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?
Its striking and worrying but I dont know I'd call it a scandal. Whatever advantages may have helped them rise through the Tories the public always had a chance to say no if a duffer made it through.
This is a good point. There is much more to becoming PM and winning elections than Eton and Oxford. You have to gain and keep the approval of local party, local voters, fellow MPs, the entire party membership, the national poll in GEs and you have to be not destroyed by the media. What is puzzling is why Oxford and Eton should have such an advantage over say Winchester and Cambridge or whatever.
'Born to rule' self confidence?
One way to probably alleviate this run is for the Labour party to win more elections.
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?
My instinct, and I have some relevant experience, is that if Oxford does form students in this way, it does so unconsciously. I would guess that the second explanation is more important. It's probably not a total explanation, though, and there may be elements of the third.
As to whether it matters or not, as ever in social sciences, we can't tell defintively, as we don't have a control experiment - we don't know how the UK would have faired under different leadership. There may be some advantage to having a political class whose members have a similar background and common assumptions, and many of whom know each other. But it can be incestuous and lead to groupthink.
It can also breed feelings of exclusion in everybody else. The people most likely to have problems with magic circles are those who are not in them. Once they are, their feelings about them usually change - especially if they are ambitious politicians.
There is no evidence, despite decades of hypocritical propaganda from the Labour Party, that the electorate as a whole gives a damn where its politicians went to school and university. They are, sensibly, much more concerned about how well they think they will govern. At any rate, it is noticeable that the only one of those leaders to have led the Conserative Party to complete electoral disaster was the big exception in the table above.
Probably Oxford dominates because that is where you apply, especially to its PPE course, if you are interested in a career in politics. Just as you'd go to Cambridge for a career in comedy (via the Footlights).
It is a striking dominance which is hard to explain given surely not all politicians decided at 18 they wanted to get into politics when deciding between Oxford and Cambridge.
Not all, but probably all of the ones who did so decide by 18 applied to Oxford and especially its PPE course. That is enough to explain the bias.
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?
My instinct, and I have some relevant experience, is that if Oxford does form students in this way, it does so unconsciously. I would guess that the second explanation is more important. It's probably not a total explanation, though, and there may be elements of the third.
As to whether it matters or not, as ever in social sciences, we can't tell defintively, as we don't have a control experiment - we don't know how the UK would have faired under different leadership. There may be some advantage to having a political class whose members have a similar background and common assumptions, and many of whom know each other. But it can be incestuous and lead to groupthink.
It can also breed feelings of exclusion in everybody else. The people most likely to have problems with magic circles are those who are not in them. Once they are, their feelings about them usually change - especially if they are ambitious politicians.
There is no evidence, despite decades of hypocritical propaganda from the Labour Party, that the electorate as a whole gives a damn where its politicians went to school and university. They are, sensibly, much more concerned about how well they think they will govern. At any rate, it is noticeable that the only one of those leaders to have led the Conserative Party to complete electoral disaster was the big exception in the table above.
Probably Oxford dominates because that is where you apply, especially to its PPE course, if you are interested in a career in politics. Just as you'd go to Cambridge for a career in comedy (via the Footlights).
It is a striking dominance which is hard to explain given surely not all politicians decided at 18 they wanted to get into politics when deciding between Oxford and Cambridge.
But the ones who go to Oxford clearly do, because look how many of them devote every second of their time from the moment they get there, to striving to get the presidency of the Union. All of them.
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?
Its striking and worrying but I dont know I'd call it a scandal. Whatever advantages may have helped them rise through the Tories the public always had a chance to say no if a duffer made it through.
This is a good point. There is much more to becoming PM and winning elections than Eton and Oxford. You have to gain and keep the approval of local party, local voters, fellow MPs, the entire party membership, the national poll in GEs and you have to be not destroyed by the media. What is puzzling is why Oxford and Eton should have such an advantage over say Winchester and Cambridge or whatever.
'Born to rule' self confidence?
One way to probably alleviate this run is for the Labour party to win more elections.
... but what if they will only do that if they start choosing Old Etonian Oxonians?
Don't know if it will be any good (I still have fond memories of Jason Robards as President Richard 'Monckton' in Washington Behind Closed Doors), but the casting looks excellent: https://twitter.com/VanityFair/status/1288573329696317444
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.
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.
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?
You can argue that TMay went to a comprehensive - her school's status changed while she was there
Err, no you can't. Unless you want to argue that Starmer went to a private school, which I doubt you want to.
Did we actually find out whether Starmer started paying fees when Reigate went private?
Totally useless factoid of today - my grandfather was at Adams Grammar on a scholarship, and my father was briefly at Reigate. So I have familial education links with the current and previous Labour leaders.
