[Closed] So the English have 4 out of the top ten in the World

The irony being that if you had attended any of them you would see its four not three... 😉

Not to mention Oxford's a right dump.

The irony being that if you had attended any of them you would see its four not three...

Fair point I missed UCL. Quick edit!

I amy not of attended but I have been taught by a number of lecturers from ICL. 😉

Amusingly the article says 'London has three institutions in the top 20.' That'll be five.

I amy not of attended but I have been taught by a number of lecturers from ICL

Not grammar, evidently.
Mind you, they are a bit thick at ICL 😉

Only 1 Scottish Uni in top 50! I thought their tertiary education was the envy of the world

But can you afford the school fess for any school that will give your kids a realistic chance of going there? Other countries may have lower ranked universities but getting into them has more to do with ability than wealth.

I went to Oxford from state education, so yes. Met lots of others too.

But can you afford the school fess for any school that will give your kids a realistic chance of going there?

My sister attended UCL from state school.

Another very good friend attended Cambridge from state school.

Both a lot smarter than me!

Excellent, Corroded. What percentage of students on your course had also achieved that, and could I ask which state school you went to? I doubt it was Beaumont Lees in Leicester.

you'd be paying much more to go to most good uni's anywhere else in the world. Education in this country is cheap compared to many places in the world, it's also undervalued by many in our society. especially by those that are being educated or been educated.

But can you afford the school fess for any school that will give your kids a realistic chance of going there? Other countries may have lower ranked universities but getting into them has more to do with ability than wealth.

Thankfully, I live somewhere with a brilliant* state sixth form college who send loads of students to top universities, so yes.

*I [i]may[/i] be biased

I checked out the fees for places junior is interested in, mt, Science Po' is one of them and well up there in the international ratings. About 360e a year.

We used to have a great system where talented kids from any background were identified early and supported through school and university right up to Oxbridge.

Then they all went on to become politicians - of all parties - and decided to abolish the system that had given them such opportunities. So now we are governed by a bunch of spineless privately educated morons - of all parties - who are too desperate to protect their status quo that they won't bring it back.

Selection, scholarships, bursaries and grants - both academic and vocational - is the only way encouraging social mobility. If we could afford it.

Amusingly the article says 'London has three institutions in the top 20.' That'll be five.

Eh? London has 3 in the top 20, plus Edinburgh ergo there are 6 British universities in the top 20, and 4 in the top 10 (as per the OP's amended thread title!).

We used to have a great system where talented kids from any background were identified early and supported through school and university right up to Oxbridge.

This^.

The loss of the grammar school system was a disaster. The worst move the left wing ever made.

It's a major reason why the political system is so messed up.

Ive worked at Imperial and UCL as a researcher and supervised a fair few students, every one of them was bright, motivated and tended to be from well off backgrounds.

Both attract a huge amount of students from overseas, UCL in particular has a big east Asian make up.

Overseas students are good for unis books, a 3 year Biosciences degree will cost you 27K if you are British, 60K if not!

Excellent, Corroded. What percentage of students on your course had also achieved that, and could I ask which state school you went to? I doubt it was Beaumont Lees in Leicester.

More than 50% on the course I was on IIRC - though I understand the numbers have increased a lot since I was there. No I didn't go to Beaumont [b]Leys[/b] in Leicester, how strange of you to ask. Though the school I did go to appears to have got exactly the same percentage of pupils achieving 5 A-C at GCSE as there, so whatever point you are trying to make, I went to what appears to be a directly equivalent school.

Oh but of course I went to a great university rather than a complete dump like corroded.

I doubt it was Beaumont Lees in Leicester.

Oi, I'm from Beaumont Leys!!!

Didn't go to Oxbridge though, I went to Leeds Met, part time!

And i went to Soar Valley in Rushy mead (2 bloody buses) rather than Beaumont Leys or Babington.

The loss of the grammar school system was a disaster. The worst move the left wing ever made.

