Universities selecting kids at 11

[hellywobs]

There is an article on the front page of the Times today talking about universities identifying the brightest kids when they are 11, keeping in touch with them etc

11 is far too young for this as it will penalise late developers. However I can see why the universities want to do something to get round GCSE and A level grade inflation. In 1990 4 people in my school got all A's at A level - this year there were 23 and the school's sixth form is not 6 times bigger than it was....I don't believe the population is getting cleverer (though better at taking exams maybe)

What do people think?

Not keen. Surely there's a lot more to life, or even to being a successful student, than processing power? And just imagine all the pushy parents trying to get their child on the list.

I take your point on grade inflation, but I think the universities might do better to look at evidence of a real interest in the subject prospective students are applying to study - I am sure that would be a better barometer of future success.

I was really clever and way ahead of my peers at school at 11. However, from 14 it all went downhill. My brother on the other hand, was a lazy little boy who couldn't care less about school at 11, but is now researching his PHD. It's way too early to identify how academic someone is at the tender age of 11.

rubbish idea. Why label kids as uni & non-uni so early? Some kids will do well later on but would not make the grade at 11 - or be ignored by the system. Or be thought not worth anything by their teachers.

also what uni are we talking about - so many useless courses now - & many kids drop out. Bring back the old A levels that required learning not course work.

Sort of says as well that bright kids aren't being identified now - how is this possible?

Another stupid idea. Why is the 11 plus not now still used? for all the reasons that you identified.

dont they do this with royal family and their elite tosspot circles anyway
but from birth

The 11 + is used in our area.
We have been spoken to about the scheme with reagrd to ds I think it is called the Hailes or Haines project to identify kids who can attend the major universities.
11 seems pretty young to us, even given ds thinks he has amde up his mind, I doubt that he will keep that up, or even knowing what subjects he will stick too or dump.
I'd like to leave it til 15 at the earliest and thats what we said.
Although form the Time aarticle this sounds like it is more in the mainstream, involving NAGTY identifying and registering
So it would not exclude children who developed late.
I'm mixed on the merits of early " identification" though. Throws up many complex issues...

That is the most appalling idea I have ever heard.

I was a late developer - failed my 11+ and got the highest first in my college for my history degree dissertation - so no, I don't like the idea of universities selecting likely future students at the tender age of 11 years old. Anyway, many 11 year olds will hardly know anything about some university subjects like like philosophy and sociology.

No problem if univesities open their doors to any child interested in their courses, fine to encourage that interest IMO.

At 11 I think all children should be encouraged to feel that they can reach high, set their goals and work to reach them.

If the grade inflation is a problem for universities, this is not the solution.

thank you tigermoth - that was what I really wanted to say of course - ahem, apart from getting the highest mark in my university year...

My ds is 11 and is the arse to end all arses so if they looked at him now he would have no chance apart from the Jim Carrey Universty of silliness.However teachers all say he is very clever with great ideas etc so am hoping this will come out as he gets older.Way too much pressure IMO

Actually I did a mock 11+, my school wouldn't let me sit for real after seeing that I did rather well. They had me down as a troublemaker (true), and I got sent to the local sink school.
God I wish this scheme had been running then.

Ironically my firm does something vaguely similar, we have a growing network spotters dotted round the world who find scarily smart people at university and "keep in touch". We turn up people like the kid who came 2nd in the Chinese physics olympiad, and one who we stole from Switzerland who apprenty tried to bribe him to stay with their awards for gifted young people. We just got a bank to offer a bigger lump of money.
The Chinese is a bit of a tricky problem, since although Britain has the least racist & stupid immigration laws in the EU, that's like being smarter than George W. Bush.

This is the way it is now.
Universities, as well as pimps have to compete for the best people. Yes, pushy parents (like me) will attempt to manipulate the game. Fact is there is always a game to be played, and I'd rather it was run by the universities than schools.

As so many people here say, the potential for putting terrible pressure onthe kids is quite scary.
2.0 had his first entrance "test" at 3 1/2, yes really. Again this is the way things are now. For all Blair's "concessions", he ponders to the Daily Mail, and if booted out will be replaced by tories who actually believe the rubbish in it.
It's notable that in his class he is about the youngest, practically all have September to November birthdays since of course being six months younger is a big thing at this age, so the luck of birthday was a big factor.
That's the school world kids are going into, we just happened to be a bit earlier.

