Why are the privately educated skewed towards Russell Group Universities?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by ella896
Re: the part in bold, surely you must be joking? But I suspect you're in earnest, so (a) there is also evidence that IQ is no reliable measure for intelligence
Despite pop culture belief, IQ is actually a highly valid and reliable measure of intelligence.
Reliable: people get very similar values on retests.
Valid: it is a good predictor of many life outcomes e.g. educational attainment, job performance, etc.
and (b) correlation does not imply causation
His statement does not require causality for it to be true. Correlation suffices to support the claim that 'rich parents have children with high IQs'.
and (c) there is an abundance of anecdotal evidence about to contest that ridiculous statement.
I don't think you understand the concept of 'variance'. He did not claim that all rich parents have smart kids, nor that all poor parents have dumb kids. There is simply a difference in averages, which partially explains the overrepresentation of the privately educated at Russell Group unis.
To put in simpler terms for you: it's like he has claimed that there is a higher frequency of blondes in England than in France, and you've responded with 'what a ridiculous statement, there are plenty of non-blondes in England and plenty of blondes in France!'. I hope you can see how much that response misses the point.
Original post by Joinedup
Well think I've read that it does... but you're also right to be skeptical about people giving pat answers suggesting everything is running on nice clear tramlines.
A lot of people seem to get overexcited about correlations and averages imo - here's one way of looking at the correlation between IQ and occupation...
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf
from which it appears that the top 25% of Janitors have higher IQ than the bottom 25% of college lecturers.
A lot of people seem to get overexcited about correlations and averages imo - here's one way of looking at the correlation between IQ and occupation...
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/cde/cdewp/98-07.pdf
from which it appears that the top 25% of Janitors have higher IQ than the bottom 25% of college lecturers.
Yes, but what is the ratio of professions at high IQs?
Let's say you need a slightly above average IQ of 110 to go to a Russell Group uni.
From your chart, about 60% of college professors have >110 IQ. However, only the top 1-2% of janitors have >110 IQ. It's hardly surprising then that college professors' children will be way overrepresented at RG unis - even if the kids were brought up in totally identical homes.
(in reality IQ is not 100% heritable of course so there would likely be less than a 60x ratio - but it illustrates the point)
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by ClickItBack
Yes, but what is the ratio of professions at high IQs?
Let's say you need a slightly above average IQ of 110 to go to a Russell Group uni.
From your chart, about 60% of college professors have >110 IQ. However, only the top 1-2% of janitors have >110 IQ. It's hardly surprising then that college professors' children will be way overrepresented at RG unis - even if the kids were brought up in totally identical homes.
(in reality IQ is not 100% heritable of course so there would likely be less than a 60x ratio - but it illustrates the point)
Let's say you need a slightly above average IQ of 110 to go to a Russell Group uni.
From your chart, about 60% of college professors have >110 IQ. However, only the top 1-2% of janitors have >110 IQ. It's hardly surprising then that college professors' children will be way overrepresented at RG unis - even if the kids were brought up in totally identical homes.
(in reality IQ is not 100% heritable of course so there would likely be less than a 60x ratio - but it illustrates the point)
Must be at least 10% of janitors, the end of the bars are at 10% and 90% I think.
I'm pretty dubious about there being a 110 cutoff for admission to a RG uni - it might just about average to 110 but that means it's the 50% point of a range.
Original post by Joinedup
Must be at least 10% of janitors, the end of the bars are at 10% and 90% I think.
I'm pretty dubious about there being a 110 cutoff for admission to a RG uni - it might just about average to 110 but that means it's the 50% point of a range.
I'm pretty dubious about there being a 110 cutoff for admission to a RG uni - it might just about average to 110 but that means it's the 50% point of a range.
Yeah that's probably true, although the range will probably be curtailed quite heavily on the downside. Still, you can see why a distribution centred at 110 will have a pretty significant overrepresentation of college professors' vs janitors' children.
Original post by ClickItBack
Yeah that's probably true, although the range will probably be curtailed quite heavily on the downside. Still, you can see why a distribution centred at 110 will have a pretty significant overrepresentation of college professors' vs janitors' children.
Well no, because there are a lot more people with janitor status jobs than people with college professor status jobs.
Original post by Joinedup
Well no, because there are a lot more people with janitor status jobs than people with college professor status jobs.
'Overrepresentation' does not mean majority. It means 'overrepresentation'.
OP said: '32% of the students are privately educated. Private school pupils only make up around 7% of the UK population.'
That's not a majority. That's overrepresentation.
Original post by ClickItBack
'Overrepresentation' does not mean majority. It means 'overrepresentation'.
OP said: '32% of the students are privately educated. Private school pupils only make up around 7% of the UK population.'
That's not a majority. That's overrepresentation.
OP said: '32% of the students are privately educated. Private school pupils only make up around 7% of the UK population.'
That's not a majority. That's overrepresentation.