Everyone assumes that they would have done well from the grammar system, but history says that this isn't the case.

The on major thing that messed up Uni's in this country was Blair and Brown's genius idea that 50% of all kids in the year went to one, even if that meant studying 'No use studies' at 'University of Sheer Cr*pness'.

The better Universities are still disproportionately attended by kids from the best schools - whether than be public schools or state schools in good neighbourhoods.

I am slightly unconvinced by grammar schools. Cards on the table - I went to one in 70s/80s and it was excellent, best facilities, best teachers. Basically everyone ended up in higher education - or the army - in the days when it was only 10/15% got to go.

The problem is that the system essentially skimmed off that small percent of kids who were doing well at 11 (and 13) - often the kids of professionals who had time to invest (and imagine how much worse that would be now with all those that could afford employing tutors and cramming kids to get them past the 11+), and concentrated the resources on them at the expense of everyone else.

How is that fair on the rest and how does that work in a system where pushing 50% go into higher education? You could argue that 50% gong to uni is too high, but the idea of the policy is to allow us to upskill the economy to compete in high value activity.

That doesn't mean that the system now is fair - school is determined largely by residence and residence by wealth. So the good schools attract rich people and house prices go up - do you have de facto the same problem as with grammar schools.

I can't see an easy answer other than putting the extra resources into the poorest areas.

There is, of course, the assumption that we're making that the "best" universities are [i]actually[/i] the best. We're obsessed in this country with Oxbridge and the Russell Group when actually lots of students would be better off at a "lesser" university.

The on major thing that messed up Uni's in this country was Blair and Brown's genius idea that 50% of all kids in the year went to one, even if that meant studying 'No use studies' at 'University of Sheer Cr*pness'

Who is to say that studying ancient languages is any or or less valid academically that film studies?

There is, of course, the assumption that we're making that the "best" universities are actually the best. We're obsessed in this country with Oxbridge and the Russell Group when actually lots of students would be better off at a "lesser" university.

Agreed. But are you saying that the ones who would be most suited to Oxbridge etc get the chance to go and so get the advantages it gives in terms of future careers?

we are also in the top 10 for keeping aristocrats and a lack of social mobility

Yah for 18 traditions 😉

We have excellent universities with unequal access to them...a mixed result IMHO

Hurrah for entitled privilege and self-perpetuating elitism! YAY!!!!

[img] [/img]

Down with any pretence at social mobility. BOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

That picture makes me feel physically sick.

Agreed. But are you saying that the ones who would be most suited to Oxbridge etc get the chance to go and so get the advantages it gives in terms of future careers?

Worth pointing out that it was the previous Tory government who started pushing tbe 50% at uni idea. Blairs lot then introduced tbe idea of tuition fees, before whining at the idea of putting them up (by a stupid amount).

Now everyone thinks the world owes them a living as they have taken on a huge debt to get a 2:1 in Underwater Basket Weaving from UsedtobeaCFE University.

I accept the grammar school model tended to support the better off kids but it also gave a proper opportunity to those with talent from a less affluent background who's families could see the opportunity. Not sure what you can do to deal with no hope kids from no hope areas with no hope families.

Those are British institutions OP, are you being controversial ? 😉

I went to Oxford from a state school, so either I am a genius, it was a fluke or all this stuff about it being primarily for the social elite is bollix ? You decide !

Worth pointing out that it was the previous Tory government who started pushing tbe 50% at uni idea.

Got a link for that?

The better Universities are still disproportionately attended by kids from the best schools

Hmm yes but this is fairly complex. How many of the kids who go to private schools are there because of chance privilege, and how many because their parents are bright and apply themselves to a good career? Given that intelligence is strongly hereditary, you would expect bright parents to do well, perhaps send their kids to private school and perhaps their kids would be bright enough to get to Oxbridge.

