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

So Xenia, regarding the Amazon etc. and assuming that you prefer men to women, what would you go for, an Oxbridge education or a big penis?

Personally I agree that progress isn't always good (I'll put that book on my reading list), and I believe that happiness isn't directly linked to lifestyle or even opportunity - and further believe that it is happiness people strive for, not money (sometimes the two get confused however!)

But I am concerned that the potential happiness of many people is ruined by some in this small elite minority that B&Wcat mentions and the pressure (perpetuated by this group)on many to join this elite 'or fail' and other discrimiatory systems that we are developing more and more in this country.

Although I have been lucky (and I do consider it luck despite my hard work) to do reasonably well via the back route, I am convinced that 20 years on from now there WILL be a marked difference in how people have done based on their A-Level marks etc. and that competitive systems are increasing to ensure this.

As a parent, although I disagree with this system, I will of course want to ensure that my child follows the easiest path possible.

I got AAAA and never even got an interview for oxford, I didn't get into Durham either. The reason was (we believed at the time, though it could have been a popular course) that on my personal statement I had very little to show for what I did in my spare time. I am from a VERY large, poor single-parent family (poor doesn't mean thick, and it often means hard working). I never had extra-curricular activities or interests to write about, I was more busy doing paperounds and homework. Neither of my parents went to university, but all of us were bright (well I was before my brain turned to baby mush). What hope did I ever have of being brought 'up to Oxbridge standards'??? I think it's a good idea for the govenment to encourage more diversity in top universities. For one thing it will stop the very clever people from dismissing the thick people so easily.

Strong, yes, I have seen so many recent UCAS applications from good applicants from private schools. You just can hardly believe what some of them have done. But it depends on the child. My children have had the same opportunities and some choose to take them and others not so it's not just parents and money that matter. And when my daughter was doing her recent job applications and assessment days we were looking at what others put (mind you avoid what 300 Oxbridge entrants did this year and pick identical stories from the internet about when I was looking after my 100 year old grandfather I realised XYZ about myself)....

So it's easier if you have the qualifications, background, confidence, hobbies plus the brains and if we can make it easier for our children then I do that. I also want them to have the chance to see a whole load of thigns they might be interested in. If one decide say knitting is their big thing then that's fine - let them knit but I want them to have had the chance to knit, act, sing, play sport, learn instruments so they can then choose from that range what they want to do most.

I think the point was in the more natural state we weren't quite so concentrating on building up power and money and lots of wives and possessions, that we had about a million years on earth or however long you think us and our ancestors have been here and then about only a tiny 5000 years since we (I mean men) with their Y chromosome and testosterone were in a position to grab power. Everywhere they studied where rich outsiders come in whether to South America or anywhere mothers offer their daughters, daughters off themselves to the new rich better invaders. Women marrying up as it were just as we still have today in the UK all these women or most of them marrying men who earn more and it's genetic and can't be helped virtually.

Xenia: Could you just clarify? Are you saying that evolution of mankind, was up until 5000 yrs ago more of a social being, and that for the last 5000 yrs has become more selfish/competitve. I'm not sure I get your point!

Yes, I think we were very dispersed with not so many people on the planet in small family groups perhaps not that often meeting others moving around, not settled, following herds of wild animals. Then we started to stay put and people (men) land grabbed, also took more wives from others. We were better fed. Instead of women having babies every 4 years or so they were fatter, more stable, better fed, had a baby a year, were more confined to home and hearth as a consequence and gradually became more chattels of men. We lost our equality. We're only now starting to get it back.