The numbers are important because even if child IQ is 100% inherited it means that there is a much greater number of Janitors children with IQ over 110 (say) than college lecturers children with IQ over 110... but only about twice as many janitors children getting into RG unis.
That's the representation problem.
Original post by striker10
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/dec/22/oxbridgeandelitism-oxforduniversity#data
As the data suggests, it seems like it's the Russell Group Universities that have a disproportionate % of privately educated pupils. For example, I am privately educated myself and I go to Nottingham University where over 32% of the students are privately educated. Private school pupils only make up around 7% of the UK population. It's the same with pretty much all the other Russell Group Universities, and with ex-Polytechnics it seems to be a lot lower %. Why is this?
As the data suggests, it seems like it's the Russell Group Universities that have a disproportionate % of privately educated pupils. For example, I am privately educated myself and I go to Nottingham University where over 32% of the students are privately educated. Private school pupils only make up around 7% of the UK population. It's the same with pretty much all the other Russell Group Universities, and with ex-Polytechnics it seems to be a lot lower %. Why is this?
First of all, the 7% figure is misleading. Around 15% of VIth formers attend Independent Schools Council member schools and more attend non-member colleges and crammers. The 7% figure is the all age figure and more VIth formers have private education than any age group except 2 year olds.
Whilst many posters have made points which are obvious about quality of education and some have made more tendentious posts about genetics, no-one has yet referred to subject choice and risk.
Independent schools tend to have a narrower VIth form offer, usually limited to the International Baccalaureate and A levels in a relatively narrow ranger of subjects than the VIth form offer in state schools and colleges. Those are the qualifications which are most valued by Russell Group universities which tend to offer a relatively narrow range of academic subjects.
If you compare the range of courses on offer at Nottingham Trent say with Nottingham, you will see that Trent has a wider range of courses and that the areas where Nottingham is absent tends to be in vocational courses.
One of the key things about the independently educated is the degree to which they have a financial security blanket from their family. That allows them to undertake academic courses which intrinsically have weaker job prospects. Children from families with less secure financial backgrounds tend to gravitate towards education with a much more secure vocational path. There is a strong cultural imperative among poorer families with a commitment to eduction to making that education pay which is more likely to be absent amongst wealthier families.
Oxford bemoans the fact that poorer and ethnic minority applicants tend disproportionately to apply to its hardest to enter (and most vocational) courses: medicine, law and economics and management. In a world where the chances of entering Oxford are low and the universities admission system makes it almost impossible to choose more than one subject, that remains a rational choice for those applicants, even if they are aware that an Oxford degree in classics is more employable than say a Nottingham degree in law.
77% of sports science graduates from Nottingham Trent are in employment within 6 months. 65% of history graduates from Nottingham are in employment 6 months after graduating. Almost certainly the history graduates are more intelligent than the sports science graduates.
Nottingham can bleat on for all it is worth that Nottingham has greater numbers doing further study. Nottingham can bleat on that its graduates on average earn more money. However, if you have no resources to undertake postgrad education; if you have no safety net to fall back other than Jobseeker's Allowance, the reality is that you are more likely to become and remain financially self-sufficient with a degree in kicking a football from Trent than a degree in Napoleon's Wars from Nottingham.
However....
Many Universities are very concious of the fact that these smug 'cookie-cutter' kids from private schools may be bright on paper, but in reality they tend to be a) lazy and b) boring.
They know that a class stuffed full of them will be deathly for subjects like Social Science and many Arts subjects where some experience of 'real life' is essential.
One of the issues is that BECAUSE of these kids many other people don't apply for RG Unis thinking that RG isn't for them ('I wont fit in') - when actually they will, and with bells on, because University staff welcome them with open arms and great enthusiasm because they are more interesting to teach, fight harder for opportunities and often have incredible motivation for success.
APPLY! Please apply!
Many Universities are very concious of the fact that these smug 'cookie-cutter' kids from private schools may be bright on paper, but in reality they tend to be a) lazy and b) boring.
They know that a class stuffed full of them will be deathly for subjects like Social Science and many Arts subjects where some experience of 'real life' is essential.
One of the issues is that BECAUSE of these kids many other people don't apply for RG Unis thinking that RG isn't for them ('I wont fit in') - when actually they will, and with bells on, because University staff welcome them with open arms and great enthusiasm because they are more interesting to teach, fight harder for opportunities and often have incredible motivation for success.
APPLY! Please apply!
Original post by chazwomaq
There is also evidence that private schools "inflate" achievement in the sense that privately educated students grades get worse degree outcome than state-educated students with equivalent a-level grades. This may be due to better teaching, smaller classes, more university /exam preparation.
There is also evidence that private schools "inflate" achievement in the sense that privately educated students grades get worse degree outcome than state-educated students with equivalent a-level grades. This may be due to better teaching, smaller classes, more university /exam preparation.
Original post by plasmaman
Is this contradiction a joke?
