Oxford Going Private

Post by Toby
I read an article in the Times that quoted a statistic which
interested me: Oxford's intake of state school pupils was higher, at
70%, in the 1970s before all the Grammar schools were nuked...
Is it really stupid to say that the Government needs to sort out its
schools, and for top unis to continue just taking students on merit,
i.e. irrespective of whether the student is state/public, or should
unis like Oxford try and meet the new quotas for state students (I
think 77%), even if, according to them, it means they cannot choose
based on merit alone, i.e. the best?

Which is better?

A student who gets straight As at the best public school where nine out of
ten students get straight As?

Or a student who gets AAAB from a crappy state school who's average results
grade is somewhere around DDD?

What I am saying is what looks like "better on merit alone" isn't always the
best. And of course, universities should be able to make these decisions
themselves, without government imposed quotas, or without fear of the press
jumping up and down on them for individual decisions.

cc

John Porcella

2004-10-15 14:47:06 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
Which is better?
A student who gets straight As at the best public school where nine out of
ten students get straight As?
Or a student who gets AAAB from a crappy state school who's average results
grade is somewhere around DDD?

The one with the better grades is better, assuming no discrepancies in the
marking.

So what if one school has better results than another? Are you suggesting
that those parents/guardians who choose to send their charges to better
schools should be punished?

In the workplace, the employer looks for the best candidate in absolute
terms, not relative ones. Picking students on grades alone is merely a
reflection on how society works. Now, if you are stating that you do not
like how society runs, then that is another debate!

Post by cowboy carl
What I am saying is what looks like "better on merit alone" isn't always the
best.

It is! Straight As are better than an equivalent number of lesser grades.

And of course, universities should be able to make these decisions

Post by cowboy carl
themselves, without government imposed quotas, or without fear of the press
jumping up and down on them for individual decisions.

Many choose, surely, to go on grades.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Dick Bell

2004-10-15 15:40:48 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
Or a student who gets AAAB from a crappy state school who's average

results

Post by cowboy carl
grade is somewhere around DDD?

The one with the better grades is better, assuming no discrepancies in the
marking.

I think you missed the point. The reason the AAAA student is seen as a
lesser candidate than the AAAB state school student is not simply because
the AAAB student is better than his contemporaries - having performed a
relatively greater achievement, but that his achievement is a much greater
reflection of his own talents as opposed to the talents of the school that
produced him. Obviously there is still a chance that the AAAA student is
still naturally more gifted, but the fact that the AAAB student has clearly
achieved a great deal more than would be expected given his education
suggests that he is more likely to be the better candidate. Put it this
way: if both candidates went to the lesser school, who do you think would
have done better? I reckon the AAAB student. And the chances are that the
AAAB would thrive under a good education, i.e. Oxford. But of course this
does not mean that Oxford needs quotas in order to admit candidates with
great potential; admission tutors there are perfectly capable of realising
this for themselves, and indeed I'm sure the majority do.

Tom.

Tom Bell

2004-10-15 17:40:19 UTC

Should probably point out that the post to which I'm replying was not
written by (my father) Dick Bell, but me, Tom Bell..... just in case he
finds out and gets cross with with me for pretending to be him or something!
Since starting a law course I'm learning to be wary of these things.

Tom.

Post by Dick Bell

Post by cowboy carl
Or a student who gets AAAB from a crappy state school who's average

results

Post by cowboy carl
grade is somewhere around DDD?

The one with the better grades is better, assuming no discrepancies in the
marking.

I think you missed the point. The reason the AAAA student is seen as a
lesser candidate than the AAAB state school student is not simply because
the AAAB student is better than his contemporaries - having performed a
relatively greater achievement, but that his achievement is a much greater
reflection of his own talents as opposed to the talents of the school that
produced him. Obviously there is still a chance that the AAAA student is
still naturally more gifted, but the fact that the AAAB student has
clearly achieved a great deal more than would be expected given his
education suggests that he is more likely to be the better candidate. Put
it this way: if both candidates went to the lesser school, who do you
think would have done better? I reckon the AAAB student. And the chances
are that the AAAB would thrive under a good education, i.e. Oxford. But
of course this does not mean that Oxford needs quotas in order to admit
candidates with great potential; admission tutors there are perfectly
capable of realising this for themselves, and indeed I'm sure the majority
do.
Tom.

cowboy carl

2004-10-15 23:38:51 UTC

Post by Tom Bell
Should probably point out that the post to which I'm replying was not
written by (my father) Dick Bell, but me, Tom Bell..... just in case he
finds out and gets cross with with me for pretending to be him or
something! Since starting a law course I'm learning to be wary of these
things.
Tom.