Two of my neighbours send their kids to private school. The one kid's dad is an engineer the mother doesn't work; the other one's parents are both doctors. They do not come from bourgeois privilege backgrounds.

My cousin sent all her kids to private school, he owned a successful small business. Other relatives also went, their dad left school at 16 for the civil service and did extremely well.

Private school isn't all toffs.

Given that intelligence is strongly hereditary, you would expect bright parents to do well, perhaps send their kids to private school and perhaps their kids would be bright enough to get to Oxbridge.

So, by that logic, all working class people are thick as pig shit, and ****less, which is also self perpetuating?

You are Iain Duncan Smith and I claim my food bank collection 😀

Not sure what you can do to deal with no hope kids from no hope areas with no hope families.

Surely a properly managed and funded "Secondary Modern" would give the majority of these cases the best chance? Give a chance of a decent apprenticeship or similar and then the possibly of Higher Education.

I worked with a bloke who had started off in production engineering, not a formally qualified engineer, just a skilled tradesmen.

He now has a Law degree, a PHD and regularly writes important peer reviewed papers. He didn't think he was academic at school!

Given that intelligence is strongly hereditary, you would expect bright parents to do well, perhaps send their kids to private school and perhaps their kids would be bright enough to get to Oxbridge.

Perpetuating the upper class myth of the undeserving poor right there.

Two of my neighbours send their kids to private school. The one kid's dad is an engineer the mother doesn't work; the other one's parents are both doctors. They do not come from bourgeois privilege backgrounds.

Given that intelligence is strongly hereditary, you would expect bright parents to do well, perhaps send their kids to private school and perhaps their kids would be bright enough to get to Oxbridge.

I remeber being told years ago that you couldn't breed for intelligence. ie. The offspring of two brighter than average parents will most likey be less intelligent than the parents, not more.

Mind you the person who told me that was a woman, a teacher and a member of the "old" labour party. So she would say thay, wouldn't she.

I thought this thread was going to be about downhillers - then I relised the figure is closer to six 🙂

I remeber being told years ago that you couldn't breed for intelligence. ie. The offspring of two brighter than average parents will most likely be less intelligent than the parents, not more.

It is widely accepted and has been for decades that there is a large gentic/hereditary component to intelligence

Hence there's really nothing at all wrong with molly's comment, despite some on here getting all in a froth about it. I do find it interesting how some read into it things he didn't say.

Ironically, we do have world-leading universities, so the current government's made it a key policy to reduce the number of students who can come here from abroad and study here. Costs the country money and influence, makes it harder for universities to continue to prosper, and does nothing but appease xenophobes.

Intelligence may be inherited but is intelligence correlated with success?

Grammar Schools perhaps were good for a bit of social mobility, there being scraped does seem correspond to the reported drop in social mobility. However just because that type of school can be regarded as a success the Secondary Modern Schools were a bloody disaster and were under fund. If they had been supported as they should have been perhaps we would not have had the unfairness we now see in society. As far as I'm concerned it's great that we can have good schools (possibly like Grammars or any other), they can be seen to set a standard but what we need to do is get the resources into the schools that do not perform so well. We should also recognise the difference between schools and the difficulties they have given who they may be trying to educate.

I'd like to see the politic's out of education, it's not a left or right thing. It's about giving people the best start they can have.

Intelligence may be inherited but is intelligence correlated with success?

No idea. That's why I was putting forward possible explanations rather than telling you all how it is. I don't know why the percentage of Oxbridge students from pblic schools is so high, but it didn't seem to be an issue when I went for an interview or got an offer.

Ironically, we do have world-leading universities, so the current government's made it a key policy to reduce the number of students who can come here from abroad and study here. Costs the country money and influence, makes it harder for universities to continue to prosper, and does nothing but appease xenophobes.

I don't know why the percentage of Oxbridge students from pblic schools is so high

So, by that logic, all working class people are thick as pig shit, and ****less, which is also self perpetuating?

