after the Mickey Mouse degree thread

[tallyhoho]

to think that some parents just don't get it?

Lots of the parents send their children to private schools/top state schools because they have excellent SATS/GCSE/A level results. This does not make the children (in general) any brighter but, they are taught to pass exams and when the results are published the schools promote them.

When my best friend studied at Magdalen College, she was one of the first people from our school in 1986 to study at Oxbridge. She studied Medicine.

She found that those students who had been pushed in the private/top state schools struggled far more than her (some to the point of getting kicked out) and she also questioned the validity of straight academic courses, unless an individual was actually going into teaching/lecturing, as even if someone was studying maths with a view to going into accountancy, they would still have to study professional qualifications post university.

There are plenty of Oxbridge and RG university graduates who haven't got transferable skills required in industry and those who have been pushed within an inch of their life at school and constantly spoonfed.

I believe most children fall within a spectrum of ability and there are the odd few who have special needs at either end of that continuom. I think some people are deluding themselves.

I am under no illusion regarding SATS/GCSE/A level results. The range of children in each school is broadly similar academically. What follows on is those who are in the top 5% in a challenging school are like my friend just as well if not better equipped to actually study a difficult subject and succeed in their chosen field.

I mean you only need to look at Royalty to see individuals who should never have set foot over the threshold of a uni

"the range of children in each school is broadly similar academically"

er..... no
There are some secondary schools in London where a large proportion of the intake can't read yet.
Possibly you could argue (with no evidence) similar innate ability. But certainly not the same academically.

As for the rest of it - meh.

I agree with tallyhoho.

I studied for a very competitive degree (most definitely not mickey mouse!). Many had been to specialist private schools in order to prepare them - music.

I went to a sink comprehensive and had my music lessons paid for at the county council music centre by the county council. Guess who came out with the best degree? (Smug grin!)

Seriously though, those who'd been privately educated (most, but not all) really didn't appreciate the amount of work needed and floundered at least for the first year. Some thought that as they were so much better than the rest of us, they didn't need to work - WRONG!!

Apologies if you feel I'm private school bashing, but this is all fact.

I have contemplated sending mine to private school in order to give them some sort of advantage (mainly in having the right school on application form, certainly not educationally). However, I'm fortunate enough to live in an area with a good choice of state schools, so wouldn't even consider the private option now.

lucas - I meant the same innnate ability. I failed to make that clear.

Good for you Cimarosa - I am in the same situation school wise with ours.

BeerTricks - I did mean innate ability not factoring in socio-economic factors.

OP - disagree and YABU. Every school does not have a similar level of top 5%.
I studied at Oxbridge, and those who excelled in ther subjects were the ones who lived and breathed their studies - irrespective of their previous schooling/ economic background. It had nothing to do with intelligence, but everything to do with application of that intelligence and not getting too diverted by sports/ drinking etc from their studies.

I also disagree with the huge sweeping assumption that those from the more 'elite' schools lack general common sense/ the tools required to apply their skills in their chosen field. Yes there are some numpties who get into Oxbridge. But I have also come across plenty of numpties who didn't study there. Oxbridge most definitely doesnt have the monopoly on lack of everyday people skills.

There may be a differential in terms hunger for success. You could argue that those from less wealthy backgrounds work harder to earn more money/ better themselves. Whereas those with trust funds to inherit have less focus. But even then I wouldnt apply that to all those from wealthy backgrounds.

OP, of course most people are innately capable. But innate capability is irrelevant if you have not been educated to an appropriate level for the thirteen years prior to going to university.

What are you saying? That there is no point in going to school and we should test everyone at five, decide who are the cleverest 5% and allocate them the university place, and then not educate anyone for the next 13 years. I'm sure they'll cope really well at university with their innate ability.

Your argument seems to be based on the idea that academic ability is about intellect - it isn't. It is based on having the right opportunities and then working really, really hard. Just like any other skill.

How can your friend know which students were pushed at school and which were not? Students struggle for a variety of different reasons in Higher Education. Often with 18 year olds it is to due with issues related to their mental health. It might be helpful if we had a bit more compassion towards people who struggle and stop throwing around accusations that they don't deserve to be there.

It is only an undergraduate degree anyway - 3 years of someone's life. I think 15 years at a decent school is worth far more than any undergraduate degree from any university.