Do you have a brother/uncle or other relative called Harry?

If not, if you ever have a son one day, you should call him Harry.

I would find that rather amusing.

cc

John Porcella

2004-10-23 20:36:41 UTC

Do you have a brother/uncle or other relative called Harry?
If not, if you ever have a son one day, you should call him Harry.
I would find that rather amusing.

Surely Ding Dong would be more amusing?

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

John Porcella

2004-10-23 20:35:46 UTC

Post by Dick Bell

Post by cowboy carl
Or a student who gets AAAB from a crappy state school who's average

results

Post by cowboy carl
grade is somewhere around DDD?

The one with the better grades is better, assuming no discrepancies in the
marking.

I think you missed the point.

If the point was to encourage social engineering, then I have not missed the
point.

The reason the AAAA student is seen as a

Post by Dick Bell
lesser candidate than the AAAB state school student is not simply because
the AAAB student is better than his contemporaries - having performed a
relatively greater achievement, but that his achievement is a much greater
reflection of his own talents as opposed to the talents of the school that
produced him.

You may be correct, but it is of no relevance. The candidate with the
better grades has done better.

I am overweight, middle aged and unfit. If I managed to get within one
hundredth of a second of the Olympic Champion in the 100 metres final,
whilst many would consider my performance excellent, I would still be behind
the winner who may be younger, fitter and properly prepared. I think you
would be shocked if I were given the gold medal ahead of the other racer who
was quicker than me in a race! Or do you REALLY think that in a competitive
environment the best competitors should not be rewarded for their
superlative performances.

Obviously there is still a chance that the AAAA student is

Post by Dick Bell
still naturally more gifted, but the fact that the AAAB student has clearly
achieved a great deal more than would be expected given his education
suggests that he is more likely to be the better candidate.

The better candidate for what?

Put it this

Post by Dick Bell
way: if both candidates went to the lesser school, who do you think would
have done better? I reckon the AAAB student.

That is the fundamental problem with your system! Yours relies on gut
feeling, subjective judgements and guesswork! A system based on rewarding
those who perform better has the advantages of being clearer and objective.
Otherwise why bother with examinations at all then if you end up ignoring
the results and base your criteria on instinct?

And the chances are that the

Post by Dick Bell
AAAB would thrive under a good education, i.e. Oxford.

Really? Some might argue that that candidate may not like an environment
consisting of people largely from a different environmental background.

But of course this

Post by Dick Bell
does not mean that Oxford needs quotas

I agree! They do not need quotas, but the government would appear to be
twisting arms to make universities accept students they would otherwise not
have done.

in order to admit candidates with

Post by Dick Bell
great potential;

The trouble with this notion of 'potential' is that it is
difficult/impossible to assess properly. Actual examination grades are
historic and provable, unlike 'potential' which is intangible.

admission tutors there are perfectly capable of realising

Post by Dick Bell
this for themselves, and indeed I'm sure the majority do.

Which would be a pity!

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Tom Bell

2004-10-28 16:48:50 UTC

Post by John Porcella
I am overweight, middle aged and unfit. If I managed to get within one
hundredth of a second of the Olympic Champion in the 100 metres final,
whilst many would consider my performance excellent, I would still be behind
the winner who may be younger, fitter and properly prepared. I think you
would be shocked if I were given the gold medal ahead of the other racer who
was quicker than me in a race! Or do you REALLY think that in a competitive
environment the best competitors should not be rewarded for their
superlative performances.

The point is that, if you manage to get close to the winning time despite
your (poor) level of fitness, then given training etc. you would undoubtedly
go way beyond this time. In the same way, given an Oxford education, the
AAAB state school student would get intellectually 'fitter', and hone the
potential that is shown by this near-perfect A-Levels.

