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

Hmmm...

Touche, although I do come from a family of classical musicians so you may have a point.

I may have got you mixed up with Jambalaya... sorry I've not slept for two days!
So is your point that wealth and intelligence are correlated? If so what would be the cause and do you think some exam test scores that those with more wealth are better prepared for is good evidence?

My point was, in a nutshell, that smarter people get better jobs. Apparently that makes me Hitler 🙂

Other people get better jobs for all sorts of other reasons too. Including better education and greater social capital from being better off.

For worldly success, a certain level of intelligence is a bonus; but ruthlessness a necessity.

jambalaya - Member

@Northwind as you well know proportionality and banded competition just reduces standards

A matter of definition; it reduces entry standards, but that doesn't map to a reduction in educational or student standards. Again back to contextual admissions, ABB from a kid in an inferior school points to a better candidate than AAA from a kid in a great school. Results only say how high you've got; they don't say how far you've risen.

If you apply strict proportionality- calculate the proportion of state school vs private school kids nationwide, require universities to match that- IIRC about 80/20- then my feeling (unsupported!) is that you'd get a net improvement in student quality- you'll still be taking top performers, just that you take them from a far wider pool. In essence you'll be replacing less succesful, lower percentile private school pupils, with more succesful state school pupils.

not followed this thread so sorry if posted but research showed that the high achieving private school kids perform less well at uni than state school kids
I would assume the reason is

[img] [/img]

ABB from a kid in an inferior school points to a better candidate than AAA from a kid in a great school

research showed that the high achieving private school kids perform less well at uni than state school kids

I'm not entirely sure that graph shows that, not to any degree of confidence - which is actually surprising. Interestingly it seems to show that the gap is greater for lower achieving kids. Sadly I'm one of the 10% - though I'm fairly sure that more than 10% of Oxbridge graduates didn't get a "good degree".

I do agree with Northwind's latest post in general though - to make a generalisation from my experience, notwithstanding my eventual result I wasn't one of the weakest on my course, and most of those who were seemed to be privately educated (some real stars amongst the privately educated as well though).

I'm not entirely sure that graph shows that, not to any degree of confidence - which is actually surprising. 

Of course it does the state school kids are almost always above private kids except at the top which simply suggests that for a few kids at the top A levels are not a very good discriminator of ability. Remember there will be less data here too which makes it harder to interpret. Same at 3 E end.

binners - Member
The trouble with this whole situation of access to Oxbridge (and the massive opportunities that conveys) is that it's all part of the wider picture of the ironically titled 'social mobility' in the UK. There isn't any. Full stop! In fact, it's accelerating backwards! And who'd expect any different?

Perhaps we need better education so that people could understand that this is simply not true.

All the main political parties are now stuffed full with privately educated career politicians* And then there's the issue of access to jobs, whatever your education. With more and more positions in politics, media and business accessed exclusively through unpaid internships, totally closed off to the trust-fund-free working classes, for those from privileged backgrounds to walk into courtesy of daddy's contacts.

Being someone who interviews and employs interns on a regular basis, I can also confirm that this is also easily falsified. The best candidates available get the job. Simple. Daddy's contacts is so 1980s.

Oxford and Cambridge (and others) represent the pinnacle of UK education. Why is it a surprise or even a problem if their graduates end up in top/important jobs. What a waste of this brilliant education otherwise.

Over-prepping kids for Oxbridge is a foolish game. Unless you have a genuine passion for your subject and the personal drive to READ for your degree, then it is probably the wrong choice. They have a certain style that is only really appropriate for a certain type of student.

My point was, in a nutshell, that smarter people get better jobs. Apparently that makes me Hitler

Or in other words

I think we've been here before. Poorer people are, in general, less intelligent. Which is sort of why they have less money.

Which seems to be written in such a way as to convey this is how it ought to be !

I'd like to see a graph depicting the amount of time spent posting on this forum and IQ level.
Negative correlation anyone?

I have a very strong correlation between knee surgery and forum posting.

Being someone who interviews and employs interns on a regular basis, I can also confirm that this is also easily falsified. The best candidates available get the job. Simple. Daddy's contacts is so 1980s.

