I've got / had three children at "good" universities and they like me and indeed my siblings all were private educated from 5. But we are all also fairly clever genetically, also had helpful parents at home and most of us also work incredibly hard. All those factors led to the reasonable academic results (my siblings went to Oxford and Cambridge).

Most children go to staet schools - about 93% and about 50% or 60% at the better universities are from state schools. The more interseting issue is that posh state schools and academic state schools and state schools in areas with high house prices "steal" universities places from the poor. Perhaps that's the biggest inequality.

The better univerisities try very hard to recruit from sink schools but they also need to ensure they have clever enough pupils. It's no use learning to read age 19. It's too late to make up for bad teaching then.

As for showing off about children most people realise it's how they are as people that counts, how they treat others and those sorts of things that really matter not whether they get As at A level. My elder daughter who was probably a very rare thing - a girl with dyslexia going through Haberdashers - she did so well because of her hard work (and got AAB which for her was really good results) and she's got the job she starts in September because of her personal efforts in large part and probably also because she's an eldest child and they tend to succeed the most. Some of those aspects you might feel is due to the child - the hard work etc and others random . Like most English people I would always tend not to mention what my children achieve and highlight their failures. It's how the English are made, a national characteristic not to show off and for us to look with disdain on those who do.

Someone noticed a picture of my island last week when I was away on business. I don't then say - wow look I iown a private island because I have worked so hard and am so brilliant - I would say - it has no house on it and they cost less than French cottages etc.

lilymaid - I am informed by DD that the green wellie brigade are now known as 'rahs'

The point about children's results though is that they cannot be compared with each other, because they have not all had the same schooling, opportunities etc. So although it isn't actually 'bragging', it is a slight degree of oneupmanship in some cases (not all).

That's the whole point of this thread really. I am sure scienceteacher's child will get exemplary results, I think that is a foregone conclusion, because that is why people pay for education.

No doubt mine will too, as he is at a state GS where they ALL get excellent results. I wouldn't compare his or my other DCs results with those gained from a crap school though. There would be no comparison. The same grades achieved from a crap school would speak volumes.

Having said that, I don't really see anything wrong with shouting from the rooftops about one's DCs marvellous results on an anonymous forum, saves annoying everyone else at dinner parties, university open days etc.

You are utterly shameless Rusty. I only got a 2:2 from Exeter (also back in the days of green wellies) but I am redeemed and can become shameless by publicising by DS1's 2.1 from a Russell Group university last year.

Good on yer rustybear.

I love a good brag too

I couldn't wait to tell my friends and of course the rellies when dd got her AS and A2 results. It was great that they could share our pleasure and pride. The only person who I felt was slightly less than ecstatic was one friend whose dd at got very similar results from a private school - but then I think she was just a bit that our dd achieved just as well and we'd saved our money too!

As long as he didn't get a first, your last post was fine, rusty

Well, as someone who has 'publicised' her children's results on this very thread, you presumably mean me, violethill

I did try to disguise my boasting put DS's 2:1 from a Russell Group University (oops, there I go again) into context, in that he was a state school pupil who not only got in to a RG university, but encountered more state school pupils than private there, and proved successful in getting a good degree.

However, it was a pretty flimsy device & you've obviously seen through me; it was shameless appropriation of my child's achievements, probably due to the fact that my own 2:1 at Exeter was not from a Russell Group university. (Of course, the Russell Group didn't even exist when I graduated in 1977....)

People post on MN for a variety of reasons, probably the main one being to debate a wide range of issues which are broadly connected to parenting. It's perfectly possible to be interested in the issues, rather than feeling the need to know details of the lives of some posters children. I do actually have personal contact with a small number of MNers, and we email eachother, so if I wanted to share personal infomation with them I'd use personal email.
And I don't think debating issues is a 'waste of time' as you put it, at all. MN is a public forum and open to all.

Come back in August and you will see a bit of a bragfest here about examination successes.

This is an anonymous forum for the majority of members here, so posting examination results is not that much of a violation of privacy - no one knows who the DCs are either!

I think that this is a fine place to discuss results, given that it is frowned upon in the coffee morning circuit.

