Education system let me down

Absolutely, I get where you are coming from, and I agree with a lot of what you have.
Weepinbell:
independent schools and top state schools:These schools can offer all sorts of extra-curricular activities,sports, debating, music, trips abroad because they have the funding. It’s not just about what happens in the classroom; it’s all those extras that help build confidence, social skills, and networks. If you look at the backgrounds of a lot of successful business founders, politicians, or even celebrities, you will often find they had access to these sorts of opportunities from a young age.
Mr ADB(you):
There are loads of smart kids from less wealthy backgrounds who don’t end up with the same salaries or job prospects,not because they are less capable, but because they don’t have those connections, or the "financial safety net" that lets them take risks or focus on their studies without worrying about money. Sometimes, just being able to afford a tutor or not having to work a parttime job makes a huge difference. And yeah, I have seen plenty of people who aren’t necessarily the brightest, but their family’s wealth or influence has helped them do well academically and get ahead in life.
It’s a bit depressing, but it’s the reality we are living in.
With results day coming( for me and others across the UK)up for GCSEs and A-levels, it’s especially obvious. Some people will get all 9s or top grades, but it’s not always just about raw intelligence or hard work,sometimes it’s about the advantages they started with: money, motivation, the right environment. It’s not being critical, it’s just how things work.
Do you mind telling me what you study at University?

I didn't go to private school either but I still wouldn't subscribe to much of the dogma written in the posts above.
Yes, soft skills are important, unsurprisingly. I have met and worked with people who are incredibly intelligent, but that in of itself isn't enough to succeed in the commercial realm of employment because human to human interaction is hugely important at almost all levels in most human endeavours. And of course such skills are directly or indirectly assessed during interviews or similar exchanges.
I didn't (and still do not) see the value of being forced to run around a football pitch in the freezing rain at school. It was pointless and I would much rather have stayed indoors working on homework or something. That being said, I do think all students should have the opportunity to pursue extra-curricular activities if that is what they wish to do and from what I have seen the bulk of schools today do seem to put a major emphasis on this at all ages irrespective of their funding model.
Having worked in the real world alongside people from the top private schools in the country I am now far from convinced it is the major advantage that a lot of people seem to think it is. The biggest advantage of it is derived from the fact that if your parents are stumping up 20-50K a year for your education they are hardly likely to let you sit back and do precisely nothing at school or lark about the whole time.
Having undertaken a lot of work experience in secondary education this probably explains the the biggest difference I observed. Far smaller teaching groups also discourage delinquency in the classroom because it is more readily observed and stamped down on. Tough to sit at the back of the class and do nothing if there is only 6 or 10 of you sat in a circle being asked to contribute.

I prefer not to say the exact course but it's a STEM subject that's supposed to be looked upon favourably by employers. Whether it's helped me or not I don't know. The fact it was a 2:2 and it was from a former polytechnic meant I stood no chance with some employers.
I think it's better documented now that a degree is no guarantee of a successful career. That certainly wasn't the case when I graduated and I found out first hand how tough it was. I also found it quite disheartening going through rejection after rejection and then when I finally get somewhere I find people who walked straight into their jobs after uni because their father plays golf with the company CEO.
Equally somebody sporty could say they didn't see the point of sitting in science lessons when they could be out playing sports.
I too have worked with a number of people who went to top private schools. I've already touched upon how some of their routes there were easier than mine but if we put that to one side we can say I ended up at the same place as these privately educated people.
One lesson learned in the corporate world is that generally speaking people only want to know you if they think you'll be useful to them and their career. If your father plays golf with the CEO then straight away you're more useful to somebody than the working class guy who has no connections.
Furthermore they come into the corporate world knowing how to play the game. I came into my career thinking that hard work and commitment would pay off but it's all about having the right connections.

I have had a range of positions in the world of commerce and I don't agree with much of what you have said I'm afraid.
Yes, the primary driver for any employer will be along the lines of:

Obviously a lot of employers only employ people because they believe doing so will confer them some commercial advantage. That's how business works. Nepotism can be a factor but it isn't one I have ever encountered, nor would I wish to be employed on that basis alone as I feel it would make for awkward working relationships at some point.
As for playing sports in school, great. But the truth is that only a tiny proportion of the people who play sports ever reach a level where they could derive some kind of living from it. It would thus be extremely foolhardy to allow students to merely play football all day in the hope of becoming some premiership star and totally neglect the rest of their education. That is madness at a personal and societal level and certainly should not be encouraged.
Kids that refuse to sit and engage with teaching, be it science, maths or anything else, fine: let them leave school at the earliest juncture and attend vocational colleges. I don't want disruptive kids in the same class as those who are prepared to sit and learn properly. The times I have sat in the classroom and seen the class clowns do precisely naff all for the entirety of their time in school only to realise 2 months before GCSE time that heck, maybe learning some of this might have been useful.
The above might also explain why the average reading age in the UK is only 10.
Education is a serious business and adults who have indifferent attitudes to school are certainly not helping matters in my view.

