Talk:Hills Road Sixth Form College

Reference to 'able' students

"As a result, Hills Road tends to attract more 'able' students (than long road) and it is important to place its considerable success in this context." Is it really necessary to refer to Hills Road students as more 'able', implying that those at long road and other sixth forms have lower abilities? I think this sounds biased and out of context in the article, and is clearly written by a member of Hills Road. Perhaps saying that Hills Road generally attracts those who dedicate a greater amount of time to academic purposes would be more appropriate here, avoiding the false implication that they tend to be more talented or intelligent than those at other Cambridge sixth form colleges. D Dinneen 18:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is true though, and the results back it up, although not conclusively. Tiddly-Tom 19:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

'More able' is a well established phrase in education to refer to pupils who progress quicker than their peers in the classroom. That sentance seems to be pointing out that Hills Rd students get higher exam results than students elsewhere because they come into the school with higher exam results, at 16, in the first place. Kelso21 (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"more able students typically preferring to apply to Hills Road as the level of support is much lower than at other centres." This seems a very odd turn of phrase. Aside from it being questionable that there is less support than elsewhere, it doesn't make sense that there being less support is what makes 'more able students' prefer Hills Road. Certainly when I applied it was because I felt there would be more support for academically able students, not less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.128.195 (talk) 11:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hills Road/Long Road 'debate'

I have just deleted some tendentious (and ungrammatical, badly spelled) nonsense about the differences between the two colleges. Could we perhaps stick to verifiable facts? Sjoh0050 09:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Fully agree with your delete. I wonder whether the remainder of the 'Hills Road/Long Road debate' section should be removed. It doesn't contain any information which can't be found elsewhere in the article and the whole premise that Year 11 students are deciding which one is better is, in my view, inaccurate. More of a case of which they are better suited to. Kelso21 00:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There are differences and there IS rivalry between students. I copy an email sent to the whole of the college today 30/1 from the principal:

Yesterday, Monday 29th January, at about 1.20pm intruders came on to the College site and assaulted several Hills Road students.

Last Friday, 26th January, at about 4.20pm on the Hills Road pavement outside the College, several intruders caused a disturbance which led to injuries to a number of people, including Hills Road students.

The Police have been informed.

In both cases, we would like to know of any details that would help identify the intruders.

If you know anything, please either email Mr Glen Taylor or see him or the Principal, Dr Wilkinson, to pass on what you know.

It is important to have your help in keeping the College site as safe as possible for all members of the College community.

Thank you

Dr Wilkinson

Rumour has it that the people WERE long roaders. Surely this should be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JettWIlderbeast (talk • contribs)

No, wikipedia is not the place for rumour. And the letter would be more credible if you had a scanned copy visible on the web somewhere. Sjoh0050 13:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful update. Since then it has been confirmed it was long roaders. Also how would scanning an email be helpful? Printing it off then scanning it then uploading wouldn't make it any more viable. Just stupid. It is a real email. I do attend hills road I know the college {{JettWIlderbeast }}

Image

The current image is copyright so will likely be deleted in the next day or two... In all my own efforts, I've been unable to find an aerial photo recent enough to include the Science Building at the back of the college built in 2003. I'm hoping someone else has some luck as I'm not having much... - JVG 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for success

There is a further historical explanation for a preference towards Hills Road. In 1974 Cambridgeshire reformed its schools to a comprehensive system. The village colleges and their city equivalents, the community colleges, which had all been reduced to secondary modern schools were transformed into comprehensive schools. There were no sixth forms in secondary moderns, and the new comprehensive schools were similarly restricted to the 11-16 age range. There had previously been four state schools of grammar school status in Cambridge - the Girls Grammar, the Boys Grammar, and the High Schools for Boys and Girls. The first became Parkside Community College, the second merged with the Netherhall School to become an 11-19 school, and the third and fourth became Hills Road and Long Road sixth form colleges. As can be seen, the girls who had formerly been at the Girls Grammar needed to move to a new school for their sixth form studies - and it is not surprising that many chose to join the boys at Hills Road rather than the girls at Long Road. That preference laid the foundations for Hills Road's academic success, and hence popularity, that has persisted ever since.

