Elite institutions' class bias simply reflects 'meritocracy'

I don't know if to laugh or cry....

Have I just travelled back in time? It has long been accepted (for at least 50 years) in academic research circles that not only are IQ measurements culturally biased they cannot be used independently to explain class differences in educational attainment and participation. By claiming that innate differences in IQ scores explains class differences is unhelpful and derogaory. Researchers have found that rather than IQ scores parental educational attainment, parents occupations, economic advantages and disadvantages, differences in state delivery and private education and pupil and teachers expectations are more likely causal factors of acdemic success or failure.

both sides of the argument fail to address the fundamental issues <p>a) Why do oxbridge and others bias against equal IQ and more importantly (as referenced by SH) drive. Its not always want you have but what you do with it! <p>b) On the flip side the responsibility for removing this differentiation lies solely and squarely with the government and the education system form primary upwards. However new labour policy is more about dumming everyone done to the same level rather than the harder task of pulling everyone up to the higher attainment levels

If there is no class bias, then why did I have to tell the universities I was applying to back in the early 1990s what my parents did for a living? <p>Of course there's going to be a larger proportion from the better educated upper-classes at universities, but why are the state school pupils who achieve similar grades under-represented at our top universities? <p>I have always held the opinion that if we had a truely results based entry system (like much of Europe) then it would be the upper-classes who lost out most - no more links between certain Universities and schools, no more donations etc. would get you a place.

The NUS and Prof. Sternberg are the ones who have got it all wrong. Students from less-privileged backgrounds should be given the help they need from the beginning of their schooling life, and not when they apply to universities regardless of how they perform previously! With such passive help, how do you expect them to cope without having standards compromised in their favour? <p>Since you have pinpointed where they are disadvantaged, well, go and help them! Stick to the merit-based system and get rid of all these quotas.

My father is a bus driver and my mother is a cashier. I am about as working class as you could get. Not only that, I am also a woman and the child of Indian immigrants, 2 other social classes that have been accused of lower IQ’s at some point in the past. I have an IQ of 137, a Bachelors and Masters degree and am currently writing up a PhD in Biotechnology at Cambridge University. I am far from being an exception to the rule too. <p>Dr Charlton’s broad sweeping statements attempt to provide “scientific reasoning” to stop efforts encouraging working class students from achieving their full potential, support that most middle class students can expect as standard. As a scientist myself, I know that data can be manipulated to prove anything you want it to but it cannot and should not be used to judge a whole subset of the population as unworthy. A real scientist would have the integrity, honour and sound judgment to know this. I know my place Dr Charlton, it is to stand head and shoulders above you and help other working class students to prove you wrong time and time again.

It is meaningless to claim that 'IQ' is the cause of apparent discrimination in admission to the most sought-after university places, because the very concept of 'IQ' is itself discredited. The true problem is that many working class families have no tradition of higher education, and therefore do not value it sufficiently to make the necessary sacrifices for their children. Please note, this is not a claim that they are bad parents, but simply that their values are different. If this anomoly is to be overcome, intervention must begin very early in life, and with parents as well as children. This will represent nothing less than a major culture change, and it is far from clear that it will even be possible, and even if it is done, we should still expect working-class (and other) children to fail to win places at Oxford and Cambridge, for reasons which should be obvious. So can we please have some realistic, achievable policies on tertiary education?

The reaction to this story is absolutely fascinating because most of the responses are along the lines of "how dare he say it", rather than "his data is wrong". <p>Individual differences in IQ have been shown to be partly determined by biology rather than being wholly sociological (best estimates are 60% - 80% biology.) There is also plenty of data showing a high correlation between IQ scores and achieved position on the social ladder. It follows that higher class parents will tend (note the word 'tend') to be brighter and therefore produce brighter kids. As a result they in turn will find it easier to get into the most prestigious institutions. <p>Charlton's sin appears to have been to broach the subject in the first place. He shatters illusions. It is so much more comforting to believe that we humans are above mere biology and that the modern managerial state can make anything of anybody given enough resources the right mission statement and a thick enough policy document.