I am quite amazed by your attitude, Violet. I really don't get it at all. I think it is sad that you can't share the celebration with mums who have supported their DCs through the years and nagged encouraged them to do their very best (whatever the result).

I am also dismayed that you feel the need to look down on those who have different values to you, or who express their emotions more openly.

MN may be anonymous but there are real people behind most postings. Some people may be hairy-handed truckers or trolls but if someone has been posting consistent information for several years about their DC then I take them at face value.
If you are not interested in their lives then why on earth are you wasting time posting here?

I have online friends who I've chatted to for several years and if they want to email me about their children's results then that's up to them! I still wouldn't do it for my own children, as it's up to them who they want to tell their news to. That's very different to posting on a public forum!

Oh and btw it's got nothing to do with 'not caring' about how friends children have got on. As I said, when we're talking about people we know, it's absolutely natural to care. But MN is an anonymous public forum!

I find it equally bizarre that you should feel the need to comment, just before the results season, snidy remarks about "MNers who feel the need to publicise their children's exam result". Perhaps you don't care about others MNers but I would like to know, after years of reading their posts, how others' DC have got on.
It's not very empathetic of you.

fembear - part of the performance management process for any teacher in the state system is the examiniation results for their classes. Following any exams, a report is generated which gives a break down for each student, showing value added, or negative values. I certainly don't think any teacher sees it in terms of 'stealing approbation' - what a bizarre concept!!

Or are you, as a teacher, jealous because you think that someone is stealing the approbation that is due to you?

Well there's a prejudiced viewpoint fembear!

I am certainly not being disparaging about most parents. IME most parents don't post on public forums about their children's exam results! I just think it's a bit of an odd thing to do. Of course, people in the family/godparents etc will want to know, but even in those cases, I left it to my dd to share her news, precisely because it's her news, her achievement, not mine! We're talking about GCSEs upwards here, ie: young people of 16, 18 or older. They aren't toddlers who've just won first prize in the egg and spoon race! They are adults, or almost adults!

I also stand by my point that some parents who do this are seeking approbation through their children's achievements, which sadly, sometimes does indicate a lack of achievement in their own life.

Thinking about it, violethill's comment has made me quite cross. Isn't it typical of a teacher to write such disparaging things about parents.

I think if you've brought up a child who is hardworking, focused and has achieved something good then you have every right to boast as much as you like. So many children don't work hard and don't achieve what they could. Frankly, in 14 years time, I hope to be boasting all over the shop.

Surely a lot depends on how you tell the news. I was very proud and pleased with my ds's exam results last year and definately wanted to tell my friends. On the other hand, there are some mothers who boast about their kids achievements from the day they're born, but you get to know who they are and just let it wash over! I think most people can tell the difference between being genuinely pleased and happy for your child, and somehow trying to get the reflected glory?

'I distinctly remember GCSE results day last year on here. Lot's of high fives to state school parents for their offsprings string of Bs, but my DSs success was largely ignored...'

I too chuckled at this, for some reason it conjured up a picture of a string of letter B's, flapping little wings like bumble bees! But of course, it's a rather pathetic thinly veiled attempt to put down state schools yet again. ScienceTeacher - your contempt for 93% of the nations's children knows no bounds!

I think it's very sad to think that it looks like you 'don't care' just because you don't broadcast your children's exam results. Of course it doesn't mean you don't care! I cared very much about how my dd did in her exams, and I made it very clear to her that I was proud and happy for her etc, but the business of deciding who to tell was hers : her achievement, her news. I did my exams years ago - that was my achievement!

I wanted to shout from the rooftops when DS1's GCSE results came out last year I was so proud. Yes, he goes to a very good private school, but he worked bloody hard to get those results and was well rewarded with a nigh on perfect set of results.
However, I couldn't tell most people until they brought the subject up themeselves in case they thought I was boasting. Then there was the problem of other mothers thinking I wanted to tell them so that I could find out their child's results and compare.
The result was I just kept quiet and it looked like I didn't care.

ROFL at strings of Bs.

excuse the missing apostrophe in my last post.

I think the success sharing is a great double standard on Mumsnet. It is fine to share state school successes but not private school ones.