Post by John Porcella
Put it this

Post by Dick Bell
way: if both candidates went to the lesser school, who do you think would
have done better? I reckon the AAAB student.

Instinct may not be perfect, but surely it's better than a system whereby
students who are capable of achieving first class degrees are denied the
chance because teaching standards at their school were low. Besides, the
realisation that grades aren't the be-all and end-all is shown by the
reliance Oxford places on interviews and proprietary tests, which are aimed
at assessing potential.

Post by John Porcella
Really? Some might argue that that candidate may not like an environment
consisting of people largely from a different environmental background.

Surely it's enough that someone applies to Oxford for tutors to assume they
want to go there. It's not for anyone else to decide that they wont like it
because of the number of 'toffs'.

Post by John Porcella
The trouble with this notion of 'potential' is that it is
difficult/impossible to assess properly. Actual examination grades are
historic and provable, unlike 'potential' which is intangible.

No more intangible than intellectual ability, which is basically what we're
concerned with here. To claim that A-Levels measure this absolutely, as you
seem to do, is to make a rather naive and unrealistic appraisal of our
examination system. Potential is determinable: creativity, problem solving
ability, analytical skill - all these can be witnessed (e.g. via interview,
proprietary tests). A-Levels certainly don't measure these in a way that is
sufficiently useful for admission tutors' purposes.

Tom.

John Porcella

2004-10-30 16:07:53 UTC

The point is that, if you manage to get close to the winning time despite
your (poor) level of fitness, then given training etc. you would undoubtedly
go way beyond this time.

Then rather than guessing that I should be able to prove it in public
examinations like A levels.

Post by John Porcella
That is the fundamental problem with your system! Yours relies on gut
feeling, subjective judgements and guesswork! A system based on rewarding
those who perform better has the advantages of being clearer and objective.
Otherwise why bother with examinations at all then if you end up ignoring
the results and base your criteria on instinct?

If they are as brilliant as you suggest, then they should have done well
anyway, or failing that, they can recover/improve in a re-sit.

So what if teaching standards are low(er)? A student at university has to
be motivated to do most of the study themselves, regardless of teaching
standards.

Besides, the

Post by Tom Bell
realisation that grades aren't the be-all and end-all is shown by the
reliance Oxford places on interviews and proprietary tests, which are aimed
at assessing potential.

They have to assess potential since many have not finished their A levels on
interview, so they have to have tests to estimate what they will get.

I remember the Oxbridge entrance exams being criticised in my day since it
was argued that it favoured the Public Schools since they prepared their
pupils for them, unlike the state sector. Therefore, I am not so sure how
how successful they would be at assessing potential.

Post by John Porcella
Really? Some might argue that that candidate may not like an environment
consisting of people largely from a different environmental background.

Surely it's enough that someone applies to Oxford for tutors to assume they
want to go there. It's not for anyone else to decide that they wont like it
because of the number of 'toffs'.

Teachers have a responsibility to advise students to study at a university
where they would be happy, and 'fitting in' is often a part of being happy.

No more intangible than intellectual ability, which is basically what we're
concerned with here. To claim that A-Levels measure this absolutely, as you
seem to do,

No. They show performance standards on the day of the examination. They
have the beauty of objectivity and provability.

is to make a rather naive and unrealistic appraisal of our

Post by Tom Bell
examination system.

Which is not what I am doing!

Potential is determinable: creativity, problem solving

Post by Tom Bell
ability, analytical skill - all these can be witnessed (e.g. via interview,
proprietary tests). A-Levels certainly don't measure these in a way that is
sufficiently useful for admission tutors' purposes.

Then why bother with school examinations at all if universities use their
own examinations?

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

cowboy carl

2004-10-15 14:59:03 UTC

results

Post by cowboy carl
grade is somewhere around DDD?

I'm saying that a-levels are not perfect, and it is easier for Joe Bloggs to
get better grades at the best public school than at the worst state school.

The *same* student, different grades, depending on the quality of teaching,
resources available etc etc.

Post by cowboy carl
In the workplace, the employer looks for the best candidate in absolute
terms, not relative ones. Picking students on grades alone is merely a
reflection on how society works. Now, if you are stating that you do not
like how society runs, then that is another debate!

