Grammar schools to return

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Grammar schools set to return: is that good or bad?
    Good
    704
    53.66%
    Bad
    608
    46.34%

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    (a) how patronising (b) yes they did in the golden age of grammar schools which were designed to take the top 20-25% of the entire ability range and (c) if you are selecting on intelligence and not preparation or the shiniest shoes, there shouldn't be a problem here.
    His claim may not very carefully formulated but it is closer to the truth than yours.

    Intelligence is highly heritable and probably mostly genetic. Most above average earners are of above average intelligence.

    Although grammar schools would be brilliant for high IQ children born to low IQ parents, these people will be very rare. But the main benefit of grammar schools is not helping out the rare geniuses from humble origins, the main benefit of grammar schools is making it cheaper for above average parents to have above average children.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeenFreestyle)
    Statistics don't lie; children from poorer backgrounds are hail from parents who aren't as smart and the child is less likely to be smart considering that intelligence hails from both nature and nurture.
    There are statistical differences but those differences are so small that there are still tens of thousands are eligible candidates.

    As a response to your post as a whole; you seem to think that bright students from poor families have no chance of getting into a decent grammar, however unless you provide some sort of evidence to further that claim then all I can do is disagree with that idea.
    Here's the data.

    http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-conten...arreport-2.pdf

    On average 22,000 pupils a year were admitted to grammar schools in 2008/11. 600 were eligible for free school meals.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    It very much does. The real world is horrifyingly segregated.

    Which is a good thing.
    Well if that's how you live enjoy the societal regression to tribalism. Technological progress and the corresponding class relations are changing. You people are the frogs in the boiling water and I can't honestly say I care what will happen to you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Orbital_Rising)
    Well if that's how you live enjoy the societal regression to tribalism. Technological progress and the corresponding class relations are changing. You people are the frogs in the boiling water and I can't honestly say I care what till happen to you.
    I'm not sure if you are a serious poster but I will say that segregation by ability is useful and is a mark - in practice even if rarely admitted - of civilisation, not primitivism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)

    Here's the data.

    http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-conten...arreport-2.pdf

    On average 22,000 pupils a year were admitted to grammar schools in 2008/11. 600 were eligible for free school meals.
    I'm sorry but is it really surprising that people from single parent mum's who will probably be eligible for free school meals have children who aren't smart enough to make a grammar school. People who are eligible for free school meals are usually from broken homes or poverty-ridden families. It's unlikely that the children from parents who can't afford to feed their own children would give birth to children who are of exceptional ability.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Here's the data.

    http://www.suttontrust.com/wp-conten...arreport-2.pdf

    On average 22,000 pupils a year were admitted to grammar schools in 2008/11. 600 were eligible for free school meals.
    This document says that 3% of grammar pupils received free school meals compared to 17% of other state pupils in selective local authorities.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    His claim may not very carefully formulated but it is closer to the truth than yours.

    Intelligence is highly heritable and probably mostly genetic. Most above average earners are of above average intelligence.

    Although grammar schools would be brilliant for high IQ children born to low IQ parents, these people will be very rare. But the main benefit of grammar schools is not helping out the rare geniuses from humble origins, the main benefit of grammar schools is making it cheaper for above average parents to have above average children.
    This is a distortion of statistics.

    People with very low intelligence almost universally have very low earning potential so it is hardly a surprise people earning over 27K a year (ie average earnings) on average have an IQ of greater than 100 (average IQ)

    Even if you find a highly statistically significant correlation of intelligence and income and that contention is deeply controversial and disputed we are still talking about about many tens of thousands of poor children with who intelligence will take them into the upper quartile of intelligence.

    The influence of intelligence on financial advantage has been poor over centuries. For almost a millennium the most intelligent male members of society, regardless of social position, took vows of celibacy
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    I'm not sure if you are a serious poster but I will say that segregation by ability is useful and is a mark - in practice even if rarely admitted - of civilisation, not primitivism.
    I am a serious poster. You know it is possible for people to have different opinions to you. I'm sure your education should have told you that.

    But in fact I appreciate what you are doing. I am pro-science and like statistics: I am not one of those liberals who denies facts. I have an understanding of genetic determinism, race realism and class IQ differences, and this may surprise you but the theories are more beneficial to the authoritarian left than the right. If it is proved that segregation is found in nature then extreme violence from the lower classes is not only justified but inevitable. So you are doing great work: continue promoting this information into the public sphere.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    The difference it would make is that high IQ wealthy parents could have their high IQ children somewhere else that is cheaper and still get to send their children to the school for high IQ kids.

    More money could be spent on raising children rather than on buying land.

    Anywhere that is in the catchment area of a grammar will rise in cost unless the government puts a cap on property prices around grammars which seems unlikely.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    This is a distortion of statistics.

    People with very low intelligence almost universally have very low earning potential so it is hardly a surprise people earning over 27K a year (ie average earnings) on average have an IQ of greater than 100 (average IQ)

    Even if you find a highly statistically significant correlation of intelligence and income and that contention is deeply controversial and disputed we are still talking about about many tens of thousands of poor children with who intelligence will take them into the upper quartile of intelligence.
    Yes you may well have a situation where 50% of pupils at grammar schools come from the bottom 90% of the parental IQ distribution and the other 50% from the top 10%. Quibbling about the precise numbers if you want but this seems to be roughly what we are observing in terms of private/state share of eventual top earners and high status workers.