The decision is thus whether you play the game, or not. My parents didn't play games, never forgave them.

dominconner, looking at your last paragraph, are you sure you're not mixing up supportive parents with pushy parents. You can 'play the game' for your child up to a point - but isn't knowing when to stop just as important?

Why do you think universities are so much better than schools in spotting and encouraging talent? I can see your school experience (teachers not entering you for the 11+) was a bad one, but do you think in general that schoools hold back bright students and universities don't?

The artivle mentioned schools putting forward the best behaved pupils rather than the "best" pupils who were often not as well behaved.
So it would be less discriminatory that wya.
Also the gist of the article was that it is more to make sure kids that show potential in secondary school (identifying these kids to NAGTY continues throughout secondary school) get the 3 A A levels they should. They are worried that many kids lose their way or under achieve and thus fail to get into university, whereas if the brightest children were supported and encouraged properly, then they might be able to keep the marks and achievements up and get the A levels needed for universities - top or otherwise.
That was my interpretation. And I'm usually full of piffle so read of that what you will!
I don't think it disadvantages particularly any other group at school tbh. Storm in a teacup for the most part.

Can I point out that this is NOT about universities setting up a scheme to pick out the brightest 11 year olds. This idea emanates from the Specialist Schools and Academies Trust, an organisation which as far as I can see from their \link{http://www.specialistschools.org.uk\website} mainly exists to promote Blair's agendas for selective secondary schooling.

I'm a lecturer, and I've been an admissions tutor at a popular university for a very competitive subject. I have to say I was always unimpressed by anything like this that smacked of hothousing and the channelling of the select few. I always looked for signs of independent intelligence, eagerness to learn, and real commitment to the subject (drama, in my case). I imagine most university admissions tutors would have similar criteria.

I agree with honeyflower. I went to a private school from the age of 12. There was a select group of girls who came top in almost every subject and had been moved up a year. I envied them at first, but gradually came to realise the attention they got really didn't do them much good. People like me got valuable practice in fighting our own corner in order to achieve our ambitions rather than having a rosy future planned out for us by others. One of the "chosen few" got in a real mess over her A'levels - she originally opted for sciences then after a few terms decided she'd made a terrible mistake and changed schools to do arts subjects instead.

So I'd be worried rather than delighted if any of my children were among the "chosen" 11 year olds.

DominiConnor, I realise commercial confidentiality will almost certainly not allow you to tell use, but I'd love to know your firm's chocolate teapot selection rate! I can't really see why coming second in the Chinese physics olympiad would make someone likely to be a good banker.

the whole idea.... makes me shudder!

So we've got the 0-3 education schedule
The 3-5 education schedule
The 5-11 university trail
The 11-18 we all want to be your best friend and bombard you with information and experiment with your education, must remember to teach you to read and write schedule
then the Uni years which whilst costing you a fortune will probably not give you a degree worth it's paper, but don't worry cos you'll all be exactly the same!

Makes me shudder! Why can't they remember that children are children for just a very short while, identify the best ways to teach them and leave them alone.

Tigermoth's right, there is an appropriate level of playing the game and pushiness. We're conscious of our natural tendancy to be too pushy, but play any such game to win.

My experience is part of my reason for liking universities, yes. But because of their diversity. There area lot of universities with quite different criteria. Thus I see it as complementary to the schools own process.

As for our chocolate teapot rate, it's quite high, and will if anything increase, that's by design.

Chinese physcisics aren't obvious, which is good because if it were easy I'd have to get a proper job :)
We deal with the people banks pay the most to take on from straight from college. Typically that's people with good physics,maths and IT. Round numbers entry level is £50-60K in London, $100K London, first year bonus very roughly 20-50K.