It's not a contradiction, although it can seem a little counternintuitive at first. See here for an article: http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/jun/16/accesstouniversity-private-schools
Think of it like this: take a student who would get BBB at a state school, and transport them into a private school. They may now get AAB instead because of better teaching. When they get into university, they receive the same academic environment as everyone else and end up with a 2.1.
Now take a state school student who would get AAB. They start off better than the other student but don't enjoy the benefit of improved teaching so end up with the same A level grades. But when they get to university, their true ability can shine through, and are more likely to get a 1st.
Original post by Birkenhead
This is true, but we are not necessarily comparing all private schools to all state schools.
For example, I would expect that the selective state schools are vastly overrepresented in Russell groups unis compared to non-selective states. Likewise, grammar schools will be overrepresented relative to comps.
So even if the average private school pupil is dull as dishwater, if the selective ones are filling the Russell group with their students, we end up with overrepresentation. For example, the school I went to selected the top 5% of applicants at 11 or something. So it was no wonder it ended up with loads going to Oxbridge - it had preselected the best at a young age.
Cultural reproduction, it's a long standing concept and basically goes over the stuff that has been mentioned in this thread, only in more detail
Well they should be. If you're paying all that money to send your kid to one of those schools to get a supposedly superior education, then they bloody well better end up at a good university. If private schools made no difference to how likely someone is to get into one of these universities then there would be no reason for their existence.
(edited 9 years ago)
As a private school alumni i can tell you that we are smarter and cope better in almost all social situations but that shouldn't put you off from applying we are few in numbers !
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by SamTheMan95
To the poster who said private school kids are smarter, you're wrong.
Well I'm happy to be proved wrong but I'd prefer evidence to assertion.
Lol all you have to do is get BBB and you'll get into the generic Russell group universities for a decent course that stat means nothing. Heck you could get CCC or BCC and get in if you do a foundation year and those grades are not out of reach for any half assed student in a state school.
If we're talking top russell group universities like Oxford, UCL, Cambridge, LSE then it's a different story though. Even the likes of warwick aren't that hard to get into depending on the course.
Russells are overrated and only a select group(top 5-10) are that selective to the point that you will struggle to get a place.
If we're talking top russell group universities like Oxford, UCL, Cambridge, LSE then it's a different story though. Even the likes of warwick aren't that hard to get into depending on the course.
Russells are overrated and only a select group(top 5-10) are that selective to the point that you will struggle to get a place.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by chazwomaq
Well I'm happy to be proved wrong but I'd prefer evidence to assertion.
What do you base intelligence on though? There are different ways to test it, be it via IQ, EQ etc. Also you'd have to find a way of standardizing the results as private schools are unequivocally better in their teaching in comparison to general state schools.
For the record I agree that the general private school kid is more intelligent than the state schooled kid.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by jam277
Lol all you have to do is get BBB and you'll get into the generic Russell group universities for a decent course that stat means nothing. Heck you could get CCC or BCC and get in if you do a foundation year and those grades are not out of reach for any half assed student in a state school.
If we're talking top russell group universities like Oxford, UCL, Cambridge, LSE then it's a different story though. Even the likes of warwick aren't that hard to get into depending on the course.
Russells are overrated and only a select group(top 5-10) are that selective to the point that you will struggle to get a place.
If we're talking top russell group universities like Oxford, UCL, Cambridge, LSE then it's a different story though. Even the likes of warwick aren't that hard to get into depending on the course.
Russells are overrated and only a select group(top 5-10) are that selective to the point that you will struggle to get a place.
I know this happens but c'mon - you make it sound like it's a regular occurrence.
Original post by lovs2spoodge
As a private school alumni i can tell you that we are smarter and cope better in almost all social situations but that shouldn't put you off from applying we are few in numbers !
Maybe private schooling generally instils in students a feeling of self belief and confidence, and they present better at interviews, just giving that edge over others with similar qualifications to see them through. Most decent universities are well over subscribed and have reputations to uphold, so my feeling is they genuinely strive to attract the best from the cohort regardless of where they came from and it's little things like self assurance, a good quality to have, making the difference. Of course over the following years at university they often discover they are in fact no better than the rest at the actual coursework and finish up with only average degree's
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
- Private school and Russell group university
- Northumbria or Newcastle University for Computer Science
- Widening Participation Rant
- Cardiff or Swansea University?
- Education
- Is the Russell Group still relevant?
- Is Durham University’s reputation true?
- Diversity
- If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to be
- Master in Economics at Birkbeck
- Training contracts
- Scared to apply for uni because of my GCSEs.
- What other course should I apply for?
- Is Greenwich Uni worth it?
- Interested in studying at a Russell Group University...?
- In which universities (UK & USA) can I apply with 4A in AS levels (CIE)?
- Can I get into engineering with these subjects at A level?
- Big big decision to make - Go to university or take a year out?
- A level subjects
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
