Oxbridge schmoxbridge?

[Randomword6]

I'm just wondering, my kids all rejected the idea of Oxbridge as dated and elitist, and I didn't go. It was thought back in the day that going to either was a guarantee of a good career, but is this true now? Does it depend on the subject?

No plenty of non selective schools across the country have teachers with an Oxford or Cambridge background although I believe that they are disproportionately in London schools.

You are slightly turning your original point around. Sure, most qualified teachers will find a post. Your point was that university attended makes no maters difference to an application, whereas at least in certain schools it does, or should.

The teachers at my public school, who all went to Oxbridge, were not good teachers. For example, one man went red when talking to girls so avoided looking at us and wouldn’t answer our questions. Another was very knowledgable but just he went off on tangents so we never finished the syllabus (not sure we were ever on it). A third PhD-one we actually managed to get replaced (which I think was a first). They all came straight out of Uni into teaching though as private schools didn’t need a teaching qualification. What they did have is the connections to the Oxbridge colleges. During my PGCE I reflected just how bad they were at teaching.

However the best teacher I know taught my Dds at a comp - she went to Cambridge then did a PGCE. Interestingly she hated her time at Cambridge but she loves her subject and teaching. She is inspirational.

My public school named each college each master went to in the school handbook. And the public school pushed for lots of pupils to go to Oxbridge. It was very much the thing to do.

I think the pupils who are bright and passionate about a particular subject taught at Oxford or Cambridge, and think they will enjoy that type of experience, need to apply to try and get the best overall experience for their £50k of ‘debt’. My eldest Dd is now working and is annoyed that the student loan will come out of her pay check for years but she really enjoyed her (non Oxbridge) university time and it was well spent. Younger Dd (3A*) won’t be doing Oxbridge either.

It is odd when people talk about grammar schools. There are no grammar schools for miles and miles round here. All are comps (converting to academies) or private. In fact some of the private ones are called Grammars but you very much have to pay. The private schools have a few pupils going to American universities which is a new development.

We have no state grammar schools in our county. The only selective/grammar schools "near" us are independent fee paying schools.

Oxford and Cambridge are academic institutions. They prepare you for academia. Any notions beyond that as to what makes a “good” career for a graduate are just loaded with tiresome prejudices. Being trained to think is of use in almost any field of endeavour, and on that basis, the wider the range of careers Oxford and Cambridge graduates go into after graduating, the better. It’s not as if a chemistry degree is massively more relevant to, eg, the Prime Minister than it is to a primary school teacher.

As @goodbyestranger said, a good education, including a degree from Oxford or Cambridge, gives you choices. You can confidently choose more or less any career that suits your personal qualities (which will extend beyond your ability to analyse information). An Oxbridge degree should keep your options open, not close them down. Why on earth should you work hard simply to trap yourself into a narrow range of careers considered acceptable by bigots and snobs?

It is odd when people talk about grammar schools.

It's not at all odd for anyone living in the area that I lived in for forty years until very recently. The local school - the nearest both by road and as the crow flies - was a superselective grammar. All my DC went there. That's my family's experience.

That was a state grammar, also an academy.

Because most people's experience is of comprehensive schools. I would suggest that most of us live in grammar free areas, and where there are grammar schools they are fee paying.

It's not in the least odd to talk about grammar schools in the context of oxbridge admissions and widening participation. If you look at the stats, you'll see large numbers coming from big sixth form colleges, private schools and grammars. None of which is too surprising.

I explained why it's not odd for me to speak about teaching recruitment in the grammar sector RampantIvy. It was in response to what was said about university background having no relevance in teacher recruitment. As another poster correctly pointed out, there are highly able kids in the comprehensive sector too, no-one is quarrelling about that. I'm simply speaking from my own direct experience, responding to a specific point. All highly able kids should have teachers capable of stretching them. The sad fact is that too often they don't, across all sectors. But that's not the same as saying that an Oxbridge education isn't a major plus for a teaching applicant in the right setting, since it is. To that extent, mids2019 is wrong.

Oh dear. It is odd (unusual) when posters go on about grammar schools being state/non-paying for those of us where ‘grammars’ are private but odd (weird) that it’s been picked up on as though I am using odd in the crazy sense. 😁

It's not unusual in the context Zanda. Not unusual, not crazy. I didn't 'go on' either. I made a single point about teacher recruitment in direct response to mids2019.

It’s not remotely odd to talk about grammar schools if you live in Kent, for example - a very large county that operates a selective system at secondary level. If you are from Kent, you find it utterly weird when people talk about private grammar schools. The word “grammar” in a private school is meaningless, it’s just a word in the school’s name that has only historical relevance to that school, as most private schools are academically selective in one way or another and none of them have any need to call themselves “grammar schools” to signify this. So the people who think grammar schools are private schools are the ones in the wrong. Having grammar in your private school name does not make your school a grammar school in any meaningful way.

