Bernard L. Madoff

Top 100 high schools

16 posts in this topic

Well that's a very big thumbs up for the NSW govt selective high schools, but I wonder if their high showing is at the expense of regular state high schools, who are almost absent from those lists, having poached all the smartest kids?

The other question is, do the parents who can afford to send their kids to private schools, have smarter kids, or is the learning environment provided there more effective than their state run companions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's a very big thumbs up for the NSW govt selective high schools, but I wonder if their high showing is at the expense of regular state high schools, who are almost absent from those lists, having poached all the smartest kids?

The other question is, do the parents who can afford to send their kids to private schools, have smarter kids, or is the learning environment provided there more effective than their state run companions?

If you are forking out the bucks for private education its probably because you value education and you can afford it. If you can afford it easily, odds on the parents are professional types with a couple of degrees between mum and dad and there will be an air of expected achievement.

If the parents are sacrificing (bigger mortgage, new car etc) to send the child to school, odds on they'll take an interest in the success of the child. Just my two bobs worth having met both types of parents and sort of having feet in both camps (2 degres, below average mortgage, crap car, no overseas hols but above average i/c).

Also, private schools can hire the top notch teachers with more lucrative deals and fire the pretenders.

Some parents would rather spend an extra $100K on a nicer house than channel $8-9,000 into school fees when thats good mortgage money (approx repayments on a $100K mortgage), then there is the $8-9,000 in payments for the cool SUV in the driveway.

When I ask folk why they don't send their kids to a private school when I know they can afford it, the common excuse I often hear "is I don't want Johnny to have a religious education". The religious ed at catholic and anglican schools I've been associated with (and my children) is very limited and rudimentary (maybe 2 periods a week of values and philosophy). How one spends their money and educate their kids is their business, just don't bullsh*t with the religion line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have kids, so lack first hand experience, but what worries me, is that we are creating, or maybe even have created, a two tier education system, where the regular state high schools are almost being turned into dumping grounds for the kids from poorer families (recent FHBG mortgage.. :P) who weren't bright enough to get into a selective school, or from parents who would rather have the SUV in the driveway, and maybe even for some of our more ordinary teachers. I just seems like a recipe for entrenching mediocrity and disadvantage in much of the state system. The kids from good families would be less likely to develop elitist attitudes, and the kids from poorer families, or with uncaring parents would hopefully see that there is a better way of living.

I guess i would rather see healthy, better run govt schools that make the desire or need to send your children to a private institution unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have kids, so lack first hand experience, but what worries me, is that we are creating, or maybe even have created, a two tier education system, where the regular state high schools are almost being turned into dumping grounds for the kids from poorer families (recent FHBG mortgage.. :P) who weren't bright enough to get into a selective school, or from parents who would rather have the SUV in the driveway, and maybe even for some of our more ordinary teachers. I just seems like a recipe for entrenching mediocrity and disadvantage in much of the state system. The kids from good families would be less likely to develop elitist attitudes, and the kids from poorer families, or with uncaring parents would hopefully see that there is a better way of living.

I guess i would rather see healthy, better run govt schools that make the desire or need to send your children to a private institution unnecessary.

Excellent post. I can think of one or two outstanding public schools in Brisbane and know of five in Perth (Shenton college, Rossmoyne, Perth Modern, Mt Lawley and Churchlands) which are up there in the top 20. See p13 here: http://www.media.perthnow.com.au/common/PDF/WA_schools_data_2009_web1.pdf

Thats 4 from the top 20 with none in the top 8. The capture area in those 4 public schools is narrow, in snobby suburbs and the real estate expensive, so its the socio-economic elite once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess i would rather see healthy, better run govt schools that make the desire or need to send your children to a private institution unnecessary.

I don't know if they are getting worse but a comprehensive high school education if you make it through with above average marks means you are ready for uni.

I know when I went to uni the private school kids were less used to the freedom you got there some struggled. Particulalrly those who scraped in. I reckon if you get into a course and come from a normal high school most are going to get through it.

That said engineering is a low mark to get in. I imagine medicene, law and other high mark degrees have no people from normal comprehensive state schools in them at all. I know where I went to school I was 3rd best at least pre HSC. My mark was apparently about 3rd worse if I had gone to a nearby selective high school according to some from there when I went on a camping trip with them the week after we got the results. I am not talking James Ruse either.

I am a firm believer in state education but from a practical point of view if I live in a lower socio economic area when it is time for my kids to hit high school I would be sending my kids to private school, given I move around I don't even know how I will get them into one???

