I am quite certain that those in private schools are no brighter than average. You can argue otherwise, but good luck with presenting eugenic arguments and getting away with it in a world that has long moved on from accepting them, except when it comes to the royal family. You will find no support here.
I am rejecting, at the outset, an argument that could be correct because I don’t like it.
It is well known that some people are “brighter” than others, it’s why we have specialisations.
It is also well known that some people are just good at academic ways of working and others are good at practical things so, maybe people who are academically good would probably choose to go to schools that are academically good?
Alongside people who put weight on academic achievement will send their kids to schools that promote academic achievement and private schools having better teachers and facilities than public and it’s not hard to imagine a world where private schools do in fact have a higher level of academic achievement than public schools.
I’ve just argued the point and not once mentioned Eugenics. The fact that Spud can only think it is Eugenics and not selective representation / similar people going to similar places…. well, that shows spuds “brightness”.
good luck with presenting eugenic arguments and getting away with it in a world that has long moved on from accepting them
Uh? WTF is he talking about? The DEI thing’s based on eugenics isn’t it?
Private school students generally come from families that are more successful financially, which does tend to correlate with intelligence, which does happen to be highly heritable. Also, parents who care enough about their children’s education to place them in a private school just might have read to them more often, exposed them to more and better learning experiences, etc.
Hmm
Strange to see a leftist arguing against the “smarter kids” theory. In the US that’s pretty much dogma to explain why private school kids have better test scores.
Most private schools have an entrance exam as did Grammar Schools when I was young.
I really hope that Murphy will follow up by saying those attending Grammar Schools, like his own, are no brighter than average .
Instead, I think that the differences in outcome arise from:
Lower resource resource input
Lower levels of opportunity near a person’s home and family
The messaging that these two issues provide
In other words, the problem is structural. Fewer jobs and lower educational resources result in reduced ambition, whether from the child themselves or for them from those around them. None of that is surprising when lived experience has dashed far too many hopes.
Education has been one of the sacred cows for at least the last three decades if not beyond. The Economy structured in the fashion that you appear to desire, North Korea is a country which exports around 25% of its workers as indentured slave labour, and is one which its desperate inhabitants will risk swimming a 20 mile polluted waterway and the risk of certain death to try and escape. I am unsurprised that you, as an exemplar of absolute, unredeemed evil seek to emulate it, but don’t expect me to consider your opinion as having any validity at all.
So the question is, can anything be done about this? The answer is that, of course, it could be. A government could:
Equalise the input of educational resources around the country.
Have a genuine regional industrial strategy.
Equalise investment around the country, which would require a bias against the capital for some time to come.
This has been tried (Remember ‘levelling up’ even in the last benighted government?) – the fact that people act independently and are not manipulable by the whim of an overmighty state is something the last seventy years have taught us but apparently your lack of knowledge extends to history as well as economics.
Other options are also available.
What it could most certainly do is stop threatening the closure of universities, as Labour is now doing.
At least 30 universities, including the one stupid enough to employ a physical incarnation of satanism such as yourself should be closed tomorrow, and the act of doing so would have almost no impact on anyone outside the employees of those institutions , and candidly, the subsidy of evil is not something the government should be engaged in.
But that may not be enough. Suppose it was serious about this need for equal opportunity? Couldn’t that become part of its goals?
Right now, the only goal the government has is to increase GDP. That is useless. Suppose a range of key performance indicators was chosen to replace GDP as the goal of government, and this levelling up of education was one of them. What might happen then?
We’d spunk even more money up the wall in pursuit of an egalitarian agenda which would result in a bastardised version of North Korea and which would likely became one of the most repressive regimes in the world.
This would really change things.
On that at least I agree – the creation of a society run along the lines you envisage would be the ultimate tyranny.
There are a couple of mathematical / economic concepts that are very hard for many to internalise, even if obviously true. These include:
– the law of diminishing returns
– “average” implies that some need to be above and some below
– the difference between mean and median
– the law of small numbers
The law of small numbers is that miniscule should be spelled minuscule.