I distinctly remember GCSE results day last year on here. Lot's of high fives to state school parents for their offsprings string of Bs, but my DSs success was largely ignored...

/sniff but

Good for you then anna! I'd be enjoying my holiday and letting my children share their success with whoever they wanted to!

I think it is immensely sad when people feel unable to show off their children's achievements because of other people's unpleasant - dare I say envious - reactions. I love hearing about my friends' and acquaintances' childrens' successes: the French bac results came out last week and we have been calling all our friends (from our holidays) to congratulate them on their children's success!

I never said all children aren't wonderful.I said it's a little odd that some people seem to seek approbation through telling strangers their children's achievements.

Why shouldn't they? Aren't all children wonderful in some way and if they've achieved something good why on earth not tell people?

Sadly, flatcap, good education seems more prevalent in the private sector than the state sector (and I speak as someone who will be sending her children to state schools).

Perhaps they are burting with pride and want to tell someone but daren't say anything in RL because they know they will get a sour response. So they come on here to share their good news in anonymity. Except that they can't even do that now because you have decided to stake out the moral high ground ...

whoops her achievements! Of course!

Quite apart from the state/private debate, is anyone else rather surprised,as I am, at the number of MNers who feel the need to publicise their children's exam results, telling the rest of us how wonderful they are? I'm going to break with tradition here, and not tell you my dd's GCSE or AS results. They are ger achievements, not mine. People who seek approbation through their children's achievements are probably making up for some deficiency of their own

hear hear flatcap!

"independent education encourages bold, independent thinking, and gives children the ambition to aim high and not always go for the easy option or easiest subjects"

I think you mean good education which can be state or independent.

Fircone,
I teach Years 5 and 6 Science and I go way beyond the National Curriculum. The NC at that age is incredibly dull, which is why it is no wonder that many pupils are put off science for life.

<bangs head on desk for cory>

I'm doing an OU short course at the moment, and for various reasons have completely run out of time, so am just working from the assessment. And it'll work, and I'll pass, but it feels really bad and cheating and immoral...

It's a shame for students, though, to have this mindset. takes so much of the fun out of university learning. At Masters level it's just depressing.

"A problem I found in teaching first year undergrads in particular was the perennial question, posed the second you started a topic: "will this be on the exam?"."

Indeed. And it doesn't necessarily get any better. I took a load of MA students round the library to show them the research resources and the question I got at the end of the session was, 'for which part of the course will I be using these?' We were looking at the specialist dictionaries! And these were research students.

swedes, well done him! I think the MidYis data is really more useful to schools in measuring if the cohort is doing as expected (& hence if their teaching is up to scratch) than much else. I expect you knew or guessed your ds would do well anyway.

A problem I found in teaching first year undergrads in particular was the perennial question, posed the second you started a topic: "will this be on the exam?". Used to drive me insane, and seemed to be a result of an exam rather than knowledge based culture. And is a common problem for friends in many universities!

Snorkle - Ahh. Thanks. DS1 did get all A*s and a few As in his GCSEs, most of which were IGCSEs (so a bit meatier I think).

What are you talking about, Fircone? Who's patting whom on the back? But if anyone would like to pat me on the back (you?), all pats will be gratefully received.

Yes, cory, I imagine that is a problem, getting students to realise it is not 'cleverer' A levels.

The trouble with the A level system is that reasonably bright students can, and do, get the top grades relatively easily, as long as they have been 'taught' or 'spoon fed' very well. It is the nature of the exams, because the govt or whoever want more students to get top grades.

If the exams were harder and required more independent thinking, only the very, very brightest would get the top grades (and that would include SOME of those who do so now), as used to be the case.

swedes, read the document I linked to in my post 23:08 on Monday to get some info on predicted attainment and MidYIs scores. I believe more detailed predictions can be made from the results for the different subjects too. Your ds's scores are at the very top end of the scale and so any predictions will be less inaccurate as:

1) there are few candidates with scores that high and the predictions are most accurate near the mean ability (as they have more data to work with there).

