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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Good for them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't blame Oxbridge students for being sensitive about the media/government constantly slurring their university as being elitist and racist. Issues such as these are rife in all of Britain's top universities, worse in some, but using Oxbridge and a grandiose picture of a beautiful college just sells better to the average tabloid reader.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mummyperson)
    Perhaps the tories will reintroduce grammar schools
    I thought they were supposed to be thinking about it.

    This idea that pupils on FSM have to learn by themselves and have no adult support from teachers or parents is far, far too stereotyped. Oxford seems to be doing a great job to level the playing field but when it gets to interview then surely the pupil who's worked really hard at private school shouldn't be penalised either.

    Not sure why you think state schoolers might be rejected on those grounds alone, I thought it was the less successful independents who claimed prejudice now!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well if the Daily Mail says so then I guess it must be true... :holmes:

    (Awfully misleading headline though. They also are incredibly vague in saying the 'poorest state school students' and giving no more information, so yes, of course they can manipulate the statistics to make it seem like they are telling a story different to the other hundreds that have already been out.)
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mummyperson)
    Also it is quite weird to get a negative reputation for saying London is better than Cambridge ( 8 people) and the poor are less likely to have the resources to achieve highly. (1 person)
    If anything convinces me that some Oxbridge people have chips on their shoulders and dislike any real debate and discussion this does. Move a little away from the ivory tower.
    You're getting negative reputation because you appear to think that being a 'mummyperson' gives you the right to be patronising and sanctimonious towards everybody else. And it doesn't exactly help that you're always so ready to blame it all on chips on shoulders instead of allowing for the possibility that *maybe* the way in which you phrase your posts has something to do with it as well.:rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by intellectual1)
    Private pupils 55 times as likely to go to Oxbridge

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-Oxbridge.html

    Children at independent schools are 55 times more likely to go to Oxford or Cambridge than the poorest state school students, a report has found.
    I don't see what the problem is. There are only so many places at Oxbridge anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hobnob)
    You're getting negative reputation because you appear to think that being a 'mummyperson' gives you the right to be patronising and sanctimonious towards everybody else. And it doesn't exactly help that you're always so ready to blame it all on chips on shoulders instead of allowing for the possibility that *maybe* the way in which you phrase your posts has something to do with it as well.:rolleyes:

    Oh well, being a mummy person I can take it, but I guess, as you are young and vulnerable you can't.
    So...actually Hobnob I have been impressed by the tireless and steady way in which you support people on the Oxford thread, I also happen to really really like Oxford and have been impressed to an extent by its its admission process. Both I and my children are fortunate. I just (being old and widely travelled socially and geographically) want other less fortunate people to be able to access the opportunities. Because it is in nobody's interest for Oxford or Cambridge to become ivory citadels.

    The attitude that there are no inequalities, that any discussion or publication of facts is Oxford bashing, and that an older person must be patronising etc is ridiculous. Those who think this should learn respect. Think outside the ivory box.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mummyperson)
    The attitude that there are no inequalities, that any discussion or publication of facts is Oxford bashing, and that an older person must be patronising etc is ridiculous. Those who think this should learn respect. Think outside the ivory box.
    :lolwut: Wow, do you seriously believe that that's what I think?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hobnob)
    :lolwut: Wow, do you seriously believe that that's what I think?
    Yes. Clearly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    According to the Office of National Statistics, Chinese girls does the best at GCSEs. And most of them are not affluent.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mummyperson)
    Yes. Clearly.
    Then I'm afraid you can't read properly. Oh well, I'm happy to spell it out:

    1. Of course there are inequalities. Lots of them. But they are linked to the fact that some groups are severely disadvantaged by the present school system (for whatever reason). Students who qualify for free school meals are far less likely to even take A-levels, never mind go to university and complete a degree. That's the real issue here. By constantly harping on about Oxbridge, as though that were the only way of measuring educational achievement, the papers are diverting people's attention from it. Oxbridge is a side-issue here.
    And yes, those figures are constantly used to make Oxford and Cambridge look as though they actively discriminate against poor people / applicants from comprehensives, and that's doing more harm than good. You can't be terribly observant if you've never noticed this.

    2. I have nothing whatsoever against 'older people', as you call them. What I do take issue with, though, is an 'older person' waltzing into a student forum and expecting to be 'respected' for her superior knowledge, and getting stroppy and insulting when she isn't, because her knowledge isn't actually that superior. You are patronising, whether you realise it or not, and it was about time that someone told you so directly.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show...php?p=29020497
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I sure hope so.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The headline is ridiculous - it might as well be:
    Students achieving at least AAA are 1000 times more likely to go to Oxbridge

    They really should teach some basic econometrics at school so that at least a majority of people will recognise the blatant omitted variable problem with that statistic.
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
    I took the following off a post from the Guardian to illustrate the mischief:

    "In 2008 176 free school meals (FSM) students got AAA at A Level.

