Turn on thread page Beta

Grammar Schools watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you support the existence of Grammar schools?
    Yay
    299
    81.03%
    Nay
    70
    18.97%

    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by poltroon)
    The consensus amongst law students is that, for the LNAT, coaching achieves no substantial benefits. If you wish to see evidence for this then I suggest that you travel to the Law forum on this forum and just ask.
    (Original post by poltroon)

    However, if you were to apply a little common sense to the matter then you would be able to perceive that, logically, it is not possible to boost your score in an aptitude test by practicing.

    An aptitude test is designed, not to test learnt facts or application of learnt principles; rather, it serves to elicit one's natural strengths. It assesses not what you think, but how. Take an example from the LNAT, one skill required to score highly might be the ability to make a fine distinction in terms of meaning between two different phrases or words. This is not an ability which you can teach. It depends primarily on having natural skills in verbal reasoning and logic.

    Therefore, practicing become meaningless since these skills which are tested are so fundamental that it is not as simple as to point out, with knowledge gained after, that the answer you gave is right or wrong. Any incorrectness would lie in, say, your lack of ability to distinguish finely enough the distinction which the question required. We are testing innate skills here, not teachable ones.


    I have to say, that though the LNAT predates me, it is very hard indeed, especially given evidence from the US, to create a standardised test the results of which are not improved by practice and learned technique.

    Of course, the ability is far more innate, than say, a French vocab test, but tutelage regularly helps.

    The LSAT for example in the US. There is an entire industry built around preparing would-be law school applicants for the test; companies like Princeton review, Kaplan, etc. Often people's scores jump about 20-30 percentile points.

    The same holds true for the MCATs, SATs, GMATs... and the LSAT is perhaps the one one might expect to be most unlikely to benefit from such aid.

    In the end, I think that a test that is truly disconnected from how much practice and coaching you get is an impossibility. However, like most things in life, the aim is for the best possible option, not perfection. Standardised test clearly do test some basic abilities and can to a large extent, grade the "raw material" as it were. They as such aid selection in areas such as law, where A levels are no longer anything like a proper gauge of ability.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Schooling isn’t the major issue for under-privileged kids.

    The real issue to be dealt with is parenting and social influences.

    The fact of the matter is, with the right support, and attitude, a little guidance can go a very long way indeed. With proper role models as well.

    If these are present, a child can easily excel in its studies.

    Though I am the complete opposite of such children, in that I have had private schooling my entire life, and am both very lucky and privileged, at age 17 I decided I didn’t want to go to History class. Instead, I taught myself the entire course in the Library. There is no reason why others cant do the same. Of course, it would be better if they didn't, but it proves the point that what goes on in the classroom is by no means the only important issue. You can throw all the money, teachers, and textbooks at a kid you like, but if he doesn’t have the right mindset, its like trying to soak up water with a brick.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Roger Kirk)
    Yep, I've been in a language and science double specialist school and now I'm in a science specialist school.

    And the LEAs for both schools provide no provision for the schools allowed selection of pupils in their admission criteria, so essentially there is no selection in either LEA (apart from the few Grammar schools there are in one area).
    Yes, common scenarios.

    There is an Technology College close by which can select up to 10% that show an aptitude for IT (this has now been disallowed, but the school because it was permitted when it received its speciality, does still make use of it) but only does so as part of its oversubscrition criteria, and after Statemented children, 'looked after' children,and siblings.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    It's your theory, it's up to you to bring forth the evidence to back it up.

    I know of no one who has felt this trauma you talk of, if you have evidence to show it is so wide spread, as you keep claiming, then it's up to you to bring forward this evidence.

    I have questioned repeatedly it's validity, on the basis that it does not sound realistic, if you can show different then please do so, but you seem unable to do so up to this point.

    If you are advancing this as your argument you need to back it up.
    You really need to do some reading about the effects of rejection at the 11+ on the people who went through it. There is plenty out there.

    Don't try to advance your denial of the insidious nature of 11+ failure by saying you have never met anyone who feels that way.

