Oxbridge state schools no so bad
Moderators: Section Moderators, Forum Moderators
Re: Oxbridge state schools no so bad
If I had to stick my neck out I would say that 11+ results correlate more closely with current achievement than potential; and even more closely with social class. I think if you could measure a parental determination quotient (PDQ), they would correlate most closely of all with that!Tree wrote:Amber you are right this is clearly controversial and your point about how you do the testing etc is very valid and it might be that IQ test result correlates with social class rather than real IQ. In the same way that 11 plus test result correlates with academic potential rather than the inherent abilty it is testing.
I totally agree with you and is support of this threads hypothesisThat higher social classes are more wealthy and more high-achieving, of course, is a different matter and cannot be disputed
I have made the point in other threads that GS is no more socially diverse than independent schools; but I don't think this supports a hypothesis that intelligence is the magic key into either; more that accessibility to both is confined, in reality or in perception, to the middle classes; and in the case of independent schools, the wealthy middle classes.
Re: Oxbridge state schools no so bad
Amber i tend to agree with you i think, although i'm not clear where you stand on the original hypothesis do you think that non selective state schools contain the same population of children with respect to their academic potential based on there inherent ability and environment.
Anyway I think like ian35mm i have presented my whole case now and will stop posting on this thread (huge sighs of relief echo around the forum)
Anyway I think like ian35mm i have presented my whole case now and will stop posting on this thread (huge sighs of relief echo around the forum)
Re: Oxbridge state schools no so bad
As the thread seems to have run its course (I seem to have the knack of killing these things!) then I will respond to your question with another non-answer!
Several of my friends did not allow their children to sit GS or indie tests for ideological reasons. These parents are middle class, a couple of them are wealthy, and their children are all intelligent. They are now in, or about to start, non-selective schools. Many teachers will not allow their children to sit for GS (others will
); people of certain political persuasions ditto. So if you want to look at the argument that high social class begets intelligence then you would expect lots of intelligent children to get into non-selective education this way.
If that argument about social class is abhorrent to you (like me) then you would have a very hard time arguing about intelligence and non-selective schools: here it boils down to perceived rights of access and the lower social classes tend not to fetch up in GS or indie. So the IQ itself in non-selective schools ought to represent the national averages. But it isn't all about IQ, as we know. Parental support/drive; peer pressure; values and aspirations - you cannot just look at the IQ of an intake and try to extrapolate meaningful data about achievement.
None of this applies in areas where there are no GSs or selective indies, so the figures there ought to be comparable.
As for the original hypothesis: totally unprovable either way, I would say.
Over and out.
Several of my friends did not allow their children to sit GS or indie tests for ideological reasons. These parents are middle class, a couple of them are wealthy, and their children are all intelligent. They are now in, or about to start, non-selective schools. Many teachers will not allow their children to sit for GS (others will
); people of certain political persuasions ditto. So if you want to look at the argument that high social class begets intelligence then you would expect lots of intelligent children to get into non-selective education this way.If that argument about social class is abhorrent to you (like me) then you would have a very hard time arguing about intelligence and non-selective schools: here it boils down to perceived rights of access and the lower social classes tend not to fetch up in GS or indie. So the IQ itself in non-selective schools ought to represent the national averages. But it isn't all about IQ, as we know. Parental support/drive; peer pressure; values and aspirations - you cannot just look at the IQ of an intake and try to extrapolate meaningful data about achievement.
None of this applies in areas where there are no GSs or selective indies, so the figures there ought to be comparable.
As for the original hypothesis: totally unprovable either way, I would say.
Over and out.
Re: Oxbridge state schools no so bad
It has as far as I'm concerned, a very lengthy response vanished into the ether at 1am last night and I really can't be bothered to repeat the thing. And this is the second attempt to post this as well, must have offended the gods of political corectness.Amber wrote:As the thread seems to have run its course...
Mike
Re: Oxbridge state schools no so bad
Amber (i promise this really is my last post) you are right it is not provable and i suppose that is reason enough to not compare schools. Although i do think the evidence is there and i think this post has covered the topic well enough to provide people with the evidence to make their own minds up.
