UK's private school students are being "persecuted akin to the Jewish people"

steddyeddy

Head of Stowe school a private school in Buckinghamshire argued that

the questioning the disproportionate numbers of privately educated people in positions of power was akin to “the conspiratorial language of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, and the language of “Hitler and his henchmen.

There’s a much more concerted effort by [Oxbridge] admissions tutors to drive down the number of places given to independent schools,” he told the Times. “Privately educated pupils in the UK are also being accused of dominating the top jobs and stifling social mobility … it is all too facile to stereotype groups and ignore the fact that lawyers, doctors, writers and politicians are individuals.

Leaders in the Jewish community obviously denounced this comparison.

This comes as Oxford is under the spotlight as it was revealed that 47% of its students come from private schools despite those schools only representing only 7% of the population. Oxford, to be fair to them has pledged to reduce or limit the number of applicants from private schools.

This isn't simply from a position of equality but in response the revelation that studies show the that the results that these students receive in GCSEs aren't reflective of their actual academic ability. When they get to university they don't do as well as state school pupils.


So Oxford are letting a near majority of its students from private schools when research shows that state school students do better at university. Even forgetting equality for a minute, why shouldn't Oxford seek to have the best pupils and reduce those whose school privilege may have lent itself to an inflated academic score?

Also why do people feel the need to attack people who seek to challenge privilege?

Gimme A Pound

Lol what sort of **** would someone have to be to actually think of that analogy let alone use it in public!

amcalester

He's just looking after his own, if numbers attending Oxbridge from privates schools fall then so does the attractiveness of attending these schools.

Ray Palmer

What way does college selection work in the UK? CAO system here stops favoritism based on schools directly. Although going to better equipped schools and grid schools do give advantages it is still based on grade achievement.
The US system is even worse with the way it selects pupils. Such a corrupt and exclusionary model.

steddyeddy

amcalester wrote: »

He's just looking after his own, if numbers attending Oxbridge from privates schools fall then so does the attractiveness of attending these schools.

But he's not looking after his own. You don't do that by comparing the already privileged kids to victims of the Holocaust.

The world has worse problems to sort out the Uk is a pretty good place to live and dose alright on meritocracy, nowhere is perfect.

kowloon

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What way does college selection work in the UK? CAO system here stops favoritism based on schools directly. Although going to better equipped schools and grid schools do give advantages it is still based on grade achievement.
The US system is even worse with the way it selects pupils. Such a corrupt and exclusionary model.

They have a points system but you also have to write a personal statement which leaves a lot of wiggle room for them.

amcalester

steddyeddy wrote: »

But he's not looking after his own. You don't do that by comparing the already privileged kids to victims of the Holocaust.

Attempting to look after his own.

Very silly analogy for sure, but it shouldn't be surprising that the head of a private school is in favour of the status quo.

steddyeddy

amcalester wrote: »

Attempting to look after his own.

Very silly analogy for sure, but it shouldn't be surprising that the head of a private school is in favour of the status quo.

Indeed but should it be surprising that other people fight for the best pupils to attend Oxford and not just the richest?

steddyeddy

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What way does college selection work in the UK? CAO system here stops favoritism based on schools directly. Although going to better equipped schools and grid schools do give advantages it is still based on grade achievement.
The US system is even worse with the way it selects pupils. Such a corrupt and exclusionary model.

You can't compare these studies with Irish studies. We have private schools but they're heavily subsidised. One school in Dublin only wanted children "south of the river to attend" but they were soon corrected on that.

AlphabetCards

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed but should it be surprising that other people fight for the best pupils to attend Oxford and not just the richest?

If you look at the figures, you may find that the media could be be hoist by its own petard. Stowe school doesn't really do as well in A levels for AAB% as state/comprehensives in its region, so by specifying positions that are open to state/comp schools only, it is in fact increasing the chance that a person from Stowe would have do do far better than a state school child in order to secure a place.

