do grammar schools give students a fair or unfair advantage for places like uni etc.
(I go to a grammar school so i may be biased) i was reading a petition online to abolish grammar schools because it gives students an unfair advantage and causes emotional distress to those who fail the 11+.
But the way I see it is that people who pass the 11+ are more academic and don't have to be held back by going to a comp. Also it allows people who maybe aren't very wealthy to get a good education without splashing out on a private school.
But the way I see it is that people who pass the 11+ are more academic and don't have to be held back by going to a comp. Also it allows people who maybe aren't very wealthy to get a good education without splashing out on a private school.
(edited 11 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
Not at all. Is the education system really 'fair'?
I'd say It's impossible to be fair since some people work harder than others, read outside of the curriculum or get private tuition and the like, so when it comes to exams and applying to universities some people are better prepared than others.
Should we close down Oxford Uni because it takes the elite students and is therefore 'unfair'? Should we stop eager students reading outside of the curriculum because it's unfair to the others who will be sitting the same exams?.....
Anyway, that's just my opinion
I'd say It's impossible to be fair since some people work harder than others, read outside of the curriculum or get private tuition and the like, so when it comes to exams and applying to universities some people are better prepared than others.
Should we close down Oxford Uni because it takes the elite students and is therefore 'unfair'? Should we stop eager students reading outside of the curriculum because it's unfair to the others who will be sitting the same exams?.....
Anyway, that's just my opinion
Original post by jay12345man
(I go to a grammar school so i may be biased) i was reading a petition online to abolish grammar schools because it gives students an unfair advantage and causes emotional distress to those who fail the 11+.
I guess it depends on wether you think that the clear advantage that is given is actually unfair or not
But the way I see it is that people who pass the 11+ are more academic and don't have to be held back by going to a comp.
Does this mean that others should be held back
Including those who clearly demonstrate high academic skills that were not exposed by the 11+
Also it allows people who maybe aren't very wealthy to get a good education without splashing out on a private school.
So this raises a few points
The first would be ... is all other education "not good"
The second would be you missed out the word some
Th third ... and most relevant ... I am surprised at your naivety if you think that Grammar School places are not (on the whole) bought by parents with money ... money to get tutors in particular ... perhaps you went to a Grammar School where this was less common but it is the case in so many Grammar Schools
Original post by TenOfThem
Th third ... and most relevant ... I am surprised at your naivety if you think that Grammar School places are not (on the whole) bought by parents with money ... money to get tutors in particular ... perhaps you went to a Grammar School where this was less common but it is the case in so many Grammar Schools
Th third ... and most relevant ... I am surprised at your naivety if you think that Grammar School places are not (on the whole) bought by parents with money ... money to get tutors in particular ... perhaps you went to a Grammar School where this was less common but it is the case in so many Grammar Schools
Maybe this is just my experience but I go to a grammar school in Plymouth which is in a pretty bad area iykwim and although i chose not to be tutored many people did regardless of how rich their family is so I don't think it is a matter of parents not being able to pay for a tutor. In fact many schools offer free tutoring so it's not really a problem.
,,
(edited 11 years ago)
I've always been in favour of grammer schools, but recently I've started to think that a non-grammer school with a strict "sets" system may be preferable. I do not think that the top students should be taught with the bottom students in any subjects - generally teachers have to teach at the pace of the slower students. The top students should learn with the other top students, middle-y students and bottom students should do the same. As well as having similar benefits to a grammer school system, there is more flexibility, so if someone shows they have been categorized incorrectly then it is easier to rectify the situation.
Original post by TenOfThem
Th third ... and most relevant ... I am surprised at your naivety if you think that Grammar School places are not (on the whole) bought by parents with money ... money to get tutors in particular ... perhaps you went to a Grammar School where this was less common but it is the case in so many Grammar Schools
Th third ... and most relevant ... I am surprised at your naivety if you think that Grammar School places are not (on the whole) bought by parents with money ... money to get tutors in particular ... perhaps you went to a Grammar School where this was less common but it is the case in so many Grammar Schools
Rich parents will also hire tutors for their children's GCSEs and A-levels. That doesn't mean that high grades are on the whole bought by parents with money. Less well off students may have to make more effort without the extra support than their richer peers, but both groups have exactly the same opportunities to do well in the same exam if they're willing and able to work for it.
