I said that Oxbridge admissions are fine as they are, and strictly speaking they are.
I do believe that pupils from state schools are unfairly disadvantaged, compared with those from public schools, when it comes to Oxford and Cambridge admissions. However, I think the reason they're less likely to get in is that they are less likely to be well equipped to study there, and in that sense the admissions system is working.
Oxford and Cambridge are about innovative thinking of the very highest order: the kind that nurtures the top 0.01% — and even the top 0.0001% — allowing them to flourish. It is important, both for us as a nation, and for the world in general, that this be the case.
Yes, Oxford or Cambridge might see an applicant who is clearly very intelligent, but has not been schooled well. Unfortunately, it's probably too late; Oxford and Cambridge aren't good environments for "catching up".
The solution has to be to recognise sooner pupils with that kind of potential, and see to it that they get taught properly.
The solution has to be to recognise sooner pupils with that kind of potential, and see to it that they get taught properly. And that's what the 11+ was supposed to do, to flag up children with potential, except that almost everyone in any position to do anything about such children seems to be ideologically opposed to that exam. SATs won't do anything near the job, and are equally flawed in terms of separating those-with-potential from those-tutored-to-pass-this-test. How can schools spot them and do anything about them, without accusations of hothousing, elitism, segregation... how do you spot the late-bloomers? the undiagnosed dyslexics who slack off rather than own up to the problem? ect.ect. chiz chiz.
Having seen how stupid some people who have been-tutored-through-A-levels turn out to be (cannot spell, do not understand texts, fail to grasp key concepts of their subjects) I don't know where the solution lies. But A level results probably have nothing to do with it any more. There are already more candidates with all As than Oxbridge can take. Will they introduce A*s like they did for GCSEs? I am already having nightmares about the prospect of educating smallclanger (do we send him to private school and disadvantage him at university application if things are skewed in favour of state applicants at that stage? do we send him to a state school and take our chances that he is taught anything useful at all*? do we home-educate and hope not to screw it up?) and he's not even six months old yet.
*I didn't learn to write an essay at my first school, because no one ever asked or taught me to. I was nearly 15 and into GCSEs when I switched schools and was hurriedly brought up to speed by my horrified English teacher.
I guess part of the problem is that teachers have been screwed about so seriously in the last few years that they're now very angry.
In the past, teachers could generally be relied upon first and foremost to educate people, and only secondarily to coach them in how to pass exams. That's no longer the case, and I suspect the teachers themselves would be unhappy about this, if they weren't so cynical and jaded.
At the moment, universities are left with the unenviable task of trying to work out at interview the extent to which predictions or results are indicative of competence as part of a well-rounded education, and conversely the extent to which they merely show someone's been crammed so hard it bleeds.
I think techers have to be given back some freedom, and encouraged to give a good quality education. Then, we have to identify people with extraordinary potential good and early, and make sure they flourish.
If anyone complains that this is elitist, they should be taken aside, and have it politely explained that they can go fuck themselves.
State schools vary highly, but so do private schools. Where I grew up, the local private school was widely agreed to be for the Tim Nice But Dims of the world - so not the place to send someone if you wanted them to achieve. State schools also change over time - when we first moved to Wiltshire the local secondary had a dreadful reputation but by the time I was attending it four years later, it had got a new headmaster and was greatly improved.
In my experience, attending an adequate state school and being assisted/encouraged by parents (e.g. I was taught to read before entering primary school) is sufficient, and a damn sight cheaper than paying fees.
I read an article about a study (but not the study itself, which is perhaps remiss) which looked into house prices around good state schools; they found that they were indeed more expensive, but not so much so that it would have been a better deal to send kids to a private school instead. Obviously the details are going to depend on how you measure a school, of course, and I can't remember how they did, but it was probably related to exam results....
Given how quickly schools can change, I don't think I could see myself going through the stress and expense of moving just to be near a 'better' school. But this might be based on my experience of growing up going to the village school, and then the default secondary, and not really having any problems. I had enough push from myself and my parents to stretch myself when the schools didn't.
