anagallis_arvensis – Member
Oxbridge enteries are dominated by the wealthy, its a pretty daft thing to say its on ability. Its on exam succrss the two are vastly different.

It’s based on two things – ability to do well at exams and ability to do well at the interview(s). I couldn’t have done better on the former, I evidently failed on the latter when I applied (twice as it goes…)

A couple of my friends at school had “background of heads of industry/political leaders “, got excellent grades and still didn’t get in to either Oxford or Cambridge…

I’m not naive enough to believe that it never happens but I think that the admission process is much fairer than most people think, it’s just that people from poorer backgrounds aren’t so well prepared for that process.

Well done to fervouredimage. Losing a job can be a hellish experience but getting a new one is great.

Unemployment is starting to drop and the private sector is not in recession, it is civil servants that are taking most of the job losses. Very very hard for them as individuals but we know why that is happening.

You will all be glad to know that the evil (EVIL I tell you) banking sector has taken a proper knock in terms of size which it isnt coming back from. Financial services did get too large as a proportion of the economy and it was always a little depressing seeing all the incredibly clever and motivated young kids come into the banks rather than doing something a little more useful. One of my clients (a young fund manager) did an engineering degree at Imperial College, London. Not one of his classmates has become engineers……every single one of them is working in a bank or a hedge fund. Hopefully we will see less of that in the future, we have a fantastic engineering and manufacturing sector we should shout about more.

Much as I also like slagging off people that are richer than me out of pure spitefull jealousy

? I am not doing anything of the sort on this thread so stay on topic and keep the slurs for later [ Ps that is a good put down FWIW]

Oxbridge applications are looked at based on ability not money.

FWIW i said time not money but lets not split hairs here.
Dont disagree but access to a superior education requires money..you do accept that Eton is a better school and the the rich are not wasting their time sending their kids there.? I can prove this point relatively easily..Numbers of PM, Heads of Industry, CEO, Oxbridge places etc

Whether the kid had a better head start by going to Eaton first is a different matter.

Is it? It seemed to be the point I made you cannot reply to me and then claim my point is both about money and then irrelevant ,well you can but you are not actually discussing what I said.

Anyway perhaps you could reference with respect to % of public school pupils as a percentage of the population and the % of those at Oxbridge to prove they are not paying for this privilege. Perhaps you could show what % are from “wealthy” backgrounds to again prove that it doe snot matter.

arguably Oxbridge are doing more for undergraduates from poorer backgrounds than the rest of the system.

I await your evidence for this assertion as it would be far easier to show they are perpetuation advantage via the public school network

For example, among schools where pupils achieved an average of 801-850 A-level points each (900 is equivalent to three A grades), 26% of the comprehensive school pupils went on to the selective universities, compared with 45% of the independent school pupils.
And for schools with 851-900 A-level points per student, 50% of independent school pupils got places at the selective universities, while only 32% of comprehensive pupils did

This was of 25 “selective” universities not just Oxbridge
To argue you have just as much chance to get in there if you are poor and state educated as you have if you are rich and privileged is a view that cannot be supported with evidence. Much as the work your way up to the top argument cannot be supported hence we are being distracted by this debate.

Both Oxford and Cambridge are regularly accused of bias against state school applicants – most famously, in the case of Laura Spence, the girl from Tyneside who was refused a place at Magdalen College, Oxford, more than a decade ago. The tutors gathered at this table are aware that Cambridge is committed to admitting between 61% and 63% of its UK students from state-sector schools and colleges. At present, that proportion is 59.3%. The university has also agreed with the Office for Fair Access – an official watchdog set up when the Blair government brought in top-up fees – to increase the share of students from neighbourhoods where few people have gone to university.

Churchill College is a low-rise modernist stack on the edge of the city centre, a series of interlocking brick cubes. It does better on state-school intake than Cambridge as a whole. This is partly because of its reputation for science, which attracts more state school pupils. The split at Churchill is 70/30 in favour of the state sector. That is still out of kilter with the school system as a whole – just 7% of pupils in England attend private schools. But it is a bit closer to the split at sixth form, where private schools account for around 13% of the total number of A-level exam entries.

