to not get the whole "children from comprehensives work harder to get the grades"

[Ohjustshootmenow]

An exam is an exam, right?

And if the A* was always in them, why did they need to be at private school?

Well mine went to keep them away from the little shits at their so called outstanding church of england school, there are of course little shits everywhere but at private school they actually deal with the problems.
I don't know if you've studied recently Joan of Argos but the quality of teaching at the local college of FE was beyond belief, you'd be better off with a revision guide and getting on with it.

"I doubt it. When a student applies for University, their GCSE results are part of the process, so its hardly secret material!"

That may well be the case but you don't have to state where you studied the GCSE's just the results date and exam board.

i don't get the op - surely it's common knowledge that smaller classes etc would give private school 'little shits' an advantage

My son got in trouble at his comp for taking a book home without permission. He took it home to study as he couldn't get anything done in class as all the kids were mucking about and the teacher couldn't control them. He took it home so he could learn the things he had supposed to in class. When he took it back in at the next lesson he got a strict telling of from his teacher who excused him of stealing and warned if he took a book out of class again he would be reported. Think a child from a private school would have to resort to "stealing" books from class in order to learn. I highly doubt it!

I object to the notion of 'poor quality' teaching/teachers in the state sector. I would argue that teachers who have to manage large classes of a diverse population of kids are probably more skilled than those in the private sector.

The biggest difference between private and state is parental support/motivation.

I agree alistron - but you'll never convince people who don't want to hear it. I think if you're paying enormous sums of money over years and years, you're going to do everything to convince yourself you're getting your money's worth.

Agreed, bubblewrapped 09.57

A friend of one of the DDs went on a student exchange trip to Ireland and blogged about her experiences and impressions. I was fascinated as the school she went to was a rather upstream troutish place that my nearby state secondary school (community school) had nevertheless routinely mashed at hockey.

This particular blogging girl remarked on the small class sizes, the stickliness about uniforms, the complete lack of cliques and the general decorum of the place, plus the single-mindedness of the girls about exams. Irish education is very exam oriented. Looking back to my secondary days, the lack of exam orientation on the part of some students I went to school with was very frustrating, and though the teachers were all honours graduates in the subjects they taught (I know because a cousin of mine with a pass degree from Trinity applied for a job there and was turned down on that basis) and better paid than the teachers in the private girls' school, and teacher retention was excellent, it had to be frustrating for them too.

So, I agree Alistron1, the difference is parents. And schools that try to tackle problems that disturb the learning environment.

Both my son and myself have had very poor teachers/teaching in the state sector. Teachers with years of experience under their belts being unable to control the class, poor basic knowledge in maths and grammar. Long term sickness due to stress from receiving no support from the mgmt team leading to one after another supply teachers. Teachers who really do not want to teach and who make it quite obvious but the heads can not fire them.

It doesn't do anyone any favours looking at state education with rose tinted glasses.

it is a way for the parents of children at priovate schools to slyly suggest that their child is more intelligent than the plebs at the local comp

Onimolap, have you got the right link?

Imagine the crap comp pupils will get at Oxbridge - 'not only are they oiks, but they couldn't even get the grades to get a place.' It will be a total 'them/us' situation. Comp kids will be endlessly proving themselves (hopefully they will with their Firsts, but still ....

BigTillyMint: yes, sorry! The first link I posted was the wrong one, and the earlier correction is probably lost among the many other posts by now.

Try here.

I found it a thought-provoking article: if IQ is heritable, is society in its current form inherently skewed?

Surely universities already take this sort of information into account.

Unless things have changed massively, IIRC my college application form not only asked quite a bit about my school but also asked whether either parent had been to Cambridge/Oxford, age that parents left education etc. I assume they didn't ask this to weed out the oiks

God bless the Irish CAO computer. Tis a great leveller.

Takver: yes they do. Individual admissions tutors are able to vary offers, and do so. This is, I think, the right place for it to happen: some of the all A* candidates might be "less bright" than someone achieving that from a comprehensive, but some might be equally bright or more so (how well our current exam system distinguishes at the top of the scale is moot).

