to not be bothered where the Olympians are educated

[OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos]

While looking at the BBC news app this morning I came across this article which says that half of the Team GB Olympians come from private education. Only 7% of the country is privately educated.

I don't think it matters where people are educated, they work hard and deserve what they achieve. It's kind of obvious that many sports are expensive to participate in, rowing boats don't come cheap. Why does anyone consider it a problem?

We only seem to win posh or expensive sports... equestrian, rowing, cycling and so on. I think it matters because if we see the Olympics as a way of inspiring young people into sport (for lifelong fitness as well as medals) we need them to identify with the Olympians. If all the Olympians are Zara Phillips rather than a State school alumnus, they won't identify.

I do not care where our Olympians were educated either. Eton has a river (?) and they produce rowers (?) - I personally am pleased about that!

I think it does matter. It begs the question - why? Is it that state schools don't have the same facilities? Is there not a lot of emphasis on sports? If so, then that's a need, surely? Is it that wealthier parents can pay for all the training etc - then what about programmes for children who have the talent but the parents can't pay?

If it's such a disproportionate number then there must be a reason. It's important to know what that reason is because then you can look and see if there are people who would benefit from more opportunities and if there is a way to give them.

Well I used to go to scho

We've had decades of not valuing sport, it's only in the last 7 years that money has been available really.

Unless you participate in a sport, any sport, any sport, I dont think the ley person has any idea of the costs involved. Even travelling to competitions, outfits, equipment etc.

My collegues son is a promising fencer, but his club is on the other side of London - they struggle to meet train tickets to get there 4 times a week. Let lone having to go up country for ranking competitions. Fortunately they own a rickety old motor home which can be parked up in a lay by, because they certainly couldnt afford a hotel for a weekend.

just noticed it's being discussed over here too lots of good points

....school with one of the Olympians and wasn't privately educated. But yeah, I think private schools have more facilities in sports than state schools so it makes sense.

Whilst rowing and riding are undeniably expensive sports, and it's perhaps not surprising that private school educated athletes are the competitors, we're also doing ok in cycling and swimming- neither of those are expensive to start.

Things like swimming, diving etc seem to be very much down to individual commitment AND the commitment of parents to take their DCs to all those training sessions. Neither Bradley Wiggins, Rebecca Adlington, Lizzie Armitstead, Jessica Ennis or Sir Steve Redgrave went to private school. I'm sure there are plenty of others.

Gymnastics is another prohibitively expensive sport; the competition leotards at £150 a throw, the cost of a personal choreographer for routines, constant travel to ranking competitions.

School may teach the basics but I hardly think every PE teacher in the land is qualified to bring young people to competition standard, let alone national standard.

Firstly because there should be an equal opportunity for everyone to be able to fulfil their potential. OK that's idealistic, but we should certainly be attempting to make things fairer.

Secondly if we are only utilising the potential of a small part of the population, we could potentially be a lot more successful if we utilise the remaining untapped potential out there.

Of course they do. Private schools are willing to be more flexible in timetabling to make time for training. State schools have a much stricter outlook about such things.*

*Gross generalization.

It isn't rocket science why public schools produce more athletes than state schools. Public schools place great emphasis on competition and winning, there isn't all of this namby pamby 'it's the taking part' and 'everyone's a winner' shite.

Public schools also have much better facilities over far more sports and genuinely encourage their pupils to compete against other schools.

As far as equestrianism goes though, it is an elitist sport because it is so expensive to compete at anything other than a low level. However, there are plenty of people out there who don't have pots of money (Mary King is one example) who have managed it. But I would say most are country, so your average inner city child has no chance.

Also, children often just go off competition sports when they reach a certain age. You have to have the inner drive to want to do it.

Does anyone actually believe, though, that these elite athletes learned it at school? Of course they didn't! They might have done it at school as well, but no one is going to become a world class sportsman/woman without ALSO putting in a hell of a lot of extra time. Rowing clubs, athletics clubs, swimming clubs- these are where our Olympians train, not school PE lessons!

I don't care either.

I completely disagree that rowing is an expensive sport for those that have mentioned it. The clubs buy the boats, not the rowers! You pay a membership fee to row with the club.

I rowed for four years, it is SUCH a great sport.

I really shudo have looked on In The News first shouldn't I?

I just think it devalues what our Olympians have achieved if we start going on about them beng privelidged. There are plenty of privately educated people who don't go on to become Olympians, and the ones that do have done it because of opportunity, but mainly hard work and determination. I don't think this is the time to be distracting from that.

If we need to put more in to encouraging different sections of society to participate in sport then thats a separate issue and can be done without taking anything away from the wonderful athletes we have.

I think, sadly, it probably is relevant, because these sort of figures help athletics coaches and governing bodies work out whats going wrong.

My former athletics coach, who has coached an Olympic athlete, has written articles about how standards are declining because there just aren't as many active young children coming through as in the past. When he gets them at age 13/14, its just too late for them to catch up on the motor skills from leading active lifestyles that children used to have in the past. Note basic good motor skills, not even sport specific skills.

It does seem to be a fact that children from middle class, private school backgrounds tend to be more active. It also seems to be a fact that children with sporty parents tend to produce sporty children.

This is running, which is one of the cheapest sports to do, and which in the past, has had what I think you could describe as quite a working class image. Went back to a training session with my coach at the track recently and it was true, more than half the kids there were from local private schools.

Its also to do about the motivation and determination of the athletes involved. There are kids that travel an hour or more by bus to get to training. And then there are the ones that live next door and don't turn up because it rains. Subsidised busses are laid on for most competitions, but if the athletes can't be bothered getting out of their beds in the morning and would rather play on their playstations, theres not much you can do.

Reading on here, you can tell that theres quite a lot of posters who are completely unfamiliar with competitive sport, and consider it quite a negative thing.

MrsTerry cycling is considered anything but an expensive sport in France, Belgium, etc..

I think it's slightly interesting in a 'was it fast-but-dim millfield or up-your-own-arse Eton ' kind of way...

Is it really a big surprise, Private Schools seem to have vastly superior facilities. They also seem to ingrain far greater levels of competitiveness (in all aspects of life including sport) into their pupils

It does matter because it means we're drawing our athletes from a much smaller pool than would otherwise be available. It means that potential athletic talent is being missed because the people with the talent go to the 'wrong' sort of schools.

What fuzzysnout said basically.

I think we should have outgrown Toff Tory governments and athletics.

Yeah right! Of course even the private schools round here have velodromes and equestrian centres and teach Greko Roman Wrestling as part of the curriculum

Evil, of course none of us think that, but the physical groundwork and, more importantly, the will to succeed and self-belief needed will have been instilled at a young age. This will be parents and schools and public schools are very good at producing winners in all walks of life.

How much of the Olympic achievement is down to talent though?

Obviously some of it is, but a big part of it depends on the attitudes instilled by parents, the dedication from parents to take children to and from events and training, the drive and ambition from the athletes themselves. You can't pay for those things, and some people are always going to have an advantage over others because of their parents.

it would be more interesting if the research looked into how many of these privately educated Olympians gained scholarships? A young lad I know very well has a 100% scholarship to attend a very well regarded private school based solely on his cricketing ability. He was head-hunted by this school rather than his parents applying