Hilariously, spud’s comment
“And, by the way, in my experience many young people get to university unable to write a proper sentence, and lacking any real understanding of punctuation, capitalisation of words, or grammar.”
Is preceded by
“English and maths reaching require differing skills.”
Private school students generally come from families that are more successful financially, which does tend to correlate with intelligence,
That may have been true at one time. When society worked like that. But it hasn’t worked like that for some time. There’s now a range of criteria lead to prosperity. I don’t think intelligence is even a major one. Can’t see any evidence for it.
I am almost tempted to cut Ritchie some slack on this one on the grounds that his position (“Maybe it’s true, but I’m not the sort of person who believes it“) is one taken by a depressingly large number of people significantly brighter than he is.
So what’s the pass rate for state school entrance exams, then?
The man is living proof that some people are dumber than others.
Perhaps “I’m not a little bitch”would have flourished in private education.
Far more likely he’d have fecked things up for the decent kids who showed at least a passing interest in learning.
There are many schools which cater for the dimmer sons and daughters of plutocrats, and many others specialise in special needs kids. So below average of UK.
In any other school, half the kids would be below average (the median).
But we’re not necessarily doomed because some students, teachers and professors are a bit thick. There may be other causes.
I have examined the opinions of a random sample of the commentators on my blog. From those, all of which are in broad agreement with me, I can conclude that everything I say is correct. For anyone who questions my conclusion, do note that I studied statistics as part of my accountancy qualification.
@ philip
“many” is arguable, but it certainly isn’t “most”. There are over 300 UK schools in the Headmasters Conference and quite a number of less prestigious private schools.
The state sector is significantly better at providing for children with Special Educational Needs than for those high intelligence, so there is less incentive for parents to pay for private education for those with learning difficulties and, IIRC, the proportion of children with learning difficulties is smaller in private schools [caveat there are some private sector providers of highly specialised SEN schools to Local Education Authorities, none of whom have enough cases to operate one on their own, but I cannot believe that their misclassification as “private” is anywhere near enough to raise the %age of SEN xhildren in private schools to the level in state schools]
John77 has already made the point that I was going to – Entrance Exams. Did this not occur to Murphy.
Bear in mind that rich people hire expensive tutors who teach to the test and get their thick kids through entrance exams that they’d be baffled by otherwise.
On the subject of eugenics I have often thought that getting autistic children to be sterilized – sorry gender confirming surgery- was a secret eugenics plot.
Nice to see him dissing the evil Fabian Society.
“Bear in mind that rich people hire expensive tutors who teach to the test and get their thick kids through entrance exams that they’d be baffled by otherwise.”
So I’ve heard say. Is there any evidence for it? Or is it a tale spread by expensive tutors?
What’s the explanation for the success of Michaela Community School ? It’s not a selective school, other than the parents choosing to apply rather than not. That may be an indication of parental intelligence. The school does have varied abilities levels and is successful at getting the best out of all of them.
What ever the magnitude of the impact of the genetic component of intelligence, we are not getting the best out of the education we provide.
“ Michaela Community School
Michaela Community School (referred to as simply MCS or Michaela) is an 11–18 mixed, free secondary school and sixth form in Wembley, Greater London, England. It was established in September 2014 with Katharine Birbalsingh as headteacher and Suella Braverman as the first chair of governors. It has been described as the “strictest school in Britain”,[3][4][5][6][7][8] and achieved among the best GCSE results in the nation among its first cohort of students.[9] In both 2022 and 2023 the value-added (progress) score at GCSE was the highest for any school in England.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michaela_Community_School
Private school kids generally want to learn, or their Dad will toe their balls for wasting his money.
There’s a far higher percentage of disruptive retards in state schools, especially the teachers.
We know eugenics is real, that’s why we have laws against aggressive breeds of dogs. It’s only in humans that we pretend racial characteristics don’t exist, because they’re very embarrassing for many of our Diverse friends.
eugenic arguments and getting away with it in a world that has long moved on from accepting them, except when it comes to the royal family
The Royals seem dysgenic to me. King Charles is not an intelligent or particularly impressive man, and neither are his sons. They’re just crap celebrities now. We should go back to requiring our feudal overlords to at least be willing to personally invade France, or go on Crusade (to Birmingham).
