1) private school kids with the same A-level grades as state school kids do a bit worse at uni
2) private school kids have much better A-level grades than state school kids

2 is more than enough to cancel out 1
the measure is degree result how can it “cancel it out”???
Makes no sense at all. NONE

aracer are you suggesting that being born to a position that enables a private education is somehow linked to being cleverer?

I’m suggesting that’s what the stats show. If the measure is degree result, then the stats show that a higher proportion of those educated in the private sector achieve top degree results.

Of course they get better degrees the level of under achievement in the state sector means many dont ever get as far as a levels. The stats dont agree with your hypothesis as you are not comparing like for like. You’d need to stratify the data for selective school for example.
I dont mind you deluding yourself that a privately educated kids is likely to be more itelligent than a state sector kid but dont try and get some data that doesnt suit to say it

I’m simply working with the available stats a-a. In case you missed it, I’ve got no drum to beat on this – I went from a Comprehensive (likely a worse one than most of you lot – it’s current results match those of Edu’s example which I presume he picked as a poor performing school) to Oxbridge and my kids are in state education.

Oh, and I’m also just working from the number of kids taking A-levels – for those kids who take A-levels a higher proportion of the privately educated will achieve top degree results. We’ve already excluded all the state school kids who don’t make it that far.

I’m also not sure why you have such a hard time believing that socio economic status has some correlation with achievement at university – I don’t think anybody has presented evidence suggesting otherwise.

also not sure why you have such a hard time believing that socio economic status has some correlation with achievement at university

i dont its blindingly obvious.

I’m simply working with the available stats a-a. 

no you are looking at some stats and trying to align them with your world view whilst excluding all manner of other confounding variables..its quite funny really

Right, so are you telling me that

for those kids who take A-levels a higher proportion of the privately educated will achieve top degree results.

is inaccurate, because we have some stats which show that with the same prior educational attainment a lower proportion of the privately educated achieve top degree results?

I have no world view or preconceived ideas on this – before I checked an hour ago I didn’t even know what the relative levels of A level results were between private and state, and if they’d been different I wouldn’t be making this point.

The leap to this is whats making me laugh

aracer are you suggesting that being born to a position that enables a private education is somehow linked to being cleverer?

I’m suggesting that’s what the stats show.

Good snippage, a-a. Of course what I actually wrote was:

I’m suggesting that’s what the stats show. If the measure is degree result, then the stats show that a higher proportion of those educated in the private sector achieve top degree results.

Are you claiming that is inaccurate?

Well you are back to talking in circles again. What point are you actually trying to make. Is it private school kids are brighter?

What point are you trying to make? What is it you’re trying to get me to say? Is it that you’re trying to catch me out that degree result isn’t a measure of how clever you are? (oh how clever of you 🙄 )

I’ve made mine several times:
“a higher proportion of those educated in the private sector achieve top degree results.”

Well done. We knew that pages ago. You must be pleased.

Did you? Yet you claim that this stands:

It certainly blows it out the water that the privately educated kids are the brightest candidates. Therefore we would expect the best universities to have a % split equivalent [ish] to the % each sector contributes to the education population

…which is what I disputed to start this strand of the discussion – I even added the rider that degree result was not necessarily a measure of ability (a bit of self interest there if you hadn’t noticed 😉 )

Yes it still stands. Why wouldnt it?

If the measure is degree result, then the stats show that a higher proportion of those educated in the private sector achieve top degree results.

Not read anything since that post so forgive me if covered but a simple % of those who went to each school who went to degree would show that and these stats dont include that- Its not even a straw man …it is that poor 😉

The point you make is true but it does not negate the fact that grade for grade they do worse that state educated equivalents.

The point you make is true but it does not negate the fact that grade for grade they do worse that state educated equivalents.

I’m not disputing that, but

It certainly blows it out the water that the privately educated kids are the brightest candidates. Therefore we would expect the best universities to have a % split equivalent [ish] to the % each sector contributes to the education population

doesn’t follow from that. Not given that a higher proportion of those educated in the private sector achieve top degree results.

a-a, for clarification, can you tell me which of these statements you disagree with:

a higher proportion of those educated in the private sector achieve top degree results

privately educated kids are the brightest candidates.

degree results are a measure of the brightest candidates

Private and state schools are not comparable.

The second and third ones

Interesting, so how do you measure the brightest candidates? Is there zero correlation between degree result and the brightness of the candidate?

Private and state schools are not comparable.

In what sense?

Between people doing the degrees it could be a reasonable way of making comparisons but its no good for making comparisons amongst those without a degree.

Not comparable in that the vast majority of state education is not selective and state education has much higher rates of under achievement.

Between people doing the degrees it could be a reasonable way of making comparisons

Good, because it’s people doing degrees we’re talking about when suggesting that “degree results are a measure of the brightest candidates”. For the sake of this discussion we’re not really interested in people not doing degrees.

Not comparable in that the vast majority of state education is not selective

You’re suggesting this as a reason why private school pupils may not be brighter despite better degree results? 😯 Are you suggesting here that mummy and daddy can’t just buy a private education because they are selective?

Can we just fast forward to whatever your point is then we can discuss it.

OK, here’s my point, though I’m not sure how you missed it:

A higher proportion of those educated in the private sector achieve top degree results.
Degree results are a measure of the brightest candidates.
Therefore on average those who are educated in the private sector are the brightest candidates.