Okay, so picking students on grades alone is how society works, sure, but
what I am suggesting is that this method is not perfect and if there are any
changes to university admissions it needs to take into account the problems
I have mentioned above.

I'm not saying there is a massive problem with how society is run, just a
problem with some university admissions (as to the scale of this problem,
ATs would be better placed to answer that).

Post by cowboy carl
What I am saying is what looks like "better on merit alone" isn't always

the

Post by cowboy carl
best.

It is! Straight As are better than an equivalent number of lesser grades.

It's *not that simple*.

Can you honestly not see that?

A-levels are not a perfect way of measuring a student's intellect/ability to
do well in a degree, and universitys must surely be trying to pick students
depending on how well they are going to do in a degree.

cc

John Porcella

2004-10-23 20:23:04 UTC

results

Post by cowboy carl
grade is somewhere around DDD?

I'm saying that a-levels are not perfect, and it is easier for Joe Bloggs to
get better grades at the best public school than at the worst state school.

I am tempted to write 'so what?' as the universities should be interested in
those with proven academic qualifications. However, I am not even sure what
point you are making. If you are trying to tell us that some public schools
are better than some state ones, then you are not telling us anything
special. If you are trying to suggest that ALL public schools are better
than state ones, then I would disagree. What point are you trying to make?

Post by cowboy carl
The *same* student, different grades, depending on the quality of teaching,
resources available etc etc.

Resources vary between public schools and also between state schools. What
is your point?

No. The universities should not take into account those factors. This is
what the goverenment is trying to do by the introduction of OFFTOFF (I think
that is what some are calling it) to manipulate university admissions so
that non-academic factors are taken into account e.g. class, race, poverty
etc.

Post by cowboy carl
I'm not saying there is a massive problem with how society is run, just a
problem with some university admissions (as to the scale of this problem,
ATs would be better placed to answer that).

You need to be more specific as it is difficult to argue with you as you
present no evidence and I am finding it difficult to gather what point you
are making.

Post by cowboy carl
What I am saying is what looks like "better on merit alone" isn't always

the

Post by cowboy carl
best.

It is! Straight As are better than an equivalent number of lesser grades.

It's *not that simple*.

It is that simple. Better grades indicate a better academic performance.
Now whether there are reasons for this should not be of concern to the
university, unless they are into social engineering).

Post by cowboy carl
Can you honestly not see that?

See what?

Post by cowboy carl
A-levels are not a perfect way of measuring a student's intellect/ability to
do well in a degree,

I never suggested that it was!

and universitys must surely be trying to pick students

Post by cowboy carl
depending on how well they are going to do in a degree.

Agreed, some do, and this is a road to ruin. At least with grades, there is
some integrity with the system as there is external assessment which has
plenty of safeguards and appeals available. Allowing ATs to add in their
subjective judgement is a potential road to corruption.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

cowboy carl

2004-10-24 00:34:38 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
What I am saying is what looks like "better on merit alone" isn't

always

Post by John Porcella
the

Post by cowboy carl
best.

It is! Straight As are better than an equivalent number of lesser

grades.

Post by cowboy carl
It's *not that simple*.

It is that simple. Better grades indicate a better academic performance.
Now whether there are reasons for this should not be of concern to the
university, unless they are into social engineering).

Post by cowboy carl
Can you honestly not see that?

See what?

Post by cowboy carl
A-levels are not a perfect way of measuring a student's intellect/ability

Post by cowboy carl
do well in a degree,

I never suggested that it was!

Lemme get this straight...

You have said "Better grades indicate a better academic performance. Now
whether there are reasons for this should not be of concern to the
university, unless they are into social engineering)."

This seems to me to imply that the only thing a university should consider
when choosing applications is their a-level performance, right?

But above you admit that a-level performance isn't a perfect way for
universities to decide which students will do well in a degree.

But your objecting to 'improving' the system is you don't believe that ATs
should rely on their 'gut feeling' about a candidate.

Do you object to ATs giving interviews then?

How is an AT to decide between two candidates with straight As?

And back to my original point (which I shall try to restate for you).
Consider exams such as A-levels or STEP papers, and two hypothetical
students of exactly equal ability.

Give student A, 100 past papers and tell him to work through them.