It would have been pretty harsh to start charging parents of kids who had passed 11+. But that's not the point, he'd have still effectively been at a private school getting the benefits of that rather than being at a comp.
In reality, I suspect May and Starmer received pretty much the education of the grammar that they entered.
Which is why Starmer went to Leeds?
What's wrong with Leeds University?
It is in Yorkshire
... and my brother went there.
And MY brother - my youngest one - is a Prof there.
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.
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.
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)!
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?
My instinct, and I have some relevant experience, is that if Oxford does form students in this way, it does so unconsciously. I would guess that the second explanation is more important. It's probably not a total explanation, though, and there may be elements of the third.
As to whether it matters or not, as ever in social sciences, we can't tell defintively, as we don't have a control experiment - we don't know how the UK would have faired under different leadership. There may be some advantage to having a political class whose members have a similar background and common assumptions, and many of whom know each other. But it can be incestuous and lead to groupthink.
It can also breed feelings of exclusion in everybody else. The people most likely to have problems with magic circles are those who are not in them. Once they are, their feelings about them usually change - especially if they are ambitious politicians.
There is no evidence, despite decades of hypocritical propaganda from the Labour Party, that the electorate as a whole gives a damn where its politicians went to school and university. They are, sensibly, much more concerned about how well they think they will govern. At any rate, it is noticeable that the only one of those leaders to have led the Conserative Party to complete electoral disaster was the big exception in the table above.
Probably Oxford dominates because that is where you apply, especially to its PPE course, if you are interested in a career in politics. Just as you'd go to Cambridge for a career in comedy (via the Footlights).
It is a striking dominance which is hard to explain given surely not all politicians decided at 18 they wanted to get into politics when deciding between Oxford and Cambridge.
But the ones who go to Oxford clearly do, because look how many of them devote every second of their time from the moment they get there, to striving to get the presidency of the Union. All of them.
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.
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?
My instinct, and I have some relevant experience, is that if Oxford does form students in this way, it does so unconsciously. I would guess that the second explanation is more important. It's probably not a total explanation, though, and there may be elements of the third.
As to whether it matters or not, as ever in social sciences, we can't tell defintively, as we don't have a control experiment - we don't know how the UK would have faired under different leadership. There may be some advantage to having a political class whose members have a similar background and common assumptions, and many of whom know each other. But it can be incestuous and lead to groupthink.
It can also breed feelings of exclusion in everybody else. The people most likely to have problems with magic circles are those who are not in them. Once they are, their feelings about them usually change - especially if they are ambitious politicians.
There is no evidence, despite decades of hypocritical propaganda from the Labour Party, that the electorate as a whole gives a damn where its politicians went to school and university. They are, sensibly, much more concerned about how well they think they will govern. At any rate, it is noticeable that the only one of those leaders to have led the Conserative Party to complete electoral disaster was the big exception in the table above.
Probably Oxford dominates because that is where you apply, especially to its PPE course, if you are interested in a career in politics. Just as you'd go to Cambridge for a career in comedy (via the Footlights).
It is a striking dominance which is hard to explain given surely not all politicians decided at 18 they wanted to get into politics when deciding between Oxford and Cambridge.
But the ones who go to Oxford clearly do, because look how many of them devote every second of their time from the moment they get there, to striving to get the presidency of the Union. All of them.
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?
My instinct, and I have some relevant experience, is that if Oxford does form students in this way, it does so unconsciously. I would guess that the second explanation is more important. It's probably not a total explanation, though, and there may be elements of the third.
As to whether it matters or not, as ever in social sciences, we can't tell defintively, as we don't have a control experiment - we don't know how the UK would have faired under different leadership. There may be some advantage to having a political class whose members have a similar background and common assumptions, and many of whom know each other. But it can be incestuous and lead to groupthink.
It can also breed feelings of exclusion in everybody else. The people most likely to have problems with magic circles are those who are not in them. Once they are, their feelings about them usually change - especially if they are ambitious politicians.
There is no evidence, despite decades of hypocritical propaganda from the Labour Party, that the electorate as a whole gives a damn where its politicians went to school and university. They are, sensibly, much more concerned about how well they think they will govern. At any rate, it is noticeable that the only one of those leaders to have led the Conserative Party to complete electoral disaster was the big exception in the table above.
Probably Oxford dominates because that is where you apply, especially to its PPE course, if you are interested in a career in politics. Just as you'd go to Cambridge for a career in comedy (via the Footlights).
It is a striking dominance which is hard to explain given surely not all politicians decided at 18 they wanted to get into politics when deciding between Oxford and Cambridge.
Not all, but probably all of the ones who did so decide by 18 applied to Oxford and especially its PPE course. That is enough to explain the bias.
PPE I'm not so clear on. Mrs Thatcher did chemistry, Mrs May geography, Boris and Macmillan Classics, Douglas-Home History. Heath and Cameron both did PPE, but it's not as dominant as often thought.
