Education superclass?

[Amber2]

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100245274/it-is-much-worse-than-sir-john-major-says-a-new-superclass-is-being-created-in-london/

This is interesting coming from John Major ...sounds like more lobbying along the lines of the Sutton Trust but do people really think it's much worse than it ever has been..? and this is do with with the inexorable rise of London...and the global money flowing in there...and so to creating an elite superclass of private schools also ...not just any old private school but a small handful of elite ones, applications to which have reached record numbers, presumably more and more from London and from overseas with over inflation rises in fees pricing out the traditional middle classes that used to be able to afford these schools.

I've always though that intelligence/intellect/academic skill, whatever we want to call it, results from a slippery mixture of nature and nurture.

Expanding someones mind requires exposure to certain elements, but even those DC exposed to be very similar environments don't turn out the same.

I have twins, so a private social study group .

The predominance of genetics on overall ability and achievement is probably best elucidated by Professor Robert Plomin. The separated twin-studies he conducts are quite amazing; as these twins get older their abilities converge irrespective of their upbringing, environment, diet etc. In other words their is some early life environmental influence, but as these dilute out with age, the genetic floor/ceiling prevails.

Interestingly as the human genome is characterised, genetic influence on behaviour is already being put forward as a criminal defence in the US. It is only a matter of time before we go into a shop (have a buccal smear for DNA retrieval) and go back a week later and have our risks mapped. Sorry a bit off topic but the influence of genetics on who we are, and who we are not, fascinates me.

Snow Bells, the Harkness Table method is used in many American private schools - even the very small midwestern one I went to. Additionaly, it is used in Seminar lessons (upper level courses) in American Liberal Arts Colleges/Universities. My fondest memories of classes were held in this manner.

I believe that Winchester has a similar concept in place, and I know that some of the classes at my sons's London school are held in this manner, but just not called a name.

OddSins, the problem with just taking our mapped genome and making predictions is that the field of epigenetics is just hotting up, and this field is showing that what the environment can do is turn on local genes which module the main gene, so the gene itself is not absolute.

passergo... my daughter is a product of the Hong Kong system.... All I can say its tough...most kids are rote taught...timetables were completed by age 6...Most Chinese will send their children abroad for education in the UK because 6 years of rote learning is a skill already learnt .. The next years in secondary should be about analytical thinking and application of knowledge.

Having a massive IQ is worth nothing if you can't apply it . .

Like wordf I have twins too so my own at home experiment in nature and nurture. I stick with my view that is is about 50/50. That means environment of course is very important but that half of it is down to genes (which is great news for mothers as it means you don't need to beat yourself up if it all goes wrong unless it was in an unwise husband choice I suppose - assuming the husband is the father. Some breed with the risky alpha men and marry the dull not so bright good providers).

Kenlee - my DSS1 started at university in the UK this autumn. He is 100% a product of the French school system. He shares a flat with a boy on the same course ( Economics) who is a product of the HK system (did the IB and got 42/45).

The French system has the reputation for being heavily biaised in favour of rote learning.

I'm looking forward to discussing with DSS1 what system he thinks prepares students best for university in the UK.

i don't think the genetics of intelligence is that straightforward or predictable -(i.e. marrying the bright) though I do think genetics do play an important part along with environment ...I know there are twin studies (I guess they must be identical twins) but everywhere there are examples of siblings (same schooling, same home environment) ...one of which may be highly academic (reading all the time from an early age, highly articulate) , the other not at all. I remember the recent Child Genius program and did wonder about how you separate the two nature vs nurture - there was a boy whose parents were both Cambridge maths grads (one at least a PHDs I think) . He was clearly very very advanced in maths ... obvious conclusion would be it's a combination of genes and nurture that led him to be so advanced at such an early age- but having 1:1 tutoring from Cambridge Maths Phds from an early age and the home environment that prizes maths advancement above everything would have played a very significant part - so you really can't compare that sort of child with his peers without taking into account the advantages of nurture that he has had and you really can't say how much is exactly his genetic make up vs his educational upbringing.

Bonsoir I met up with a mate of mine this week (still nursing the hangover) who is teaching a semester of international human righjts law in Washington. She said it was fascinating to see how all the different students coped with her highly practice based course. One French student (half) joked that she hadn't been taught to think!

Since hormones, viruses, nutrients, bacteria, oxygen levels, toxins etc, etc, can affect which genes are switched on or off or mutate and how our brains and bodies develop, I find conversations about statistical percentages a bit tiresome - I'm sure, if you have to view it in that way at all, it differs from person to person, depending on the magnitude and type of environmental assaults they have encountered. If we weren't affected by our environment, we wouldn't have evolved at all. We wouldn't exist without an environment in which to live - the two are intertwined from the moment of our existence and can't really be separated.

(talking about genetics versus environment, btw!).

The strengths and weaknesses of different school systems are certainly highlighted at university. DSS1 is uber well prepared in Maths versus everybody (even the highest scoring highest level IB Maths students haven't covered as much ground in as much depth).

Bonsoir I think rote learning is great annd should be done to a point ...Then once your able to assimilate information. You can thenn use it analytically..

Hmm that would be interesting to see what each can learn from each others systems...

DSS1 seems to be applying his mathematical knowledge in situ with much greater ease than his A-level educated fellow students (of whom the vast majority have A* A-level Further Maths). We shall see...

Can we switch this thread to "Education Underclass" as I think thats a much more important topic? This is major problem in the UK for swathes of society.

Start a new thread. I am interested in this thread.

yes - start two threads - going in parallel one on underclass and one on superclass....two sides of the same coin. The discussion on what makes an excellent education is important ...after all that is what aspirational parents with aspirational children want be they working class or middle class or superclass elite though their perspectives may be different on what an excellent education means. For me, the Phillips Exeter model with Harkness table methodology sounds ideal rather than the teaching to the test/rote learning desks facing the front model.

In other words analytical, creative thinking are what we will need to solve our problems in the future...and generally the current education system - especially the one in the state system...does not generally promote that (there may be notable schools that are exceptions) ...and that is a very important theme.

Boris Johnson gets better and better. On this topic last night he said
"Whatever you may think of the value of IQ tests, it is surely relevant to a conversation about equality that as many as 16 per cent of our species have an IQ below 85, whilst about 2% have an IQ above 130". ,..... Free markets involve competition between "human beings who are far from equal in raw ability".

He also suggests that the state pay for poor children to go to private schools and is concerned about social mobility.

I love Boris bless his soul... I bet under all his stupidity there us a smart man....

Here's a link:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/27/boris-johnson-thatcher-greed-good

and the liberal riposte:

www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/28/boris-johnson-iq-unpleasant-elitism-nick-clegg

Boris Johnson - sailing so close to arguing that 16% of the population are virtually a different species (sub-humans) and needn't be treated as equals, more like any other animal deserving of a bit of kindness (so long as it doesn't bite), and 2% of the population are also practically a different and super-species (super-humans), deserving of all the wealth their greed can make them.

not sure he quite said it that way...but he sure likes to provoke doesn't he?

...of course no one would ever think of themselves being in the bottom 16% of intellect ..and so perhaps the bottom 16% are not offended ...

Indy5 - there are people who would think of themselves as being in the bottom 16% of intellect.