This is effectively punishing children for the decisions made by their well-off parents, and is nothing but classism.

amcalester

steddyeddy wrote: »

Indeed but should it be surprising that other people fight for the best pupils to attend Oxford and not just the richest?

Absolutely and I'm not defending the guy, just pointing out that what he says should be taken with a massive pinch of salt.

AlphabetCards

mariaalice wrote: »

The world has worse problems to sort out the Uk is a pretty good place to live and dose alright on meritocracy, nowhere is perfect.

Amen. It's great over here. I'd never go back to Ireland, everything feels like a closed shop.

silverharp

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The US system is even worse with the way it selects pupils. Such a corrupt and exclusionary model.

Their SAT's are a reasonable approach? also the US maybe entering a peak in terms of collage attendance, its beginning to be seen as a joke and an expensive one.

steddyeddy

AlphabetCards wrote: »

If you look at the figures, you may find that the media could be be hoist by its own petard. Stowe school doesn't really do as well in A levels for AAB% as state/comprehensives in its region, so by specifying positions that are open to state/comp schools only, it is in fact increasing the chance that a person from Stowe would have do do far better than a state school child in order to secure a place.

This is effectively punishing children for the decisions made by their well-off parents, and is nothing but classism.

But unfortunately the studies show that private school students do worse when they get to university. You're saying that universities shouldn't seek the best students and minimise the under performers?

jim o doom

That's very interesting really! And not to mention, these private school kids are many times born to a life of privelge, meet other priveleged children, such as the kids of active politicians, which sketches out their adult life of continued privelege.

In a way, comparing it to the plight of the Jewish people, is similar to how Israel tries to paint any criticism of Israel as "anti Jewish".

ALWAYS try to portray yourself as the victim to avoid criticism would be the take away.

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

Also why do people feel the need to attack people who seek to challenge privilege?

Because the people who seek to “challenge privilege” tend to be annoying fcuks.

steddyeddy wrote: »

But unfortunately the studies show that private school students do worse when they get to university. You're saying that universities shouldn't seek the best students and minimise the under performers?

Universities have never been about seeking the best students, they’re more like expensive day care centres for the wealthy who can afford to send their children to Universities with the best reputation in the provision of said childminding services.

steddyeddy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Universities have never been about seeking the best students, they’re more like expensive day care centres for the wealthy who can afford to send their children to Universities with the best reputation in the provision of said childminding services.

Well sorry Jack but I want to be sure that the society has the best scientists, doctors and engineers. I don't want my taxes to fund day care centres.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Head of Stowe school a private school in Buckinghamshire argued that



Leaders in the Jewish community obviously denounced this comparison.

This comes as Oxford is under the spotlight as it was revealed that 47% of its students come from private schools despite those schools only representing only 7% of the population. Oxford, to be fair to them has pledged to reduce or limit the number of applicants from private schools.

This isn't simply from a position of equality but in response the revelation that studies show the that the results that these students receive in GCSEs aren't reflective of their actual academic ability. When they get to university they don't do as well as state school pupils.


So Oxford are letting a near majority of its students from private schools when research shows that state school students do better at university. Even forgetting equality for a minute, why shouldn't Oxford seek to have the best pupils and reduce those whose school privilege may have lent itself to an inflated academic score?

Also why do people feel the need to attack people who seek to challenge privilege?

ridiculous comments from the head, absolutely stupid thing to say.

Can you confirm your figures though?

According to the articles linked (and the link in the second to Oxford's own statistics) 58% are from state schools, but that does not equate to the remainder being from private schools as the Guardian presumes.

77% of pupils at Oxford are from the UK, so surely it should read that 19% are from private schools?

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well sorry Jack but I want to be sure that the society has the best scientists, doctors and engineers. I don't want my taxes to fund day care centres.

None of us actually have any choice in where our taxes are spent. It’s yet another reason why even in a society with the most well educated scientists, doctors and engineers; it’s politicians, and not University educated children banging on about “challenging privilege”, will ultimately decide where public funds are spent.