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.
In comedy mode this morning, I see, which is always welcome. Brightening up my mood with a chuckle.
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)!
Of course, this behaviour means that the consequences of failing the 11+ (incidentally, you don't really fail it in some areas with grammars, you just get sorted into a hierarchy) are not that great given that selection by house price means your kid gets a decent education anyway.
Don't know if it will be any good (I still have fond memories of Jason Robards as President Richard 'Monckton' in Washington Behind Closed Doors), but the casting looks excellent: https://twitter.com/VanityFair/status/1288573329696317444
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.
In comedy mode this morning, I see, which is always welcome. Brightening up my mood with a chuckle.
I don't think the idea that state schools should be seeking to learn from the best is a laughing matter. You should think better of the potential of the state sector.
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?
My instinct, and I have some relevant experience, is that if Oxford does form students in this way, it does so unconsciously. I would guess that the second explanation is more important. It's probably not a total explanation, though, and there may be elements of the third.
As to whether it matters or not, as ever in social sciences, we can't tell defintively, as we don't have a control experiment - we don't know how the UK would have faired under different leadership. There may be some advantage to having a political class whose members have a similar background and common assumptions, and many of whom know each other. But it can be incestuous and lead to groupthink.
It can also breed feelings of exclusion in everybody else. The people most likely to have problems with magic circles are those who are not in them. Once they are, their feelings about them usually change - especially if they are ambitious politicians.
There is no evidence, despite decades of hypocritical propaganda from the Labour Party, that the electorate as a whole gives a damn where its politicians went to school and university. They are, sensibly, much more concerned about how well they think they will govern. At any rate, it is noticeable that the only one of those leaders to have led the Conserative Party to complete electoral disaster was the big exception in the table above.
Probably Oxford dominates because that is where you apply, especially to its PPE course, if you are interested in a career in politics. Just as you'd go to Cambridge for a career in comedy (via the Footlights).
It is a striking dominance which is hard to explain given surely not all politicians decided at 18 they wanted to get into politics when deciding between Oxford and Cambridge.
But the ones who go to Oxford clearly do, because look how many of them devote every second of their time from the moment they get there, to striving to get the presidency of the Union. All of them.
Cameron ?
Not a Tory (arguably) but Tony Blair was also an exception to this rule. By all accounts wanted to be Mick Jagger not Harold Wilson.
What is it that distinguishes grammars from comprehensives? Why it's selection by ability. The elephant in the room.
A particular variety at the very early age of 11. Which is the problem with that particular species of pachyderm.
Yet when streaming by subject *within* a school is proposed, similar arguments are raised again.
That's (a) later, (b) more flexible, and (c) presumably adjustable as to topic, as others have pointed out. More a Palaeoloxodon mnaidriensis than the Mammuthus primigenius of selection at 11.
I see Jeffries have got July at +5% GDP, that's a bit higher than what we've got pencilled in bit overall in a similar range.
Our team thinks around 6% of the economy is unrecoverable until there is a vaccine, post vaccine this goes down to 3% due to behavioural changes. On the flip side other parts of the economy are growing at a faster than expected rate to make up that permanent loss, and in less efficient sectors which means more jobs in the short term.
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?
My instinct, and I have some relevant experience, is that if Oxford does form students in this way, it does so unconsciously. I would guess that the second explanation is more important. It's probably not a total explanation, though, and there may be elements of the third.
As to whether it matters or not, as ever in social sciences, we can't tell defintively, as we don't have a control experiment - we don't know how the UK would have faired under different leadership. There may be some advantage to having a political class whose members have a similar background and common assumptions, and many of whom know each other. But it can be incestuous and lead to groupthink.
It can also breed feelings of exclusion in everybody else. The people most likely to have problems with magic circles are those who are not in them. Once they are, their feelings about them usually change - especially if they are ambitious politicians.
There is no evidence, despite decades of hypocritical propaganda from the Labour Party, that the electorate as a whole gives a damn where its politicians went to school and university. They are, sensibly, much more concerned about how well they think they will govern. At any rate, it is noticeable that the only one of those leaders to have led the Conserative Party to complete electoral disaster was the big exception in the table above.
Probably Oxford dominates because that is where you apply, especially to its PPE course, if you are interested in a career in politics. Just as you'd go to Cambridge for a career in comedy (via the Footlights).
It is a striking dominance which is hard to explain given surely not all politicians decided at 18 they wanted to get into politics when deciding between Oxford and Cambridge.
Not all, but probably all of the ones who did so decide by 18 applied to Oxford and especially its PPE course. That is enough to explain the bias.