Oxford and Cambridge (and others) represent the pinnacle of UK education. Why is it a surprise or even a problem if their graduates end up in top/important jobs. What a waste of this brilliant education otherwise.

You are assuming all the best people get to be in position to be a candidate in the first place.

Again in the second point you assume the entry to oxbridge is based on merit. It patently isnt. As Northwind has discussed changing this isnt easy and its hard to blame the uni's for choosing from who applies using the tools available.
Your points have merit but until educational opportunities are equal we should not assume oxbridge entry is base on ability and we should strive to improve things.

Which seems to be written in such a way as to convey this is how it ought to be !

Not even remotely close to my feelings on the subject.

Anyway, I have no wish to start the squabbling again, but here is an article which outlines a mechanism by which children from poorer backgrounds perform badly, without recourse to genetics.
[url= http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2012/Willingham.pdf ]http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/spring2012/Willingham.pdf[/url]

I'd like to see a graph depicting the amount of time spent posting on this forum and IQ level.

To avoid creating a negative correlation between time spent posting and income, I'm off to work now 🙂

Oxford and Cambridge (and others) represent the pinnacle of UK education.

From my sample size of one, having studied at Oxbridge and also at the university ranked number 1 in the world, I can say that there was absolutely no comparison between my classmates at Oxbridge and those in the US. If Oxford and Cambridge really represent(ed) the cream of the UK, god help us 🙁

I'm not entirely sure that graph shows that, not to any degree of confidence

You are hard to please if that is not enough for you

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
As they do not we need to know what the cause of this is.
What is your suggestion for this disparity ?
The recruiters are stupid and cannot do their job 😉

TBH I have no real issue with Oxbridge being for the best of the best academically I have an issue with the best of the best not being decided fairly.

What a waste of this brilliant education otherwise.

Is that so? In that case, I've very happily wasted mine. 8)

There's some pretty interesting assumptions on this thread. I know what my Oxford degree* means to [i]me[/i] - it's got nothing to do with "top jobs", whatever they are.

(*mainly: a Bod card [i]ad infinitum[/i], getting slowly drunk outside the KA - and many, many return visits to the Pitt Rivers).

As an aside I'd love to know more about oxbridge entries and the state/private sector. It strikes me that all (or almost all) the A* a level kids I've taught as a state biology teacher have gone on to do medicine or veterinary, vocational stuff. Less sciency kids seem to go for law etc. Few seem to go for an academic subject. I wonder how this compares to private school kids.

teamhurtmore - Member

Being someone who interviews and employs interns on a regular basis, I can also confirm that this is also easily falsified. The best candidates available get the job.

Out of curiosity, are these fully paid internships?

Having been educated at average (top 25) UK and US universities and having worked in organisations who only employ Oxford and Cambridge graduates, I can say with utmost certainty that having a degree from one of these establishments does not guarantee that said person has a brain or common sense and in most cases neither. It does guarantee however in most cases an overwhelming persona of self-importance, selfishness and the ability to speak with authority about a lot of topics they have no clue about. IMPO of course.

LHS I think the confidence and self importance comes earlier than the degree.

DrJ - Member

Oxford and Cambridge (and others) represent the pinnacle of UK education.

From my sample size of one, having studied at Oxbridge and also at the university ranked number 1 in the world, I can say that there was absolutely no comparison between my classmates at Oxbridge and those in the US. If Oxford and Cambridge really represent(ed) the cream of the UK, god help us

Research level they're merely excellent - plenty of world class science but not at the level of the top US institutes (IMO, the table that started this thread says different). That's mainly down to funding - the elite US universities have a huge advantage here.

It has 17 data point 2 are the same

Yeah, the "high achieving" ones. Clearly there's been a misunderstanding between us on what you meant by "high achieving private school kids" - I reckon we're probably both partly to blame for that.

Of course as I explained in more detail in my post I agree with the premise, and even gave some anecdotal evidence supporting the point.

