[yodsanklai]

But does Oxford want the best student or some that had to work harder but ultimately aren't as good?

In France, our elite scientific schools recruit students based on anonymous nationwide tests. It turns out most of the recruits come from privileged backgrounds, and I've heard this is more the case today than it was several decades ago.

I'd love to see more diversity in these schools, but I prefer to maintain our educational excellence rather than dilute it artificially with worse students. I'm all for paying tutors to poorer but promising student, but they should be admitted against the same criteria as anyone else.

[growse]

If you can pay to be better at the test, then the test just becomes a test of how wealthy you are.

[UK-AL]

When you have well off parents, you can literally be sent to prep schools which drill for these tests.

[yodsanklai]

These tests are pretty advanced maths and physics, not just multiple choice question you can just drill. Also almost all the prep schools are public.

Pretty much all French physics Nobel Prize and Field Medal laureate when to the same top school.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_École_normale_supérieu...

[cauch]

It misses the point: if you split the universe in two identical parallel universe, but then take the same individual and in one universe train them 2h per week, and in the other universe, train them 8h per week, do you really think, whatever the test is, the second one will not perform better?

This is the point of training: the more training you have access to, the better you do. If it was not the case, then the notion of school itself as a way of training people to be able to think by themselves will not have any sense.

And that is just training. Even with the same amount of class hour, kids who don't have to worry about take care of their siblings, of the house chores, or of even having access to decent relaxing conditions will get higher score even if they are in fact less smart.

[yodsanklai]

Yes, more training will invariably give better outcome for a given individual. But some people are just incredibly more talented than others due to genetics alone.

If you want to build an elite sport team, I don't think you want to artificially put less athletic kids for the reason they had to work harder.

I think the question is why do we need elite higher education at all. Maybe we don't. In my view, we want to funnel the brightest people there and make sure they get access to the best resources.

[cauch]

That's the point: people with more training that reach high grade are LESS GOOD than people with low training that reach lower grade.

You are saying that you don't want less athletic kids being accepted artificially. That's exactly the point: the score does not correspond to the talent, you have to correct for it: to compare 2 persons on their merit if they have had different training, you need to calibrate to get a variable that correspond to the merit.

[patanegra]

Clearly, it's because talented people grow to the top (not just economically, they might be cultural elites, like people working in news, academia). Then, they marry people who are on the top. And they pass their genes and habits.

It's nothing bad that their kids end up good students again.

I think that French system is superior. It gives fair chances to everyone.

[physicsguy]

It's clearly not purely genetic though is it? A lot of it is wealth and opportunity. That's why there's "dynasties" in so many areas of the developed world, particularly in cultural spheres where that opportunity matters more than in scientific worlds.

[frotaur]

This is not 'clear' at all. What is clear is the correlation. You imply that the cause is 'good genes and habit'.

An equally, if not more valid cause is that having money makes it much easier to get good condition/tutors etc for preparing for the exams.

[patanegra]

There are studies that show how heritable intelligence is. Very.

It is quite common people say, that something is only a correlation and not causation. But if you can point to a common denominator, that has been shown multiple times, to have a massive effect, it's not likely to be just a coincidence. Genes are this common denominator. Society and habits (for example, protestants vs catholics) are another.

Things that consistently impact the whole population are not just a random process that picks: "You will be clever, ugly.", "You will be pretty, sporty, but will be dumb." It's always genes, society and habits.

[nickd2001]

Some research on the subject here : https://www.bbc.co.uk/future/article/20180905-how-genes-infl.... Personally I question how one can definitely prove to what extent genes are the factor as there are so many other factors in play, but those researchers know more than I.

[foven]

Which gene gives me a tutor to support me at the most critical point in my intellectual development?

[patanegra]

The genes of your parents?

Or now, for $20/month OpenAI? Or for pennies through OpenRouter?

[Ekaros]

Honestly I feel like anonymous mass test in general is least worst way. Yes, parents can invest in tutoring and such. But there still needs to be effort and learning to do well on the test.