It might be now but enough people got expelled when I was at school to suggest it wasn't that difficult.
These people were never a problem for me, some were my friends.
The stories I hear about schools these days do imply their not strict enough now. My school certainly was strict enough but that was part of the problem. At the time I trusted it was for my own good, as I've got older I question whether it really was. There were certainly times where the punishment didn't fit the crime.
Also just because they're a teacher doesn't mean they're always right. When I think back to all the times when I got into trouble I did deserve it sometimes but most of the times I have no regrets and would do the same again. Some teachers really were that bad.

My company likes to brag about the fact most people they employ came through referrals. Also the person who sits on the board and heads up my department has said multiple times that the single most important thing he looks for in prospective employees is cultural fit. The first 2 points aren't so important as long as they're not completely useless.
You're right that not many people will become professional sportsmen but the more obvious benefit of PE is fitness and also in the case of team sports team building. One regret I do have is not taking my fitness seriously when I was younger.
The point about adults having indifferent attitudes to school is a lot to do with the failure of the education system. It's well documented that large numbers of graduates end up in jobs they could of done when they were 16. If you get your degree only to find yourself in a minimum wage job that you mostly spend on renting your bedsit and at the same time find that bloke who got expelled before his GCSEs now runs a successful building firm and has built a nice house for himself it does raise the question of how important education is.

Even when you were at school expulsion was difficult with parents able to appeal.
Which year did you sit your GCSEs because Maths was 3 tier at one time.
Ofsted started in 1993 approx so what was your school graded?
Your story has some inconsistencies.

Ok, so do you honestly think forcing students out on to the rugby pitch once a week on a Wednesday makes any difference to fitness? I do not.
No, adult attitudes to education are not a fault of the education system. How do you arrive at that conclusion? As for your graduates ending up in jobs they could do at 16, that's a failure of government policy and an idiotic anyone can go to University attitude. Likely the very same one that created billions of pounds worth of student debt that will never be repaid.
I have never worked in a minimum wage job, degree or no degree, because I was prepared to do jobs other teenagers were not. Maybe there is a lesson in there somewhere. I have worked with people who barely have 9 GCSEs and yet manage to work in jobs where they earn a respectable salary because they are prepared to do jobs others are not or because they are prepared to learn. One guy I know earns 80K+ operating construction machinery but he would be lying if he told you he did not rely on school-level education a fair bit because a lot of his work is based on measurements and plans. Yes. Even that algebra everyone hated sometimes comes in useful.

Why are there inconsistencies in my stories?
I started school before 1993 and left after 1993. I don't know whether I'd heard of Ofsted at the time, all I remember is the local paper having a league table which my school was near the top of. No idea what the school was graded.
Maths was 3 tier when I did it but that wasn't one of those subjects I did the foundation paper for.
I don't know how difficult it was behind the scenes expelling people but top of my head I can think of 10 people I knew who were expelled. Might be able to remember more if I think hard enough.
Of course it does. I noticed the difference when playing a game of football a year or so after leaving school and I could barely run from one end of the pitch to the other without being completely exhausted. I was never much good at running but it certainly didn't seem that much effort when I was doing PE every week.
The point I'm making is yes being able to read, write, add up etc. is important but if you have a degree and find you have no advantage over those who left school at 16 in the workplace then you will most likely question what was the point. Yes that government policy is to blame but surely that is part of the education system.
I too have never worked a minimum wage job. I don't know whether you're as old as me (mid-40s) but there wasn't a minimum wage when I got my first part time job. When it did come in I don't remember too many jobs paying it. The first time I got a summer job by simply leaving my name and number with an agency it paid over £1 an hour more than the minimum wage. Nothing to do with jobs I was willing to do.
Last I looked a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week is around £25k. I've seen junior roles in my profession that pay barely more than that. I would also speculate all the jobs I did in my student days would pay minimum wage now.

Why are there inconsistencies in my stories?
I started school before 1993 and left after 1993. I don't know whether I'd heard of Ofsted at the time, all I remember is the local paper having a league table which my school was near the top of. No idea what the school was graded.
Maths was 3 tier when I did it but that wasn't one of those subjects I did the foundation paper for.
I don't know how difficult it was behind the scenes expelling people but top of my head I can think of 10 people I knew who were expelled. Might be able to remember more if I think hard enough.
Of course it does. I noticed the difference when playing a game of football a year or so after leaving school and I could barely run from one end of the pitch to the other without being completely exhausted. I was never much good at running but it certainly didn't seem that much effort when I was doing PE every week.
The point I'm making is yes being able to read, write, add up etc. is important but if you have a degree and find you have no advantage over those who left school at 16 in the workplace then you will most likely question what was the point. Yes that government policy is to blame but surely that is part of the education system.
I too have never worked a minimum wage job. I don't know whether you're as old as me (mid-40s) but there wasn't a minimum wage when I got my first part time job. When it did come in I don't remember too many jobs paying it. The first time I got a summer job by simply leaving my name and number with an agency it paid over £1 an hour more than the minimum wage. Nothing to do with jobs I was willing to do.
Last I looked a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week is around £25k. I've seen junior roles in my profession that pay barely more than that. I would also speculate all the jobs I did in my student days would pay minimum wage now.