    There have been enough documented articles and TV programmes about it. Why, there was even a two-parter a couple of weeks ago on BBC2, Tuesdays at 7pm. The only ex grammar school pupil who thought the system was admirable was Sue Lawley. All the other celebs, both 11+ passers and failures thought the selective system is iniquitous.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Lawz-)

    I have to say, that though the LNAT predates me, it is very hard indeed, especially given evidence from the US, to create a standardised test the results of which are not improved by practice and learned technique.

    Of course, the ability is far more innate, than say, a French vocab test, but tutelage regularly helps.

    The LSAT for example in the US. There is an entire industry built around preparing would-be law school applicants for the test; companies like Princeton review, Kaplan, etc. Often people's scores jump about 20-30 percentile points.

    The same holds true for the MCATs, SATs, GMATs... and the LSAT is perhaps the one one might expect to be most unlikely to benefit from such aid.

    In the end, I think that a test that is truly disconnected from how much practice and coaching you get is an impossibility. However, like most things in life, the aim is for the best possible option, not perfection. Standardised test clearly do test some basic abilities and can to a large extent, grade the "raw material" as it were. They as such aid selection in areas such as law, where A levels are no longer anything like a proper gauge of ability.
    Why have you reduced your identity to a punctuation mark, Lawz?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    You really need to do some reading about the effects of rejection at the 11+ on the people who went through it. There is plenty out there.

    Don't try to advance your denial of the insidious nature of 11+ failure by saying you have never met anyone who feels that way.
    .
    Don't knock the grammar schools. I personally reckon there was way more social mobility then. If you look at that generation, there's so many examples of people who made it up from the most humble beginnings, and now that just doesn't seem to occur to the same degree. Anyway, regarding the 11+, I know a chap who failed it and got a first in Maths from Oxford...... just one example, mind you...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Ok, let me break this down for you
    Since you ignored my last post I'll make the point again.

    Your argument against the abolishment of grammars is basically that it wont't make a difference because of other factors (cachement areas, school reputation, existing trends in the school system will remain.) But in this very process, you are acknowledging there are faults in the education system but are saying 'why attempt to change it, it won't actually change anything'.

    But hypothetically, imagine the practicalities of cachement areas and school reputation were taken out and we had a clean slate. Do you believe that without grammar schools, education in this country would be a more equal and fair system?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by naivesincerity)
    Don't knock the grammar schools. I personally reckon there was way more social mobility then. If you look at that generation, there's so many examples of people who made it up from the most humble beginnings, and now that just doesn't seem to occur to the same degree. Anyway, regarding the 11+, I know a chap who failed it and got a first in Maths from Oxford...... just one example, mind you...
    Grammar schools do not educate the poor! That is why you don't see people from the most humble beginnings becoming socially and economically upwardly mobile these days.

    And your final point really says it all, since it is not as rare an occurence as you might think.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Why have you reduced your identity to a punctuation mark, Lawz?
    Heh ... thats my user title. My name is still there.

    Short answer - boredom.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Grammar schools do not educate the poor! That is why you don't see people from the most humble beginnings becoming socially and economically upwardly mobile these days.

    And your final point really says it all, since it is not as rare an occurence as you might think.
    :confused:
    1) Sorry, I didn't follow that too well. I'm referring to grammar schools as they were. What's termed a 'grammar school' now is somewhat different I believe.

    2)That's good isn't it?:confused:
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Heh ... thats my user title. My name is still there.

    Short answer - boredom.
    I was just concerned that you maybe felt so inadequate that you were reduced to nothing.

    Although to be bored that much is severe boredom, I'm please you retain your personality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    This is how great a part selection of up to 10% of applicants to some specialist schools play.

    http://www.specialistschools.org.uk/...=323&NodeId=42

    Less than 6% of those schools that are able to select up to 10% of their intake according to an aptitude in that speciality.

    How does this information affect your argument now?
    It doesn't.

    That doesn't tell us much, from that information it might be the case that the other 94% select up to 9.9% of their intake.

    It may mean the other 94% pick 0%

    It tells us very little.

    It only tells us that 6% select 10%, it doesn't tell us what the other 94% select, it also doesn't tell us the basis for that figure, is it an average, what is it based on etc?

    It's already been shown that we know some schools do not, but then it's also been shown that some schools can not, because of geographical location.