Tracy Monteith writes: "It has long been accepted (for at least 50 years) in academic research circles that not only are IQ measurements culturally biased they cannot be used independently to explain class differences in educational attainment and participation." On the other hand, I seem to remember that Jean Floud's research into the 11+ exam in the 1950s showed that IQ test results were less related to social class than those in English and Arithmetic. Those who knock IQ had better come up with a better measurement of ability if the clever working class child is not to be even further disadvantaged than he/she is already.

If a working class child makes it to university, they have done it DESPITE their education not because of it. Consequently, the inherent ability in the student must be higher than the 'average' middle-class student. <p>This research has been produced, in my opinion, to justify a long-maintained 'norm' that has ensured that poor kids can be stuck in inadequate schools without having to worry about the injustice. <p>As with Hetal above, I come from a working class family. In my experience of the actual people from 'better' schools in industry, the military and academia, they are clearly not inherently superior. They just like to think they are.

Bruce Charlton has just proved what anyone with any intelligence knows: IQ has nothing to do with being smart, clever, or, really, even intelligence. His conclusions are short-sighted, elitist, ignore most of the research (except the bits that are handy for him), and probably were made in order to get attention. (I'm not sure why he'd want attention as a class-centric idiot, but there you are.) <p>We all know people who are intelligent, but are just plain stupid when it comes to actually thinking. Now we can add another to the list.

I haven't laughed as much since reading Sir Cyril Burt's research notes. Keep up the good work Bruce, it's necessary to keep reminding us from time to time how ridiculous IQ testing is.

Dr. Charlton's thesis is undone by his use of the term meritocracy. For example, roughly speaking one half of the annual intake of Oxford and Cambridge come from the public school system, and as everyone well knows they constitute a very small part of secondary schooling in this country. The bald fact is parents have bought their child that education. What they buy into are schools which are very good indeed at matching the Oxbridge selection criteria, one might almost say there is a permanent symbiotic relationship between them, a mutual benefit society of sorts. Whatever merit the individual candidates from such schools might have, clearly economic factors determine their options in a manner unavailable to the vast majority. Their parents buy the child this 'merit' and hence Charlton's 'meritocracy' bears relation to any accepted dictionary definition. <p>What I find alarming is that a researcher at an eminent university is working with such primitive ideas. Assuming Dr. Charlton's particular type of intelligence is high on the I.Q. scale, I fear it may not speak well of using I.Q. as a measure for innovative or interesting thought.

Yes as Tracy Monteith suggests we have gone back in time. These are age-old arguments in IQ. However, there is no problem with the measures used or the data. IQ has been long shown to be a predictor of acadmemic performance and IQ measures don't tend to be culturally bias within populations, i.e. when we talk about cultural bias in intelligence we're talking about differences between countries or areas of the world not within countries. Supporters of Charlton's methodology cite such evidence to support these types of arguments, but this is not the point, the problems are with the research design. <p>If you look at Charlton's analysis he just compares the different sets of universities (i.e. old-poly, red brick). When you compare populations like this you often lead to a particular statistical fallacy. An example of this is that death rates for English citizens are a lot higher in London than in Iraq at the moment suggesting that London is a lot more dangerous than Iraq. Infact its because in London your populations includes old people, ill people, all sort of possible accidents, that can lead to death - while citizens in Iraq are mostly young healthly soldiers. Therefore in comparing death rates in two contexts your conclusions (maybe London is more dangerous than Iraq due to higher death rates) are based on a statistical fallacy due to comparing two different populations. <p>Similarly in this study, you are not comparing similar (i.e. like for like)populations on IQ. There are a whole number of factors that differentiate these populations, many of them listed by Tracy Monteith above "parents occupations, economic advantages and disadvantages, differences in state delivery and private education and pupil and teachers expectations. <p>Therefore the issue with the current problem isn't IQ, what IQ scores mean, but the research design and this comparison isn't a properly controlled design and therefore is very problematic.

