Do British selective schools underperform?

[justanotherdaduser]

Sorry about the clickbait title but that's exactly the question.

This was triggered after reading about Stuyvesant High School in New York in some other forum. It's a selective state high school in New York. Their list of notable alumni, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stuyvesant_High_School_people , is jaw dropping. Multiple nobel laureates, Field medal and Wolf prize winners, technology pioneers, and pretty much any other field of human endeavour I can think of.

While looking at notable alumni from the most selective British schools, there is nothing like that breadth. Eton for example, after removing the royals and politicians from their list, has a pretty short list of notable alumni given how long they have been around, with a heavy bias towards humanities - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eton_College

Similarly others, in the state sector, say, Queen Elizabeth Boys en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_Elizabeth%27s_School,_Barnet

Same in the girls' schools too, short list of notable alumni mainly in media and humanities. Though with the girls' school I understand that the historical bias against women having careers will naturally limit the numbers.

So the question is -

Given that the top selective British schools are apparently getting around top
5% of the students by abilities in a cohort, and top 5% in either UK and US will have comparable potential when they start their academic career, why do British selective schools produce so few high achievers in a field, espcially outside politics, media and arts?

Possibilities that come to my mind -

The Wikipedia pages of British school are incomplete (probably unlikely, as the schools and their alumni are quite motivated to edit these to fill missing information?)

The British selective schools are not in fact getting top 5% of the students in their cohort. They are just getting children whose parents have prepared them really well for eleven plus. These children "underperform" eventually. They are still high achievers, will go to good universities, have good jobs, but unlikely to make path breaking contributions in their fields compared to their US peers (or elsewhere?)

The school outcomes reflect the nature of British economy and society. There isn't enough incentive in the field of sciences, the economy does not demand much either or at least not as much as the US economy. So the schools do not produce pioneers.

Something else?

If you filter out politics, media and art, you're filtering out a lot of high fliers. Anyway that school in NY is massive, 3350ish students. Eton has about a third of that, Winchester College maybe a fifth.

What makes you think they take from top 5%?

Super selective grammars are very few, normal grammars take from the top 20-30%. Many (the majority?) of areas have no selective state schools at all.

Independent schools depend on ability to pay / and boarding schools also on willingness to board as well as on academics, so that rules out swathes of the cohort already.

What do you mean by high flier?

'Top of your field' or 'famous'?

OP, the list of awards for this school you mention (which I've never heard of) goes back to the 1950s!

Anyway, surely the university attended is more relevant than any school?

Yes, similarly for the British schools too. Their list of notable almni include the likes of Robert Walpole and Williiam Pitt!

The NY school started only in 1904 while most the UK selective schools, even the girls' schools, have been around much longer.

Also, the list of notable alumni from Eton (following your link) is far more extensive. 20 Prime Ministers for a start.

Thanks, yes, that's a fair point. Probably that explains some of it.

Though most of the British schools have been around much longer, Eton for instance had a 450 years headstart.

I have a genius IQ and went to an Oxbridge uni.

I am not a high flyer. I had a tricky childhood and have struggled in life. I am also likely neurodiverse.

A high IQ isn't all that is needed for "sucess" as you put it. I would suggest for most a supportive family etc make a huge difference too. Also all the soft skills. I can't get a job now based on high IQ alone...

Yes, sorry, I said excluding royals, and politicians.

I added that in the post, but probably too long post anyway.

I was wondering why didn't Eton (running for 450 years longer than the NY school) produce similar number of mathematicians, chemists, physicists, and so on.

Thanks, yes, didn't think of that and can certainly explain the difference. - that I am looking the wrong place because the UK selective schools do not get the top 5% of a cohort. Talent is distributed more evenly across the UK schools.

450 years ago, or even 50 years ago, they wouldn't have needed to be particularly intelligent to get into Eton etc. It was more about where your father went, family connections and that type of thing.

Even today, it's a very small margin of society that would consider boarding schools.

Having a look at the list of alumni that you have posted, they seem to be included for fairly mundane things (as well as the obvious prizes). There is a hedge fund manager on there - does Eton list all its students who go on to be hedge fund managers? Or people who found companies? Or become political consultants?

Yes, fair enough, I was just wowed by the sections on Mathmatics, Physics, Chemistry, Life Sciences, Social Sciences and Technology.

Eton in comparison has 7 scientists, including Robert Boyle of Boyle's law fame, dead since 1691

Thanks, yes, valid point.

Eton in comparison has 7 scientists, including Robert Boyle of Boyle's law fame, dead since 1691

And yet if you google famous scientists, it throws up e.g. www.famous-scientists.org/joseph-banks/ who went to Eton but does not appear on the Wikipedia list of alumni.

I suspect that the New York school is just more diligent in updating its Wikipedia list with anyone even slightly notable.

Maybe it is the UK university applications system? US universities, apply to as many as you want depending on essays and registration fees. UK university is more limited offer process.
Also, you can go to US universities and select major as you do courses. UK depends on A levels which is dependent on GCSEs/O Levels exams taken at 16.

British schools maybe don’t update their social media profiles?

The 11+ measures intelligence.

Your post makes a lot of assumptions ie that having a long hours intense career that creates fame, like eg politics or acting, is an intelligent thing to do.

The women I was at Cambridge with have mostly married highly intelligent men, worked very hard for 10-15 years, then had kids, become a sahm and moved to the countryside to have a nice life. I don’t think any of that reflects a lack of intelligence.

No, wasn't really looking for fame as such, and the post in fact specifically rules out politics, media, acting for that reason. But it's a long post, so might had been missed.

I was wondering why so few major contributors from the fields of Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Life Sciences, Technology etc from the famous British selective schools.

Given so many major advances in in all these areas in the last 50 years or so, I would have thought there were many high achievers in these fields from such schools. There are really very few.

But some other posts have mentioned possible reasons behind this.

This is just a thought based on very little experience, but the traditional culture of some old UK superselectives might have steered the brightest students to law/politics/classics/humanities rather than the "upstart" sciences? Certainly that attitude was common around 100 years ago in some establishments (cf the archaic Cambridge slang NARG = Not A Real Gentleman).

Prince Harry went to Eton, gives you a good indication of the sort of seletion involved. Yes they do offer scolarships to clever, poorer boys but that is not their primary focus.

Oxford and Cambridge were just much more important in producing famous people!

I think they are better at bragging and it's a huge school. Dp's ex school (mid level selective private boarding) has a very notable alumni list but their Wikipedia entry has only a fraction. There's also only 150 pupils per year

I feel that is probably a very good point. There was strong social incentive to do things other than science and it shows up in higher number of notable alumni in the the humanities, even now.

I am not in education either so can only guess. Two years ago we did the school rounds looking for DD's senior school and visited some of the super selectives in London. The headteacher and much of the senior leadership team mostly have people from humanities background - classics, history, Engish lit, at a stretch modern foreign languages. But hardly anyone (in fact none) from the sciences, let along computer science, engineering or similar. That maybe another thing, schools maybe unintentionally steering children to what they know best.

Harry got in because of who he was only — he wasn’t typical of his intake’s ability

Wouldn't St Paul's school be more comparable? I dont think Eton was especially academically selective 20 years ago, you used to be able to get in if you father had attended.