In many places the extra 100k on the mortgage / 5 to 6k per annum rent will get you into a catchment of a state school which will give the kids a good enough education and that is good for all your kids. I think I would rather go with that option, especially now they are reporting which schools do best even for normal high schools.

Edit: agree with you there tin above. If you live in the right suburb the catchment will sort out the school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might need more than a 100K to get into some of these burbs mate. :shocking:

Shenton college, Rossmoyne, Perth Modern, Mt Lawley and Churchlands

(from http://www.domain.com.au/public/apm/default.aspx?mode=research )

Shents median $817K

Rossmoyne $905K

Subi $775K (Perth Modern)

Mount Lawley $685K

Only Churchlands at $575K offers hope (nice area too).

Personally if I was buying in Perth to be near a reasonably good public school it would be Churchlands and Willeton otherwise its win lotto or take pot luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...That said engineering is a low mark to get in...

My year of chem eng I think we were lower only than law and medicine. We had loads and loads of young people (I was mature age due to my sojourn in Norway) that applied for chem eng simply because it was next hardest after those 2.

Hilariously funny. Somewhat dangerous. I remember a guy managing in a first year lab to strip 4 flange bolts on a heat exchanger and being too embarrassed to tell anyone. My lab partner (a tassie girl) broke a bone in her hand hitting the mushroom to shut the f*cking thing down when the steam started coming out.

From memory he was the same guy that turned up mid year with a radiator cap bruise on his forehead.

Funnily enough I ditched uni mid way through 3rd year as I was out of cash (foreigners have to pay hecs up front) and got a job for a few months to get enough ready for the final push. After 3 months in IT I was earning the same as exit cash in chem eng so I figured I would maybe do another year or so to build up a decent buffer.

After another year I was thinking I better ride this lightning until it craps and burns as I saw all my class friends (most of whom did dual) going out to industry and there being _no_ jobs.

Now, some 15 years later, I am still holding the tail of that tiger.

I'll go back and finish my degree one day. Probably when I am really old. That'll be fun. Old and crusty alco in engineering, it'll be like a rodney dangerfield movie I guess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My year of chem eng I think we were lower only than law and medicine. We had loads and loads of young people (I was mature age due to my sojourn in Norway) that applied for chem eng simply because it was next hardest after those 2.

Uni of Queensland Eng was an OP8 in 2009 (equiv of 85 in NSW etc)

http://www.qtac.edu.au/Applying-CurrentYr12/InterstateAdmissions.html

I'll go back and finish my degree one day. Probably when I am really old. That'll be fun. Old and crusty alco in engineering, it'll be like a rodney dangerfield movie I guess.
Looking at the sh*t my son gets up to, that will be pretty close to the truth. :wine::punk::cheers: (and about 10,000 condoms)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My year of chem eng I think we were lower only than law and medicine. We had loads and loads of young people (I was mature age due to my sojourn in Norway) that applied for chem eng simply because it was next hardest after those 2.

...

After another year I was thinking I better ride this lightning until it craps and burns as I saw all my class friends (most of whom did dual) going out to industry and there being _no_ jobs.

Now, some 15 years later, I am still holding the tail of that tiger.

I'll go back and finish my degree one day. Probably when I am really old. That'll be fun. Old and crusty alco in engineering, it'll be like a rodney dangerfield movie I guess.

As you know I did an old school engineering (as is chemical but there wernt enough of you for me to notice?). In 1995 electrical, civil and mechanical were all easy enough to get into about 70% required. IT, telecommunications and some other exotic engineering were harder up to low 90s to get into.

I saw about 24 months ago even the old school engineerings are up around the 90% mark to get in now. :dontgetit: I would not have made it that is for sure.

I do not recall chemical being up there in teh mid 90s with the high marks at that time, but it is possible after the 1992 recession it had lost its gloss. There was even an Australian movie about an out of work chemical engineer down on his luck I recall something about being down to your last $10.00???

Engineering generally goes through a boom bust so far as marks go, it is up there now because the economy is on a high, give it a crash and it will come back to earth when a whole lot of us are off looking for work.

Anyway the guys doing it now in my opinion doing it for money as it has a good graduate salary in the tables are quite different to those who did it when the mark was lower. I am not alltogether sure that being bookish suits the civil engineering proffession as much as it might chemical or electrical.

Anyway based on the few young people I know at work I am certain the 50% of engineers who actually go onto work as engineers (many do other things like yourself tor) will actually get even lower over time as more bookish types get into the profession than the profession needs, i.e. specialist consultants etc.