2) the ceiling effect of GCSE scores (you can't score higher than A*, but you can score lower, so ability groups where you might expect all A*s will get lower predictions as some in the group will miss their target but none will exceed it)

Generally the predictions work well for a cohort, but at an individual level need to be treated with caution (as you might expect for predictions made from a relatively short snapshot test).

I can't tell which are the private or the state educated students on my course either- unless they tell me. Students come in all shapes and sizes, but it is definitely not the case that you have to be either brilliant or an independent thinker to get into a RG university - sadly

Like Habbibu, I'm not convinced by the hitting the ground running argument. We teach a lot of languages from scratch for a start anyway; a bright student can get so much further in a term at university than during several years of secondary school; it's a more grown up way of working. I'd say the hardest part of our job is making students understand that university is something different; it's not more and cleverer A-levels. We have huge problems with plagiarism and with a passive dependent learning style.

This thread has taken rather an unpleasant turn, with posters independently educating their dcs patting each other on the back.

Just so I can be smug, ds achieved the highest SATS English result in the county, plus 98% in maths and 90-something (can't call to mind) in science. And all that in a crappy state school. Oh, of course, private schools don't have SATS, all the children have their minds on much higher things.

My sons' school measures their progress against their MidYis score predictions. DS1 has a MidYis score of 142 and DS2 has a MidYis score of 146 but I've never been able to find out what that actually means.

Topflight:

"But the OP asks us how we feel about clever pupils in the state sector missing out in RG uni entrance because of nurtured, but possiblly inherently less clever pupils in the indie sector.

Well, if the indie lot are the students best able to hit the ground running to get the most out of the degree course, then that's the best choice admissions can make. You generally choose the best candidate for the role in the job market, don't you? You can't make uni admissions depts responsible for righting the wrongs of the inadequacies of secondary level state education."

That's not necessarily true. From a financial POV, students from non-tradtional backgrounds come with additional money attached (it's called Widening Participation money), which is dedicated to levelling the playing field for students. Also, hitting the ground running is tricky to define - students who've had shedloads of support and extra tuition can find university a shock, where the emphasis is very much on independent learning. One of the main grouses of my academic friends and colleagues is that students don't expect to have to do this, and this is a problem for both private and state students.

I asked DH last night if he noticed a difference between his private and state educated ug students. He said he wouldn't know which was which...

But much more sensible to go for course first, I agree - you do get odd little pockets of brilliance in some subjects all over the place, and then some subjects done badly in otherwise good universities. Think that should be a guiding principle for all applicants.

Also wanted to say more generally that there are thousands of RG (and other equivalent quality) places for undergraduates - they are certainly not all reserved for the brilliant. Glasgow, which is in the RG, famously has a huge proportion of home students, and many - I'd say the great majority - of those will be from state schools. There has historically been a stronger tradition of going to university in Scotland, however - Scotland had a 47/48% participation rate long before the UK govt came up with the figure of 50%.

Really? No 1994 universities at all? That really does surprise me. Though if it's a very specialist course maybe it's only done at very large institutions.

Habbibu,

He is selecting the course first, rather than the university first. But for his course, it is only done at about 20 places and the best ones are all RG. There are a couple of other acceptable places, at least one of which he will put down as an insurance offer.

The other thing about selecting a university is to look at their student body profile for the course in question. He will target a place where he is a average student. It is a rough calculation (based on number of UCAS points), but all he has to go on. It is only RG universities that match this requirement.

Hah! at being fair to the OP. She posted a theory based on her perception of some personal anecdotes, not statistical evidence, and has buzzed off and not returned to the thread since!

To be fair the OP didn't say it was average children that were taking the places, merely that it was lower ability children than the others that might have had them. I too doubt that many truely average from any school are getting RG places.

I'd like to suggest that if the OPs group of children were moved to independent schools due to being misfits in state education, they were probably underachieving before and although percieved as being lower ability, maybe weren't really, but it took an independent school to get them to thrive.

While there may be others in the same shoes left in state schools, there will be lots of others who aren't misfits in state schools & who aren't failing to thrive educationally (the right school for the child argument), so the problem may be less big than percieved.

st - is he really just going for RG, or RG plus (say) some 1994, etc etc - the whole RG = best is a bit of a misnomer - RG = biggest of best, but not all best by any means.