Grammar schools do not completely eliminate the gap between rich and poor, but they do narrow it considerably compared to comprehensives. Most grammar schools are prepared to offer some outside support for free, which is often just as good as the assistance that a hired tutor would provide.
Original post by thegaffer91
I've always been in favour of grammer schools, but recently I've started to think that a non-grammer school with a strict "sets" system may be preferable. I do not think that the top students should be taught with the bottom students in any subjects - generally teachers have to teach at the pace of the slower students. The top students should learn with the other top students, middle-y students and bottom students should do the same. As well as having similar benefits to a grammer school system, there is more flexibility, so if someone shows they have been categorized incorrectly then it is easier to rectify the situation.
Grammar schools were designed (at least from 1944) to operate in a particular world. One key component of that world was never delivered, that is a body of technical schools for high achievers with technical skills.
Another key component has been lost from most but not all areas with grammar schools. Grammar schools were designed to take the top 25% of the ability range. That still operates in places like Lincolnshire and deepest rural Kent where there are few interlopers. However, the 25th brightest out of 100 pupils at a Slough junior school doesn't get into a grammar school.
The intellectual elite should be nourished.
Original post by Azarimanka
The intellectual elite should be nourished.
That isn't self evident.
Why should my taxes go to pay for the education of people who will get by on their own. These people aren't going to steal my car, trash my town or create social problems for the next generation. Why should my money go on them?
I don't go to a grammar school but I think it's a load of rubbish. They're basically you shouldn't be naturally bright or work hard as it's unfair on everyone else! It's stupid if you're good at something you should be allowed the chance to work at it and (hopefully) thrive in it.
As an individual who went to a state school for GCSE but a grammar school for A Level, it does give you an advantage but I wouldn't say it's unfair.
For starters, you're pushed to a much higher ability in classes and you're surrounded by like minded students who also produce work to a high standard. Everyone in your set is aiming for a top grade. For me, this definitely meant I was more productive, there's a sense of competition as everyone wants to be getting high marks. In my comprehensive school, we'd spend ages going over "how to achieve a c in gcse history" and I just switched off. This is definitely an advantage, you're not dragged down by lower ability students who need more attention to achieve, meaning the teacher can tailor the lesson to higher grade stuff.
Secondly, you're also encouraged to achieve your dreams way more. In comprehensive, our teachers would often say certain dreams were too ambitious however since getting into a grammar they're much more supportive and this to me, pushed me even further. At comprehensive it was almost as if I should just be content with whatever.
In short, if I stayed in my comp and did not move for sixth form then I don't think I would be on track for decent grades. Of course this is unique to me personally, and I know there are many comp's out there which are high achieving however my school was certainly not one of them. And, also, grades are dependant on a persons own ability, the school can only do so much preparation.
For starters, you're pushed to a much higher ability in classes and you're surrounded by like minded students who also produce work to a high standard. Everyone in your set is aiming for a top grade. For me, this definitely meant I was more productive, there's a sense of competition as everyone wants to be getting high marks. In my comprehensive school, we'd spend ages going over "how to achieve a c in gcse history" and I just switched off. This is definitely an advantage, you're not dragged down by lower ability students who need more attention to achieve, meaning the teacher can tailor the lesson to higher grade stuff.
Secondly, you're also encouraged to achieve your dreams way more. In comprehensive, our teachers would often say certain dreams were too ambitious however since getting into a grammar they're much more supportive and this to me, pushed me even further. At comprehensive it was almost as if I should just be content with whatever.
In short, if I stayed in my comp and did not move for sixth form then I don't think I would be on track for decent grades. Of course this is unique to me personally, and I know there are many comp's out there which are high achieving however my school was certainly not one of them. And, also, grades are dependant on a persons own ability, the school can only do so much preparation.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by nulli tertius
That isn't self evident.
Why should my taxes go to pay for the education of people who will get by on their own. These people aren't going to steal my car, trash my town or create social problems for the next generation. Why should my money go on them?
