Why would anyone consider going to Rugby school better than the mixed local comp?

[Charis2]

I read this article in the standard earleir, and just thought what is this headmaster on? Why is this scholarship presented as such a huge honour for the boy, when in fact it is a way of the school paying to improve its results by taking in some of the best sixth form students without fees.

What "lifechanging" opportunities does he expect he can offer, which Hassenbrook acadamy can't?

www.standard.co.uk/news/london/needs-pic-teenage-footballer-wins-70000-scholarship-to-boarding-school-that-invented-rugby-a2953791.html

Headmaster Peter Green said he hoped Michael and other Arnold Foundation scholars would have a “ripple effect” on their communities when they return home.

He said: “We might be able to be transformative and transform their lives. Then when they go to university, and after, they can start to transform their own local communities. It’s not about parachuting someone out of that. We want to keep their association with where they are from.”

What a snob. Does he think the staff at Hassenbrook only teach poor peoples maths and physics, and the maths at Rugby is somehow a better class of maths? perhaps he thinks the laws of physics perform better there too?

I hope this lad has fun, but I don't think for a moment his life is going to be in any way better because he spent two years mixing with rich snobs rather than normal people.

Going to a school like Rugby will give you connections with the 'right' people dahlink ...

My dc are in state school. I have nieces and nephews in public school.
The differences and benefits go beyond education:
At one school, the dc play 2.5 hours of sport every day, with top of the range facilities, which gives them a massive advantage over their state peers. My dc are both doing GCSE PE, they do 3 hours of sport per week with good facilities, but that doesn't come close to comparing with 12.5 hours per week.
If a child works hard this is noticed and built on. Whilst I'm sure this happens in some state schools, it doesn't happen in my dc school, and it is considered a very good school, or in the local Grammar school, which is one of the top schools in the county. The difference between my dc and their cousins is self confidence, not in a bratty way, knowing that no matter what their academic ability, they are good at something.
Teachers at my dc school seem world weary. Again, this is an ofsted rated excellent school, with a very good reputation. They don't have the time/energy/inclination to encourage individual students, apart from the high achieving ones.
At my dn's schools, all pupils are nurtured, their strengths are identified and encouraged. The teachers are fresh, engaging, fun and develop mutual respect with the students, and communicate brilliantly with parents, and answer emails within the day. (I have to wait up to a week for a reply, if I get one, quite often I don't, which means that concerns are not dealt with straight away).
In public school, the ones my dn's are at anyway, they have regular evenings where the children dress up and entertain visiting adults. The younger dc take their lead from older pupils and learn to talk eloquently and interestingly to adults, which in turn will help them in university interviews. I'm sure there was an article by an Oxbridge interviewer that backed this up.
In the schools my dn's are at, the spread of academic ability is similar to my dc school, but unlike my dc school (where lower achieving pupils are expected to reach targets they are unlikely to reach) most children leave school confident in their abilities, and usually know their strengths. This is probably true for high achievers in the state system, but definitely not for lower achievers, or those who need a little more support, again, going by experience over a couple of generations in very good schools.

I could go on giving examples, but I think it's incredibly naive not to see that the benefits of public school are not about individual subjects and education.

What a weird thread. I disagree profoundly with private education, precisely because of the unfair advantages it offers. Name things that public schools offer that comps don't? You really have to ask?!?! Aside from (to think to my dhs old school) astonishing facilities - a fully professional theatre, pottery, stable, boathouse, tennis courts, swimming pool, fully equipped science labs - access to top specialist extracurricular teachers esp in music and arts, small classes, talks and contacts in all the professions you could think of, links to top universities and highly targeted application advice. Trust me, our local comp have none of these things. This is why 60% of Oxbridge are from public schools even though only 7% of kids go there.

To suggest that state schools are the equal of public schools in face of all evidence to the contrary is not inverse snobbery, it is like something John major might have come up with. 'We are all middle class now, no need to worry about persistent structural inequality, lalalala, cos it doesn't actually exist.' You appear quite hard of thinking op, sorry.

And most of your assertions are plain wrong. Public schools absolutely do on average get better results! Many are highly selective, so it is hardly a surprise. Stating something as fact does not make it true, much as you might like it to.

