15 August 2013 A-Level results: Discussion thread - results day is here!

You're clearly very knowledgeable on this subject!
Nevertheless, if Gove truly wanted to increase social mobility in the way you think he does, he would take into consideration the fact that these reforms coinciding with huge cuts to state schools is going to heavily affect performance of poorer schools.

You and I clearly have a different opinion on what direction these reforms should be taken (You, rigor and stricter examinations, me, work outside of examinations -alternative means of measurement, not that I know how, what, where etc), but I think the timing itself is pretty damaging, hence my belief that Gove is highly indifferent to how much state schools are suffering at this point in the deep dark depths of austerity.

'Raw intelligence' is a difficult principle to pin down.

You can't disagree - at nursery age, there is already a gap between rich and poor children - look up the evidence for this.

I didn't sign up for Edexcel online results by June 30th... Does that mean I can't get them online?

Wow good luck!! haha thanks. I do history (which I'm droppping), Classics, English lit and Psychology I can't believe it's only 3 days now! :/

Rubbish. Wealth is highly correlated with intelligence, from the earliest ages. Before children start education, richer children are already about a year above their poorer peers.

I'll take your word for the evidence, what do you define as "poor" btw?

I always get slightly annoyed when people say rich = more intelligent because I'm probably "poor"

I do agree pushy parents (as defined by you) are a pain. I just feel that even these kids will not perform well, if at the end of the day, they are not capable of doing so. These pushy parents are more of a case of people trying to get their kids to perform beyond their potential. Some may perform well because they have the potential. But this could create a problem when they don't have their pushy parents behind them at university not because they don't have the ability to perform it's because they were never instilled with the inner urge to perform to their potential.

I think you'll find that richer people tend to get into better universities because they are more intelligent. I don't think it's fair that rich kids are more intelligent, but it is an undeniable fact. Wealth is strongly correlated with intelligence, but that correlation is mostly coincidental - you don't need money to raise a smart child.

I'll take your word for the evidence, what do you define as "poor" btw?

I always get slightly annoyed when people say rich = more intelligent because I'm probably "poor"

I have an offer to study Education, so I do know a fair bit about this.

There aren't huge cuts to state schools - school funding is ring-fenced. The only reason they might be worse off is if prices for things are increasing, and this is outside of Gove's control, possibly even the government's.

I don't necessarily support all of Gove's reforms are good. I was merely pointing out his justification, to show that he wasn't the elitist you accused him of being. I do think some exams should be harder, but only because the top students cannot be distinguished at the moment. I don't think that removing modules is the right way to do this - I definitely support keeping AS-Levels, and don't mind modules if they are done well so that you can't just cram and then forget after the exam. Removing modules might even benefit independent schools - I was merely pointing out that this was not Gove's intention.

And why do you think that is? The richer children develop earlier because their parents raised their little angels so that they'll be sitting at the top-ability table in their primary school class later on, unlike many working class parents who leave their kids to watch TV and play computer games.

And in relation to your other right-wing, pre-20th Century belief about rich people earning more because they're smarter - most rich people earn more because their parents inherited enough money to send them to a superior school in the first place, so they could go to a better university, and get a better job, so that they could earn more themselves. Case closed.

Im starting university in September, and I'm 19 (20 in December). I left 6th form in may

Woo high 5 for being poor!

I don't think this is coincidental at all; there are two pretty good causative explanations for kids from wealthier backgrounds being more intelligent (if you measure intelligence by academic success):


Imo, it's a combination of the two. Intelligent and successful parents are likely to instill their own values into their kids, and as such their kids will value education and will want to do well as well. Additionally, as a result of their intelligence, the parents are wealthy and can afford to send their kids to the best school, get a tutor, or whatever.

I will definitely NOT be logging into Track, because I'd rather get it all over and done with with my results. If it says declined on my firm and then I have to wait to get my results it's gonna drive me crazy

And in relation to your other right-wing, pre-20th Century belief about rich people earning more because they're smarter - most rich people earn more because their parents inherited enough money to send them to a superior school in the first place, so they could go to a better university, and get a better job, so that they could earn more themselves. Case closed.

its simple wealth means you can afford a private school where you find one teacher teaching a relatively small group of students at a time. Whereas at a state school one teacher can be teaching up to thirty students. Therefore at state schools you don't get the opportunity of having a teacher go round to students one by on and giving you in depth help as there are too many students in a class. Whilst In a private school the teacher can spend lots of time with each student. I have been to both private and state schools however at private schools teachers will sit will sit with each student and literally write their course work for them. As a result even the not so bright at private will do well at GCSE'S AND A-levels. don't forget private tuition as well--money buys that.

Well, it's a correlation - DJMayes was just saying he was on FSM and he has an offer from Cambridge.

I don't define poor, the studies than examine this difference define it. They probably use different methods - FSM is a commonly used indicator of being 'poor'.

Woo high 5 for being poor!

As I said to someone else - coincidental was the wrong word, I meant to say that the link between wealth and intellect is not causal, and is primarily because smart parents tend to be wealthy, so they pass on their smart genes and raise their children to be smart. If wealth was a significant contributor to intelligence, then there would be no smart poor people, which is clearly untrue. That leads me to a conclusion that factors other than wealth are the most significant.

Ah well, that is how your post was read from my point of view and if it isn't bad, then logically competition must be good?

Have you considered that competing is just a means to an end? For example, students who want to apply to competitive universities will typically attempt to obtain higher grades than if they simply coasted and landed a place with lower entry requirements - here the competition is just a means to an end with two positives - the university gets hard working students and the student obtains their favoured place.

Unfortunately, huge cuts are necessary, it simply isn't good fiscal policy to sit on debt and do nigh on nothing about it, so in the circumstances I'd say the education budget has it alright. However, I would agree that there are other areas of spending which could be cut, or even better removed entirely and re-routed to other departments.