I think we've been here before. Poorer people are, in general, less intelligent. Which is sort of why they have less money. Of course there are exceptions - people who take lower paid jobs out of love of their work - but the majority of poorer people have low income because they are not equipped to get better ones. Which is not to say they are worth less as human beings.

Yes of course it is (IMO).

Conclusive proof then, well done

What DrJ says.

@aa you asked a question, I gave an answer and indicated it was an opinion. I didn't know you wanted a proof, I don't have time for that 😐 . I agree with DrJ.

far as I'm concerned it's great that we can have good schools (possibly like Grammars or any other), they can be seen to set a standard but what we need to do is get the resources into the schools that do not perform so well. We should also recognise the difference between schools and the difficulties they have given who they may be trying to educate.

The most important resource in schools are the teachers, good schools attract better teachers.

TWO people agree they are right, it must be true then!

Ironically, we do have world-leading universities, so the current government's made it a key policy to reduce the number of students who can come here from abroad and study here. Costs the country money and influence, makes it harder for universities to continue to prosper, and does nothing but appease xenophobes

Yep, undergrad levels capped and government seem bent on damaging postgrad market. Often very wealthy postgrads that are here have to jump through all sorts of hoops, with the default being suspicion that they're up to no good (e.g. enforced recording of meetings closely monitored by an international office frightened by border agencies).

jambalaya - Member

@Northwind, fact is a huge number of students come to fairly ordinary universities so they have right to live and subsequently here, then they stay and get citizenship. They see the tuition fees as a cost of entry. Also numerous Uni's shot themselves in the foot by granting lots of student places for people who got a VISA and then never turned up as they came and started working.

Our last info from UKCISA says the "huge majority" leave after their studies- though tbh they can only work from government stats and the government hasn't a clue who leaves. About 18% remain either permanently or in the immigration system after graduation- but that includes further study, so doesn't mean much. So offset whatever number stay, legally or illegally, vs the enormous benefit of the rest...

Yes, some unis were problematic- though I think still only London Met have had their licence suspended, and just a few have lost their highly trusted status- but all universities and all students find things harder every year, and there's no obvious attempt to target this on keeping out invalid students- increase in visa costs and timescales being a pure blunt force deterrant (and ironically, more of a deterrant to legit students than false). We don't have this year's stats for the number of students unable to enroll because of ATAS or visa delays but my impression is, loads. (though luckily there's ways to endrun ATAS in many cases)

And don't get me started on making student visitors leave the UK in order to reapply as tier 4s, because that's incredible bullshit. Though I don't know when that became policy, it might not be Theresa May's fault- I'm going to blame her anyway because I hate her.

They were wrong. Twin studies show that is it has a correlation of .75

By twin studies - you mean studies of identical siblings as opposed to parallel studies.

If so how do you control for environmental factors, surely twins more than anyone, even regular siblings with have been exposed to the same environmental factors - and being twins will have been treating the same even if there were not.

Same with kids of clever parents - how can you test for inherent ability controlling for environment.

If this is the evidence - then it very much has not been accepted - In fact Robert Winston was on the radio banging on about this a while ago I think

Twin studies are usually done with identical twins who are split up and fostered by different parents.

Besides, intelligence is poorly correlated with wealth. DrJ is incorrect on this and I truly wonder whether he is actually a "doctor" seeing as his statement has been made without looking at the evidence.

Northwind, fact is a huge number of students come to fairly ordinary universities so they have right to live and subsequently here, then they stay and get citizenship. They see the tuition fees as a cost of entry. Also numerous Uni's shot themselves in the foot by granting lots of student places for people who got a VISA and then never turned up as they came and started working. Do you recall the reception Cameron got in India when he announced that it would be harder to get a VISA and people wouldn't be allowed to stay to work after ? People are using the Unis as a backdoor to a British passport.

