I find it interesting that no-one is questioning what makes a "good education." It used to be accepted that you must have A-level Latin to get into Oxford or Cambridge, until relatively recently (into the 1980s). Was this requirement dropped merely because it was unfair for many state school applicants, or because it was also grudgingly accepted that it did not actually boost your intelligence or prove your academic ability as much as previously supposed? Of course, Latin has been used through the centuries in all sorts of fields, so some knowledge of basic Latin is useful on that basis in many areas of study, but an A-level in it?.... I read Jurisprudence and didn't find a lack of A-level Latin to be a handicap... However, it used to be happily accepted as a requirement for all entrance candidates, and Grammar schools happily continued the traditional subjects, because studying the traditional subjects is the traditional route through to the positions of power - because that's the way it's always been done. It seems to be more or less assumed that by having studied the traditional academic subjects, you have automatically shown greater potential for leadership and management, without the need for starting from the bottom and working your way up in a company. Is this the case, or have you simply shown that you can jump through the arbitrary hoops that history has set up for you?
Isn't the whole system skewed towards favouring one type of education over any other if you want to have any power and influence in this country? And, surprise, surprise, isn't the favoured education the one that apes the education provided by the country's public schools? Meanwhile, of course, whilst passing on the message that the hoi polloi need to learn particular subjects to get on in the world, the real elite, from the proper public schools, not the sad private school and state school impersonations, are keeping quiet about the fact that actually, this isn't really enough, because it isn't all about intelligence and ability and jumping through hoops - you also have to know the right people, preferably have lots of pre-existing money, and have an overwhelming sense of personal entitlement if you really want to get to the top. And Grammar school boys always did have a chip on their shoulders, didn't they? You could spot them a mile off, and choose whether or not to accept them, depending on whether they were smarmy and ingratiating enough and passed the Latin test.
Won't our education system always fail for so long as we assume that only the traditional, public-school model of education will bring you any genuine success in life? Doesn't this assumption force all sorts of inappropriate people to attempt to fit that mould and condemn them as inferior if they fail to fit it, or choose to opt for an alternative? If we all went to public schools, where would the useful people come from - you know, the ones who actually clear up our messes, care for our elderly, look after our children when we're out governing the country, grow our food, sanitise our water, fix our leaking pipes, put out our fires, arrest our criminals, etc, etc?????