Thank you. I'm fascinated. Having just discovered SATs, I'm disappointed to discover they don't continue in secondary school and get replaced by Yelling and Pipping.

Sorry Quattro - they are all fairly standard terms to teachers!

S = System

Pips = Primary information something or other
MidYis = Middle Years Informtion S..
Yellis = Year 10 and 11 Information S..
Alis = A-level informatin S...

Will try to figure out what the S stands for.

They are all basically the University of Durham tests - probably the most highly regarded int field of pupil progres, potential and value added.

Hurrah, at last people are discussing the OP.

"PIPs, MidYis, Yellis, and Alis"

ST has segued effortlessly into a foreign language. Unfortunately I don't know which so I can't translate.

Another major misconception on this thread is that average students are getting into Russell Group universities.

My DS is a very clever boy (inherantly), and has achieved highly so far (he is in L6 so we don't have any A2 results for him yet, but he is predicted 4 As in his A2 and a further 2 As in his AS).

He is well above average (and not due to spoon feeding).

I worry that he is not going to get into a RG uni. It is definitely not a shoe-in. He will probably put 3 RG and 2 insurance on is UCAS form, to be safe.

I cannot see any average (eg MidYis 100) students getting into RG universities, unless by fluke or unbelievable progress). I would suggest that you have to be well over 120 to stand much of a chance.

And when you say average, you have to define what you mean. It obviously doesn't mean A-level achievement, so what does it mean, exactly?

I know at my school that we monitor actual achievement vs PIPs, MidYis, Yellis, and Alis tests. But not all schools are as thorough.

Or vice versa. The private sector can learn a lot from excellent maintained schools.

In my case, when making the choice with my dd for her secondary education, the Grammar school was not "as good" as the independent sector.

The Grammar is a good school for getting top qualifications. But not so good, I anticipated, at developing dd as a rounded person with the ability to use those qualifications to actually fulfill her potential in life.

I don't think anyone would question that there's not equal access to nurturing schools. Or that an excellent school experience gives an advantage for RG uni entrance.

But the OP asks us how we feel about clever pupils in the state sector missing out in RG uni entrance because of nurtured, but possiblly inherently less clever pupils in the indie sector.

Well, if the indie lot are the students best able to hit the ground running to get the most out of the degree course, then that's the best choice admissions can make. You generally choose the best candidate for the role in the job market, don't you? You can't make uni admissions depts responsible for righting the wrongs of the inadequacies of secondary level state education.

The real issue is taking the best teaching practice and ethos of the indie sector into the state sector for the benefit of all pupils who have a will to benefit from that.

From the way the OP talks you would think that independent schools were just exam factories, cramming it all in and testing until noone could fail. I actually think this applies to the state sector more.

my experience of the private sector is that the public exams are a hurdle to get over so that the pupils can have the most options available to them. They are concerned with giving the students the best education they can, to instil in them a love of learning and a thirst for knowledge which sets them up for the rest of their lives no matter what field they choose. Unfortunately they have to conform and work to the exam syllabus as well as this.

I don't think most people equate spoon feeding with teaching. I think the most inspirational, skilful teachers know exactly how to educate children - and it's far more than just passing exams. An excellent teacher is one who tunes into who the child is, whether they are bright, average or weak, and is able to engage the child and move them forward. I am constantly astounded by the calibre of new teachers I see coming into my school - very impressive.

I suspect that what some people believe to be spoon feeding, I just see as teaching.

I care about my students and make time for them. I am interested in the whole person, not just about how they learn my subject. I know about their families, their problems, and how they are doing in their other subjects.

I plan my lessons according to their needs. If they need more, I will give them extra lessons at before school, at lunchtime, after school.

I will absorb as much information from the awarding bodies as possible, so that I can help my students with examination technique.

If they fall short in examinations, I will have their paper returned so that we can see where they went wrong.

I guess that is spoon feeding.

For goodness sake, no one is saying a private education isn't a good education! It obviously is, otherwise people wouldn't pay for it. A grammar school education is just as good.