They won't get citizenship unless they have a 1st and are needed by UK industry, you complete tool. So what if UK industry takes the best and brightest? The States does it, Canada does it (If I did a postgrad there, I'd have ages and ages to find a job before they kicked me out), Germany does it, Singapore does it etc etc etc

Very small population from which to draw sample.

Besides, intelligence is poorly correlated with wealth.

That's true but it is correlated with income.

Doubt there's any agreement on what intelligence is or how it can be measured, let alone correlated with anything.
There's probably multiple proxy indicators that can be mashed together as some sort of shakey intelligence readout, some of which will correlate with income.

That's true but it is correlated with income.

Not really that well. Certainly not enough to make generalisations about the working classes. Basically it boils down to this, if you meet someone who earns a decent wage, there may be a small probability that they may be a bit cleverer than someone lower down the pay scale.

[img] [/img]

Plenty of thickies in the 100k bracket. That graph doesn't really fit in yours or Jambayahwatevers world view. My IQ puts me on the far right of that graph, I doubt that I will be earning 100k anytime soon as I am a directionless **** up. It's a curse more than a gift that leads to a whole host of problems.

I went to Oxford from a state school, so either I am a genius, it was a fluke or all this stuff about it being primarily for the social elite is bollix ? You decide !

Which college to read what and when? And how do you pronounce the old bridge across the river going up to Cowley?

Besides, your experience alone doesn't tell the full picture and I'm actually fairly surprised that as a man who states that he went to a state school, that you haven't mentioned that you didn't feel at least a little bit out of place there. Or did your upper class puppet masters manage to make you feel like one of them?

The only truism in education is the single biggest factor determining success is parents. My dad went from council house to Harvard and a PHD part-time in the UK. I was lucky.

But the excuses we hide behind are as sad as they are inaccurate.

Well done to GB education - among the best in the world despite the inability to price rationally.

Tom, perhaps he had the confidence in himself instead? Sure you have the right magdalene?

Preeetty sure. Magdalene bridge is next to the college, crosses the river before it hit's the roundabout. One of those roads goes up to Cowley.

My understanding was Oxford version pronounced how it looks, Cambridge "Maudlin"?

Nope.

No the Oxford one is pronounced Maudlin, Cambridge is Maudlyn

Hmm, odd when you read the Cambridge versions website and they use that to distinguish themselves - may be not so clever after all. 😉

Tom. Since you can't even spell it...

That's just the added 'e'. Ridiculous

I went to Oxford from a state school,[s] so either I am a genius, it was a fluke or all this stuff about it being primarily for the social elite is bollix ? You decide ![/s] but am still too stupid to understand probability

LOL +1

Tom. Since you can't even spell it...

Cambridge add en "e". I woz confused guv, honest.

No Tom is right on pronunciation and topography. It is ridiculous to generalize about Oxford. Each college has its own peculiarities, mine, which was 50:50, certainly wasn't riven by state vs private divide.

Sodh...I mean Wadham?

The colleges differ quite considerably in terms of state school ratios.

No that was Queens

EDIT: It doesn't work with the edit, and a reputation only because of its name - but wrong.

Nope. Busted U is wun of them peeps from the fenland poly.

There is a real issue here though. Most of the smarter people with me at the place you mention were from state schools, often Northern Grammars, or direct grant schools, which shows how old I am....

Thick public school people could get in then. They can't now. But the place still isn't on the radar of lots of state schools, perhaps because so few of the teachers or parents went there, and people feel wrongly, it's not for them, and so the cycle continues...

Shame.

Nope. Busted U is wun of them peeps from the fenland poly.

Never said I went 😉 , a lot of my friends went there and consequently I went to a lot of the parties.

The majority of Oxford’s UK undergraduates come from state schools. Latest figures show that, for UK students attending schools or colleges in the UK, 56.8% of places on undergraduate courses went to applicants from the state sector.

So what 44% of places go to what 18 ish % of the kids doing post 16?