    In 2009 10,066 students attending independent schools in England got AAA at A Level.

    If you assume that the number of FSM students who got AAA in 2009 is similar to the 2008 figure, then you can calculate that:

    Students from private schools are 57 times more likely to get AAA at A Level than state school students who receive free school meals."
    Another obvious problem with this is: how many FSM students are there compared to students attending independent schools? If there are only 200 FSM students while there are 100,000 independent school students then those stats could say that the FSM students are doing a lot better! Of course I doubt this is the case but without being presented with that information you can't draw anything useful from what is given.
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
      Thank you and well said; the figure of 1000 is, I believe, an understatement. Personally, I think everyone should receive a two-minute lesson in statistics every day, you don't even need to bother with econometrics to realise that virtually all of these studies are a joke. The only thing you need to learn, and have repeated daily, is that correlation does not imply causation - that would end all these pointless articles predicated on the basis of the "perceived statistical inequality implies discrimination" line.

      The headline is, of course, nonsense and typical of the kind of facile, headline-grabbing garbage from the blatantly-left-wing Sutton Trust, haters of academic selection, grammar schools and the working classes generally. These liars have already propagated the lie that state-school educated students do better at university and now want to take their class war one step further.

      I took the following off a post from the Guardian to illustrate the mischief:

      "In 2008 176 free school meals (FSM) students got AAA at A Level.

      In 2009 10,066 students attending independent schools in England got AAA at A Level.

      If you assume that the number of FSM students who got AAA in 2009 is similar to the 2008 figure, then you can calculate that:

      Students from private schools are 57 times more likely to get AAA at A Level than state school students who receive free school meals."

      FSM is regarded as a dodgy statistical proxy for poverty. FSM students may be 55 times less likely to go to Oxbridge, but they are 57 times less likely to achieve the basic prerequisite grades for entry, but in the era of rampant populist bile and anti-Oxbridge sentiment, this is the kind of nonsense that is used by journalists and champagne socialist quangos to indulge in the nastiest forms of social engineering. Just because 5.3% of students are on FSMs does not imply that 5.3% of students at Oxbridge should be FSM students. As with the case with Black Britons, the problems lie within those categories, not with Oxbridge.

      It's about time Oxbridge stopped wasting their time on these garbage lines and went on the offensive - admissions are (or should be) based on the academic merits of students, not predetermined statistical quotas.
      Thank you! Some common sense here at last!

      Brilliant post and I 100% agree with everything you say.
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Bubblyjubbly)
      "In 2008 176 free school meals (FSM) students got AAA at A Level.

      In 2009 10,066 students attending independent schools in England got AAA at A Level.

      If you assume that the number of FSM students who got AAA in 2009 is similar to the 2008 figure, then you can calculate that:

      Students from private schools are 57 times more likely to get AAA at A Level than state school students who receive free school meals."
      Is this supposed to be deliberately bad statistics to prove a point? (i.e. that you can pick out some numbers and divide them to get whatever you want?)

      Doesn't that actually just say that 57 times as many independent school pupils get AAA as those getting free school meals, and nothing about the relative likelihood of a given pupil in either situation getting AAA. To talk about the likelihood of that outcome you would need to know how many pupils in total finished school whilst on free school meals, and how many in total finished at independent schools, to find the probability of a randomly selected pupil having gotten AAA in each case.

      e.g. obviously these numbers are ridiculous, but if there'd been a total of 200 pupils on free school meals and 652000 at independent schools finishing their A-levels, you'd work it through to find out that free school meals students are 57 times more likely than independent school students to get AAA!

      Edit: Just spotted that alex_hk90 has already said this but in fewer words! Never mind...
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Xhotas)
      ....What did you expect?
      What are you trying to imply ?
      Offline

      1
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Beska)
      I could so easily become a Daily Mail journalist.

      ETON PUPILS 700,000,000 TIMES AS LIKELY TO GO TO OXBRIDGE
      than KoKo the gorilla
      Im not liking your sig
      • TSR Support Team
      Offline

      19
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Rubbaduckzilla)
      Im not liking your sig
      I don't have a sig, brah.
     
     
     
  1. 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.

  2. Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  3. 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.

  4. 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.