An interesting table, but I think the really interesting questions about Oxford's dominance are, why and does it matter? On why, does Oxford take good students and form them in some way so that some of them become particularly ambitious for, and suited to, a political career? Or are intelligent 18-year-olds who want a political career most likely to choose Oxford? Or does having "Oxford" on your CV give you a particular advantage in UK politics?
I’ll go for option 3.
A few years ago, I was interviewing three candidates for a teaching post. I reported back to the director with a candid assessment of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.
One of them was at Oxford. I put him bottom of the three because he was a nice guy and obviously very bright but also muddled, inefficient and had no administrative experience.
He got the job, and the director admitted it was because this candidate was at Oxford. He wanted the prestige of that degree as part of what he was offering.
And until I left the following year, all his colleagues (and later his manager) commented ‘lovely guy. But...’ before detailing some cockup he had made through his lack of sense.
So it does make a huge difference to future career prospects. Not necessarily because the graduates of Oxford are better, although I have no doubt many of them are but because they are guaranteed a hearing and people tend to see what they expect, not what is there.
Teaching is largely about crowd control, certainly until A Level, so while an Oxford degree might improve your skills as a commercial lawyer or academic it does not make much difference in the classroom
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Given both Boris and Starmer went to Oxford obviously the trend will continue (even if Starmer went to Leeds for his undergraduate and Oxford for his postgraduate). Indeed apart from Oxford and to a lesser extent Cambridge only 3 other UK universities have produced a PM, Edinburgh where Brown went, Birmingham, where Neville Chamberlain went and Glasgow, where Bonar Law went. A handful like Churchill, Lloyd George, Disraeli and Callaghan and Major never attended any university.
However given Oxford and Cambridge are our best UK universities is there any surprise most UK PMs went there?
No, but it's the sheer level of dominance even considering far fewer universities in the past.
We had different “sets” at my comp in the 2000s. Is that what you mean by “streaming”? There was higher and lower sets for english, maths, and science.
Streaming is where you group kids by overall ability and send them around the school together. Setting is where you do it on a subject by subject basis. You may be top set for maths and second set for English, for example. I was streamed in Year 7 and setted for Years 8 to 11. That kind of makes sense as it meant you got to go around the school together as one for the first year and then got mixed up for the next four years.
My school also had the bright idea of putting disruptive pupils in top sets to see if the behaviour of the geeks would rub off on them. It didn't work.
However given Oxford and Cambridge are our best UK universities is there any surprise most UK PMs went there?
Everyone knows that Newcastle University is the best university in the UK.
The university formally known as Kings College, Durham
(Mrs Eek and I meet while students there) but it was when my Dad was there that it became University of Newcastle all because of an argument over the name
In my time at Sunderland Tech, doing the pharmacy professional course Newcastle Uni was always referred to as such when we went there for Pharmacology lectures in year 2. Didn't actually attend a Uni until the NHS offered us day release in the 90's to do 'further' degrees and I went to Anglia Polytechnic..... now Ruskin....... University. Almost a Proper University became Almost a Real University!
An interesting table, but I think the really interesting questions about Oxford's dominance are, why and does it matter? On why, does Oxford take good students and form them in some way so that some of them become particularly ambitious for, and suited to, a political career? Or are intelligent 18-year-olds who want a political career most likely to choose Oxford? Or does having "Oxford" on your CV give you a particular advantage in UK politics?
I’ll go for option 3.
A few years ago, I was interviewing three candidates for a teaching post. I reported back to the director with a candid assessment of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.
One of them was at Oxford. I put him bottom of the three because he was a nice guy and obviously very bright but also muddled, inefficient and had no administrative experience.
He got the job, and the director admitted it was because this candidate was at Oxford. He wanted the prestige of that degree as part of what he was offering.
And until I left the following year, all his colleagues (and later his manager) commented ‘lovely guy. But...’ before detailing some cockup he had made through his lack of sense.
So it does make a huge difference to future career prospects. Not necessarily because the graduates of Oxford are better, although I have no doubt many of them are but because they are guaranteed a hearing and people tend to see what they expect, not what is there.
Teaching is largely about crowd control, certainly until A Level, so while an Oxford degree might improve your skills as a commercial lawyer or academic it does not make much difference in the classroom
Is it?
Your experience must be different from mine.
But then, I’ve only taught in schools and universities for fourteen years. What would I know?
Why are all the other public (i.e. private) schools so unsatisfactory that they can't rustle up a Tory PM between them?
Am I right in thinking that the state comprehensive system (widely in place since about 1967) has yet to produce a PM?
Gordon Brown was at Kirkcaldy High School.
Theresa May’s school became a comp while she was there. However, she was probably still in a de facto legacy grammar school.
Wiki says Brown was fast streamed, which doesn't sound especially comprehensive to me.
It sounds like a decent comprehensive to me - I don't know of any comprehensive that wouldn't have (at the very least) streamed maths and english lessons. Especially in maths where the A-C grade paper was entirely different to the C-G grade paper.
When Brown was there it would have been O Levels and Highers , no grades just pass or fail.
An interesting table, but I think the really interesting questions about Oxford's dominance are, why and does it matter? On why, does Oxford take good students and form them in some way so that some of them become particularly ambitious for, and suited to, a political career? Or are intelligent 18-year-olds who want a political career most likely to choose Oxford? Or does having "Oxford" on your CV give you a particular advantage in UK politics?
I’ll go for option 3.
A few years ago, I was interviewing three candidates for a teaching post. I reported back to the director with a candid assessment of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.
One of them was at Oxford. I put him bottom of the three because he was a nice guy and obviously very bright but also muddled, inefficient and had no administrative experience.
He got the job, and the director admitted it was because this candidate was at Oxford. He wanted the prestige of that degree as part of what he was offering.
And until I left the following year, all his colleagues (and later his manager) commented ‘lovely guy. But...’ before detailing some cockup he had made through his lack of sense.
So it does make a huge difference to future career prospects. Not necessarily because the graduates of Oxford are better, although I have no doubt many of them are but because they are guaranteed a hearing and people tend to see what they expect, not what is there.
Teaching is largely about crowd control, certainly until A Level, so while an Oxford degree might improve your skills as a commercial lawyer or academic it does not make much difference in the classroom
Is it?
Your experience must be different from mine.
But then, I’ve only taught in schools and universities for fourteen years. What would I know?
Given both Boris and Starmer went to Oxford obviously the trend will continue (even if Starmer went to Leeds for his undergraduate and Oxford for his postgraduate). Indeed apart from Oxford and to a lesser extent Cambridge only 3 other UK universities have produced a PM, Edinburgh where Brown went, Birmingham, where Neville Chamberlain went and Glasgow, where Bonar Law went. A handful like Churchill, Lloyd George, Disraeli and Callaghan and Major never attended any university.
However given Oxford and Cambridge are our best UK universities is there any surprise most UK PMs went there?
Bonar Law didn’t go to university.
He attended lectures at Glasgow University and was a member of the debating club even if he did not get a formal degree
Given both Boris and Starmer went to Oxford obviously the trend will continue (even if Starmer went to Leeds for his undergraduate and Oxford for his postgraduate). Indeed apart from Oxford and to a lesser extent Cambridge only 3 other UK universities have produced a PM, Edinburgh where Brown went, Birmingham, where Neville Chamberlain went and Glasgow, where Bonar Law went. A handful like Churchill, Lloyd George, Disraeli and Callaghan and Major never attended any university.
However given Oxford and Cambridge are our best UK universities is there any surprise most UK PMs went there?
Bonar Law didn’t go to university.
He attended lectures at Glasgow University and was a member of the debating club even if he did not get a formal degree
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.
Bollox it just shows we have regressed to the 18th century and are being ruled by an even smaller elite group of inbred halfwits
An interesting table, but I think the really interesting questions about Oxford's dominance are, why and does it matter? On why, does Oxford take good students and form them in some way so that some of them become particularly ambitious for, and suited to, a political career? Or are intelligent 18-year-olds who want a political career most likely to choose Oxford? Or does having "Oxford" on your CV give you a particular advantage in UK politics?
I’ll go for option 3.
A few years ago, I was interviewing three candidates for a teaching post. I reported back to the director with a candid assessment of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.
One of them was at Oxford. I put him bottom of the three because he was a nice guy and obviously very bright but also muddled, inefficient and had no administrative experience.
He got the job, and the director admitted it was because this candidate was at Oxford. He wanted the prestige of that degree as part of what he was offering.
And until I left the following year, all his colleagues (and later his manager) commented ‘lovely guy. But...’ before detailing some cockup he had made through his lack of sense.
So it does make a huge difference to future career prospects. Not necessarily because the graduates of Oxford are better, although I have no doubt many of them are but because they are guaranteed a hearing and people tend to see what they expect, not what is there.
Teaching is largely about crowd control, certainly until A Level, so while an Oxford degree might improve your skills as a commercial lawyer or academic it does not make much difference in the classroom
Is it?
Your experience must be different from mine.
But then, I’ve only taught in schools and universities for fourteen years. What would I know?
We had different “sets” at my comp in the 2000s. Is that what you mean by “streaming”? There was higher and lower sets for english, maths, and science.
Streaming is where you group kids by overall ability and send them around the school together. Setting is where you do it on a subject by subject basis. You may be top set for maths and second set for English, for example. I was streamed in Year 7 and setted for Years 8 to 11. That kind of makes sense as it meant you got to go around the school together as one for the first year and then got mixed up for the next four years.