GreeBo

In the UK "private" schools are actually called Public Schools.
Fun fact.

steddyeddy

jim o doom wrote: »

That's very interesting really! And not to mention, these private school kids are many times born to a life of privelge, meet other priveleged children, such as the kids of active politicians, which sketches out their adult life of continued privelege.

In a way, comparing it to the plight of the Jewish people, is similar to how Israel tries to paint any criticism of Israel as "anti Jewish".

ALWAYS try to portray yourself as the victim to avoid criticism would be the take away.

I know it's mad right. They feel their kids are entitled to superior treatment based on class and the ones who challenge that are labelled as discriminating against class.

I'm a member on our organisation's Athena Swan board in a UK university. We deal with gender, class and race discrimination and ensuring equality of opportunity.

Time and time again when there's moves to analyse fairness in admissions regarding the school the pupil attends the heads of these top fee paying schools complain that the children they teach are victims of class discrimination. The same children that studies show under perform at university in relation to poorer children, the same ones who get a place in a university sometimes at the expense of a poorer but brighter student.

People like this feel their wealth entitles them and their kids to attend university. To convince themselves that this entitlement is right they'll come up with myths like "private school kids are brighter" and to challenge their beliefs is apparently classism.

steddyeddy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

None of us actually have any choice in where our taxes are spent. It’s yet another reason why even in a society with the most well educated scientists, doctors and engineers; it’s politicians, and not University educated children banging on about “challenging privilege”, will ultimately decide where public funds are spent.

I do Jack. I sit on an equality board in the university. We have some say in admissions.

steddyeddy

Aegir wrote: »

ridiculous comments from the head, absolutely stupid thing to say.

Can you confirm your figures though?

According to the articles linked (and the link in the second to Oxford's own statistics) 58% are from state schools, but that does not equate to the remainder being from private schools as the Guardian presumes.

77% of pupils at Oxford are from the UK, so surely it should read that 19% are from private schools?

Thanks for correcting me Aegir. An article from the BBC suggests that 42% of Oxford students come from private schools.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Thanks for correcting me Aegir. An article from the BBC suggests that 42% of Oxford students come from private schools.

the BBC make the same mistake as the Guardian do.

steddyeddy

Aegir wrote: »

the BBC make the same mistake as the Guardian do.

A could you point out where they say they assume the remainder of students must come from private school?

GreeBo

GreeBo wrote: »

In the UK "private" schools are actually called Public Schools.
Fun fact.

that's not strictly correct. Public schools originally referred to a limited number of very old, very posh schools, usually boys boarding schools like Eton and Rugby and was used because they were owned by the public, not the state.

Most private schools today would be called either private or independent, with independent probably the most common.

Anyone who tells you they went to a "Public" school is almost always guaranteed to be a complete wanker.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

A could you point out where they say they assume the remainder of students must come from private school?

read the report, it isn't difficult.

steddyeddy

Aegir wrote: »

read the report, it isn't difficult.

Point it out A.

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

I do Jack. I sit on an equality board in the university. We have some say in admissions.

That gives you some say in admissions, it doesn’t give you any say in how your taxes are spent. That’s decided by politicians, and sitting on an equality board at a University isn’t going to have all that much of an influence in who is or isn’t admitted to University when the main criteria for admissions is still those people wealthy enough to be able to afford to send their children to Universities.

It’s the trainee politicians in the SU will be deciding in the future how much funding is given to equality and diversity programmes over how much funding is given to scientific research. That Government funded “equality board” you’re sitting on for example -


Athena SWAN (Scientific Women’s Academic Network) is a charter established and managed by the UK Equality Challenge Unit (now part of Advance HE) in 2005 that recognises and celebrates good practices in higher education and research institutions towards the advancement of gender equality: representation, progression and success for all.

...