PPE I'm not so clear on. Mrs Thatcher did chemistry, Mrs May geography, Boris and Macmillan Classics, Douglas-Home History. Heath and Cameron both did PPE, but it's not as dominant as often thought.
They don't all have to study PPE for the existence of PPE to have an effect though. Their friends, and some of the institutions (not just the Union!)/Oxford experience will have been moulded by it.
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?
My instinct, and I have some relevant experience, is that if Oxford does form students in this way, it does so unconsciously. I would guess that the second explanation is more important. It's probably not a total explanation, though, and there may be elements of the third.
As to whether it matters or not, as ever in social sciences, we can't tell defintively, as we don't have a control experiment - we don't know how the UK would have faired under different leadership. There may be some advantage to having a political class whose members have a similar background and common assumptions, and many of whom know each other. But it can be incestuous and lead to groupthink.
It can also breed feelings of exclusion in everybody else. The people most likely to have problems with magic circles are those who are not in them. Once they are, their feelings about them usually change - especially if they are ambitious politicians.
There is no evidence, despite decades of hypocritical propaganda from the Labour Party, that the electorate as a whole gives a damn where its politicians went to school and university. They are, sensibly, much more concerned about how well they think they will govern. At any rate, it is noticeable that the only one of those leaders to have led the Conserative Party to complete electoral disaster was the big exception in the table above.
Probably Oxford dominates because that is where you apply, especially to its PPE course, if you are interested in a career in politics. Just as you'd go to Cambridge for a career in comedy (via the Footlights).
It is a striking dominance which is hard to explain given surely not all politicians decided at 18 they wanted to get into politics when deciding between Oxford and Cambridge.
But the ones who go to Oxford clearly do, because look how many of them devote every second of their time from the moment they get there, to striving to get the presidency of the Union. All of them.
Cameron ?
Not a Tory (arguably) but Tony Blair was also an exception to this rule. By all accounts wanted to be Mick Jagger not Harold Wilson.
He was ambitious enough to apply to Boris' college but was rejected (a similar fate had befallen Bill Clinton), and so had to go next door instead...
ONS shows excess Mortality 2nd worst behind Spain.
Widest spread in UK Italy and Spain localized
Almost certainly due to the over a thousand different seed points. The government has certainly made mistakes, but at least some of the reason for our high death rates is the way the disease was started here.
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?
PB Tories "we need to wait for excess death comparatives"
Well the ONS have just concluded we have the worst excess death rates in Europe.
PB Tories consult excuse book picks "its too early to say"
Why do you place such faith in other countries death figures when they are clearly a political football and Covid deaths are not being recorded correctly?
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.
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?
Also, not much respite coming from Germany. For all that "they got the virus response right" the economy doesn't seem like it's in much better shape than here or France at -11% for Q2, which is about the same as what we expect for the UK.
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.
That is tough. And no, I agree it would not wash today, a system like that. Then again, we are (imo) regressing in certain ways so perhaps I shouldn't be too sure about that.
What is it that distinguishes grammars from comprehensives? Why it's selection by ability. The elephant in the room.
A particular variety at the very early age of 11. Which is the problem with that particular species of pachyderm.
Yet when streaming by subject *within* a school is proposed, similar arguments are raised again.
But much less so. There are plenty of people like me who see separation by school as very undesirable but who are fine with streaming as long as it's adjustable as kids evolve. I'd detoxify it further by doing streaming by subject, breaking up age groups - I'd have been two years "ahead" in mathematics, two years "behind" in physical education. Some people think it's essential to have a peer group of your age who you do everything with, but that's too dogmatic - shared ability is more important than coincidence of age.
Sounds good in theory, but, as someone who has to write a school timetable, the only way I can see it working is if all pupils have to do the same mix of subjects.
We set in maths and I end up having to write the maths timetable first and then fit everything around that. Even then I often have to go to the head of department and tell them that what they want (i.e. the mix of teachers) is mathematically impossible (which has a certain irony I suppose).
Doing the same in other subjects could only happen by massively reducing the choices for each student.
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?
My instinct, and I have some relevant experience, is that if Oxford does form students in this way, it does so unconsciously. I would guess that the second explanation is more important. It's probably not a total explanation, though, and there may be elements of the third.
As to whether it matters or not, as ever in social sciences, we can't tell defintively, as we don't have a control experiment - we don't know how the UK would have faired under different leadership. There may be some advantage to having a political class whose members have a similar background and common assumptions, and many of whom know each other. But it can be incestuous and lead to groupthink.
It can also breed feelings of exclusion in everybody else. The people most likely to have problems with magic circles are those who are not in them. Once they are, their feelings about them usually change - especially if they are ambitious politicians.
There is no evidence, despite decades of hypocritical propaganda from the Labour Party, that the electorate as a whole gives a damn where its politicians went to school and university. They are, sensibly, much more concerned about how well they think they will govern. At any rate, it is noticeable that the only one of those leaders to have led the Conserative Party to complete electoral disaster was the big exception in the table above.