I have read an article of Dr Charlton's about this online. I think there are a few problems with his argument - if I am right in my interpretaion of it from what I read. So if you look at a group of doctors, lawyers etc this group have a higher average IQ than the general population. What does this prove? It show that people who have BEEN to university to study for these professions have a higher IQ (do better on IQ tests). Now that is likely to be because the selection process favours people with high IQs. Fair enough. So we've shown people who succeed in these professions have high IQs. <p>This does not say anything about what "class" these people were BEFORE they went to university. Have there been similar studies looking at IQ and parent's social class? Dr Charlton doesn't refer to them. <p>He also only uses group averages for IQ, which can be very misleading - no indication of the ranges and distributions of IQs found in each social class, which would then give a much more accurate idea of what % of students should come from each class based on selection purely by IQ. He only uses a very crude mathematical estimate based on averages as far as I can see. <p>Further - universities do not select by IQ, they select by A level results. How do these correlate with IQ? <p>Plus the original argument about Oxbridge is about favouring public over private schools. Nothing in Dr Charlton's analysis looks at school type. Do we know how many doctors, lawyers, etc send their offspring to private schools? Do we know how many taxi drivers do so? <p>So I am not convinced. (and am wondering how well the profession of professor correlates with critical thinking ;-) )

Most of the criticisms of Bruce Charlton seem to be aimed at claims he didn't actually make. Have the critics actually read his article? <p>Charlton's article is a straightforward modelling exercise. He shows that given the known variation of IQ across social classes, a purely meritocratic selection system (i.e. without class biases) would lead to the overrepresentation of higher social classes in the university system, particularly in the more elite universities. Given that this is exactly what we find in reality, those who believe that a class bias exists in selection need to produce stronger evidence to support their case. <p>Now it may well be that lower IQ among working class children is partly determined by their not receiving the same advantages as those from more privileged backgrounds. But that is irrelevant to Charlton's argument - he is simply saying that it is unnecessary to accuse university entry selectors of being anti-working class, because they are simply selecting on the basis of the qualifications presented to them, which will be better for those with higher IQs. <p>What Charlton's modelling exercise shows is that the unequal distribution of social classes in elite universities is "a natural outcome of meritocracy". That, however, is not the same as saying that this is right (or wrong). In fact, nowhere in the article did Charlton indicate any views about whether the system should or shouldn't be changed or whether more should be done for working class children in their earlier education, and so on. Unfortunately, the very title that the THE gave to the story distorts the meaning of what Bruce Charlton actually said (journalists trying to whip up controversy?). <p>Other critics have also pointed to successes shown by state school pupils once they are in a university. But yet again, this is simply not relevant to the argument presented by Charlton, which - to belabour the point - was simply concerned with the point of entry to university, not what happened before or what happens afterwards. <p>It does not say much for the quality of debate in this country that so many people can miss the point so easily. It seems that IQ is still a topic which presses people's "hot" emotional buttons and prevents them from seeing an argument for what it is.

If IQ testing has a cultural bias why are there no African orientated IQ tests available, or for that matter Indian or Chinese. These latter groups seem to do well in UK schools. <p>Those who score highly in tests for the greatest number of culturally biased IQ tests must be the brightest on a world-wide basis.

Studies, including twin studies, confirm that part, but not all, of IQ is hereditary. The dominant Bolshevik mentality may not like the fact, but it's true. (Funny how people are "scientific" unless the ox of their ideology is gored). Is high IQ the be-all and end-all? Of course not. Should we work to maximize the accomplishments of all. Surely. <p>But facts are facts. We wouldn't be having this conversation at all if the subject were marathon runners or musicians.

Meep. <p>.... <p>Science is not neutral, it serves ideological interests. So my main question is Who is Charlton serving?

The quickest and most obvious refutation of Dr Charlton's work is to point to his use of the word meritocracy. This word was invented by Michael Young precisely to satirise the type of views being postulated by Dr Charlton and the type of social organisation that produce them. What is truly terrifying is that nobody in any of the commentary I've read on this issue (including this site) seems to remember this fact. They all assume that meritocracy is not in and of itself wrong. It is a sad testament to the permeation of irrationalism into academia and society as a whole that Young's Rise of the Meritocracy remains not only prescient but also eerily predictive. You don't have to be the disgruntled socialist or the son of a truck driver studying for a Dphil to know just how much of this pernicious garbage is doing the rounds even in more liberal higher education institutions.

IQ is not only a function of genetics, but also of pre and post-natal care. If we were to improve nutrition and care for expectant mothers and newborns, the differences in IQ among the classes would wither away.

