"State school kids do better at uni"

[excal]

I would be interested to see these stats once you stratify them for SES level. It's a significant confounder.

I also think there's some issues in using postcode SES levels as a means of splitting into deciles; while you'll have a fairly homogenous deciles at the tails, in the middle there may be a vast disparity between high SES and low SES families that make the suburb appear middle of the road (read: gentrification)

[simpak]

Who cares if you do better at uni if you can't even get in to uni?

[Ballerina]

not biting bai xoxo

[excal]

Who cares if you do better at uni if you can't even get in to uni?

Well, there's that too.

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

If I got a dollar each time I heard someone bring this out...

[brenden]

I am not claiming the science is impeccable - I haven't read the science, I am not claiming public school students are better than private school students or that any schooling system is better than the other, nor am I attaching any particular ought claim to the contents of the article. I just think it's an interesting thing to think about. It's fine to entertain an idea and disregard it if you find it unsatisfying but enjoy it nonetheless. Whatever debate is about to happen I think is useless and won't be participating lol, I was quite honestly naive in making this post and obviously lacked some foresight.

[slothpomba]

I really only skimmed the article, but I still think life is what you make of it. You are your own person.

With all due respect and kindness, i don't think this is the right way to go about it. This is almost a mythical legend.

No one exists in a vacuum, everyone is the product of their environment. Life is what you make of it but only if you have the opportunities to make use of. Tell a poor kid in India, "life is what you make of it, you can succeed if you try!", a slave in the old south, a political dissident in one of the many countries around the world.

The idea of the totally self-made man is a myth, especially prevalent in the USA and other capitalist nations. As John Steinbeck (allegedly) said: "Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaire". Before you are even born, before you summon up the will in your mind to try in VCE, before you pick up a pen, your future success is already partially determined for you, for the average kid. This is by environmental factors you cant remove with sheer will.

I still feel that if you want something badly enough, you will get it.

Kids in public schools don't want to succeed as badly? Poorer kids simply don't want to succeed as badly as rich kids? This explains the statistics and the graphs? I doubt it. There are many people who have wanted something so badly and never got it. Look at all the small businesses that fail, all the people prevented from getting where they want to be due to other factors in their life. Wanting it badly helps but it is by no means a guarantee.

Conditions such as disability, lack of resources, etc. etc are barriers that can be overcome if the individual is determined enough, or has a strong support network.

Again, poor kids aren't simply trying hard enough or something akin to that? I reject this notion. A disability is called a disability for a reason, you are less able to do something, that should be acknowledged, not ignored. You can do wonderful things despite that of course but it cannot be denied that a disability, lack of resources, poverty, etc put you at a distinct disadvantage.

A more broader example would be to do with top-class American neurosurgeon Ben Carson who was raised by an illiterate single mum in poor conditions. These are just a couple of examples where people can outshine the competition no matter how they were raised.

How many poor kids who wanted to be neurosurgeons but never made it? Probably more than who did make it. Just because one escaped, it doesn't make it ok that people are living in conditions like this, it doesn't make them any less disadvantaged or oppressed.

It then follows that a public or private school education would create a marginal difference in Uni performance. Instead, it has got to do with the traits of the person.

Traits are important but to deny environmental factors play a key role would be silly.

Again, i am not going after you personally, i do not want to act you or upset you but we can't let these ideas like this go on, it provides an excuse for people to not fix the real issues like poverty and inequality.

[excal]

I don't think there's any issue in discussing the merits of the research - be it methodological flaws or otherwise. However, given the natural history of this board it will probably descend into the nether pretty quickly...

...or am I being overly pessimistic?

[charmanderp]

This isn't really in any way surprising. The difference between quality of education at high school and university is obviously much more significant for public school students, hence they're likely (on average) going to improve their grades by more upon moving to a newer environment with different opportunities, etc. This article's thesis isn't exactly groundbreaking.

Whether or not that actually means anything is something else entirely. Like someone else here said 'life is what you make of it' - there are more important things at university than grades. Networking, extra-curriculars, even making friends, are all equally important measures for long-term success. People have different priorities, and the university experience (and individual perceptions of this experience) isn't homogenous.

[charmanderp]

Getting into a private v public school slanging match just demeans us all.

[slothpomba]

Correlation doesn't imply causation.

Nor does it deny it. People abuse this stats 101 one liner without really knowing when to use it and when not to use it. It's not OK to use it to shut down and entire conversation or idea without further criticism.

There is only technically a correlation between lung cancer and smoking. There is only technically a correlation between someone shooting you and being shot. To deny they are causative (or at least shut down the possibility) is madness. A big part of experimental science is dealing with correlations, we use things like P-values to see how much a correlation is explained by certain factors, how tight two things are associated (say lung cancer and smoking).

As XKCD says:

" Correlation doesn't imply causation, but it does waggle its eyebrows suggestively and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there' "

How is this 'starry-eyed' in any way? Adversity is not uncommon, human misery is not uncommon. Just the other day I gave some chicken to a homeless man sitting in KFC staring longingly at my food. He looked like he was about to collapse, and had not eaten for days. Yet, he was still surviving, based on will I'd say. Overcoming adversity is only 'starry-eyed' in the face of those who are not made of thick skin.