Even I’d watch some reality TV show which was based around go on Crusade (to Birmingham) ala The Running Man film.
@Steve
It’s near impossible to get rid of disruptive retards from state schools. Private schools can be much more selective.
@ Steve
Charles got a second-class honours degree at Cambridge despite the mess “they” made of his schooling by sending him off to Geelong Grammar for a couple of years. If you got a Maths Scholarship to Trinity you may not regard a second as demonstrating intelligence but most normal people do so,
I think that Charles is intelligent; whether or not you find him impressive is a matter of taste (and I frequently considr you to be tasteless).
@andyf
You’re not joking. I went to a state comprehensive and literally nobody ever got expelled. Not for disruption, not for violence, not for taking class A drugs in class.
The state is legally obliged to educate everybody, which means that if our school had expelled anyone, they would have been sent to the school in the next town. And the school in the next town would have retaliated by expelling a scumbag who would’ve been sent to our school.
Since there’s no point in schools swapping scumbags, they don’t expel anyone, ever.
Joe – Big Prizes!
andyf – Yer, I know.
john77 – Charles is a dribbling retard who talks to plants. Second-class degree for a third class intellect.
I am obviously tasteless and a foul-mouthed Viz-reading pleb, but if my kingdom was being overrun by Moslems and Africans, I’d stop it, not simper like a woman. And I would go to Davos to promote Klaus Schwab’s creepy Great Reset.
King Fuckface has absolutely nothing to offer us, not leadership, not courage, not even the good example of not cheating on your wife. Sorry if that’s tasteless, I just don’t like im or his ugly family.
*would not go to Davos
@ Steve
Having had your error pointed out to you, you respond with foul-mouthed unjustified insults – par for Murphy
Thirty years ago Hernstein and Murrary wrote “The Bell Curve…” which pretty much answered the question. Now, of course, verboten in American universities it makes a reasonable argument that intelligence is a better indicator than family socioeconomic status of future success. Doesn’t address, however, the “Z list” of idiots admitted to prestigious universities because of parents’ donations and now supplemented by universities’ desire for skin diversity and virtue signaling with the very poor and the sexual losers.
john77 – what error? The man’s a clown and his wife is a dog.
My insults are fully justified. England has been murdered, and “our king” doesn’t give a toss. Sorry if that offends your royal tea towel, but I have no more patience for parasites. Can’t afford em.
No king but Christ.
@john77 You should wind your neck in rather than accusing others of error. Charles did not go to Geeling Grammar for “a couple of years” but for a couple of terms.
And since the Ozzies do terms wrong, you’re out by a factor of four.
On which basis, it would seem harsh to blame the Ozzies for the fact that Charles turned out to be a dribbling moron – something that (to be entirely fair to the market town in East Anglia) was quite evident when, despite his status, he was awarded a Desmond.
Got a Desmond in History. Pretty piss poor considering his family had made a lot of it.
@Charlie Oaks
Here in the US, we have sort of solved that problem with Continuation High Schools. The take those kicked out of regular high school and put them in a separate campus. The teach basic math, English, and life skills. The result is that those students get a high school diploma, which is the entre to most blue collar jobs. My small town of 30,000 had a separate campus with about 75 students.
Crusade (to Birmingham) ala The Running Man film.
Alternative title The Running Policeman
BiS
There’s now a range of criteria lead to prosperity. I don’t think intelligence is even a major one. Can’t see any evidence for it.
There is a correlation between IQ score and income (though not wealth): the higher your IQ, the more likely you are to have a high income – not to mention living longer and having better health.
Re the thickness of Charles: time was when Oxford and Cambridge set their own entrance examinations in addition to A-Levels and I rather think that the then Prince of Wales was spared such tedious formalities.
