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?

That's the thing. Sometime I feel we are just sleepwalking into a sustained period of decline because everyone remembers how UK was at the forefront of many technological advances a long, long time ago.

The pace of change and massive expenditure by our peer countries in both private and public sector is not something that comes up in national discourse. So we cling on to a 40 year old startup story, ARM, now owned by a Japanese conglomerate.

There are still pockets of excellence, pharma, some chemicals, aerospace, but will rapidly erode if sustained underinvestment in R&D continues. Only the rentier industries remain

Here is a country comparison of R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP (both private and public sector)

data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS?locations=GB-DE-US-FR-CN-CH-JP-KR

There isn't a single peer economy with similar GDP per capita that spends so less on R&D. (also comfortably below OECD average)

@justanotherdaduser - but why does everyone always expect our governments to spend in the UK? There are a ton of rich people and benefactors who could easily be spending on this kind of thing. Many of the US universities tap directly and effectively into their successful alumni. All that government should be doing further is tax incentives to individuals to give to these causes be it in their life time or their wills. Governments surely are there to provide and look after basic public services and we already have free at the point of delivery healthcare and education. That costs a huge amount, coupled with in work benefits and an ageing population.
Oxbridge needs to learn to raise their own funds like US universities too?

In fact, banks, law firms, consultants doing the milk round at top universities in the UK to get the best graduates to further their business, should be contributing to the hardship fund for disadvantaged students every time they do a milk round …
The Gates Foundation gave 210 million to Cambridge. This is what these universities need and there are a ton of rich people and corporation in the UK who could do more. Dyson have 8 million so far, hopefully there will be more in the future like this.

That chart above include both public and private sector spending on R&D. In all countries, it's always a mixture of two. In UK, combined (and individual) spend of both sectors is lower than their counterparts in other similar economies.

So wasn't exactly asking for higher gov expenditure in R&D (though uk government does talk about it) but highlighting the growing gap between Uk and others.

That said, much of the modern technology we take for granted now is a direct result of massive US government expenditure in R&D post Second World War.

Internet, much of the computing tech we see now, GPS, vaccine tech, weather satellite, voice interface etc all came from defence R&D paid for by US tax payers (mainly the DARPA project, but others too)

See here for example en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA

One problem with the UK, it seems, when you look at recent innovations, is that we are too altruistic! There seems to be a long list of world changing "things" often tech, which are invented here, and then "given" to the world for free. Great. However, we don't make money from it, and someone else then nicks it, and does...... a paradox.

AZ vaccine for example. What Three Words. The internet (!).

Other excellent start-ups are generally taken over by overseas companies, particularly at the moment in AI and other future tech.

We chose to be an open nation, allow people from abroad to buy here, buy companies etc. There are pros and cons to that approach. There is some new UK m merger legislation which slight reins that in, but in general we have benefited from our openness.

Reading with interest and shamelessly subscribing 🙂

Agree that the UK-US cultural differences are at the root of this both in terms of approach to publicity and the comparative recognition of STEM degrees. It was really this lack of recognition (both financial and social) which has led to the fact that most super-selective independents have been traditionally leaning towards humanities, with the possible exception of only a handful senior schools like Westminster, Winchester, Harrow and Merchant Taylor's which are traditionally strong in STEM but also well-balanced (strong in humanities too), whereas St Paul's, Tonbridge and Perse are clearly STEM-leaning. Most of the rest of the independent senior schools are amazingly heavily leaning towards humanities...

Been through the same thought process as @justanotherdaduser but mostly from a school perspective e.g. I was shocked when I visited a top super-selective in Berkshire (not Eton, but another new Oxbridge fav) and their so called STEM-centre was in somewhere in a corner with a bunch of DIY workbenches with not much in the way of robotics or digitalisation, the tiny chemistry lab was an afterthought behind a shelf of DIY books in a corner. Then the penny dropped: when they think STEM, they think those DIY workbenches. This was confirmed during discussions with the head of admissions, who questioned whether it makes sense to even begin to teach coding as it changes so fast! Sure, C++ has been around since 1979 and Python since 1991 and both still dominate the scene🙂

Also the UK university entry system doesn't really encourage risk taking in sixth form the same way US universities do, in the latter you need not fear spoiling a spotless academic record to do something amazing in your free time, as outstanding extra-curriculars carry a lot of weight.

Another cultural factor in my view is the love of the US with anything cutting edge and forward looking (vs UK's adoration of tradition, balance and history) and in the UK the obvious career of choice for ambitious young adults with a STEM degree has been finance since at least the 1980s which has obviously contributed to the brain-drain as science (even R&D) doesn't tend to pay that well.

