5 ms·

> It's letting in dumber people, worse students. Is it? Maybe a kid managing to struggle through a shitty school has to work harder than, say, Prince Charles

> It's letting in dumber people, worse students. Is it? Maybe a kid managing to struggle through a shitty school has to work harder than, say, Prince Charles with his private school and dedicated personal tutors.

gcau 1y ago
>Maybe a kid managing to struggle through a shitty school has to work harder It sounds like you think admissions should be based on how hard people think they worked relative to others.
- growse 1y ago
  Maybe they should be based on a range of factors that influence how successful the university thinks the candidate will be as an undergraduate? Not just exam results?
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  It means I think admissions officers sometimes know there’s more to a human than their raw test scores. They likely also know that a decent result at some schools requires more work than a great result at others. I’ve met smart people who do poorly on exams. I’ve met dumb people who do well on them.
happytoexplain 1y ago
The context is explicitly statistical, so yes, of course - but your point is valuable to keep in mind to avoid subconsciously painting individuals with the same brush as the big picture.
AlexandrB 1y ago
Maybe. Unfortunately it's very hard to measure that. Moreover, how hard you have to work doesn't necessarily correlate to how good you are. The reality is elite schools are supposed to filter for "the best and brightest" not "the hardest workers".
- afavour 1y ago
  > The reality is elite schools are supposed to filter for "the best and brightest" not "the hardest workers". I think the point the OP is making is that getting 4 A*s when you benefit from exemplary schooling and personal tutoring doesn't necessarily make you the best nor the brightest.
- hilios 1y ago
  >The reality is elite schools are supposed to filter for "the best and brightest" not "the hardest workers". Maybe they are supposed to do this, but let's not act like the filter doesn't quite apply the same way if your parents are rich and or well connected. They're however very effective in filtering out bright kids whose parents can't afford the tuition and aren't lucky enough to get a scholarship.
dukeyukey 1y ago
We're not talking about individual cases, we're talking about statistical averages.
- nicoburns 1y ago
  Statistical averages would tell you that you wouldn't have some schools getting 150 pupils into Oxbridge while others only get 2. But has long been the reality.
  - dukeyukey 1y ago
    No, they absolutely might, because schools group a load of students together with similar attributes relevant to academic success (quality of teachers, school funding, wealth of the surrounding area).
- trial3 1y ago
  Maybe the statistically average kid managing to struggle through a shitty school has to work harder than, say, the statistically average Prince Charles with his private school and dedicated personal tutors.
  - eastbound 1y ago
    This is quite the insult. We could fill the world with Maybes, but the one thing I’ve noticed about people who succeed, is that it’s generally their work that performs, while anticlass-based triage has only made hateful people reach high positions.
  - patanegra 1y ago
    Maybe statistically gifted child is more often than not born to parents who were gifted too. Then, they read more to the child, speak more with him. And maybe either have higher disposable income, or liberty to recommend books, and learn with the child. In the future, it's going to be a nil argument anyway, as world-class AI tutors are going to be available for every child 24/7 for a penny.
yodsanklai 1y ago
But does Oxford want the best student or some that had to work harder but ultimately aren't as good? In France, our elite scientific schools recruit students based on anonymous nationwide tests. It turns out most of the recruits come from privileged backgrounds, and I've heard this is more the case today than it was several decades ago. I'd love to see more diversity in these schools, but I prefer to maintain our educational excellence rather than dilute it artificially with worse students. I'm all for paying tutors to poorer but promising student, but they should be admitted against the same criteria as anyone else.
- growse 1y ago
  If you can pay to be better at the test, then the test just becomes a test of how wealthy you are.
- patanegra 1y ago
  Clearly, it's because talented people grow to the top (not just economically, they might be cultural elites, like people working in news, academia). Then, they marry people who are on the top. And they pass their genes and habits. It's nothing bad that their kids end up good students again. I think that French system is superior. It gives fair chances to everyone.
  - Ekaros 1y ago
    Honestly I feel like anonymous mass test in general is least worst way. Yes, parents can invest in tutoring and such. But there still needs to be effort and learning to do well on the test.
  - frotaur 1y ago
    This is not 'clear' at all. What is clear is the correlation. You imply that the cause is 'good genes and habit'. An equally, if not more valid cause is that having money makes it much easier to get good condition/tutors etc for preparing for the exams.
    - patanegra 1y ago
patanegra 1y ago
It's always the same argument. If you are world-class talent (someone who gets to Oxford), you should be capable of similar results as kids from independent schools. Like Joe Seddon did (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Seddon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Seddon - growing up with a single parent mom, working as a therapist in NHS). It isn't fair to ask ones to have 4A* and others to have just 3As. Only 1 in 2600 gets 4 A. And 1 in 83 gets 3 As. Making it 31 easier for people from state school is discrimination so bad, it should be illegal.
- asib 1y ago
  If it's so much easier to get into Oxbridge from a state school, why do you think people with the means send their kids to private school? They'd save so much money not doing so.
  - misnome 1y ago
    Maybe they aren’t doing it purely as a numerical exercise to get into a specific university 13 years in the future?
  - petesergeant 1y ago
    Most people sending their kids to the very best British schools are not expecting their kids to get into Oxbridge.
  - concernedParty 1y ago
    There is a growing number of parents who, because of this exact overt and known discrimination against applicants from private schools, will first send their kids to elite private primary schools and then they switch them to the best secondary state schools they can find, using the money to supplement their education with private one-to-one tutors. This is an entirely expected outcome. Water will find a way to ground.
    - patanegra 1y ago
      Oh yes, I have kids in a prep school where half of the class goes to Eton, and the rest to Winchester, Harrow, Seven Oaks, Derby... Now, for the past few years, almost no parents want to send kids to Eton. They know how much are those kids discriminated against. It's better to send them to a school with lower profile.
skippyboxedhero 1y ago
How would you measure this? Before you continue, there are governments in the UK that have created formulas to mathematically measure your level of "struggle"...these happen to, in a massive coincidence, benefit areas that vote for them. The same logic is also being applied within universities to boost grades as managers at universities have quotas to hit from government. This leads to odd situations where a subject like Scottish Law at Edinburgh has no quota for students without appropriate social credit because it is a subject which, unlike other courses at that university, gets largely Scottish students applying so it has to be used to fill quotas. And these students have to be carried to the end of their course because they are there to fulfill a quota. Sounds like a great idea but, as with everything like this, the assumption is that a university administrator or bureaucrat can accurately measure your struggle...they can't, I am sure the wisdom of this approach will dim when you are being operated on by someone who filled a quota at medical school.