My school also had the bright idea of putting disruptive pupils in top sets to see if the behaviour of the geeks would rub off on them. It didn't work.
Some experiments fail - but you have to try. Heck how often do we see people doing things we know will fail but they continue the experiment anyway.
An interesting table, but I think the really interesting questions about Oxford's dominance are, why and does it matter? On why, does Oxford take good students and form them in some way so that some of them become particularly ambitious for, and suited to, a political career? Or are intelligent 18-year-olds who want a political career most likely to choose Oxford? Or does having "Oxford" on your CV give you a particular advantage in UK politics?
I’ll go for option 3.
A few years ago, I was interviewing three candidates for a teaching post. I reported back to the director with a candid assessment of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.
One of them was at Oxford. I put him bottom of the three because he was a nice guy and obviously very bright but also muddled, inefficient and had no administrative experience.
He got the job, and the director admitted it was because this candidate was at Oxford. He wanted the prestige of that degree as part of what he was offering.
And until I left the following year, all his colleagues (and later his manager) commented ‘lovely guy. But...’ before detailing some cockup he had made through his lack of sense.
So it does make a huge difference to future career prospects. Not necessarily because the graduates of Oxford are better, although I have no doubt many of them are but because they are guaranteed a hearing and people tend to see what they expect, not what is there.
Teaching is largely about crowd control, certainly until A Level, so while an Oxford degree might improve your skills as a commercial lawyer or academic it does not make much difference in the classroom
Is it?
Your experience must be different from mine.
But then, I’ve only taught in schools and universities for fourteen years. What would I know?
Depends which University it was .
Two, actually. Aberystwyth and UWE.
I achieved cult status around Aber for saying, when getting exasperated about the rudeness of one student continuously talking across me during a lecture on American politics:
‘And Tim Paine said, perhaps the gentleman in the bobble hat would pay attention.’
They need to look at workplace regulations and attempt to stop all this hugging and kissing which is ingrained in their behavior.
Does that seriously still go on ? It's masks away from desks here and we're all at least 3 metres apart.
It’s within more remote families and social contacts Which is why the mask wearing is important because you have to think twice before kissing someone. I’m sure office environments are well controlled but for meat processors and agricultural workers etc less so especially if they all live together in close confines.
An interesting table, but I think the really interesting questions about Oxford's dominance are, why and does it matter? On why, does Oxford take good students and form them in some way so that some of them become particularly ambitious for, and suited to, a political career? Or are intelligent 18-year-olds who want a political career most likely to choose Oxford? Or does having "Oxford" on your CV give you a particular advantage in UK politics?
I’ll go for option 3.
A few years ago, I was interviewing three candidates for a teaching post. I reported back to the director with a candid assessment of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.
One of them was at Oxford. I put him bottom of the three because he was a nice guy and obviously very bright but also muddled, inefficient and had no administrative experience.
He got the job, and the director admitted it was because this candidate was at Oxford. He wanted the prestige of that degree as part of what he was offering.
And until I left the following year, all his colleagues (and later his manager) commented ‘lovely guy. But...’ before detailing some cockup he had made through his lack of sense.
So it does make a huge difference to future career prospects. Not necessarily because the graduates of Oxford are better, although I have no doubt many of them are but because they are guaranteed a hearing and people tend to see what they expect, not what is there.
Teaching is largely about crowd control, certainly until A Level, so while an Oxford degree might improve your skills as a commercial lawyer or academic it does not make much difference in the classroom
Is it?
Your experience must be different from mine.
But then, I’ve only taught in schools and universities for fourteen years. What would I know?
Does not Mr HYUFD's post demonstrate the fallacy of the widely held belief that everyone knows all about teaching because they went to school. It also says something about the school to which he went!
Why are all the other public (i.e. private) schools so unsatisfactory that they can't rustle up a Tory PM between them?
Am I right in thinking that the state comprehensive system (widely in place since about 1967) has yet to produce a PM?
Gordon Brown was at Kirkcaldy High School.
Theresa May’s school became a comp while she was there. However, she was probably still in a de facto legacy grammar school.
Wiki says Brown was fast streamed, which doesn't sound especially comprehensive to me.
It sounds like a decent comprehensive to me - I don't know of any comprehensive that wouldn't have (at the very least) streamed maths and english lessons. Especially in maths where the A-C grade paper was entirely different to the C-G grade paper.
I went to a comp and we had streaming. What defines a comp is intake by catchment area rather than interview and exam.
Also the absence of state selective education options, the moment you introduce a grammar school the comp effectively becomes a secondary modern
Yes. Which is the problem. Streaming within schools - with flexibility through to at least age 15 - is very different to streaming between schools with a momentous pass/fail fork in the road at 11.
I am so with you on this through personal experience. I failed my 11 plus (although have no memory of taking it. What is more I was streamed in the secondary modern in a class that would be expected to leave without qualifications and in hindsight that was a fair assessment.
However I blossomed by the 3rd or 4th year. When taking the exams to decide whether you took O levels, CSEs or nothing I came top in the school in all subjects except English (in which I did OK).
I went on to the local grammar school where I was fast tracked taking A levels early and went on to Manchester to do a degree in Mathematics.
So what is the problem you may ask. Well because of the split at 11 I had no opportunity to do languages, English Literature, Music, etc, however I did useless stuff for me namely metalwork, woodwork, etc (I am useless at practical stuff). Equally when I went to the Grammar school there were boys there who had no option to do the practical stuff, but could study Russian, German, etc.
Why oh why split at 11. Stream as you go along.
So you escaped (sort of) but that was a close shave for you. I think I agree with @rkrkrk that the hankering to bring back grammars and the 11+ is not common amongst under 50s. I hope that's the case anyway. To me it seems an absurd and borderline cruel way to carry on, getting 11 year olds to sit a single formal exam with binary outcome, the serious consequences of which will be with them for life - a life that has at that point barely started.
I escaped by luck because it was maths. If I was talented in languages, music etc I would have been stuffed. Equally I saw lots of grammar school boys drop out because of lack of opportunity on their side for practical stuff.
It was also notable that those of us who transferred seemed to be above average for the group taking A levels at the Grammar school. In my case I was fast tracked with 3 other boys (albeit all from the Grammar school). I concluded that it would absurd to assume we were better (after all the 11 plus will generally be accurate) but that many who were slightly less talented than those who transferred, but still capable of making the transfer, had been conditioned by the Secondary school ethos to go and get a job and missed the opportunity.
And as another point of reference (which will mean anyone who can be arsed will be able to find out a lot about me) - One boy in my year went on to win a Nobel prize! He was not fast tracked and went on to a pretty average Uni. I would like to say I knew him well, but have no memory whatsoever of him.
Why are all the other public (i.e. private) schools so unsatisfactory that they can't rustle up a Tory PM between them?
Am I right in thinking that the state comprehensive system (widely in place since about 1967) has yet to produce a PM?
Gordon Brown was at Kirkcaldy High School.
Theresa May’s school became a comp while she was there. However, she was probably still in a de facto legacy grammar school.
Wiki says Brown was fast streamed, which doesn't sound especially comprehensive to me.
It sounds like a decent comprehensive to me - I don't know of any comprehensive that wouldn't have (at the very least) streamed maths and english lessons. Especially in maths where the A-C grade paper was entirely different to the C-G grade paper.
I went to a comp and we had streaming. What defines a comp is intake by catchment area rather than interview and exam.
Also the absence of state selective education options, the moment you introduce a grammar school the comp effectively becomes a secondary modern
Yes. Which is the problem. Streaming within schools - with flexibility through to at least age 15 - is very different to streaming between schools with a momentous pass/fail fork in the road at 11.
I am so with you on this through personal experience. I failed my 11 plus (although have no memory of taking it. What is more I was streamed in the secondary modern in a class that would be expected to leave without qualifications and in hindsight that was a fair assessment.
However I blossomed by the 3rd or 4th year. When taking the exams to decide whether you took O levels, CSEs or nothing I came top in the school in all subjects except English (in which I did OK).
I went on to the local grammar school where I was fast tracked taking A levels early and went on to Manchester to do a degree in Mathematics.
So what is the problem you may ask. Well because of the split at 11 I had no opportunity to do languages, English Literature, Music, etc, however I did useless stuff for me namely metalwork, woodwork, etc (I am useless at practical stuff). Equally when I went to the Grammar school there were boys there who had no option to do the practical stuff, but could study Russian, German, etc.
Why oh why split at 11. Stream as you go along.
So you escaped (sort of) but that was a close shave for you. I think I agree with @rkrkrk that the hankering to bring back grammars and the 11+ is not common amongst under 50s. I hope that's the case anyway. To me it seems an absurd and borderline cruel way to carry on, getting 11 year olds to sit a single formal exam with binary outcome, the serious consequences of which will be with them for life - a life that has at that point barely started.
My dad was one one four brothers. His three brothers all passed the 11+ but my dad failed it. Three siblings went off to the "posh grammar" in Bedford while my dad stayed in the village school.
There was no actual bitterness over this, but I think that there was always distance between my dad and his brothers which has never faded. Carving up a family in this way at age 11 is brutal - I don`t think families would stand for this now.
And yet people seem desperate to live in areas with grammars.
Well , of course they do. They will be people who are (rightly) confident that their children will pass the exam (with private tuition if needed)!
And you never here anyone shouting for the return of the Secondary Modern.
