Forums > Cambridge Or Oxford

YetAnotherPianist

Apr 19 2007, 06:32 PM

QUOTE(chocolatedog @ Apr 19 2007, 06:53 PM)

Funnily enough my sister once commented that she found the genuine upper-middle/upper classes far less affected and pretentious and arrogant than the 'nouveau riche'.................and far more genuine as people....

I could well imagine that would be the case. I've met many nouveau riche who go on about going on cruises, what car they've bought, their latest jewellry acquisition, and refuse to eat out at anywhere which isn't an expensive restaurant. I've not met one upper-middle class person yet who's been anything but modest, and whilst they may well have spent money on those things, didn't feel it necessary to boast to me about it.

Violinia

Apr 19 2007, 06:36 PM

QUOTE(SaxFan @ Apr 19 2007, 07:29 PM)

Far too much politics in education instead of common sense (as with a lot of things nowadays). And too much regulation (have you had your motor lawn mower MoT'd yet?)

As to who pays for education, yes those who pay higher taxes contribute most, and if they choose to send their children to private schools (because they don't feel the state system is adequate) they are paying twice! Shouldn't they be due a refund of tax?

If the wealthy private school parents get a tax refund, wouldn't that mean even less money for state schools? Who would this benefit, exactly? The already wealthy?

Or would you prefer a system where everybody pays what they can afford, so the richest get the best schools and the poorest get the worst? It's beginning to sound like it...

QUOTE(YetAnotherPianist @ Apr 19 2007, 07:32 PM)

QUOTE(chocolatedog @ Apr 19 2007, 06:53 PM)

Funnily enough my sister once commented that she found the genuine upper-middle/upper classes far less affected and pretentious and arrogant than the 'nouveau riche'.................and far more genuine as people....

I could well imagine that would be the case. I've met many nouveau riche who go on about going on cruises, what car they've bought, their latest jewellry acquisition, and refuse to eat out at anywhere which isn't an expensive restaurant. I've not met one upper-middle class person yet who's been anything but modest, and whilst they may well have spent money on those things, didn't feel it necessary to boast to me about it.

They can afford to be modest because they're not aspiring - they're 'there' (utterly confident of their place at the top of the social pile) so they have nothing to prove.

chocolatedog

Apr 19 2007, 06:53 PM

QUOTE(Violinia @ Apr 19 2007, 07:22 PM)

QUOTE(chocolatedog @ Apr 19 2007, 06:50 PM)

I had a sudden thought (yeah, I know - it happens sometimes

) Education is not free in this country - it's paid for by the taxpayers.........who pays more tax? Middle and upper classes (obviously - as they earn more - that's not a complaint, just a statement of fact) so in fact it is the higher tax bands who actually fund indirectly through their taxes, more towards the education of everyone else..........so in fact those who send their kids to private school are paying twice over......interesting thought........so why shouldn't they if they want to, afterall they're already paying a fair whack towards the country's education anyway......

And another thought - I like the ethos and the atmosphere in the independent school I teach in......one of my colleagues was telling me about his wife who teaches in a state sector primary school and was saying that the police often have to be called in to read the riot act to the kids, and that teachers have at times even been assaulted by the kids.......that has never happened in my school (I'm not saying all the kids are angels, as they're not, but I've never had verbal or even physical abuse there) ........plus in my town, some shopkeepers have deliberately closed their shops at lunchtimes because of the abuse they were getting from the kids who go to the local secondary.......and you think I should want to send my kids there???

(Well, future, hypothetical kids, that is........

)

Sorry but your argument makes no real sense. You ask why wealthy people shouldn't send their kids to private school as they're contributing to the state sector anyway through their taxes. That may be true, but you still get the end result that the children of the wealthy are getting into the best schools, and that can't be right, or good, or equitable.

In your second paragraph you rather state the obvious - of course you like the ethos and atmosphere of the private school you teach in - private schools tend to be excellent; they'd have to be otherwise nobody would fork out to send their children there. I'm tempted to say 'duh' at this point.

And yes of course you get all sorts of nonsense going on at local comps these days because Thatcher's change to the catchment rules turned many schools into 'sink' schools. And all the lucky wealthy people, or the less wealthy people with middle-class nouse can afford to keep their kids out of those schools.

