7% at comps get AAB

[Judy1234]

Just looking at today's FT schools tables/reports. Only 7% of comprehensives get pupils with grades AAB at A level. 62% of pupils get that at the best 50 independent schools (about 70 such pupils a year per school) and about 31 from selective grammar schools.

However the top 10 comps have 31% getting AAB which isn't too bad and the bottom 50 comps have 1% of pupils getting AAB.

The best comperhensive - Watford Grammar gets 8 Oxbridge offers a year.

But then surely you'd expect that. If the school isn't selective, whether it's fee paying or not, you can't expect to get lots of high a level grades so why does the Government want more children proportionately from comprehensives and (new rule) whose parents didn't get to university? It's like saying I want people who aren't right for this given preference over those that are. That these really bright pupils from the state grammar school whose parents both went to univesrity will not be allowed in but these rather thick children who have left it too late to be brought up to an Oxbridge standard age 19 will get preference.
www.ft.com/cms/s/4037c7f2-ceae-11db-b5c8-000b5df10621.html

I would judge that Tamum is definitely a higher authority on evolution!

Given what I know of your respective professional spheres.

What is tamum's professional expertise?

Thanks Blu

She is a top geneticist.

She displays an odd lack of logic for a scientist...

"What I said was that tamum should not pass judgement while not actively contributing to the debate. "

Tamum appears to have made her first contribution to this topic on Tuesday.

Absolutely not.

But I do have the ability to pass judgement on someone's analytical skills. That is MY professional background.

the ability does not give one the right

Just to add my support to both tamum and blackandwhitecat.

Both of whom come across are very intelligent, logical and thoughtful, and are correct when they talk about Darwin and theories on evolution.

Blackandwhitecat - I think you have done yourself proud in this debate. And I'd be pleased to have you as my dd's teacher, or mine for that matter.

notanotter - tamum was the one who started passing judgements, if you read this thread.

I think I've had enough, it is just pointless discussing education with people who truly believe that the answer to lack of opportunity is socialism, or worse.

anna - you have referred to your professional background a number of times on different threads. I am genuinely interested to know what it is. given that you do not appear to have ruled out resuming your career and anticipate no difficulty in doing so I assume you must have acquired a reasonably high professional reputation. What exactly is it you do/did?

OK, so I made the personal comment that you appeared to be living in a parallel universe and earlier that you had a slender grasp of science. Neither of those are particularly personal and scathing. You on the other hand judged me for my "lack of logic", wrote to blackandwhitecat "blackandwhitecat - that you are a teacher truly scares me" and described her posts as "Poor facts. Long, incoherent posts", and accused Soapbox of living in a glass house.

Thanks very much, the rest of you

hotc, my daughters might actually. They saw the effect of my earning more than their father in the divorce (we had to pay him loads of money) and they might want to avoid that happening and they live in a country and culture where most women marry up, slightly older men who typically earn more and where men often prefer that. It's actually more the reason women don't go back to work as anything else because it doesn't make economic sense because their husbands earn more.

'I believe that happens every time women target richer men.'

I think a very small percentage of women TARGET richer men. What a horrible idea and again I have to wonder if you are speaking of your own experience because I have neither met nor heard of any woman who would have such a ruthless approach to marriage.

'What % of mumsnet posters earn more than their husbands? Very few because they pursue the money, status and power and really aren't too different from how we used to be years ago.'

You are right that women still earn less than their husbands but your assumption about why is totally wrong and insulting to your sex. I would argue that the reason they earn less is because women are still not paid the same amount for doing the same jobs as men and also because women are forced into low paid jobs because they still bear the brunt of childcare. Have 50+ years of feminism passed you by Xenia? None of this is because of evolution it is because of patriarchy, prejudice and men (and women) misusing arguments about evolution to maintain men's dominance and control over women. There is lots of evidence to support this. Did you miss the dinner ladies suing their employers because they were being paid less than men? DId you miss the fact that mothers are the group most discriminated against in the workplace over even people with disabilities?

Xenia, I work in a 6th form college. Our students are given individual minimum expected grades to work towards (based on their GCSE points score). Actually I see very little back-stabbing and competitiveness. The kids I teach have mostly not been through private education but the state system. They are at my place because of their merits usually and they continue to work hard to achieve what others get handed to on a plate. I'm really struggling to think of any unpleasant conflict, competitiveness etc that I have seen lately. Our students are expected to and do cooperate and support each other. And I can think of several instances just today where one student when out of his way to help another. Your view of human beings and human instinct is a very negative one which I don't share. I can only think that you have it because of some bad personal expereicvnes you have had or continue to have in your workplace or education.

BTW, I'm still catching up on the earlier posts and responding to them as I find them. Haven't read all yet.

Oh, you've got some treats in store, blackandwhitecat.

They are not normal children then, bc.

Okay, some mumsnetters tell me when they got married - I mean wedding day here, not after you've had children, did your husband earn more than you. I think it's 4 in 5 women who marry men who earn more and htat's not because of discriminatoin it's because these women although they don't realise it seek security in men, men who can support them when they stop work to have children. I am not making this up. It's been studied all over the place and in many cultures.

Thanks for your support ladies but I find Anna's comments about my teaching ability really rather hilarious. She obviously has a rather special talent in that she can work out what I'm like at teaching ENGLISH by a debate not about English on MUMSNET.

Her complaints are that I have 'Poor facts.'
1st which ones Anna? 2nd as I teach English how would my lack of knowledge of Biology affect my teaching ability?

'Long, incoherent posts.'
Sorry about the length Anna but again I should perhaps remind you that I don't usually do my teaching via Internet discussion forums for parents'

'Very left wing.'
And how is this relevant to the way I teach English?

Actually I've never had any complaints about any of the above by any of my teachers or students and while I don't really care what peculiar assumptions you make, you might be better advised to restrict your comments to the debate rather than making wild accusations about someone's ability to do their job in real life.

What do you think about today's Times headline?

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article1522568.ece

So any mumsnetter who successfully got herself to university despite a difficult family background, who perhaps was the first in her family to do so, because she got there and did that it means her children won't have the same chance and in effect by getting to university she may damge the chances of her children to get there.

"Pat Langham, president of the Girls? Schools Association, said that she had grave concerns over the changes. ?Why collect this information at all? If they are going to use it to discriminate against those who they feel are privileged ? ie, those whose parents went to university ? then what would be the point in anyone ever trying to improve themselves?

?I was the first person in my family to go to university. My father was a policeman and my mother a dinner lady. But I?m a headmistress with a degree; were I to have children applying for university under these rules, would they be discriminated against because I have worked hard??

Treats indeed Tamum. I've already told you that my dp didn't earn more than me when we first met. And his previous dp was a deputy head who earned more than me. And you've just told us that YOU too earned more than your husband Xenia. But we don't need you to tell us that men earn more than women. What I'm arguing with is your reasons why this is the case.

Xenia - there is a thread about this in Further Education. It is daft - what is needed is better education, encouragement and opportunities from the start for children from disadvantaged backgrounds.

I think it's putting a huge and grossly unfair burden on admissions tutors. It's a really tough job as it is, and I can't see how they can cope other than by ignoring it to be honest.