You agree with the first point, you agree with the second point once we get rid of your silly strawmen, so let’s discuss why you think the third doesn’t follow…

1.A higher proportion of those educated in the private sector achieve top degree results.
2.Degree results are a measure of the brightest candidates.
3.Therefore on average those who are educated in the private sector are the brightest candidates if you do not look at the actual A level results achieved.

FinishedTFY

What you have shown is that those who select their students on ability and spend x4 above the average on their education achieve better results
However the original point was not about that and you have spent a few pages driving down a one street to get here
Thanks

FWIW £ is contentious as they get worse results than their state educated equivalents. It is hard to have a situation where the brightest are outperformed acadmecially and still claim they are the brightest

I have a running school and you have a running school

You select yours on ability, I dont and you get most money.

You have 10 pupils I have 1000
Of your 10 6 make the olympics
2 of mine do and they outperform yours once there.

You think you have the best runners
Its not a great argument IMHO but i can see why it can made.

Haven’t read all of that, so don’t know who or what I’m arguing against, but I’d certainly disagree with:

degree results are a measure of the brightest candidates

(Just as I’d disagree that GCSE or A-level results are a measure of the brightest candidates.)

So you agree that this is incorrect then, JY?

It certainly blows it out the water that the privately educated kids are the brightest candidates. Therefore we would expect the best universities to have a % split equivalent [ish] to the % each sector contributes to the education population

we probably all agree with taht but we are saving that for page 10

aracer – Member

OK, here’s my point, though I’m not sure how you missed it:

A higher proportion of those educated in the private sector achieve top degree results.
Degree results are a measure of the brightest candidates.
Therefore on average those who are educated in the private sector are the brightest candidates.

I don’t think anyone’s missing your point- we just think it’s horseflops. Degree results are not a measure of the brightest candidates.

they outperform yours once there.

Which is where the analogy falls down. Yours improve their performance between the Olympic trials and the games more than mine*, but mine do just as well if not better at the games, given that their trials performance was so much better. If one of yours gets a medal, and one of mine gets a medal (which is a reasonable assumption if we’re going to stretch the analogy that far) then on average a higher proportion of mine get a medal.

* they’re not mine, I went to a running school where hardly anybody went to the Olympics

So you agree that this is incorrect then, JY?

what makes you think I am agreeing with you ?

IMHO the brightest kids get the best degree results* so are they
1. Privately educated
2. Not privately educated

* its a fair point but really leave it for page 10

mine do just as well if not better at the games,

Yes that is what this shows – you outperforming 😕

Degree results are not a measure of the brightest candidates.

In which case it’s not just my part of this discussion which is a waste of time. Though from what I can work out JY agrees with me, not you on that and even a-a grudgingly admitted: “Between people doing the degrees it could be a reasonable way of making comparisons”

The question is do you really believe that there is no correlation between brightness and degree results? I’m not arguing that all the brightest get firsts, or that all the dimmest get thirds or fails, simply that there is an overall trend.

Because I do have no drum to beat on this – I’m certainly not an apologist for private education. I have mentioned that I went to a comp and that my children will be state schooled (we happen to be in the catchment for very good state schools, but that’s a different argument). All I’m discussing here is what the stats tell us, which appears to contradict the ideology of some on here.

Yes that is what this shows – you outperforming

It shows that yours have a larger improvement between the trials and the games, but I already admitted that. To quantify their performance at the games you have to also know the trials results.

(I’ll keep going with this analogy until told otherwise 😉 )

aracer – Member

The question is do you really believe that there is no correlation between brightness and degree results?

Not at all- but that’s not the same thing as degree results being a useful measure of brightness, because there are too many other strong factors. As a simple example, take 2 identical students, put them in universities of different quality or even different approach, you’ll get 2 different degree results. There’s many others though.

Though from what I can work out JY agrees with me

It is what we are using for comparison at this point but an exams dont prove anythign debate is , IMHO, another thread.

All I’m discussing here is what the stats tell us, which appears to contradict the ideology of some on here.

FWIW i have never been against selection on ability but it must be on ability not ability x wealth x opportunity

It shows that yours have a larger improvement between the trials and the games

Tenuous,annoying and amusing …damn you

FWIW a larger improvement is aka as outperform

As a simple example, take 2 identical students, put them in universities of different quality or even different approach, you’ll get 2 different degree results. There’s many others though.

Which applies equally to both state and private students, given statistically significant numbers go to all universities. Have you got a factor which discriminates between them?

FWIW a larger improvement is aka as outperform

Not really. Several things I’ve been involved in where they have best performer and best improver trophies. Rarely won by the same person.

You are SFB and I claim my £5

Two observations here – what is ‘brightness’? Success in IQ tests? A 1st in a degree? An ability to reach evidenced opinion in complex sociopolitical issues? You could go on….

The second – the state vs private. As a medic this is interesting…

medicine – 5/6 years at 9k fees plus living expenses = 60-70k of debt at graduation or more (unless parents can pay). Starting salary 20k.

How many doctors are we going to get from state schools/poor backgrounds. It is going to be a huge issue.

Third observation – what is the role of university anyway? Do we need them and if so to serve what role in education?

medicine – 5/6 years at 9k fees plus living expenses = 60-70k of debt at graduation or more (unless parents can pay). Starting salary 20k.

How many doctors are we going to get from state schools/poor backgrounds. It is going to be a huge issue.

Do you have to pay off the debt when you’re earning 20k? How much do you expect to go on to earn (and how does that compare with not going to uni)?