The use of the concept of IQ by Bruce Charlton is unfortunate. His argument does not depend on it, nor does coming to an agreement about what proportion of a person's academic potential depends on inherited genes as opposed to environment and upbringing. <p>In the world before the 1944 Butler Education Act most poor children had little opportunity to fulfil any academic potential. In the post-war years opportunities gradually increased so there were many children living in poor homes, whose parents would have had the ability to go to university if the chance had been available to them. As universities expanded they were populated by young people, most of whom were the first from their family to go into higher education. Also opportunites increased for people with skills in trades or business to earn more money and leave their working class poverty behind. <p.While 50 to 60 years ago there were many very poor people who were passing on to their children (through genes and/or by attitudes) the potential to succeed whether academically or practically, as the years have gone on it is not surprising that there are relatively fewer and fewer parents like that. <p>It is a consequence of a meritocratic society that most of those left behind in poverty will be the people with either less aptitude for, or less interest in, academic and economic success. It is an undeniable fact that their children are likely to resemble them (again how much of this is because of genes rather than home values is irrelevant), and as a result be rather less likely than others to be able to pursue higher level studies.

Interviews not IQ tests determine University entrance acceptance. Statistical analyses of the results of those interviews are not as meaningful as people, however distinguished, would have us think. There are many areas, physical as well as academic where new approaches to selection have proven to be worthwhile. Charlton is really stating that IQ can be "learned" more stimulus, more IQ. Has he considered this aspect of his statement?

The debate here is a matter of semantics, namely Dr Charlton's misuse of the term Meritocracy; <p>he claims that "People of higher social class have much greater educational, economic and socialisation advantages, which they pass on to their children". If one group is given an advantage over another it is not meritocratic. Dr Charlton effectively says that Higher class children have educational advantages (Schools with a higher 5A-c's pass rate, smaller class sizes, better facilities, better funding - private schools or due to parentocracy and two tier system over subscribed state school), economic advantages and Socialsiation advantgaes. These have nothing to do with innate Ability which, along with effort, are the cornerstone of the meritocractic principle. <p.This may well be exacerbated by unfair selection procedures but it isn't necessarily the case. The damage has already be done to Lower class children through poor schooling, poverty and a number of complex cultural issues.

It's silly to take sides when nobody is wrong. IQ is affected by genes and environment. Social class is also a function of both, though this depends on the social mobilty or meritocracy which is enabled by a society. Early environment is more important for achieving potential than later, although the brain retains some plasticity.

I am an 81 year old codger. I would like to discuss the school learning environment. The so called experts talk about the school environment and its impact on education and learning. <p>There are several factors including teachers, the school environment and the teaching methods that will affect a childs education. <p>During the 1930's I was educated in ClarkenWell, London (Saffron Hill EC1) also known as little Italy. The school was Roman Catholic and was built like a factory. Stone steps lead to the classrooms and roof. <p>The roof was our playgorund, in the summer we had to queue up for water from a single tap. <p>In the winter the boys (about 90 in all) would play a push and shove game in a huddle to keep warm. <p>This area of London in the 30's was a deprived an area as it could get and was one of the areas earmarked for slum clearance. <p>Although the school was mixed we were taught in seperate classes, the girls being on the ground floor. This bring me to one of my points about mixed education. There seems to be a consensus that mixed classes make for a better learning enviroment. However if the so called experts were to look into the benefits of teaching in single sex classes they would find educational results would be better. Boys and girls would not be flirting and showing off and therefore being distracted from lessons. <p>In most schools during this time we were taught using phonetics. This meant we could read and therefore by reading discover the difference between meaning. <p>As an example we could learn the difference between similar words such as the sea and see. <p>Also by reading these word in context we get to learn the different meanings such as 'by the sea' and 'as far as we could see'. <p>We shouldn't judge children because they have failed their exams it doesn't mean that they will fail in life. Someone who gets no exam qualifications at school could still go on to start a successful business. For example Richard Branson failed academically as he struggled with dyslexia but then went on to be a famous and successful businessman.

My rice cooker makes better statistical reasoning than this Newcastle academic. <p>You will always find enough bright boys and girls in the lower social classes to fuel all top ranking universities in the World. In statistical terms, one can say you have a long tail distribution. <p>The difference with upper social classes mainly comes from a lack of information on the strategies to reach the top, and also from the fact that everything in your environment tells you it's out of reach when it actually is. <p>A lower class's child who succeeded at the most selective french Grande Ecole entry exam.