Give the other (student B) no preparation at all.

Now tell them to sit the 'real thing'.

Clearly the student who has done the past papers will do better.

Even if student B was 10 times smarter than student A, student A would
probably still out-perform student B.

However in this case, a university would prefer student B over student A
because he (or she) has more potential despite lower exam results.

My point is that 'the worst state school' won't get the full potential out
of a student.

And also that 'the best public school' could train a monkey to get an A in
an A-level.

So background *should* be taken into consideration, along with whatever
other means the ATs want to use (extra exams, in-depth interviews etc.).

Government should be left out of it entirely. ATs can be trusted to act in
the interests of their department, since if they don't, their university
will fail in attracting the best students and ... well ... it'll be bad.

There is no incentive that I can see (bar perhaps, vast amounts of money,
which is illegal anyway) for an AT to choose a bad student over a good one.
Why can't we trust them to make the decisions?

cc

John Porcella

2004-10-30 15:56:30 UTC

Post by John Porcella
It is! Straight As are better than an equivalent number of lesser

grades.

Post by cowboy carl
It's *not that simple*.

It is that simple. Better grades indicate a better academic

performance.

Post by John Porcella
Now whether there are reasons for this should not be of concern to the
university, unless they are into social engineering).

Post by cowboy carl
Can you honestly not see that?

See what?

Post by cowboy carl
A-levels are not a perfect way of measuring a student's

intellect/ability

Post by John Porcella
to

Post by cowboy carl
do well in a degree,

I never suggested that it was!

Pretty much.

Post by cowboy carl
But above you admit that a-level performance isn't a perfect way for
universities to decide which students will do well in a degree.

I think that was your assertion.

Post by cowboy carl
But your objecting to 'improving' the system is you don't believe that ATs
should rely on their 'gut feeling' about a candidate.

I do not consider that an AT's gut feeling is an improvement.

Post by cowboy carl
Do you object to ATs giving interviews then?

No. Whether to make an offer at all might only be determined after an
interview.

Personally, I have no problems with offers being made without an interview.

Post by cowboy carl
How is an AT to decide between two candidates with straight As?

How many people are currently applying to university once they have their
grade As?

Anyway, if two people have been offered a place based on getting certain
grades, then if they get them, then the university should accept them.

I think that the vast majority of ATs would be delighted if they had such a
problem!

Post by cowboy carl
And back to my original point (which I shall try to restate for you).
Consider exams such as A-levels or STEP papers, and two hypothetical
students of exactly equal ability.
Give student A, 100 past papers and tell him to work through them.
Give the other (student B) no preparation at all.
Now tell them to sit the 'real thing'.
Clearly the student who has done the past papers will do better.

Splendid. Then that one should get a better chance of getting in due to
better grades.

Post by cowboy carl
Even if student B was 10 times smarter than student A, student A would
probably still out-perform student B.

So what?

If I race the current Olympic 100m champion over his favourite distance when
he is incapacitated due to 'flu, and I beat him, he might be the runner with
more sprinting potential, but I would have won, and to the victor the
spoils. Why punish the winner?

Post by cowboy carl
However in this case, a university would prefer student B over student A
because he (or she) has more potential despite lower exam results.

Perhaps a university might prefer your student B, but they should not. It
is more objective and less prone to corruption to base entry on known
results.

Anyway, if candidate B is so very good, then they can improve their grades
on retake.

Post by cowboy carl
My point is that 'the worst state school' won't get the full potential out
of a student.

Obviously true about any poor performing school. However, pupils do not
have to put up with it. They can study hard in their own time or hire
tutors.

Post by cowboy carl
And also that 'the best public school' could train a monkey to get an A in
an A-level.

Nonsense. They tend to do well because of selection policies; simians tend
not to be recruited, unless royalty!

Post by cowboy carl
So background *should* be taken into consideration, along with whatever
other means the ATs want to use (extra exams, in-depth interviews etc.).

Which is an acceptable point of view if you want social engineering and
corruption.

Post by cowboy carl
Government should be left out of it entirely.

Agreed, in priniciple, but given that the state pays the bulk of university
expenses, it is unrealistic to expect that.

