Wealthy dominate Selective Schools (2 Viewers)

[Drongoski]

Yesterday's The Sun-Herald carried the front-page story: "Students from affluent backgrounds are dramatically over-represented in selective public schools, sparking accusations that NSW is running an 'apartheid' education system. ...." (lol!). It also carried a provocative suggestion by Dr Tim Hawkes the principal of The King's School(a large recipient of John Howard's largesse to private schools).

1) is this story correct/objective/balanced/sensationalist/alarmist/misleading?

2) was it being deliberately creating a non-issue to sell its papers

3) what do you think Tim Hawkes was up to

4) many of you on this forum are from selective schools. Do you think, from your direct knowledge of your school mates that more than half of them come from "well-off" families

5) if any review of the selection system occurs, would it lead to some sort of "affirmative action" selection policy?

What do you think?

Link: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/means-test-selective-parents-20120303-1u9q4.html

 

[OzKo]

Students who attend selective schools got through on merit. They are more intelligent (in the areas examined during the Selective Schools Test) than their counterparts who sat the same exam. This process is relatively transparent. Whether this is not a fair measure of intelligence is a moot point but this isn't the issue at hand.

The article is stating a fact, but it is ignoring the purpose of selective schools to allow smart students to learn in a competitive environment with like-minded people. We can assume that the more affluent a family is, then in most cases they will be able to provide the environment and the resources for their children to succeed in academia (e.g. stable family life, tutoring, extracurricular activities). This is obviously a generalisation though as we know there are quite a few people on BoS who come from families which have experienced financial hardship.

The article also fails to take into account the influence of cultural customs. For example, we know James Ruse Agricultural High has an abnormally high number of students with an Asian background. Immigrants from East Asian countries fare quite well after they have established themselves within another country with their income tending to be above the national average. Whether it is the money which influences good performance in the Selective Schools Test or other factors such as cultural practices or family work ethic, we can't say for sure. To put it simply, being rich should not be taken as a be-all-and-end-all indicator of why students from wealthier families are common in selective schools. Often the work ethic of the parents rubs off on the child (especially at a young age) and could explain why these kids do well and they why they tend to have successful parents.

If entry into selective schools was to remain with an academic entrance test, then the points the article raises in a non-issue. Intelligence is intelligence whether it comes from the rich or poor. If the argument is that schools should be more diverse, then ditch selective schools or make more of them partially selective (I myself attended a partially selective school). Similarly, the test could remain but become a single component in a group of requirements for entry. If entry into Selective Schools is so coveted, this could help improve primary education in New South Wales by encouraging many different programs to come into fruition and thus help more balanced students. Raising up issues like this on the other hand will only encourage class warfare which isn't necessary.

 

[Internet_Police]

Here's the article: http://www.smh.com.au/national/education/means-test-selective-parents-20120303-1u9q4.html

Funny quote:

Perfect example of the arrogant scum in the selective and private school system.

I am doing finance at university, which I understand can lead to some very handsome paychecks. I can tell you right now, if I was ever given a senior executive job with a multi million dollar paycheck (or even anything over $200 000/year, really) then a large portion would be given to charities. I obviously wouldn't be giving it to the drugged up bums on the street, but I would be more than happy supporting a hard worker from a financially disadvantaged family. I would much rather help them then some arrogant snob from James Ruse (A good example is the user "duckcowhybird", if he still visits this site)

To be quite honest, I am ashamed to see that it doesn't happen already. Seriously, if you earnt $15million a year, you could easily donate $14million to charities and you would still be living very good.

There is a ton of inequality in the education system, and something seriously needs to be done. The strange thing is, universities have scholarships that are meant to even up this inequality but they just exaccerbate it further. See all the people that get the scholarships, that get into unsw co op? They all went to selective/private schools. Of all of the decent scholarships for offer at unsw ( Co op and the other ones that pay like $15 000/year over the degree) only about 5% are given to students from public schools, the other 95% go to people from selective and private schools. To be honest, I think that 5% is still overstating the number of public school students that get uni scholarships, it's probably more like 2%.

 

[Bored_of_HSC]

Perfect example of the arrogant scum in the selective and private school system.

I am doing finance at university, which I understand can lead to some very handsome paychecks. I can tell you right now, if I was ever given a senior executive job with a multi million dollar paycheck (or even anything over $200 000/year, really) then a large portion would be given to charities. I obviously wouldn't be giving it to the drugged up bums on the street, but I would be more than happy supporting a hard worker from a financially disadvantaged family. I would much rather help them then some arrogant snob from James Ruse (A good example is the user "duckcowhybird", if he still visits this site)

To be quite honest, I am ashamed to see that it doesn't happen already. Seriously, if you earnt $15million a year, you could easily donate $14million to charities and you would still be living very good.

There is a ton of inequality in the education system, and something seriously needs to be done. The strange thing is, universities have scholarships that are meant to even up this inequality but they just exaccerbate it further. See all the people that get the scholarships, that get into unsw co op? They all went to selective/private schools. Of all of the decent scholarships for offer at unsw ( Co op and the other ones that pay like $15 000/year over the degree) only about 5% are given to students from public schools, the other 95% go to people from selective and private schools. To be honest, I think that 5% is still overstating the number of public school students that get uni scholarships, it's probably more like 2%.

