My friends son who is six has been identified as being talented and gifted at school. He was taken to Bridgewater School today to sit an entry test which he passed with flying colours. They said they would accept him as soon as after the next half term in Feb.

 

The problem is that there are no subsidised places until he reaches yr7. It will cost her ?600 a month to send him. She is dead set on sending him which means living on the poverty line for the next god knows how many years....she is a single parent so money is a big issue.

 

Is there any other way she can apply for help with her sons place at this school?

They are the only places in the UK that come close to competing on the world stage, such is the relative lack of funding in our system.

 

 

I think Brunel, LSE, UCL, and a whole host of redbricks who have top specialties would take issue with that statement.

My daughter is pretty bright. She goes to Little Lever now.

She says that 90% of the time the classroom is in chaos with disruptive kids.

Its ultimately affecting the ones who are actually there to learn and get on.

But the teachers have got to take some of the blame (if not all).

In our namby-pamby PC world-gone-mad - the teachers aren't up to dishing out the discipline.

And the parents of the disruptive kids are more than likely ready to knock f?ck out of any teacher who dares criticise little Rooney.

They are the only places in the UK that come close to competing on the world stage, such is the relative lack of funding in our system.

I think Brunel, LSE, UCL, and a whole host of redbricks who have top specialties would take issue with that statement.

 

Rubbish - what about Imperial for starters. OK I'm a bit biased there, and they don't do arty shit, but its not full of cu?ts on punts and it has had to earn its place on the top table.

 

 

Ok, sweeping statement perhaps, but the fact is that Cambridge and Oxford are not only the only British universities to feature in the world's top 10, but also the top 20. It is true that some places like Imperial are then close behind, and that are several world class individual departments scattered around other universities, but what I said is more or less true.

 

It's all about money - Harvard University spends more in a year than every single English university put together.

 

 

Anyway, this isn't what this thread about - just pisses me off when Cambridge is the subject of ignorant inverted snobbery, but I'm not going to change anyone's mind here, am I....

 

 

It is a bad thing that Labour have cut off access to independent schools for those who are gifted but can't afford it... I have heard that the Conservatives would revive the Assisted Places Scheme should they be elected, so there you go...

She says that 90% of the time the classroom is in chaos with disruptive kids.

Its ultimately affecting the ones who are actually there to learn and get on.

But the teachers have got to take some of the blame (if not all).

In our namby-pamby PC world-gone-mad - the teachers aren't up to dishing out the discipline.

 

The teachers are not allowed to dish out discipline, and to be honest, why should they? They are there to teach, not wallop little Rooney for being a c?nt.

 

They used to have special schools for nowtybacks, now its all this inclusion bollocks, to the detrment of the good kids.

 

And you also get parents hiding behind the 'special needs' tag. F?ck off, he's not got ADD or whatever, hes a little c?nt who knows no better becuase you yourself are a c?nt.

Hey I like Cambridge, my band played Girton for one of their balls and we played freshers week, so I'm all for the top universities having lots of money to throw at 18 year old spotty kids with guitars. However, as was pointed out what you said wasn't more or less true. It just wasn't true at all. If universities still accept only 54% of their pupils from state education they they should be held into account when around 90% of school children are in mainstream state education.

 

Now, I agree that its not all Brideshead Revisited, and of course there is the problem of state teachers not sending pupils to entrance exams due to such misconceptions. Also you are right that Oxbridge is under pressure from central government to increase their intake . Oxford's target being for 62% by 2012; Cambridge's target is for 60% to 63% by 2011 for state intake. The fact that they still have to set such targets is a crying shame for this country and its most able students whatever their economic background.

 

All the figures can be found in the Sutton Trust Report for which this article from The Guardian is based on:

 

One hundred schools, four-fifths from the private sector, account for nearly a third of all UK undergraduates starting at Oxford or Cambridge universities each year, according to research.

The study, published today, highlights how "a small cadre of elite 'feeder' schools" dominate Oxbridge admissions, and will raise fresh concerns that state schools are struggling to get their pupils into leading universities despite efforts to make Oxbridge more inclusive.

 

Only two state comprehensives make the list compiled by the Sutton Trust charity, which looked at where 1 million teenagers went to university over five years.