My wife went to a truly appalling school in Arbroath. Although a comprehensive it was a secondary modern in its roots and outlook. One upside of this was that they had a flat within the school in which principally the girls were taught hygiene, child care, cookery etc. I suspect that this was actually a lot more use to these children than a smattering of chemistry or physics.
My wife was a successful court lawyer pre children but the advice that she got from her careers advisor was to not waste her time with going to University and to become a secretary. The really sad thing is that more than 40 years on that same school is still failing its kids in exactly the same ways.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.
Hilarious trolling.
I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.
Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?
I’d settle for that SSR myself.
I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.
Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.
"Mum, I've decided to become an investment banker."
"Oh, Ok darling. I see."
"You don't seem pleased."
"It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."
Something I don't know the answer to - does Eton send many more boys to Oxford than Cambridge? If so, that would imply that the reason for Oxford's dominance is, in part, because of Eton's dominance.
Another point - the similar educational background at the top of the greasy pole is not really mirrored further down. Conservative MPs are from a more diverse educational background than PMs. And I would guess that Cabinet Minsters are somewhere between the two. If I'm right, that means that the advantages of Eton and Oxford become more pronounced the further up you climb. Is that because the public like their Tories to be from Eton and Oxford, given that media exposure increases as you climb? Or is it because that background helps with self-confidence, networking, backstabbing and all the other relevant skills to a political career? I don't know.
Oxford does seem to churn out a lot more politicians than does Cambridge. I had always guessed this is because Oxford tends to be (or seen to be) stronger in the Arts, Classics, History and PPE and Cambridge in Maths, the Sciences and Geography. Graduates of the former tend to be more interested in politics.
Oxford is far weaker in History than Cambridge. It doesn’t have as many active high class researchers, and there is a definite lack of rigour in their assessments.
Edit - among the careers departments at schools, Cambridge is regarded as better academically but Oxford is better socially. I think that may well be why there is a difference in the number of politicians. Politicians have to be able to get on with people. Policy wonks are the ones who sat in libraries.
Notably Portillo and Brown did History not PPE but neither went to Oxford, Portillo went to Cambridge and Brown to Edinburgh
Something I don't know the answer to - does Eton send many more boys to Oxford than Cambridge? If so, that would imply that the reason for Oxford's dominance is, in part, because of Eton's dominance.
Another point - the similar educational background at the top of the greasy pole is not really mirrored further down. Conservative MPs are from a more diverse educational background than PMs. And I would guess that Cabinet Minsters are somewhere between the two. If I'm right, that means that the advantages of Eton and Oxford become more pronounced the further up you climb. Is that because the public like their Tories to be from Eton and Oxford, given that media exposure increases as you climb? Or is it because that background helps with self-confidence, networking, backstabbing and all the other relevant skills to a political career? I don't know.
Oxford does seem to churn out a lot more politicians than does Cambridge. I had always guessed this is because Oxford tends to be (or seen to be) stronger in the Arts, Classics, History and PPE and Cambridge in Maths, the Sciences and Geography. Graduates of the former tend to be more interested in politics.
Oxford is far weaker in History than Cambridge. It doesn’t have as many active high class researchers, and there is a definite lack of rigour in their assessments.
Edit - among the careers departments at schools, Cambridge is regarded as better academically but Oxford is better socially. I think that may well be why there is a difference in the number of politicians. Politicians have to be able to get on with people. Policy wonks are the ones who sat in libraries.
Notably Portillo and Brown did History not PPE but neither went to Oxford, Portillo went to Cambridge and Brown to Edinburgh
We had different “sets” at my comp in the 2000s. Is that what you mean by “streaming”? There was higher and lower sets for english, maths, and science.
A friend of mine went to a school in Ayrshire. They were not allowed to have streaming so the Head Master used the time table. Bright kids were encouraged to take Latin. When they did they ended up in different classes for the sciences, maths and English, smaller and well above average. It certainly worked for him.
I did Latin in Ayrshire but as I was a lazy sod , I dropped it later on , preferred the horses.
An interesting table, but I think the really interesting questions about Oxford's dominance are, why and does it matter? On why, does Oxford take good students and form them in some way so that some of them become particularly ambitious for, and suited to, a political career? Or are intelligent 18-year-olds who want a political career most likely to choose Oxford? Or does having "Oxford" on your CV give you a particular advantage in UK politics?
I’ll go for option 3.
A few years ago, I was interviewing three candidates for a teaching post. I reported back to the director with a candid assessment of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.
One of them was at Oxford. I put him bottom of the three because he was a nice guy and obviously very bright but also muddled, inefficient and had no administrative experience.
He got the job, and the director admitted it was because this candidate was at Oxford. He wanted the prestige of that degree as part of what he was offering.
And until I left the following year, all his colleagues (and later his manager) commented ‘lovely guy. But...’ before detailing some cockup he had made through his lack of sense.
So it does make a huge difference to future career prospects. Not necessarily because the graduates of Oxford are better, although I have no doubt many of them are but because they are guaranteed a hearing and people tend to see what they expect, not what is there.
Teaching is largely about crowd control, certainly until A Level, so while an Oxford degree might improve your skills as a commercial lawyer or academic it does not make much difference in the classroom
Is teaching largely about crowd control at Eton? Or is crowd control just for people who aren't rich?
HYUFD is at least useful for showing the true colours of the Conservative Party.
My wife went to a truly appalling school in Arbroath. Although a comprehensive it was a secondary modern in its roots and outlook. One upside of this was that they had a flat within the school in which principally the girls were taught hygiene, child care, cookery etc. I suspect that this was actually a lot more use to these children than a smattering of chemistry or physics.
My wife was a successful court lawyer pre children but the advice that she got from her careers advisor was to not waste her time with going to University and to become a secretary. The really sad thing is that more than 40 years on that same school is still failing its kids in exactly the same ways.
Didn’t we all agree recently that we should abandon maths lessons and get children to do cookery classes instead?
Anyway, speaking of lessons, I have work to do. Have a good morning.
Going further back, 28 Prime Ministers were educated (if that's the right word) at Oxford, of whom no fewer than 13 went to Christ Church. I will leave others to decide whether some of this illustrious history rubbed off on yours truly!
- not yesterday it wasn't, what with all that pollyanna stuff about old style BoE regulation.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
An interesting table, but I think the really interesting questions about Oxford's dominance are, why and does it matter? On why, does Oxford take good students and form them in some way so that some of them become particularly ambitious for, and suited to, a political career? Or are intelligent 18-year-olds who want a political career most likely to choose Oxford? Or does having "Oxford" on your CV give you a particular advantage in UK politics?
I’ll go for option 3.
A few years ago, I was interviewing three candidates for a teaching post. I reported back to the director with a candid assessment of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.
One of them was at Oxford. I put him bottom of the three because he was a nice guy and obviously very bright but also muddled, inefficient and had no administrative experience.
He got the job, and the director admitted it was because this candidate was at Oxford. He wanted the prestige of that degree as part of what he was offering.
And until I left the following year, all his colleagues (and later his manager) commented ‘lovely guy. But...’ before detailing some cockup he had made through his lack of sense.
So it does make a huge difference to future career prospects. Not necessarily because the graduates of Oxford are better, although I have no doubt many of them are but because they are guaranteed a hearing and people tend to see what they expect, not what is there.
Teaching is largely about crowd control, certainly until A Level, so while an Oxford degree might improve your skills as a commercial lawyer or academic it does not make much difference in the classroom
Is teaching largely about crowd control at Eton? Or is crowd control just for people who aren't rich?
HYUFD is at least useful for showing the true colours of the Conservative Party.
At any school you have to be able to control stroppy teenagers, even Eton.
It is just not quite as big a problem at Eton as a comprehensive in an inner city or poor seaside town
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.
Hilarious trolling.
I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.
Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?
I’d settle for that SSR myself.
I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.
Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.
"Mum, I've decided to become an investment banker."
"Oh, Ok darling. I see."
"You don't seem pleased."
"It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."
Something I don't know the answer to - does Eton send many more boys to Oxford than Cambridge? If so, that would imply that the reason for Oxford's dominance is, in part, because of Eton's dominance.
Another point - the similar educational background at the top of the greasy pole is not really mirrored further down. Conservative MPs are from a more diverse educational background than PMs. And I would guess that Cabinet Minsters are somewhere between the two. If I'm right, that means that the advantages of Eton and Oxford become more pronounced the further up you climb. Is that because the public like their Tories to be from Eton and Oxford, given that media exposure increases as you climb? Or is it because that background helps with self-confidence, networking, backstabbing and all the other relevant skills to a political career? I don't know.
Oxford does seem to churn out a lot more politicians than does Cambridge. I had always guessed this is because Oxford tends to be (or seen to be) stronger in the Arts, Classics, History and PPE and Cambridge in Maths, the Sciences and Geography. Graduates of the former tend to be more interested in politics.
Oxford is far weaker in History than Cambridge. It doesn’t have as many active high class researchers, and there is a definite lack of rigour in their assessments.
Edit - among the careers departments at schools, Cambridge is regarded as better academically but Oxford is better socially. I think that may well be why there is a difference in the number of politicians. Politicians have to be able to get on with people. Policy wonks are the ones who sat in libraries.
Notably Portillo and Brown did History not PPE but neither went to Oxford, Portillo went to Cambridge and Brown to Edinburgh
Why are all the other public (i.e. private) schools so unsatisfactory that they can't rustle up a Tory PM between them?
