'State schools are creating amoral children'

[BurgenSnurgen]

...because state schools are under so much pressure to improve results that there's no time to teach them right from wrong.

So says Chairman of the Independent Schools Association

Bit speechless really. It's giving me the absolute RAGE.

I remain to be convinced that money thrown at the public sector when produces tangible improvements at the implementation end, it certainly does n't for the NHS. One of the major strengths of many private schools is money is directed to the school not diverted to other initiatives, central administration etc.

I actually can see that more money might help.
If we consider the NHS it needs more money because it's not able to do many of the things it wants to do because of lack of beds (which cost money to have) or lack of staff, especially hospital nurses because they're leaving disillusioned with poor treatment and ever increasing bureaucracy. According to friend, a very senior nurse the NHS has gone beyond breaking point, they're are now 35000 nurse vacancies across the NHS only this mild winter "saved it."
So if you apply the same principle to education maybe more money buys you more teachers so makes the work load easier, bureaucracy is spread thinner, staff moral improves etc.
But the 64 million $ question how do we get more money put into education NHS etc? I don't know the answer to this but it doesn't matter how I look at it I can't see how sending my DS to a state school will enable this to happen.

HG my point is that the money would not necessarily get put into the staff/ delivery end but will get lost into bureacracy and other projects.

I have two children in state secondary schools. Both have friends at private and state schools. There are nice kids and chumps in each sector.

The 'amoral' jibe is idiotic and transparently desperate: "OK, so our very minor public school may not be great at the old academics, but we're awfully good on intangibles..."

What really annoys me about the whole private/state debate is the private sector bleating self-righteously about 'unfairness'. When state school kids make it to Oxbridge the independents whinge about "social engineering". What do they think private education is, if not " social engineering" , a Huxleian nightmare of a cadre, bred over centuries, to assume control?

I can see why the parents of privately educated Oxbridge rejects are angry - they thought they were buying privilege and it turns out they were only buying an education - but you'd think they'd be embarrassed to say it out loud. As for the whole "charitable status" thing, it's like asking the stable lad to bless Young Master's horse for kicking him.

Yes I accept that money gets swallowed up on carpets for managers offices!

AuntGlegg I personally don't bleat and I'm personally not buying privilege I am buying an education that I believe is broader and therefore for my DS better than state ed.
But I don't want him discriminated against because of where he went to school when applying to university either. There's often the implication that many children attending independent school who then go onto Oxbridge only got in because of some sort of string pulling. There are many exceedingly capable children in independent who to onto top universities because they are exceedingly able and deserve their places.

Happygardening, of course there are able, well qualified Oxbridge applicants from the independent sector - this is hardly to be wondered at when you consider academic selection at 11 and substantially smaller class sizes. But look at it from the universities' point of view. They realise that for longer than is conscionable , they have not been selecting from the cleverest in society, merely from the richest. This makes them uncompetitive in a global market ( yes, there's a rich/clever overlap but why restrict yourself to an overlap when you can play the whole field?) .

If you are an admissions tutor and you have to choose between two equally qualified candidates ( the standard A*AA offer, at least at Cambridge, applies across the board) who are you going to stake the reputation of your university on? The child who has achieved their grades in a small class with highly specialised teaching/ interview grooming etc or the child who has achieved the same grades without these advantages? Brutal, possibly, but there's the market economy for you....

I accept your argument but at my DS's super selective school (13+ not 11+) this issues is causing many to apply to the Ivy League. This year just under 35% have places at Oxbridge but another 10% have got places at Ivy League universities this is increasing yr on yr. I accept some would have gone anyway but more are seriously considering it. My very able DS is looking at it his only concern: if I go I doubt I'll come back. Do we want this kind of brain drain? Can we as a country afford this kind of brain drain? And yes these children may be in "small classes with highly specialised teaching/interview grooming" but this doesn't mean they are not exceedingly able, self motivated individuals.
I listened to presentation from some of the Ivy League universities, (including one that was needs blind) it was frighteningly impressive, they were full of enthusiasm, they weren't quibbling over where you went to school, they wanted all round talented bright individuals, it's not surprising bright young adults are excited by the opportunities they offer.

HG, the notion of a 'brain drain' presupposes that UK university places not filled by excellent candidates such as your son will not be filled by other equally excellent candidates from across the state/private sector. I very much doubt this is true.

"There are many exceedingly capable children in independent who to onto top universities because they are exceedingly able and deserve their places."

Absolutely there are. However, they also have guaranteed family and or school support, an expectation that Oxbridge is a viable aspiration, a sense of entitlement (no in a bad way necessarily, just a from birth feeling of confidence and of not being intimidated by people or situation) a comfortable feeling that "people like me" will be at Oxbridge when they get there.......I could go on!

