Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    • Study Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Study Helper
    (Original post by JFA 95)
    x
    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.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JFA 95)
    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. :rolleyes:
    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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    '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'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" :rofl:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheBigGeek)
    I didn't sign up for Edexcel online results by June 30th... Does that mean I can't get them online?
    I'm afraid you can't
    If you have the card with a pin on you could always try register now but I doubt it will get you anywhere
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Guys do the grade boundaries come out exactly at 00:00 on the 14th?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ve_1995)
    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! :/
    Oh wow those sound cool! Only 3 days? Eek, I never keep track of time in the holidays, that's not enough time to harden the soul against the bad results :L
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    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.
    And why do you think that is? The richer children develop earlier because their parents raised their little angels with respect to education themselves, so that they'll be sitting at the top-ability tables in their primary school class later on, unlike many working class parents who just leave their kids to watch hours of TV and play computer games.

    And in relation to your other pre-20th Century right-wing comment 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, hence why they go to better universities, hence why they get better jobs, hence they earn more themselves. Case closed.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    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" :rofl:
    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'.

    (Original post by HPAG)
    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'm sceptical of this idea of potential - surely much of our potential is a result of our parenting? Parent's who are pushy will instill positive attitudes to their children, and make them work hard. They might do worse without a guiding hand, but arguably they would still be performing better than if they hadn't been pushed in the first place. So say we measure intelligence on a crude scale of 1-10. A child is at 5, pushed to 9, and falls back at uni to a 7. Their pushy parents have still pushed them up from 5 to 7.

    Like I've said before - I don't think pushy parenting is the best method, but I do think it that pushy parents tend to have above-average children.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    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 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):

    1. Their parents are intelligent, and, as such, are successful in their career or business. This means the parents become more wealthy, as a result of their intelligence. This intelligence is passed on to their kids, and the wealth is a side thing.
    2. Parents who are more wealthy can afford better education for their kids.

    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L'Evil Fish)
    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" :rofl:
    Woo high 5 for being poor! :woo:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    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.
    Explains it I'm doing Politics so excuse my obvious political affiliation!

    Well the one reform I was mostly referring to was the eradication of AS levels (And modules now you mention it) so we agree there.

    I've just always had this fundamental belief that standardised testing as it stands now is just a very flawed way of measuring a child's potential so emphasising upon that under Gove's leadership seems counter-productive to me. I'm not an education minister (although you might be someday) so I wouldn't know alternatives, but I've always been touched by this way of thinking:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-eVF_G_p-Y
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesTheCool)
    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.
    God you're dense. The difference between rich and poor students exists even for those who go to the exact same school! Any differences in the quality of formal education merely exacerbate an already-existent problem, that the children of poor parents aren't as intelligent as those of richer parents.

    And yes, that is because middle-class parents raise their children by giving them healthy food, setting appropriate rules, reading to them and using advanced vocabulary around them. Whereas some parents just put their kids in front of the TV all day. But this has nothing to do with wealth - it does not cost more to buy healthy food, it costs nothing to set rules and books are free from the library. What is wrong with this imbalance? Should we outlaw reading to your children because it gives them an educational advantage?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HappyBunny'93)
    Im starting university in September, and I'm 19 (20 in December). I left 6th form in may
    Best of luck on the 15th.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AspiringGenius)
    Woo high 5 for being poor! :woo:
    I held my nose when reading this, peasant.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Qwertish)
    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):

    1. Their parents are intelligent, and, as such, are successful in their career or business. This means the parents become more wealthy, as a result of their intelligence. This intelligence is passed on to their kids, and the wealth is a side thing.
    2. Parents who are more wealthy can afford better education for their kids.

    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.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kate113855)
    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
    see ill be doing the opposite, checking track because that way i wont have to get worked up over results, ill already have a ball park idea of it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesTheCool)
    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.
    Lolwut? No. Most rich people earn more because their parents were also successful in their career or business and hence earned enough money to send their kids to a superior school.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JENG)
    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.
    "Up to thirty" haha, my GCSE maths class got to 36 or 37 at one point, some people were three to a desk.
    But for A level, because fewer people take academic subjects, I wouldn't be surprised if class sizes are similar, mine are certainly as small as the privates near me.

    Anyway, I think you are just simply wrong here: Universities go out of their way not to favour private schools, certainly at the elite end, through using admissions tests and the like. I've seen (but can't find on the internet) Oxford university figures for the proportion of state/private school students who get firsts, seconds etc. It's essentially the same for both, implying that neither has an edge, as both state and private schools do equally well once you get there. Unless you're arguing that having your coursework written for you better prepares you for university life.

    Maybe slackers are kick-started into working harder, but I'm completely unconvinced that private schools hold any edge at all for diligent students, and I have a compariatively wide experience of such matters
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    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'.
    Free School Meals?

    You know what I mean.
    (Original post by AspiringGenius)
    Woo high 5 for being poor! :woo:
    :awesome:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PythianLegume)
    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.
    Yes, sorry, I skimmed most of the lest few pages . I do think there is a strong causal link between wealth and academic success (at least pre-University), since rich parents can afford to get tutors and whatnot for their kids.

    Intellect is a different issue, and the wealth is probably largely a by-the-way kind of thing that comes as a result of the intellect.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Help with your A-levels

    All the essentials

    The adventure begins mug

    Student life: what to expect

    What it's really like going to uni

    Rosette

    Essay expert

    Learn to write like a pro with our ultimate essay guide.

    Uni match

    Uni match

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course for you

    Study planner

    Create a study plan

    Get your head around what you need to do and when with the study planner tool.

    Study planner

    Resources by subject

    Everything from mind maps to class notes.

    Hands typing

    Degrees without fees

    Discover more about degree-level apprenticeships.

    A student doing homework

    Study tips from A* students

    Students who got top grades in their A-levels share their secrets

    Study help links and info

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threadsRules and posting guidelines

    Sponsored content:

    HEAR

    HEAR

    Find out how a Higher Education Achievement Report can help you prove your achievements.

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.