Worst forms of selection in schools: Views of M'snetters

lavolcan Oxbridge is certainly not for everyone.

The short terms, the high intensity of work, the one-to-one tutorials are not everyone's cuppa.

Gunznroses

I've heard Oxbridge described as a "ticket to the good life". I think this is driven by employers that favour Oxbridge and Russell Group universities for they new recruits.

Perhaps it is seen as a lower risk way of getting (supposedly) more capable staff than making more effort to look at non-RG university graduates and apprenticeships?

If employers were willing to take more time and take a little more risk it would help to increase social mobility and reduce the Oxbridge obsession.

Do most people aspire to Oxbridge? Or is it just a significant number of rather pushy schools? I can think of plenty of students who have said, 'no thanks', who had good enough A levels to try, but preferred somewhere like Manchester or Birmingham.

Gunz this may be treason, but I think there are universities with the same brand.

LSE. Imperial. UCL. Especially in their brand subjects. Interestgly, these universities are very but as selective as Oxbridge, have similar problems with their private/selective/comp intakes, yet get almost no stick.

I would also say that there are a tranche of universities that perhaps don't have the same brand, but not far off. Again they all have issues around widening access to comprehensives.

Then there are universities that aren't considered top tier instituitions yet have superb reputations for a particular subject, particularly within industry. I really couldn't say if these particular courses have access issues, but wouldn't be remotely surprised.

TheOriginalSteamingNit

I don't think I have expressed any discontent with people disagreeing with my opinions nor have I made any presumptions about people's knowledge.

I think the tone of my posts is civil and respectful of others' views.

However, I do think your gender based comment is offensive, but it doesn't upset me and won't have any effect on my future posts.

Bold-fail! Sorry!

To Mansplain:
*To explain in a patronizing manner, assuming total ignorance on the part of those listening. The mansplainer is often shocked and hurt when their mansplanation is not taken as absolute fact, criticized or even rejected altogether.

Named for a behavior commonly exhibited by male newbies on internet forums frequented primarily by women. Often leads to a flounce. Either sex can be guilty of mansplaining.
The members of the equestrian community were unimpressed when Bob posted an essay that mansplained a solution to a horsy problem they were all well-acquainted with*

I'm sure you can see why it's irritating! Especially when concluded with confrontational capitals!

Reading through this thread, has made me wonder if there perhaps is a place to discuss why most people aspire to Oxbridge. Now the answer might be obvious, such as the brand and quality of education, opportunities for research. But, is not possible for other universities to raise their standards to that of Oxbridge to improve access to this 'brand' and 'quality'?

This may be a silly idea and probably loads of reasons why it will never happen but just wondered about people's opinions on.

LaVolcan

That's good to know. I stumbled on this website which said this about the 1944 reforms and Education Act.

"This was another area where hopes for the Act ran high. The 1944 Fleming Committee had examined how the independent schools might be integrated into the state system, but it was not to be. The Act did nothing about the private schools, other than to require them to be registered. "

www.educationengland.org.uk/history/chapter05.html

Of course the ultimate irony is that many private schools were founded to be exactly the opposite of what they are today - teaching children that had no access to tutors and family wealth.

TheOriginalSteamingNit

'mansplaining' - please define this. I don't know what it means or why it is irritating.

You talk about the unintended consequences Dad164:many of those Grammar schools which went independent when comprehensive education came were only reverting back to what they had always been. They became Direct Grant Grammar Schools post 1944, then went back to being independent. E.g. Abingdon School did this, but the local LEA grammar went into the comprehensive system.

dad it's not relevant that you're a man: it's relevant that you're indulging in a bit of what's often known as 'mansplaining'. Which tends to irritate. Yes, I am against selection of any kind. Yes, I understand that there are many kinds of selection. Yes, I understand that if I liked some forms of selection and not others my position would be problematic.

NOW WHO ON THIS THREAD DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

Word I think it was Mum who asked that question, but cheers anyway!

nit or perhaps mum (apologies) you aksed me yesterday why Oxbridge didn't base its offers on the aptitude tests, rather than grades, interview etc.

Well, I guess, we could say that about any university really.

And I can see the logic of it. Just test all kids and see who has the aptitude for any particular course, then make the offers to them regardless of where they went to school or what they've achieved so far.

