Grammar schools

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

I heartily wish someone had made me take a few years out and not blindly go from school to university, although I'd have thought the advice stupid at the time.

Yah, you could have like, gone on a garp yarh. Literally to Cambodia, to meet the amaahzing local people. And then chundared *everywharr*, because you'd been out on the lash the night before...

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

I heartily wish someone had made me take a few years out and not blindly go from school to university, although I'd have thought the advice stupid at the time.

Yah, you could have like, gone on a garp yarh. Literally to Cambodia, to meet the amaahzing local people. And then chundared *everywharr*, because you'd been out on the lash the night before...

And then I..... like........ literally, like.... chundaaaared literally everywhaaaaarr. Literally.

NGale

When the 'rah' brigade get going (and there are a lot of them at Exeter University!) I usually get the urge to shove their heads down a toilet while they are wearing their Jack Wills hoodie and joggers....literally! :evil:

Jay dubbleU

I went to Grammar school via the 11 plus from a perfectly ordinary junior school - no fees, no class issues - if you had the ability you went.

If you failed you went to a Secondary modern - equally good but a more practically orientated curriculum

Much better than trying to teach all ability classes I would imagine

jimmypippa

I did well and thrived at a grammar school, but it was very competitive* and hard for those who just got in and spent their secondary school time at the bottom of the class, when they would be near the top in a comprehensive system.

I know people who did that, and left at 16 to go to college where they suddenly found they were back at the top.

Good if you are suited to them, but not otherwise.


*A lot (but not all**)of the film, "The History Boys" did ring true. ETA: Especially the attitude to academic work.

**The homoerotic/platonic relationship between the group of kids and the teacher for example...

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

@Rick Chasey: WRT class, in the UK at least it's not about money as such. There is a loose correlation, but it's not the driving factor. There were and are poor aristos, there are also very wealthy people who would swear on their mother's life that they are working class. Apologies if I'm stating the obvious.

That's what I mean really. Education plays a big deal in class, and I think in the UK it's difficult if not impossible to seperate school elitism (say, grammer, private, state school etc) and class.

A good example here. Someone in the Abott thread mentioned something about Abbott going to a grammer school (as well as oxbridge) as not representative of her background.

Since she went to grammer school and then cambridge and thus into the media and no local radio etc, Underprivileged roots I think not.

That's why the whole grammer school/education thing is so divisive.

In theory, specialising with regard to academic ability makes sense at school. Right? The teaching can be more bespoke etc. Just like specialising in anything improves efficiency/productivity.

But in practice, it's too tied up in all sorts of complicated social stuff that I find it really difficult to tease out the value of it or not.

For me, I'd unlikely have spent most afternoons literally being kicked in the head had I gone to grammer school. I doubt my grades would have been that different.

At a guess, I'd probably be more of a w*nker had I gone. I already have the propensity, so it wouldn't be unfeasable if I crawled even further up my own arse.

I guess that was original point > I find it hard to work out an answer to the question, and I can't find comparisons from elsewhere which are are comparable enough to have value.

jimmypippa

A good example here. Someone in the Abott thread mentioned something about Abbott going to a grammer school (as well as oxbridge) as not representative of her background.

Since she went to grammer school and then cambridge and thus into the media and no local radio etc, Underprivileged roots I think not.

Grammar schools, when they work, do allow a route up from underprivileged roots. In our 6th form, our deputy head discussed this with us, and mentioned his (grammar) school friend who used to live in a slum that had been condemned before the war, and who ended up getting a first at Cambridge and a career that wouldn't have been open to someone of his class otherwise.

rick_chasey

jimmypippa wrote:

A good example here. Someone in the Abott thread mentioned something about Abbott going to a grammer school (as well as oxbridge) as not representative of her background.

Since she went to grammer school and then cambridge and thus into the media and no local radio etc, Underprivileged roots I think not.

Grammar schools, when they work, do allow a route up from underprivileged roots. In our 6th form, our deputy head discussed this with us, and mentioned his (grammar) school friend who used to live in a slum that had been condemned before the war, and who ended up getting a first at Cambridge and a career that wouldn't have been open to someone of his class otherwise.

Sure.

The class judgment re the education was/is still made though.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's why the whole grammer school/education thing is so divisive.

In theory, specialising with regard to academic ability makes sense at school. Right? The teaching can be more bespoke etc. Just like specialising in anything improves efficiency/productivity.

But in practice, it's too tied up in all sorts of complicated social stuff that I find it really difficult to tease out the value of it or not.

For me, I'd unlikely have spent most afternoons literally being kicked in the head had I gone to grammer school. I doubt my grades would have been that different.

At a guess, I'd probably be more of a w*nker had I gone. I already have the propensity, so it wouldn't be unfeasable if I crawled even further up my own ars*.

I guess that was original point > I find it hard to work out an answer to the question, and I can't find comparisons from elsewhere which are are comparable enough to have value.

I can't be arsed to read all of this thread (I'm too important *and* too far up my own ars* to do so, see?), but I'm not sure what point you're making here. Is it that the perceived educational value of grammar schools (and presumably by extension private schools) is not sufficient to outweigh the social divisiveness that a streamed education system creates?

Would you prefer a fully comprehensive school system with randomised entry to guarantee complete homogeneity?

rick_chasey

Greg66 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's why the whole grammer school/education thing is so divisive.

In theory, specialising with regard to academic ability makes sense at school. Right? The teaching can be more bespoke etc. Just like specialising in anything improves efficiency/productivity.

But in practice, it's too tied up in all sorts of complicated social stuff that I find it really difficult to tease out the value of it or not.

For me, I'd unlikely have spent most afternoons literally being kicked in the head had I gone to grammer school. I doubt my grades would have been that different.

At a guess, I'd probably be more of a w*nker had I gone. I already have the propensity, so it wouldn't be unfeasable if I crawled even further up my own ars*.

I guess that was original point > I find it hard to work out an answer to the question, and I can't find comparisons from elsewhere which are are comparable enough to have value.

I can't be arsed to read all of this thread (I'm too important *and* too far up my own ars* to do so, see?), but I'm not sure what point you're making here. Is it that the perceived educational value of grammar schools (and presumably by extension private schools) is not sufficient to outweigh the social divisiveness that a streamed education system creates?

Would you prefer a fully comprehensive school system with randomised entry to guarantee complete homogeneity?

It's more I recon that the whole divisive class thing is a) pretty unique to the UK and b) overlooked when discussing it.

As such, I don't really have an answer :P

daviesee

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's more I recon that the whole divisive class thing is a) pretty unique to the UK and b) overlooked when discussing it.

As such, I don't really have an answer :P

Re a) - There are good and bad schools in North America. It is not coincidence that the good ones are in good areas or expensive. Therefore it is not unique to the UK. Possibly within Europe but I wouldn't know.