Using freedom of information requests, I built up a picture of who the Oxbridge dons offer places to. The results provide shocking reading. If Britain has become a “classless society” then Oxford hasn’t got the message. David Cameron’s alma mater, Brasenose College, Oxford, recruits 92% of students from the top three social classes – the sons and daughters of solicitors and accountants. The average for UK universities is 65%.

The north-south divide is startling. Over the last four years the London Borough of Richmond received more than eight times as many offers from Oxbridge as were awarded to Rochdale, Barnsley, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough and Stoke combined. In fact, that same borough received only 18 fewer Oxford offers than the whole of Scotland. Little wonder that no student from Knowsley in Merseyside has applied to Cambridge since 2003.

The picture on race is no better. Just one British black Caribbean student was admitted to Oxford last year. That is not a misprint: one student. Merton College, Oxford, has not admitted a single black student for five years. At Robinson College, Cambridge, a white applicant is four times more likely to be successful than a black applicant. Last year, 292 black students achieved three A grades at A-level and 475 black students applied to Oxbridge. Applications are being made but places are not being awarded.

Yes they choose for academic excellence but even using this they do not do it fairly and disproportionately choose white, southern , public educated folk, from the top socio economic groups

I realise this is just spiteful jealousy for those richer than me masquerading as a well reasoned and evidence based view of the world moan about social injustices 😉

The fact that you’re on a thread about unemployment, bickering about entry qualifications for Oxbridge proves that you haven’t been anywhere ****ing near the pointy end of the present recession!

If you had, you’d know that all that’s just pointless irrelevant guff. The fact is that an awful lot of people are suffering horribly. Unemployment is utterly soul destroying. And despite a couple of anecdotal stories, the reality for most people is that most jobs are part time unskilled. For any position worth having, there are vast numbers of applicants.

Oh… And telling someone whose been unemployed for any length of time, and has in all likelihood applied for 100’s of positions, to ‘get on your bike’ to find work, will more than likely result in you getting your head stoved in with a shovel!!

And rightfully so. Jesus! Some of the smugger, more self-satisfied people on this forum could do with a serious dose of what, for a hell of a lot of people, is a cold, harsh, brutal reality!!!

Binners for Prime Minister..!

Actually, make that interim lead administrator of the People’s Republic of Singletrackworld

I was about to say – I’m pretty sure there’s only one position for PM and it’s currently not vacant (well, you could argue CMD is vacant but you know what I meant 🙂 )

Its OK, Binners knows that we have been living beyond our means for way too long, am sure he has some suggestions to cut the defecit that doesnt involve cutting public sector jobs.

The thing is most that have posted job vacancies on this thread , theyre all for either IT people,or highly skilled stuff, neither of which is much good for the great british tradesman,craftsmen/woman, where are the jobs for joiners, construction workers, pattern makers,foundry workers, garage mechanics, plant mechanics, train assembly staff, bus and coach assembly and manufacturing staff.

None, because they have been destroyed.
Once an apprenticeship meant something, a skill to carry you through life,now it means a job in an office or stacking shelves in Morrisons.

You’re right McBoo. All the jobs lost have been in the public sector. It was all their fault after all. Nothing to do with the bankers at all. They bear no responsibility at all in your Tory Nirvana, do they?

Is private sector employment back up to pre recession levels? Its it ****!!! Nowhere near. Though plenty of companies have used it to make full time positions part time, to hammer down conditions and reduce wage bills

But you’d know all about that wouldn’t you? Like I said:

Some of the smugger, more self-satisfied people on this forum could do with a serious dose of what, for a hell of a lot of people, is a cold, harsh, brutal reality!!!

The thing is most that have posted job vacancies on this thread , theyre all for either IT people,or highly skilled stuff, neither of which is much good for the great british tradesman,craftsmen/woman, where are the jobs for joiners, construction workers, pattern makers,foundry workers, garage mechanics, plant mechanics, train assembly staff, bus and coach assembly and manufacturing staff.

This is a discussion on a website forum dominated by a lot of folk working in hightly skilled (and IT!) areas. They are reporting the jobs they know about around them. Your logic does not work. That’s not to say there is a limited supply of these kinds of jobs but the above conversation is not evidence of it.

When you lot start buying British !