Sir, this letter comes in response to your article in the times higher education supplement of 22 May entitled “Elite institutions’ class bias simply reflects ‘meritocracy’” which I read with deep concern. I could not believe that such ideas could appear within a reputable paper such as yours in the form they did in 2008! I believe it was misleading and even inaccurate in some respects which some readers may appreciate pointed out. The use of IQ figures given at the end of the article for example, to make the case for middle class people being more deserving of elite university places, fails to include the numerous caveats associated with the measurement of IQ. Such caveats, though disputed within the academic literature, should have included an indication of the variability of the measure over sessions and even a possibility of improving ones score over time with practice. The fact that I may score 90 in one test on a given day and maybe 105 in an equivalent test with different questions taken on a different day is something readers may be interested to know. The fact that I could improve my score over time with appropriate practice also raises some questions over the use of IQ as a reliable measure of ‘innate’ ability. <p>The reason I find this article and the scientific work it highlights particularly irritating is that such a line of reasoning appears to me to be constructed to justify the inherent prejudices in our education system, at the same time leaving middle class parents feeling deserving enough to sleep well at night. Having been through both extremes of the system from poor secondary schools to the “elite institutions”, I have no doubt in whose favour the system in clearly and consistently tipped. Working with the supplementary teaching of secondary school children in London today has only served to confirm this impression. Kids of average ability in good schools will generally make it to good universities while kids of average ability from poorer schools may not go to university at all. I see this simply as cause and effect. If we teach some kids significantly better than others and the well taught kids also have access to privileged parents opening out more opportunities for them, then it should not surprise us when there are more of them at our top universities. Lets not lie to ourselves that middle class kids are for whatever reason fundamentally more ‘deserving’ of our best university places. That’s a self delusion, it is simply the expected effect of the system we have constructed.

The alarm-bell term here which should immediately alert us to the fact that this "academic" is merely restating some 19th century thought is "natural" - just as white, just as male superiority was once considered.

The gist of Charlton's argument is contained in three simple truths. Differences in individual's IQ scores are partly a result of genetic inheritance, higher socio-economic groups have higher average IQ scores than lower ones, and the most highly regarded universities tend to recruit the best brains. It follows that the most highly regarded universities will therefore tend to have more students from higher socio-economic groups. <p>Some of the anti-Charlton comments above seem to be suggesting that he likes it to be that way. No he doesn't, he is just reporting the data. By suggesting that he wants it to be that way however it becomes emotionally easier for those who make such comments to be offensive towards him. Offense can be a very tempting reaction when you see your whole world outlook being undermined.

This is such a problematic area and any reductionist conclusions merely betray how impotent we all feel before the monumental task of ensuring every individual fulfills their potential. I had an IQ of 138 at age 16. My vocabulary was probably limited to a few hundred words (a wild guess as I know little about this subject but what I want to say is that my conceptual horizon was very narrow indeed). My father was a docker and my mother was a cleaner neither had any interest in education - quite the opposite - and we had no books at home. That is NONE. I was treated as (and felt like) a freak. I was laughed at for borrowing books from the library and continually mocked by my mother for having ambitions above my station. I first tried to commit suicide at 11 and my teenage and early adult years were fueled by drugs - a fuel that drives you nowhere, needless to say, but when I was under the influence the suicidal desire disappeared. I finally was sent to prison in my early thirties and soon after gave up drugs (I didn't want to go back to gaol). Things have been very difficult since but I have been sober for over 20 years now. <p>My comment here is that there very well may be a difference in inherited IQ but what makes all the difference for an individual is being nurtured and being raised in an environment of encouragement. Education is not a quick fix solution. IMO its effects manifest over generations and considering there was little free education until a little over a hundred years ago (not to mention the masses having no vote), education retains a residue of the them/us situation. They, the well-to-do exploiters have an education system - We, the poor exploited reject their education (after all they probably only educate us in order to exploit us more efficiently). It is these social problems, inequalities, that need to be worked on. <p>It's true that that work looks so hard it is tempting to fall back on the notions of class and IQ as determining factors that cannot be changed but that is the easy/lazy option. We really have no idea how the first years, even the first months, of a person's life affects their brain development. How the people around them with their social attitudes, vocabulary, talents and skills affect the nascent character of a child, determines how that child will think in the future. And really who wants to take on board such vast issues? Not politicians for sure. They want to get reelected in four years. However if we do nothing then the suffering inflicted on innocent children by social injustices will never improve. If we do nothing, who will?

