Useless degrees

plurabelle

The statistics for privately educated kids at universities belie the whole story. When I was at university (1976-9) around 50% of students were privately educated. Oxbridge in those days probably had a higher proportion of privately educated students. Today the term "university" encompasses a greater band of tertiary education. A far higher per centage of the population undergoes tertiary enducation and does so at university level. It is unlikely that as many as 60% are privately educated particualrly at a time when some independent schools are closing.

If you look at the performance tables, you will note that the best performing state schools are in middle class areas. The middle classes are the mainstay of independent schools. I suspect an element of middle class ethos coupled with parents' educational standards, are far more important for the level of education achieved by a child than the school to which they are sent.

The 60% figure was for the university with which I am best acquainted, sorry if I didn't make that clear. It's a good 'un.

I completely agree about the 'middle-class ethos' – in my earlier post I said that one of the most important factors in getting to university was a sort of 'middle-classness' (Of course, when we say middle-class, we also mean upper, yes? :))

My point is that this ethos is not ingrained: the poverty of aspiration that prevents some deprived children from getting to university is because of poverty of the more mundane economic sort. There is no inherent educatability or otherwise. But then we're back to the old speccy cunt Woodhead, though, which I doubt is where you were going.