Indeed.

Thanks to privatisation, we can buy our electricity from a subsidiary of another country’s state owned (well, 85% these days) company, and soon you may be able to travel on the train on the Yookay courtesy of SNCF. (I am told you can already pay into the still-nationalised Dutch railways of you travel in East Anglia)

People just don’t realise they are doing it it half the time though: on his meet ‘n’ greet down here recently, our Dear Leader met his public in a large out of town garden/leisure centre owned wholly by a large Netherlands-based multinational. (he could have done his had his researchers do their homework and chosen one of the three other comparable sized ones locally that are UK owned) Hoorah for Growth!

Mate I spent the whole of 2008 unemployed and stressing my t1ts off. No smugness here I can assure you.

I’m not naive enough to believe that it never happens but I think that the admission process is much fairer than most people think, it’s just that people from poorer backgrounds aren’t so well prepared for that process.

This post makes no sense.

In what way? Maybe I didn’t explain very well previously

By fairer I was talking about the idea that if your Dad is rich/powerful, you’ll get in easier than otherwise. I don’t think that’s really the case.

What I do think could be considered unfair is that kids from better off (not rich/powerful) families are usually better prepared for the interviews/etc than those from a poorer background.

Again the first bit you write contradicts the second.

So the better prepared ones should habe to perform better surely.

mcboo – Member

Its OK, Binners knows that we have been living beyond our means for way too long, am sure he has some suggestions to cut the defecit that doesnt involve cutting public sector jobs.

taxmore -up to the level of Germany perhpas? wher eyo pay more tax then pay for your healthcare on top – equivalent to around 10% more taxation. No deficit then.

Cutting tax avoidence would help ans would stopping wasting money on huge vanity projects.

By fairer I was talking about the idea that if your Dad is rich/powerful, you’ll get in easier than otherwise. I don’t think that’s really the case.

I’m saying that the comment earlier in the thread that suggests that if you’re really rich or your dad is a politician/etc you’ll get in easier isn’t correct.

I am saying that being better off (without having to be super rich or have a politician/etc for a parent) – eg most middle class families – is a benefit compared to someone from a poor background and poorly performing school. I don’t see a contradiction.

Going to get hung up for this……

My own education was in the state sector and I’ve taught in tough city state schools, some very middle class state schools and now a very expensive independent school so I think I’ve got a pretty reasonable experience. Here goes….if I was going to breed a race horse I could get any two dobbins from the local riding school and chances are eventually, after numerous attempts, a race winning foal would be born. If I got two ex race winning race horses however and bred them there is a much higher chance that the foal would be a winner. I believe they call it natural selection.

Now I’m not saying every parent of every child in an independent school is a metaphorical race horse and money definitely still goes to money but a lot of the parents that send their kids here can afford to because they used their superior intellect to good effect and earned a shed load of cash. Their kids are not just successful at getting into the best universities because I’m a great teacher (no need to agree here!) or because of the school name, but sometimes, just sometimes because they are quite bright!

Don’t get me wrong, every individual should have the opportunity to achieve their potential and some of the best minds come from the most humble back grounds (I kind of hope I’m one of those, sort of if you squint a bit) but it should not come as a surprise to any rational thinking person that more than the 7% of the best university places are taken by the independently educated and children (state educated or otherwise) of successful high achieving middleclass parents are also over represented . Some of it might be the better educational experience; some of it the helping hands and family support and “pressure” but a lot of it….it’s the genes!

Convert, my old history teacher had a similar view and theorised that unless clever people put raising a family first and career second, the nation would get stupider and stupider.

IMHO genes are a part of it, but posh and/or high-achieving families produce academically challenged offspring too. Someone on another thread a couple of months ago (I wish i could find it, it was a rather funny post) said that the less bright posh kids are encouraged to enter politics to avoid running their families’ businesses into the ground. 😆

Well **** me convert do you think anyone else has spouted such bullshit before. I think some famous fella who died in a bunker in Berlin.

So… To summarise…. PROLES!!!! KNOW YOUR PLACE!!!!