    We've already dealt with this point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I'm surprised you say that - we are obviously reading the same material through different sorts of eyes! Do you wear glasses? If not, I suggest you get some.
    No, my eye sight is perfectly good, which is why I can see that what you claimed was not there.

    Of course, it is nigh on impossible to say that the claims made in them can be made without doubt, since another can show the figures from a different perspective.
    Let us be clear here, no such claim is actually made in the documents you linked, is it?

    What you mean is you read some information and you personally interpreted the figures that way, but the figures themselves do not say the same thing at all, and do not contain various variables that could alter the results, in relation to this subject, significantly enough to reverse the findings?

    That's what you mean isn't it?

    So in other words they do not back up your claims.

    They are the material that you came to your opinion based upon.

    I did take the precaution of including research that emanated from both sides of the divide so I am astonished that you feel that none of them vindicate my posts, or indeed condemn them!

    Whatever, I think it's time you put your claims to the test and produce evidence to back up your assertions.
    No, it is your claims, therefore the onus is on you to provide the evidence.

    You can not prove a negative.

    If the research exists to back up your claim, then you can produce it, if it does not then your claim is mere supposition and not the concrete facts that you claimed.

    Can you produce the evidence to back up your claim or not?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Wrong - and proven to be wrong!
    Perhaps you will direct me to this proof?

    Or is it like your other proof, some how mysteriously never appearing?
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    It doesn't.

    That doesn't tell us much, from that information it might be the case that the other 94% select up to 9.9% of their intake.

    It may mean the other 94% pick 0%

    It tells us very little.

    It only tells us that 6% select 10%, it doesn't tell us what the other 94% select, it also doesn't tell us the basis for that figure, is it an average, what is it based on etc?

    It's already been shown that we know some schools do not, but then it's also been shown that some schools can not, because of geographical location.

    We've already dealt with this point.
    No, you misunderstand the numbers. It tells us that only 6% of specialist schools select any of their pupils. The 94% select none of their pupils at all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roger Kirk)
    No, you misunderstand the numbers. It tells us that only 6% of specialist schools select any of their pupils. The 94% select none of their pupils at all.
    Perhaps you will direct me to the words none, or zero, or nought percent?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    It doesn't.

    That doesn't tell us much, from that information it might be the case that the other 94% select up to 9.9% of their intake.

    It may mean the other 94% pick 0%

    It tells us very little.

    It only tells us that 6% select 10%, it doesn't tell us what the other 94% select, it also doesn't tell us the basis for that figure, is it an average, what is it based on etc?

    It's already been shown that we know some schools do not, but then it's also been shown that some schools can not, because of geographical location.

    We've already dealt with this point.
    It means that only 6% of those entitled choose to operate the facility for selecting up to 10% of their intake according to the specialism of the school.

    Why you should be arguing with semantics from the autoritative statement of the Specialist Schools Trust defeats me!

    You might like to think you've put this point to bed in your favour, but other contributors to this thread will have their view on your posts reinforced, ie that you challenge but do not produce anything substantial to do so. In other words, empty rhetoric.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    It means that only 6% choose to operate the facility for selecting up to 10% of their intake according to the specialism of the school.

    Why you should be arguing with semantics from the autoritative statement of the Specialist Schools Trust defeats me!
    As above, perhaps you will direct me to the words none, zero, or nought percent?

    You might like to think you've put this point to bed in your favour, but other contributors to this thread will have their view on your posts reinforced, ie that you challenge but do not produce anything substantial to do so. In other words, empty rhetoric.
    I think if you look at the poll voting so far you will see you have a little more faith in your argument than others do.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Perhaps you will direct me to the words none, or zero, or nought percent?
    Since you're the one refuting the statistics, the onus is on you to direct us to the words none, or zero or nought percent.

    You have the website, check, find if you can and post the relevant link.

    In the absence of this, we must accept that which is written.
    • TSR Community Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Community Team
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    Perhaps you will direct me to the words none, or zero, or nought percent?
    Don't be a ridiculous ares-hole. You know every well what the paragraph in the link says and are just being pathetic for sake of it. Either that or you have a serious deficiency in ability at making conclusions from simple English sentences.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

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

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