ATs can be trusted to act in

Post by cowboy carl
the interests of their department, since if they don't, their university
will fail in attracting the best students and ... well ... it'll be bad.

Hardly a convincing argument! A corrupt AT could allow in those who grease
their palms the most. A system based on actual grades only would make this
type of corruption more difficult.

Post by cowboy carl
There is no incentive that I can see (bar perhaps, vast amounts of money,
which is illegal anyway) for an AT to choose a bad student over a good one.

I am not sure that it would have to be vast! Lecturers are paid relatively
poorly!

Post by cowboy carl
Why can't we trust them to make the decisions?

Why should we have to when it is not necessary?

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

cowboy carl

2004-11-01 09:35:04 UTC

Post by John Porcella
It is! Straight As are better than an equivalent number of lesser

grades.

Post by cowboy carl
It's *not that simple*.

It is that simple. Better grades indicate a better academic

performance.

Post by John Porcella
Now whether there are reasons for this should not be of concern to the
university, unless they are into social engineering).

Post by cowboy carl
Can you honestly not see that?

See what?

Post by cowboy carl
A-levels are not a perfect way of measuring a student's

intellect/ability

Post by John Porcella
to

Post by cowboy carl
do well in a degree,

I never suggested that it was!

Pretty much.

Post by cowboy carl
But above you admit that a-level performance isn't a perfect way for
universities to decide which students will do well in a degree.

I think that was your assertion.

--quote--

Post by John Porcella
A-levels are not a perfect way of measuring a student's intellect/ability to
do well in a degree,

I never suggested that it was!
--end quote--

That implies you agree that A-levels aren't perfect.

Post by cowboy carl
But your objecting to 'improving' the system is you don't believe that ATs
should rely on their 'gut feeling' about a candidate.

I do not consider that an AT's gut feeling is an improvement.

Post by cowboy carl
Do you object to ATs giving interviews then?

No. Whether to make an offer at all might only be determined after an
interview.
Personally, I have no problems with offers being made without an interview.

How is a decision made on interview not a 'gut feeling' decision?

Interviews can't be 'graded'.

People can bribe ATs or corrupt them in other ways at interview. Surely if
you are pushing your "a-level results only, ATs are corrupt" theory, then
interviews should also be banned.

Post by cowboy carl
How is an AT to decide between two candidates with straight As?

How many people are currently applying to university once they have their
grade As?
Anyway, if two people have been offered a place based on getting certain
grades, then if they get them, then the university should accept them.

If A-level grades were the only selection criteria, then Oxford and
Cambridge would be way over capacity, and filled with some people who won't
be comfortable there and won't fulfil their potential.

Post by John Porcella
I think that the vast majority of ATs would be delighted if they had such a
problem!

Same problem works for two candidates with the same grades, BBB or BCC or
whatever.

Splendid. Then that one should get a better chance of getting in due to
better grades.

Post by cowboy carl
Even if student B was 10 times smarter than student A, student A would
probably still out-perform student B.

So what?
If I race the current Olympic 100m champion over his favourite distance when
he is incapacitated due to 'flu, and I beat him, he might be the runner with
more sprinting potential, but I would have won, and to the victor the
spoils. Why punish the winner?

Getting into University X isn't about winning, it's about getting into the
University which is right for you. Your analogy is incorrect.

If the race was to be marked on "acheivement and future possible
development" then the choice of "winner" immediately becomes much more
subjective than a simple "who came first", and there would be a strong
argument for preferring the guy who had the flu.

Universities are trying to pick people on "acheivement and future possible
development".

Post by cowboy carl
However in this case, a university would prefer student B over student A
because he (or she) has more potential despite lower exam results.

Perhaps a university might prefer your student B, but they should not. It
is more objective and less prone to corruption to base entry on known
results.

I still don't understand, is your whole objection to my argument that some
ATs are corrupt?

Is there widespread corruption of ATs which I don't know about and only you
are privy to? Is it that huge a problem, worth sacrificing the judgement of
many ATs who are doing their job properly?

Post by John Porcella
Anyway, if candidate B is so very good, then they can improve their grades
on retake.

Not with final results/STEP papers.

Post by cowboy carl
My point is that 'the worst state school' won't get the full potential out
of a student.

