Guess what proportion of MPs privately educated in each party. Go on, guess!

[nearlytoolate]

And no cheating if you have read it in the papers already!

EdgarAllenPoll,
if you look at the child prodigies hardly any come from the top of society, many are from immigrant families, whose parents are not in the best jobs. I bet most of the top scientists at Oxbridge come from state schools. I doubt Eton produces many of those. I don't know where Stephen Hawking went to school, but I bet it was a state school. Our poor and middle classes have mor talent than our rich classes, due to the larger numbers. We have to release all of that potential by providing top quality free schools for all of our children. That way we'll get more exceptional people like Margaret Thatcher, a grocer's daughter, who ran rings around all of the Eton educated toffs in her cabinet.

thanks Riven. I will also look at Captive State. Monbiot is very clever, but I am not a fan of his, but I can still learn a lot from what he says.

Hawkings went to St. Albans School, which is private

I'm not sure that faith schools are selection-by-wealth, and in some areas possibly offer the poor-but-religious a route to a preferred school as an alternative to using your money to buy into catchment or spend extra money on a temporary rent.

However, the requirement (where it exists) to attend mass or church every week precludes the most chaotic and socially excluded. The families which slip through the net, are bordeline for the attention and intervention of SS, the kids whose parents don't give a flying F about anything at all, the drunk, drugged, NEET, deranged parents common in inner-city areas, and sadly whose children are often those who cause most disruption / need most attention in the school system. The children most feared by some m/c parents. In that way faith schools are selective.

Claig- I agree, but we dont get there by pretending that every child has the same ability.

I think it's too late and divisive to bring back grammar schools but I do think there needs to be more academic streaming in state schools - how can a teacher be expected to benefit any pupil when there might be a 5 year gap between the most and least able in a single class? Everybody loses like that.

It seems in many state schools that achievement is fine so long as everybody achieves it, which is BS. My friend is a science teacher and he was told not to correct spelling/grammar because "we're not testing English". Wtf? Also, he's not allowed to mark in red.

I just feel sorry for the teachers who have to put up with all this crap from alleged experts in education.

I do love a litte bit that the story of one the Labour Party privately educated minoirity (Transport Sec.) started like this:

"Adonis is the son of an immigrant Greek Cypriot father Nicos, a commis waiter, and an English mother.[4] His mother left the family when he was three and has had no communication with him since.[4] Shortly thereafter, he was placed in care and lived in a council children's home until the age of 11, when Adonis was awarded a local education authority grant to attend Kingham Hill School.[5]"

Is it 100%?

TheBride, you're right about some of these "experts". I think the Tory's free school system will allow different models to emerge and compete and we will then see which ones work best and hopefully replicate those.

Tories'

EdgarAllen- I've often heard that point as an argument against faith schools but I'm not sure I understand it. Could you clarify- are rich people just more likely to be religious (hey- maybe God does exist after all?)

yes. Christian churchgoers in the UK are wealthier than average. the church's own research confirms this.

Thanks. That's quite interesting. I wonder if that's just a coincidence or if there's some sort of cause and effect/ correlation?

(and I don't mean of the divine intervention kind )

I would have assumed the opposite on the "poor society, rich festivals" argument.

Food for thought.

I would also like to see the proportion that went to Oxbridge. Saw the stats for private school in the Observer and the stats on upcoming MPs and lots went to Oxbridge & state schools. So not badly educated but V hardworking and probably ambitious too. Neither of which I would mind inan MP as long as they don't become corrupt.

The problem with private education in this context is it shelters people from some of the major issues in society.

The old boy network also concerns me as it excludes good MPs including a lot of women

No-one can help the school they went to; it's their parents choice, not theirs.

However, as a member of the voting public I would prefer it if my MP had been to a state school and thus mixed with a wider section of the population.

As for the Oxbridge thing, well, that is an elitist education for very bright 18 year olds. However, Oxbridge entrance is purely about being bright and surely it's good if a politician is clever.

As one who went to Cambridge I didn't find it particularly posh; it was all so difficult that we were all dead worried whether from Eton or our local comp. (The academic expectations are a levelling experience) And, going to Cambridge didn't make me forget my roots; if anything I became more concerned about the wider world. Partly, because the behaviour of some of the students from public schools was so appalling!

That was my point about Oxbridge- Hard work to get there and more so if from State school. Which then sets you up for life as a hard worker. I do also wonder about the networking aspect of it .

nymphadora - the oxbridge figures are in the link I gave too, near the beginning of the thread.
I went to Cambridge from a bog standard comp (year above Nick Clegg in fact) and can honestly say that there have been zero networking advantages in my field (though I think definitely advantages to having it on my CV). That's not to say that there aren't some old boy networks - but I think they actually start in the private schools and continue through Oxbridge and beyond (think Bullingdon) - but you don't actually gain access to those networks as a state school pleb who's just brushing shoulders with these guys in lectures.

More interesting (I think) than the private school statistic is that all of the people involved in the negotiations (from all three parties) all went to Oxford bar one, who went to Manchester.

Are you excluding Cleggie from that?
You see, even Cambridge doesn't cut it these days

nearly didn't see your link as I'd seen stats in the paper.
Just seen similar stats for the cabinet-guardian website i think

Interesting to hear from an Oxbridger that privates pupils not as inclusive to state schools pupils. Did it matter on size of private school eg Eton compared to 100 pupil local one?

Its more to do with social circles and cliques really. There are quite a lot of 'invite only' dining clubs (like Bullingdon). These people seek out their own.
Most of the clever state schoolers are too busy crapping themselves about getting the work done. (DH was also at Cambridge, at a pretty public school dominated college, he was a labour party activist and he said that when he was going round the rooms campaigning he discovered all these quiet nerdy engineering and science students who never ventured out of their rooms)

Most of the working class girls who attended my 11+ selective grammar school in the early 70's were either only children, or had only one other sibling. They also had parents who were prepared to tolerate books in the house, and encouraged library membership.

I met lots of girls at Uni in the late 70's, grammar school kids who came from very poor backgrounds, but they almost all came from the above type of background.

I know this must sound weird, but loads of my friends were forced to leave school at 16 (in 1977) because the family needed them to go out to work as soon as possible. You could get good jobs (ie Civil Service) in those days, with very basic (5 "O" levels) qualifications. They needed the money.

It's all about resources. Cream off the most able if you will, but don't ever kid yourself that academic achievement is pure meritocracy. Life ain't like that.

Can I just say that I think on a parenting website for someone to call a group of children 'thick yocks,' and not be challenged on it even once is appalling. Is it okay to berate entire cohorts of pupils if it proves your point?

As for whether politicians need to be exceptionally bright, I'm not sure. Obviously they need a level of intelligence but aren't a whole host of other skills equally important. Chutzpah for a start. It's hard to put yourself out there so publicly. Articulacy, empathy, good negotaiting skills, high self esteem etc must be vital.

litchick I was a bit that anyone could post it, couldn't bring myself to acknowledge such ridiculous views!

Its v interesting the 'personality' traits that a politician needs to be successful.I think there must be a huge amount of self confidence involved though.