You may recall the figure that the City made 3,500 millionaires last year. We guess half of them were "our" people, ie scientists in banks.
We don't get covered by the media because we're not "interesting", ie we're not caricature geeks no celebrities, and no lesbians, hence I rather suspect this is quite unknown to people outside the game.
It turns out that financial derivatives are best understood by looking at them as if they were metal bars transmitting heat, that insight got a couple of Nobel prizes. They guy who discovered it first, never told anyone. He made a great big pile of money, and over wine one day told me about the time he met the bloke who was going to win the Nobel, but was one step short.
He was an academic himself (Maths Prof at Princeton), so it was a strong lure.
This of course sounds like he was boasting, lots of people see a discovery and say "I could have done that") However his record in mathematical gambling (and the really big pile of money) rather confirmed his assertion.
Parts of his life have been made it into at least 3 films, and there's a flock of books on his escapades in Las Vegas.
You may have heard of the "computer in shoes" gag to hit Las Vegas, that was him and Claude Shannon, they guy who invented information theory the basis of well, pretty much everything electronic in the last 30 years.

interesting what you say, dominconner. You speak of Universities using more varied criteria than shcool to select students. But isn't this becuase you can use more varied criteria on 18 year olds as opposed to, say, 11 year olds? As one poster said, her university judges on ability to study independently and a real love of the subject. These credentials must be harder to see in a child who has just left primary school.

Also, I am thinking of how I'd have felt if my secondary school(s) had creamed off 'those most likely' and had not picked me. I was a very shy, unconfident secondary school pupil. Not helped by the fact I had failed my 11+ but was at a grammar school. For a long time, I felt like an imposter. And at my sixth form college, especially, I was surrounded by some very bright people - however,I never felt that adults inside or outside the school had grouped me into a top university or non top university set. I was encouraged to feel I could set my own aims and the teachers would help me reach them. It was my choice, so I had the courage to aim for further study. If I knew I was not one one of the hand picked bunch of likely university candidates, it would have knocked my confidence a lot.

I think, if you are dealing with children who don't have adult defence mechanisms, you have to factor in the effect on the children not selected for the special group. The effect of motivating a special group may demotivate the outsiders.

But isn't this becuase you can use more varied criteria on 18 year olds as opposed to, say, 11 year olds?
I agree, yes you can, hadn't thought of it that way. My analysis was simply the given the large number of universities they couldn't have the same criteria even if they tried. Also my company's methods are vaguely based upon the ways top universities pick people. Once they've shown aptitude in exams, we fire questions at them which help to reveal how they think. A certain % break down under this, one 25 year old shrieked, and leapt from her chair. She failed :)
I haven't yet got my head around how the universities plan to do this. We can spot aptitude because frankly we're experts in the domain, and thus can understand how "deep" their understanding might be, even if they aren't very non-standard, and very smart kids will be non standard. It's a stupidly expensive way of doing things. We can only do it because we have banks footing the bill. Maybe roaming gangs of postgrads visiting schools ?
I have absolutely no idea how this can work for maths or science. The average quality of teachers in hard subjects is so pitiful, I simply don't see how they can spot the kids. The syllabi for science have so little to do with actual science that I'd expect to see a better correlation between (say) ability at 11 between English skills any physics than with the "ooh look at the big animal, she's going to be killed by global warming".

As one poster said, her university judges on ability to study independently and a real love of the subject.
It's true of some kids, I discovered computers at 9/10, and by hook and more than a little crook started doing them at 12. There's more of that about than you might think. The filtering will have a lot of noise in it of course, but you can do it.

Also, I am thinking of how I'd have felt if my secondary school(s) had creamed off 'those most likely' and had not picked me.
My junior school did that, wasn't nice, my groius was that it was done on social position, not brain.
But schools do selection. I don't know the numbers for such schemes, but I'd be shocked if they were mroe than one per class, probably not even that. Thus the issue is the other way. British kids pick up from their parents a fear and dislike of kids who do very well academically, and one would have have take steps to make sure the smart kids weren't bullied by the kids of Daily Mail readers. All this gives me just have visions of an underground movement rescuing smart kids from the self destructing British education system. Could be done. Give smart kids notebooks and secure net acces.