So you think it's ok to loose some very bright people? Lets not forget they are not actually replaced in terms of UK PLC just because an equally bright pupils take their place at a particular university. How do you know which one will be say the next Nobel scientist or do you believe that these these children who've been in "small classes, with specialised teachers/interview grooming" are not Nobel science material?
My DS wishes to become a researcher in his field of interest, if achievable it literally would be one of the most earth changing events. I accept of course he may never do it but do we want it done in another country because someone decided his place at a university purely on his school back ground? This is short sighted in the nth degree.

Obviously I can only speak for my DS and his friends but he has never once voiced the view that "people like me will be at Oxbridge" I've never heard any of his friends voice this view either.
The very bright see it as a place to aim for because they feel that they will get the best teaching, the research opportunities etc. At the Ivy League presentation that's what it was all about, the extraordinary multiple opportunities that existed, I can fully understand why the super bright are queuing up to go.
Many aren't even applying to the UK uni's now.

HG, I don't doubt your son's exceptional ability and I wish him every success in his chosen field. However you/he seem convinced that 'his' place at a top UK university is going to be snatched away from him by a less brilliant applicant from a state school. This is not the case. The same grades are required. If candidates feel that widening access threatens their chances of say, an Oxbridge place, and that they are less able to compete in this larger pool of talent, then it is very natural that they will look elsewhere. Good luck to' em. My point is that when independent schools complain of 'discrimination' they are in fact arguing against a levelling of the playing field. I can see that the effect, from their point of view , is the same, but the principle is very different.

No I don't think his place is going to be "snatched away" in fact the schools results show it won't few if any state schools send 35% to Oxbridge every year. You said in a "market economy" a university would rather choose a state educated child without advantages over one who'd been to an independent school with small classes etc. I also said that I'm not buying privilege or for that matter a place at a top university just a broad education. I'm also believe that children from very disadvantaged backgrounds should have concessions made when it comes to university applications.
By the way at my DS1 old school (high achieving comp or academy what ever they call themselves) potential Oxbridge candidates were identified at the beginning of yr 12 and put in small classes with specialist teachers and extensively groomed for interviews etc much to the irritation of the non Oxbridge candidates, all can play the same game if they wish.

I would agree with AuntGlegg. If you simply go with those who have managed to buy a superior education you are going to miss a lot of potential. It is good that they have woken up to that fact and are trying to rectify it.

Well I can categorically confirm that Oxbridge are concerned about brain drain to the US.

And they are very concerned about being encouraged to let standards slip because they wish to encourage a wider field of students. They resist this very forcefully.

Because of course neither Oxbridge, nor the other most selctive universites, seek only raw intellect. They need students who will thrive in that rather unusual environment. Some schools offer a very good training ground for that.

What I hear time and again from staff, is that, except in very unusual cases, it is not their job to make up for the defficiencies of certain schools!

It's all wrong to be concerned about brain drain. It is good for everyone concerned for 18 year olds to spread their wings and broaden their horizons and get part of their education in another country.

Interestingly some private schools do themselves a disservice by their intensive preparation of candidates (especially without it being backed up by the ability to think) as candidates from those schools have to perform much better than an equivalent academic candidate by grades from another school.
Hopefully the right balance will be found to enable spotting talent whether private or state with adjustments for educational background but not just applying quotas.

Bonsoir for those who really wish to go at that time yes but HG is right from what I've heard, those who go to the USA for their undergraduate studies are more likely to stay.

Point taken HG, and it's true that I don't very much care which country produces "earth changing" research. The earth will be changed regardless. That's good enough for me.

They won't necessarily stay for ever - they'll move around as part of the global community. Which is good - new ideas, cross-fertilisation, innovation etc etc only happen when people move around and meet other people with different ideas.

They may not stay for ever but they do stay longterm. Those who go later as postgrads and postdocs are more likely to create that cross-fertilisation as they do move around.

AuntGlegg that earth changing research that he's especially interested maybe one of the best and last serious hopes for our changing planet and it's population. If too many have attitudes like yours it will be hardly surprising that many turn to the a US and other parts of Europe, who incidentally are by leading this essential research, it is considered to be one of the most important areas of research in the 21st century.

Actually, though Oxbridge do worry about movement to the US, they also worry about movement to London.

Some of the very fine universities in London are seeing an increase in students from certain well regarded schools. Presumably, they're from families who can actually afford for them to live there.

So whilst everyone gets their knickers in a knot about Oxbridge, LSE, UCL, Imperial etc are becoming less and less mixed in intake.

Ultimately it is healthier if Imperial, UCL, LSE etc are providing serious competition for Oxbridge. And there is so much overseas (both EU and non-EU) competition for places at London universities that the quality of students increases year on year. All good.