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

Well no, not quite. You can't make that claim and assumption without knowing the relative exam results. All that graph is showing you is that for a given level of success at university (whether you can claim that is a measure of ability is another question 😉 ) the private school kids achieved 1 to 2 points more on their A level results. If private school kids on average achieve more than 1 to 2 points more on their A levels, then the assumption about them being brighter is still accurate. I don't have the figures and can't be bothered looking them up, but I'd suspect that taking all private school kids and all state school kids (including the ones who don't even manage a single GCSE) then on average the gap is actually wider than that.

the contact time the tutorial system gives you is immense

Very much this - and, IME, it could be everything from friendly chat to interview-without-coffee. 🙂

Not quite the figures I was after, but this suggests that the proportion of privately educated kids getting A* grades are more than twice as high as for state school kids, with the proportion getting A being just under twice as high (over 50% A grades at private schools!)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11051244/Private-school-A-levels-more-pupils-gaining-straight-As.html

Which doesn't prove the point that the difference in A level achievement is sufficient to more than make up for the difference in university achievement for those with identical grades, but it does suggest it is likely to be the case. Of course given there are 10 times as many state school kids taking A levels, it does suggest that there are 4 to 5 times as many achieving the top grades, so they are under-represented at Oxbridge even for those achieving top grades. Which is clearly wrong.

If private school kids on average achieve more than 1 to 2 points*more on their A levels, then the assumption about them being brighter is still accurate

They get better results at A levels - one would assume because their school was better rather than they were brighter hence why, when given the same education, they perform less well than their state educated peers.
I am not sure if you are playing here or being deliberately obtuse tbh.

FWIW UCAS points are 20 points per grade ie e = 40 D = 60, c= 80 b = 100 a=120 a* = 120

the proportion of privately educated kids getting A* grades are more than twice as high as for state school kids,

The point is they are not brighter as shown by the fact they do not outperform them at university [ when they have the exact same educational experience]. If they wer ebrighter they would get the better degrees the best the manage os to equal state schools and then only twice - it may only be one _ will try and get the actual figures

Ps the graph os from the Daily Mail I expected to be called out on that one 😛

If this was true they would have better results at degree level as they are brighter - they do not so they are not and I am not sure why you have made that claim as it shows the opposite.

You're missing the point. Your evidence shows that for equivalent A level results they get worse degree results. But the A level results aren't equivalent - they're sufficiently better to more than make up for that difference.

If you'd provided evidence that the % of the total number of private school pupils getting good degrees was lower than the % of the total number of state school pupils getting good degrees, then your point would be valid - but that isn't what your Daily Fail 😯 evidence shows.

Page 4 gives their summary

ALL BOLD IS THEIRS NOT MINE

[b]Independent school students enter higher education with better A-level grades than those from state schools[/b]
14. The average A-level attainment of students from independent schools is ABB, whereas for those from other schools and colleges it is BBC.
[b]State school students tend to do better in their degree studies than students from independent schools with the same prior educational attainment[/b]
15. This difference is less marked in women, those with the highest A-level achievement, and those who study at HEIs with high entry tariffs, but even in these categories it remains statistically significant.
16. This improved performance is not affected by the type of state school. Students from community schools, foundation schools, sixth form colleges and voluntary controlled or aided schools all tend to do better than their independent school counterparts with the same prior educational attainment.
[b]In all levels of A-level achievement, state-schooled entrants to HE tend to do better in their degree studies than independently schooled counterparts with the same prior GCSE attainment [/b]
17. This gap in degree success between those from the state sector and those from independent sector widens as students’ GCSE attainment falls. The gap is very small in those with the highest GCSEs: 73 per cent of state school students with the equivalent of eight A grades at GCSE go on to gain a first or upper second in their degree studies; this proportion drops to 69 per cent for independent school students (a gap of 4 percentage points) with the same GCSE profile. The difference becomes significantly greater even in those with the equivalent of eight B grades at GCSE: 52 per cent of state school students gain a first or upper second, compared with 43 per cent of independent school students (a gap of 9 percentage points).
[b]Students who have remained in the state school sector for the whole of their secondary school education tend to do better in their degree studies than those with the same prior educational attainment who attended an independent school for all or part of their secondary education[/b]
18. A small proportion (3 per cent) of the degree entrants investigated studied for their GCSEs at an independent school and then moved to a state school for their A-levels. In this group, 53 per cent of those who gained BCC at A-level obtained a first or upper second in their degree studies. This compares with a figure of 58 per cent of the students who gained BCC wholly in the state sector.