"the very concept of 'IQ' is itself discredited." <p>Not true. It is actually a very good predictor of academic performance. <p>Also, if you read the literature you will see that East Asians actually perform best on average. So you can't simply say it's culturally biased.

I disagree with the argument that presence of elite class in the top schools is just natural or based on the IQ. Its the social class and the availability of resources available for students. It is unjust to compare a student of middle or lower class with elite class. I am from Pakistan. I know the the criteria for admissions in higher education institutions. There is a back door of self finance system. If you are not on merit, even then you have access to admission through self finance. Don't you think that a student having better marks and qualifications was rejected because he don't have resources. On the other hand, a student with less marks and qualification get the admission. It is Unjust. So the criteria is money, class and access, not the merit or meritocracy. Arshad

If universities selected on the basis of IQ he would have a point, but they don't at all!

I'm always surprised how ready people are to argue with their own prejudices - many of the comments above really argue over points that were not made in the original article. I think it's a shame that important issues can't be discussed without this huge cloud of prejudice obscuring the important issues. One of the more pernicious examples is that the author is actually arguing for elitism. What he actually seems to indicate is that clumsy attempts to dismantle elitism can be misguided if they are predicated on a sort of 'levelling down' approach to equality of social opportunities; what comes out of that sort of politics-of-envy clumsiness usually resembles a 'handicapping' system - equally unsuited to all. I wonder if some of the problem is in our conception of 'elite' systems? - in other words if we thought that Oxbridge would be the apogee of HE, why are we not using that as a template for all others, at least in the long term? If we were to say something like "well, it's not fair, they have far better resources, more money, we could never compete on a level playing field" - what are we implying? - they should be dismantled because of previous success? - or are we saying, under the guise of equal opportunities, that they should be forced to become us? - that makes no sense at all. So, what is it that people are arguing for?

This is silly - if you have a very high IQ - say 146, and are from a working class or lower middle class background you are more likely to apply for mid to low ranking universities than a 100 IQ from a professional middle class family. What the bleeding hell is this guy on about?!

I think the most telling story here is Laura Lewis's story - Laura wasn't let down by elitism - she just didn't have access to kowledge of what the opportunities might be, how to get at them and so on - she was let down at a much earlier stage than university, and it would seem to me that that is where we'd like to see the principle of everyone finding their 'proper' place in life becoming a focus of political will. I find it tragic that so many people have their horizons shut down, so early in life. I don't think elitism is the problem - stupidity is. Now, on another note, Jeremy - sorry, I just didn't get it - what are you banging on about?

Don, you might just not have the IQ.... Someone with a high IQ does not automatically apply to a high ranking university - structural factors have a greater effect than IQ on where a person applies to and low IQ people from public school backgrounds are more likely than higher IQ from non-public school to apply to top ranking universities in the UK.

Who needs the IQ when I've got you to explain? what you've just said in this last post isn't exactly the same as what you said in the previous. But in any case, I've a feeling you've just said what I did! that the real effort is needed earlier on, so that people can feel that the options are there, spread out before them. Further, you seem to be implying that the so-called elite universities have to fill up with intellectual duffers from posh backgrounds because they don't get sufficient applications from high IQ potential candidates when the latter come from poor socio-economic circumstances - is that right? - in which case, the achievements of the Oxbridge and Russell group really are remarkable - unless it's the others that really are rubbish. Now if I've misconstrued, please do take the time to focus your magnificent intellect on explaining actually what your point is

Who needs IQ when you are too lazy to think you mean?! As regards understanding what Oxbridge could achieve if it did select perfectly for IQ, well we have never seen a time in History when the best universities selected the best candidates. The powerful manipulating systems they are in control of to benefit their offspring to the exclusion of others is, I'm afraid more a reflection of the lack of professionalism and intergrity bred into those with power than it is of IQ.

