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?

I'm crossing over from other thread... because I was compiling statistics about who the current medal winners are. So, just from what I've gleaned:

A lot of the male rowers came out of one Belfast grammar, a state school (I think!) albeit selective. Scotland is over-rep'd among rowers & water sports, too.

A fair few athletes didn't discover their talents until after they left school, so their entry into elite sport wasn't because of where they went to school & that school's special facilities (or lack thereof).

Lizzie Armistread & Moe Sbihi were both talent spotted because of local clubs going into state secondaries schools & scouting for that talent.

Equestrian is overwhelmingly posh, it's the only sport which seems exclusively private-ed.

Adlington went to a comp in Mansfield with performing arts specialism. :)

Bobbledunk, it would probably be much more accurate to say that the opportunity to become an Olympian is only available to those whose parents are driven to help their children achieve.

There are plenty of state school parents who could afford to give their children sporting opportunities, but they just aren't interested in it, or they work too hard to be able to fit in the lifts to all the sessions, or they just don't value that type of achievement.

There will also be plenty of private school parents who can't afford to provide much in the way of extra curricular activity because they are already stretching themselves to pay for the fees.

I think this is probably much more about parental attitude than it is about parental income.

What kind of schooling did you have Outraged?
Just wondering .....

I went to a lower end private school, and have ds1 at state grammar, ds2 will be going state comp.

Smellslike - so because your hockey team wasn't allowed to compete 20 years ago you conclude that ALL state schools are ONLY interested in football

Is this where we play anecdote wars? I also have children in state schools, primary and secondary and I haven't found things have changed that much - football is the sport of all sports.

We have world class football players, most of whom went to 'bog standard comps'. If we invested as much in swimmers as we did in footballers, do you think maybe we'd produce a few more world class swimmers?

Becky Adlington went to a state school, and if you google our other swimmers, you will find no information about schools- most give information about which swimming club they train at. I think it's fair to conclude that the type of school attended has absolutely bugger all to do with it.

smellslike... - perhaps it depends where you live. I am in a part of the country where every last village has its own rugby club but our local football team isn't exactly premier league. Rugby is much bigger in the state school I teach in than football. The last school I taught in, in London, had no playing fields, so football wasn't a big thing there either. Didn't stop one of the boys from being signed by a premiership club though, so, again, perhaps school isn't that important.

While I almost completely agree with your conclusion there EvilSynchronisedDivers, the fact is that according to the article in the OP more, than 50% of British medallists come from private school when only 7% of the population do. That suggests that private school does have something to do with it.

I disagree. I think it's to do with parental income, parental commitment and the commitment of the individual far more than about the type of school. For example, Tom Daley has been at an independent school for the last 4 years- he moved there after the last olympics. But he didn't learn to dive there, and until the previous olympics, he was at a state school. Helen Glover went to both a state and an independent school, but didn't take up rowing until 4 years ago. What does her schooling have to do with it?

Well, if you read my posts, I agree with you

But an article on the BBC website suggested otherwise, so I'm glad to see that lots of people think the same as I do about it.

evil in Helen Glover's case school was important. Whilst she was at Millfield she was a successful athlete and competed for England at cross country and hockey at junior level. So she was used to training etc so when she was selected under the sporting giants programme it must have been easier as she was already a talented sportswoman. I am sure she also had very supportive parents too.

Yes, but she didn't row at school did she? So Millfield can't take any credit for her medal? Not that they're trying to, of course, but the MN State Schools Are Vile Dens of Mediocrity gang are insistent about independent education being an important part of Olympic success.

By rights, I ought to be an Olympian. I went to school in Wenlock, where the mascot is from. Olympic traditions and all that.

Neither Katherine Grainger nor Anna Watkins rowed until university either.

No she didn't row there but I think that her school can have some credit for developing her as a sportswoman. I believe the training schedule at Millfield is full on if you are of international standard in a sport.

Actually she was at Millfield only from 2002-4 according to their website.