The point is 90%+ (I would imagine) of the population do not have that 'choice'. Does no-one really not 'get it' , or is it really just me????

Therefore it is not an equal playing field when applying to university. Simple as that.

I am beginning to get very bored with this thread.

Perhaps the "spoon-feeding" refers to the systematic help given to pass exams well? Perhaps that could be called "good teaching" at one level. After all, it fulfills government targets, doesn't it?

In itself, exam-passing (however that is achieved) is a pretty good organisational technique to learn for later life, (getting the work done to an excellent standard in any job), but sad if that's at expense of the creative, philosphical, exploratory side of education. All the evidence I've seen in the indie sector has very much been towards developing thinking skills and aiming high - and not simply being handed the answers.

Idealistically, I think education should teach children a, the wherewithall to earn a living using their particular individual abilites and interests, but b. at a deeper, heart level, to enable them to discover the person they truly are. At that point of self-discovery, I think exam and career choices become more obvious and the motivation to succeed comes more easily. IMO the independent sector often focusses and succeeds in doing this to a better extent than the state sector.

The OP talks about "average" children doing well enough to get to RG unis. Well, roll on the day when every child clever, average or otherwise, is given an environment (state or indie) that nurtures them so they know how to leave education and live life in a fulfilling way. Schools aren't the only influence, but our children spend an awful lot of hours there.

My dd has just had her induction afternoon at an indie school where her Year Head talked about how our dds well-being was her "number one priority". Contrast that with the "welcome" letter from the state Grammar (in the top 30 in the country for exams results) my daughter received when she got a place this year. The letter began, "Dear new year 7 pupil". They couldn't even address the letter to her by name. Small points, but this highlights the difference in the ethos of the two sectors.

If treating children with care and respect gets them better qualifications and better uni places then that's the best practice the state sector should try to emulate.

As a parent I had a choice to make. Yes, I'm grateful I can pay to give dd advantages toward her making a success of her life.

Most people that say spoon-fed have never had any experience of the independent sector. Its a waste of time arguing with them, instead just be smug that you know your kid is being educated in the best environment and is growing up less judgemental than the inverse-snobs!

Absolutely agree with Mrs Guy. My DS2 has improved remarkably since going to an independent Sixth Form College where classes are of 3-8 rather than the 25 our local state sixth form colleges are forced to have because of poor funding in the further education sector. He has been helped to reach his potential by dedicated teachers and he has worked extremely hard and with great enthusiasm.
Anyway, can one really be "spoon fed" Maths or languages or sciences (or any other academic subject)?

ST - well said ( as always!). 'Spoon fed' is a meaningless gibe - from what I have seen, independent education encourages bold, independent thinking, and gives children the ambition to aim high and not always go for the easy option or easiest subjects. And I totally agree that each stage is not just preparation for the next step - what a sterile view - but needs to be enjoyed for its own sake - learning and love of learning and thirst to learn more is its own reward.

I remember when I was doing my PGCE. We had a lecturer talk to us about primary education, and he was talking about the purpose of primary education.

There was a belief that the purpose of nursery education was to prepare the child for primary, the purpose of primary education to prepare for secondary, the purpose of secondary education to prepare for higher education, and finally the purpose of higher education to prepare you for life.

That means that over 20 years of your life are simply spent preparing for something else. How sad that these years aren't viewed as part of life already.

I certainly see school as part of life and I want my children to enjoy their schooldays. I don't want these days marred by bad behaviour, bureaucratic target setting, vandalised buildings etc. I don't want them marshalled from one pen to another. I don't want them to be treated as an anonymous person in a crowd.

Therefore, I pay for their education. It is a sacrifice (with five children), but a willing one. I am convicted for my choices by having spent several years in a variety of state schools (including 'outstanding' ones).

I don't think my children are average, but I think my older ones have the potential to be lazy. My eldest DS gained mostly A* in his GCSEs which reflects his natural ability, brought out and encouraged by his excellent teaching & learning environment. He was not 'spoon fed', whatever that is. He was encouraged, stimulated and held to task.

Unless spoon feeding means having teachers who care, and are giving the scope to put their caring into action. There is so much more to teaching that dishing out facts.

