to ask if DC shouldn't bother with university if they can't get into a Russell Group one?

[TuTuTilly]

I'd never heard of the ruddy things before I joined MN. Didn't even realise I'd been to one. I do recall when I had a tedious summer job in Human Resources which included "sifting" job applications for an international firm of accountants, being told to dump any that weren't from a handful of universities.

So my question is; if your child can't get into an RG university - should they accept that they will be unemployable oiks upon graduation and resign themselves to a life working in call centres?

And agree, it (the whole point ) should be about freedom and choice.

1. This is a thread about our culture's view of success, professional jobs at the top, £100k + earnings. That is what is success on the thread. Success for any poster might be having a lovely garden or that they wash the feet of neighbours every day or serve a man or woman on their knees or whatever their own personal ethos might be. Failure first of all is personal to each person and secondly even if our society regards things like higher income, being thin, being good at your hobbies, nice family etc as successful does not mean you have to adopt those criteria. We are all an abject failure compared to others. There is always a pecking order. What is someone's success is someone else's failure. The bank manager on her £30k a year may be seen as Mrs Moneybags by the bank's cleaner.

1. The comments above from people about careers where the institution matters more than the subject is true for many subjects. I don't think all parents and schools realise that. It is one reason some state schools have poor success rates - the children pick very hard to get into subjects at very hard to get into colleges rather han unpopular topics at less popular colleges. Remember the recruiter is likely to have in their head a list with Oxbridge, Durham, Bristol, LSE, UCL, Kings etc on it, not a thorough investigation of whether Middlesex Poly is the best in the country for the study of carpets.

'Success' is being -generally - happy with your choices and your life.

It is clear that this often has very little to do with a six figure income.

However, I would rather be rich and miserable, than poor and miserable.

step sorry but I simply don't believe you when you say all the semior lawyers were on their second or third marriage.

I know lots and lots of senior partners (DH is one) and many are still on their first!

The reality is that some will be divorced. That's how it goes. One in three marriages split. And that is true whatever a person's job. In fact marriage breakdown is worse among the poor than any other group.

Lots of people can make both work and home life a comfortable fit. You might not feel you could do that. Fair enough. Butdon't assume everyone else is as incapable.

I don't share a culture with Xenia. Prince Charles & I talk about our kids. Xenia doesn't have any baby goats. We don't share a culture.

believe what you like word; it's anecdotal but it's true. And having witnessed it first hand, I know the long work culture was a major part.
Hugely amusing when mumsnetters say 'I don't believe you' based on nothing!

that's the same as me saying 'when you say you're a writer, I don't believe you'
Pretty silly.

Is quite a canny debating tool though.
From now on, whenever anyone on mumsnet types something which pisses me off, I'm going to write 'I don't believe you'
That'll close the buggers down.

So the sciences have to 'adapt' to 'female thinking'? Appalling statement on any number of levels.

I agree Spero.

Ascribing a quality like 'passive' to a cell suggests to me that one has been hitting the 19th century novels a bit too much.

An excellent post, mathsanxiety and needs saying.
When I was a widow I did everything. I got out the power drill and put up shelves and curtain rails. I read up about it and it is perfectly simple. I wouldn't choose to do it, but there is no masculine mystique to it! (you a,so don't need a set of pink handled screw tools and they are produced!)
If my husband wants a button sewn on he finds the sewing box and does it- he doesn't think that only women can wield a needle!
Science is science- you don't need to make it appeal to women- you need to make women want to do science. The only argument for single sex schools that makes any sense to me is that you get rid of the idea there are boy subjects or girl subjects.

Of course it matters which uni or course you do! Some unis are patently more difficult to get into than others and maintain higher standards! They also have greater kudos in the employment world. But personality and application are also very important. All private schools are trying to to get their pupils into Oxbridge or Russell Group. That's one of the reasons their parents pay all that money! I'm lucky in that my two daughters got into top universities from comprehensives. That is to their advantage. They have encountered many from private school, who are falling by the wayside now, as they don't have their private tutors with them. That's evolution,I guess. Money can buy you good school, but not inte

Exactly- money can get you there but it is merely the start- then they have to do the work. Those most in danger are the ones who have been rigidly channelled by parents- they are then on their own. The university will not give you any information about how they are doing.

Good post math. I managed a physics B at O level at all girls school. Probably wouldn't have touched it at mixed school which is v sad.

Step - if it is any comfort, I too have witnessed awful behaviour from senior ranking lawyers/bankers in terms of infidelity and general marital disharmony. But I think it is a bit chicken and egg. Jobs like that do put a strain on family life because hours are so punishing, but equally people attracted to those kind of jobs may not be that family orientated to begin with.