Why should my taxes go to pay for the education of people who will get by on their own. These people aren't going to steal my car, trash my town or create social problems for the next generation. Why should my money go on them?
Because they are the people that might come up with a solution for the future problems.
Fine - fund the thickies, since the intellectuals shall 'get by on their own', and reap what you sow. You need to stretch the intellectual elite group as much as you need to keep the thicks out of trouble.
Original post by Azarimanka
Because they are the people that might come up with a solution for the future problems.
Fine - fund the thickies, since the intellectuals shall 'get by on their own', and reap what you sow. You need to stretch the intellectual elite group as much as you need to keep the thicks out of trouble.
Fine - fund the thickies, since the intellectuals shall 'get by on their own', and reap what you sow. You need to stretch the intellectual elite group as much as you need to keep the thicks out of trouble.
That is a perfectly reasonable view but the reason I said what I said is because too often on TSR it is taken as a truism and it isn't.
Everyone assumes that it's the education system, but the differentiation of exam boards is a major contributor..
Teachers now teach to get their students to pass their exam.
French- You don't learn much needed french vocab, you learn the vocab for the exam.
Same for history, french, psychology etc...
The marks should be modular and assesed through the year in sectioned off exams, because that would allow greater flexibility and an ability to cover more of the course, not a direct focus on the small section of content needed for a final exam.
The 'new' exam system (RECYCLED) will just serve to further disadvantage students until the real problems are addressed..
Teachers now teach to get their students to pass their exam.
French- You don't learn much needed french vocab, you learn the vocab for the exam.
Same for history, french, psychology etc...
The marks should be modular and assesed through the year in sectioned off exams, because that would allow greater flexibility and an ability to cover more of the course, not a direct focus on the small section of content needed for a final exam.
The 'new' exam system (RECYCLED) will just serve to further disadvantage students until the real problems are addressed..
There's a video on Youtube by Nottingham University's physics department about admissions in general. I believe their stance was that they look at the school only as a basis to see how the student is doing against their classmates. For example, an AAA student at a top college would be perfectly suitable to go on the course, but an AAB candidate from a really awful college where most people get 3 fails would show real promise and the ability to study a lot harder. They must also be a lot more dedicated because they've managed to get so far. Depending on the factors, both might still be allowed onto the course, but the AAB candidate could be a lot more promising for them.
I would hope universities do not have a black-list of colleges.
I would hope universities do not have a black-list of colleges.
Original post by jay12345man
Maybe this is just my experience but I go to a grammar school in Plymouth which is in a pretty bad area iykwim and although i chose not to be tutored many people did regardless of how rich their family is so I don't think it is a matter of parents not being able to pay for a tutor. In fact many schools offer free tutoring so it's not really a problem.
As I said ... your Grammar experience is different to many ... Lots of tutors (particularly in the London/SE) charge a lot of money and the situation does not remove the imbalance between rich/poor that you might "hope" a Grammar School would
Original post by ed-
It definitely gives an advantage but not an unfair one.
Why shouldn't the best students be allowed to thrive?
Why shouldn't the best students be allowed to thrive?
Using the rather narrow definition of "best" that operates in most Grammar SChool areas?
I believe that all students should be given the chance to thrive ... don't you?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Is the 11 plus the unfairest of all academic exams?
- Should we scrap all grammar schools or build new ones?
- Is grammar school actually better?
- Is french a-level useless?
- Do you think it's unfair for students to have extra time + laptops?
- Contextual offer debate
- why is life so unfair? why do privileged people think of themselves higher?
- Labour plans to add 20% VAT to Private School fees.
- Best universities for magic circle law firms
- Are Latin and Ancient Greek GCSE more desirable to top uni's than other subjects?
- Rough schools and the attainment gap
- Widening Participation Rant
- University of Stirling interview
- My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.
- imposter syndrome for place at uni?
- Is Durham University’s reputation true?
- Unfairly deregsitered from university
- My parents are going to put me into state school for a levels so uni admissions easie
- Swapping out a resit/capped module?
- Is Getting 4A*s better than 3A*s in A-levels
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 ?