TTopflight, I can absolutely see where you are coming from. It is such a shame that you were not encouraged.

I am privy, by the work I am doing at the moment, to see how grades have changed over the years and 2 As and 1 B would have been pretty brilliant then.

*topflight/MrsGuyof Gisbourne* - my DW was actually told not to apply to Oxford by her teachers at the newly created comp she went to. She had to do it herself with zero support. she got in partly by intellect, partly by luck and partly by sheer bloody mindedness.

Totally agree with topflight, and am happy to pay for my children to get the kind of happy school life and enthustastic committed teaching that I would have loved to get. I didn't because I was a lab rat in the comprehensive, levelling-down experiment which combined two excellent grammars and two excellent secondarty moderns to produce what is now the lowest added-value school in the country. It benefitted no-one, and alleviated no deprivation, just reinforced it.

Totally agree ScottishMummy.

DD will be the first of our family to attend Uni (except my brother) and she has an Oxbridge offer. Hard graft and determination she has in bucketloads.

i have graduated 3 russell group uni and never met any hand held spoon fed socially inept twits of which OP speak.

but frankly yes money buys education and oppurtunities.Nae shit sherlock

most likely socio-economic determinant of qualification obtained is parental qualification and professional status.

having said that neither of my parents attended uni ands i am 1st in family to attend

and hard graft and determination.

Agree wholeheartedly with everything you've said topflight. It is high self-esteem and high aspirations and determintation that helps children reach their full potential - whatever that may be.

Just to add a couple of anecdotal comments from my personal experience.

I began to look at Oxbridge entrance whilst doing A levels in the early '80's but my left-wing FE college tutor gave me zero encouragement to pursue that line of enquiry and I lacked the self-confidence and the supportive parents that might have helped me to try. I ended up with two A's and a B which in those days was more unusual than nowadays and would have given me every opportunity to get into Oxbridge.

The careers advice at my state comp and the FE college was lamentable [massive understatement]. I lacked confidence and have fuddled my way through life without much career success. They were no doubt trying to deliver the best educational experience for me that they could, within their budget and ethos and some of the teaching was good, particularly at college, but they didn't even pretend to care about me as an individual and assist me to make the best of myself as a person.

Now I am able to pay for my dd to go to a nurturing, selective independent school. She won a place a top state Grammar too, but we feel that she would benefit from the added value, good pastoral care, and through course and careers advice on offer at the indie.

Yes, she's privileged to enjoy an education that will hopefully bring out the best in her. I'm determined to do what I can to help her overcome the same lack of confidence I see in her that I suffered with.

If that environment helps her to achieve more of her potential in life (not just RG group uni entrance) then it's money well-spent.

This is why I'm privately educating my dd - so she will more help to realise her potential than I did.

snorkle, yes I am hung up on the no. of 'average' pupils who do better in the private system, because they are the ones who are getting the places at the RG universities! Which is what this discussion was originally about.

I absolutely agree the whole system is riddled with inequalities.

However, I am willing to stand corrected. I think it's an interesting discussion. I really don't know what the answer is.

My kids' state primary does Latin. It all comes down to teacher showing willing, IMO.

Some comps do do Lain, fircone (eg ours ).
Your DS probably has an unfair advantage in applying for English - aren't most applicants (MC) girls so they like to have a bit of evening-up on gender.

I have many friends who have been at the top academically selective independents and they had such great teachering (most ex university dons) that when they got to Russell Group and occassionally Oxbridge the lecturers and courses were dull and dire compared to the education they had received at their school. They were at least 2nd year level and the quality of their written essays were superior to the vast majority of their state school peers. This is not because they were heavily coached or brighter but because the contrast in state v's private is massive in virtually every way. This is not a good thing.

You absolutely don't need Latin to do English at a top university. It's got very little to do with English. can be handy, but not essential for (say) medieval history, but my dh, who teaches that at one of the best history depts in the UK, didn't do any Latin until he went to university (he's also a state school product, as are many of his colleagues).

Latin and Greek are fine and interesting and worthy of study, but not fundamental to other subjects as appears to be suggested sometimes.