Obviously true about any poor performing school. However, pupils do not
have to put up with it. They can study hard in their own time or hire
tutors.

Wishful thinking. Kids don't want to spend all their free time studying.
Parents sending kids to poor performing schools probably can't afford
private tutors.

Post by cowboy carl
And also that 'the best public school' could train a monkey to get an A in
an A-level.

Nonsense. They tend to do well because of selection policies; simians tend
not to be recruited, unless royalty!

Selection policies? You mean parents with more money magically have
cleverer more talented kids?

cc

John Porcella

2004-11-08 23:20:04 UTC

Post by cowboy carl
That implies you agree that A-levels aren't perfect.

Not much is perfect, is it?

Post by cowboy carl
But your objecting to 'improving' the system is you don't believe that ATs
should rely on their 'gut feeling' about a candidate.

I do not consider that an AT's gut feeling is an improvement.

Post by cowboy carl
Do you object to ATs giving interviews then?

No. Whether to make an offer at all might only be determined after an
interview.
Personally, I have no problems with offers being made without an interview.

How is a decision made on interview not a 'gut feeling' decision?
Interviews can't be 'graded'.

Eh? Of course they can! An interview can be used to find out information
that was not previously supplied, or to confirm details in the application
form. A tick list can be made up and the more ticks the better the
candidate. The quality of the interview can also be checked and raised by
peer review and training.

Post by cowboy carl
People can bribe ATs or corrupt them in other ways at interview. Surely if
you are pushing your "a-level results only, ATs are corrupt" theory, then
interviews should also be banned.

Not necessarily banned since I am a libertarian and if universities think
that that is the best way, then it is up to them to some extent. The
advantage of an interview for a candidate is that it gives the candidate a
chance to see the university and the department.

Post by cowboy carl
How is an AT to decide between two candidates with straight As?

How many people are currently applying to university once they have their
grade As?
Anyway, if two people have been offered a place based on getting certain
grades, then if they get them, then the university should accept them.

If A-level grades were the only selection criteria, then Oxford and
Cambridge would be way over capacity, and filled with some people who won't
be comfortable there and won't fulfil their potential.

I did not write that there should be no interviews! Oxbridge could easily
ask for very high UMS marks and not mere grades.

Post by John Porcella
I think that the vast majority of ATs would be delighted if they had

such

Post by John Porcella
a
problem!

Same problem works for two candidates with the same grades, BBB or BCC or
whatever.

Only if there is not room for both.

Splendid. Then that one should get a better chance of getting in due to
better grades.

Post by cowboy carl
Even if student B was 10 times smarter than student A, student A would
probably still out-perform student B.

So what?
If I race the current Olympic 100m champion over his favourite distance when
he is incapacitated due to 'flu, and I beat him, he might be the runner with
more sprinting potential, but I would have won, and to the victor the
spoils. Why punish the winner?

Getting into University X isn't about winning, it's about getting into the
University which is right for you. Your analogy is incorrect.
If the race was to be marked on "acheivement and future possible
development" then the choice of "winner" immediately becomes much more
subjective than a simple "who came first", and there would be a strong
argument for preferring the guy who had the flu.

The last time I looked, a 'winner' was somebody who came first in a race,
not second.

Post by cowboy carl
Universities are trying to pick people on "acheivement and future possible
development".

Achievement can be assessed by examination grades previously obtanined.
Future possible development is trickier, I admit.

Post by cowboy carl
However in this case, a university would prefer student B over student A
because he (or she) has more potential despite lower exam results.

Perhaps a university might prefer your student B, but they should not.

Post by John Porcella
is more objective and less prone to corruption to base entry on known
results.

I still don't understand, is your whole objection to my argument that some
ATs are corrupt?

No, my objection is that you prefer somebody with inferior grades to the one
with superior grades. What is the point of getting top grades if social
engineering or snobbishness stick their noses in and reward a relative
underachiever.

Post by cowboy carl
Is there widespread corruption of ATs which I don't know about and only you
are privy to? Is it that huge a problem, worth sacrificing the judgement of
many ATs who are doing their job properly?

Why is their judgement needed if grades are the only measure? With many
unis not bothering to interview nowadays, then this is pretty much all of
the objective evidence they have.