An exploratory study of women's and men's perceptions of Athena SWAN was broadly positive and highlighted the significance of government funding being linked to SWAN awards, but it also highlighted the limitations of whether the process can change longstanding and entrenched issues in society.

Athena SWAN


All that being said of course, when I hear anyone come out with the expression “challenging privilege”, it’s the wealthy SU types who I was referring to such as these examples -

White males' should be BANNED from speaking during university classes so women and transgender students are more willing to contribute to discussions, seminar suggests

Pictured: Diversity officer who banned whites from her 'anti-racism' event at British university wiping away fake tear in front of 'no white men' sign

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Point it out A.

I couldn't see any statistic that says that, only that 58% come from state schools. It may be the case that it is 42% of oxford students come from independent schools, but from what I can see, it is an assumption.

The Sutton Trust report is a fascinating read. https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AccesstoAdvantage-2018.pdf

steddyeddy

Aegir wrote: »

I couldn't see any statistic that says that, only that 58% come from state schools. It may be the case that it is 42% of oxford students come from independent schools, but from what I can see, it is an assumption.

The Sutton Trust report is a fascinating read. https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AccesstoAdvantage-2018.pdf

It is indeed Aegir.

Here's Oxford's own statistics that offer a clearer view. It seems 41.8% of all admissions to Oxford in 2017 come from independent schools.

Ray Palmer

Ray Palmer wrote: »

What way does college selection work in the UK? CAO system here stops favoritism based on schools directly.

UCAS. I don't know if it's changed now, but when I was applying, the application mainly consisted of a personal statement, a statement from a referee (usually a teacher), and a list of your anticipated grades, stated by each of your teachers.

Students are then rejected or given an offer, usually on the condition that they achieve certain grades (in Oxbridge, you were required to have all A's at higher level, they might have tolerated the odd B if it wasn't relevant to your chosen field.

It's a system that is vulnerable to bias, but I guess the UK can handle it fairly well because it has a population of 66 million. Ireland is just too small for a similar system (or the humans operating it) to be trustworthy.

steddyeddy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That gives you some say in admissions, it doesn’t give you any say in how your taxes are spent. That’s decided by politicians, and sitting on an equality board at a University isn’t going to have all that much of an influence in who is or isn’t admitted to University when the main criteria for admissions is still those people wealthy enough to be able to afford to send their children to Universities.

It’s the trainee politicians in the SU will be deciding in the future how much funding is given to equality and diversity programmes over how much funding is given to scientific research. That Government funded “equality board” you’re sitting on for example -


Athena SWAN (Scientific Women’s Academic Network) is a charter established and managed by the UK Equality Challenge Unit (now part of Advance HE) in 2005 that recognises and celebrates good practices in higher education and research institutions towards the advancement of gender equality: representation, progression and success for all.

...

An exploratory study of women's and men's perceptions of Athena SWAN was broadly positive and highlighted the significance of government funding being linked to SWAN awards, but it also highlighted the limitations of whether the process can change longstanding and entrenched issues in society.

Athena SWAN


All that being said of course, when I hear anyone come out with the expression “challenging privilege”, it’s the wealthy SU types who I was referring to such as these examples -

White males' should be BANNED from speaking during university classes so women and transgender students are more willing to contribute to discussions, seminar suggests

Pictured: Diversity officer who banned whites from her 'anti-racism' event at British university wiping away fake tear in front of 'no white men' sign

Jack clearly some of those you mentioned aren't pleasant people and some even racist. You can usually differentiate those from people who really care because they just want attention.

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

Jack clearly some of those you mentioned aren't pleasant people and some even racist. You can usually differentiate those from people who really care because they just want attention.

Absolutely, and one of the easiest ways to differentiate between people who really care and people who just want attention is when they start using words like “privilege”.