 

The results showed 30 schools, including two state grammars and one comprehensive, accounted for nearly one in six Oxbridge entrants.

 

Two hundred schools made up nearly half all Oxbridge entrants, while 3,500 other schools accounted for the remaining 52%. A similar pattern was detected with admissions to the 13 British universities at the top of league tables compiled by newspapers in recent years.

Edited January 29, 200818 yr by Crawley White

Typical socialist dogma Crawley. Turn a perfectly good discussion into a borefest and the opposition will probably give up.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Typical socialist dogma Crawley. Turn a perfectly good discussion into a borefest and the opposition will probably give up.....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

Indeed, facts are very rarely as interesting as opinions. Just wanted to show Crayons that we're not the inverted snobs he has us pinned as.

However, as was pointed out what you said wasn't more or less true. It just wasn't true at all.

 

Cambridge and Oxford are the only two UK representatives in the 'Premier League' that is the world's top 20 universities - it was just a fairly blunt response to the idea that Oxbridge is just a pile of wank, or whatever else it was that said... cunts in punts aside, as genuinely world class universities, they are a rare and valuable thing in the UK.

 

http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007fulllistbyrank.pdf

 

If universities still accept only 54% of their pupils from state education they they should be held into account when around 90% of school children are in mainstream state education.

 

Is it elite universities that should be held to account though, or those that organise the education system that feeds them?

 

The 90% figure is probably a misleading place to start - would it not be better to look simply at the pool of applicants who achieve something like 3 As at A-level in proper academic subjects? If the percentage of this group coming from state schools is disproportionately low, then that is a matter for the Government, not Cambridge University, in my opinion. Elite institutions should not be given quotas to meet. Elites are not inherently a bad thing - if I need complicated surgery at some point in the future, you bet your arse I want that person to be a member of an academic elite.

 

Cambridge does have a duty (to itself more than anybody else) to try and make sure that the right information is out there concerning what it is to study at Cambridge, and what it is not, busting the various myths along the way. Able people should not be put off from studying at Cambridge because of a fear that they don't have the right background, or their face doesn't fit - this is absolutely in Cambridge's own interest.

 

Equally, studying at Cambridge should not be expensive, so as to deter gifted people with limited resources. To be fair, I think a huge amount of progress has been made in this regard over the last 40 years, to the extent that it's now one of the most affordable places to study in the country. There is a hell of a lot of funding to tap into if money is tight, and accommodation is cheap - I'm actually abroad this year, but last year I was paying half the amount living in Cambridge that my sister was in Nottingham (proud of being number 70 in the world, by the way...).

Edited January 29, 200818 yr by M'crayons

Head teachers are peadophiles.

Cambridge and Oxford are the only two UK representatives in the 'Premier League' that is the world's top 20 universities - it was just a fairly blunt response to the idea that Oxbridge is just a pile of wank, or whatever else it was that said... cunts in punts aside, as genuinely world class universities, they are a rare and valuable thing in the UK.

 

http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2007/ARWU2007fulllistbyrank.pdf

Is it elite universities that should be held to account though, or those that organise the education system that feeds them?

 

the Government, not Cambridge University, in my opinion. Elite institutions should not be given quotas to meet. Elites are not inherently a bad thing - if I need complicated surgery at some point in the future, you bet your arse I want that person to be a member of an academic elite.

Cambridge does have a duty (to itself more than anybody else) to try and make sure that the right information is out there concerning what it is to study at Cambridge, and what it is not, busting the various myths along the way. Able people should not be put off from studying at Cambridge because of a fear that they don't have the right background, or their face doesn't fit - this is absolutely in Cambridge's own interest.

 

 

 

That's not the point, of course you would like someone who is properly trained to be your consultant, the point is has there been people who could have made it up to this level for whom the educational system has failed them.The fact that Oxbridge recives more in government funding than all the other universities in Britain put together means they are absolutely accountable to the British taxpayer to make sure that they are open to everyone. The facts brought out in the Sutton Trust report in 2007 show that this is not case.

 

Did you go to Beech House by any chance?

Without wanting to sound like a peasant, the rest of us have not a f?ckin clue what you two are on about.

 

At least put in words we understand so we can join in.

 

Thanks.

That's not the point, of course you would like someone who is properly trained to be your consultant, the point is has there been people who could have made it up to this level for whom the educational system has failed them.

