Getting into a mini-debate with people (Tories, Chris Hutt) on Twitter about widening access to uni. If 50% or more of kids from private schools have always gone to uni, why shouldn't 50% of all kids aspire to do so? Some people (OK, Chris Hutt) are arguing that doesn't compute, that rich kids will be on average smarter than poorer kids, because intelligence is hereditary and people who are intelligent are more likely to be rich. By rich I think they mean middle-class, whereas I mean 'able to pay private school fees' - and yes, I know some people on fairly modest incomes go to great lengths to scrape together the money to pay school fees. Still, on balance, the products of our private school system are from wealthier backgrounds than those from what less cautious souls than I might term a 'bog-standard comprehensive'.
But are they smarter? I don't think so. For a start, intelligent parents are more likely to be left-leaning and thus ideologically opposed to private schooling. (This is an incontrovertible fact, based on many years' personal observation on my part). And many highly intelligent people don't go into highly-paid jobs either, choosing to work in the public sector, or the third sector.
To cut to my question though, as it's way past bedtime... How do you judge who is more deserving of a place at a top uni, let's say Oxford or Cambridge: the kid from a rough background at a poorly performing school who gets 3Bs - or the kid from a solidly upper-middle class family who goes to one of our top public schools and comes away with 3As? OK, the rich kid has technically achieved more and is better educated (in a narrow sense), but who has the greatest natural ability, and the most potential? And who needs that Oxbridge place the most?
But are they smarter? I don't think so. For a start, intelligent parents are more likely to be left-leaning and thus ideologically opposed to private schooling. (This is an incontrovertible fact, based on many years' personal observation on my part). And many highly intelligent people don't go into highly-paid jobs either, choosing to work in the public sector, or the third sector.
To cut to my question though, as it's way past bedtime... How do you judge who is more deserving of a place at a top uni, let's say Oxford or Cambridge: the kid from a rough background at a poorly performing school who gets 3Bs - or the kid from a solidly upper-middle class family who goes to one of our top public schools and comes away with 3As? OK, the rich kid has technically achieved more and is better educated (in a narrow sense), but who has the greatest natural ability, and the most potential? And who needs that Oxbridge place the most?