You find this out at interview, not by quota or whatever, and I think it's safe so to do because IME academics
a) genuinely want to teach the best, brightest and most enthusiastic, and b) tend to be left-leaning and so generally supportive.

Actually, very bright kids with family support tend to do fine in the state system IME.

It's the not-quite-so-able ones who suffer; I'm teaching a class of 30 year 10s, they're the bottom of the higher stream, if that makes sense! - & the low level disruption & general oafishess from about a quarter of the class is an ongoing problem.

I'll lose the odd battle, but I'll win the war - this time next year they'll get their Cs & Bs. However, if you took out 50% of the kids, & guaranteed me parents who'd invested £ks in their child's education for the rest - well, I'd get them Bs & As. & my job would be easier by far.

It does piss me off when people blithely assert that teaching's better in private schools.

the whole oxbridge cliquey nepotism thing seems rife when you are applying now....

the private schools also seemed to do so much better in the first year of A*

I doesn't feel fair...

ominolap yes i saw that argument on tv interestingly last night
iq far more relevant than class

It does piss me off when people blithely assert that teaching's better in private schools.

Nobody assumes the teaching is better but as you say the teachers get to do what they are paid to do rather than be social workers/nursemaids/nutritionist/counsellors.
It's assumed at my children's school the parents will deal with any none educational needs and the school nurse is brilliant if you happen to miss a trick.

I feel a child doing well at a comp is a great thing.

My dad- public school boarder (family not rich but was part of grandad's employment package). Ddad did very well but didn't go to uni but instead went travelling and did very well (did uni much later and brilliantly) - I put that down to his own self motivation and intellegence. Me - ddad and dmum, although had some money but were fairly relaxed. I was gs - and I certainly don't have my ddad's natural talent or motivation but I did fine because of school and family stuff (interesting with and lots of travel and enthusiasm).

Move on 25 years - my dhalfsister - went to a faith school (no other options and did adequatly) then onto her local 6th form - her motivation will see her through and it's amazing to see - she's more like ddad in that she'll overcome whatever and has self motivation.

My dcousin (a generation younger than me) (mum's side- not academic, but with money ) forced him into public school and you see that system got him through exams (but no personal motivation) - he went to good uni on a difficult to get into degree and flunked his first year. His parents had to peruade the uni to let him retake. Many years on he IS qualified and doing well (and good on him as I love him to bits).

But I'd say that my ddad and my halfsis have a great driving streak inspite of different backgrounds and schooling, I'm the 'norm' and my dcousin is very much a product of exclusive schooling.

I therefore think it's a combination of factors but am particularly impressed with comp kids who do well.

Oh and dhalfsis did spend half her early life in an interesting non european country and I'm sure that's influenced her character (ie you need to work hard in life).

And I really can't spell or do grammar these days.

Oh and dcousin - he was promised cars and money to do well.

I went to a comp and then went on to Oxbridge.

One of my university tutors told me at the outset that my first year at uni, compared to my peers who'd been to public school, was going to be hell, because the style of teaching was going to be 'sink or swim' and she knew that comp pupils didn't know how to cope with that as well.

She was right, I didn't do well in my first year, having scored straight A's at A-Level and GCSE.

She also told me that, as a result, I would then work like crazy in subsequent years to make up the ground and would end up with better grades than my peers.

Again, she was right!

P.S. Not that the degree did me much good in my career. DH went to public school then less-prestigious universities but a lot more confident than me...and earning £££ more.

One of my students has gone to one of the worst schools in the country - about 17% get 5 grade A - Cs (and a lot of those are not your standard academic subjects.) He's absolutely brilliant yet had no chance to study a foreign language or more than one science, for example.

However, he didn't get the A*s that other less brilliant students have had, because the fact of it was that only a few boys in his class at any one time passed the exams. He did get some, but he also got a couple of grade Cs where his teachers didn't actually send off the coursework. (This is fact, not his excuse.)

Many were disruptive - many have been in the news in the last couple of years for violent assaults and robbery. Many were in gangs.

Why should he be judged alongside someone who went to a grammar school, where students are usually so much more capable? Why should he be judged against private schools with their smaller classes and the headteacher's ability to chuck out anyone who's disruptive?

He did incredibly well to get the grades he got within his school environment.