    The influence of intelligence on financial advantage has been poor over centuries. For almost a millennium the most intelligent male members of society, regardless of social position, took vows of celibacy
    And now we encourage high IQ women to prioritise business admin jobs and end up with high IQ couples spending 100k/year on positional goods to support 1.5 children. Nothing new under the sun but it would be a start to recognise that this is a problem.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Anywhere that is in the catchment area of a grammar will rise in cost unless the government puts a cap on property prices around grammars which seems unlikely.
    No it won't, because the segregation value of a good neighbourhood is much less in a selective system. It doesn't matter if your neighbours' kids aren't in the top 25%; if your kids are, they will only have to interact at school with other top 25% kids. In a comprehensive system, they will interact with your neighbours' kids, whoever they are.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeenFreestyle)
    Statistics don't lie; children from poorer backgrounds are hail from parents who aren't as smart and the child is less likely to be smart considering that intelligence hails from both nature and nurture.

    As a response to your post as a whole; you seem to think that bright students from poor families have no chance of getting into a decent grammar, however unless you provide some sort of evidence to further that claim then all I can do is disagree with that idea. Rich people would choose private schools, and the grammar exists so the common man can give their child a decent education considering this nations attitude towards education in which a B is seen as a successful grade.

    You don't have this problem in Japan or Korea in which all the good middle and high schools have entrance exams because the culture realises that hard work pays and everyone is encouraged to work hard. Whereas here we just accept C's as a pass somehow when it's hard to get less than a C.

    You have this delusion where everyone should have the same education as if that's better. That doesn't help anything, potentially grammar tier students would go to trash comprehensive schools where they don't get pushed at all and they fail. Those same students who wouldn't be in a grammar won't be pushed anyway.

    I'd rather give my money to students that I know will be pushed and will achieve greater things.

    inb4 every student should be pushed amirite haha
    Your argument that only grammars can provide a good education and comprehensives are rubbish is a false one. You have not provided any proof grammars and secondary moderns like those in Kent are any better than comprehensive schools in other areas.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Orbital_Rising)
    I am a serious poster. You know it is possible for people to have different opinions to you. I'm sure your education should have told you that.

    But in fact I appreciate what you are doing. I am pro-science and like statistics: I am not one of those liberals who denies facts. I have an understanding of genetic determinism, race realism and class IQ differences, and this may surprise you but the theories are more beneficial to the authoritarian left than the right. If it is proved that segregation is found in nature then extreme violence from the lower classes is not only justified but inevitable. So you are doing great work: continue promoting this information into the public sphere.
    If you take this stuff seriously you can see that violence from the lower classes is irrelevant. Even with a large numerical advantage the lower classes would lose any conflict for same reason that Iraq would lose any conflict with the UK. Socialism is an upper class movement aimed at taking power from other upper class people. This is a pretty dangerous strategy. Generally when communist parties take power in revolutions they end up killing most of their senior members. Just enjoying an upper class lifestyle in peace makes more sense than upper class civil war.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    This document says that 3% of grammar pupils received free school meals compared to 17% of other state pupils in selective local authorities.
    The data is in the report but perhaps shown more clearly in the press release

    http://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchi...ts-fsm-pupils/

    The point is 3% to 17%, a factor of almost 6, for the same geographic area is highly significant.

    It wouldn't be tolerated in say healthcare
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    No it won't, because the segregation value of a good neighbourhood is much less in a selective system. It doesn't matter if your neighbours' kids are in the top 25%; if your kids are, they will only have to interact at school with other top 25% kids. In a comprehensive system, they will interact with your neighbours' kids, whoever they are.
    You are assuming grammars have no catchment area when of course they would have to. All schools unless they are private would need to limit where their students come from.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The data is in the report but perhaps shown more clearly in the press release

    http://www.suttontrust.com/newsarchi...ts-fsm-pupils/

    The point is 3% to 17%, a factor of almost 6, for the same geographic area is highly significant.

    It wouldn't be tolerated in say healthcare
    Maybe we're talking past each other. I am saying that grammar schools mainly benefit the wealthy for approximately the same reason that healthcare mainly benefits sick people.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    If you take this stuff seriously you can see that violence from the lower classes is irrelevant. Even with a large numerical advantage the lower classes would lose any conflict for same reason that Iraq would lose any conflict with the UK. Socialism is an upper class movement aimed at taking power from other upper class people. This is a pretty dangerous strategy. Generally when communist parties take power in revolutions they end up killing most of their senior members. Just enjoying an upper class lifestyle in peace makes more sense than upper class civil war.
    Whether the dictatorship of the proletariat lasts or is destroyed from within does not matter. It is satisfaction enough to know that in a permanent cycle of revolutions the bourgeoisie will not sleep peacefully. You know what they say: some people just want to watch the world burn. And the future is red.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    You are assuming grammars have no catchment area when of course they would have to. All schools unless they are private would need to limit where their students come from.
    Catchment areas do not matter in a grammar system.

    In the comprehensive system, all schools are supposedly just as good but in reality high IQ areas fill local schools with high IQ students who do much better than low IQ students. If you want your children to hang out with high IQ students, you need to be in a high IQ catchment area.

    In a grammar system, high IQ kids in low IQ areas are sent to high IQ schools anyway. Catchment area determines which grammar school they go to but not whether or not they will go to a grammar school.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LeenFreestyle)
    I'm sorry but is it really surprising that people from single parent mum's who will probably be eligible for free school meals have children who aren't smart enough to make a grammar school. People who are eligible for free school meals are usually from broken homes or poverty-ridden families. It's unlikely that the children from parents who can't afford to feed their own children would give birth to children who are of exceptional ability.
    Funny you should mention kids on free school meals. My kids have just been allocated FSM and my son was top of his year last year (year 8) and my other son is in all the top streams in his school for this school year.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 24, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you prefer to be told about sex by your:
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.