Ask a British private school boy...

[Brighteye]

Yes, it was.

 

[Abaddon]

Colony: Eh?

If jobs/uni entry etc LIFE is decided by your grades. Couldnt a school that gets you the best grades be by definition giving you the best education?

Dont give me education into how the world works etc, cos thats only learnt through experience!

An Prince... I really have no idea how you think state schools are beating the private ones!

 

[colony]

Exam results are important, but there's more to it than that. What I'm trying to get at is that being taught how to learn, rather than just being fed mark schemes is important too, and exam results on their own can't tell you everything about a school, and league tables can only get you so far.

From everything that I've been told by people the quality of your degree is more important than A-level grades, which if true, (I haven't had a job more difficult than shelf stacking so I don't know), would mean the best education came from not just getting you into uni, but also preparing you to do well at uni, which from everything I've seen the public schools just do better at. Of course this isn't easily measurable, so I'd say league tables are the best method there is right now for finding good schools, despite the problems that I think exist with them.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

explain how.

Despite your authoritarian tone I'll obliged.

"Education" is not the only factor which determines the grades pupils of a school will receive. Don't get me wrong it is a major factor, but you are falling into the trap of thinking that learning occurs in a vacumn. There are other outside influences which contribute to a pupils learning.

Income for example. A high income family provides a much better environment for learning than a low income family. Many people I knew at College completed A-Levels whilst also working all the extra hours God sent to save money for university. Surely those who don't have that worry can concentrate on studies instead?* Stability plays a part there also.

Also you have to look at the pupils who attend Public schools. Many have achieved high grades previously. Is it "good education" for a good pupil to get good grades? I think the level of improvement will better demonstrate "good education". Also, it is easier to provide education to a group of talented pupils than providing the same to a group with different levels of ability as often happens in State Schools.

As I said, I'm not disputing that Public Schools do achieve good grades. I'm simply saying that this in itself does not equate to "good education".

An Prince... I really have no idea how you think state schools are beating the private ones!

Here's how**. Granted Public Schools do well, but that's not to say that there is a "two-tier" education system.

@ Ram: Take as long as you want. I can go into more detail for you once you've done your own research

* Please don't hammer me for making generalisations. I know there will be exceptions in any case but I think the point above stands true.
**I attended Winstanley by the way and IIRC the exam tables strangely mirrored the Rugby one

 

[Abaddon]

The Times school league table of A level results - 2004

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,3321,00.html

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

The Times school league table of A level results - 2004

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,3321,00.html

Touche, I'll retract what I said.

My comment about "better education" remains true however.

 

[Rambuchan]

I don't think you sterling young chaps will reach any final conclusion about which education system is better over the years. Like I've said already, the approaches are different, sometimes totally opposite in ideology, but the levels of quality are quite easily comparable. The constant nudging and competing between different kinds of schools at the top of the league table show this to us. There isn't any runaway system regarding result or quality (unless you look at it in terms of costs per A level result...) And you've also got some real problems with the subjective nature of what some parents consider to be "better" (those non-results factors in education). But have fun trying.

@ Ram: Take as long as you want. I can go into more detail for you once you've done your own research

To be honest, I'm taking my time because I've had major IT problems, both at home and at work. I'm also reluctant to get to it because we are actually arguing to different things. At least that's what I saw when I last read the posts. I was talking about 'adminstration and government' of the Empire, you are talking about 'building it'. In the case of Rugby, you are talking about the 'forms of the game' and I am talking about the 'codification of the game'. Again, two different things.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

To be honest, I'm taking my time because I've had major IT problems, both at home and at work.

Not a problem, I'm having similar problems. Some threads work, some freeze

I'm also reluctant to get to it because we are actually arguing to different things. At least that's what I saw when I last read the psots. I was talking about 'adminstration and government' of the Empire, you are talking about 'building it'.

I was arguing against Elitism in general. I agree that the working classes wouldn't get a look in when it comes to Administration, I was simply arguing that credit for building the Empire shouldn't rest with the Government alone.

In the case of Rugby, you are talking about the 'forms of the game' and I am talking about the 'codification of the game'. Again, two different things.

I'm not convinced we are arguing about two different things here. Rugby may have taken it's name from the school of the same name, largely due to the Webb Ellis Myth, but that's not to say that Rugby even codified the rules of the sport.

 

[Abaddon]

Income for example. A high income family provides a much better environment for learning than a low income family. Many people I knew at College completed A-Levels whilst also working all the extra hours God sent to save money for university. Surely those who don't have that worry can concentrate on studies instead?* Stability plays a part there also.