Edit: just to add engineers are all fairly bookish types, when I say bookish compared to average engineers I mean real bookish... Not like you or I tor the get in and roll your sleeves up style people. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uni of Queensland Eng was an OP8 in 2009 (equiv of 85 in NSW etc)

http://www.qtac.edu.au/Applying-CurrentYr12/InterstateAdmissions.html

85 seems to be what they all are at UTS these days.

Interestingly ITC engineering the one which used to be low 90s is now 85 civil is just over 85 yipee. I wish my financial investments appreciated like that.

Anyway that would still see me locked out of engineering these days and I reckon I do alright in the profession.

Edit: I suppose the moral of the storey is these days even to do a run of the mill course like civil engineering you better go to pivate school!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you know I did an old school engineering (as is chemical but there wernt enough of you for me to notice?). In 1995 electrical, civil and mechanical were all easy enough to get into about 70% required. IT, telecommunications and some other exotic engineering were harder up to low 90s to get into.

I saw about 24 months ago even the old school engineerings are up around the 90% mark to get in now. :dontgetit: I would not have made it that is for sure.

I do not recall chemical being up there in teh mid 90s with the high marks at that time, but it is possible after the 1992 recession it had lost its gloss. There was even an Australian movie about an out of work chemical engineer down on his luck I recall something about being down to your last $10.00???

I am crap with the memory of course but I thing we were 93 or something stupid at the time, probably more to do with number of students that could be dealt with than anything else. I seem to recall mentions of a bunch of guys that had bailed the uni to make money and one of my prof had such a boner for his own heat exchanger that when I was doing some work out at Kernell he came along to chat to people and see if they wanted to buy his HE. Then when I was doing some work at a food place he turned up and asked if they wanted to buy his HE.

I doubt he was using me as his sales vehicle (I dress badly and am rude a fair bit) so I guess he was strolling all the students work experience sites to sell it.

Engineering generally goes through a boom bust so far as marks go, it is up there now because the economy is on a high, give it a crash and it will come back to earth when a whole lot of us are off looking for work.

Anyway the guys doing it now in my opinion doing it for money as it has a good graduate salary in the tables are quite different to those who did it when the mark was lower. I am not alltogether sure that being bookish suits the civil engineering proffession as much as it might chemical or electrical.

Anyway based on the few young people I know at work I am certain the 50% of engineers who actually go onto work as engineers (many do other things like yourself tor) will actually get even lower over time as more bookish types get into the profession than the profession needs, i.e. specialist consultants etc.

Oh yes chem eng attracts the bookish :)

My opinion of chem eng is that you have to be the management engineer, and not in the HR bollocks way, but that you have to be able to pull together the synthesis of the other engineers opinion, whack it up so the foremen understand and then turn up and follow it through with the guys with spanners.

That is why we all did so damn well in IT, substitute "guys with a spanner" with business groups and you have the same scenario really. With the spanners you go drink VB, with the business groups you go drinking at the Establishment. Same deal, taking dumb arses with specific focus through an engineering process to get them happy and using alcohol and violence to prove your trust. With spanners you hit them, with business groups you hit the guy that wants to hit them :)

Edit: just to add engineers are all fairly bookish types, when I say bookish compared to average engineers I mean real bookish... Not like you or I tor the get in and roll your sleeves up style people. :)

The ability to use a book does not make you bookish :)

My first day in Chem Eng the lecturer said "anyone want their degree today?". Obvious setup but I don't mind playing the fool and sometimes the fool wins. I said "yep am already old and have worked on sunken nuke subs so let's get through this sh*t, 4 years one day? I am here". He said cool come down I will ask one question, you find the answer.

His question was so bizarre I did not even really understand it and when he said the answer was in Perry's I quietly wandered back to my bench.

Chem Eng, he said, was 4 years of learning to use Perrys. A reference book which, if you can reduce questions to simplistic blocks, will have all the answers.

PhD's were for those that realised some theoretical questions couldn't be reduced and would prefer to spend their lives teaching at university.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ability to use a book does not make you bookish :)

LOL!

I have collegues that would disagree...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL!

I have collegues that would disagree...

Smack 'em over the head with one :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not surprised that NSW dominates: selective schools are infrequent and far between in other states: while I know a ridiculous proportion of Ruse students score 99.9+ on matriculation, on a broader scale I wonder as to the value that Year 7/9 literacy and numeracy rates have on predicting further outcomes.

I frequently get asked by older overseas trained medical staff of south/east Asian descent which is a "good school," as in which school has a high hit rate for getting students into medicine, law etc. Literacy and numeracy is an assumed given, and if there's an inking that it's inadequate or if they're not getting pushed enough, they'll either teach their kids or hire someone to do so. My own mother taught me grammar as it wasn't covered in school - and this is one of the few from SA which feature in the rankings!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Class divide: State or private?