What some of you don't seem to be prepared to address is: what is the best solution for the children of the less-educated, of the less moneyed, of the less bright? Those kids who deserve the very best chance in life no matter how 'bright' or 'not bright' they may be? Aren't they the ones we should be the most concerned about?

I personally believe that virtually all if not all children are born with the potential to be bright, inquisitive learers. Given the right environment far more of those children could reach their potential than are being given the opportunity under the current system. My partner is a prime example - he failed his 11+, went to secondary modern and spent years going from one low-paid job to another. By some very lucky chance he ended up volunteering for a local 'Fringe' festival which them led him eventually into arts management, finally becoming artistic director of a large arts centre. He still doesn't have an O-level to his name.

He was lucky because he has a certain 'cockiness' to his nature, but so many others who had the same educational experience as him had any residual confidence totally crushed by the experience. Many are coming out of 'sink' comps with the same low self esteem and lack of confidence from which they may never recover. Those same kids, given a level playing field with the opportunity to attend a school with a critical mass of aspirational kids could very easily have a completely different experience at school. Much of this has very little to do with intelligence levels but everything to do with postcode and parents' educational levels. This cannot be right!!!

Instead of waxing lyrical about the wonderfulness of private chools shouldn't we be protesting at our grossly unfair, iniquitous system, a system that condemns so many to the slagheap when they could achieve so much more if they had half the chance?

I'm not arguing with you any longer - I'm fed up - needless to say, I'm not changing my opinion - I went to a private primary school. a state secondary school, Cambridge University (which I loved and which I'm fed up of having to defend) and if I had kids, I would send them to our local primary school (if it's still as good in the future) and if I had the money, an independent secondary school (unless we've moved by then and the local state school is pleasant enough - if not, it'd still be an independent, if we can afford it) and I think if parents want to pay for education for their kids, let them..........in some cases they are probably wasting it, but it's their money........

QUOTE(Violinia @ Apr 19 2007, 07:36 PM)

QUOTE(SaxFan @ Apr 19 2007, 07:29 PM)

Far too much politics in education instead of common sense (as with a lot of things nowadays). And too much regulation (have you had your motor lawn mower MoT'd yet?)

As to who pays for education, yes those who pay higher taxes contribute most, and if they choose to send their children to private schools (because they don't feel the state system is adequate) they are paying twice! Shouldn't they be due a refund of tax?

If the wealthy private school parents get a tax refund, wouldn't that mean even less money for state schools? Who would this benefit, exactly? The already wealthy?

Or would you prefer a system where everybody pays what they can afford, so the richest get the best schools and the poorest get the worst? It's beginning to sound like it...

QUOTE(YetAnotherPianist @ Apr 19 2007, 07:32 PM)

QUOTE(chocolatedog @ Apr 19 2007, 06:53 PM)

Funnily enough my sister once commented that she found the genuine upper-middle/upper classes far less affected and pretentious and arrogant than the 'nouveau riche'.................and far more genuine as people....

I could well imagine that would be the case. I've met many nouveau riche who go on about going on cruises, what car they've bought, their latest jewellry acquisition, and refuse to eat out at anywhere which isn't an expensive restaurant. I've not met one upper-middle class person yet who's been anything but modest, and whilst they may well have spent money on those things, didn't feel it necessary to boast to me about it.

They can afford to be modest because they're not aspiring - they're 'there' (utterly confident of their place at the top of the social pile) so they have nothing to prove.

If that last comment didn't have a smilie after it, I'd say it was extremely nasty and cynical.........

YetAnotherPianist

Apr 19 2007, 07:05 PM

QUOTE(Violinia @ Apr 19 2007, 07:30 PM)

If more than half are high achievers, they will pull the others up - I've seen it happen.

It's the people in the middle who benefit most from being placed in a class with people who are brighter than they are: they go from being average and doing okay to having to work harder to keep up. Teachers have to work at the speed of the average person in the class, and the average of the top and average pupils is somewhere above average - so they teach at an above average speed. The people at the top can only pull up the people in the middle if the people at the bottom aren't there - if the class represents a cross section of abilities, the teacher has to go at an average speed, not an above-average speed.

QUOTE

What would you do about the low achievers then? Just leave them in their sink schools to languish, safely out of the way of the others? Come on, isn't it time to be considering them in this discussion? Doesn't every child matter?