Oh definitly. I would argue that my school didnt actually have any better teachers, it just provided a better environment to learn in. The pupils there were all as a similar academic level, so we were not held up by slower pupils, and because we were all their, paid for, and generally had aspirations of university an beyond, we didnt have the flippant disregard for education that you get in state schools where pupils can't wait to leave at 16.

Now i know thats the two extremes- you cna still do perfectly well in state schools, but in general i would imagine its harder to. Class sizes is another factor, discipline etc.

 

[Chukchi Husky]

The Times school league table of A level results - 2004

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,3321,00.html

The school I went to isn't on any of the lists, and the one my sisters went to appears near the bottom.

 

[Abaddon]

Husky!

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Does that mean the school I went to is so bad it's not even considered a school?

 

[Brighteye]

Perhaps it no longer exists.

 

[Rambuchan]

Woohoo! An interesting discussion. I didn't say that they were exclusive. The point I was making is that many people see purpose in causality where there is none. The bullying and 'stuffy ritual-worship' may have prepared the public school boys to stick together and help each other into all the good jobs, but that doesn't mean that they were intended to do this.

Pray tell, how will we ever find out what that intent in public school culture is, in order to prove or disprove your theory?

It's the same mistake that people make with evolution. Evolution doesn't intend to make us better; there's no quest for improvement. It's just that the forces that make up evolution happen to cause improvement in the species' survival.

*cough* Survival of the species. Survival of the fittest *cough*

Nice, ironic, parallel example there

No, I don't agree that a conservative education relies on the sort of boy-bonding that takes place at male private schools. The two may often be found together, but can be separated entirely. Parents sent their children to the schools for the stuffy education. Any bullying was coincidental.

Bullying is about a pecking order,as the previous wolf analogy rightly pointed out. What is hierarchy if not a pecking order?

Oh yes, we lost. I recall one match we lost 105-5. We spent 90 minutes (including half time) mostly laughing at our opponents. In particular, one chap was very lazy, ran through us again, and I pushed him over the dead ball line because he was taking his time to touch down. Even the rest of the Oundle team joined in our laughter about that one.

Regarding my bold:

Did you ever have problems with Wymondham? Did you play them? We never liked playing them either. At least Oundle played rugby. Wymondham played beat up the opposition while their coaches aren't looking, and then walk over their 8-man teams.

We never played them. But we did beat the living daylights out of teams while we were playing rugby also.

I distinctly remember their coach meticulously checking all our studs, and complaining about a couple of sets that were slightly worn. Half-way through the game one of our forwards was taken off because a Wymondham player was wearing running spikes, and a spike had gone through his boot, toe, and out the other side.

Spikes through feet? Bah, you were lucky. When I were a lad....

Yep, you've a few years on me. Hills Road in the last 8 years has been beaten consistently by a fair few private schools, including my own, just half a mile down the road.

You know, I very nearly went to the Perse. Until I realised they were all a bunch of namby-pamby, wet blankets on the rugby pitch that is!

 

[Chukchi Husky]

Perhaps it no longer exists.

It still exists, my younger brother goes there.

 

[Brighteye]

Pray tell, how will we ever find out what that intent in public school culture is, in order to prove or disprove your theory?
*cough* Survival of the species. Survival of the fittest *cough*

Well, I'm glad you liked the example. Why does there have to be any intent at all? It just happens because boys naturally feel like bullying one another.
Napoleon once made a comment along the lines of 'If your enemy appears to be making a mistake, he is'. His point is that conspiracy theories, or elaborate ideas are often wrong, and it's just a case of people being nasty or incompetent.

Bullying is about a pecking order,as the previous wolf analogy rightly pointed out. What is hierarchy if not a pecking order?

So boys and wolves naturally create a hierarchy, and all administrative systems contain a hierarchy? Isn't it more likely that administrative systems reflect our urges than the other way round?

Regarding my bold:

We never played them. But we did beat the living daylights out of teams while we were playing rugby also.
Spikes through feet? Bah, you were lucky. When I were a lad....
You know, I very nearly went to the Perse. Until I realised they were all a bunch of namby-pamby, wet blankets on the rugby pitch that is!

As I recall, I still made money from selling sweets I'd bought beforehand after the match. People would pay more than 500% over the retail price sometimes. Oundle were one of those times.

When I were a lad I saw worse, but not done quite so deliberately. We got our revenge though. They always kept an ambulance close by for the opposition, so at the bottom of a collapsed ruck I tried to get out because the idiot forwards were being slow (and heavy) and snapped someone's back on the way out.
After hearing the scream suddenly all the forwards found some energy. I got many drinks for that one.