It’s difficult to feel any sympathy of course for anyone in who complains that the social group they identify with are being squeezed out of Universities because other groups in society have more “privilege”. That’s not merit based equality, it’s identity politics, and Universities or Government funded bodies which employ such tactics have never given me the impression that they actually cared all that much about creating equal opportunities in education for everyone. They always appear to be more interested in how they could increase their funding to justify their existence.

AlphabetCards

steddyeddy wrote: »

But unfortunately the studies show that private school students do worse when they get to university. You're saying that universities shouldn't seek the best students and minimise the under performers?

That's not the metric though, is it? The question is about meeting matriculation. Any figures on the above statement?

I know it's mad right. They feel their kids are entitled to superior treatment based on class and the ones who challenge that are labelled as discriminating against class.

They are entitled to feel however they like. Fact of the matter is, that although the Head of Stowe is over the top with his analogy, you are literally proving his point. If state school kids do better academically for matriculation AND they struggle less at university, then were exactly is the privilege? Other than the fact that they pay for their education. If anything we should be making places for private school students and putting schemes in place to ensure that they are not finding the university experience overwhelming.

What is it that you have against private schools anyway? The money parents pay usually goes towards sports facilities and music equipment anyway.

I'm a member on our organisation's Athena Swan board in a UK university. We deal with gender, class and race discrimination and ensuring equality of opportunity.

Mmmmhmmmm.

AlphabetCards

AlphabetCards wrote: »

They are entitled to feel however they like. Fact of the matter is, that although the Head of Stowe is over the top with his analogy, you are literally proving his point. If state school kids do better academically for matriculation AND they struggle less at university, then were exactly is the privilege? Other than the fact that they pay for their education. If anything we should be making places for private school students and putting schemes in place to ensure that they are not finding the university experience overwhelming.

That is his (very badly made) point. People don't get in to Oxbridge just because they went to Eton, they get in because they met the entrance criteria. The fact that coming from Eton gives them an advantage is relevant, but they still need to get straight As in their A levels.

If you go to a Private school, there is probably more expectation on you to go on to Oxbridge and more chance of you applying, where as Crinkley Bottom Secondary modern probably doesn't push you as hard, or as displayed here, gives people the message that only toffs go to Oxford or Cambridge, so the reverse snobbery works against them.

As Brampton Manor school demonstrated, if you make the kids think that getting in to Oxbridge is well within their grasp, then they will go for it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/education-46900154

Ray Palmer

silverharp wrote: »

Ray Palmer wrote: »

The US system is even worse with the way it selects pupils. Such a corrupt and exclusionary model.

Their SAT's are a reasonable approach? also the US maybe entering a peak in terms of collage attendance, its beginning to be seen as a joke and an expensive one.

They don't use that to get into college. It is individual applications to colleges. Without extra curricular work you won't get into college. My nephews went through this and SATs are a small part of it. There is also a ridiculous scholarship model so no one truly pays full fees.

Odhinn

Privately educated pupils in the UK are also being accused of dominating the top jobs and stifling social mobility

I wonder why.....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cabinet-ministers-private-education-reshuffle-public-schools-state-educated-uk-public-theresa-may-a8151106.html

Odhinn

Odhinn wrote: »

I wonder why.....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cabinet-ministers-private-education-reshuffle-public-schools-state-educated-uk-public-theresa-may-a8151106.html

I guess normal people, like maybe a bus driver's son, or a vicar's daughter would never make it in the UK.:rolleyes:

Maybe they should move to Dublin, land of equality.

Well, where kids from a Dublin fee paying school are equally likely to get in to the top universities. http://trinitynews.ie/2016/12/students-from-fee-paying-secondary-schools-are-4-times-more-likely-to-get-a-place-in-trinity/

but **** everyone else.

In addition, there are more first year students in Trinity from private schools in Dublin (563 pupils) than there are from all schools in the provinces of Munster, Connaught and Ulster (Donegal, Monaghan & Cavan) combined (395 pupils).

but yeah, those nasty Brits eh nodin?

steddyeddy

AlphabetCards wrote: »

That's not the metric though, is it? The question is about meeting matriculation. Any figures on the above statement?

