being actively discriminated against compared to their state educated peers. I quote the Head of Cambridge admissions..."We have to keep making it very, very clear we are intending to reduce over time the number of people who are coming from independent school backgrounds into places like Oxford or Cambridge."They cannot achieve that without a programme of active discrimination based background, not results. Ergo, you're now at an advantage is you go to a state school. You'll have read about the examples of parents pulling their kids out of private schools and sending them to a state sixth form. Why do you suppose they're doing that? They are now actively discriminating based on background, not ability and that is demonstrably true. They've admitted it. What your seing in the stats is the start of that but it's a process they intend to continue with and accelerate.TommyI'm looking at the raw numbers. I have absolutely no interest in having a journalist of any shade tell me what to think when the data is out there for me to look at.I'm assuming, from your response about the Cambridge line that you haven't looked at the numbers and understood the context that comment is made in.If Cambridge is anything like Oxford, it's an established fact that they have, and still do, discriminate against state students, vis-a-vis privately educated students with the same A-Level results. It's there in the data that Oxford themselves publish. There's no arguing that. It is a fact.In light of that, I'm assuming that what the Cambridge quote means is that they finally accept that in the mid-20th century, this sort of positive discrimination AGAINST state educated kids is no longer acceptable, and they have to level the playing field. Personally, I would go much further. To me it is self evident that a kid who gets AAA at Mexborough School is fundamentally a better scholar than one who gets AAA at a £30k a year private school. I cannot see any possible argument against that. So, yes, I would apply positive discrimination in favour of high performing state school kids. Because if we truly do want the best in our society to rise to the top, for the benefit of the country as a whole, that is clearly a way to aid that process.
Quote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 29, 2023, 12:24:00 amTommyInterestingly it's also true that anyone aspiring to Oxbridge has far better prospects of being accepted if they apply from the state sector than they do from the private sector. The latter is actually a millstone in the Oxbridge applications process.I'm not sure what evidence you are basing that on, but it is flatly contradicted by Oxford's own data.https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-typeCurrently, about 6.5% of kids go to private schools.Last year 24.5% of all applications to Oxford came from private schools.31.9% of UK new starters at Oxford came from private schools.So clearly, the proportion of private school kids who get Oxford places after applying is higher than the proportion of state school kids who do. 20.4% against 16.9%.So in the case of Oxford at least, your claim is demonstrably wrong.And here's the really damning point.Of all the Oxford applicants who get AAA or better at A-Level (the traditional requirement) 79.1% come from state schools, whereas 20.9% come from private schools. BUT, of the new intake last year, 68.1% came from state schools and 31.9% from private schools.So, not only are you more likely to perform better at a private school, because of the resources. If you come from a private school and get the same A level results as a kid who went to a state school, with worse resources, you are much, much more likely to get into Oxford. Whether that is an old school tie thing, or an assessment by Oxford that a private school prepares the person overall better to succeed at Oxford I couldn't say. But it is a demonstrable fact in Oxford's own data.Pay for a private education by all means. But don't try to play down the huge advantage that gives your kids. It's there in the data.Billy, you've read the same article as I've read in The Guardian and quoted from it. I've also read The Spectators twist on it too. You can spin this either way depending on the argument you're trying to make.Yes, there is still a disproportionately high number of pupils from private school getting into Oxbridge. But that is because it has historically always been so. That trend reversal we're starting to see is a direct result of privately educated pupils being actively discriminated against compared to their state educated peers. I quote the Head of Cambridge admissions..."We have to keep making it very, very clear we are intending to reduce over time the number of people who are coming from independent school backgrounds into places like Oxford or Cambridge."They cannot achieve that without a programme of active discrimination based background, not results. Ergo, you're now at an advantage is you go to a state school. You'll have read about the examples of parents pulling their kids out of private schools and sending them to a state sixth form. Why do you suppose they're doing that? They are now actively discriminating based on background, not ability and that is demonstrably true. They've admitted it. What your seing in the stats is the start of that but it's a process they intend to continue with and accelerate.