Running around a pitch once per week is hardly going to make a huge difference to anyone's fitness overall. I hated every moment of it.
My point was I have always managed to earn way more than any minimum wage in my previous lives. This was true both before and after I completed my degree. This wasn't because I am some kind of academic genius or had a huge range of rare skills, rather it was because I was prepared to do difficult or unpalatable jobs that others were not willing to do.
University has been a peculiar game for some decades now. Unfortunately the government has no other ideas and doesn't seem to be able to work out how to proceed. In other countries huge emphasis is placed on the 15-19 age range and vocational skills. Also, many people who work within these vocational roles are better rewarded and respected and valued within their communities. My I have friends in the USA who effectively work for their state government in municipal works. They are well remunerated, well pensioned and given a host of benefits that would be rare in the world of commerce itself. We don't seem to have this in the UK. Councils just seem to want outsource everything.

Which 4 subjects did you do Foundation GCSE then? Foundation [apart from Maths] did allow a grade C ..
I was teaching when you were at Secondary school - it sounds like yoiur school was good if it was high in League tables.
Are you sure those students were actually expelled - they may have transferred to another schhol after a threat of explusion or for all sorts of reasons.

If you're unfit like me then it did make a difference.
What exactly were these jobs that only you were willing to do? For me and many others as students it was a case of giving your name and number to agencies and take what you were given and some of those jobs were particularly bad. I've also learned first hand that hard work doesn't equal financial reward, that's why I just go through the motions these days.
I don't know what happened to all of them. I know one went to a school for expelled people whilst some others started working or just hung around town.
OK here's a breakdown of my GCSEs and the journey to them. I cannot guarantee 100% accuracy because we're going back 3 decades and I can't remember everything. I believe in the beginning we had lessons with our form class before being put into 1 of 5 sets for most subjects.
Maths: started in set 2, went up to set 1 almost immediately, did the higher paper and got a B
Double Science: started in set 1, went down to set 2, did the foundation paper and got 2xC
French: only did this at secondary school, started in set 2, went up to set 1 and was getting A on my school reports in year 9. Got a new teacher in year 10 who was giving me C, put me on foundation paper and got a C
German: started later than French and went straight into set 1 because that's what French set I was in. Year 9 teacher encouraged me to continue at GCSE because I was really good at it. He left at the end of the year, at GCSE got the same teacher as I had for French who put me on the foundation paper and got a C. This teacher also told me I had no hope in hell of successfully continuing it as an A Level not matter how hard I tried.
English: when we changed from form class there were 2 form classes split into 3 groups and I was in group 3. I questioned why I was in group 3 because I'd always been quite good at English but was told they were groups not sets. My group was clearly more geared towards teaching those of lower ability and when we were put into sets I was put into set 4. To be fair I do remember someone from group 1 also being put into set 4, but being in my group had clearly been holding me back. Put on foundation paper and got a D. Did it again at college where I could choose my paper, did the higher paper and got a B.
Design Technology: was never really my strong point but chose it because I thought it would be more useful in the real world than Food & Nutrition which I was good at. Everyone who chose it was in the same class, I can't remember if there was a higher or foundation paper but I got a D.
Drama: they were teaching it for the first time when I started GCSEs, everyone who picked it in the same class and no higher or foundation paper. Got an E.

So as I suggested, your grades weren't down to being capped because you did Foundation.
Most schools don't set for English so what you were told is probably correct; they were groups. Did you get much encouragement from home?
Once you have a diagnosis [or not] you could look at the OU if you feel you want another go?

I never said all of them were, I said 4 of them were which is half of the subjects I took.
The group system in English was clearly a hinderance and if I ended up in a higher set I would of taken English Literature too.
At home the encouragement was telling me to pull my finger out.
It's not so much the grades I'm concerned about. It's the knock on effect it's had on my ability to learn. I have a natural ability to pick things up quite easily but once it starts getting more complex I hit a brick wall and can't go any further.

None were capped at D though - Foundation went up to a grade C.
What about trying the OU - they have good support for all sorts of learners.

I think for a proportion of people in the 14-18 bracket, sometimes life, for whatever reason just means that the education part takes a backseat. I certainly had that happen to myself.
That being said, I do think people can make up for it later. I know the government has put a lot more emphasis on adult learning in more recent times and remedial maths or English courses are able to work real miracles for some people I have spoken with.
Adult learners I think have a more determined approach, too.

I never said any were capped at D. I do remember Maths and Drama being the only subjects I could possibly get higher than C but I don't know whether I'd just written off DT or I did the foundation paper. Like I said my Drama result was a shock.
The time to get into good habits is when you're young, I'm too old now.
I'd find it even more difficult to motivate myself now. Even general life admin feels too much effort.

I did a Masters at your age after doing no academic study for 20 years -
Not every subject had Foundation papers btw so I think your story isn't totally accurate.