Am I right in thinking that the state comprehensive system (widely in place since about 1967) has yet to produce a PM?
Gordon Brown was at Kirkcaldy High School.
Theresa May’s school became a comp while she was there. However, she was probably still in a de facto legacy grammar school.
Wiki says Brown was fast streamed, which doesn't sound especially comprehensive to me.
It sounds like a decent comprehensive to me - I don't know of any comprehensive that wouldn't have (at the very least) streamed maths and english lessons. Especially in maths where the A-C grade paper was entirely different to the C-G grade paper.
I went to a comp and we had streaming. What defines a comp is intake by catchment area rather than interview and exam.
Also the absence of state selective education options, the moment you introduce a grammar school the comp effectively becomes a secondary modern
Yes. Which is the problem. Streaming within schools - with flexibility through to at least age 15 - is very different to streaming between schools with a momentous pass/fail fork in the road at 11.
I am so with you on this through personal experience. I failed my 11 plus (although have no memory of taking it. What is more I was streamed in the secondary modern in a class that would be expected to leave without qualifications and in hindsight that was a fair assessment.
However I blossomed by the 3rd or 4th year. When taking the exams to decide whether you took O levels, CSEs or nothing I came top in the school in all subjects except English (in which I did OK).
I went on to the local grammar school where I was fast tracked taking A levels early and went on to Manchester to do a degree in Mathematics.
So what is the problem you may ask. Well because of the split at 11 I had no opportunity to do languages, English Literature, Music, etc, however I did useless stuff for me namely metalwork, woodwork, etc (I am useless at practical stuff). Equally when I went to the Grammar school there were boys there who had no option to do the practical stuff, but could study Russian, German, etc.
Why oh why split at 11. Stream as you go along.
So you escaped (sort of) but that was a close shave for you. I think I agree with @rkrkrk that the hankering to bring back grammars and the 11+ is not common amongst under 50s. I hope that's the case anyway. To me it seems an absurd and borderline cruel way to carry on, getting 11 year olds to sit a single formal exam with binary outcome, the serious consequences of which will be with them for life - a life that has at that point barely started.
I escaped by luck because it was maths. If I was talented in languages, music etc I would have been stuffed. Equally I saw lots of grammar school boys drop out because of lack of opportunity on their side for practical stuff.
It was also notable that those of us who transferred seemed to be above average for the group taking A levels at the Grammar school. In my case I was fast tracked with 3 other boys (albeit all from the Grammar school). I concluded that it would absurd to assume we were better (after all the 11 plus will generally be accurate) but that many who were slightly less talented than those who transferred, but still capable of making the transfer, had been conditioned by the Secondary school ethos to go and get a job and missed the opportunity.
And as another point of reference (which will mean anyone who can be arsed will be able to find out a lot about me) - One boy in my year went on to win a Nobel prize! He was not fast tracked and went on to a pretty average Uni. I would like to say I knew him well, but have no memory whatsoever of him.
Just tell us , no time for detective work
I assume you mean him and not me. Nobody is interested in me.
Kazuo Ishiguro
Apologise to anyone who went to the same Unis. I'm sure they are great.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.
Hilarious trolling.
I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.
Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?
I’d settle for that SSR myself.
I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.
Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.
"Mum, I've decided to become an investment banker."
"Oh, Ok darling. I see."
"You don't seem pleased."
"It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.
Bollox it just shows we have regressed to the 18th century and are being ruled by an even smaller elite group of inbred halfwits
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
The child of a former Dean of Faculty allegedly suffered ribbing at Harrow because he lived in a house with a street number. It was actually one of poshest streets in Scotland but it availed him not.
We had different “sets” at my comp in the 2000s. Is that what you mean by “streaming”? There was higher and lower sets for english, maths, and science.
A friend of mine went to a school in Ayrshire. They were not allowed to have streaming so the Head Master used the time table. Bright kids were encouraged to take Latin. When they did they ended up in different classes for the sciences, maths and English, smaller and well above average. It certainly worked for him.
I did Latin in Ayrshire but as I was a lazy sod , I dropped it later on , preferred the horses.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.
Hilarious trolling.
I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.
Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?
I’d settle for that SSR myself.
I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.
Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.
"Mum, I've decided to become an investment banker."
"Oh, Ok darling. I see."
"You don't seem pleased."
"It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."
'Your father and I', surely.
- it's a blue collar family.
As a former investment banker yourself, why do you hate them so much?
None of my business, of course, and if so please tell me to butt out but it permeates your posts so I would be interested in the analysis.
My wife went to a truly appalling school in Arbroath. Although a comprehensive it was a secondary modern in its roots and outlook. One upside of this was that they had a flat within the school in which principally the girls were taught hygiene, child care, cookery etc. I suspect that this was actually a lot more use to these children than a smattering of chemistry or physics.
My wife was a successful court lawyer pre children but the advice that she got from her careers advisor was to not waste her time with going to University and to become a secretary. The really sad thing is that more than 40 years on that same school is still failing its kids in exactly the same ways.
Didn’t we all agree recently that we should abandon maths lessons and get children to do cookery classes instead?
Anyway, speaking of lessons, I have work to do. Have a good morning.
Why are all the other public (i.e. private) schools so unsatisfactory that they can't rustle up a Tory PM between them?
Am I right in thinking that the state comprehensive system (widely in place since about 1967) has yet to produce a PM?
Gordon Brown was at Kirkcaldy High School.
Theresa May’s school became a comp while she was there. However, she was probably still in a de facto legacy grammar school.
Wiki says Brown was fast streamed, which doesn't sound especially comprehensive to me.
It sounds like a decent comprehensive to me - I don't know of any comprehensive that wouldn't have (at the very least) streamed maths and english lessons. Especially in maths where the A-C grade paper was entirely different to the C-G grade paper.
I went to a comp and we had streaming. What defines a comp is intake by catchment area rather than interview and exam.
Also the absence of state selective education options, the moment you introduce a grammar school the comp effectively becomes a secondary modern
Yes. Which is the problem. Streaming within schools - with flexibility through to at least age 15 - is very different to streaming between schools with a momentous pass/fail fork in the road at 11.
I am so with you on this through personal experience. I failed my 11 plus (although have no memory of taking it. What is more I was streamed in the secondary modern in a class that would be expected to leave without qualifications and in hindsight that was a fair assessment.
However I blossomed by the 3rd or 4th year. When taking the exams to decide whether you took O levels, CSEs or nothing I came top in the school in all subjects except English (in which I did OK).
I went on to the local grammar school where I was fast tracked taking A levels early and went on to Manchester to do a degree in Mathematics.
So what is the problem you may ask. Well because of the split at 11 I had no opportunity to do languages, English Literature, Music, etc, however I did useless stuff for me namely metalwork, woodwork, etc (I am useless at practical stuff). Equally when I went to the Grammar school there were boys there who had no option to do the practical stuff, but could study Russian, German, etc.
Why oh why split at 11. Stream as you go along.
So you escaped (sort of) but that was a close shave for you. I think I agree with @rkrkrk that the hankering to bring back grammars and the 11+ is not common amongst under 50s. I hope that's the case anyway. To me it seems an absurd and borderline cruel way to carry on, getting 11 year olds to sit a single formal exam with binary outcome, the serious consequences of which will be with them for life - a life that has at that point barely started.
My dad was one one four brothers. His three brothers all passed the 11+ but my dad failed it. Three siblings went off to the "posh grammar" in Bedford while my dad stayed in the village school.
There was no actual bitterness over this, but I think that there was always distance between my dad and his brothers which has never faded. Carving up a family in this way at age 11 is brutal - I don`t think families would stand for this now.
And yet people seem desperate to live in areas with grammars.
Well , of course they do. They will be people who are (rightly) confident that their children will pass the exam (with private tuition if needed)!
And you never here anyone shouting for the return of the Secondary Modern.
My wife went to a truly appalling school in Arbroath. Although a comprehensive it was a secondary modern in its roots and outlook. One upside of this was that they had a flat within the school in which principally the girls were taught hygiene, child care, cookery etc. I suspect that this was actually a lot more use to these children than a smattering of chemistry or physics.
My wife was a successful court lawyer pre children but the advice that she got from her careers advisor was to not waste her time with going to University and to become a secretary. The really sad thing is that more than 40 years on that same school is still failing its kids in exactly the same ways.
We used to have the favoured ones who were considered the creme de la creme, ones from money etc , used to really piss them off that I as a peasant from the council estate always beat them and won the prizes. Even better was I used to pick a load of cheap paperbacks for the prize giving rather than the expected 1 leather bound tome. They hated presenting them to me.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
The child of a former Dean of Faculty allegedly suffered ribbing at Harrow because he lived in a house with a street number. It was actually one of poshest streets in Scotland but it availed him not.
Social equality in action.
The north side of my cul-de-sac is all named and not numbered..
Why are all the other public (i.e. private) schools so unsatisfactory that they can't rustle up a Tory PM between them?
Am I right in thinking that the state comprehensive system (widely in place since about 1967) has yet to produce a PM?
Gordon Brown was at Kirkcaldy High School.
Theresa May’s school became a comp while she was there. However, she was probably still in a de facto legacy grammar school.
Wiki says Brown was fast streamed, which doesn't sound especially comprehensive to me.
It sounds like a decent comprehensive to me - I don't know of any comprehensive that wouldn't have (at the very least) streamed maths and english lessons. Especially in maths where the A-C grade paper was entirely different to the C-G grade paper.