It is widely known that by spoonfeeding your children you are not doing them any favours but I don't see what that has to do with wanting your child to go to a school with good results. Some schools with good results have better teaching which is desirable, some schools have average teaching but a better standard of behaviour which makes it easier for children to learn, some schools have a higher expectation and demand more homework and more effort, some schools are academically selective so do have children who are generally brighter. To say that private schools are full of average children who sit like fools whilst their teachers pour knowledge into them while their state school counterparts are struggling out of the ghetto with a dream and a library book is, well, a bit unfair. Plenty of private schools offer a rigorous academic education.

If you an average child then they will probably get roughly the average exam passes of the school they are in. I am average, I went to a good school where most people got 8-12 A-C GCSEs. I got 10, bang in the middle. The average GCSE results at my local school were 2 A-C GCSEs. Do you think that I would have got 10 GCSEs there? I don't. I got 4 A levels at a state 6th form and a 2.1 in a good subject from a bad university which I have built my career on. My life would have been very different if I'd got those 2 GCSEs instead of 10 but I don't think I'm an idiot who was spoonfed, I think I was lucky that I had was under the impression that it was normal to work hard in your lessons, do several hours of homework a night and try your best.

I think its much easier to be smug ideological when you do have a good state option.

I don't know what your point is about parents deluding themselves. Are you saying that parents of privately educated children think their child is cleverer than a state educated child?

There is a theory that private schools 'push' more and 'hand hold' more so while they may get 'better' results the students come out with less self initiative.

i.e. The student who is reminded at every turn to turn in and complete homework vs the student who has 'logical consequences' enforced for not having done it = A child with less self initiative vs a child who becomes self motivated. Who do you think is going to do better at Uni when there is no-one to hold your hand and ensure you have done the set tasks and homework and studies etc?

Obviously this is not true in all children but there is a degree of 'training' for self motivation iyswim?

I don't think self motivation is the main problem for 18 year old university students. I think the main problems in terms of skills and achieving academic success are: lack of basic English skills, not understanding the difference between original thought and an opinion, not knowing how to communicate with adults or behave around them, studying what interests them rather than towards the course aims/ objectives or the title of the assessment.

I think that people who come from private schools, grammar schools and comprehensive schools have different issues, but I don't think one group struggles more than another.

The problem with "innate ability" arguments is that they fall prey to assortive mating. We live in a society in which success is increasing coupled to intellectual ability (or training) and mating is increasing coupled to mutual success. Therefore, irrespective of whether it's about nature or nurture, people who have succeeded in education will tend to breed with people who share their values, if not their exact attainment, and therefore their children will be advantaged in education. That's only been true since the 1944 act, and for women probably only since the sixties, so it's only a few generations.

One of the problems with spoonfeeding a child (not saying all private schools do this or that no state schools can), is that it makes it harder for that child to work out where their real strengths lie. That's not fair on the child, and that is a real problem when it comes to university applications.

Milly, just wanted to take issue with what you say - 'Your argument seems to be based on the idea that academic ability is about intellect - it isn't. It is based on having the right opportunities and then working really, really hard. Just like any other skill.'

I don't agree at all. Intellect has to play a part. Even when you look a first-year undergraduates, hard word does not and cannot make up the discrepancies in ability. It is quite easy to see the difference between a good essay that is written as a result of hard, dedicated work, and a brilliant essay that has real intellectual ability in the relevant area behind it.

(And I'm only barely started on teaching, but I can see that's true!)

this would seem to bear out some of what Tallyhoho is saying.

As someone who studied at Prep school, but then went to a state school later, I ahve the following experience...

My prep school DEFINITELY had better discipline and a better culture of valuing achievement. All teachers knoew your name, and if you struggled (I was a GOOD student, and was gifted at languages, but I have significant problems with numbers and maths) they would support you, and provide extra lessons (after school, at no extra cost)

I don't know whether this encouraged people to believe they were innately better or had no need to work hard, as working hard was valued and celebrated.

My comprehensive school, on the other hand, had MUCH poorer discipline, hardly any teachers knoew your name, if you came from prep school, but were not good at something, then, well my maths teacher told me I should be ashamed of myself for being so "stupid" and I was put in detention. There was no culture of achievement being celebrated etc.

They DID however, have a MUCH wider rage of lessons available.

I personally would love to send DS to private school BUT it would have to work with his issues, and provide the best option for HIM. I also would NOT send him to private school if I felt that there was a good chance he would have to leave after a few years for finacial reasons as it was something I found EXTREMELY hard.

OP - even if you studied "accountancy" you would still have to do a professional qualification afterwards to be a professionally qualified accountant...

