Ox/bridge Medicine

Why would the 'top' students at a grammar be any more intelligent than the 'best' at a non-selective state school? Granted, there may be more of them and fewer less intelligent types at a grammar. I went to a run-of-the -mill comprehensive school (not strictly true - it's actually a really good one) and we had plenty of extremely able people to provide competition. If you're really intellegent, you'll compete against yourself.

Ben

I meant in an area with a grammar and a comp, the grammar will have the most intelligent pupils in the area and so the top set at the grammar will be of a much higher standard compared with the top set of the comprehensive.

i suppose grammar schools do have an advantage,but people in comp schools are just as able,i go to a very 'normal' school,and this year at gcse,quite a few people got all A's and A*'s, everyone else competed against them and did well aswell. So i dont think theres anything special about Grammar schools apart from the fact that you all passed the 11+ test and think that your majorly the almighty brains. My boyfriend goes to a Grammar school in Kent,and he is VERY BRAINY,but when he does exams with me, i can quite honestly say he only ever beats me by a few marks and i sometimes beat him. *smiles to herself* he thinks that he is THE BRAIN because he has a grammar school status behind his arse....

But all the state representatives bar one school in the top 200 school s for GCSE are grammars, so it does prove that the average level of intelligence is higher in grammars, but that is not to say that there are not equally intelligent people in comprehensives.

I think that Grammar schools are stopping Comprehensive schools reaching their potential, and that is why I think they should be abolished. The only difference is that Grammar Schools seem to get the majority of the able students. They don't push these students any further than a comprehensive would. Also, Comprehensives offer much more flexibility in moving between classes. If someone intellectually blooms late-on then they can move into the top set. Likewise; if someone is struggling in the top set, they can be moved into a more comfortable class.

yes your quite right lord huntroyde,i think i just got carried away...it just gets me so worked up when my boyfriend goes craaaazy about his 'grammar school' he tells me all the time thats its like the 30th best in the whole country,i honestly just go to sleep when he tells me things like that,then wake up when he wants to talk about stuff apart from his 'grammar school'

I think that Grammar schools are stopping Comprehensive schools reaching their potential, and that is why I think they should be abolished. The only difference is that Grammar Schools seem to get the majority of the able students. They don't push these students any further than a comprehensive would. Also, Comprehensives offer much more flexibility in moving between classes. If someone intellectually blooms late-on then they can move into the top set. Likewise; if someone is struggling in the top set, they can be moved into a more comfortable class.

It is completely untrue to say that grammars do not push pupils, they do. Grammars provide for the top pupils in the country, and ensure they carry on to acheive great things. No comprehensive can do that. Grammars focus on pushing all pupils, rather than having to think about the less able ones. Grammars provide normal pupils with an elite education and ensure that state schools are among the top in the country. Without grammars, the top state school would be ranked 180th in the country, with grammars, the top state school is ranked 11th. Everyone knows hat private schools give a better education than state schools, but with grammars, the state-sector can challenge this and ensure that many people who could afford private schooling (I know many) go to an elite state school. The grammar system has worked for centuries and only now, when some were abolished, are standards falling.

First of all; I said that Grammar schools don't push students anymore than Comprehensives, I think you misread.
You seem to have an over-inflated opinion of Grammar schools. To be honest (considering the quality of students they receive), Grammar schools are not overly impressive, and research has shown as much.

You can find research that backs up anything, but though there are some grammars that are not as good, many grammars are up there with the best private schools, my school beat many well known private schools such as Marlborough and Rugby this year, so I do not think that my opinion of grammars is over-inflated, they are a very important part of the education system.

Of course the top of the league tables are over-run by selective schools - they filter out less able students. The results obtained by such schools are NOT an unquestionable indicator of the quality of the education experience they provide. State comprehensive schools are landed with so many unenthusiatic pupils, who have neither the will or the real ability to succeed academically - this, obviously, drags them down the league tables. I agree with Bigcnee about your opinion of grammar schools and I don't believe their abolition would damage the education system in any way - it would level the playing field.

Ben

But why would you want to level the playing field?

But why would you want to level the playing field?

I meant that in the context of league tables etc. - so that the real teaching quality of schools can be assessed from results, not just the natural intelligence of the pupils. Purely for comparison.

Ben

But you said aboloshing grammars would level the playing field, to make comparisons easier, but you couldn't compare grammars and comps then as you would have got rid of grammars.

Conservative wanka...

No, if I was conservative I would be at a private school that would be high up in the league tables whatever happened. There would certainly not be a level playing field as far as I was concerned then.

But at least in the current situation state schools can be seen to be as good as grammars, if only serving the purpose of being 'the ultimate top-set', as it does in certian areas.

PS, a tip, when debating with people, try not to resort to swearing, it brings don your arguement immensely and makes it hard for me and others to take you seriously.

I meant compare all schools - not compare a block of one type of schools with a block of another.

Ben