Yet I don't agree with the thesis that the UK super selectives underperform. I would venture to argue that the leavers in these super selective UK schools are on average more well spoken with better manners than their US counterparts, with a certain finesse and gravitas to boot. Disclaimer: I went to a US super selective with an information technology focus, which was amazingly liberating but finesse and manners were really just an afterthought.

In an apple-to-apple comparison (when adjusted for the size of intake, selectivity, etc) the comparable UK senior school with a strong STEM offering probably provide a better all around education than comparable US counterparts. Which is why I picked a UK senior school for my DS.

In my view, it is very important to look behind the league tables and to try to avoid the humanities pivot as we are entering the 4th industrial revolution. This is fairly difficult to spot without visiting the schools (science labs tell a story) and also checking their records in math/science competitions (they all brag about them on their websites). Nobel prizes or alumni don't tell much of a story in my view, even if it does help to instil confidence if a school has had at least one laureate since WW2 (I am also guilty, I also checked!) for role modelling and motivation😉

@WEEonline , thank you for the really interesting posts. Especially the comparison between strong-in-STEM UK selectives vs similar ones in US, I don't have that background.

about this :
This was confirmed during discussions with the head of admissions, who questioned whether it makes sense to even begin to teach coding as it changes so fast! Sure, C++ has been around since 1979 and Python since 1991 and both still dominate the scene🙂

At least some if it is influenced by the KS3, KS4 syllabus.

Especially the GCSE computer science syllabus is appallingly dull, almost designed to to turn young people off technology.

I had a moan about it here and a number of parents and teachers in this thread agreed -

www.mumsnet.com/talk/secondary/4752091-gcse-computer-science-how-do-dcs-feel-about-the-syllabus?page=2&reply=124271896

Admission system that you mention also has a part to play.

It has no reward for enthusiasts and exceptionally talented children. One could be at a high level in project Euler (for her age), or have sigificant history of contributions in an open source project, but no matter, an A instead of A-star in maths mean Imperial will say no. There is zero incentive for doing extra curriculars to sharpen skills and interests. (Though in US probably the extra-curriculars have become an arms race now?)

@justanotherdaduser , great points and summary. I would like to add in US universities you can do a wide combined majors not an option in UK. A British friend’s son studied Physics and Music at Stanford which is not available in UK. Currently, working in the gaming industry doing musical scores for games as well as coding on his personal projects.

Yes, premature specialization early in life, and I don't even see the purpose of that specialisation. Large number of young professionals in STEM anyway end up doing something entirely different from their areas of specialisation, like pricing bonds, trading packaged debts, or advising on mergers.

Physics/Music is a really interesting combination and that particular one is available in a few places here - Edinburgh I think, Imperial and also Royal Holloway probably. Also St Andrews has more flexibilty (don't know specifically about Physics/Music)

But of course these are exceptions rather than the norm, US higher education has much more flexibility and allows one to try out things before specialisation.

@justanotherdaduser
The IFS did a survey on which degrees gone grads the best salaries after 5 years. They were nearly all STEM! Plus economics that might as well be. It’s the other sectors of learning that earn less overall! There are notable exceptions for the extra bright of course. They will succeed in whatever they choose. I think we do value stem grads but we are also a stingy country and want excellence on the cheap.

A bigger issue is the draw of the City taking the stem grads, especially engineering ones. We then have big shortages in the professional engineering workforce.

Also, you cannot make Dc do stem. DD1 was pretty good all round. Her real strengths were not stem. So in order to get into the best universities she chose what would get her in! She also did loads of extra curricular activities and actually boarding schools allow for personal development like this. It wasn’t a highly academic school and extra activities were highly valued. I tend to think doing lots at school gives you a strong work ethic and ability to juggle your time. That’s served dd well since!

@TizerorFizz , agree, STEM degrees pay more. Higher Education Statistcs Agency publishes a good annual report on this ''What do graduates do' and people with STEM background do relatively better, both in terms of employment and earning.

Though medicine, vet, Economics do well too (better than STEM), and law does well few years later.

But as you said, high share of STEM graduates aren't actually doing anything to do with STEM after graduation. This is a bit like the 'Dutch Disease' (resource curse). Outsize and highly competitive financial sector chokes off other areas.

I like our early specialisation int he Uk as it saves wasting some years of something you don't want to do and you just concentrate on your 3 A level subjects etc I thikn it puts us ahead, not behind the USA. However plenty of UK teenagers chose the US for their degrees so there is certainly scope for teenagers to choose between the two systems.

However plenty of UK teenagers chose the US for their degrees so there is certainly scope for teenagers to choose between the two systems.

Not really plenty. Less than 2% go to US (about 10K to US vs 650K here)

And the US option is available only to the most well off. They cost much more than even the most expensive independent school fees here.