I went to a comp and we had streaming. What defines a comp is intake by catchment area rather than interview and exam.
Also the absence of state selective education options, the moment you introduce a grammar school the comp effectively becomes a secondary modern
Yes. Which is the problem. Streaming within schools - with flexibility through to at least age 15 - is very different to streaming between schools with a momentous pass/fail fork in the road at 11.
I am so with you on this through personal experience. I failed my 11 plus (although have no memory of taking it. What is more I was streamed in the secondary modern in a class that would be expected to leave without qualifications and in hindsight that was a fair assessment.
However I blossomed by the 3rd or 4th year. When taking the exams to decide whether you took O levels, CSEs or nothing I came top in the school in all subjects except English (in which I did OK).
I went on to the local grammar school where I was fast tracked taking A levels early and went on to Manchester to do a degree in Mathematics.
So what is the problem you may ask. Well because of the split at 11 I had no opportunity to do languages, English Literature, Music, etc, however I did useless stuff for me namely metalwork, woodwork, etc (I am useless at practical stuff). Equally when I went to the Grammar school there were boys there who had no option to do the practical stuff, but could study Russian, German, etc.
Why oh why split at 11. Stream as you go along.
So you escaped (sort of) but that was a close shave for you. I think I agree with @rkrkrk that the hankering to bring back grammars and the 11+ is not common amongst under 50s. I hope that's the case anyway. To me it seems an absurd and borderline cruel way to carry on, getting 11 year olds to sit a single formal exam with binary outcome, the serious consequences of which will be with them for life - a life that has at that point barely started.
My dad was one one four brothers. His three brothers all passed the 11+ but my dad failed it. Three siblings went off to the "posh grammar" in Bedford while my dad stayed in the village school.
There was no actual bitterness over this, but I think that there was always distance between my dad and his brothers which has never faded. Carving up a family in this way at age 11 is brutal - I don`t think families would stand for this now.
And yet people seem desperate to live in areas with grammars.
Well , of course they do. They will be people who are (rightly) confident that their children will pass the exam (with private tuition if needed)!
And you never here anyone shouting for the return of the Secondary Modern.
My wife went to a truly appalling school in Arbroath. Although a comprehensive it was a secondary modern in its roots and outlook. One upside of this was that they had a flat within the school in which principally the girls were taught hygiene, child care, cookery etc. I suspect that this was actually a lot more use to these children than a smattering of chemistry or physics.
My wife was a successful court lawyer pre children but the advice that she got from her careers advisor was to not waste her time with going to University and to become a secretary. The really sad thing is that more than 40 years on that same school is still failing its kids in exactly the same ways.
We used to have the favoured ones who were considered the creme de la creme, ones from money etc , used to really piss them off that I as a peasant from the council estate always beat them and won the prizes. Even better was I used to pick a load of cheap paperbacks for the prize giving rather than the expected 1 leather bound tome. They hated presenting them to me.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.
Hilarious trolling.
I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.
Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?
I’d settle for that SSR myself.
I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.
Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.
"Mum, I've decided to become an investment banker."
"Oh, Ok darling. I see."
"You don't seem pleased."
"It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."
'Your father and I', surely.
- it's a blue collar family.
As a former investment banker yourself, why do you hate them so much?
None of my business, of course, and if so please tell me to butt out but it permeates your posts so I would be interested in the analysis.
No, I don't mind the question at all. Off now, errands, but tbc.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.
Hilarious trolling.
I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.
Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?
I’d settle for that SSR myself.
I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.
Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.
"Mum, I've decided to become an investment banker."
"Oh, Ok darling. I see."
"You don't seem pleased."
"It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."
Unless you make all comps outstanding that is never happening, middle class parents will not touch inadequate or requires improvement comps with a bargepole
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
How many slaves did your family own in the 1700s
I am sure that is unfair and it is more of a maths question: multiply the number of slaves your family had in the 1700s by the number of houses you have now, that sort of thing.
Why are all the other public (i.e. private) schools so unsatisfactory that they can't rustle up a Tory PM between them?
Am I right in thinking that the state comprehensive system (widely in place since about 1967) has yet to produce a PM?
Gordon Brown was at Kirkcaldy High School.
Theresa May’s school became a comp while she was there. However, she was probably still in a de facto legacy grammar school.
Wiki says Brown was fast streamed, which doesn't sound especially comprehensive to me.
It sounds like a decent comprehensive to me - I don't know of any comprehensive that wouldn't have (at the very least) streamed maths and english lessons. Especially in maths where the A-C grade paper was entirely different to the C-G grade paper.
I went to a comp and we had streaming. What defines a comp is intake by catchment area rather than interview and exam.
Also the absence of state selective education options, the moment you introduce a grammar school the comp effectively becomes a secondary modern
Yes. Which is the problem. Streaming within schools - with flexibility through to at least age 15 - is very different to streaming between schools with a momentous pass/fail fork in the road at 11.
I am so with you on this through personal experience. I failed my 11 plus (although have no memory of taking it. What is more I was streamed in the secondary modern in a class that would be expected to leave without qualifications and in hindsight that was a fair assessment.
However I blossomed by the 3rd or 4th year. When taking the exams to decide whether you took O levels, CSEs or nothing I came top in the school in all subjects except English (in which I did OK).
I went on to the local grammar school where I was fast tracked taking A levels early and went on to Manchester to do a degree in Mathematics.
So what is the problem you may ask. Well because of the split at 11 I had no opportunity to do languages, English Literature, Music, etc, however I did useless stuff for me namely metalwork, woodwork, etc (I am useless at practical stuff). Equally when I went to the Grammar school there were boys there who had no option to do the practical stuff, but could study Russian, German, etc.
Why oh why split at 11. Stream as you go along.
So you escaped (sort of) but that was a close shave for you. I think I agree with @rkrkrk that the hankering to bring back grammars and the 11+ is not common amongst under 50s. I hope that's the case anyway. To me it seems an absurd and borderline cruel way to carry on, getting 11 year olds to sit a single formal exam with binary outcome, the serious consequences of which will be with them for life - a life that has at that point barely started.
I escaped by luck because it was maths. If I was talented in languages, music etc I would have been stuffed. Equally I saw lots of grammar school boys drop out because of lack of opportunity on their side for practical stuff.
It was also notable that those of us who transferred seemed to be above average for the group taking A levels at the Grammar school. In my case I was fast tracked with 3 other boys (albeit all from the Grammar school). I concluded that it would absurd to assume we were better (after all the 11 plus will generally be accurate) but that many who were slightly less talented than those who transferred, but still capable of making the transfer, had been conditioned by the Secondary school ethos to go and get a job and missed the opportunity.
And as another point of reference (which will mean anyone who can be arsed will be able to find out a lot about me) - One boy in my year went on to win a Nobel prize! He was not fast tracked and went on to a pretty average Uni. I would like to say I knew him well, but have no memory whatsoever of him.
Just tell us , no time for detective work
I assume you mean him and not me. Nobody is interested in me.
Kazuo Ishiguro
Apologise to anyone who went to the same Unis. I'm sure they are great.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
The child of a former Dean of Faculty allegedly suffered ribbing at Harrow because he lived in a house with a street number. It was actually one of poshest streets in Scotland but it availed him not.
Social equality in action.
The north side of my cul-de-sac is all named and not numbered..
An interesting table, but I think the really interesting questions about Oxford's dominance are, why and does it matter? On why, does Oxford take good students and form them in some way so that some of them become particularly ambitious for, and suited to, a political career? Or are intelligent 18-year-olds who want a political career most likely to choose Oxford? Or does having "Oxford" on your CV give you a particular advantage in UK politics?
I’ll go for option 3.
A few years ago, I was interviewing three candidates for a teaching post. I reported back to the director with a candid assessment of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.
One of them was at Oxford. I put him bottom of the three because he was a nice guy and obviously very bright but also muddled, inefficient and had no administrative experience.
He got the job, and the director admitted it was because this candidate was at Oxford. He wanted the prestige of that degree as part of what he was offering.
And until I left the following year, all his colleagues (and later his manager) commented ‘lovely guy. But...’ before detailing some cockup he had made through his lack of sense.
So it does make a huge difference to future career prospects. Not necessarily because the graduates of Oxford are better, although I have no doubt many of them are but because they are guaranteed a hearing and people tend to see what they expect, not what is there.
Teaching is largely about crowd control, certainly until A Level, so while an Oxford degree might improve your skills as a commercial lawyer or academic it does not make much difference in the classroom
Is it?
Your experience must be different from mine.
But then, I’ve only taught in schools and universities for fourteen years. What would I know?
I didn’t realise you were that young. I’ve been doing it twice as long now.
On the ability of Oxbridge graduates as teachers, my experience is that crowd control is a wash: some can, some can’t in about the same proportion as anyone else. In terms of organisational skills, again I’ve not noticed a massive difference either way: I deal with a lot of HoDs as part of my job and the Oxbridge ones seem no worse than any others. They do work particularly well with A-level groups and high achievers, but then so do those from place like Imperial, Warwick, and Moscow.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
The child of a former Dean of Faculty allegedly suffered ribbing at Harrow because he lived in a house with a street number. It was actually one of poshest streets in Scotland but it availed him not.
Social equality in action.
The north side of my cul-de-sac is all named and not numbered..
There's probably a cream you can get for that.