Furthermore, one never failed to get a degree because for that to happen, the selection process must have been duff and of course that would be unthinkable for any SCR.
Thus for the profoundly idle there was the third class hons award and for the profoundly idle blessed with invincible stupidity, the pass degree.
I doubt there was such a thing as a “desmond” in Charles’s day but then I wasn’t a Cambridge man or his contemporary for which thank goodness on both counts.
For mulish dimness and a huge reservoir of petulance Charles is outstanding and only Henry III can begin to hold a candle to him.
The King was a RAF pilot and one or the prince’s served in Afghanistan. The Royal family have shown no reluctance to defend the country with their lives.
“The King was a RAF pilot”
Only nominally. He did get his wings while at Cambridge, but his main armed forces career was in the Navy, and did fly helicopters during that time. He also crashed a plane in 1994 which he wasn’t supposed to be flying, which rather ended his flying days.
The Royal family have shown no reluctance to defend the country with their lives.
42 years ago. And that was the one that’s pals with Jeffrey Epstein. (Afghanistan was not in defence of this country and brought us nothing except more debt and migrants)
Won’t even breathe a word in defence of their own subjects tho. That’s how brave “our” royal family is. Cowardice is usually its own punishment, Charles’ kingdom will not endure and his legacy will be a short one.
@ Jim
Andrew was an active pilot during the Falklands War and Harry was fighting over Afghanistan. I did wonder how much of that was a calculated risk/hope that if either got killed in action like the King’s great-uncle the Royal family would get synpathy and acclaim for its patriotism while losing an embarassment. {Andrew was an embarrassment even then , albeit much less of one).
I was ground crew at Middle Wallop when Charles got his army wings. Took us about three weeks to prepare the aircraft, every component which had used half its normal life was replaced at considerable incinvenience. ISTR he was only there for an afternoon and one flight, no solo. The aircraft was XT199. I came into contact with it years later, it still had a specially chromed joystck,
And I’m with Steve on this one. Does anyone think Cambridge would have failed him?
@Theo
I have a lot of doubts about the merit of IQ scores. Despite the one I* received no doubt being instrumental in gaining me a scholarship to public school. All they really mean is one conforms to the preferences of people who compose IQ tests. High IQ people.
There is a correlation between IQ score and income
Could be entirely recursive. A profile similar to those who employ you gets you helped along with your career.
The pudding’s in the eating. With all these supposed educated intelligent people running it, the country should be a paradise. Don’t know if you’ve looked recently…
* When visiting the school, was regaled with their enthusiasm for competitive sports & the successes of their rugby & football teams. I thought fuck that for a game of skittles & rejected them for the local grammar. Where I almost completely avoided sport altogether. Getting cold, wet, muddy & knocked about is for idiots.
BiS
The scientific literature on IQ is vast, so your scepticism about the measure is not easy to justify. IQ scores are a reliable predictor – some would argue the best predictor – of a range of life outcomes, including academic success, salary, job performance, physical health, and longevity, though obviously other factors (eg personality traits) are at work here.
Not sure about the relevance of your personal experience, but your IQ result must have indicated that you had significant potential. As for “could be entirely recursive”, studies have eliminated that possibility. Bosses usually don’t know their employees’ IQ scores and most employees don’t know their own. And, by the way, there’s no evidence that high-IQ people are over-represented in politics or government…
IQ also sheds light on racial and sex differences. Most women are clustered in the IQ range of 90-110. A lot of men are there, too; but men are hugely over-represented in the tails of the Bell Curve. IIRC, at an IQ of 125, men outnumber women by 3 to 1, and at an IQ of 170 by 35 to 1, which explains in part why there are far fewer female theoretical physicists. Similarly, men are hugely over-represented in the range 70-90, ie more men than women are very thick. With race, blacks in the US, UK, Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa are vastly over-represented in the range 60-85 [border collies have an average IQ of 53] while average IQs for Asian countries tend to be higher than averages for ‘white’ countries. The billions of $ spent on improving the educational performance of US blacks has neither increased their average IQ nor improved their educational performance.