I think, if you are dealing with children who don't have adult defence mechanisms, you have to factor in the effect on the children not selected for the special group.
Agree. Maybe karate lessons alongside the advanced maths ? Certainly if some freelance christian tried it on with 2.0 or 2.1 they would enter a world of pain.

The effect of motivating a special group may demotivate the outsiders.
Possibly. But the balance is currently towards "fitting in", and dealing with the average and dysfunctional kids. I do think it would be used as an excuse by parents.

DominiConnor, I agree with you about the poor overall quality of science teaching in this country, and the low expectations in "hard" subjects. Some of the Year 6 SATs science tests DS1 has brought home have been quite hilariously noddy. (One has to laugh or cry, and on the whole I'd rather laugh.) But are you really helping the situation by encouraging scientists to go and work in banks?

I wonder whether you have an overly rosy picture of universities. I did a "hard" subject at a good university about 20 years ago, and was stunned by the number of my fellow students whose parents or other close relatives had done the same course. There were also some indications (I'm trying to avoid being sued here!) that the admissions system might not entirely stand up to equal ops scrutiny.

Perhaps scouting around for bright 11 year olds is an attempt by the universities to broaden access - great that they've noticed the problem but surely working collaboratively with whole schools would bring greater benefits in fostering a real love of the subject.

PMSL at the roaming gangs of postgrads - I was one once! (Some of the others were right weirdos...)

I think you're being a little hard on the Daily Mail. Isn't their line broadly pro-selection and aspirational? I have three sons at an inner city state primary who are not facing the pressures you describe, incidentally. (Quite the reverse. One of DS1's classmates keeps asking whether he can borrow DS1's brain for the SATs. It's starting to get spooky...)

I found your "no lesbians" remark a bit odd. How would you know? If it's a policy it's wrong surely?

But are you really helping the situation by encouraging scientists to go and work in banks?
I don't know, had the same doubts myself. I have several rationalisations for it though.
Firstly ,they are "my people", and we live in a society where scientists are paid very badly but accountants and sports people do well.
Also it encoiurages kids to study hard subjects rather than French or media studies. However, as we've seen in the recent news girls still choose subjects suiting them more to be secretaries. The idea of serious money may feed back, albeit slowly. My partner has been hedging his bets for his kids by equipping them as professional gamblers :) That area of maths isn't covered at school, yet is both fun and potentially hugely lucrative.

I wonder whether you have an overly rosy picture of universities.
My comments about universities are hardly favourable.

I did a "hard" subject at a good university about 20 years ago, and was stunned by the number of my fellow students whose parents or other close relatives had done the same course.
Same here, even though at that point There were also some indications (that the admissions system might not entirely stand up to equal ops scrutiny.
I was on the academic board for mine, and there were moves to allow girls with crap A levels to study hard subjects. I led the charge against it, with no quarter asked or given. I'm all for remiving the sexist bias in schools, and if necessary helping girls to have expectations beyond working in a shop or finding some bloke to support her, but lowering standards so that girls can understand them is not the way to go.

Perhaps scouting around for bright 11 year olds is an attempt by the universities to broaden access -
I hope so. It's funny in it's own way, I've long used arts grad as a general term of abuse, and it's bizarre to hear a professor of an arts subject refer to the current process as being set up by "fuckwit artsgrads".

PMSL at the roaming gangs of postgrads - I was one once! (Some of the others were right weirdos...)
Oh, the stories I could tell about some of the postgrads we interview....

I think you're being a little hard on the Daily Mail.
No.

Isn't their line broadly pro-selection and aspirational?
No.
"Selection" in their minds to is keep nice middle class schools from letting in chavs from the nearby council estate. It means that when they buy a house near a good school, it keeps it's value.
I'm implacably opposed to any selection. Schools get what they're given. A good school is one that improves the kids. For some, achieving functional literacy is a triumph. Getting good results from good kids is not a major accomplishment.
As a City type I favour rewards for value add, non trivial ones.

I have three sons at an inner city state primary who are not facing the pressures you describe, incidentally.
Lot of Asian kids ? One factor in choosing 2.0's school was a comforting % of non white faces. Too many British kids are bad for academic excellence.
3 yo 2.0 turned up at school knowing most of the planar polygons and reading short words. Most of the English kids could name the players of their parents football team.