No offence AB but it's a very dim simplification to assume the question of education boils down to who meets matriculation. It's about sending the right people to university. People who are the most academically gifted, not those who are simply pushed to passing GCSEs. The research states that private school students with the same grades as state school students won't be as academically confident when they get into university. So in other words from a scenario where we have two A scoring pupils, one state and one private, it would be better to pick the state school pupil.

Research? Sure, there are numerous studies with the same conclusion. Here's one of my favourite, a study from Cambridge uni which actually leads back to your original erroneous assumption about matriculation:

Students who went to a private school are significantly less likely to get a good degree than state school students with similar A-level results, says a study conducted by the University of Cambridge’s examinations arm.

Research by Cambridge Assessment found that, in Russell Group universities, private school-leavers were about a third less likely to achieve a first or a 2:1 than state school students with similar prior attainment.

And here:

State schools students are more likely to become high-flying doctors because they are used to battling against the odds, a study has found.

Medical students are nearly twice as likely to graduate top of their class if they were educated in the state sector rather than at fee-paying schools, according to research by the University of Aberdeen. It comes despite the fact students from private institutions score slightly higher in the entry tests.

They are entitled to feel however they like. Fact of the matter is, that although the Head of Stowe is over the top with his analogy, you are literally proving his point.

So I'm questioning the most academically able students are getting into university and you think I'm proving this lunatic's point about jews and the protocols of Zion?

If state school kids do better academically for matriculation AND they struggle less at university, then were exactly is the privilege?

Are you joking? Nearly half of Oxford's undergrads were from private schools. The same goes for a lot of the Russell group universities. Matriculation should be picking from the brighter students. It's not at the moment. The two-tier education system is masking true ability.

Other than the fact that they pay for their education. If anything we should be making places for private school students and putting schemes in place to ensure that they are not finding the university experience overwhelming.

Or we could try a crazy idea and actually let the students in who are best able for the course. You might think they're owed a place because they paid money to school but most people don't.

What is it that you have against private schools anyway? The money parents pay usually goes towards sports facilities and music equipment anyway.

As explained I dislike the two-tier system because it's not giving us an accurate representation of who the best students are.

Mmmmhmmmm

.

Are you coming on to me?

steddyeddy

Aegir wrote: »

I guess normal people, like maybe a bus driver's son, or a vicar's daughter would never make it in the UK.:rolleyes:

Maybe they should move to Dublin, land of equality.

Well, where kids from a Dublin fee paying school are equally likely to get in to the top universities. http://trinitynews.ie/2016/12/students-from-fee-paying-secondary-schools-are-4-times-more-likely-to-get-a-place-in-trinity/

but **** everyone else.



but yeah, those nasty Brits eh nodin?

Please don't turn it into Irish vs English. Not everything happens to be about that. I actually live in England and America so me commenting on these things isn't a dig at English people.

Odhinn

Aegir wrote: »

I guess normal people, like maybe a bus driver's son, or a vicar's daughter would never make it in the UK.:rolleyes:

Maybe they should move to Dublin, land of equality.

Well, where kids from a Dublin fee paying school are equally likely to get in to the top universities. http://trinitynews.ie/2016/12/students-from-fee-paying-secondary-schools-are-4-times-more-likely-to-get-a-place-in-trinity/

but **** everyone else.



but yeah, those nasty Brits eh nodin?

Where did I single out the Brits?...you might stop projecting your nonsense onto me.

steddyeddy

Odhinn wrote: »

I wonder why.....

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cabinet-ministers-private-education-reshuffle-public-schools-state-educated-uk-public-theresa-may-a8151106.html

It is a valid point though Odhinn. It's also interesting that the studies suggest state school pupils do better once they leave the school environment. It sort of explains Brexit to be honest.

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

Or we could try a crazy idea and actually let the students in who are best able for the course. You might think they're owed a place because they paid money to school but most people don't.

