So Eton, everything I expected and more

[JoanBias]

My DS is at a private school, so I have experience of private schooling, but my word Eton was like another world.

Not just the school, but the people there.

There was one prep school being shown around, all in tweed jackets, and to a boy the spitting image of Draco Malfoy (well there was one Chinese boy, but otherwise....).

One of the mothers doing the tour was not quite right in some respect, I'm not sure how but something wasn't wired up correctly or something. She was immacuately dressed, 6-inch heels (pretty daft considering the confirmation letter warns about having a long walk), but she was just bizarre. The admissions tutor said 'we have a waiting list of 80 boys and typically 35% of these will make it through', and she asked afterwards 'so 80% of the boys from the waiting list make it through?', and it was then explained again, but you could kind of hear the cogs going round and she clearly didn't get it. She had asked several other similar questions; e.g., it was explained that some Houses are catering and others go to a central cafeteria, so she then asked 'so they all eat in the cafeteria'? She pointed at the Fives Court and asked me 'what do they play here?' I said 'Fives' 'Is it squash?', she said. 'No, Eton Fives.' 'So is it squash?' It seemed as if this woman had had the benefit of the 'Finishing School for the Terminally Dim', because she was otherwise every inch the presentable upper middle-class wife.

Another family had a son who looked the prototypical pre-Etonian, and sure enough Daddy spent the tour braying on about his House when he had been there.

The facilities were extremely impressive, although they didn't bother to show us any of the academic parts, and basically the impression was 'if your son is incredibly pushy and self-motivated, send him here and we will teach him to be entitled'. They said 'every year we reject about a third of the highest performers on the test', essentially because they aren't pushy enough. (The House Mistresses seemed quite nice though.)

Fantastic training for future managing directors and whatever, but not for us.....

Well worth it to sign up for a tour, very illuminating. They take about 100 a day from what I can see, so obligation at all....

I don't think you necessarily need to be aware of the context when you go to Eton and are a very bright boy and I think this is what the anecdote is supposed to reveal about Eton. There has to be a purpose to telling it other than 'we have friends in Oxbridge who are willing to drop everything and grade papers' or 'square pegs are welcome here'. I think the purpose of the anecdote is to suggest that the real world is whatever an Eton boy says it is, or in other words, the 'real' world is irrelevant (its constraints apply to others) because of the implication that that bright boy will obviously get into Oxbridge even with his U, and do really well.

An historian who sees something different (motive? movement? underlying causes?) in a situation where others have trotted out the same old, same old tale is going to succeed brilliantly at Uni. Shame he needed to jump through box-ticking A level hoops to get there. Perhaps he ought to have been warned "DON'T put in any original thought". How depressing!

Did the boy understand the question, was he relevant? (rather than writing essentially irrelevant waffle - albeit interesting and intelligent irrelevant waffle) & did he put forward brilliant views that responded to a this 'flimsy' question? What do we mean by 'flimsy' here? - 'flimsy' in that the question was badly worded and easy to misinterpret? (Did the boy misinterpret it)? Or 'flimsy' as in a dull question that didn't warrant a sufficiently meaty response?

If the latter & the boy answered the question correctly in that he understood it & gave a relevant answer backed up by evidence (albeit not the one they wanted) Eton should surely have not have agreed with the marking system/final grade? It boils down to whether the boy understood the question and gave a worthy response.

We were told it was always very difficult to do well if you 'disagreed' - if given the option between agreeing and disagreeing in literature. For example 'Hardy has been seen as a wonderful writer by many over the years, do you agree?' - In such cases we were told it wouldn't be prudent to say too much about about how terrible we thought he was. You could do this but it was a dangerous game they said. The examiners wanted to see a positive response.

Surely Eton's job is to let students know that GCSEs are a bit of a necessary evil, get the boys to realise examiners are going to box tick. They need to ensure the students have the grades they need. They can also take them off piste at every other available opportunity and so expand their minds? Either that or create a bespoke exam system as Bedales have done.

I agree with kerrygrey and find it depressing that the message is -' you need a good grade at A'level - stick to ticking the boxes- and put being a good historian on hold until university'.

Does history relate where did this brilliant mercurial boy went to uni? Sounds like a bit of window dressing on Eton's part to me. I'm sure Us aren't welcome.

As I said upthread, if you can't get your head around the basics of the mark scheme, you're not that bright. Of course these students can be good historians in the sixth form, but they do need to recognise the system and maybe not be too arrogant on the day.

I interpret this story to mean that A level grades are not necessarily the best method to judge how bright students are, because all that is required are the formulaic, box ticking answers the examiners are looking out for.

I think that he is also saying wait until you get to uni before showing off too much!

They're a pretty good method though Indrid, especially with the advent of the A*.

If the small genius got a U overall he must have done seriously badly at AS and in his other essay and in his other paper too. Disastrously in fact.