Given that she was only at Millfield for 6th form, and at a state school before that, I think it's pushing it to try to give credit to her independent school. Also, it's somewhat insulting to her obvious talent, commitment and drive to try to make out that her success in these Olympics is anything to do with it.

Rather than highlighting the 50% that have come from private schools shouldn't we be focussing on the 50% that were state educated and finding the reasons why they became successful and using this information to help other state educated children to succeed in sport?

Don'tEatTheVoles

Eventing is a posh sport, but Mary King wasn't privately educated. Not sure about Nicola Wilson. William Fox Pitt, Zara Phillips and Tina Cook were.

In dressage, I can't find out much information. I think Carl Hester wasn't privately educated. Not sure though. He grew up on the island of Sark. I think the other 3 riders were privately educated.

In showjumping, Scott Brash and Peter Charles were state school educated. I'm not sure about Ben Maher but I don't think he went to a private school.

There was something on the radio about this a few months ago. The suggestion was that the sports selected for inclusion in the modern Olympics for a good period of its history were biased towards those more popular in private school. Of course this can't be the same across all countries, as I understand it rowing isn't perceived as a 'posh' sport in France, OTOH I don't think they have as high a proportion in private education.

I know where David Florence learned to canoe and it ain't posh

Evil, Tom Daley gave several interviews about how he was bullied at his comprehensive school (for being 'famous', for being successful very young). He went to indie school after they offered him a place when he was already a medal hopeful.

I went to a similar comp in a similar area and am pretty sure the same bullying/nastiness towards those who are good at anything still persists. I was very academic, and whilst the teachers and my friends were nice, lots of people were really nasty, there's a lot of 'who does she think she is' attitude still persisting, and people playing down their achievements so as not to get bullied. Just because the teachers celebrate someone getting a good result in anything, doesn't mean their peers are quite so enthusiastic.

There's an entrenched anti-attainment culture in lots of comps in which anyone who does well is seen as a geek/swot or sucking up to the teachers; I imagine being a future Olympian in this context would be setting yourself up as a target.

Perhaps it's all changed, but I don't see that personally from the families I know; I see the children changing to fit the culture more often than not.

Perhaps the answer is to take the modern Olympics back to its roots. When William Brookes invited Pierre De Coubertin to his Wenlock Olympics, which De Coubertin credited as an inspiration for the IOC leading directly to the first modern Olympics games, it included events such as penny farthing racing, and old ladies' race, a wheelbarrow race (with actual wheelbarrows) and tilting at the ring, where competitors would ride a horse towards a bar with a small ring hanging from it, and try to hook the ring off with a long stick. There was also arithmetic and knitting. The point of Dr Brookes's Olympian society was to give working people the opportunity to do useful things with their small amount of leisure time- he believed that sport and culture shouldn't be the reserve of the rich. The Head of the IOC alluded to this in his speech in the opening ceremony- Dr Brookes was one of the main reasons PE was introduced in all schools.

So that's my solution-get rid of the posh sorts like 3 day eventing, and put the wheelbarrow race back in. Before we know it, cheese rolling and shin kicking will be Olympic events, and state educated competitors will triumph.

Having gone to private school myself whilst my brother and sister attended (very good) state schools I have always been struck by our different attitudes to sport. I still play some competitive sport (albeit at a friendly/ social level) almost every week and exercise regularly, whilst my siblings do very little exercise at all. Whilst this is just anecdotal and may be down to our different personalities as much as anything, I do think that our different schooling made a difference. First, at school I was playing sport at least three times a week. For those sports that I was better at, this could rise to 6 times a week. Shorter school days would, I think, have made this difficult at my sibling's schools. Second, being good at sport was seen as "cool" in a way that I don't think it was at my sibling's school. That is not to say that it was the be all and end all, but generally getting in the school first team was seen as something to be aspired to in a way that I don't think was the case for my siblings. Finally, the facilities and, perhaps more importantly, coaches were undoubtedly superior at my school.