Let's give an example (I'll use something other than exam results as a qualifier as they get all messy in terms of how you measure them) - say 80% of private school kids with a horse also have an Xbox and 90% of state school kids with a horse also have an Xbox, but only 50% of private school kids without a horse have an Xbox and 60% of state school kids without a horse have an Xbox.

Clearly more state school kids have an Xbox? No, hang on a minute - 90% of private school kids have a horse and only 10% of state school kids. So 72% of private school kids have a horse and an Xbox and 5% of private school kids don't have a horse but have an Xbox, for a total of 77% with an Xbox. 9% of state school kids have a horse and an Xbox and 54% of state school kids don't have a horse but have an Xbox, for a total of 63% with an Xbox. The private school kids are actually significantly more likely to have an Xbox.

(in case there is any doubt, the input figures are all made up).

You're missing the point. Your evidence shows that for equivalent A level results they get worse degree results. But the A level results aren't equivalent - they're sufficiently better to more than make up for that difference

EDIT: please make it much much clearer than the horses XBOX example

The private school kids are actually significantly more likely to have an Xbox.

they are both more likely to own it and they also perform less well on it that their counterparts.

The important words there are "with the same prior educational attainment", but private school kids on average don't have the same prior educational attainment as state school kids - they have much higher.

The point is that for example they're measuring the results of students who had AAA at A-level. Whilst those from private school with AAA do slightly worse at uni than those from state school, a far higher proportion of private school kids have AAA, and given that private school kids with AAA do better than state school kids with ABB then if you ignore their A-level results private school kids on average do better.

You're missing the point. Your evidence shows that for equivalent A level results they get worse degree results. But the A level results aren't equivalent - they're sufficiently better to more than make up for that difference.

I'm missing your point. Could you try to explain it again please?

So private school kids on average do better, we know. Whats the point you're trying to make?

The point is that for example they're measuring the results of students who had AAA at A-level. Whilst those from private school with AAA do slightly worse at uni than those from state school, a far higher proportion of private school kids have AAA, and given that private school kids with AAA do better than state school kids with ABB then if you ignore their A-level results private school kids on average do better.

So private schools are better...I still dont get the point you're making. How is this relevant?

I'm really struggling to make it any clearer, one last try:

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

Say you have 10 private school kids, their results are
AAA AAA AAB AAB ABB ABB BBB BBB BBC BBC
10 state school kids, with results
AAA AAB ABB BBB BBC BCC CCC CCD CDD DDD

Now to simplify that study, lets assume that it suggests that private school kids do as well as state school kids with one grade lower (it's actually 1-2 from my reading), so lets knock one grade off all the private school kids, which gives them state equivalent grades of:
AAB AAB ABB ABB BBB BBB BBC BBC BCC BCC

Now if you compare those state school equivalent grades with the actual state school grades, they are clearly higher on average, so on average you'd expect higher uni achievement.

I think you may have conclusively proven that fee paying selective schools perform better than non selective not fee paying state comprehensives
A herculean task...go have a break you must be shattered
Who has doubted this ?

The point is that Oxbridge wants to select the best candidates - by which we all mean those who are the brightest who get the best degree results. Lower performing A levels state educated schools pupils are brighter than their privately edcuated peers

For a level playing field you may say

Private we take as AAA
State we take at ABB
You still get the same level of degree result from them

Indicative thought experiment for illustrative purpose backed up only by a general interpretation of the data but you get the point 😉

So private school kids on average do better, we know.

It appears JY doesn't, as he suggested:

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

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

What JY suggested still stands

For a level playing field you may say

Private we take as AAA
State we take at ABB
You still get the same level of degree result from them

I agree with that (apart from that we're all ignoring that there doesn't seem to be a gap at the top end). However you were suggesting that this means that top universities should be taking numbers in direct proportion to the total in education in each sector, a premise which isn't supported by those figures.

It is always possible we're actually in agreement and just talking at cross purposes - I've said several times that I agree that for the equivalent A level grades private school kids are thicker!

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

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'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 [b]with the same prior educational attainment[/b] 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.

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?

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 😕

[img] [/img]<

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

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

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)?