And what on earth is Eton doing sending the script off to Oxford and Cambridge dons?: the history teachers should be easily able to assess the script. It sounds ridiculous. Not to say apocryphal.

As I said up thread I think it depends entirely on how he answered the question. If he was relevant and answered the question I think they shouldn't have agreed with examiners decision! As a parent I'd be furious. My son is the best historian in the school, he's capable, he answers a 'flimsy' question and gives an unexpected but not incorrect answer and he fails?!

This is their best historian after all...

It is too simplistic and unfair to say A levels have become box ticking exercises. They are still tough but they are not the same as they were. There are some sound enough reasons for this, one being that there aren't enough well qualified and experienced markers around so the mark scheme has to be reasonably easy to follow. I'm not convinced postgrad students without experience of teaching young people should be markers (though am open to being persuaded otherwise).

Similarly, the assessment objectives, restrictive as they can be, ensure that teachers understand clearly what they are to cover and students understand what they are to demonstrate that they know. Broadly, this suits a majority of students, who are thus able to demonstrate their competence and enables them to achieve the best marks they can and to righly consider themselves competent Historians (or whatever) at that level. I see it almost as a kind of democratization of A levels, enabling greater numbers to achieve and I think that is good, but when greater numbers sit the exam, there aren't enough markers to go around and A levels are sat by students who might not have stayed in school to do them 20 years ago. I don't share the opinion that these students shouldn't be sitting A levels, but that is not to say that I don't think there are problems with A levels.

The downside in some humanities/arts subjects is that there are certain criteria (assessment objectives) that you need to squash in in order to fit the exam marking criteria, even if you think you have more interesting things to say, if you are to achieve good marks. I take the idea of a 'flimsy question' to mean that it was an ill-judged question to set and possibly based on a questionable premise.

It is true that some very able students struggle with the restrictions: for example they often find it hard to write the limited amount essential for the short, fairly undeveloped answers needed in some sections of the paper and waste time and effort for which they are unrewarded. There used to be far greater opportunity to go 'off piste' as Hamish describes it.

Below is an article discussing the issue.
www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/7937615/How-do-you-get-an-A-for-English-Ask-an-actress.-.-..html

<a class="break-all" href="//www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/aug/17/how-get-a-star-review" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2010/aug/17/how-get-a-star-review

I'm not sure we can assume this particular student necessarily did badly in AS and all other papers - the U grade might have been awarded in just one paper, unless I haven't read the original properly.

So are we having an argument based on evidence that is not detailed or fully validated, and that originates from someone who clearly had a subjective point to make?

The Historical Association is having a debate on the proposed reforms to the current exam system based on a paper which questions whether the proposed changes really will deliver the individuals that society needs "who are capable of innovation and forward thinking: individuals who need to be resilient and flexible to meet the demands of a complex economic environment."

In particular as a tutor who has to spend a lot of time opening undergraduate eyes to the diversity of historical thought and argument I totally agree with the point that

"Ofqual (Ofqual, 2012, para. 38, p.14) also suggests that students should be
taught to write essays. I would go further: I would suggest that students,
particularly at sixth form, should be taught to argue (Kuhn, 2005), although not in the form of Critical Thinking, which tends to offer a static and formal version of argumentation. My PhD research was designed to help students improve their skills in writing essays by focusing on their oral arguments. The students within the study clearly knew how to write History essays: their work was usually well organised and their responses were eloquent. Very few, however, knew how to write a convincing argument. Most students quoted PEEL to me (Point, Evidence, Explanation and Linking it back to the title) but they did not appear to know what it was that they should put into the essays. Persuasive argumentation, on the other hand, helps students to counter others? opinions and in so doing create opportunities to become confident in what they do as well as what they know. The ability to argue well is a pre-cursor to success in History and has obvious social benefits too."

Here's the link, they welcome input www.history.org.uk/news/news_1612.html

Yellowtip It's early days and not publishable yet but research with our undergraduates which will feed into our groups published research, suggests the A* is a predictor of success but at the same time, by quite a margin, it isn't the only predictor of success, nor is it a cast iron predictor of success. I gather this is even more true for the Sciences. It's a very narrow target to hit especially for those with disadvantages in terms of learning or teaching so universities may miss out if they use it as a sole discriminator.

Agree with all that about the A stuff which is why I was delighted to hear that the History Department at Durham, which insisted on an A in History at A2 in the last cycle of admissions, has dropped the requirement after only one year. Just as I predicted it would have to, on here, at least twice :).

Yes slipshod the Head Beak might well have meant a U only on that essay. If it was on the whole paper it would still have meant that the other essay got a very poor mark too. To be honest it's quite an achievement for anyone tolerably bright to get a U overall for one paper, meltdowns excepted. I can't imagine it was a U overall across the A2, my comment was simply for dramatic effect.

I'm pretty dubious about this story though. Probably more to it than meets the eye.