gcau 1y ago

>Maybe a kid managing to struggle through a shitty school has to work harder It sounds like you think admissions should be based on how hard people think they worked relative to others.

growse 1y ago
Maybe they should be based on a range of factors that influence how successful the university thinks the candidate will be as an undergraduate? Not just exam results?
ceejayoz 1y ago
It means I think admissions officers sometimes know there’s more to a human than their raw test scores. They likely also know that a decent result at some schools requires more work than a great result at others. I’ve met smart people who do poorly on exams. I’ve met dumb people who do well on them.

happytoexplain 1y ago

The context is explicitly statistical, so yes, of course - but your point is valuable to keep in mind to avoid subconsciously painting individuals with the same brush as the big picture.

AlexandrB 1y ago

Maybe. Unfortunately it's very hard to measure that. Moreover, how hard you have to work doesn't necessarily correlate to how good you are. The reality is elite schools are supposed to filter for "the best and brightest" not "the hardest workers".

afavour 1y ago
> The reality is elite schools are supposed to filter for "the best and brightest" not "the hardest workers". I think the point the OP is making is that getting 4 A*s when you benefit from exemplary schooling and personal tutoring doesn't necessarily make you the best nor the brightest.
hilios 1y ago
>The reality is elite schools are supposed to filter for "the best and brightest" not "the hardest workers". Maybe they are supposed to do this, but let's not act like the filter doesn't quite apply the same way if your parents are rich and or well connected. They're however very effective in filtering out bright kids whose parents can't afford the tuition and aren't lucky enough to get a scholarship.

dukeyukey 1y ago

We're not talking about individual cases, we're talking about statistical averages.