*doffs cap*

My own education was in the state sector and I’ve taught in tough city state schools, some very middle class state schools and now a very expensive independent school so I think I’ve got a pretty reasonable experience. Here goes….if I was going to breed a race horse I could get any two dobbins from the local riding school and chances are eventually, after numerous attempts, a race winning foal would be born. If I got two ex race winning race horses however and bred them there is a much higher chance that the foal would be a winner. I believe they call it natural selection.

no its called selective breeding.

Don’t get me wrong, every individual should have the opportunity to achieve their potential and some of the best minds come from the most humble back grounds (I kind of hope I’m one of those, sort of if you squint a bit) but it should not come as a surprise to any rational thinking person that more than the 7% of the best university places are taken by the independently educated and children (state educated or otherwise) of successful high achieving middleclass parents are also over represented . Some of it might be the better educational experience; some of it the helping hands and family support and “pressure” but a lot of it….it’s the genes!

Any evidence for how much is based on genes, or have you just made this up?

If I got two ex race winning race horses however and bred them there is a much higher chance that the foal would be a winner. I believe they call it natural selection.

that is an example of selective breeding.
In the scenario we are discussing you would have two foals and one goes to the poshest bestest race course training camp and one goes to the worst/poorer /inferior. Is your argument that this has no impact on the outcome of said horses in terms of outcome?

Some of it might be the better educational experience; some of it the helping hands and family support and “pressure” but a lot of it….it’s the genes!

We cannot do anything about the genes but we can do something about the educational experience to make sure it is fairer we are not and this is the issue.

ps the correlation on genetics and intelligence is 0.5 to 0.8 with 0.6 being from the largest study – American and I forget the name.

ps the correlation on genetics and intelligence is 0.5 to 0.8 with 0.6 being from the largest study – American and I forget the name.

how did they measure intelligence? Bet it wasnt on exam success or oxbridge entry!

how did they measure intelligence? Bet it wasnt on exam success or oxbridge entry!

They got the test subjects to type something on an internet forum and they were scored on grammar, spelling, use of lolcats and links to wiki/guardian/telegraph. 😀

Would be illuminating to see how close the correlation between iq and exam success is across all sectors.

Seems these thoroughbreds are wasting their money paying convert as according to him its all in the genes. But maybe this proves they are really stupid, I dont know I’ve confused myself now…. I’m just glad he no longer teaches in the state sector as his somewhat right wing views must have influenced his teaching on some level.

1tv 1 19.30 a programe about how employers cant recruit staff.

Obviously made by some who have no idea about real life, and the work ethic that wa destroyed along with british industry.

I’m just glad he no longer teaches in the state sector as his somewhat right wing views must have influenced his teaching on some level.

How very dare you 🙂

For your information I have always treated every child I have taught as an individual and helped them to the very best of my ability to get to the very best for their personal ability. I wish I could say I don’t even think about who their parents are or what their background is but that would be a lie – along with most other good teachers I think I always go the extra mile when you know the child is disadvantaged in their home situation (does not have somewhere of their own to study, abusive or negligent parents etc).

As I said, as someone who does not have to feel like I have to defend the independent sector or those that populate it as this was not my background by any stretch (I often feel like the spy in the camp!) I can be pretty rational and say it as I see it with no axe to grind or chip on my shoulder. This is not any area of special interest for me, I have read few papers on it and I don’t pretend to be any expert except through my own experiences so can’t spout you any knowledgeable figures but this is my perception. And I’m pretty shrewd at cutting through an accent and perceiving the inner intellect so I don’t think I am overwhelmed by the plummy parent’s into crediting them more intellectual credit than they deserve. Similarly I’ve “walked among them” enough not to have a might be chip on my shoulder and perceive them as “nice but dim”. I would be really interested in any study (not aware there has ever been one) that correlated the CAT scores (or similar non prior education orientated “intelligence” tests) of parents in a catchment or of a school and the students of the catchment or school.

wasting their money paying convert as according to him its all in the genes.

Probably truer than you think! When I was still in the state sector an OFSTED report came out that concluded the difference a school could make to GCSE A-C rates between an outstanding and failing secondary school was 16% – the rest (the difference in %age of 5 A-C grades) was down to catchment area. This study has most probably been superseded by now (about 8yrs ago) but was taken seriously at the time. From my experience an outstanding state school could challenge most independent schools in terms of education received (maybe not fixtures and fittings).