And public schools don't have more money to spend than state schools?! Eh??? Do to take only one example out of 1000s, do you think Eton kids have to make do with a CDT studio with old blunt unfit for purpose tools, like our local comp does?

Unbelievable bollocks.

What sports facilities precisely are you saying privately educated pupils have that state school pupils don't?

OK , off the top of my head, to stick with Eton, an Olympic rowing lake.

Privately educated pupils are no more an homogeneous group than state school pupils, and as has been said what some independent schools can offer compared to others is considerable.

sorry, but in what way does a "truly professional theatre" make someone a better actor?

My local comp has better drama GCSE grades than Eton.

In what way does "an Olympic rowing lake" make someone a better rower than the Thames?

I can't compare grades because as far as I can see, Eton doesn't seem to offer GCSE PE

And most of your assertions are plain wrong. Public schools absolutely do on average get better results! Many are highly selective, so it is hardly a surprise. they don't get any better than selective state schools,

The average score points at A level is higher at state than at feepaying schools - this isn't even in dispute, it is the official league table statistics, and the stats are not so clear for GCSE, due to the range of courses done in state and in private, but the trend is very similar

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/11815341/State-schools-outperforming-average-private-schools.html

one of many many sources...

and why do you think state schools don't have links to top universities, or targeted application advice? Admission tutors are not stupid, you know!

All children in the uk are taught to swim.

As to spending less on education, Eton parents pay about £30 000 a year, a very small amount goes on education - you don't even need to be a graduate to teach at Eton! boarding costs, food, profit, upkeep of "Olympic rowing lake".........

The government pays say £5000- £15 000 a year for a pupil in state eduction ( sometimes more, sometimes less)- ALL of which goes on education.

Depending on the fees of the school, and the other outgoings, profits, etc, a state school pupil can easily have significantly more spent on their education than an independant school.

Look at the music fees for Eton. More than 6 times the cost of instrumental lessons at my DCs school, yet the GCSE results are virtually the same, and many many of the students at DCs school easily achieve grade 8 on their instruments.

I was an admissions tutor for a number of years at an Oxford college. I am indeed not stupid. The top students in the state sector will indeed do well anywhere, as they have always done. They may well have achieved even more given the opportunities available to public school kids, but that is by the by. We are talking not about the very top here, but all those below. And all those who are very bright but don't for whatever reason transcend their circumstances because of crap schools. And trust me, as an admissions tutor, I saw plenty of those.

So you'd abolish the Sutton trust, would you, op, and all the other schemes encouraging bright state school kids to university? After all, they aren't really needed, with that level playing field you are talking about

Ha ha fucking ha charis. You're mad if you think that's representative of what most of us have in the way of comprehensives.

Dd would leave even the most dire school with a* in core subjects at y11. Not a boast, just a fact. However in addition to those core subjects she doesn't want to do a load of non academic GCSE's or btechs in vocations she isn't interested in. Nor does she wish to spend the next few years asleep. She wants lessons where her progress is equally important as everyone elses, not just practically having to be a lower priority because she's already exceeded expectations. And her school has the money and the time for that.

She wants to do additional maths, and seperate science, and Latin, and classics, and so on and learn in every subject beyond the bare minimum on the final exam.

As for sports, not vital but certainly pleasant. They are in a different league to any state school I've ever seen. Because a shit load of money means you can have brilliant facilities and the staff to maximise them.

The other big thing is that a state school just doesn't have the money to discover and then encourage every childs ability. One child in Dds class has never done any music except the bog standard primary offering. Hence according to dd was not as good as kids who've had years of private music lessons and practice. And yet the teacher has clearly picked up on a missed talent and is now doing everything possible to allow it to be explored. Likewise in sports. Or ukmt teams, art, etc etc. And that's just a few weeks in.

No disrespect to any state school or teachers, but money and therefore time dictate spotting and then providing for any and almost every talent, regardless of whether it's a career or gcse qualification just can't happen at state schools. While they're under pressure to get a certain % to pass level in five years, Dds school is under pressure to keep the fee payers rolling in, and exam results alone in 5 or 7 years time don't do that. Having individuals and teams who achieve before then is a good selling point. All of which makes for a brilliant experience and opportunity, for any child, let alone ones that don't come from wealthy backgrounds.