Probably Oxford dominates because that is where you apply, especially to its PPE course, if you are interested in a career in politics. Just as you'd go to Cambridge for a career in comedy (via the Footlights).
It is a striking dominance which is hard to explain given surely not all politicians decided at 18 they wanted to get into politics when deciding between Oxford and Cambridge.
Not all, but probably all of the ones who did so decide by 18 applied to Oxford and especially its PPE course. That is enough to explain the bias.
PPE I'm not so clear on. Mrs Thatcher did chemistry, Mrs May geography, Boris and Macmillan Classics, Douglas-Home History. Heath and Cameron both did PPE, but it's not as dominant as often thought.
Harold Wilson too, and the LibDems might soon elect PPE graduate Ed Davey. Here is the Guardian from a couple of years back:
Monday, 13 April 2015 was a typical day in modern British politics. An Oxford University graduate in philosophy, politics and economics (PPE), Ed Miliband, launched the Labour party’s general election manifesto. It was examined by the BBC’s political editor, Oxford PPE graduate Nick Robinson, by the BBC’s economics editor, Oxford PPE graduate Robert Peston, and by the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Oxford PPE graduate Paul Johnson. It was criticised by the prime minister, Oxford PPE graduate David Cameron. It was defended by the Labour shadow chancellor, Oxford PPE graduate Ed Balls. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-degree-that-rules-britain
From all too fallible memory, there are more history graduates than any other subject in the Commons, and it has been suggested law graduates are at an advantage as MPs because they can easily understand the legalese in the bills they are debating.
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
ONS shows excess Mortality 2nd worst behind Spain.
Widest spread in UK Italy and Spain localized
Almost certainly due to the over a thousand different seed points. The government has certainly made mistakes, but at least some of the reason for our high death rates is the way the disease was started here.
Those who think their most important human right is to get on a plane and go wherever they want whenever they want and then come straight back here. We do indeed seem to have an excess of them, slightly reduced now of course.
PB Tories "we need to wait for excess death comparatives"
Well the ONS have just concluded we have the worst excess death rates in Europe.
PB Tories consult excuse book picks "its too early to say"
What's your source? I didn't think final excess death stats are available in many European nations.
ONS -While England did not have the highest peak mortality, it did have the longest continuous period of excess mortality of any country compared, resulting in England having the highest levels of excess mortality in Europe for the period as a whole.
As the economic consequences of lockdown and project fear come home to roost and the medicine of furlough starts to wear off, I sense this morning that the mood is turning against the government.
Hostile articles on normally supporting sites, and plenty of angry comments.
Meanwhile Yahoo reports 11,000 job losses in the car industry in the tory midlands
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?
My instinct, and I have some relevant experience, is that if Oxford does form students in this way, it does so unconsciously. I would guess that the second explanation is more important. It's probably not a total explanation, though, and there may be elements of the third.
As to whether it matters or not, as ever in social sciences, we can't tell defintively, as we don't have a control experiment - we don't know how the UK would have faired under different leadership. There may be some advantage to having a political class whose members have a similar background and common assumptions, and many of whom know each other. But it can be incestuous and lead to groupthink.
It can also breed feelings of exclusion in everybody else. The people most likely to have problems with magic circles are those who are not in them. Once they are, their feelings about them usually change - especially if they are ambitious politicians.
There is no evidence, despite decades of hypocritical propaganda from the Labour Party, that the electorate as a whole gives a damn where its politicians went to school and university. They are, sensibly, much more concerned about how well they think they will govern. At any rate, it is noticeable that the only one of those leaders to have led the Conserative Party to complete electoral disaster was the big exception in the table above.
Probably Oxford dominates because that is where you apply, especially to its PPE course, if you are interested in a career in politics. Just as you'd go to Cambridge for a career in comedy (via the Footlights).
It is a striking dominance which is hard to explain given surely not all politicians decided at 18 they wanted to get into politics when deciding between Oxford and Cambridge.
But the ones who go to Oxford clearly do, because look how many of them devote every second of their time from the moment they get there, to striving to get the presidency of the Union. All of them.
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.
At some point in the next decade I think it's likely that you won't be allowed to say what university you went to on a job application. This is how the civil service operates (though, they still allow specific degree titles to be given, so saying PPE does hint at where you went).
Likewise an MA in Physics might be a bit of a giveaway...
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?
PB Tories "we need to wait for excess death comparatives"
Well the ONS have just concluded we have the worst excess death rates in Europe.
PB Tories consult excuse book picks "its too early to say"
What's your source? I didn't think final excess death stats are available in many European nations.