There is a street near us with a section with all names. You wonder whether one person gets a name and they feel they all have to. Some of the names are quite tacky though like "Being There"
"Australia's virus-hit state of Victoria has reported its worst death toll and case rise, prompting fears that a six-week lockdown of state capital Melbourne is not working.
The state confirmed 13 new deaths and 723 new cases on Thursday - a 36% jump on the case record set on Monday."
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
The child of a former Dean of Faculty allegedly suffered ribbing at Harrow because he lived in a house with a street number. It was actually one of poshest streets in Scotland but it availed him not.
Social equality in action.
The north side of my cul-de-sac is all named and not numbered..
There's probably a cream you can get for that.
There is a street near us with a section with all names. You wonder whether one person gets a name and they feel they all have to. Some of the names are quite tacky though like "Being There"
My house (my first) is 'umble number 42. I've passingly wondered about 'naming it' but wondering if they just let you do away with the number? Not sure it's that simple and must be extremely annoying from a postal perspective.
An interesting table, but I think the really interesting questions about Oxford's dominance are, why and does it matter? On why, does Oxford take good students and form them in some way so that some of them become particularly ambitious for, and suited to, a political career? Or are intelligent 18-year-olds who want a political career most likely to choose Oxford? Or does having "Oxford" on your CV give you a particular advantage in UK politics?
I’ll go for option 3.
A few years ago, I was interviewing three candidates for a teaching post. I reported back to the director with a candid assessment of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.
One of them was at Oxford. I put him bottom of the three because he was a nice guy and obviously very bright but also muddled, inefficient and had no administrative experience.
He got the job, and the director admitted it was because this candidate was at Oxford. He wanted the prestige of that degree as part of what he was offering.
And until I left the following year, all his colleagues (and later his manager) commented ‘lovely guy. But...’ before detailing some cockup he had made through his lack of sense.
So it does make a huge difference to future career prospects. Not necessarily because the graduates of Oxford are better, although I have no doubt many of them are but because they are guaranteed a hearing and people tend to see what they expect, not what is there.
Teaching is largely about crowd control, certainly until A Level, so while an Oxford degree might improve your skills as a commercial lawyer or academic it does not make much difference in the classroom
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
I see no scandal. It simply shows that Eton is a good school and should be encouraged to be as good as it can be so that the public sector can learn from it.
Hilarious trolling.
I dunno. If teachers were paid double what they are in the state sector and had a 1:7 SSR (without checking) I think many of our educational problems would disappear.
Is that a policy you support then - you being paid double?
I’d settle for that SSR myself.
I’ve seen a lot of my colleagues head off to the independent sector over the years. Possibly half of the ones that don’t leave by retirement.
Maybe not double (salary) but I will launch myself into your good books by saying that imo the transformation of teaching into a high status high pay profession to rank with law and medicine is my silver bullet along with 100% comps, no privates, resource skewed towards disadvantaged areas.
"Mum, I've decided to become an investment banker."
"Oh, Ok darling. I see."
"You don't seem pleased."
"It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."
Unless you make all comps outstanding that is never happening, middle class parents will not touch inadequate or requires improvement comps with a bargepole
Maybe the government should do something about inadequate or requiring improvement comps then.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
The child of a former Dean of Faculty allegedly suffered ribbing at Harrow because he lived in a house with a street number. It was actually one of poshest streets in Scotland but it availed him not.
Social equality in action.
The north side of my cul-de-sac is all named and not numbered..
There's probably a cream you can get for that.
There is a street near us with a section with all names. You wonder whether one person gets a name and they feel they all have to. Some of the names are quite tacky though like "Being There"
Why are all the other public (i.e. private) schools so unsatisfactory that they can't rustle up a Tory PM between them?
Am I right in thinking that the state comprehensive system (widely in place since about 1967) has yet to produce a PM?
Gordon Brown was at Kirkcaldy High School.
Theresa May’s school became a comp while she was there. However, she was probably still in a de facto legacy grammar school.
Wiki says Brown was fast streamed, which doesn't sound especially comprehensive to me.
It sounds like a decent comprehensive to me - I don't know of any comprehensive that wouldn't have (at the very least) streamed maths and english lessons. Especially in maths where the A-C grade paper was entirely different to the C-G grade paper.
I went to a comp and we had streaming. What defines a comp is intake by catchment area rather than interview and exam.
Also the absence of state selective education options, the moment you introduce a grammar school the comp effectively becomes a secondary modern
Yes. Which is the problem. Streaming within schools - with flexibility through to at least age 15 - is very different to streaming between schools with a momentous pass/fail fork in the road at 11.
I am so with you on this through personal experience. I failed my 11 plus (although have no memory of taking it. What is more I was streamed in the secondary modern in a class that would be expected to leave without qualifications and in hindsight that was a fair assessment.
However I blossomed by the 3rd or 4th year. When taking the exams to decide whether you took O levels, CSEs or nothing I came top in the school in all subjects except English (in which I did OK).
I went on to the local grammar school where I was fast tracked taking A levels early and went on to Manchester to do a degree in Mathematics.
So what is the problem you may ask. Well because of the split at 11 I had no opportunity to do languages, English Literature, Music, etc, however I did useless stuff for me namely metalwork, woodwork, etc (I am useless at practical stuff). Equally when I went to the Grammar school there were boys there who had no option to do the practical stuff, but could study Russian, German, etc.
Why oh why split at 11. Stream as you go along.
So you escaped (sort of) but that was a close shave for you. I think I agree with @rkrkrk that the hankering to bring back grammars and the 11+ is not common amongst under 50s. I hope that's the case anyway. To me it seems an absurd and borderline cruel way to carry on, getting 11 year olds to sit a single formal exam with binary outcome, the serious consequences of which will be with them for life - a life that has at that point barely started.
I escaped by luck because it was maths. If I was talented in languages, music etc I would have been stuffed. Equally I saw lots of grammar school boys drop out because of lack of opportunity on their side for practical stuff.
It was also notable that those of us who transferred seemed to be above average for the group taking A levels at the Grammar school. In my case I was fast tracked with 3 other boys (albeit all from the Grammar school). I concluded that it would absurd to assume we were better (after all the 11 plus will generally be accurate) but that many who were slightly less talented than those who transferred, but still capable of making the transfer, had been conditioned by the Secondary school ethos to go and get a job and missed the opportunity.
And as another point of reference (which will mean anyone who can be arsed will be able to find out a lot about me) - One boy in my year went on to win a Nobel prize! He was not fast tracked and went on to a pretty average Uni. I would like to say I knew him well, but have no memory whatsoever of him.
Why are all the other public (i.e. private) schools so unsatisfactory that they can't rustle up a Tory PM between them?
Am I right in thinking that the state comprehensive system (widely in place since about 1967) has yet to produce a PM?
Gordon Brown was at Kirkcaldy High School.
Theresa May’s school became a comp while she was there. However, she was probably still in a de facto legacy grammar school.
Wiki says Brown was fast streamed, which doesn't sound especially comprehensive to me.
It sounds like a decent comprehensive to me - I don't know of any comprehensive that wouldn't have (at the very least) streamed maths and english lessons. Especially in maths where the A-C grade paper was entirely different to the C-G grade paper.
I went to a comp and we had streaming. What defines a comp is intake by catchment area rather than interview and exam.
Also the absence of state selective education options, the moment you introduce a grammar school the comp effectively becomes a secondary modern
Yes. Which is the problem. Streaming within schools - with flexibility through to at least age 15 - is very different to streaming between schools with a momentous pass/fail fork in the road at 11.
I am so with you on this through personal experience. I failed my 11 plus (although have no memory of taking it. What is more I was streamed in the secondary modern in a class that would be expected to leave without qualifications and in hindsight that was a fair assessment.
However I blossomed by the 3rd or 4th year. When taking the exams to decide whether you took O levels, CSEs or nothing I came top in the school in all subjects except English (in which I did OK).
I went on to the local grammar school where I was fast tracked taking A levels early and went on to Manchester to do a degree in Mathematics.
So what is the problem you may ask. Well because of the split at 11 I had no opportunity to do languages, English Literature, Music, etc, however I did useless stuff for me namely metalwork, woodwork, etc (I am useless at practical stuff). Equally when I went to the Grammar school there were boys there who had no option to do the practical stuff, but could study Russian, German, etc.
Why oh why split at 11. Stream as you go along.
So you escaped (sort of) but that was a close shave for you. I think I agree with @rkrkrk that the hankering to bring back grammars and the 11+ is not common amongst under 50s. I hope that's the case anyway. To me it seems an absurd and borderline cruel way to carry on, getting 11 year olds to sit a single formal exam with binary outcome, the serious consequences of which will be with them for life - a life that has at that point barely started.
I escaped by luck because it was maths. If I was talented in languages, music etc I would have been stuffed. Equally I saw lots of grammar school boys drop out because of lack of opportunity on their side for practical stuff.
It was also notable that those of us who transferred seemed to be above average for the group taking A levels at the Grammar school. In my case I was fast tracked with 3 other boys (albeit all from the Grammar school). I concluded that it would absurd to assume we were better (after all the 11 plus will generally be accurate) but that many who were slightly less talented than those who transferred, but still capable of making the transfer, had been conditioned by the Secondary school ethos to go and get a job and missed the opportunity.
And as another point of reference (which will mean anyone who can be arsed will be able to find out a lot about me) - One boy in my year went on to win a Nobel prize! He was not fast tracked and went on to a pretty average Uni. I would like to say I knew him well, but have no memory whatsoever of him.