In the scenario we are discussing you would have two foals and one goes to the poshest bestest race course training camp and one goes to the worst/poorer /inferior. Is your argument that this has no impact on the outcome of said horses in terms of outcome?

Not at all, and I think you know I don’t think that. But it would be an error to take the genes out of the equation when looking for the reasons behind the differences in oxbridge “success” between different schooling and socio economic backgrounds – it’s just not very PC to acknowledge it. As I said in my original text, I concede lots of other factors play a part too.

I can be pretty rational and say it as I see it with no axe to grind or chip on my shoulder.

One gets the feeling you are trying to imply something about those who question you 🙄

From my experience an outstanding state school could challenge most independent schools in terms of education received but they still wont get as many into oxbridge as the posh toffs

FTFY
16% is still quite a lot…what about when compared to the public sector schools what is the difference then? As that is what we are discussing it ould be far more relevant:roll:

You teach an arts subject dont you 😉

EDIT: Re your above post ; now we all agree that the school matters in terms of your chances of getting into Oxbridge…what are we discussing now?
Are we discussing gentics?
My example was a much better example of what we are discussing than yours. I agree genetics is a large factor [ you cannot polish a turd *] but as figures show even with the same academic achievement you are more likely to get into the top universities i you went to an Independent school. Whatever they are basing the decision on it is not academic ability and it is therefore “unfair”

* You can actually

Probably truer than you think! When I was still in the state sector an OFSTED report came out that concluded the difference a school could make to GCSE A-C rates between an outstanding and failing secondary school was 16% – the rest (the difference in %age of 5 A-C grades) was down to catchment area. This study has most probably been superseded by now (about 8yrs ago) but was taken seriously at the time. From my experience an outstanding state school could challenge most independent schools in terms of education received (maybe not fixtures and fittings).

eh?whats your point that all the genetic failures also live together. Do you not think a catchment area has a significant impact on exam success beyond genetics? Please tell me you dont teach maths or science.

Yep – colouring in 🙂 (actually, whilst my dept does furniture and fashion my specialist areas are the engineering, CADCAM electronics, computer control geeky stuff but colouring in sounds cooler 😉 )

The public sector comparisons are difficult as so many independent schools are selective (academically as well as financially!) so their %ages are off the scale. I’m not aware of any “value added” research carried out on independent schools in a similar way to the ofsted report.

Whats value added got to do with genetics?

A_A

You are treading on very thin ice now – I never called anyone a “genetic failure” and would never think that! Maybe you have issues that all those that don’t “succeed” academically are failures – certainly not my view. Predisposal to academic success is only one tiny aspect of what makes a person.

I absolutely think that a catchment area can have a huge effect on a child’s chances in lots of different ways but I do think that taken as a group (very dangerous to take group assumptions and make judgements about individuals within that group based upon them) a lower socio economic group catchment will have a lower average CAT score than a higher socio economic group. Within both groups there will be individuals which MASSIVELY buck the averages.

Yep – colouring in

😆

I’m not aware of any “value added” research carried out on independent schools in a similar way to the ofsted report.

me neither tbh.

I’m treading on thin ice!!!! Ffs that proper special! Go back and read what you wrote on the last page. To summarise it was that rich, successful people are cleverer and cleverer kids (if you ignore some crap about horses which you claimed was an example of natural selection when it wasnt.

I have read it (although I said clever and successful) and believe it (as does Junkyard I think, save the poor analogy- I admit it – not good, but it started the ball rolling). I however never branded anyone a failure.

The rich bit is a red herring you added though – there are some inherited wealthy that left the family brain cell behind on the third generation of inter-family wedlock (the Windsor’s? 😮 ). The clever and successful often tend to be rich though- hence why their kids are in independent schools.

the thing is with private or paid for education the parents have the csh to pay, and want added value, they force the child to accept that ideal, and brainwash the kid from birth thats the way to go.

Where as the local comp, takes what ever kid is in its catchment area, some/most kids want to learn something, and if given the right prompts and training will do well,some kids are academic and some practical,there needs to be some design that enables both to achieve.

Sadly non of the above helps with the current unemployment in the uk plc.