The current school system fails those who aren't academically gifted but are otherwise able. Quite a lot of of the so-called 'low achievers' are only low achievers when test scores are the metric. There needs to be more opportunities for non-academic tuition at school - not just for those who are low achievers, but for everyone. At least then, those who can do academic but not-academic stuff have something that they're good at. Then, if they develop a sense of pride in their non-academic work, it might help their academic work too - doing well for once has got to be more motivating than them coming bottom in test after test.

This all has to be tied in with the needs of the modern economy, though - our demand for manual workers is less than it was decades ago, so we need to balance the tuition that schoolchildren get to reflect this. It would almost certainly have to be optional: pupils choosing whether to do 100% academic, or 75% academic and 25% non-academic, or 50%-50%, or whatever. The carrot on a stick of higher earnings would still encourage those of an academic disposition to pursue that route, so the economy would be supplied with the workforce it needed.

Blaming the poor performance of state schools on the existence of private schools is an oversimplification of a grander problem - the fact that the curriculum is not designed to suit all the pupils and has a very narrow-minded view of what learning is. Private schools tend to be 'good schools' because the people who go there are of above average intelligence, and have parents who are more supportive than average. They still generally provide an academic curriculum, so sending a low-intelligence person with unsupportive parents to a private school wouldn't suddenly make them more academically able and thus able to do massively better. So if we paid up for the low-intelligence people to go to private schools, we wouldn't see masses of them being as successful as their classmates, going to the same universities, or getting the same salaries. To coin a phrase, 'one cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear'. Ergo, schools aren't the problem <little square box>.

sbhoa

Apr 19 2007, 07:11 PM

Don't discount the fact that some children are disadvantaged educationally because at home education is not valued and they have parents telling them it doesn't matter.
For those children even the best school circumstances are not going to do much as whatever positives they get in school will be discredited at home.

Violinia

Apr 19 2007, 07:11 PM

QUOTE(chocolatedog @ Apr 19 2007, 07:53 PM)

QUOTE(Violinia @ Apr 19 2007, 07:22 PM)

QUOTE(chocolatedog @ Apr 19 2007, 06:50 PM)

I had a sudden thought (yeah, I know - it happens sometimes

) Education is not free in this country - it's paid for by the taxpayers.........who pays more tax? Middle and upper classes (obviously - as they earn more - that's not a complaint, just a statement of fact) so in fact it is the higher tax bands who actually fund indirectly through their taxes, more towards the education of everyone else..........so in fact those who send their kids to private school are paying twice over......interesting thought........so why shouldn't they if they want to, afterall they're already paying a fair whack towards the country's education anyway......

And another thought - I like the ethos and the atmosphere in the independent school I teach in......one of my colleagues was telling me about his wife who teaches in a state sector primary school and was saying that the police often have to be called in to read the riot act to the kids, and that teachers have at times even been assaulted by the kids.......that has never happened in my school (I'm not saying all the kids are angels, as they're not, but I've never had verbal or even physical abuse there) ........plus in my town, some shopkeepers have deliberately closed their shops at lunchtimes because of the abuse they were getting from the kids who go to the local secondary.......and you think I should want to send my kids there???

(Well, future, hypothetical kids, that is........

)

Sorry but your argument makes no real sense. You ask why wealthy people shouldn't send their kids to private school as they're contributing to the state sector anyway through their taxes. That may be true, but you still get the end result that the children of the wealthy are getting into the best schools, and that can't be right, or good, or equitable.

In your second paragraph you rather state the obvious - of course you like the ethos and atmosphere of the private school you teach in - private schools tend to be excellent; they'd have to be otherwise nobody would fork out to send their children there. I'm tempted to say 'duh' at this point.

And yes of course you get all sorts of nonsense going on at local comps these days because Thatcher's change to the catchment rules turned many schools into 'sink' schools. And all the lucky wealthy people, or the less wealthy people with middle-class nouse can afford to keep their kids out of those schools.

What some of you don't seem to be prepared to address is: what is the best solution for the children of the less-educated, of the less moneyed, of the less bright? Those kids who deserve the very best chance in life no matter how 'bright' or 'not bright' they may be? Aren't they the ones we should be the most concerned about?