 

But it's the school education system that fails people - the elite universities should just be choosing the best people available, rather than being instruments of social justice.

 

 

The fact that Oxbridge recives more in government funding than all the other universities in Britain put together means they are absolutely accountable to the British taxpayer to make sure that they are open to everyone. The facts brought out in the Sutton Trust report in 2007 show that this is not case.

 

Did you go to Beech House by any chance?

 

Firstly, where have you come with that stat from - that Oxford and Cambridge get more government money than all the other British universities put together?

 

Secondly, if Oxbridge has to choose its candidates on any grounds other than academic ability, does that not compromise the value for money that the taxpayer gets? They should not be open to everyone, they should be open to those who are most able, regardless of background. Targets are a nonsense - I'll repeat my view that Oxbridge should not be able to see what kind of school their applicants attended (though I accept that there will often be plenty of clues).

 

And I've never heard of Beech House...

Edited January 29, 200818 yr by M'crayons

Secondly, if Oxbridge has to choose its candidates on any grounds other than academic ability

 

It does that is the problem FFS. The old polytechnics will have anyone with a pulse, the red bricks use exam results and in some cases interview but Oxbridge is all about the interview and consequently subjective opinion.

Cambridge and Oxford are the only two UK representatives in the 'Premier League' that is the world's top 20 universities -

Depends entirely on what list you read eg

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/hybr...sp?typeCode=144

places Imperial in the top 5 and as close to Oxbridge as makes no difference. Plus it puts UCL in the top 10 as well.

Sheffield was in the top 5 when I studied there, at least for a night out.

But it's the school education system that fails people - the elite universities should just be choosing the best people available, rather than being instruments of social justice.

Firstly, where have you come with that stat from - that Oxford and Cambridge get more government money than all the other British universities put together?

 

Secondly, if Oxbridge has to choose its candidates on any grounds other than academic ability, does that not compromise the value for money that the taxpayer gets? They should not be open to everyone, they should be open to those who are most able, regardless of background. Targets are a nonsense - I'll repeat my view that Oxbridge should not be able to see what kind of school their applicants attended (though I accept that there will often be plenty of clues).

 

And I've never heard of Beech House...

 

 

Oh so your not a Bolton Schoolie? What you say would be right if both these institutions better reflected the wider educational estabilishment. Are you seriously telling me that from the tiny % of feeder schools come the best and brightest of britain? Anyway its a futile argument students should pick the best course for their needs, the fact that Middlesex University (a new university) gained a higher rating in modern languages than either oxford or cambridge according to the league tables and that Manchester is better for dentistry, Southampton better for engineering etc etc show that the old school tie might not be best of future employment.

 

Oxbridge needs to refelct the best of Britsh academia, the simple fact is that it doesn't, the government recognises this and therefore targets are set. No one is saying there should be lowering of academic standards of achievement but both universities need to do more to make themselves more acceptable to a bright kids who are coming out with 3 or 4 A's from local comps. At the moment, they don't do enough hence why they have set those targets.

Oh so your not a Bolton Schoolie? What you say would be right if both these institutions better reflected the wider educational estabilishment. Are you seriously telling me that from the tiny % of feeder schools come the best and brightest of britain? Anyway its a futile argument students should pick the best course for their needs, the fact that Middlesex University (a new university) gained a higher rating in modern languages than either oxford or cambridge according to the league tables and that Manchester is better for dentistry, Southampton better for engineering etc etc show that the old school tie might not be best of future employment.

 

Oxbridge needs to refelct the best of Britsh academia, the simple fact is that it doesn't, the government recognises this and therefore targets are set. No one is saying there should be lowering of academic standards of achievement but both universities need to do more to make themselves more acceptable to a bright kids who are coming out with 3 or 4 A's from local comps. At the moment, they don't do enough hence why they have set those targets.

 

Well, yes, different places have different strengths. Equally, these tables often have questionable methodology, and there can be large discrepancies between them (and that THE table that Satan produced is generally regarded as being significantly less 'academic-based' than the Shanghai one, but nevertheless still does little to support his statement that Oxbridge are a pile of wank).

 

Just exactly what is it that you think two of the world's best universities aren't doing "to make themselves more acceptable to a bright kids who are coming out with 3 or 4 A's from local comps" that they should be doing?