ONS -While England did not have the highest peak mortality, it did have the longest continuous period of excess mortality of any country compared, resulting in England having the highest levels of excess mortality in Europe for the period as a whole.
Which fits with not having such a strict lockdown. Whether or not that makes reimposing our lockdown easier is an interesting question. I certainly wouldn't fancy Europe trying to go back to the sort of lockdown they had.
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.
A VERY interesting tale. But don't worry, not quite enough there to dox you.
My dad passed it but my mum - also clever - did not sit it because being a girl it was not thought by her folks to be worth the time and effort. The shoe shop beckoned.
I note Brazil is opening its doors to international flights. I think that's one country we should just straight up ban travel to. Bolsanaro is the worst leader of any major country regarding the virus response.
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?
You can argue that TMay went to a comprehensive - her school's status changed while she was there
Err, no you can't. Unless you want to argue that Starmer went to a private school, which I doubt you want to.
Did we actually find out whether Starmer started paying fees when Reigate went private?
Totally useless factoid of today - my grandfather was at Adams Grammar on a scholarship, and my father was briefly at Reigate. So I have familial education links with the current and previous Labour leaders.
It would have been pretty harsh to start charging parents of kids who had passed 11+. But that's not the point, he'd have still effectively been at a private school getting the benefits of that rather than being at a comp.
In reality, I suspect May and Starmer received pretty much the education of the grammar that they entered.
Which is why Starmer went to Leeds?
What's wrong with Leeds University?
Nothing. I was wondering whether he was advised against Oxbridge. Although I was advised against Leeds in my subject. However the advisor, who was in a very senior position in the profession I wished to enter, was spectacularly wrong in his forecasts of the overall educational direction of the profession.
He may not have got into Oxford first time round but did well enough at Leeds to get into Oxford as a postgrad.
However it does not really matter, plenty of US Presidents e.g. Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama only went to Harvard or Yale as postgrad, they did not go as undergrads and it made no difference
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?
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
Are there younger posters on here who care about grammar schools as a political issue? It feels to me like an old debate whose time has been and gone. Wondering if I'm alone in that.
Not in Kent or Bucks which are still fully selective or indeed parts of Essex like Chelmsford and Colchester or Ripon for example which also have grammars
I note Brazil is opening its doors to international flights. I think that's one country we should just straight up ban travel to. Bolsanaro is the worst leader of any major country regarding the virus response.
Yeah, the US, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, all of Africa, Mexico, all of South America. They should all have entry bans. There's nothing to be gained from keeping flights going to these places other than maybe the US, but you'd need a screw loose to fly there right now.
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.
At some point in the next decade I think it's likely that you won't be allowed to say what university you went to on a job application. This is how the civil service operates (though, they still allow specific degree titles to be given, so saying PPE does hint at where you went).
Likewise an MA in Physics might be a bit of a giveaway...
Last time I hired a guy from Oxbridge - turned out to be a brilliant flake...
The problem is the second tier universities are very second tier.
Had a New Zealander boss. He didn't know the education system here, took a candidate for interview from an ex-poly, for a grad hire. I told him the reputation. He said that it can't be true.
The guy was a predicted first.
His final year project was a home automation system. He'd bought some pre-made electronics, and copy-and-pasta'd some simple code from the internet to run a couple of BBC Microbits. I think an interested teenager could have done that in a weekend.
I was asking basic questions about stuff he was supposed to have studied. He didn't know.
A guy doing electronics, who was predicted a first, who found Arduinos hard.....
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?
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.
I note Brazil is opening its doors to international flights. I think that's one country we should just straight up ban travel to. Bolsanaro is the worst leader of any major country regarding the virus response.
Yeah, the US, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, all of Africa, Mexico, all of South America. They should all have entry bans. There's nothing to be gained from keeping flights going to these places other than maybe the US, but you'd need a screw loose to fly there right now.
The US has the JFK-LHR route which even at the height of New York being absolubtely buggered never seemed to stop. I have a mental image of the type of traveller that flies that route, it's not a particularly flattering one.
PB Tories "we need to wait for excess death comparatives"
Well the ONS have just concluded we have the worst excess death rates in Europe.
PB Tories consult excuse book picks "its too early to say"
What's your source? I didn't think final excess death stats are available in many European nations.
ONS -While England did not have the highest peak mortality, it did have the longest continuous period of excess mortality of any country compared, resulting in England having the highest levels of excess mortality in Europe for the period as a whole.
Which fits with not having such a strict lockdown. Whether or not that makes reimposing our lockdown easier is an interesting question. I certainly wouldn't fancy Europe trying to go back to the sort of lockdown they had.
I don’t think spain will go back to what we had earlier in the year but we will see some severe restrictions soon, probably in relation to inter community movements, late night bars, indoor socializing and more enforcement of existing rules. They need to look at workplace regulations and attempt to stop all this hugging and kissing which is ingrained in their behavior.
