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

    • Post much better this Xmas.  Sue posted about whether they send Xmas cards; how good the post is,  is relevant.  Think I will continue to stay off Instagram!
    • These have reduced over the years, are "perfect" lives Round Robins being replaced by "perfect" lives Instagram posts where we see all year round how people portray their perfect lives ?    The point of this thread is that for the last few years, due to issues at the mail offices, we had delays to post over Christmas. Not really been flagged as an issue this year but I am still betting on the odd card, posted well before Christmas, arriving late January. 
    • Two subjects here.  Xmas cards,  We receive and send less of them.  One reason is that the cost of postage - although interestingly not as much as I thought say compared to 10 years ago (a little more than inflation).  Fun fact when inflation was double digits in the 70s cost of postage almost doubled in one year.  Postage is not a good indication of general inflation fluctuating a fair bit.  The huge rise in international postage that for a 20g Christmas card to Europe (no longer a 20g price, now have to do up to 100g), or a cheapskate 10g card to the 'States (again have to go up to the 100g price) , both around a quid in 2015, and now has more than doubled in real terms.  Cards exchanged with the US last year were arriving in the New Year.  Funnily enough they came much quicker this year.  So all my cards abroad were by email this year. The other reason we send less cards is that it was once a good opportunity to keep in touch with news.  I still personalise many cards with a news and for some a letter, and am a bit grumpy when I get a single line back,  Or worse a round robin about their perfect lives and families.  But most of us now communicate I expect primarily by WhatApp, email, FB etc.  No need for lightweight airmail envelope and paper in one.    The other subject is the mail as a whole. Privitisation appears to have done it no favours and the opening up of competition with restrictions on competing for parcel post with the new entrants.  Clearly unless you do special delivery there is a good chance that first class will not be delivered in a day as was expected in the past.   Should we have kept a public owned service subsidised by the tax payer?  You could also question how much lead on innovation was lost following the hiving off of the national telecommunications and mail network.
    • Why have I got a feeling there was also a connection with the beehive in Brixton on that road next to the gym
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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