It can be meaningful to the extent that the grammars which became independent tended to offer very much broader bursary schemes than other independent schools (or did. Things have picked up recently so there may be more parity now).

The nearest "grammar" schools to me are private and academically very selective with entrance exams, so I would call them grammar scools.

DD's old school is called xx Grammar School because it has never changed name since it was founded in the 14th century, although it is now a comprehensive school. Older people round here still call it "the grammar school"

This is all very odd.

You can call them grammar schools all you like RampantIvy but in legal and university admissions purposes they're part of the independent not grammar school sector.

"Grammar schools" were originally those which taught Latin grammar, and so the term has changed meaning several times over the last few hundred years.

I teach in a private school with "Grammar" in the name. I agree that it's confusing that the word is used in various different ways depending on context. For what it's worth, I and many colleagues have Oxbridge degrees and/or doctorates. Is that a "successful" career? I'm generally happy with my work, and for the money-conscious I earn more than either of my parents ever did, so that's social mobility in action, right?

I went to Oxbridge to study a particular course which literally didn't exist anywhere else. No regrets about that.

Oh, right. I didn't know that @goodbyestranger. In that case we have no grammar schools in our county, three in West Yorkshire, and three in North Yorkshire. So most Yorkshire pupils of secondary age go to comprehensive schools.

I and many colleagues have Oxbridge degrees and/or doctorates

Yes, and the independent sector pays far better and provides far better resources than the state sector, so not surprising that there are relatively far fewer Oxbridge educated teachers in the state sector.

It's a real shame however.

Of course.

Mainly because I was a bit tired of studying after three degrees and was strapped for cash, I didn't do a PGCE as well, so when I first applied for jobs I was restricted to the private sector.

When, a while back, we moved to a different part of the country I applied for independent and state schools, explaining that I was willing to take a big pay-cut to get my teaching qualifications "on the job" (I forget what the scheme was called, it keeps getting renamed) in the latter. Didn't even get interviews there. Landed a post in the independent instead. 🤷

@RampantIvy - Eton is academically very selective. St Paul’s is academically very selective. They are not grammar schools. That’s because they are fee paying private schools. Fee paying private schools with the word “Grammar” in their name are so called for historical reasons. Some private “grammar schools” have existed for centuries. In the private sector, it is just the name of the school.

Most of England does not have grammar schools eg they were abolished in Newcastle when I was about 10 in about 1970. I think they were still doing the 11 plus for a year or two after for some weird reason and I was asked if I wanted to have a go at it (although I was in a fee paying school throughout there). Howevr here in London people go all over the place to try to SE grammars or even those which are not entirely selective like the confusingly named Watford Grammar state school.

I certainly think most of us agree that having a good education gives you choices you might not otherwise have, although plenty of university students are keen to earn enough so they are not worrying abhout high rents, childcare costs and high electricity bills. There is certainly nothing wrong with those who have aims for a relatively high salary any more than there is a problem if some do not use their university education at all (as long as tax payers are not paying for it).

I never had any plan that 4 of my 5 children would be lawyers although I have no problems with their choices which are likely to lead to fewer money issues than some career choices. I certainly think my son who was a postman fore 3 yeas after his degree and since then has driven a food delivery van (full time PAYE) could do a lot "better" but it is his choice and he likes the simplicity of that life. The only qualification h e has that is useful is his driving licence but even there I feel vinciated in a sense in putting a lot of money and effort into ensuring all 5 children passed their driving tests aged 17, never mind that he and the others are happy and he is self sufficient financially which is a lot more than many are. Children being consent and not ill is probably what most of us want for them.

My mother who went to a grammar school in the NE and was a teacher taught in primary schools in the state sector. My children's father has taught mostly in the private sector although started in the state sector after his PGCE. I know he prefers the private sector and we have no political objections in our family to private schools either which makes things easier.

PhotoDad that’s a shame but training someone like yourself tends to stretch existing teaching resources too far for it to be a realistic option. I completely see how things panned out for you. There’s also a slight tendency for those in the state sector to wonder if teachers coming over from the independent sector can deal with the various challenges thrown up by it, having been in what - fairly or unfairly - is often regarded as a softer setting. We did take one teacher who had been in the independent sector and he did struggle initially but after two years became one of the outstanding teachers in the school and immensely popular both with pupils and staff. It’s more likely to happen with science subjects though: are you arts/ humanities?