nicoburns 1y ago
Statistical averages would tell you that you wouldn't have some schools getting 150 pupils into Oxbridge while others only get 2. But has long been the reality.
- dukeyukey 1y ago
  No, they absolutely might, because schools group a load of students together with similar attributes relevant to academic success (quality of teachers, school funding, wealth of the surrounding area).
trial3 1y ago
Maybe the statistically average kid managing to struggle through a shitty school has to work harder than, say, the statistically average Prince Charles with his private school and dedicated personal tutors.
- eastbound 1y ago
  This is quite the insult. We could fill the world with Maybes, but the one thing I’ve noticed about people who succeed, is that it’s generally their work that performs, while anticlass-based triage has only made hateful people reach high positions.
- patanegra 1y ago
  Maybe statistically gifted child is more often than not born to parents who were gifted too. Then, they read more to the child, speak more with him. And maybe either have higher disposable income, or liberty to recommend books, and learn with the child. In the future, it's going to be a nil argument anyway, as world-class AI tutors are going to be available for every child 24/7 for a penny.

yodsanklai 1y ago

But does Oxford want the best student or some that had to work harder but ultimately aren't as good? In France, our elite scientific schools recruit students based on anonymous nationwide tests. It turns out most of the recruits come from privileged backgrounds, and I've heard this is more the case today than it was several decades ago. I'd love to see more diversity in these schools, but I prefer to maintain our educational excellence rather than dilute it artificially with worse students. I'm all for paying tutors to poorer but promising student, but they should be admitted against the same criteria as anyone else.

growse 1y ago
If you can pay to be better at the test, then the test just becomes a test of how wealthy you are.
patanegra 1y ago
Clearly, it's because talented people grow to the top (not just economically, they might be cultural elites, like people working in news, academia). Then, they marry people who are on the top. And they pass their genes and habits. It's nothing bad that their kids end up good students again. I think that French system is superior. It gives fair chances to everyone.
- Ekaros 1y ago
  Honestly I feel like anonymous mass test in general is least worst way. Yes, parents can invest in tutoring and such. But there still needs to be effort and learning to do well on the test.
- frotaur 1y ago
  This is not 'clear' at all. What is clear is the correlation. You imply that the cause is 'good genes and habit'. An equally, if not more valid cause is that having money makes it much easier to get good condition/tutors etc for preparing for the exams.
  - patanegra 1y ago

patanegra 1y ago

It's always the same argument. If you are world-class talent (someone who gets to Oxford), you should be capable of similar results as kids from independent schools. Like Joe Seddon did (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Seddon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Seddon - growing up with a single parent mom, working as a therapist in NHS). It isn't fair to ask ones to have 4A* and others to have just 3As. Only 1 in 2600 gets 4 A. And 1 in 83 gets 3 As. Making it 31 easier for people from state school is discrimination so bad, it should be illegal.

asib 1y ago
If it's so much easier to get into Oxbridge from a state school, why do you think people with the means send their kids to private school? They'd save so much money not doing so.
- misnome 1y ago
  Maybe they aren’t doing it purely as a numerical exercise to get into a specific university 13 years in the future?
- petesergeant 1y ago
  Most people sending their kids to the very best British schools are not expecting their kids to get into Oxbridge.
- concernedParty 1y ago
  There is a growing number of parents who, because of this exact overt and known discrimination against applicants from private schools, will first send their kids to elite private primary schools and then they switch them to the best secondary state schools they can find, using the money to supplement their education with private one-to-one tutors. This is an entirely expected outcome. Water will find a way to ground.
  - patanegra 1y ago
    Oh yes, I have kids in a prep school where half of the class goes to Eton, and the rest to Winchester, Harrow, Seven Oaks, Derby... Now, for the past few years, almost no parents want to send kids to Eton. They know how much are those kids discriminated against. It's better to send them to a school with lower profile.

skippyboxedhero 1y ago

How would you measure this? Before you continue, there are governments in the UK that have created formulas to mathematically measure your level of "struggle"...these happen to, in a massive coincidence, benefit areas that vote for them. The same logic is also being applied within universities to boost grades as managers at universities have quotas to hit from government. This leads to odd situations where a subject like Scottish Law at Edinburgh has no quota for students without appropriate social credit because it is a subject which, unlike other courses at that university, gets largely Scottish students applying so it has to be used to fill quotas. And these students have to be carried to the end of their course because they are there to fulfill a quota. Sounds like a great idea but, as with everything like this, the assumption is that a university administrator or bureaucrat can accurately measure your struggle...they can't, I am sure the wisdom of this approach will dim when you are being operated on by someone who filled a quota at medical school.