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.
A VERY interesting tale. But don't worry, not quite enough there to dox you.
My dad passed it but my mum - also clever - did not sit it because being a girl it was not thought by her folks to be worth the time and effort. The shoe shop beckoned.
Those were the days.
So many stories like that.
And oh I think there is enough info (rough age and rough location and scarcity of Nobel prizes).
But to help it was the Nobel prize for Literature (which of course doesn't count as a real prize, not being a science and hence why I didn't know him).
As the economic consequences of lockdown and project fear come home to roost and the medicine of furlough starts to wear off, I sense this morning that the mood is turning against the government.
Hostile articles on normally supporting sites, and plenty of angry comments.
Meanwhile Yahoo reports 11,000 job losses in the car industry in the tory midlands
This is just the start. Winter is coming.
Winter is here.
But the white walkers are elsewhere. We are coming out of lockdown while nations that haven't squished the virus as well as we have (like the USA) are struggling more. Will be interesting to see in 12 months time where our economy is compared to theirs.
"'Lockdown has killed 21,000 people', say experts Lockdown policy has had "significant unintended consequences” such as lack of access to critical healthcare and a drop in A&E attendances" (£)
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
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!
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.
In comedy mode this morning, I see, which is always welcome. Brightening up my mood with a chuckle.
I don't think the idea that state schools should be seeking to learn from the best is a laughing matter. You should think better of the potential of the state sector.
Now you're abusing my good nature. You are cancelled for 48 hours. Possibility of a re-think after 24. But no promises. It depends.
PB Tories "we need to wait for excess death comparatives"
Well the ONS have just concluded we have the worst excess death rates in Europe.
PB Tories consult excuse book picks "its too early to say"
What's your source? I didn't think final excess death stats are available in many European nations.
ONS -While England did not have the highest peak mortality, it did have the longest continuous period of excess mortality of any country compared, resulting in England having the highest levels of excess mortality in Europe for the period as a whole.
Which fits with not having such a strict lockdown. Whether or not that makes reimposing our lockdown easier is an interesting question. I certainly wouldn't fancy Europe trying to go back to the sort of lockdown they had.
I don’t think spain will go back to what we had earlier in the year but we will see some severe restrictions soon, probably in relation to inter community movements, late night bars, indoor socializing and more enforcement of existing rules. They need to look at workplace regulations and attempt to stop all this hugging and kissing which is ingrained in their behavior.
One thing I've noted in the UK - even when not doing the 2m thing, a lot of people are keeping *more than usual* distance, turning their heads away when people get close etc.
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.
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?
You can argue that TMay went to a comprehensive - her school's status changed while she was there
Err, no you can't. Unless you want to argue that Starmer went to a private school, which I doubt you want to.
Did we actually find out whether Starmer started paying fees when Reigate went private?
Totally useless factoid of today - my grandfather was at Adams Grammar on a scholarship, and my father was briefly at Reigate. So I have familial education links with the current and previous Labour leaders.
It would have been pretty harsh to start charging parents of kids who had passed 11+. But that's not the point, he'd have still effectively been at a private school getting the benefits of that rather than being at a comp.
In reality, I suspect May and Starmer received pretty much the education of the grammar that they entered.
Which is why Starmer went to Leeds?
What's wrong with Leeds University?
It is in Yorkshire
... and my brother went there.
And MY brother - my youngest one - is a Prof there.
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.
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?
My instinct, and I have some relevant experience, is that if Oxford does form students in this way, it does so unconsciously. I would guess that the second explanation is more important. It's probably not a total explanation, though, and there may be elements of the third.
As to whether it matters or not, as ever in social sciences, we can't tell defintively, as we don't have a control experiment - we don't know how the UK would have faired under different leadership. There may be some advantage to having a political class whose members have a similar background and common assumptions, and many of whom know each other. But it can be incestuous and lead to groupthink.
It can also breed feelings of exclusion in everybody else. The people most likely to have problems with magic circles are those who are not in them. Once they are, their feelings about them usually change - especially if they are ambitious politicians.
There is no evidence, despite decades of hypocritical propaganda from the Labour Party, that the electorate as a whole gives a damn where its politicians went to school and university. They are, sensibly, much more concerned about how well they think they will govern. At any rate, it is noticeable that the only one of those leaders to have led the Conserative Party to complete electoral disaster was the big exception in the table above.
Hague has an Oxford 1st and a worse overall general election record than Major
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
Realistically there's a class system in England and the media play a big role in propagating it. Listen for a regional accent tellint you something important otherthan posh Scots.
"'Lockdown has killed 21,000 people', say experts Lockdown policy has had "significant unintended consequences” such as lack of access to critical healthcare and a drop in A&E attendances" (£)
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.
