Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Miss Prankster Pixie)
    i don't think quotas are legally mandated, although many institutions unofficially have them.
    Quotas don't have to be legally mandated to be quotas, do they?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by klondiker)
    Right, exactly. The interview system is an excellent way to gauge potential. I could be wrong, but I don't think that many of the Ivies interview, at least not in any systematic way.
    If I recall correctly, Harvard and Yale interview. But the interview is non-academic, of course.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    Go into my history and look at my other posts for this exact debate...I think the ones you're looking for are in a thread on privatising Oxford university. I'm not going into it all over again, but to summarise; I disagree with that assumption.

    By the way, if you've already stated they're 'two equal students', there shouldn't really be much difference in academic potential anyway...

    Oh, and more to the point, there are some extremely high-performing state schools that push more able students much the same as the better private schools. Likewise, there are lots of private schools that languish further down the tables because they don't necessarily push the children as hard. So the argument is flawed unless you decide to disadvantage every student coming from successful schools, state, private or otherwise, which is (in my opinion) a terrible idea.

    [Nb; Just had a look at your profile. Nice dialogue! I'm repping you just for that]
    Haha cheers for that

    Ok, by 2 equal students, I mean that they are of similar / same sporting ability, extra curriculars, grades, etc etc but that the only difference is one went to state the other private.

    Private schools exist because they are better than state schools at getting the most out of pupils (i.e. fullfilling their academic potential)- if they didn't do this, parents wouldn't send their children to them!!

    So, you can then say that A, who went to a private school and achieved AAAB has fullfilled their academic potential MORE than B who went to state school and achieved AAAB. Therefore, had B gone to private, he may have have achieved AAAA..?

    I think there is little difference between academic achievement (obviosuly) but that academic potential is different- I know its hard to measure, but to take it to the extreme, suppose one is from Eton and the other from the worst state school, you'd agree that the state school one showed more potential (if they get the same grades). Now obvisouly this is rarely the case, BUT private schools are on the whole better than state schools (with the exception of a few top state schools and a few poor private schools) otherwise, as i said, parents would just send their children to state schools.

    If only all state schools were as good as the top state schools, then we wouldn't have to have this debate and there'd be no state school quotas as everyone would have more-a-less equal opportunities.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zhen Lin)
    If I recall correctly, Harvard and Yale interview. But the interview is non-academic, of course.
    They certainly do (if Gilmore Girls is to be trusted. >.> )

    (Original post by Lafin23)
    Oh, and more to the point, there are some extremely high-performing state schools that push more able students much the same as the better private schools.
    I'm not sure they do. Speaking from personal experience, I was prepared reasonably well — I had a practice interview and some help preparing for a pre-interview test; beyond that it was up to me — but it was all fairly last minute.

    I'd imagine that in the best private schools, like Westminster and St Paul's, there is a different mentality about the whole application process, with a greater emphasis placed on widening ones horizons from an earlier stage (though of course I could be wrong).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    ...but it helps to come from a state school...
    ******** were in a massive minorty here! tiz all grammar and public schoolboys/girls!


    if you equate the quality of state grammar with state comprehensive you are living on another planet!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lafin23)
    Go into my history and look at my other posts for this exact debate...I think the ones you're looking for are in a thread on privatising Oxford university. I'm not going into it all over again, but to summarise; I disagree with that assumption.

    By the way, if you've already stated they're 'two equal students', there shouldn't really be much difference in academic potential anyway...

    Oh, and more to the point, there are some extremely high-performing state schools that push more able students much the same as the better private schools. Likewise, there are lots of private schools that languish further down the tables because they don't necessarily push the children as hard. So the argument is flawed unless you decide to disadvantage every student coming from successful schools, state, private or otherwise, which is (in my opinion) a terrible idea.

    [Nb; Just had a look at your profile. Nice dialogue! I'm repping you just for that]
    speaking in generalisations (so yes here come the sweeping statements ), i would suggest that it could possibly be supported that on the whole the standard of education at the average state school is lower than the standard of education at a public school?

    if we accept that premise, then could we not go on to say that it could be suggested that it is more difficult to acheive AAA at a state school due to said disparity in standards?

    if that were the case would it not suggest that a student who (leaving out the other myriad of other factors that could affect this) acheives AAA from a state school with a poor standard of education (and oxbridge does ask to see how many kids are on EMA at schools) could be displaying more potential than a kid from a public school with massively higher standards?

    the above debate depends on the separation of natural intelligence and test results! It may be that kids at public schools are just flat out cleverer than working class kids, or it may be that merely above average kids can be pushed to acheive top grades with the right support where they would fail in a state school.

    Im not sure to be honest. i went to a state school with a 43% pass rate at GCSE and an average A level attainment of 120 UCAS points, and i was the only person to get AAA. Looking at it there was only one or two others who could have possibly matched that with the right support, so there did appear to be less clever people in state education at least where i was. However on the other hand i dont beleive at my cousin's school (she went to an all girls grammar down in birmingham which was in the top ten in the country) that 80% of the kids there matched me in intelligence, as they all seemed to gain AAA. It would appear that even mediocre students could be scraped through with AAA or AAB.

    depends doesnt it? nature or nurture?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hello again. First of all thank you for replying!