 

 

 

And if you do want to know my background - my dad's from Little Lever, my mum's from Salford, both went to Farnworth Grammar, my mum went to university (Nottingham), my dad didn't, and both sacrificed a lot to put me through Birkenhead School, a private school on the Wirral.

Well, yes, different places have different strengths. Equally, these tables often have questionable methodology, and there can be large discrepancies between them (and that THE table that Satan produced is generally regarded as being significantly less 'academic-based' than the Shanghai one, but nevertheless still does little to support his statement that Oxbridge are a pile of wank).

 

Just exactly what is it that you think two of the world's best universities aren't doing "to make themselves more acceptable to a bright kids who are coming out with 3 or 4 A's from local comps" that they should be doing?

And if you do want to know my background - my dad's from Little Lever, my mum's from Salford, both went to Farnworth Grammar, my mum went to university (Nottingham), my dad didn't, and both sacrificed a lot to put me through Birkenhead School, a private school on the Wirral.

 

GCSE's in armed robbery, car jacking and benefit fraud for you then!

Smiffs has it reet. The rest of us should gracefully withdraw and leave these two to their cerebral jousting. Personally, I find this far more interesting:-

 

Well, yes, different places have different strengths. Equally, these tables often have questionable methodology, and there can be large discrepancies between them (and that THE table that Satan produced is generally regarded as being significantly less 'academic-based' than the Shanghai one, but nevertheless still does little to support his statement that Oxbridge are a pile of wank).

 

Just exactly what is it that you think two of the world's best universities aren't doing "to make themselves more acceptable to a bright kids who are coming out with 3 or 4 A's from local comps" that they should be doing?

And if you do want to know my background - my dad's from Little Lever, my mum's from Salford, both went to Farnworth Grammar, my mum went to university (Nottingham), my dad didn't, and both sacrificed a lot to put me through Birkenhead School, a private school on the Wirral.

 

 

But I thought you said that Oxford and Cambridge justified their status by using such league table results? You are very defensive, I'm not attacking the institutions just the way they justify their intake. I'm afraid that many teachers simply don't take their brighest pupils to go through the interview process because of the reputation of these universities rather than what you are arguing is the reality. Therefore they need to do something about how they are percieved in local comps and with 'ordinary' teachers.

 

You are obviously a bright kid with a fanastic future ahead but personally I don't believe in the public school system, regardless of the scrimping and saving done by your parents. Every child, reagrdless of economic background, should have equal opportunites in higher education and the elite universities and they don't.

Oh and for Bolty

 

Edited January 29, 200818 yr by Crawley White

Alright mate, given that your opening contribution to this thread was 'private schooling is the biggest load of bollocks this country has ever had to deal with', perhaps we were never likely to get anywhere.

 

As one last point on this, let me reassure you that I know Cambridge University goes to enormous lengths with its 'Target and Access' schemes to address how it is perceived in 'comps and with ordinary teachers'. The truth is, misconceptions and myths will always survive as long as this English penchant for class warfare does....

Alright mate, given that your opening contribution to this thread was 'private schooling is the biggest load of bollocks this country has ever had to deal with', perhaps we were never likely to get anywhere.

 

As one last point on this, let me reassure you that I know Cambridge University goes to enormous lengths with its 'Target and Access' schemes to address how it is perceived in 'comps and with ordinary teachers'. The truth is, misconceptions and myths will always survive as long as this English penchant for class warfare does....

 

 

And with you believing that Cambridge's 'Target and Access' schemes actually work and that these fine institutions reflect the wider education system you are probably right we are never going to agree, you've swallowed the dogma.

 

As I said nothing against these universities or the students (still have friends who are graduates - most of whom went to their local comp) but I don't buy the bullshit that there is equal access to all and this years findings from the trusts report seems to back me up.

 

I'm waiting to be convinced by you and I'm not. My default position is not that I don't agree with the system from some inverted snob classist misconception but that the figures about intake don't lie.

 

Anyway, enjoyed the debate and now you enjoy Formal Hall.

Have I entered a parallel forum?

FWIW, I agree with you both like.

Have I entered a parallel forum?

FWIW, I agree with you both like.

What was the question again ?