I think strongteabag makes an INCREDIBLY important point. All this emphasis on extra curricular activities etc is so discriminatory. If you come from a poor family most of your spare time is probably accounted for by trying to earn money in your holidays to contribute to the family's finances, usually doing pretty mundane stuff. You don't have parents doling out a nice allowance so you can do voluntary work in Africa with your posh chums. You don't have parents who can afford to pay for your cello lessons or finance your riding career or posh rich friends and acquaintances who are happy to offer little Hugo work experience on film sets or on the trading floor. You don't even know about the kind of stuff that middle class families take for granted - VSO etc.

fem bear - not having testicles is something you don't have a choice about (well usually), private education is a choice

As for A levels, maths and physics are a lot easier than needlework

Aloha, I think so too. So my daughter had these whole days when they assess you with others, not just interviews, but whole series of things. Now they're fairer presumably in a way, aren't they? A lot of people at the employer see you, not justone biased person who's chosing someone like himself (big problem in recruitment- choosing someone like you, there are even some departments in companies mostly gay because the gay boss chose gay staff etc etc but any recruitment from a narrow group means you lose good people). So you get tested on these days - good - you can shine, they test you in difficult scenarios, made to give a presentation immediately without much prep time, difficult problems to solve, talking to people but you can see how if someone from a very very poor home was on one of those days they just may not be able to make the right connections, may be their public speaking would n't be as good because they haven't done as much of it or they're not used to talking to people in those sorts of situations as much because their parents haven't paid for them to go on XYZ trips. I think things my children have done like independent travel, working abroad, having to sort out their own problems alone, a sort of breadth of experience has helped them.

I suppose you could say that caring for the rest of the family and your weekend job in a supermarket prepare you even better but I fear not. Then you talk on these days about your interests and she could go on about the showjumping she does, the sailing teaching qualification she passed this year, skiing, just masses of stuff and it's reall biased because the sorts of hobbies she would do would fit with those of the people she was with. So in a sense may be one of the best things I did for her future career wasn't getting her into her private school but all the other stuff too - buying the first pony. All every interesting stuff. However if you're not clever, not good with people and not good at a job no matter what your background you won't last 5 minutes so at the end of the day perhaps those other things don't matter.

I've been thinking about it because here is the first of the children gone right through from pre school, school, university to a job, almost and you think about what makes them what they are.

confused, most private school pupils are sent there by parental not child choice.

I know this thread is not just about applications to Oxbridge, but it might be worth commenting that one of the changes made a few years ago, the scrapping of the Oxford entrance exam, which was meant to help children from comprehensive schools, actually had the opposite effect.

I sat the Oxford Entrance Exam fourth term (ie before A levels). I went to a comprehensive school with no experience of preparing pupils for Oxbridge. I'm sure I wrote heaps of drivel in most of the papers, but did enough to get to the interview stage, where despite my chippy, chip-on-shoulder attitude I was offered a place.

Now, with no entrance exam, it is actually much harder to get the necessary three or four grade A A-levels that you need to be on track for in order to be considered at all, unless you go to an "exam factory" school ie not your ordinary common or garden comprehensive.

So I very much doubt that my DSs will be going to Oxford.

MrsPG, I have a strong hunch your ds2 will find a way of getting himself to wherever he wants to go...

I think it may be RADA or bust for him!

Probably joining my dd2, then...

We're all hoping that she'll make the big time and keep us all in the style to which we'd like to become accustomed.

Presumably your DD1 might well have Oxbridge leanings, frogs?

Well, she's at a school where she can give full rein to her inner nerd, so who knows? Atm she's adamant she wants to read vet science, but again, who knows? And as long as it makes her happy, I don't really mind.

Oddly enough, I gave up being competitive at Oxford. Never looked back, really, and certainly not about to encourage competitiveness in my children. Would quite like ds to finally learn how to tell the time, though...

Xenia having been there done that what extra cirricular stuff do you wish your DS took up or what stuff did he do to get on in the world.

Please enlighten us ones with younger DSs what has been good for your DS etc

He likes to watch football. He has a lot of political interests. That's not particularly good for application forms. He's just how he is. People differ. It doesn't matter but he's going to have a harder job getting jobs than his sisters. He knows that. he did all the other stuff, music scholarship 3 or 4 grade 8 music exams, riding lessons, skiing, sailing, scuba, school with lots of sport. I can even see they differ just by position in the family - first children tend to do "best" etc.

