Unfair bias against private schools

Perhaps, but in less depth, which is generally far easier - doing 8 standard grades/GCSE is a lot easier than 3 AH/A-level.

But if this toni magg is not a useless toff then why did (s)he go to a public school when I assume (s)he could have done perfectly well at the local comprehensive?

Makes no sense!

I think the people who took this year's P3 paper would be inclined to disagree

bhaal85: see my earlier post about my opinions regarding elitism and public vs. state schools!

Ah, that reminds me - your exam system sounds a lot easier - as I'm sure iiikewldude can vouch for. You get loads of papers each covering/counting for a small amount, can do resits, and your previous years work actually counts for something. We get a paper or two at the end of each year, that's it! We have a lot less room for error, and very little room to improve.

Is this the IB?

Please, folks, not everything is necessarily better at private schools. Some things are and some things are not. Some teaching is worse than some state schools; some classes are larger; some students are less able; some students are poorer! Every school different AND varies over time in terms of student attainment. To lump all private schools as by definition 'good' is as silly as labelling all state schools as failing.

Ah, that reminds me - your exam system sounds a lot easier - as I'm sure iiikewldude can vouch for. You get loads of papers each covering/counting for a small amount, can do resits, and your previous years work actually counts for something. We get a paper or two at the end of each year, that's it! We have a lot less room for error, and very little room to improve.

You're limited to what papers you can resit when. Only the level one resits are available in November for example. So the resit system doesn't aid us in applying for universities, for example, because we haven't had a chance to resit at that point (unless by some crazy means you manage to cover a 1 year syllabus in a couple months for the january season)

Everybody's subject to the same rules anyway. So it's not like it devalues the individual grades.

The system certainly sounds a lot more forgiving though - my school Rector brought this up with me when I mentioned applying to Oxford as he felt it would disadvantage me, but there was nothing we could do about it.

In the words of iiikewldude, one of the few people who've experienced both systems - "I did an A level in physics as well but that was pish and i'm pretty sure i nailed an A for that - the English get it so much easier than us.". Okay, this is one person's opinion, but based on the A level material I've seen it sounds right on the mark.

How can it be? If it were that forgiving we'd all be overachieving our uni offers. You can't make exams easier without expecting a response. Unis ask for more (AAAA or AEA or STEP).

With all due respect, he wasn't doing 4-5 of them! And this is the same Alevel material which covers more than your AH maths?

Thanks to you all for the response and encouragement everyone. In no particular order:
(i) I applied for History, but I'd rather not say which college as it might identify the admissions tutor (who was very helpful / supportive afterwards). It was an older college.
(ii) The fact that there is a quota for private schools does NOT mean that there is one for state schools: the quota for private schools is a certain maximum. There is no max for state schools, only a min that corresponds to the complement of the private school max.
(iii) The school received a report afterwards which made absolutely no reference to any quota, I have to say, but didn't fault my application in any respect. Consequently, the school contacted the college and that's what led (eventually) to the talk with the tutor. The implication was that the college (rather than the university) had an imposed or self-imposed max for private school applicants, and had (slightly) exceeded that limit in the previous years. I am firmly of the opinion that colleges make adjustments over a three-year rolling average (if you see what I mean) so that their figures don't exceed a quota.
(iv) Taking my experience into account, I would advocate a blind points system for each subject for each university. I believe they have something like it in the south of Ireland. It would mean going to a general, broad, bacc-style exam - 6 subjects say - so awarding points out of 600. The market would then determine the threshold for each subject for each university, based on the UCAS applications. Law at Oxbridge might be 570; Law at Nottingham might be 500; etc.
(v) I am not in favour of 'positive' discrimination; as someone from an upper working class background, and female, I can do without being patronised; I'll get there on my own bat or not at all.
(vi) My school reported the matter to the TES - against my wishes - but they weren't interested.
(vii) I'm looking forward to getting into Oxbridge because I believe (honestly) that admissions aside, if one can do the business there, they do NOT care about gender / race / creed / background. ROLL ON NEXT YEAR!

Love

toni

AH maths covers harder and more in depth areas

which only appear in further maths down south, so is still the harder course in my opinion. Obviously A level maths AND further maths will be harder than AH maths alone, but as a single course AH certainly sounds like the harder of the two.

Yes, he didn't do 4-5, but he sat AH and A level exams in the same year - and aside from doing both in the same subjects (rather pointless) I can't see any fairer comparison.

bhaal85: But if this toni magg is "not a useless toff" then why did (s)he go to a public school when I assume (s)he could have done perfectly well at the local comprehensive?

Makes no sense!

toni magg: I can understand why you ended up at a Public school and I have sympathy for the family reasons which made boarding useful. However, where boarding is not a neccessity and where a pupil is bright enough not to be coached I just think that it is the parents' and pupils' moral responsibility to choose to go to the local comprehensive (hats off to roundabout!)

That is really the only way that you can improve the school system by making comprehensives more representative of class and intelligence percentages throughout the country.

To pick up where roundabout left off, I chose as my first choice my local comprehensive which had 20% (and is still at 20%) 5A*-C and subsequently went into Special Measures (toni: failing according to Ofsted!). I achieved 8,8,7 at KS3 - above my peers from primary school who were equally clever/same background and went to much better secondary schools (grammars and Public).

I am awaiting GCSE results but I don't expect them to be very good (relative to my peers) because I didn't bother revising very much. I achieved an A* in ICT a year early (yes even 'bog standard' comprehensives let you take exams early if you're good enough) but this year I didn't work very hard and my brain didn't turn on in many of the exams so am expecting a maximum of 6A and 5B (maximum).

My point is - it a student is actually clever they can do well anywhere if they are prepared to put in a little bit of work. And I concur with roundabout that I have widened my horizons by mixing with the 'dangerous' working class. Although admittedly I have missed out on extra-curricular sport/music etc.

By having a few agreeable, 'unstupid' middle class children with their aspirational, supportive parents (who often become governors): teachers become better motivated. My dad, for example (along with new senior management and headteacher), has helped (as Chair of Governors) to get the school out of Special Measures through his energy and belief that the local school should be first choice for all parents in the vicinity. Myself and others who take pride in their learning have also helped the cause through the School Council and helping at school events; and when we appointed the new (excellent) headteacher as well as deputies and subject teachers as part of the Student Panel.

This body of pupils and parents has helped change the aspirations and attitudes of the entire school including other parents and pupils. The pupils should also help turn around academic results which will lead to a greater proportion of middle class aspirationals and so on - suddenly the school is on the way up and is no longer deemed a failure! [The school came out of Special Measures last term.]

The irony is that my parents went to Oxford and Manchester university, and grammar and Public schools, respectively, which granted them the opportunity to become middle class lefties and hammer into me these left-wing values.

I don't wish this post to sound like I'm blowing my own trumpet (1A*, 6A, and 5B at GCSE on this forum is hardly blowing one's trumpet!). My situation is just an example to show that if you have the right mindset and a certain amount of ability you can achieve something wherever you end up and for that reason we should be trying to do something to help the community by helping the local comprehensive school, failing or not.

Some of the arguments / presumprions above are simply ridiculous:
(i) Why is BBB at a Comp better that AAA elsewhere? On the basis that teachers in a Comp are less committed / capable? There is NO proof that that is the case. In fact, DfES / Ofsted research suggest the opposite.