Don't get me wrong I agree it's massively unfair. But making my dd miss out won't improve anything for anyone else. And if she went to a state school I doubt anyone would be sacrificing their families double income, or single higher income, or nicer house etc to level off with my dd. It's entirely normal to put your own child first and yet still want everyone elses opportunity to improve too.

Charis, I think you're missing the point.

How many schools can offer rowing as a sport?
Someone I was at school with went to Cambridge university. He started rowing then, and thoroughly enjoyed it. He didn't stand a chance of making it onto any teams, as he was up against other students who had been rowing for years.

My dd is a fairly talented athlete. When she attends events, the winners are generally amongst the private school attendants, because the children spend more time training.
The raw talent is there, but training four times longer in a week means that they are more likely to be on winners' row at the end of the day.

It's simply not a level playing field. They may get similar grades in GCSEs and A levels, but that's not where public schools are excelling, they are excelling in turning out confident, eloquent youngsters who are more likely to gain entry at an Oxbridge University because of that.

As someone who has no choice but to stick with the state system, I'm jealous. I can't say I disagree with the system though, because if I could afford it, my children would go private, because it offers so much more than just education.

And it's ridiculous to even suggest that the Thames is as accessible as a well maintained rowing lake. Really, are you even thinking through your posts?

Where I live there are no facilities for anyone to take up boat racing.
And are you seriously suggesting that everyone living in London has access to rowing and rowing clubs? What a joke!

Where I live there are very few facilities that would enable any state school child to excel in their given sports, without having the finances to afford it.

Like I've said, you must be seriously naive to think that the outcome of our children is down to education and results alone.

"you don't even need to be a graduate to teach at Eton! "
Are you absolutely sure about that op?

well, where we are ( London) there are ample, cheap and free opportunities to row, sail, kayak, etc on the Thames, and on other lakes and rivers, in school, in cubs/ scouts, etc or in family time.

Oxford University row on the Thames, and they seem to do OK...

Not everyone in the country lives in London.
How strange that you would judge everyone on your location and your opportunities

But none of those opportunities (other than extra curricular) were availabkto this boy because his school has no sixth form

Or is that not factual enough for you?

And what Eton may or may not offer is surely irrelevant to why this boy chose Rugby.

but there are plenty of opportunities in other parts of the country too. There are rivers and lakes everywhere you know, and rowing or sailing is hardly unusual or expensive. It cheaper than football.

Boulevard, yes, but I imagine the majority of team members will be those who have had the opportunity to row from a young age.
The Thames is an ideal place, but unless you live there and have access to facilities, you're not going to be a competitive rower.

It wasn't me that started using Eton as an example. This boys school feeds into a sixth form.

I hope he is happy. He has chosen where he wants to go, and I hope it works out for him.

It is the snobby, ignorant, insulting, arrogance of the head master I can't take. HE is the one benefiting from this arrangement, more so than the boy, or the boy's home community.

Needless to say, the head master has not responded to my email, although the Evening Standard did publish my letter.

I think that Head could do with actually visiting a few comprehensives, and educating himself.

There are lakes here and there are sailing clubs, but it is a considerably more expensive sport than joining the local football club and paying £30 a year membership!

Yes, there are opportunities for state school children to have equal experiences, but when you compare that public school tend to have all these facilities on campus, and it's all part of the package, surely it's obvious why children there are more likely to excel than those who would have to factor in time to travel, any costs involved, other family members that need equal time and opportunities, but only one or two parents available to put this into action, it just doesn't compare for most families.

I can see why you'd think that the Telegraph article proves your point charis, but it's actually hugely misleading - I'm baffled by their motivation in publishing it actually. They're comparing the top 500 state schools with the top 500 private schools.......ie they're comparing the top 15% of state schools with the top 60% of private schools. It's a bit like comparing the 500 tallest Americans with the 500 tallest Dutchmen and saying that therefore "the Americans are taller than the Dutch"

My Dc did sailing because I couldn't afford football locally, although they have done football in school

but just look at the progress 8, Anyone, you can clearly see that private school education offers no academic advantage

I think your lack of understanding of stats is shocking! You can't clearly see it because it isn't true. I wish it were, but it isn't.