I'm pretty dubious about this story though. Probably more to it than meets the eye.

I expect there is, but it is a pretty good story to prove a point-you can't blame them for using it!

On the whole if you're quite bright you get good A levels and if you're not you don't. I do find the CVs I am sent where they do not give A level grades or give them and they are poor then carry right through, bad degree at bad place and not great in other areas either. I still think they are a reasonable filter of people.

slipshodsibyl We cross posted but I agree with your points. I think most universities feel that the current A levels are substantially fit for purpose, or at least fit enough for purpose to make some sort of continuity and consistency for those having to teach them the priority and that is reflected in the RG /1994 responses to the consultation. The worry from Gove's rhetoric is that his plans for History at A level will not just be yet more change but also change that makes students even less prepared for undergraduate study, and the real, global, world, but that would be going even more off piste.

yellowtip

Is that really true, Hamishbear? (That agreeing was a better idea than disagreeing). My recollection of the Irish Leaving Cert teachers' advice was that a good disagreement (solid argument, well written) could get you an A in any subject where opinion was called for. In English and History we were specifically taught how to argue.

Mathanxiety - we were taught how to argue but told it was unwise to go against the grain.

DS was issued the Divinity question; What do you believe?
He had no idea what to say. He didn't want to offend or upset, consequently get on the Bill or suffer some other form of punishment. He wanted to say "Well, I don't believe in sky fairies, or that bats are birds, or that you should be stoned for wearing linen and cotton in the same outfit..." When I reminded him the question was 'what do you believe?' not 'what don't you believe?' he told me he believed in evolution, not Genesis, his faith was with science not religion. I suggested that's what he should write about. He felt very uneasy writing it, having already had to fight his corner against a devout Catholic boy in Divinity school (lesson), so I told him he was allowed to have his opinion as it's subjective, and he was being asked by the beak to share it with him. His answer was not a wrong answer, it could only be marked down if he wrote a poor quality piece. This is one of the many defining features of an Eton education - you are allowed to think. It doesn't say in the Times piece what the shonky history question was, but the boy, having been used to independence of thought and expression, gave what we can suppose was an excellent essay.
DS went to a 'box ticking' prep school where his own ideas were 'wrong' (not just my DS who had this, many did, including one exceptionally intelligent and talented girl who argued her case over a 'wrong' answer to a subjective question, and lost) because the answer sheet said something different and the teacher failed to think.
Eton is a brilliant school and presents opportunities you wouldn't believe, whatever people on the outside looking in might think. There will always be those who think its just a bunch of loony toffs who parade up and down Eton High Street quaffing Moët like it's water, but they are the very same people who jump up and down moaning and complaining about use of the term plebs. They are also the very same people who complain that OEs are out of touch with real life and were raised in a boarding school bubble, shielded from people of different backgrounds; Eton has boys from all around the world, from all backgrounds (state school boys from council houses right up to royalty), unlike many 'bog-standard comprehensives' where all kids are from the same area, often with a very restricted ethnic mix and who often don't expand their horizons for fear of being dubbed 'swotty geeks'.

You are not just allowed to think at other schools Ignorant, you are positively encouraged to do so. Eton doesn't have a monopoly on that one I'm afraid.

Thinking about the fact that you might need a decent grade for a university offer should cut in somewhere too, no? My DC have managed to get their head around that one on the whole; I think that may make them that much brighter than Eton's 'best historian'. Or perhaps they just know their place.

Yellow, I'm afraid Eton don't produce an army of 'Yes Men' ticking all boxes. Over the last few years I found it increasingly difficult to hold a 'smooth' conversation with my son who tends to give me totally unexpected answers to even simple questions. It was obvious he deliberately avoided giving me normal expected answers and yet at the end of the day he got me thinking and I couldn't fault him his answers.

peteneras isn't that the same for most dcs? If Eton offered a scholarship for arguing my ds would walk it.

I think your son must have done what all my DC did though peterenas, as I understood him to have achieved 4A*. Like them, he did what was required on the day and you say that, like them, he can think beyond that when required. That doesn't make my DC or your son 'yes men'. Just a bit more savvy and therefore probably brighter than the kid with the U.

Blissfully, within a couple of months on entering Eton, DS was put on The Bill together with another boy from his prep school.

The offence?

Phoning one of their prep school teachers who they dislike immensely and mimicking some Chinese takeaway in pidgin English or rather 'Chinglish' that his £80 special fried lice order was ready for collection!

I must admit I struggled to keep a straight face when this was reported back to me in the presence of DS.

The punishment?

To write a letter of apology to the teacher (a copy to the Head Master) and promised never to do it again and was gated* for a week.

*gated - kept in confinement in own room and barred from all school activities.

I should bloody think so! What appalling behaviour - not to mention racist!

I wouldn't be admitting that in public So Eton, where the establishment cultivates it's stereotypes? No wonder Cameron keeps putting his foot in it when he visits China.