' a reflection of the lack of professionalism and intergrity bred into those with power ' that is why we have to regulate them - we can't trust people like banks, university vice-chancellors, etc not to nepotise and perpetuate advantages. I had a nice conversation with someone the other day who said 'but you have to have an elite' when he was talking about public schools. I told him I agreed, but that any country who thinks that the elite consists of people from a particular background rather than the best irrespective of where they came from would be a nation shrinking on the world stage - he looked a bit miffed - perhaps his idea that his family had the right to an empire was being shaken! LOL!

I am in a Russell Group U which is in the top 5 of the league table, and my class of 40 students last year had just 5 students from independent schools and there were a 22 students from what you would call "working class" ( most of us work and this nonsense this outdated class warrior Fergus brings up) all of them from comprehensive schools, 8 overseas students and 5 were from grammar schools which you would like to brand as middle class which is silly any way. These 22 students were on grants based on their family income. You better converse with many others.

Let's come right out with it - it's the Lizards that are behind it all...

Jeremy - that's what you call "thinking", is it? - you're right, I'm too busy to spend much time on that. - You didn't address my point: If, in fact, Oxbridge are somewhat hampered by their own practices in harvesting the moronic offspring of the rulers, doesn't this make their achievements in turning out quite decent grades all the more remarkable? - I have to admit, I wish I could do such a fine job of turning people's lives around. Or are you saying something else?

@Jeremy What a set of unprofessional comments! First I suggest that you thik before you post. Does not need much IQ for this!

Should be " think...", although "thik" would do!

As an acces student from what you would call a lower socail back ground i find this article deeply hurtful and untrue. There are many reasons why people from lower classes have generally a lower IQ. This could be down to not having all the opportunitys thet higher or middle class people have from being born. There is proably more culture in the homes of the higher classes, and also have the opportortuinty of private education from a young age. The benefits of private education alone are much greater than those of a state education. There is more money in the private schools for more experienced and specialst teachers. More money for educational excursions. Less children per class giving each child more attention and ultimatley more dedicated time to learning. I personally feel if i had been given the chance of private education i would probably not be sat here doing an access to higher education course, 8 years after leaving school. It doesn't make me any less intelligent, and i am probably more driven now than i was at sixteen. I think private schools should be scrapped and a new education system put in place that is fair and equal to all. Giving every child the opportunitys they deserve, to progress and be the best they can possibly be.

What you say is an insult to thousands of youngsters who go to top universities coming from socially deprived background. In this day and age ,opportnuties exist for every one and the top universities like Imperial and UCL work hard to recruit these students without dumbing down the entry qualifications. As a governor of primary and secondary schools, it is my experince that besides the teachers and the schools, the parents in a significant way with their support build the careers of their children. The schools I was involved with were all in inner city deprived areas and yet sent 45% of kids to good universities thanks to parents' effort. Blaming as you do on private schools or the rich is the easy way without talking any personal responsibility. It is an excuse which we hear most of the time. For a start , you can improve your English. The local libraries are free and you can sit and learn to write better. Socialism works only for the rich- these are the party leaders.

Be careful about acting as the grammar police. Your own post contains misplaced commas, spelling errors, typos, and bizarre phrasing, eg "talking responsibility".

As someone currently being taught and mentored by Dr Charlton, I find it absurd that a reaction to his research ends up as a reaction to each other's grammar and spelling. Let's stick to the research in Question. Firstly, I am from a working class family, I have a relatively high IQ of around 144, and as much as IQ is a predictor of academic performance; if you had ever met Dr Charlton you would understand that he is not the kind of person likely to start a class war, or to segregate someone because of their background. He himself is not from an upper class family, as he states in his publication 'Psychiatry and the Human condition'; his views may be looked at as 'narrow' and 'elitist' when viewed by sceptics; however it is fact, he is merely using the statistics at his disposal. If you had bothered to read any of his other work he also notes how people with high IQ tend to be 'Clever sillies' often seeking adolescent behaviours. Of course, as the people who have so angrily written in; there are exceptions to his research, he never claimed it was 100%, he's using statistics to make inferences. The people throwing hate back at him as making inferences from their opinions. Please; take the time to read the piece of research in Question before instantly writing hate mail.

@Roger. Oh, the professor (?) who was in the USA and blogging from there saying you were collecting data?!! Ha, Ha! What happened to your crusade against some one who did not have a PhD?