I personally believe that virtually all if not all children are born with the potential to be bright, inquisitive learers. Given the right environment far more of those children could reach their potential than are being given the opportunity under the current system. My partner is a prime example - he failed his 11+, went to secondary modern and spent years going from one low-paid job to another. By some very lucky chance he ended up volunteering for a local 'Fringe' festival which them led him eventually into arts management, finally becoming artistic director of a large arts centre. He still doesn't have an O-level to his name.

He was lucky because he has a certain 'cockiness' to his nature, but so many others who had the same educational experience as him had any residual confidence totally crushed by the experience. Many are coming out of 'sink' comps with the same low self esteem and lack of confidence from which they may never recover. Those same kids, given a level playing field with the opportunity to attend a school with a critical mass of aspirational kids could very easily have a completely different experience at school. Much of this has very little to do with intelligence levels but everything to do with postcode and parents' educational levels. This cannot be right!!!

Instead of waxing lyrical about the wonderfulness of private chools shouldn't we be protesting at our grossly unfair, iniquitous system, a system that condemns so many to the slagheap when they could achieve so much more if they had half the chance?

I'm not arguing with you any longer - I'm fed up - needless to say, I'm not changing my opinion - I went to a private primary school. a state secondary school, Cambridge University (which I loved and which I'm fed up of having to defend) and if I had kids, I would send them to our local primary school (if it's still as good in the future) and if I had the money, an independent secondary school (unless we've moved by then and the local state school is pleasant enough - if not, it'd still be an independent, if we can afford it) and I think if parents want to pay for education for their kids, let them..........in some cases they are probably wasting it, but it's their money........

QUOTE(Violinia @ Apr 19 2007, 07:36 PM)

QUOTE(SaxFan @ Apr 19 2007, 07:29 PM)

Far too much politics in education instead of common sense (as with a lot of things nowadays). And too much regulation (have you had your motor lawn mower MoT'd yet?)

As to who pays for education, yes those who pay higher taxes contribute most, and if they choose to send their children to private schools (because they don't feel the state system is adequate) they are paying twice! Shouldn't they be due a refund of tax?

If the wealthy private school parents get a tax refund, wouldn't that mean even less money for state schools? Who would this benefit, exactly? The already wealthy?

Or would you prefer a system where everybody pays what they can afford, so the richest get the best schools and the poorest get the worst? It's beginning to sound like it...

QUOTE(YetAnotherPianist @ Apr 19 2007, 07:32 PM)

QUOTE(chocolatedog @ Apr 19 2007, 06:53 PM)

Funnily enough my sister once commented that she found the genuine upper-middle/upper classes far less affected and pretentious and arrogant than the 'nouveau riche'.................and far more genuine as people....

I could well imagine that would be the case. I've met many nouveau riche who go on about going on cruises, what car they've bought, their latest jewellry acquisition, and refuse to eat out at anywhere which isn't an expensive restaurant. I've not met one upper-middle class person yet who's been anything but modest, and whilst they may well have spent money on those things, didn't feel it necessary to boast to me about it.

They can afford to be modest because they're not aspiring - they're 'there' (utterly confident of their place at the top of the social pile) so they have nothing to prove.

If that last comment didn't have a smilie after it, I'd say it was extremely nasty and cynical.........

My comment wasn't meant to be nasty and cynical at all - just honest. I have many upper middle class friends whom I love dearly and who would be the first to recognise where their confidence and modesty come from.

Read Jilly Cooper's book 'Class' - even though she wrote it ages ago it's still relevant and very amusing.

Barry Thain

Apr 19 2007, 09:27 PM

Hi Violinia

I've enjoyed reaading your latest posts but I haven't found a response to the question I asked in message 136 http://forums.abrsm.org/index.php?s=&s...st&p=498155

Either I've just missed it, or it may have been an oversight on your part. (I can't think you found my question unworthy of an answer.) So I hope you won't mind if I please ask again, if think the two-tier system is so iniquitous, which one-tier system would you prefer?

Best wishes

barry

Rainbow

Apr 19 2007, 09:32 PM

QUOTE(Jaunty Angle @ Apr 19 2007, 07:01 AM)

Now given also that a Private School students is likely to be more academically gifted than a state school student this is just unfair.

