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

Debt levels [i]should[/i] be irrelevant, because regardless of the total debt the total paid back will be identical unless someone's earning a huge amount of cash - it doesn't matter if you have a 3 year degree or 5 as far as payback goes.

But, someone is probably going to be unwilling to take on debt that's worth more than their parents' house, whilst if it's what your family spend on skiing holidays every couple of years it'll seem rather more manageable.

Aracer - basic pay after 9 years is 45k. You do get a multiplier to this based on total hours and weekends/nights etc but it will still take years to pay off the debt.

It is likely to totally skew the dynamic of medical school applicants.

Starting salary 20k

The NHS pays the tuition fees as well - review in 2016 iirc.

aracer - Member

Which applies equally to both state and private students

Absolutely. So? That just means your assertion that degree results are a measure of brightness is wrong for both state and private school pupils.

To give the other side consultant pay is 75k. But that may take 12 years plus to reach AFTER medical school. (much less in some areas of medicine but affected by choice of specialty)

how many people are in a job that MAY take 12 years to reach 75k?
you then get pay based on each year you are a consultant up to 100K iirc

so basically by age 40 you will be on 75 k if no tby age 35.

Dont get me wrong fees are wrong but Dr hardly need to worry about being poor once they qualify.

Junkyard your points are valid, ish. Pay does go up but not year on year.

You also pay thousands a year in course fees, professional indemnity, professional subscriptions etc.

Yes doctors have a good life compared to many. But if you had got AAA at school and could do pretty much anything at uni would you choose to do medicine if you had to self fund?

Fees are not paid BTW.

So the vast majority of the brightest kids from 7% of the population in aracers world. This seems unlikely in mine.

As I mentioned earlier top achieving state school kids gravitate towards being medics as its seen as a safe, well paid and high status option. I dont think fees will affect this much tbh. State school kids compete better for that type of course than less vocational ones at very competitive unis.

That just means your assertion that degree results are a measure of brightness is wrong for both state and private school pupils.

We're discussing statistics here - on an individual basis such things have an effect, but not on a population one. I have already said that it's not something which can be used to determine "brightness" on an individual basis, however on average those who get firsts are brighter than those who fail. Are you really disputing that?

a-a point out to me where I've made that claim. If that's what you think is being suggested then no wonder you're so confused.

Yes doctors have a good life compared to many. But if you had got AAA at school and could do pretty much anything at uni would you choose to do medicine if you had to self fund?

Well there are plenty of other options which lead to lower paying jobs where you'd never have to pay back the debt. I suppose some of them might choose that route.

aracer - Member

however on average those who get firsts are brighter than those who fail. Are you really disputing that?

Not at all- but it still doesn't mean that degree results are a good [i]indicator[/i] of "brightness", because high "brightness" is only one route to excellent degree results, and because high "brightness" by itself can't generally achieve academic success. A huge number of very bright kids end up with lower grades for various reasons. So your measure gives both too many false positives, and misses too many hits

I apologise for poor terminology, I'll try again:

A higher proportion of those educated in the private sector achieve top degree results.
On average brighter candidates get better degree results.
Therefore on average those who are educated in the private sector are the brightest candidates.

Jesus its groundhog day!!

A high proportion of very bright state school kids dont get to university.

Therefore on average [s]those[/s] [i]university students[/i] who are educated in the private sector [s]are the brightest candidates[/s] [i]get proportionally more top degrees but [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/stateeducated-students-achieve-better-degree-passes-at-university-9219867.html ]students from state schools are more likely to achieve top-grade degree passes than those from the independent sector with the same A-level results[/url][/i].

Though that possibly more of an indicator that they're underperforming in their A-levels. It's certainly a reason why state students should be given lower offers.

Fees are not paid BTW.

See aracer give it a go 😉

It is indeed groundhog day

In the very narrow confines of how you have precisely worded that it is correct that selective fee paying private school pupils [ in fact any selective school the fee bit is irrelevant] get better results on average. However the debate is about how to get the best students into the best university.
You do not do this by just choosing a disproportionate level of private school kids because they are , on average, the best. The main reason being a slightly poorer performing state school kid will , on average, out perform them.

I feel certain you will say you never said this so lets all just agree with him as he will wear us down with persistence rather than points

His basic point is that better educated kids do better in education.

On average mind not when compared to comprehensive kids where they do worse but we dont mention that bit we just say better.