I guess I consider (perhaps arrogantly) that any child of mine would be similarly fine, so long as the school wasn't completely dire. Cambridge doesn't seem to be have any utterly dire schools (such that you hear about them being dreadful in the local paper). But then I'm not planning to be in the child-raising business any time soon, so I haven't paid great attention ;)
My first secondary school had an excellent reputation and a wonderful headmaster. He retired during the summer before I started (unexpectedly, ill-health), and the other school in our area was oversubscribed and would not take any children from our village at all, so we were stuck with the new headmaster, who embodied all that was worst about 1980s progressive teaching... I was squashed at every available opportunity by teachers who said I didn't need to learn academic things but should learn to milk goats, paint murals, give up our French lessons to serve coffee to 'the community', watch TV and discuss it instead of reading books and writing essays... after a few years of that you lose any drive you might have had. If we hadn't moved house when I was 14 I really hate to think what would have happened. Luckily most of my brighter classmates went on to a decent sixth-form college (our school had no sixth-form) so I hope they all were hurriedly brought up to speed in the same way I was when I switched schools. Having 'push' is not much help if no one will help you use it in any academic way and your parents can't afford to move you/hire a tutor. I read voraciously and widely (but with no particular focus), and that's the main reason I think I survived that school.
I would hope that smallclanger would be ok in a state school, especially since both his parents could read before they were three. But I don't want to risk a similar terrible experience with school, nor do we want to be 'the pushy parents' that wind up putting the child off learning for ever more. They exist. They're scary.
Cambridge is unlikely to have dire schools. Oxford has really only one or two (but they are seriously dire) - unfortunately we're in the catchment area for one of them so if allocation works against us I'd give serious attention to private/home schooling.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-22 03:56 pm (UTC)I do believe that pupils from state schools are unfairly disadvantaged, compared with those from public schools, when it comes to Oxford and Cambridge admissions. However, I think the reason they're less likely to get in is that they are less likely to be well equipped to study there, and in that sense the admissions system is working.
Oxford and Cambridge are about innovative thinking of the very highest order: the kind that nurtures the top 0.01% — and even the top 0.0001% — allowing them to flourish. It is important, both for us as a nation, and for the world in general, that this be the case.
Yes, Oxford or Cambridge might see an applicant who is clearly very intelligent, but has not been schooled well. Unfortunately, it's probably too late; Oxford and Cambridge aren't good environments for "catching up".
The solution has to be to recognise sooner pupils with that kind of potential, and see to it that they get taught properly.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-22 04:11 pm (UTC)And that's what the 11+ was supposed to do, to flag up children with potential, except that almost everyone in any position to do anything about such children seems to be ideologically opposed to that exam. SATs won't do anything near the job, and are equally flawed in terms of separating those-with-potential from those-tutored-to-pass-this-test. How can schools spot them and do anything about them, without accusations of hothousing, elitism, segregation... how do you spot the late-bloomers? the undiagnosed dyslexics who slack off rather than own up to the problem? ect.ect. chiz chiz.
Having seen how stupid some people who have been-tutored-through-A-levels turn out to be (cannot spell, do not understand texts, fail to grasp key concepts of their subjects) I don't know where the solution lies. But A level results probably have nothing to do with it any more. There are already more candidates with all As than Oxbridge can take. Will they introduce A*s like they did for GCSEs? I am already having nightmares about the prospect of educating
*I didn't learn to write an essay at my first school, because no one ever asked or taught me to. I was nearly 15 and into GCSEs when I switched schools and was hurriedly brought up to speed by my horrified English teacher.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-22 04:52 pm (UTC)In the past, teachers could generally be relied upon first and foremost to educate people, and only secondarily to coach them in how to pass exams. That's no longer the case, and I suspect the teachers themselves would be unhappy about this, if they weren't so cynical and jaded.
At the moment, universities are left with the unenviable task of trying to work out at interview the extent to which predictions or results are indicative of competence as part of a well-rounded education, and conversely the extent to which they merely show someone's been crammed so hard it bleeds.
I think techers have to be given back some freedom, and encouraged to give a good quality education. Then, we have to identify people with extraordinary potential good and early, and make sure they flourish.
If anyone complains that this is elitist, they should be taken aside, and have it politely explained that they can go fuck themselves.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-23 01:50 am (UTC)In my experience, attending an adequate state school and being assisted/encouraged by parents (e.g. I was taught to read before entering primary school) is sufficient, and a damn sight cheaper than paying fees.
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-23 02:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-23 03:38 am (UTC)I guess I consider (perhaps arrogantly) that any child of mine would be similarly fine, so long as the school wasn't completely dire. Cambridge doesn't seem to be have any utterly dire schools (such that you hear about them being dreadful in the local paper). But then I'm not planning to be in the child-raising business any time soon, so I haven't paid great attention ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2004-01-23 04:58 am (UTC)I would hope that
Cambridge is unlikely to have dire schools. Oxford has really only one or two (but they are seriously dire) - unfortunately we're in the catchment area for one of them so if allocation works against us I'd give serious attention to private/home schooling.