How can you possibly believe that?! I know that there isn't really a universally accepted definition of 'academic giftedness' (some people think that examination performance is a good indicator, some people think that other factors are more important) but it is preposterous to suggest that you can only be academically gifted if you attend a private school. Sure, some people are there on academic scholarships and are therefore likely to be bright, but there will also be people who are not so intelligent there. Also, if someone who had attended a private school with small classes, great facilities and good teachers and someone else who had attended your bog-standard state comp with huge classes, disruption, teacher shortages and didn't have access to the same range of facilities, got the same grades then it would surely be more of an achievement for the state school pupil, as they would have had to fight against the odds more.

And, just for the record, I've always been educated at state schools and got 10A*s plus one of the top 5 marks in the country for French at GCSE (that's not meant as showing off, I just want to show that if you define intelligence as grades, state school people are clearly not unintelligent! Several of my state-school educated friends have similarly high numbers of A*s and As at GCSE level).

meerkat

Apr 19 2007, 09:46 PM

trebor, I did explain with specific examples what the flaws with the study were. Self report. Retrospective. Demand characteristics. What more do you want me to say?

I'm not answering your questions because you're asking me to explain points I haven't in fact made. WHich becomes a bit tricky, really.

QUOTE(captivate.me @ Apr 19 2007, 10:01 PM)

This has got so out of hand.
With regards to meerkat's (at least I think it was meerkat's) comment about not touching these institutions with a barge pole that's such a load of rubbish. Regardless of opinions of class, money and fairness of entry Oxford and Cambridge will continue to be two of the best places in the world to study for your university years. The music courses don't suit everyone but they will give you an incredibly thorough grounding in musical theory and history as well as huge numbers of opportunities to perform. The course itself may not have many performance modules but you can't beat the number of musical groups that both the universities have. It can be nice to keep performance more for pleasure than for your course. I hope that helps with the original question. With regards as to which one's "the best" it's really up to you, most people decide one way or the other because of teaching staff, location, extra-curricular activities or colleges but it's definitely worth applying to one, it only takes up one out of six of your UCAS choices.
Why exactly is there so much anti-Oxbridge feeling? What has either university ever done to annoy you? They are both great historical educational establishments and I feel more than privileged to be hopefully attending one next year. Have some respect.
Sarah x

Yes, it has got out of hand. When, without even being sure whose opinion you're reading, or quite what they've said, you're prepared to dismiss someone's opinions as 'rubbish', then I think we're probably moving out of a space in which reasoned discussion can occur.

As for the question of why there's so much anti-Oxbridge feeling - well, I think several people have explained their perspective, without (too much) invective, several times. Which particular point did you fail to understand?

Respect? I think the first stone was throne with the 'chips on our shoulder, disgruntled failures' type comments. You're right. A bit of respect would be nice.

In the final analysis, your point appears to be 'well, I want to go to oxbridge so it must be ok'. Which doesn't really seem to be much of an argument at all.

QUOTE(sbhoa @ Apr 19 2007, 08:11 PM)

Don't discount the fact that some children are disadvantaged educationally because at home education is not valued and they have parents telling them it doesn't matter.
For those children even the best school circumstances are not going to do much as whatever positives they get in school will be discredited at home.

A very good point, shboa.

My parents were very pro education. But they really didn't have a clue about higher education or how to help me prepare for it.

QUOTE(Barry Thain @ Apr 19 2007, 10:27 PM)

Hi Violinia

I've enjoyed reaading your latest posts but I haven't found a response to the question I asked in message 136 http://forums.abrsm.org/index.php?s=&s...st&p=498155

Either I've just missed it, or it may have been an oversight on your part. (I can't think you found my question unworthy of an answer.) So I hope you won't mind if I please ask again, if think the two-tier system is so iniquitous, which one-tier system would you prefer?

Best wishes

barry

I wouldn't presume to speak for violinia, barry, but for me (and I imagine she'd agree) it's the tax funded education system that I'd support. One the 'every school a good school' model.

I probably wouldn't go as far as to get rid of private education though. If people want to do that hey, whatever, I guess. But I'd want to unpick the social premium that's placed on that kind of education system, and the kind of privilege it potentially purchases.

Trebor

Apr 19 2007, 09:51 PM

QUOTE(meerkat @ Apr 19 2007, 10:46 PM)

trebor, I did explain with specific examples what the flaws with the study were. Self report. Retrospective. Demand characteristics. What more do you want me to say?