Additionally, in my experience, people were usually sent down from my college due to behavioural issues rather than poor performance. The Oxbridge interview system ensures that people getting a place are intellectually capable, and if someone is struggling, the college tries their hardest to support them and get them up to speed.

I knew, and know, people kicked out of Oxbridge for failing exams - generally they were encouraged to take time off 'for illness', but that's the end of it for a lot of people who couldn't afford to come back.

I was obviously lucky in the college I went to then!

I completely disagree that all schools have rougly the same level of innate ability - selective schools will have an intake of students with (on average) a higher level of ability than a non-selective school pretty much by defintion.

I also completely disagree with the statement that 'academic ability isn't about intellegence'. To a large extent (once you get to the higher levels i.e. degree level onwards) it is a lot to do with intellegence/innate ability at that subject. Working hard matters as well but there are few people who come out with firsts at top universities simply by working hard. There are also people who work very very hard but can't get more than a 2.2. Although I realise that poster was talking about Oxbridge where everyone is already at a high inate level.

I was a very hard worker at school (much less so at uni) and even I realised that I didn't have enough innate ability to take me much further than school level maths (obviously that's not what I did my degree in). I truly believe that everyone has an academic level at some stage above which they can't achieve much more. My sister on the other hand is extremely gifted at maths and went on to do a PhD.

As we're talking Oxbridge, in my opinion there were more (non-selective) state school students who struggled in the first year because they weren't used to being challenged than there were private school students who struggled because they were used to being spoonfed (medicine is possibly an exception because hard work is very important). By then end, I honestly don't think you could tell any difference.

There are plenty of people of all backgrounds who don't have transferable skills! I don't think going to a less presidgious (Sp? I also didn't do my degree in English!) university would have given them those transferable skills. If they weren't capable of doing jobs in holidays/hobbies etc to pick up transferable skills then I doubt three year's at a low-paid job would have made a big difference.

The British private school system was set up to produce young boys who had the confidence to say "I am better than you, I'm now going to march in an nick your country."

So we don't have the Empire anymore BUT a large number of the schools are still turning out children with the "I can do anything" mindset with a lot of confidence.

Even the best private school can't put in what God left out, but they can foster a culture/mindset of achievement and confidence.

Round our way the poise and confidence of 8 year old girls in the private school compared to state school girls is marked. Not surprising as the private schools have public speaking as compulsory, so the children learn how to present themselves at an early age.

I agree this attitude, coupled with only medium intelligence/academic ability, will founder at university level.

Surely it's all irrelevant? State or private, you need to work hard to get a good degree. You get genii & the intellectually challenged at both types of school, yes there used to be difficulties for state applications to get into Oxbridge but they're worked hard to change this and it isn't the case any more.
I think often the excuse of a state education is used by lazy students who can't be bothered to work hard.
Now flame me.

tokyo- I love many of your posts!
(did you used to be BS??)

OP- your friend is wrong on her opinion of purely academic courses- what value would society have if we only studied something for its value in the workplace as opposed to its own beauty?
Plus she went up to Oxford in 1986 - 24 years ago FFS- you don't think anything has changed in the HE system in that time? just a little bit?
For a start there were no SATs then so children in state school didn't lose out on whole years worth of education to SATs cramming...

You obviously live in some lovely, leafy suburb/rural area, as believe me the range of children's ability in schools is not broadly the same in inner city areas.

I still think intellectual ability comes from hard work; it isn't just hard work when people are doing their undergraduate degrees but the hard work they did before they got there. Certainly people may have more of an aptitude for one area than another, but I don't think getting an undergraduate degree has much to do with innate ability.

But as there isn't any way of measuring innate intelligence, how could we ever tell?

True, Milly, we could never tell for certain. And I do suspect that many people who claim to have 'worked as hard as they could' were mis-directing their energies. But, although I expect that on some not-so-demanding courses you could get a good undergraduate degree purely through hard work, you couldn't get a top class degree without the ability being there.

As far as I know, it's standard for the criteria for a high 2:1/first to include 'original thought'. You can't be original by hard work, can you? I expect you could fake it well enough for a 2:1, but I don't think you could get a starred first just by working hard, because hard work doesn't produce originality on its own.

The article states the bleeding obvious well documented idea that amongst children with similar grades, the ones who have had to do it against the odds ie. in larger classes with worse facilities etc. are likely to be more sucessful in the long term. It doesn't say that parents are deluded. Nor does it say that the same state educted child who can knock spots of the indie educated people on her paticular course may be studying a better course at a better university had she had a better grounding at secondary level.