Just tell us , no time for detective work
I assume you mean him and not me. Nobody is interested in me.
Kazuo Ishiguro
Apologise to anyone who went to the same Unis. I'm sure they are great.
omg - Never Let me Go.
Glad your impressed but I should repeat that I have absolutely no recollection of him whatsoever. I might as well have been at school with Mother Teresa (at least I would probably have remembered her)
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
The child of a former Dean of Faculty allegedly suffered ribbing at Harrow because he lived in a house with a street number. It was actually one of poshest streets in Scotland but it availed him not.
Social equality in action.
The north side of my cul-de-sac is all named and not numbered..
There's probably a cream you can get for that.
There is a street near us with a section with all names. You wonder whether one person gets a name and they feel they all have to. Some of the names are quite tacky though like "Being There"
My house (my first) is 'umble number 42. I've passingly wondered about 'naming it' but wondering if they just let you do away with the number? Not sure it's that simple and must be extremely annoying from a postal perspective.
42; the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything. According to the late Douglas Adams.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
The child of a former Dean of Faculty allegedly suffered ribbing at Harrow because he lived in a house with a street number. It was actually one of poshest streets in Scotland but it availed him not.
Social equality in action.
The north side of my cul-de-sac is all named and not numbered..
There's probably a cream you can get for that.
There is a street near us with a section with all names. You wonder whether one person gets a name and they feel they all have to. Some of the names are quite tacky though like "Being There"
My house (my first) is 'umble number 42. I've passingly wondered about 'naming it' but wondering if they just let you do away with the number? Not sure it's that simple and must be extremely annoying from a postal perspective.
42; the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything. According to the late Douglas Adams.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
True, and one of the worst things New Labour did was to abolish the assisted places scheme, under which the talented but poor had their fees paid for by the state.
"Australia's virus-hit state of Victoria has reported its worst death toll and case rise, prompting fears that a six-week lockdown of state capital Melbourne is not working.
The state confirmed 13 new deaths and 723 new cases on Thursday - a 36% jump on the case record set on Monday."
We really, really need a vaccine. Lockdowns, no lockdowns, masks, no masks, this bugger of a virus will keep finding ways to kill and severely damage people until we have it.
Why are all the other public (i.e. private) schools so unsatisfactory that they can't rustle up a Tory PM between them?
Am I right in thinking that the state comprehensive system (widely in place since about 1967) has yet to produce a PM?
Gordon Brown was at Kirkcaldy High School.
Theresa May’s school became a comp while she was there. However, she was probably still in a de facto legacy grammar school.
Wiki says Brown was fast streamed, which doesn't sound especially comprehensive to me.
It sounds like a decent comprehensive to me - I don't know of any comprehensive that wouldn't have (at the very least) streamed maths and english lessons. Especially in maths where the A-C grade paper was entirely different to the C-G grade paper.
I went to a comp and we had streaming. What defines a comp is intake by catchment area rather than interview and exam.
Also the absence of state selective education options, the moment you introduce a grammar school the comp effectively becomes a secondary modern
Yes. Which is the problem. Streaming within schools - with flexibility through to at least age 15 - is very different to streaming between schools with a momentous pass/fail fork in the road at 11.
I am so with you on this through personal experience. I failed my 11 plus (although have no memory of taking it. What is more I was streamed in the secondary modern in a class that would be expected to leave without qualifications and in hindsight that was a fair assessment.
However I blossomed by the 3rd or 4th year. When taking the exams to decide whether you took O levels, CSEs or nothing I came top in the school in all subjects except English (in which I did OK).
I went on to the local grammar school where I was fast tracked taking A levels early and went on to Manchester to do a degree in Mathematics.
So what is the problem you may ask. Well because of the split at 11 I had no opportunity to do languages, English Literature, Music, etc, however I did useless stuff for me namely metalwork, woodwork, etc (I am useless at practical stuff). Equally when I went to the Grammar school there were boys there who had no option to do the practical stuff, but could study Russian, German, etc.
Why oh why split at 11. Stream as you go along.
So you escaped (sort of) but that was a close shave for you. I think I agree with @rkrkrk that the hankering to bring back grammars and the 11+ is not common amongst under 50s. I hope that's the case anyway. To me it seems an absurd and borderline cruel way to carry on, getting 11 year olds to sit a single formal exam with binary outcome, the serious consequences of which will be with them for life - a life that has at that point barely started.
I escaped by luck because it was maths. If I was talented in languages, music etc I would have been stuffed. Equally I saw lots of grammar school boys drop out because of lack of opportunity on their side for practical stuff.
It was also notable that those of us who transferred seemed to be above average for the group taking A levels at the Grammar school. In my case I was fast tracked with 3 other boys (albeit all from the Grammar school). I concluded that it would absurd to assume we were better (after all the 11 plus will generally be accurate) but that many who were slightly less talented than those who transferred, but still capable of making the transfer, had been conditioned by the Secondary school ethos to go and get a job and missed the opportunity.
And as another point of reference (which will mean anyone who can be arsed will be able to find out a lot about me) - One boy in my year went on to win a Nobel prize! He was not fast tracked and went on to a pretty average Uni. I would like to say I knew him well, but have no memory whatsoever of him.
Just tell us , no time for detective work
I assume you mean him and not me. Nobody is interested in me.
Kazuo Ishiguro
Apologise to anyone who went to the same Unis. I'm sure they are great.
omg - Never Let me Go.
Glad your impressed but I should repeat that I have absolutely no recollection of him whatsoever. I might as well have been at school with Mother Teresa (at least I would probably have remembered her)
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
The child of a former Dean of Faculty allegedly suffered ribbing at Harrow because he lived in a house with a street number. It was actually one of poshest streets in Scotland but it availed him not.
Social equality in action.
The north side of my cul-de-sac is all named and not numbered..
There's probably a cream you can get for that.
There is a street near us with a section with all names. You wonder whether one person gets a name and they feel they all have to. Some of the names are quite tacky though like "Being There"
My house (my first) is 'umble number 42. I've passingly wondered about 'naming it' but wondering if they just let you do away with the number? Not sure it's that simple and must be extremely annoying from a postal perspective.
Our whole street is named on the original title deeds. Changing from a number to a name must piss posties off royally.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
The child of a former Dean of Faculty allegedly suffered ribbing at Harrow because he lived in a house with a street number. It was actually one of poshest streets in Scotland but it availed him not.
Social equality in action.
The north side of my cul-de-sac is all named and not numbered..
There's probably a cream you can get for that.
There is a street near us with a section with all names. You wonder whether one person gets a name and they feel they all have to. Some of the names are quite tacky though like "Being There"
My house (my first) is 'umble number 42. I've passingly wondered about 'naming it' but wondering if they just let you do away with the number? Not sure it's that simple and must be extremely annoying from a postal perspective.
42; the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything. According to the late Douglas Adams.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
If they were the worst of the two choices the public would have gone for the other one of the two, but they didn't, funny that.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
True, and one of the worst things New Labour did was to abolish the assisted places scheme, under which the talented but poor had their fees paid for by the state.
You shouldn’t need an assisted places scheme all schools should be good
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
True, and one of the worst things New Labour did was to abolish the assisted places scheme, under which the talented but poor had their fees paid for by the state.
That was indeed an ineffectual piece of gesture politics, that was also one of those token sops to the left and diversions in 1997, to cover for the lack of action from New Labour in a number of fundamental social policy areas. The 36 million or so saved, when spread over the entire state system, has had much less social impact than that of the scheme, both on the culture of those elite schools, but more importantly on the individuals and their families helped by it.
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
True, and one of the worst things New Labour did was to abolish the assisted places scheme, under which the talented but poor had their fees paid for by the state.
You shouldn’t need an assisted places scheme all schools should be good
But they're not. So do you deal in ideals or reality?
The influence of Eton is more concerning than that of Oxford Uni. Hopefully "Boris" Johnson is the last of this dismal breed to realize their 'born to misrule' destiny.
Why would he be the last when the public has been shown as perfectly willing to elect Old Etonians? If anything recent performance from Cameron and Boris will make more Old Etonians realise such a destiny, after a long time without one as PM.
I fear you are right. The egalitarian spirit is not at this present time in the ascendancy.
Why should the public saddle themselves with worse Prime Ministers with all that means just because of the school they went to? Being Prime Minister is such an important job that you want the best person for it, regardless of irrelevant considerations.
On this, as so often, the masses are much more sensible than those who want to be their spokesmen.
But it is Republican governors who dominate the lowest ranks of the list. Fourteen of the 15 worst-rated governors are Republicans; the lone Democrat, Hawaii Gov. David Ige (D), started the pandemic as one of the least-popular governors in the country. Just 39 percent of Hawaii residents approve of the job he is doing — a figure that has actually risen two points since April.
One commonality among the most popular governors: the vast majority of them have issued mandates ordering residents to wear masks in public...
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
The child of a former Dean of Faculty allegedly suffered ribbing at Harrow because he lived in a house with a street number. It was actually one of poshest streets in Scotland but it availed him not.
Social equality in action.
The north side of my cul-de-sac is all named and not numbered..
There's probably a cream you can get for that.
There is a street near us with a section with all names. You wonder whether one person gets a name and they feel they all have to. Some of the names are quite tacky though like "Being There"
My house (my first) is 'umble number 42. I've passingly wondered about 'naming it' but wondering if they just let you do away with the number? Not sure it's that simple and must be extremely annoying from a postal perspective.
