Muggleborn vs Pureblood

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 168811

Bart:

> However, if JKR is saying that those kids who grew up 
> with magic around them do not do statistically better than those who 
> have never been exposed to magic before their 11th birthday, then I 
am 
> afraid she's wrong.
> 
> 	And it's environment, not pureblood; if you switched a 
muggleborn 
> wizard and a pureblood wizard at birth, then the pureblood will be at 
> the disadvantage.
 
Hickengruendler:

Have you made any statistics regarding this point? ;-)

Sorry, but it is JKR's world, and if she says that they are on the same 
level, than they are. And even though I can see the point, that due to 
lack of experiences for the Muggleborns they were unlikely to start 
from the same level in real life, this is how it is portrayed in the 
books. Let's ignore Hermione for a moment. Harry is raised like a 
Muggleborn. His parents are a witch and a wizard, but he didn't know 
this and was raised by Muggles, therefore he had no prior knowledge of 
magic or spells. We also know, that in contrast to Hermione, he did not 
read ahead, once he learned the secret. And yet we never see him worse 
than Ron in school, who has lived among wizards all his life. The books 
make clear that they are about on the same level, except Defense 
against the Dark Arts, where Harry is stronger. Their upbringing did 
not make any difference, not even in the first schoolyear. Similarly, 
pureblood Neville is among the worst students in Harry's class at least 
in the beginning (though there are othe rfactors playing a part in 
this, as we later learn), Half-Blood Seamus blew up the feather in a 
Charms lesson, while we didn't see the muggle-raised Dean Thomas having 
any real problems.

Hickengruendler