The only people who imagine it’s not fair that people are entitled to what they pay for, are people who can’t afford to pay for what everyone else is paying for.

Permitting students entry into Universities on the basis of their academic ability rather than their ability to fund equality and diversity programmes would eventually lead to there being no funding available for those programmes which provide a means for a small few to feel better about themselves by funding someone else’s education with someone else’s money.

steddyeddy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The only people who imagine it’s not fair that people are entitled to what they pay for, are people who can’t afford to pay for what everyone else is paying for.

Permitting students entry into Universities on the basis of their academic ability rather than their ability to fund equality and diversity programmes would eventually lead to there being no funding available for those programmes which provide a means for a small few to feel better about themselves by funding someone else’s education with someone else’s money.

Jack that isn't anything at all like how funding works. I don't get you point to be honest. Students in the UK get loans for their education anyway. As do Americans.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Please don't turn it into Irish vs English. Not everything happens to be about that. I actually live in England and America so me commenting on these things isn't a dig at English people.

I wasn't having a dig at you though, it was directed at a poster who likes to regularly make snide comments.

steddyeddy wrote: »

No offence AB but it's a very dim simplification to assume the question of education boils down to who meets matriculation. It's about sending the right people to university. People who are the most academically gifted, not those who are simply pushed to passing GCSEs. The research states that private school students with the same grades as state school students won't be as academically confident when they get into university. So in other words from a scenario where we have two A scoring pupils, one state and one private, it would be better to pick the state school pupil.

What you are proposing is the exact opposite of what is happening now. Instead of preference being given to kids from private schools, kids from state schools are given preference. How does that solve anything?

steddyeddy wrote: »

It is a valid point though Odhinn. It's also interesting that the studies suggest state school pupils do better once they leave the school environment. It sort of explains Brexit to be honest.

how does it explain Brexit?

One eyed Jack

steddyeddy wrote: »

Jack that isn't anything at all like how funding works. I don't get you point to be honest. Students in the UK get loans for their education anyway. As do Americans.

It’s exactly how funding works! Where do you imagine the money is coming from to pay for the education of students you would rather see admitted to University seeing as they generally can’t afford to pay for their own University education?

AlphabetCards

a study from Cambridge uni which actually leads back to your original erroneous assumption about matriculation:

You've read me wrong, I agreed with you.

So I'm questioning the most academically able students are getting into university and you think I'm proving this lunatic's point about jews and the protocols of Zion?

Again, you've read me wrong. I've pointed out he was a bit hysterical with the way he went about it, but my point (which agrees somewhat with Aegir) is that nothing is solved by incorrectly using data to discriminate against any group of students.

The research states that private school students with the same grades as state school students won't be as academically confident when they get into university. So in other words from a scenario where we have two A scoring pupils, one state and one private, it would be better to pick the state school pupil.

Or, why don't we take them in equal measure and provide help to the ones who need it? If this was about women, BAME students or LGBT struggling in a similar manner you would not be as fast to suggest we just take on students who would handle it better.

steddyeddy

AlphabetCards wrote: »

You've read me wrong, I agreed with you.



Again, you've read me wrong. I've pointed out he was a bit hysterical with the way he went about it, but my point (which agrees somewhat with Aegir) is that nothing is solved by incorrectly using data to discriminate against any group of students.



Or, why don't we take them in equal measure and provide help to the ones who need it? If this was about women, BAME students or LGBT struggling in a similar manner you would not be as fast to suggest we just take on students who would handle it better.

Actually I would. I don't agree with quotas, but right now we're having a situation were students are being selected based on a system which doesn't take school into account. All the evidence points to the fact that school matters.

steddyeddy

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s exactly how funding works! Where do you imagine the money is coming from to pay for the education of students you would rather see admitted to University seeing as they generally can’t afford to pay for their own University education?

Well with the loan systems students pay back the cost of their own education.