I found your "no lesbians" remark a bit odd. How would you know?
Been a media type myself, was crap at it, but was fun, journos still tell some of the stories :)
"lesbians" is a shorthand (viz Jerry Springer the Opera) for the fixation the TV and most print media have for "human interest". Non-average sexuality is "interesting", people solving problems, and arguing about things other than sport are not, or indeed who said what to who are not apparently.

If it's a policy it's wrong surely?
Yep.
Remember drinking with a producer of Tomorrow's World. Even though an arts grad himself, he was frustrated that he couldn't cover many stories at all, or distorted so horribly for "human interest" that it made no sense even to him.

Thus kids get a hugely distorted view of what actually happens in the world of work. Easily the largest single mode of work in this country is sitting in front of a computer, could you tell that from watching TV ?
Many more millionaires are made each year from the City than Soccer, how would you even verify that fact, let alone discover it for yourself ?
Teachers tell girls that languages are "useful". Look at job adverts, they're not.

One pipe dream I have is to get poor yet smart kids introduced to the City. I can bounce a big bank to lend us a presentation suite, and get a dozen or so self made millionaires to explain what they might do with their lives. That's the easy part. Can't even guess what horrors await me trying to get schools to allow such "elitist" activities.

DominiConnor, please pardon my complete obtuseness over the lesbians. I have to admit I found quite a bit of human interest in your last post though - I'm not sure whether to be more surprised that you are a man or that you are an ex-media type. Back to the issues though as we both really prefer them...

I agree over tuition fees and positive discrimination (my comments on equal ops were more directed to P- E-, admissions tutors taking undue account of references from schools they know and trust, the need for those marking exams not to know whose paper they are marking in order to ensure fairness etc).

I agree with your general point about the media presenting an unrealistic view of what people really do at work. However, is that partly because people working at computers are not much fun to watch?

As for children wanting to be footballers rather than bankers, could that be because they enjoy playing football and can't see the fun in banking? Money doesn't motivate everyone. I have long suspected that very high salaries are quite often linked to not terribly interesting jobs that nobody would do for pleasure. Yes, I know there are many boring jobs that pay a pittance too...

My children's school has a broad ethnic mix; the pupils are not predominantly Asian.

Surely French is useful when in France?

I'm not sure whether to be more surprised that you are a man or that you are an ex-media type.
Hummm :)

However, is that partly because people working at computers are not much fun to watch?
Do you watch 24 ?
About 20% of it is just that, hugely successful, entertaining, and one day soon I expect to hear "change the toner cartridge now, or I'll blow your bloody head off". I love the idea of an organisation where access to files on the server is decided not by the IT deparment, but by gun battles. I have had men with guns running round me whilst I did security for the government, but they didn't say much, and none (to my knowledge) were part of a plot to kill the president :(

As for children wanting to be footballers rather than bankers, could that be because they enjoy playing football and can't see the fun in banking?
Agreed. But one can entertain kids as well as educate them.

Money doesn't motivate everyone.
Agreed. But if kids were given more accurate information about incomes, then I believe they'd make decisions that they'd be less likely to regret. Certainly I object to them being lied to, as in "learn French and you can get a job travelling the world..." I've travelled the world, talked English to people because I had something to say they'd pay for. No point going to Quebec to show the fact that you speak French as well as a retarded 9 year old, which is far better than 99% of British kids ever achieve.

I have long suspected that very high salaries are quite often linked to not terribly interesting jobs
Actually my experience is that it's quite the reverse. I recall some famous barrister saying he'd rather be a barrister on miners money than a miner on barrister money. Some jobs are indeed interesting but badly paid, but very few boring jobs are well paid. If it's boring, then frankly they probably can get someone cheaper to do it.

that nobody would do for pleasure.
Certianly some highly paid people I know, only stick at it for the money. However, I guess I've met at leasr 150 people who've made serious money. Most have a great time at it. That's quite intuitive, if you have 5 million in the bank, and you hate your job, most people would quit.
But the most unpleasant jobs in our society are typically the worst paid. Cleaing, watching, etc are not only low paid and unpleasant work, but also you often get treated badly.
I also see that between the extremes good pay typically goes with good working conditions, and the hard to define, but easy to spot "respect".
On average that is of course.