Our whole street is named on the original title deeds. Changing from a number to a name must piss posties off royally.
You would still he known by your number and quite possibly if you didn’t get the address registered and updated in PAF (postal address file) then using just the name could result in no delivery
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
I doubt it. Rich people dont like talking about money I'm told, its gauche.
An interesting table, but I think the really interesting questions about Oxford's dominance are, why and does it matter? On why, does Oxford take good students and form them in some way so that some of them become particularly ambitious for, and suited to, a political career? Or are intelligent 18-year-olds who want a political career most likely to choose Oxford? Or does having "Oxford" on your CV give you a particular advantage in UK politics?
I’ll go for option 3.
A few years ago, I was interviewing three candidates for a teaching post. I reported back to the director with a candid assessment of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses.
One of them was at Oxford. I put him bottom of the three because he was a nice guy and obviously very bright but also muddled, inefficient and had no administrative experience.
He got the job, and the director admitted it was because this candidate was at Oxford. He wanted the prestige of that degree as part of what he was offering.
And until I left the following year, all his colleagues (and later his manager) commented ‘lovely guy. But...’ before detailing some cockup he had made through his lack of sense.
So it does make a huge difference to future career prospects. Not necessarily because the graduates of Oxford are better, although I have no doubt many of them are but because they are guaranteed a hearing and people tend to see what they expect, not what is there.
Teaching is largely about crowd control, certainly until A Level, so while an Oxford degree might improve your skills as a commercial lawyer or academic it does not make much difference in the classroom
But it is Republican governors who dominate the lowest ranks of the list. Fourteen of the 15 worst-rated governors are Republicans; the lone Democrat, Hawaii Gov. David Ige (D), started the pandemic as one of the least-popular governors in the country. Just 39 percent of Hawaii residents approve of the job he is doing — a figure that has actually risen two points since April.
One commonality among the most popular governors: the vast majority of them have issued mandates ordering residents to wear masks in public...
If the Gods were debating whether Americans should just die out, the case against the proposition would be able to rally scant argument....
The dominance of Eton in Tory PMs is even greater when one remembers that PMs Thatcher and (possibly, in terms of admitting females to the sixth form at the time?) May were disqualified from Eton anyway by being girls.
Stonking point. Thus of the last 7 eligible Tory PMs, FIVE (!) went to Eton. A scandal really when you stop to think about it. How on earth can this be?
Because the public voted for them?
The public voted for them once the choice had been narrowed down to 2.
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
You have to pass an entrance exam to get into Eton and they also provide scholarships
Is that questions on how many peers in the family and/or how large is your parents bank book, how many country homes do you have
The child of a former Dean of Faculty allegedly suffered ribbing at Harrow because he lived in a house with a street number. It was actually one of poshest streets in Scotland but it availed him not.
Social equality in action.
The north side of my cul-de-sac is all named and not numbered..
There's probably a cream you can get for that.
There is a street near us with a section with all names. You wonder whether one person gets a name and they feel they all have to. Some of the names are quite tacky though like "Being There"
My house (my first) is 'umble number 42. I've passingly wondered about 'naming it' but wondering if they just let you do away with the number? Not sure it's that simple and must be extremely annoying from a postal perspective.
Our whole street is named on the original title deeds. Changing from a number to a name must piss posties off royally.
Did a Christmas on the post while in the Vith Form. Really enjoyed it. But streets with just names were a pain until you learned the sequence.
The influence of Eton is more concerning than that of Oxford Uni. Hopefully "Boris" Johnson is the last of this dismal breed to realize their 'born to misrule' destiny.
Why would he be the last when the public has been shown as perfectly willing to elect Old Etonians? If anything recent performance from Cameron and Boris will make more Old Etonians realise such a destiny, after a long time without one as PM.
I fear you are right. The egalitarian spirit is not at this present time in the ascendancy.
Why should the public saddle themselves with worse Prime Ministers with all that means just because of the school they went to? Being Prime Minister is such an important job that you want the best person for it, regardless of irrelevant considerations.
On this, as so often, the masses are much more sensible than those who want to be their spokesmen.
I think a more interesting question is what is about an Etonian education that makes you suitable for the role of PM? Cameron describes his time at Eton only briefly but what I think is obvious from his and other accounts is that it is designed to develop strong traits of self confidence, self starting, the ability to think for yourself and a desire to find something that you are genuinely good at.
Which makes it a bit of a shame that so many of them are obsessed with politics really. I sure that they could have done great things in the sciences, for example. But other schools, state and private, should give some thought as to what they can learn from this.
In the 21st century with online deliveries as well as post etc I can't understand why anyone would want a street with names rather than numbers. Its ineffective nonsense.
Names as well as numbers fair enough. But all homes should have a number, street name and a postcode.
Comments
The dominance of Eton would be fine if it was a school where you got in by virtue of your own intelligence but an Eton education frequently gets people into positions that they would never achieve on merit.
My school also had the bright idea of putting disruptive pupils in top sets to see if the behaviour of the geeks would rub off on them. It didn't work.
Didn't actually attend a Uni until the NHS offered us day release in the 90's to do 'further' degrees and I went to Anglia Polytechnic..... now Ruskin....... University. Almost a Proper University became Almost a Real University!
9am The Long View comparing Dom Cummings with Victorian Civil Service Reformer Charles Trevelyan.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000l8q6
9:30am James Burke (!!!!) doing another set of "connections" - just like the ones in 1978. He is now 83.
I hadn't realised that Pinkerton completely changed his spots from rabble rouser to establishment when he went from Scotland to the USA.
Your experience must be different from mine.
But then, I’ve only taught in schools and universities for fourteen years. What would I know?
Thanks for alerting us to this.
Thanks. I’ll use that on my CV.
I can access via vanilla and on my desktop and mobile without a problem
I achieved cult status around Aber for saying, when getting exasperated about the rudeness of one student continuously talking across me during a lecture on American politics:
‘And Tim Paine said, perhaps the gentleman in the bobble hat would pay attention.’
It also says something about the school to which he went!
My wife was a successful court lawyer pre children but the advice that she got from her careers advisor was to not waste her time with going to University and to become a secretary. The really sad thing is that more than 40 years on that same school is still failing its kids in exactly the same ways.
"Mum, I've decided to become an investment banker."
"Oh, Ok darling. I see."
"You don't seem pleased."
"It's not that. It's just that you're so bright and everything - me and your father were rather hoping you might aim a little higher than that. Try and get into teaching even."
Or is crowd control just for people who aren't rich?
HYUFD is at least useful for showing the true colours of the Conservative Party.
Anyway, speaking of lessons, I have work to do. Have a good morning.
It is just not quite as big a problem at Eton as a comprehensive in an inner city or poor seaside town
Kazuo Ishiguro
Apologise to anyone who went to the same Unis. I'm sure they are great.
Social equality in action.
"Swedish virus expert says 'no point' in face masks, as Madeira makes them mandatory"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/30/travel-latestswedish-virus-expert-says-no-point-face-masks-madeira/
None of my business, of course, and if so please tell me to butt out but it permeates your posts so I would be interested in the analysis.
Kamala Harris: 1.81
Susan Rice: 5.3
Karen Bass: 12.5
Elizabeth Warren: 17.5
Tammy Duckworth: 20
Val Demings: 27
Michelle Obama: 38
Gretchen Whitmer: 42
Michelle Lujan Grisham: 55
Hillary Clinton: 130
Keisha Lance Bottoms: 220
Stacey Abrams: 250
In 2017/18 the numbers were 8130 new officers and 8574 officers who left.
Is the total number of officers even increasing with 4336 new officers?
Care to tell us?
I’ve been doing it twice as long now.
On the ability of Oxbridge graduates as teachers, my experience is that crowd control is a wash: some can, some can’t in about the same proportion as anyone else.
In terms of organisational skills, again I’ve not noticed a massive difference either way: I deal with a lot of HoDs as part of my job and the Oxbridge ones seem no worse than any others.
They do work particularly well with A-level groups and high achievers, but then so do those from place like Imperial, Warwick, and Moscow.
https://english.elpais.com/brexit/2020-07-29/gibraltar-seeks-to-keep-eu-ties-after-brexit-transition-ends.
The state confirmed 13 new deaths and 723 new cases on Thursday - a 36% jump on the case record set on Monday."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-53589817
Churchill didn't go to Oxford.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kumars_at_No._42
On this, as so often, the masses are much more sensible than those who want to be their spokesmen.
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/509722-governors-approval-ratings-drop-as-covid-19-cases-mount
...Americans are willing to give both Democrats and Republicans high marks for strong leadership during the crisis; of the six governors with the highest approval ratings, three are Democrats and three are Republicans.
But it is Republican governors who dominate the lowest ranks of the list. Fourteen of the 15 worst-rated governors are Republicans; the lone Democrat, Hawaii Gov. David Ige (D), started the pandemic as one of the least-popular governors in the country. Just 39 percent of Hawaii residents approve of the job he is doing — a figure that has actually risen two points since April.
One commonality among the most popular governors: the vast majority of them have issued mandates ordering residents to wear masks in public...
Which makes it a bit of a shame that so many of them are obsessed with politics really. I sure that they could have done great things in the sciences, for example. But other schools, state and private, should give some thought as to what they can learn from this.
Names as well as numbers fair enough. But all homes should have a number, street name and a postcode.