@Xenia but at 16 do you really know enough to narrow it down to 3 subjects (and for most students it ends up being related subjects)? Does the average 16 year old really know what career they want to pursue (or even have a fair idea of options)?

from observation kids are highly motivated to choose the topics they are most likely to get highest scores in based on GCSEs - optimise for the next hurdle (get into a good university) . You wipe a lot of options off the table at such a young age based on such limited exposure. In year 9 I really struggled with math, year 10 was a bit better but middle of the pack, but years 11 and 12 I had the highest grades of the school and top 1% nationally in exams. If I had been forced to choose in year 10, math would not have been a top 3 subject. More important than the ‘results’ was the fact that I discovered a new interest and found confidence in my ability to persevere. I didn’t pursue a math oriented degree, but my career has a heavy amount of quantitative analysis, which I can confidently apply. What a missed opportunity if I had had to stick to ‘safe’ subjects from 16.

yes, specialisation allows for greater depth, but many jobs these days require cross disciplinary skill sets. And also many people don’t end up in a job directly related to their subject of study. For most young people breadth is probably more important than depth, as it leaves more options on the table

@Labraradabrador , excellent point about many jobs now requiring cross disciplinary skills.

I see this at work often.

Computer science graduate hires (or related area) will often have great technical skills but not particularly good written communication skill. To progress in many such roles require extensive interaction with (not necessarily technical) stakeholders, good writing skills to express complex ideas well or to persuade people. But someone who has avoided essay writing or Language study since the age of 16 (Maths, FM, Computer science --> degree in CS) can struggle.

Similarly on the humanities side, it's a bit more of a public spectacle as many national politicians (most with humanities degree), struggle within simple statistical concepts or even basic arithmetic.

The most famous example is probably when George Osborne (History, Oxford) refused to answer what eight times seven is, but there are many other examples

www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/george-osborne-times-tables-maths-dodges-question-refuses-to-answer-child-sky-news-seven-times-eight-9580891.html

We are starting to see more state schools offer IB now whichschooladvisor.com/uk/guides/which-uk-state-schools-offer-the-ib

But parents are still scared of the IB because they hear things such as Higher Level Maths is not the same as Maths and Further Maths or if you want to do medicine, it may be harder to get a place etc.
I would really like all state school children to have a choice of A levels or IB in their area, acknowledging maybe that IB is quite rigorous and recommended for quite academic kids with X grades in their GCSEs. At the moment, it looks like the grammars are more likely to offer IB?

@justanotherdaduser - perhaps George Osborne is to blame for the compulsory “Year 4 multiplication check” …www.gov.uk/government/collections/multiplication-tables-check

Both my sister and I the IB back in the 90’s. Tons of extra work at an age (16-18) when lots of things happen in a teenager’s life: first love, first beer, driving license, first car, etc. Some of my close friends did A-levels during the same years, and I can tell you that it makes for a totally different life experience. Top unis in the 90’s expected the same level of A*AA at A-levels or the same IB equivalent HL (766) without any recognition for the remaining three subjects plus essay plus community work, etc.

My sister decided at the age of 18 to go to study economics, only to come home at the age of 21 to announce she wanted to be a medic instead. On the other hand I was clear by the age of 16 what I wanted to do. IB is also super academic in an abstract way, leaving little room for creativity other than essay and community work, but the workload is such that these two also become box ticking exercises, where we simply optimised for mileage out of time invested. So the extra effort was wasted on both my sister and I, albeit for different reasons.

In my experience, unless you change environments completely for sixth form (which does give you a new perspective on yourself) then I would venture that if you don’t know by the age of 16, then you will likely not know by the age of 18.

I wouldn’t choose a school based on IB vs A-levels, other things like ethos or peers or selectivity criteria or the quality of teaching matter a lot more. But if my DS will have a choice, I will recommend him to keep his eyes and ears open and to try to make up his mind by the age of 16.

He’ll likely get more mileage out of A-levels, and will have a more enjoyable time in those super busy and awesome years.

WEE I agree. My daughter's school allows a choice of A levels or IB I believe (North London Collegiate) and I was glad she picked A levels. Also plenty of teenagers DO know by age 16 what subjects they want to concentrate on and do much better for ditching the others. I am not against doing 4 AS levels as my 5 children did in lower 6th or indeed 4 Alevels for those really want to do so however.

A few things notice different between the New York specialised high school (such as Stuy) vs the UK superselective (QE SPGS or Eton) - at least the current situation.

1. Major intake at 14-15 instead of 11 years old.

1. Stuy has over 30% on FSM equivalent vs about 3% in state grammar in London (not to mentioned private selective).

1. Free tuition and admission test preparation support/class from government endorsed organisations for the eligible aspired NYC students. At least there are attempts to create a level playing field for the meritocracy based selection process. In London superselective (grammar or private) is a privilege of middle class.