Work arounds will always be created as you schools are judged on results which means they will quickly use every trick in the book and often invent new ones.
I note Brazil is opening its doors to international flights. I think that's one country we should just straight up ban travel to. Bolsanaro is the worst leader of any major country regarding the virus response.
I think Trump would take serious offence at that allegation.
Comments
One way to probably alleviate this run is for the Labour party to win more elections.
Is this a good idea a month before the election?
Which channel is it on?
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.
Widest spread in UK Italy and Spain localized
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/15/oxford-union-president-boris-johnson-neil-sherlock
Note that the guy who beat him went on to be an accountant.
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.
PB Tories time for more excuses!
Netflix is going to get a hammering, and I have enough stockpiled food to withstand 2 no-deal Brexits.
Appropriately enough.
Probably. Sunak went to Lincoln College, Oxford but in a radical break to modernity went to Winchester rather than Oxford.
But no, the ambulance chaser is back.
Brilliant.
Although she studied Politics like an absolute chump.
Well the ONS have just concluded we have the worst excess death rates in Europe.
PB Tories consult excuse book picks "its too early to say"
Our team thinks around 6% of the economy is unrecoverable until there is a vaccine, post vaccine this goes down to 3% due to behavioural changes. On the flip side other parts of the economy are growing at a faster than expected rate to make up that permanent loss, and in less efficient sectors which means more jobs in the short term.
However given Oxford and Cambridge are our best UK universities is there any surprise most UK PMs went there?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/comparisonsofallcausemortalitybetweeneuropeancountriesandregions/januarytojune2020
It's fairly straightforward data, though. The UK is in a club of four: Spain, Italy, the UK and Belgium, which were worst hit overall.
however unlike Spain and Italy, our worst hit areas were better (with implications ofr everywhere else of course)
We set in maths and I end up having to write the maths timetable first and then fit everything around that. Even then I often have to go to the head of department and tell them that what they want (i.e. the mix of teachers) is mathematically impossible (which has a certain irony I suppose).
Doing the same in other subjects could only happen by massively reducing the choices for each student.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/comparisonsofallcausemortalitybetweeneuropeancountriesandregions/januarytojune2020
Monday, 13 April 2015 was a typical day in modern British politics. An Oxford University graduate in philosophy, politics and economics (PPE), Ed Miliband, launched the Labour party’s general election manifesto. It was examined by the BBC’s political editor, Oxford PPE graduate Nick Robinson, by the BBC’s economics editor, Oxford PPE graduate Robert Peston, and by the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Oxford PPE graduate Paul Johnson. It was criticised by the prime minister, Oxford PPE graduate David Cameron. It was defended by the Labour shadow chancellor, Oxford PPE graduate Ed Balls.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/feb/23/ppe-oxford-university-degree-that-rules-britain
From all too fallible memory, there are more history graduates than any other subject in the Commons, and it has been suggested law graduates are at an advantage as MPs because they can easily understand the legalese in the bills they are debating.
https://twitter.com/hwallop/status/1288719644396838912
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
Hostile articles on normally supporting sites, and plenty of angry comments.
Meanwhile Yahoo reports 11,000 job losses in the car industry in the tory midlands
This is just the start. Winter is coming.
My dad passed it but my mum - also clever - did not sit it because being a girl it was not thought by her folks to be worth the time and effort. The shoe shop beckoned.
Those were the days.
However it does not really matter, plenty of US Presidents e.g. Gerald Ford, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama only went to Harvard or Yale as postgrad, they did not go as undergrads and it made no difference
The problem is the second tier universities are very second tier.
Had a New Zealander boss. He didn't know the education system here, took a candidate for interview from an ex-poly, for a grad hire. I told him the reputation. He said that it can't be true.
The guy was a predicted first.
His final year project was a home automation system. He'd bought some pre-made electronics, and copy-and-pasta'd some simple code from the internet to run a couple of BBC Microbits. I think an interested teenager could have done that in a weekend.
I was asking basic questions about stuff he was supposed to have studied. He didn't know.
A guy doing electronics, who was predicted a first, who found Arduinos hard.....
Should be at least treble.
Where do you conclude we rank?
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.
And oh I think there is enough info (rough age and rough location and scarcity of Nobel prizes).
But to help it was the Nobel prize for Literature (which of course doesn't count as a real prize, not being a science and hence why I didn't know him).
But the white walkers are elsewhere. We are coming out of lockdown while nations that haven't squished the virus as well as we have (like the USA) are struggling more. Will be interesting to see in 12 months time where our economy is compared to theirs.
Lockdown policy has had "significant unintended consequences” such as lack of access to critical healthcare and a drop in A&E attendances" (£)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/29/lockdown-has-killed-21000-people-say-experts/