Stopped reading at 'Internet Police'.

 

[Internet_Police]

Stopped reading at 'Internet Police'.

Let me guess, you are another arrogant private school kid aye. I'll bet ya.

If I am correct then you give me your trustfund, trustfund tommy.

 

[enoilgam]

Students who attend selective schools got through on merit. They are more intelligent (in the areas examined during the Selective Schools Test) than their counterparts who sat the same exam. This process is relatively transparent. Whether this is not a fair measure of intelligence is a moot point but this isn't the issue at hand.

The article is stating a fact, but it is ignoring the purpose of selective schools to allow smart students to learn in a competitive environment with like-minded people. We can assume that the more affluent a family is, then in most cases they will be able to provide the environment and the resources for their children to succeed in academia (e.g. stable family life, tutoring, extracurricular activities). This is obviously a generalisation though as we know there are quite a few people on BoS who come from families which have experienced financial hardship.

The article also fails to take into account the influence of cultural customs. For example, we know James Ruse Agricultural High has an abnormally high number of students with an Asian background. Immigrants from East Asian countries fare quite well after they have established themselves within another country with their income tending to be above the national average. Whether it is the money which influences good performance in the Selective Schools Test or other factors such as cultural practices or family work ethic, we can't say for sure. To put it simply, being rich should not be taken as a be-all-and-end-all indicator of why students from wealthier families are common in selective schools. Often the work ethic of the parents rubs off on the child (especially at a young age) and could explain why these kids do well and they why they tend to have successful parents.

If entry into selective schools was to remain with an academic entrance test, then the points the article raises in a non-issue. Intelligence is intelligence whether it comes from the rich or poor. If the argument is that schools should be more diverse, then ditch selective schools or make more of them partially selective (I myself attended a partially selective school). Similarly, the test could remain but become a single component in a group of requirements for entry. If entry into Selective Schools is so coveted, this could help improve primary education in New South Wales by encouraging many different programs to come into fruition and thus help more balanced students. Raising up issues like this on the other hand will only encourage class warfare which isn't necessary.

100% agreed - Great post.

 

[Internet_Police]

100% agreed - Great post.

once again. I bet you went to a selective/private school as well. Are you sure that you are not biased?

 

[katie tully]

rich people are smarter

STOP THE PRESS

 

[enoilgam]

once again. I bet you went to a selective/private school as well. Are you sure that you are not biased?

I went to a systemic catholic school. Being poor doesnt stop you from going to a selective school - as Ozko said, the wealthy are misrepresented because on average, wealthy people provide their children with a greater atmosphere and resources to succeed. But all that is peripheral to success - in order for a person to succeed, they must be driven and have some form of natural intelligence. Once they have these attributes, thats when having supportive parents and other factors come into play.

 

[Lentern]

Not this shit again. Yes schooling is unequal and our kids don't get equal opportunities in life but it can't be rectified because nobody is going to tell a parent that they can't do what's best by their child.

 

[funkshen]

Not this shit again. Yes schooling is unequal and our kids don't get equal opportunities in life but it can't be rectified because nobody is going to tell a parent that they can't do what's best by their child.

nobody except you

 

[Lentern]

nobody except you

No no, I believe it is in the child's best interest to be raised in a fair and equitable environment.

 

[Lolsmith]

I believe the implication was "nobody has the backbone to tell a parent that they can't do what's best for their child"

 

[Lentern]

I believe the implication was "nobody has the backbone to tell a parent that they can't do what's best for their child"

Surely though, what with those places having waiting lists, every parent who sends their children to said school is telling the parents of the child who misses out that they can't do what's best for their child?

 

[Kent12]

So what if rich kids represent selective schools?

We want an intelligent populus, not a 'victory for the underdog'-esque soapie. Such is life, get on with it. The smart get ahead whether rich or poor.

 

[mirakon]

Tbh most of the selective students I know come from average income families, not too poor or too rich. I think there,s something fishy with the study

 

[Nooblet94]

I'm poor and I go to a selective school. Something I have noticed at my school is that most of the white people are lower/middle class, while everyone else seems to be middle to upper class. Just to make it clear, I'm not stereotyping, not trying to be racist, it's just an observation.

 

[LightXT]

Selective schools most likely do harbour a greater % of students from more affluent backgrounds. However, I find it ironic that someone like Tim Hawkes makes remarks about inequality of the selective school system. Last time I checked, TKS have fees around the $25K/year mark.

 

[enoilgam]

Selective schools most likely do harbour a greater % of students from more affluent backgrounds. However, I find it ironic that someone like Tim Hawkes makes remarks about inequality of the selective school system. Last time I checked, TKS have fees around the $25K/year mark.

It is a bit rich (no pun intended) coming from a private school principal.

 

[RivalryofTroll]

Tutor'd people dominate Selective Schools.

Even poor Asian families (any poor family really) still send their kids to tuition centres so yeah..... (like mine)