The ability to command good money is not because of any feeling by your employer that the job is bad, and you need compensation, but their fear that you will stop doing it for them. If they don't want you to go, they will try both money and conditions to make you stay.

My children's school has a broad ethnic mix; the pupils are not predominantly Asian.
Same here. Guess it's 15% Asian, and of course by Ken Livingstone's definition I am part of an oppressed immigrant ethnic group myself :)

Surely French is useful when in France?
Holding your breath is useful under water :)

Almost no British kids get to the point where they can function in French. Even if they did, the job opportunities are pitiful. We deal a lot with French people, and they can speak English. Where their English proves inadequate it is on things that there is no chance that my French is worth anything, occasionally they talk of things I wouldn't understand if it was in English.

There is no shortage of French speakers globally, >100 million of them. If we really wanted someone to speak to French people well for something like sales, I'd hire a French person.
Also even basic supply and demand tells us that learning the language that every kid in Britain is taught, is not going to be very valuable.
For all it's closeness France is far from Britain's biggest trading partner, reducing the demand still further.
Germany is far more important, yet far fewer kids study it. Internationally French is fighting it out with Portuguese for usefulness, far behind Spanish, Russian, German and nowadays Mandarin. We're lucky enough to speak English, and the marginal utility of any other languages is for us, small. That's a big reason British kids don't try so hard, most realise there's no point.

Sad fact is that kids get "taught" French because the arts grads who run the education system think foreign languages are intrinsically good, and also because we have a lot of French teachers. If it were up to me, I'd ship in a horde of cheap Chinese and get them to teach something useful and hard. Most kids would fail this as well, but at least some kids would learn something useful.
I'd fund that by shipping the French teachers to France and renting them out.

I'm not sure you can motivate an 11 year old by future income though :)
MY ambitious 12 yr old is not lured to a glittering career by the money - although as maths science and IT/tech whiz he may well be advised to lok that way later...
Languages are important for the brain I think. I think it is a crying shame Latin is not widely taught - while obsolete as a language its merits for the foundation of the English language is reason enough to select it over say French or German
Ds has been offered chinese mandarin at his school. He is loving it
Now maths science IT Tech and Chinese hmmmm
I look forward to him supporting me in my old age :)

And for the record he detests football

I'm not sure you can motivate an 11 year old by future income though
I was, and I suspect it's partly a function of your family circumstances. For poor kids like I was, education is a way out, and a more realistikc way than football.
But I agree with you, it's function of many things, and the media's role in this is quite malevolent. 2.0 at nearly 5 has wanted to be a teacher for about 1/3 of his life. The money in that is not briliant, but is a career where education is important.

Languages are important for the brain I think.
Kids get language all day every day. The problem with English is it's name. We need aliens, simply so we can call it by it's proper name "human". Learning a language is concept-poor. Almost no kids ever reach the stage where they get exposed to new ideas through language, indeed one quickly hits the point where concepts in human can't be directly translated into legacy languages like French. French culture is quite rich, but I doubt if 1% of the kids who study it ever get far enough to find anything that they wouldn't have through English.

I think it is a crying shame Latin is not widely taught - while obsolete as a language its merits for the foundation of the English language
I think you mean to say that it's a shame that Latin isn't widely learned ? Given that kids reject legacy languages like French even whilst there are still people speaking them, Latin would fail abjectly.

And for the record he detests football
:) Good, there's more of that than you might think.
Two words you must never use on the BBC.
"Nigger" and "Football". One gets the impression that they think "Football" would offend more people. Presenters seem legally bound to refer to it as "soccer action" , "tonight's clash" etc.
One hears more outight racism on the BBC in the form of quotes from various BNP thugs than criticism of football. I recall when Glen Hoddle was claiming that disabled people were paying for crimes in earlier lives, and that they basically deserved it. The BBC straight faced referred to that as "controversial", implying that there was good number of people on either side of that argument. A footballer who beats his wife in a drunker rage, gets high on drugs and cripples someone in a car crash is a victim, not a twat.