I think blood glucose level is more important for survival than will or "blood will level".

As Martin Luther King remarked: “True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. ”

The fact that we have a system that produces people who are starving is a huge issue, not their lack of will.


All they need is more will! One hot bowl comming up!".

[excal]

Furthermore, a strong correlation study (amongst other things) with a plausible explanation is an effective way of getting grant money to dive in and work out the causative mechanism...

[Limista]

I think blood glucose level more important for survival than will or "blood will level".

As Martin Luther King remarked: “True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. ”

The fact that we have a system that produces people who are starving is a huge issue, not their lack of will.

All they need is more will! One hot bowl comming up!".

(Image removed from quote.)

I think you are taking this to a whole other level. The plight of hungry kids in Africa/ East Timor (wherever this image is from) is on a completely different level to the situation of school students here in Australia. We are discussing a situation where students are more fortunate, and actually have the opportunity to have an education. Therefore, I believe your argument is out of context.

Similarly, the homeless man example that I suggested was based on the fact that this man was not as depraved as those kids in the image you put up. He had clothes on his body, and was living in America, where the availability of food/ water is not as gross an issue as it is in 3rd World countries.

[slothpomba]

It's only fair that private school students get higher results. As money can give you an advantage in virtually every facet in life, I'd be questioning the wisdom of parents willing to invest hefty sums of money for outcomes that aren't superior.

Is it really fair money can buy you better grades? That the rich do better than the poor (on average) due to being of the right birth?

I also think the special consideration bonuses offered by university admissions are too large to provide an equitable outcome. Though I recognise they fulfill an ulterior motive as marketing tools.

You get special consideration because you really do need it, you really have been disadvantaged. I do not think they are large enough.

I disagree with this to the extent of the VCE system, which I believe anybody can succeed at as it's mostly a function of time willing to be invested.

The graphs and data a page ago show otherwise. It's quite clear the more money you have, the more resources you have, the better home enviroment you have, the better you do.

So yes, I believe that the greater pressure/expectations placed on the average student in private schools means they 'want' to 'succeed' more badly than their public school counterparts. Or at least they view 'success' differently.

Prove it.

[slothpomba]

I think you are taking this to a whole other level. The plight of hungry kids in Africa/ East Timor (wherever this image is from) is on a completely different level to the situation of school students here in Australia.

I was specifically targeting your quote about the homeless man and had nothing to do with education. I replied to your points on education in another post and the posts were separated for a reason.

Similarly, the homeless man example that I suggested was based on the fact that this man was not as depraved as those kids in the image you put up. He had clothes on his body, and was living in America, where the availability of food/ water is not as gross an issue as it is in 3rd World countries.

You said he was barely conscious or about to pass out. To try downplay his suffering by saying that he had food available (if he did, why was he starving like you say?) is simply cruel. To tell someone suffering so badly that they should be grateful for having a shirt on their back is lunacy. He should be furious that he is in such a state, that society has let someone down just so badly. We should all be furious that great injustices like this exist, that people suffer on such a level.

This is not the Oppression Olympics. Just because someone is worse off (kids in Africa, etc) it does not cancel out how someone like that man suffers in America, it does not make his situation any better by having that sheer knowledge.

[brenden]

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/10000-children-dropping-out-of-school-20140511-zr9me.html

Care to explain what this article has to do with what I said?

I'd say that "[barriers] can be overcome if the individual is determined enough" is a bit of starry-eyed idealism, but even if the claim were true, so what? Who cares? Why is it relevant?

How is this 'starry-eyed' in any way? Adversity is not uncommon, human misery is not uncommon. Just the other day I gave some chicken to a homeless man sitting in KFC staring longingly at my food. He looked like he was about to collapse, and had not eaten for days. Yet, he was still surviving, based on will I'd say. Overcoming adversity is only 'starry-eyed' in the face of those who are not made of thick skin.

As for 'who cares?' I don't dictate the type of people who would pay attention to this, and frankly it is not my business. So I can't tell you who would care about this, but I know I feel strongly about this issue, and thought I would share my opinion.

Why is it relevant? Well, if you are determined to succeed no matter what obstacles you may face, then how does a private or public school education matter? You will do well regardless of which institution you go to.
In this case I am assuming that students in private schools generally have easier access to resources and opportunities, and have a better learning environment than public school students.

Just thought you'd like to let those thousands of kids know that a bit o' the ol' elbow grease would do them just as well as systemic reform.

It's starry eyed because we look at people like the Cinderella Man and forget all the other people waiting at the wharf. Idealistic because it easy to look at someone who went to a regional school and scored 95 and hold them up -- "PROOF! Look everyone, it's all in the work!!!" It feeds into the American dream type bullshit we all love to believe lol. Defying adversity is great, but the next time someone PMs me after failing to overcome their adversity I'm not going to tell them it was their fault because they lacked determination.

Who cares, what relevance - Same question. Are we saying the system works fine because "don't worry, the determined will make it".  When you're determined to succeed no matter what obstacles you face, public and private matters because public might be the obstacle that stands in the way of that "no matter what".

Edit: like, the next time I go and tutor migrant/refugee kids in Dandenong, should I just impart my knowdge on how to be determined rather than foster their English skills?