[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.