PORTFOLIO POINT: State and private schools are frequently compared on academic excellence, but the costs of sending your children to either can be surprisingly similar.

A great many Eureka Report readers have an intense interest in primary and secondary education because it directly affects their children and grandchildren.

I discovered this deep interest through several conversations last week on investment strategies, so I want to outline my views on the overlooked differences in cost between state and private schooling.

Many people believe that primary education is far less important than secondary education. I have the reverse view: primary education is certainly equal to and may be of greater importance than secondary education, and it’s very dependent on the quality of the teaching. Many schools in secondary education can overcome teacher weaknesses with good systems but you can’t do that in primary education.

That is why the debate over whether you should educate your children privately or through the state system becomes as important in the primary sector as it is in the secondary sector. Newspapers and magazines are constantly preaching about the vast differences in costs between a state and a top private education, yet in many areas if you are seeking top primary education there is not always a significant difference in cost between state and private.

We all know about the high cost of giving children a top private primary education and that cost is going to keep rising because, at least in the best schools, government money does not match the existing government share of the rising cost of teachers and other staff. As a result, all the cost increases must be met by parents, which inevitably means that fees must expand by more than the percentage rise in total costs. If, as a result of David Gonski’s review of school funding, government money declines even further then costs will rise sharply; some private schools will collapse because they have high debts. (Indeed, new figures on private school fees show the most expensive schools are now reaching $30,000 per annum – Geelong Grammar is $30,820, Scotch College Melbourne is $25,419).

But state education can also be very expensive. The actual fees paid by parents compared to those in the top private sector are minimal, but in most areas there is a substantial difference in educational standards between the various government schools. A large number of government schools provide a primary education equals to that of the top private schools but an even greater number are simply not up to standard.

It is not easy to determine which state schools are top-flight and which are substandard. The My School website, one of Julia Gillard’s best reforms as Education Minister, is a useful starting point but it can include misleading information.

In fact, with the help of that site and guidance from people you know in the community, you can determine which state schools provide an education that rivals the private sector and which do not; the amount of homework can be an indicator. Sometimes your child will require a different sort of education with, say, an increased focus on sports, social awareness or disability. What you require can be in either sector.

In most capital cities to be able to enroll your children in these top primary state schools (or those that provide your specialist needs) you must live in the school’s “catchment” area. A friend in Brisbane lived just 50 metres from a top state school, yet his house was in the catchment of another, sub-standard school.

What he needed to do was typical of what parents around the country are being forced to do if they seek top state school education: he needed to sell his house and move to the catchment of the top school.

For a $750,000 house, that involves a transfer expenditure of 7–8%, or $50,000–60,000. The cost of equivalent houses in the catchment of the top school were $50,000–100,000 higher. So overall he was looking at a bill of $100,000–150,000 to gain top state school education for his children. This is about the cost of top private school education and shows that the marketplace actually works.

Of course, the risk a person takes in linking their housing investment to education is that the school they have chosen may suddenly lose their principal, and in a state system once that happens you are dependent on the school finding an excellent replacement. If mistakes are made the good teachers will leave and seek out principals that provide the educational environment they love to work in.

There are a limited number of private primary schools in Brisbane, but that pattern is duplicated in most capital cities around the country. Of course, if you happen to live in the catchment of a top state school it represents very low-cost education, because top state schools can provide equivalent primary school education to the private sector.

When it comes to secondary education a lot more people are using the private system. There are some excellent selective secondary state schools but to get into them your child will need to be very bright or have had an excellent primary education. There are also top (or specialised) state general admission secondary schools that match the private sector, but I suspect they are rarer than in the primary area, although I can’t prove that.

Once again, while the residential catchment provisions may not be as strict in the secondary area, those non-selective admission state secondary colleges that can match the private sector will be greatly sought-after so it may mean further house moving. It’s no wonder that despite all the media publicity extolling the virtues of state over private education that the percentage of people using the private sector is rising every year. People have only one chance to educate their children and can’t afford to mess it up.

In between top private education and the state system are myriad lower-cost private schools, including many of those in the Catholic sector. Just as much care needs to be taken in selecting in this area because there is great variation in performance and of course even in the top private school area, good schools can stumble. Those that do soon get the message from fee-paying parents and if they don’t respond enrolments come under pressure. It is the marketplace at work.

In an ideal world we would have a state system that provides education that is second to none and therefore have a much smaller private sector. Unfortunately, for many reasons. that is not the case, so parents and grandparents have to send their children either to the state schools that provide a top or specialised education or go to the private sector. The increase in private sector students shows that people are voting with their feet and understand the issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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