    I don't want to be random in the debate but if I got the point right, if ever I wish to apply for Oxford as an international student (obviously the state/private school thing doesn't matter, does it ?) AA won't be worked against me, am I right (at least not like the Ivies' AA)?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jijirose)
    Hello again. First of all thank you for replying!

    I don't want to be random in the debate but if I got the point right, if ever I wish to apply for Oxford as an international student (obviously the state/private school thing doesn't matter, does it ?) AA won't be worked against me, am I right (at least not like the Ivies' AA)?
    yea there is no positive discrimination on grounds of ethnicity in the oxbridge selection process.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LiveFastDieYoung)
    speaking in generalisations (so yes here come the sweeping statements ), i would suggest that it could possibly be supported that on the whole the standard of education at the average state school is lower than the standard of education at a public school?

    if we accept that premise, then could we not go on to say that it could be suggested that it is more difficult to acheive AAA at a state school due to said disparity in standards?

    if that were the case would it not suggest that a student who (leaving out the other myriad of other factors that could affect this) acheives AAA from a state school with a poor standard of education (and oxbridge does ask to see how many kids are on EMA at schools) could be displaying more potential than a kid from a public school with massively higher standards?

    the above debate depends on the separation of natural intelligence and test results! It may be that kids at public schools are just flat out cleverer than working class kids, or it may be that merely above average kids can be pushed to acheive top grades with the right support where they would fail in a state school.

    Im not sure to be honest. i went to a state school with a 43% pass rate at GCSE and an average A level attainment of 120 UCAS points, and i was the only person to get AAA. Looking at it there was only one or two others who could have possibly matched that with the right support, so there did appear to be less clever people in state education at least where i was. However on the other hand i dont beleive at my cousin's school (she went to an all girls grammar down in birmingham which was in the top ten in the country) that 80% of the kids there matched me in intelligence, as they all seemed to gain AAA. It would appear that even mediocre students could be scraped through with AAA or AAB.

    depends doesnt it? nature or nurture?
    While I agree that on average it takes more intelligence to get AAA at your normal state school compared to an average private school, I think it's easy to overstate the impact of this as an indicator of potential and the meaningfulness of potential.

    Firstly private schools tend to be selective which explains some of their better results. If you don't let people in that you don't think are capable of getting high grades then your average grades will be much better regardless of education quality. Obviously this doesn't account for all of the difference.

    The other problem is (although this doesn't really apply to Oxbridge since they pretty much only take AAA candidates) that potential needs to be developed. Someone could have the greatest potential in the world, but if they grew up as a subsistence farmer in sub-saharan Africa that academic potential would be irrelevant, they couldn't just be dropped into Oxford and do better than all the students with lower potential and intelligence who happen to have had the necessary prior education. Obviously that example is a bit silly, but the point can be applied to the British education system. I'm sure there are people with extremely high potential who at the same time simply aren't good enough because of the disadvantages they've had in life.

    Basically what I'm trying to say is that you should always be careful of reading too much into the differences in results between private and state schools. I agree that they are indicative, but think people often over-state things when talking about them and in the end the problem comes down to the British school education system rather than to the Oxbridge admissions system. A factoid that I remember from my finals revision is that given equal A level results, social background has almost no impact on university attendance, but that it does have a huge impact on what A level results people get.

    Maybe we should ban private schools? :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teebs)
    While I agree that on average it takes more intelligence to get AAA at your normal state school compared to an average private school, I think it's easy to overstate the impact of this as an indicator of potential and the meaningfulness of potential.

    Firstly private schools tend to be selective which explains some of their better results. If you don't let people in that you don't think are capable of getting high grades then your average grades will be much better regardless of education quality. Obviously this doesn't account for all of the difference.

    The other problem is (although this doesn't really apply to Oxbridge since they pretty much only take AAA candidates) that potential needs to be developed. Someone could have the greatest potential in the world, but if they grew up as a subsistence farmer in sub-saharan Africa that academic potential would be irrelevant, they couldn't just be dropped into Oxford and do better than all the students with lower potential and intelligence who happen to have had the necessary prior education. Obviously that example is a bit silly, but the point can be applied to the British education system. I'm sure there are people with extremely high potential who at the same time simply aren't good enough because of the disadvantages they've had in life.

    Basically what I'm trying to say is that you should always be careful of reading too much into the differences in results between private and state schools. I agree that they are indicative, but think people often over-state things when talking about them and in the end the problem comes down to the British school education system rather than to the Oxbridge admissions system. A factoid that I remember from my finals revision is that given equal A level results, social background has almost no impact on university attendance, but that it does have a huge impact on what A level results people get.

    Maybe we should ban private schools? :p:
    yes its all a matter of fact and degree really, there are no black and whites in sitauations like this.

    That fact about social background is what makes the debate about oxbridge discriminating on social background groundless, as if there are flat out less state educated children acheiving AAA how can they expect them to select people who dont exist? The bias isnt in the selection process its in the education system for providing a substandard quality of education comparatively to the private sector.

    I don't particularly begrude a private education, after all my economic views are somewhat centre-right despite my upbringing and i plan to send any kids who have the misfortune of being fathered by me into the private system
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brussels sprouts
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.