Quote from: TommyC on September 29, 2023, 06:40:47 amQuote from: BillyStubbsTears on September 29, 2023, 12:24:00 amTommyInterestingly it's also true that anyone aspiring to Oxbridge has far better prospects of being accepted if they apply from the state sector than they do from the private sector. The latter is actually a millstone in the Oxbridge applications process.I'm not sure what evidence you are basing that on, but it is flatly contradicted by Oxford's own data.https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/facts-and-figures/admissions-statistics/undergraduate-students/current/school-typeCurrently, about 6.5% of kids go to private schools.Last year 24.5% of all applications to Oxford came from private schools.31.9% of UK new starters at Oxford came from private schools.So clearly, the proportion of private school kids who get Oxford places after applying is higher than the proportion of state school kids who do. 20.4% against 16.9%.So in the case of Oxford at least, your claim is demonstrably wrong.And here's the really damning point.Of all the Oxford applicants who get AAA or better at A-Level (the traditional requirement) 79.1% come from state schools, whereas 20.9% come from private schools. BUT, of the new intake last year, 68.1% came from state schools and 31.9% from private schools.So, not only are you more likely to perform better at a private school, because of the resources. If you come from a private school and get the same A level results as a kid who went to a state school, with worse resources, you are much, much more likely to get into Oxford. Whether that is an old school tie thing, or an assessment by Oxford that a private school prepares the person overall better to succeed at Oxford I couldn't say. But it is a demonstrable fact in Oxford's own data.Pay for a private education by all means. But don't try to play down the huge advantage that gives your kids. It's there in the data.Billy, you've read the same article as I've read in The Guardian and quoted from it. I've also read The Spectators twist on it too. You can spin this either way depending on the argument you're trying to make.Yes, there is still a disproportionately high number of pupils from private school getting into Oxbridge. But that is because it has historically always been so. That trend reversal we're starting to see is a direct result of privately educated pupils being actively discriminated against compared to their state educated peers. I quote the Head of Cambridge admissions..."We have to keep making it very, very clear we are intending to reduce over time the number of people who are coming from independent school backgrounds into places like Oxford or Cambridge."They cannot achieve that without a programme of active discrimination based background, not results. Ergo, you're now at an advantage is you go to a state school. You'll have read about the examples of parents pulling their kids out of private schools and sending them to a state sixth form. Why do you suppose they're doing that? They are now actively discriminating based on background, not ability and that is demonstrably true. They've admitted it. What your seing in the stats is the start of that but it's a process they intend to continue with and accelerate.TommyI'm looking at the raw numbers. I have absolutely no interest in having a journalist of any shade tell me what to think when the data is out there for me to look at.I'm assuming, from your response about the Cambridge line that you haven't looked at the numbers and understood the context that comment is made in.If Cambridge is anything like Oxford, it's an established fact that they have, and still do, discriminate against state students, vis-a-vis privately educated students with the same A-Level results. It's there in the data that Oxford themselves publish. There's no arguing that. It is a fact.In light of that, I'm assuming that what the Cambridge quote means is that they finally accept that in the mid-20th century, this sort of positive discrimination AGAINST state educated kids is no longer acceptable, and they have to level the playing field. Personally, I would go much further. To me it is self evident that a kid who gets AAA at Mexborough School is fundamentally a better scholar than one who gets AAA at a £30k a year private school. I cannot see any possible argument against that. So, yes, I would apply positive discrimination in favour of high performing state school kids. Because if we truly do want the best in our society to rise to the top, for the benefit of the country as a whole, that is clearly a way to aid that process.
Another pledge/mission/promise for the bonfire;https://nitter.net/AdamBienkov/status/1713430142683406441#mHouse of Lords this time....what next, eh?
It has been answered many times before, Syd.It depends where you are (by constituency), and what your core beliefs are.The reason for voting for change is to see a new policy prospectus.As Labour and the Tories are offering similar neo liberal economic packages, you are choosing new managers for a discredited system.That might be good enough for some, but not for others.
So nobody in our very extended family or their children went to Uni. I went to high school my wife to Secondary Modern. My 2 children attended a local Comp both had very good teachers in the subjects they were particularly interested in but additionally they had teachers in their weaker subjects who pushed them to the extent that they got excellent results in those subjects as well I was in hospital when my son got his O level results, he rang me to tell me his results and finally Maths his worst subject but a brilliant teacher, A☆.Both went on to Uni, the 1st in our families, to do so.The key thing is that it was good teachers who recognised ability and pushed them to achieve far better grades than they expectedMy daughter has made a good career in local Government.My son has had 5 books published and is now an Editor with a military history publisher.All due to ability but assisted by good teachers.I would also add my son had an interview for Oxford but following a good morning interview failed to tell the afternoon panel that he had been mugged during the lunch break in the local park and was in no condition to undertake the afternoon interview, not surprisingly he was unsuccesfull
Quote from: albie on October 16, 2023, 05:01:49 pmIt has been answered many times before, Syd.It depends where you are (by constituency), and what your core beliefs are.The reason for voting for change is to see a new policy prospectus.As Labour and the Tories are offering similar neo liberal economic packages, you are choosing new managers for a discredited system.That might be good enough for some, but not for others.The thing is the labour party can be changed but one has to have influence to do that, just as those had that changed it away from your preferences (and a lot of mine too) and one has to be realistic, labour can win with the centre and some of the left and far left but labour can't win with the far left and some of the left and some pf the centre. Labour needs a big slice of the centre wherever that is at any point in time.