If you have previously recommended this thread, you should see a tick / check mark on the recommend button. Click the tick to undo the recommendation (the tick may appear to change to a cross as you do this.) If you added a comment with your recommendation, you will need to delete that from your facebook wall separately.
"Ten leading independent schools accounted for 12% of the leading people for which schools data was available. These are: Eton College; Winchester College; Charterhouse School; Rugby School; Westminster School; Marlborough College; Dulwich College; Harrow School; St Pauls Boys School; Wellington College (see table 1 for top 100 schools). "
It's interesting that these leading schools are pretty much ALL boarding schools, the significance of which is that the fees tend to be around £30k/year (so I reckon this is as much about parental connections as anything else)
Wellington does not have a glittering academic reputation, sending handfuls to Oxford. Charterhouse, on £32k/year, has a fraction of the Oxbridge admissions of the nearby Royal Grammar School, Guildford (fees only £13k/year) - which is present in the list, at #58, but behind schools for the rich but dim such as Bradfield
The leading independent schools that aren't exclusively boarding schools (and therefore implying super-rich parents) are all in London, which is home of the elite.
The leading comps are Holland Park School, where lefties send their kids for ideological reasons and which has had £10s of millions lavished on it, and Haverstock School, which is likewise a popular choice with the left-wing elite.
Just 10% of 'top people' attended a comprehensive.
Of course these figures are calculated many years in arrears, so not the best guide for the future, but the 44% of leading people who attended private schools I guess will increase, as the 27% who went to grammars die off (i.e. most of the grammar schools listed are now comps)
Just came back to this thread.... I find it bizarre that my pointing out that human nature dictates that one minority group being rude about a majority group is very predictably going to result in people from said majority group being very rude back is somehow me approving of this, rather than stating the bl**dy obvious - "grown ups" are just a bunch of little kids fighting in the playground and if one person "started it" then it's OK to fight back in the same pathetic way. I would say a huge proportion of people do not improve the way they react to things when the chips are down as they grow up - just look at the way countries behave towards each other, or the way the Daily Mail talks about everyone, or the way the Tory party hate unions or unions hate the Tories.... I really find it amazing how much adults preach to children not to be childish, yet throughout the workplace and amongst world leaders, in newspapers and on internet threads, I see the same pathetic playground fighting, prejudice and name calling. So why APMF apparently finds this difficult to understand, or finds it offensive when I point the obvious out, I don't know.
Besides which, I went to a selective state school and I don't hate myself. I didn't think much of the system of selection, though, as I know too many people who were failed by it, either by being bright but non-academic in the grammar school and resenting the lack of practical challenge, or by being academic but in the secondary modern where there was insufficient intellectual challenge. I also don't like the idea of selection by money, although I feel relieved to know that if the alternative for my children were somewhere where they would receive a lousy education and be bullied mercilessly for being odd or posh, I could select somewhere else with my money... So I guess it comes down to how far you feel you need to go to ensure your children get a good deal in life. Some people seem to think this is only possible outside the state sector, or feel this is only guaranteed outside the state sector.
There is no way the bias from recruiting public school/oxbridge results in the brightest people. I have met people with cambridge degrees, and with oxbridge degrees who are not bright, as well as the brighter people from cambridge being about at bright as I am. Because I did not go to Oxbridge,I have been kicked out of development opportunities and seen people with less about them, worse work performance statistics and sometimes completely useless administration or intellectual skills get promoted soley because people make the same mistake as many posters here ie assuming they must be bright, even though they are showing no evidence of it, because they went to oxbridge.
I have an anecdote to illustrate this - I went on an informal tour of Oxford led by someone who was an Oxford graduate who could not find his way around the town. Even armed with a map, good local knowledge and a road sign, people on the bus kept obeying the loud posh voice saying 'Its this way chaps, come on!' and took my comments as dissent. When we had been going round in circles for an hour people acknowledged I was right BUT THEN STILL FOLLOWED HIS DIRECTIONS and made sympathetic noises for being late rather than go the correct way based on directions! It was frustrating to have the day later referred to as 'the day you threw a hissy fit' rather than 'the day that we followed that oxford guy who was nonetheless a bit thick because we thought he must be secretly clever because he had been to Oxford.
The fact is that once you go to oxbridge, you are likely to get an oxbridge degree. If they kicked out half on ability and replaced them with the brightest from non-oxbridge each year then you might have a point but they don't. the biggest problem is the application bias, that is then commuted, through no sensible reasoning, to a recruitment bias by top employers.