Except of course that aptitude tests can only show us aptitude. And students need more than that at university. Much more. We need to know that they will be able to do certain things and have already achieved a certain standard.

This is true of any university, but especially Oxbridge, where you do really have to hit the ground running.

Amber I think most of us who have thought long and hard about this, have formed a view which may or may not seem consistent to others, but has internal logic, no?

Whilst in theory I would like all state schools to admit all children, in reality I would really really like children who can't afford private school to access a super selective environment. Or at least to have the option.

And since I'm essentially agreeing to selection on ability, I feel like it would be absurd to then disagree to selection on, say, faith or sex. It's not that I am particularly interested in either, but it would feel churlish of me to deny them to those who are.

Also, yesterday, you asked me what % of comprehensively educated students we would like to see at Oxbridge. That is of course the question! We dance around and around this one and rarely agree.

Some of my colleagues would say that the current balance is about right, with one quarter coming from comprehensives. Whether the remaing three quarters come from state or private is neither here nor there. These are selective schools with highly able pupils who have been taught to the top of their game. Exactly what we're after.

Other colleagues feel that that is nonsense and that comprehensives have an untapped sector of highly able young people, and that the % of comp kids at Oxbridge should be over 50%. That by not tapping those young people we're missing a trick.

What everyone seems to agree on is that whilst we will do what we can to encourage more applications from comprehensives, to make contextualised offers, to offer financial help etc we won't lower our standards to make up for the difficiencies in the comprehensive system. It's a balance.

But it's a myth to say that grammar schools had no economic selection. Not overtly, but we know now that, far from being the beacons of social mobility they are often held up to be, they actually entrenched the status quo (on the whole - there are clearly stories of individual disadvantaged children being well served by them).

AmbertheCat

I hold the same logic as you but find it hard to believe in it as the best solution or, at least, an achievable one.

There was a big campaign in favour of comprehensives in the 1970s which reduced the number of grammar schools from 1200 to c. 160 today, many becoming private schools instead.

It seems to me to have been a retrograde step to take schools that had no economic selection, only the 11+ and see them turn private. The "Law of unintended consequences" I suppose.

TheOriginalSteamingNit

I am a man, but have missed why that is important to this discussion.

I think there's a meme for that, Nit

Personally I feel my logic on this is pretty consistent - I'd prefer all schools to be comprehensive, i.e. not to select on any of the grounds you outline, or any other. Some (although not many) other countries have managed to get close to this, and maintain very high educational standards. I think it's only achievable if all schools are very good - otherwise people start fighting for their own children to the detriment of others.

People often use your argument to suggest that those of us who disagree with selection are being disingenuous if we campaign against, say, faith schools, because doing so won't get rid of selection. Well no, but I'm not sure it's possible to campaign on all fronts simultaneously, so I think focusing on one area is better than nothing.

And lo! A man appeared...

It seems to me that if we have anything other than a purely co-ed, secular, comprehensive state system (i.e. no real choice, just where is the nearest available space) then we concede that there is going to be choice.

If there is going to be choice then it will come in many flavours.

• Academic
• Faith
• Economic
• Sex

and so on.

It is probably inconsistent to approve of one set of "choices" (e.g. grammars) but disapprove of another (e.g. faith or private).

I am sure I suffer from cognitive disonnance on this (and many other points), simply choosing to ignore data that contradicts a strongly held belief.

I think the logic of my "choice" analysis is sound - but I don't like it as it means I have to accept faith schools (which I don't like) along with others (that I do like).

WHO ON THIS THREAD WILL CONFESS TO THIS

Talkin now I'm . How do you surmise that the term intellectual dishonesty applied to your DD's results. Double counting latin does seem inaccurate though but maybe all these DCs doing latin have been missing a trick.

10 o clock beeb 2 Molio!

The pre U thing is very much a private school discussion.

Molio
You what? I'm a beancounter with a lecturer DH and a DD doing AS : does that make me an amateur
or just not rich enough to give a stuff about Pre-U
Summerends
I'm not sure what's dishonest about DD's results sheet that states clearly that she has the same 13 full GCSEs and IGCSEs as her friends

your comments prove to me the sort of people that the OP regard as "decent" : you and he would clearly get on very well

Jo Brand bake off? I'm there :)

Talkin I guess if your kids aren't yet doing A levels/ Pre-U and you aren't a professional, you may not have that much to say?