How that has affected the actual results. Why would those reasons make Oxbridge students say they're working harder? Surely the results are indicative of something?

Firebird

Apr 19 2007, 09:55 PM

QUOTE(Rainbow @ Apr 19 2007, 10:32 PM)

QUOTE(Jaunty Angle @ Apr 19 2007, 07:01 AM)

Now given also that a Private School students is likely to be more academically gifted than a state school student this is just unfair.

How can you possibly believe that?! I know that there isn't really a universally accepted definition of 'academic giftedness' (some people think that examination performance is a good indicator, some people think that other factors are more important) but it is preposterous to suggest that you can only be academically gifted if you attend a private school. Sure, some people are there on academic scholarships and are therefore likely to be bright, but there will also be people who are not so intelligent there. Also, if someone who had attended a private school with small classes, great facilities and good teachers and someone else who had attended your bog-standard state comp with huge classes, disruption, teacher shortages and didn't have access to the same range of facilities, got the same grades then it would surely be more of an achievement for the state school pupil, as they would have had to fight against the odds more.

And, just for the record, I've always been educated at state schools and got 10A*s plus one of the top 5 marks in the country for French at GCSE (that's not meant as showing off, I just want to show that if you define intelligence as grades, state school people are clearly not unintelligent! Several of my state-school educated friends have similarly high numbers of A*s and As at GCSE level).

Don't want to wade in and become too involved in an argument but in JA's defence I think that may actually be true - plus I think JA means "more likely to be academically gifted" than "likely to be more academically gifted", and definitely not that you can't be at a state school and gifted! I think you've misinterpreted it and taken it as an extreme statement when it wasn't meant to be

(Also for the record, I'm state school and have a similar academic record to you).

The reason I reckon it might actually be right is partly down to students on scholarship, partly down to parents who recognise potential in their child and thus make the financial effort necessary to send them there, and partly down to the fact a lot of high-earning jobs require intelligence. Intelligence is partly genetic and also partly down to home environment. So if the children of lawyers who are intelligent, worked hard and value education go to private schools then it doesn't surprise me that a lot of private school pupils are thus intelligent and often gifted, because they may well have had these values drummed into them as well as inheriting some of their parents' intelligence. I also think a lot of the nobility and upper class happen to be fairly bright as well, for whichever reasons that may be. Obviously there are exceptions to the rule as there are in every case but on average it's pretty likely that there's a higher frequency of gifted people at private schools than state schools.

Hoping she is not going to be shot down in flames,
Firebird

meerkat

Apr 19 2007, 09:58 PM

Well, I'd imagine there might be several reasons for this. Firstly, the sense of 'specialness' that's inculculcated in oxbridge students. They're told from day one that they're in the best possible of institutions, there's a big fuss socially about how special their place of education is, and how special they are to be there. You have to be extra specially clever to get in there, right? And being there means you get this super special education. What does super special education invovle? Good teaching, good resources, and lots and lots and lots of hard work. Right? Being special involves having the 'right stuff', being able to cope with unusual demands on your time and resources. Can you see how this prepares students to overestimate their workloads?

I'm not suggesting students 'lie'. I don't think these processes are conscious, and I'm sure that students believe that they're giving accurate estimates. But the reality is that, partiuclarly retrospectively, it is pretty much impossible to give accurate estimates, because of the kinds of issues I've just described.

Trebor

Apr 19 2007, 10:03 PM

QUOTE(meerkat @ Apr 19 2007, 10:58 PM)

I'm not suggesting students 'lie'. I don't think these processes are conscious, and I'm sure that students believe that they're giving accurate estimates. But the reality is that, partiuclarly retrospectively, it is pretty much impossible to give accurate estimates, because of the kinds of issues I've just described.

In which case how can you say that your students "work every bit as hard, if not harder than the oxbridge scholars I've met"?

meerkat

Apr 19 2007, 10:09 PM

Because I know what the course documents for their courses look like? We don't really need estimates, we can look at the module description and their requirements, and get a reasonable sense of what's required.

I also know that a lot of my students come at their education significantly educationally underprepared, having attended underfunded and problemmatic schools. I know how hard they work at having to get themselves up to speed, to learn essay writing skills, to acquire study skills. By this token alone, they have a huge mountain to climb, that oxbridge students pretty much never have to deal with.