Fortunately the top students in maths and physics still included girls at our mixed school. There was a healthy attitude towards science and maths subjects. But it did get a lot better with streaming as we got older.

I do like single sex for that too, and for boys. I don't want them to think some things are off-limits either.

(It is not however true that the 8% of children at fee paying schools who get 50% of the best university places and go on to be 80% of judges, and all those other massive percentages in terms of successful jobs all struggle at university and miss tutors - my children were not tutored and did fine at very selective private schools and did not fall by the way side and do badly at good universities. I really think state school parents make this point far too much on mumsnet and it's just not true. Also plenty of children at non selective fee paying schools cannot get into good universities even never mind fall by the wayside once they do get in.In fact there is little a mother can do better for her child than pick a career which enables her to pay school fees)

I liked maths as you could get 100%. It was like music theory where I also used to like to try to get 100%. I did not however do it for A level. I was at an all girls' school and my daughters were so there were no subjects girls didn't do. It works the other way too. If you are into music and want your 12 year old sons to sing complex latin anthems in choirs much easier to achieve at boys' schools where the choir is not seen as girly than in a mixed school.

Maths and physics were amongst my favourites. I also loved European lit. I remember they clashed advanced statistics with the latter. It still annoys me to this day, a bit, that people assume that there has to be the sciences/ arts division and people won't want to do both.

I liked the talk the Head gave at an all boys' school. Made sense to let them explore all subjects.

And that people can't be good at both, it's often a false division.

Indeed. My brother who read medicine at Cambridge I think won some prizes for his writing. I was pretty good at maths but did arts subjects. I cannot say I have kept the maths up (although I won a prize in tax law and have always been my own accountant and book keeper and VAT person so I suppose there are elements of maths in that).

However I don't support the IB unless it is just a choice with A levels as I was delighted to concentrate just on 3 subjects in the sixth form, although I put myself in for music O level which my school did not do in the lower sixth and did well without any lessons.

I think what I want most from education and indeed from parents helping children is to give them choices so that they might well be very musical but keep it as a hobby or sporty and they have those things all their lives. You don't need to do A levels in the subject to keep it up as a past time all your life.

Whilst I would never stifle science even if it became politically incorrect, even if it tried to show women or blacks were not very bright etc I do think we can take it too far, in saying things like if it had been Lehmann sisters banks would not have failed. Plenty of women are ambitious and like money and power and to beat others (I do). those are not male values. They are values some humans have.

I remember being absolutely shocked when I learned that students in the UK could drop maths after O levels (long time ago). A system like that perpetuates the sexist 'boys do maths and science and girls do touchy feely subjects' pattern that exists simply by allowing students to continue at subjects that they see as their strengths and not forcing them to work at those they find difficult. It's acceptable for girls to say they find maths difficult or to decide that they are better at English, and because the system allows it they can drop maths and concentrate on English, History, Law, Latin (for example) but still get into a very good university, and very few people ask them to reconsider.

If all students had to do a core that included maths and science as well as English, some humanities and another language then I suspect many girls would discover they were maths material after all, and that there are boys out there who could slog through Jane Austen, daunting though the prospect might be. I feel the Irish system is better from the pov of encouraging girls to ignore the shibboleths. And for the same reason I like the way the US does it, though that is really not a system, just the choices of high school students dictated by the requirements of the sort of universities they are trying to get into. The result is students not daring to drop maths unless they had gone as far as doctorate level in high school.

maths you assume that existing Scientific method is entirely objective. However the Scientists who teach my DD at the university that has produced the largest number of Nobel Prize winning Scientists are training her to understand that Science cannot eliminate bias, objectivity in scientific method should never be taken for granted, that a Scientist has to be conscious of every possible source of bias, and that implicit social cognition, unconscious thoughts and feelings outside of conscious awareness and control is something they should be aware of and consider, including those tied up with gender. Hence they are making sure they are exposed to the latest debate on the subject.

That's an entirely different issue to whether there is a difference in the ability of girls and boys to be good Scientists, mathematicians etc. obvioulyI wouldn't agree with that having encouraged my DD to be a Scientist. It is also a different issue to why women are underrepresented in Science, which has many complex causes.

See, I don't like the American model, where they have to continue to 18 or they get nothing. One of the few things I vastly prefer in England is how they can target 16 to get something and for those who aren't academic they can then take a different direction. Compulsory school leave age has changed so much hard to make comparisons, but I suspect the "drop out" rate here is lower.

2007 data: about 31% of American kids don't get HS diploma when they should (almost 2/3 will get it back with night school).
2011 data (apologies if link fails): Only 14-24% of British 16-17yos don't have GCSEs or other qualifications.