Post by John Porcella
Anyway, if candidate B is so very good, then they can improve their grades
on retake.

Not with final results/STEP papers.

I do not understand. 'A' levels can be retaken. What point are you making
about STEP papers?

Post by cowboy carl
My point is that 'the worst state school' won't get the full potential out
of a student.

Obviously true about any poor performing school. However, pupils do not
have to put up with it. They can study hard in their own time or hire
tutors.

Wishful thinking.

Really? I know a maths tutor who has public schoolchildren as the bulk of
his clients.

Kids don't want to spend all their free time studying.

So what? If their parents have aspirations of an academic nature, then the
children will be pushed and they might well enjoy the personal attention and
the success that should arise.

Post by cowboy carl
Parents sending kids to poor performing schools probably can't afford
private tutors.

Nonsense. If there is only one parent sending their child to a tutor then
your argument falls down.

Post by cowboy carl
And also that 'the best public school' could train a monkey to get an A in
an A-level.

Nonsense. They tend to do well because of selection policies; simians tend
not to be recruited, unless royalty!

Selection policies? You mean parents with more money magically have
cleverer more talented kids?

Many public schools will only admit those who pass the Common Entrance
Examination. You try getting a child into Eton or Westminster with money
alone and a failed Common Entrance examination.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Matthew Huntbach

2004-10-08 13:08:18 UTC

Did the article say what the figure is now?

To write of grammar schools being "nuked" is clearly exaggerated and
over-emotional language, suggesting a deliberate and hostile attempt
to destroy. The idea was simply to end a system where people were
marked for life at following a test at the age of 11. Funny how when people
write about this, they never write in terms of secondary modern schools being
"nuked".

In fact some local authorities chose to keep selection by tests at the
age of 11 e.g. Kent. They do not show any remarkable difference in
end results from those that ended selection, in fact there's been claims
that Kent performs somewhat worse than it ought to.

Post by Toby
Is it really stupid to say that the Government needs to sort out its
schools,

This would suggest there is something seriously wrong with state schools
in general, which I don't believe there is. Of course a school which
selects by ability and wealth of parents and has more money per pupil
to spend than the taxpayer is willing to give to state schools will
tend to produce better results that state schools. How do you propose the
government "sorts" this out? In the end I think wealthy people will
always prefer to spend their money on educating their own children
better than pay higher taxes and spend it on educating everyone else's
children better. The disruptive, and hard-to-handle children, and children
who come from families where education is not valued, will always exist,
and so will drag down the overall performance of schools who have a duty
to teach them.

Post by Toby
and for top unis to continue just taking students on merit,

Depends what you mean by "merit".

Post by Toby
i.e. irrespective of whether the student is state/public, or should
unis like Oxford try and meet the new quotas for state students (I
think 77%), even if, according to them, it means they cannot choose
based on merit alone, i.e. the best?

I'm opposed to quota systems, I think universities should be free to
choose who they wish. It should be up to the university and its individual
admissions tutors how or whether they decide to balance exam scores with
the acknowledgement that in some cases they may be inflated due to an
exclusive hot-house educational environment, and in others deflated due to
social deprivation and lack of contacts and role models. There's plenty
of universities in this country, if Oxford get it wrong because they can't
see talent where it exists, then so much the better for the rest of us
who can. Sometimes you would think from the way it's covered in the
press that there are only two universities that matter in this country.

Matthew Huntbach

John Porcella

2004-10-15 14:49:50 UTC

Post by Matthew Huntbach
I'm opposed to quota systems, I think universities should be free to
choose who they wish. It should be up to the university and its individual
admissions tutors how or whether they decide to balance exam scores with
the acknowledgement that in some cases they may be inflated due to an
exclusive hot-house educational environment, and in others deflated due to
social deprivation and lack of contacts and role models. There's plenty
of universities in this country, if Oxford get it wrong because they can't
see talent where it exists, then so much the better for the rest of us
who can. Sometimes you would think from the way it's covered in the
press that there are only two universities that matter in this country.

Well put, Matthew.

It is no wonder they are seen as the only two that matter due to their age
and policy of taking the cream of school output.

--
MESSAGE ENDS.
John Porcella

Matthew Huntbach

2004-10-15 16:47:42 UTC