I have done a lot of mock interviews for sixth formers over the years and some of their CVs are just incredibly impressive. I remember one girl who had come over here from Korea, did international relief efforts, I can't remember all the details but some of these people are like kind of renaissance men/women with 10 different stellar hobbies which make my children look mediocre by comparison.

I just think if you can give them the chance to find things they enjoy by exposing them to a wide range of things that's good for them. Sport became my girls' favourite thing and yet initially it could have been music or even reading or whatever. And this is not really ultimately about jobs. It's about giving them enthusiasms for life, methods of spending their leisure time etc.

My DS is very driven by drama and music

For employment prospects, it is much more important to demonstrate that you have sought out and taken your own opportunities in life than that you have just taken the opportunities that your parents and social background have offered you.

One of my most successful friends is a Korean-American immigrant who has supported herself since she was 16 when her parents divorced and her family fell apart. Obviously she can't ski, play tennis, play any musical instrument, done masses of charity work or climbed Everest (or any other actitivity that requires parental financial support) as she was far too busy working for food and lodging as a schoolchild and student. But she has travelled the world, working to pay her way, got to great universities (and won scholarships), learnt several languages and made friends to help her get on in life.

She's not the brainiest person I know, but she is really determined to make it, and she has.

Depends on the employer. They try hard to recruit widely but if the candidate is talking about things you have in common with them then people get on better. Most children from poorer homes at 18 have done less than better off children. They are probably less likely to have done a gap year too.

A gap year is a matter of choice. When I went to University (many years ago...) there were a lot of ex public school students who had done a formulaic gap year, either travelling abroad with organisations that shielded them from the realities of the third-world countries they travelled to (and bringing them back full of charitable idealism), or else bumming around Thailand and Australia meeting other people from the same background. The people who had actually gained real experience on their gap year had done real hands-on jobs in other countries living and working with locals, and that really showed up in their intellectual understanding of the world. People from less protected home environments were better at organising that type of gap year.

And at Insead there weren't any ex-charity in Africa or bumming around Thailand types.

Xenia, what was the point in starting this post? Did you see it as an opportunity to be smug about the choices you have afforded your children? What is this debate actually about other than giving you an opportunity to sound off about how fabulously your children have done thanks to the education you have paid for.

You say the class structure is fluid but by your own posts you highlight how difficult it is for children from a poorer background, however high their IQ, to get selected for the top Universities and top employers and I have to say, you sound positively smug about that!

I was just mulling it over. No particular point to it. What I would like to know is if you take children with say the top 10% IQ in a comp and take some more in a state grammar and a third lot in an academic private school ike Manchester Grammar and another in a very comprehensive private school which anyone can get into who pays however not bright of the 4 groups where do the children get better A levels and in particular do we serve those in the state system best in the comprehensives or not. In other words if 7% get AAB in comps on average would it also be the same percentage relatively in the state grammars? Say the 7% are the 10% brightest ones and 7 of those 10% go to the comp and 7 go to a state grammar would they each do as well or do we do poor clever children down by not segregating them and giving them the chances they need? We have fewer children from state schools getting through to universities now than in the 1960s, something the Sutton trust is very concerned about and many others. Look at the Cabinet and how many of them got through because they were grammar school boys or girls. We seemed to remove that route, kick away the ladder and make things harder.

Xenia - I've done lots of recruitment in my time (for an American management consultancy) and things like ski-ing, tennis, music etc just didn't figure on the list of criteria we had for candidates. Nobody gave a damn. All we cared about were cognitive skills.

I think that you'll find that in globalised companies, as opposed to still-national outfits, recruitment avoids all cultural biases ie gap years (totally unheard of in most countries).

Interesting now also that children at secondaries are being "Russell Group identified" early to ensure that they do not attain good gcses and A levels.
Apparently to stop younger able students from failing at secondary school which apparently often happens.

I am not sure if it run alongside NAGTY or not, there was a fair bit of press about it some months ago and we got a letter about DS before he got into NAGTY so not sure, he is at a very good performing boys grammar, so maybe that's selective bias I don't know?