Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's a 1% difference. That's less than one student in the year group. One student's results will throw the whole thing.


This is statistics - they can prove everything and nothing at these low numbers.


And as for 'one of the best schools' and the difficult entrance exams - with a highly selective intake I would expect a high result. The 'intake v standard of education' debate replaces the 'nature v nurture' debate with regard to selective schools.


Anyway, well done all successful A level students, whatever your sex or school, and whatever sector it is in.


Schools are for educating young people not for keeping house prices ever more astronomical.

Yes, agree that London is really the epicentre of all of this. You need to know the temperament of your child to know how well they will cope but yes, everything has a price. People do pick schools in the state sector as well based on the stats though and some of the most obsessed parents I know are those determined to get their kids into grammar schools. A friend of mine in Kent appealed his son's rejection and prepared hundreds of pages of supporting documentation. He won his appeal by the way on the grounds that the school could in fact accommodate one more student!
Dulwichgirl2, you make an interesting point. The hidden truth is that Alleyns girls have been doing better than JAGS for some years now, but the slightly lower performance of Alleyns boys - as with all national statistics of boys at A level - has brought Alleyns overall results down to a slightly lower level than JAGS. This year, Alleyns boys have excelled themselves, hence this record result. You heard it here first, folks!
  • 2 years later...

womanofdulwich Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But we all know which schools will get the best

> academic results because they are the hardest to

> get into. If you start with very motivated results

> driven children and parents then this is what you

> will get- give or take the cases of anorexia /

> breakdown / depression on the way. It is

> ridiculous to look at the results wihtout

> realising that they are a result of what is fed

> into each school in the first place.

> AS a nation we are not obsessed at all, it is just

> small pockets of people who have a choice ,

> especially in London who are obsessed. Money of

> course gives you more choice.


Got to agree with womanofdulwich.

ALSO, I went to a university for which you sat an entrance exam. There were a number of kids who were 'hothoused' and especially tutored for the entrance exam or their A levels, but who, when it came to studying at university, actually struggled in an environment where independent study was expected.


Not putting down all the wonderful effort kids are putting in and the A level results kids are achieving. But its only part of the picture. What is 'fed in' and the results that come out are only part of the picture and not necessarily a predictor of 'success' at university if this is where kids are going. So, in short, I don't 'get' the phrase 'beats' - it needs qualifying.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • It's nothing to do with being a cheerleader for labour - it's about starting to address some of the problems inherent in the economy. Many many many other essential groups of people have contributed fair share or had industries eliminated before so it's not some attack on Farnmers "If 500 farms sell off 20% of their land each year (the PMs estimate on the back of a Rizla paper)  then how long before we lose large chunks of farm land "?  "As for giving away land, sure providing they live 7 years afterwards " - is that so unlikely? Of the 500  farms in the example, how many would this help? Most I'd say I just haven't seen anything like the same "but what about the nurses/the police/the miners" as I have about the farmers - it's quite extraordinary    
    • Andrew and Arnold are very good. They have UK based techies and are proactive in managing OpenReach as the copper supplier. 
    • We're not talking about people who've bought farms. We're talking about people who have inherited multi-million pound estates, having done nothing to earn it. Why should they not have to pay some tax on that.  
    • If 500 farms sell off 20% of their land each year (the PMs estimate on the back of a Rizla paper)  then how long before we lose large chunks of farm land ?  As for giving away land, sure providing they live 7 years afterwards  Stop being a labour cheerleader and put yourself in farmers wellies for a moment.  Farming is a necessity, doesn't make Massive profits and after you consider the 7 days a week often 14 hour days, I bet most farmers don't even earn minimum wage per hour.  You will soon be whinging if there's no fresh veg on the shelves to go with your non existent turkey at Chrustmas.     
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...