My point is, is that it's a ridiculously biased and ignorant article that pulls together a variety of perfectly good sources.
Went to Imperial from a state school. My offer was BBC. Current offers for my course are 3xA*. I don't think my son's genration have improved intelligence.
Parental valuation of education is probably as big a factor in hereditary intelligence. Nature and nurture, innit.
Well, you claimed I had no evidence to support my views, and asked for links. I supplied them, along with a brief sketch of how such a correlation could arise. As I said, people can make their own minds up - indeed, I'm happy to change my mind if I see a convincing argument to do so. Your opinion on what's "ridiculous" doesn't quite fit that category.
I had a look at the link and saw no evidence just conjecture.
@binners Oxford/Cambridge are more than 50% state school (appreciate that's under representation vs private schools) but it's hardly the [b]exclusive[/b] habitat of the elite. Of course Westminster is full of career politicians as most business people are not interested in politics.
@Northwind as you well know proportionality and banded competition just reduces standards and it won't be long before employers start assuming state school graduates from Oxbridge must have been "let in easy"
@Tom, sadly people want improved standards, more social mobility and a better health service but they want someone else to pay for it, ie the "rich" or "tax dodging corporations"
Well to that DrJ, I would say that what bothers me is that you even hold an opinion on the subject before you have even seen a convincing argument.
Besides, I think the bigger question is, do we really want to live in a true meritocracy? If wealth ends up becoming correlated to IQ then I can see all sorts of problems arising from the direction in which the evolution of humanity will take. We will end up with a race of troll looking 5 foot retarded serfs and 7 foot wealthy geniuses. I get the feeling that conservative types would consider that bliss.
Did you look at the correct link? The one I posted had 2 references to studies, plus a graph, in the first paragraph.
Well to that DrJ, I would say that what bothers me is that you even hold an opinion on the subject before you have even seen a convincing argument.
That doesn't follow logically from what I said. I said that I was open to my mind being changed if I see a convincing argument to do so. That isn't the same as saying that I haven't seen an argument that convinces me to hold my present views.
As for your second point - that is an entirely different issue.
There's no convincing argument for your point of view, so why even hold it? Why have that cognitive distortion clouding your judgement of people?
you look at the correct link? The one I posted had 2 references to studies, plus a graph, in the first paragraph.
A GRAPH, IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OMG, I'M CONVINCED
There's no convincing argument for your point of view, so why even hold it?
Is that what you think I said?
A GRAPH, IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OMG, I'M CONVINCED
Convinced or not, is up to you. But you claimed you saw no evidence, which you now seem to admit was incorrect.
Here's a quote by you.
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 [b]majority[/b] 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.
You haven't posted anything that even remotely backs up this assertion. Sorry, I go all Ben Goldacre when people make statements like this. There's no conclusive evidence to suggest that the majority of people on lower incomes are incapable of doing better because of their genes.
Aaah - well done - you found an ill-chosen word and went "all Ben Goldacre".
Whatever, I'm an obnoxious jerk but at least I don't tend to make sweeping statements about groups of people without knowing what I'm talking about.
So.... When do we start the culling of the poor then?
It's for their own benefit. The simpletons. Sparing them, as it does, from their desperately unfulfilling miserable little lives, devoid as they are of the ability to be educated....
No, your speciality seems to be baseless ad hominem.
(And commando editing).
Well at least he hasn't come over a bit.... well ..... you know..... a bit....... Mein Kampf-ish
is up to you. But you claimed you saw no evidence, which you now seem to admit was incorrect.
A random graph showing a correlation between some test scores and wealth isnt evidence that wealth is linked to genes
What about black people? They are also under-represented in Oxbridge
Why? Smaller foreheads, you know?
Have we even started on how some research has shown that IQ is only weakly correlated or even uncorrelated to rational thinking? 😆
It would explain a whole host of hilarity in this thread and why academics will often defend untenable positions to the point of ruining their careers, if true, of course.
A random graph showing a correlation between some test scores and wealth isnt evidence that wealth is linked to genes
"genes" - where did that straw man come from?
My IQ puts me on the far right of that graph,
Have we even started on how some research has shown that IQ is only weakly correlated or even uncorrelated to rational thinking?
Hmmm... 🙂
genes" - where did that straw man come from?
Came from earlier in the thread go take a look.
So if that isnt your point what is it?
Came from earlier in the thread go take a look
Help me out - tell me in which posting I mentioned genes.
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
I agree with this as well
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
It has 17 data point 2 are the same and for 15 others the state educated pupils with thise grades get better results
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 - MemberBeing 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?
