Every year reminds me of my time in the early 60s. Everything had a different name then. I had a decentest of results but English Literature was always my strong point and my (brilliant) teachers at Charterhouse told me to take an S Level, which I did. So I got the top A level plus an S (Scholarship) level. As a result I was asked to take the scholarship entry exam for Cambridge, which I failed - but was apparently the top person in the failed category so, when one winner could not take up the offer, I was given the place and started at Trinity, Cambridge in 1964.

Aren't you a clever dick JK.

Late 80s I went to a state comprehensive & then the local college - got 3 A levels at grade A (no A stars back in those days).

No one mentioned Oxbridge or scholarships. Not sure what you would of had to do to be considered for it. I even achieved an unprecedented 98% on a History A level paper.

When I arrived at a (non-Oxbridge) University to read law, I took the inverse snob view that my fellow students who had been to Eton, Harrow & Winchester & King's Canterbury must be really rather dim with that sort of education not to have ended up at Oxford or Cambridge.

But then it didn't really matter in the end because they were so well connected (one is a current Minister).

This isn't a moan as I have done pretty well: but millions of less naturally bright kids are, I think, failed by the comprehensive system.

The ones at the top do fine, the ones at the bottom get a lot of attention. But the majority in the middle don't realise potential.

But if you are in the middle at Eton you end up at a provincial Uni with Wyot types; but then pull yourself away when Daddy pulls some strings on graduation!

There really are two worlds...Twas ever thus...

Wyot wrote:
Late 80s I went to a state comprehensive & then the local college - got 3 A levels at grade A (no A stars back in those days).

No one mentioned Oxbridge or scholarships. Not sure what you would of had to do to be considered for it. I even achieved an unprecedented 98% on a History A level paper.

When I arrived at a (non-Oxbridge) University to read law, I took the inverse snob view that my fellow students who had been to Eton, Harrow & Winchester & King's Canterbury must be really rather dim with that sort of education not to have ended up at Oxford or Cambridge.

But then it didn't really matter in the end because they were so well connected (one is a current Minister).

This isn't a moan as I have done pretty well: but millions of less naturally bright kids are, I think, failed by the comprehensive system.

The ones at the top do fine, the ones at the bottom get a lot of attention. But the majority in the middle don't realise potential.

But if you are in the middle at Eton you end up at a provincial Uni with Wyot types; but then pull yourself away when Daddy pulls some strings on graduation!

There really are two worlds...Twas ever thus...

I bet the school hall is named after you also.