Isn't this just speculation? There are many factors, including this one, contributing to Hills Road's succcess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.21.233 (talk) 11:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons to Long Road

Have just deleted most of them: really not needed. Please keep them gone. Thank You. 86.137.241.215 (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Bias on this page

There has been a series of edits by a user Sjoh0050 vandalising this page, removing evidenced material and replacing it with pro-hrsfc propaganda. This user is almost certainly a member of Hills Road staff and is censoring the page to protect the college's reputation, despite the legitimacy of the edits. A ban on editing the page for this user may be in order, or a warning box for bias in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ioasabao (talk • contribs) 13:43, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

There was nothing legitimate about the content the user was trying to delete. It was mostly defamatory statements with little evidence to back them up. Or should I say that the comments of a few disgruntled students aren't sufficient to substantiate some of the claims made in these sections.Deepdreamer (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

Just cleaned the page up, rather than nominatig etc. It is now a bit cleaner, more streamlined, less cluttered, and has less irrelevant information/repetition. Only problem is references, so please add as found! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.158.247 (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good job. I was also interested in tidying this article up a bit so I am making a few changes as well. Let's try and get this article to a better standard. Deepdreamer (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

'Outstanding'

There's several references on the page to Hills Road being the first college to be designated 'outstanding' by Ofsted. I can't find any evidence for that anywhere, so unless there are any objections I'll remove those phrases. Matt J ^User|Talk 17:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Student newspaper section

The section on the student newspaper serves no encyclopaedic purpose and adds little to the article. It is really just a list of names of students.Tklink (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Semiprotection from IPs?

Just a newbie showing up from the college itself here to revert some vandalism- I noticed that there appears to be a lot of vandalism coming from IP editors within the school's address range. Would it be worth semiprotecting the page from that IP Block in general (As in, stopping IP edits of this page from within the school)? Apologies if this falls under perrenial suggestions. (Aware of the hypocrisy, by the way) 212.219.116.68 (talk) 12:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Just made an account so I can be less hypocritical, I'm responsible for the previous comment. Phillammon (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

No way of restricting an IP range for a specific article that I know of. Can restrict all IPs from an article or a range of IPs from editing any article. Keith D (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

There's a case for semi-protection but I don't think it's necessary. Myself (HR alum) and other page watchers often revert the vandalism reasonably quickly, and it's usually just people adding a humorous entry for themselves under "Notable alumni" Jebus989^✰ 14:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, it turns out I'd confused the internal workings of a range ban and a semiprotect (And a range ban would *probably* be overkill here). Sorry about that!Phillammon (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hills Road Sixth Form College. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111003110027/http://www.hillsroad.ac.uk/Admissions_Policy.pdf to http://www.hillsroad.ac.uk/Admissions_Policy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070707125351/http://www.hillsroad.ac.uk/support/future.asp to http://www.hillsroad.ac.uk/support/future.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140111091739/http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Education/Education-news/Cambridges-Hills-Road-Sixth-Form-College-named-among-the-best-state-schools-in-the-country-says-posh-Tatler-magazine-20140104060045.htm to http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Education/Education-news/Cambridges-Hills-Road-Sixth-Form-College-named-among-the-best-state-schools-in-the-country-says-posh-Tatler-magazine-20140104060045.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903202104/http://www.alps-va.co.uk/Our-Services/Alps/Schools-Colleges to http://www.alps-va.co.uk/Our-Services/Alps/Schools-Colleges
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080309190027/http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/portal/site/Internet/menuitem.7c7b38b14d870c7bb1890a01637046a0/?urn=130615&providerCategoryID=524288 to http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/portal/site/Internet/menuitem.7c7b38b14d870c7bb1890a01637046a0/?urn=130615&providerCategoryID=524288

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)