On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 19:43, Peter Corlett via cctalk <cctalk@classiccmp.org> wrote: > > That's an extraordinary claim that sets off my bullshit detector. Snopes > offers > this commentary: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1895-exam/ > > 50-100 years before you were at school would be roughly 1870-1920, which is > right at the start of both state-provided schools and compulsory education. > The > UK only raised the school leaving age to 11 in 1893. Truancy was rife, because > parents still expected their children to work instead and contribute to the > household. The average child was very poorly educated if at all. > > Children actually taking examinations at age 11 are already on the academic > track for those who are both clever and rich enough to continue their > education > further. It may even be the entrance exam for a posh public school. Your > average working-class oik is never going to get anywhere near that exam paper.
It's a fair point, and one that did occur to me, but I didn't want to be even _more_ prolix and hedge it about with disclaimers. Yes, education for all is a relatively modern thing. In the days when it was for the elite few, well, I suppose it *would* be more tailored for the elite, and thus would be challenging to non-elite, even generations later. But I am nonetheless surprised at by just how much. > For fun, have a crack at some of the recent exam papers given to 13 year olds > hoping for a scholarship: https://www.etoncollege.com/KSpapers.aspx ... wow. -- Liam Proven - Profile: https://about.me/liamproven Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk - Google Mail/Hangouts/Plus: lpro...@gmail.com Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven - Skype/LinkedIn: liamproven UK: +44 7939-087884 - ČR (+ WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal): +420 702 829 053