Ages ago I started a thread on whether my ds would be disadvantaged by not doing Latin. Are people saying that yes, if he wanted to do, say, English at a top university he might as well forget it?

If private and grammar schools are offering Latin and Greek then why don't comprehensives?

Although my sil who is a French and German teacher in a fairly run of the mill comp maintains that in a few years' time there will be no foreign language teaching in comprehensives. The kids just can't or won't knuckle down to the spadework and drop languages as soon as they are allowed.

The argument being put forward here seems to be that private school pupils are better educated so are getting a higher proportion of university places.

Surely the obvious solution is to raise the standard of education in the state sector so that all state school pupils are as well educated as their private school counter parts.

If universities start giving out more places to state school pupils by making it easier for people to get in with lower grades this will just encourage people to send their children to state schools and employ private tutors. It will not help the really disadvantaged (who will not afford private tutors) and will penalise the families in the private sector who are not well off and have made huge sacrifices to give their children a good education or whose children are there on bursaries.

It is also ridiculous that so many A grades are given out these days which is devaluing the qualification.

No I studied theology, i was at a disadvantage because most of my peers had latin, biblical Greek, quite advanced german and some even had Hebrew. I never managed to catch up with the Greek and dropped it in my second year, but found that I shone in Hebrew, perhaps because there was less catch up to do.

I am actually now a dinosaur in my subject, when I entered teaching the A level option was a Biblical/ Theology one for which I was perfectly qualified. I am having to do a Philosophy degree in order to keep teaching A Level which is fair enough and what I would want for my dd.

"Most of the teenagers I know do very little extra curricula stuff anyway" Perhaps this is the problem - There was a study recently that correlated the number of extra-curricula activities a school offered with its academic performance. Maybe the way to improve state school standards is to get teenagers off their backsides and doing stuff.

margotfonteyn you seem very hung up about the performance gap of average students between state and private schools. I'd hazard a guess that the gap in performance of average students between top and bottom performing state schools is even greater, but somehow you don't seem worried about that although it is no more fair to the average children attending those schools. As the whole system is riddled with inequalities the way forward is to raise the standards of the lowest rather than doing away with the best.

this document shows a little how attainment varies across different abilities for state and independent schools. Figure 2 shows there are actually very few children scoring 100 & below at MidYis in private schools, so perhaps not as many average children there as you think.

flatcap, I assume you did something like PPE? The advantage of those degrees - which are humanities and also not based on any specific body of knowledge at entry - is that brilliance can facilitate quick catch-up. But so many things don't: any of the sciences, medicine, languages, music...

If I were to ever pay for a private education for dd, which is very unlikely but we have come close in the past, I would be paying for smaller class sizes and less jaded teachers.

Yes I am supposed to be marking some top set exams now, most of whom are targetted an A*. I pitch my lessons to the A*. I wish I had a class smaller than 30 to be honest, I hope I give them all they would get at the grammar or an independant ( many of our students could afford school fees so we are a choice not the default option) but it does mean that they often have a tired teacher.

So at the moment i am marking year 10 papers, I teach 3 short course groups and one long course group. So that is 120 papers at a minimum of 10 mins per paper that is a lot of hours! If I had less marking to do I could spend more time planning lessons, meeting students etc. That is the drawback of a state school IMO, the time factor.

It's very heartening to hear you say that flatcap - it confirms what I believe, that the top sets in a good state school are not particularly different from a private school. That's certainly my ds's experience who has been in both - the main difference being that his state school classes are bigger, but for him that's an advantage. Top sets are expected to get (and do get) A*/A grades. Those are the statistics it makes sense to compare when thinking about these things. Makes no sense to compare 'global' school figures when a comp will contain come classes where the kids will get low results - you need to look at the peer group your child will study with.

I don't think people do educate themselves just to earn more money. When I did my degree it was because I loved my subject and wanted to know more. How much I would earn neve entered my head. In a similar fashion when I started my second degree it was not to earn more money. Infact I chose my career not having a clue how much I would earn and not really caring.

"That's a shame because innate brilliance ought to win hands down when it comes to looking for the brightest people.
Far more interesting to have innate brilliance than just to be well polished too!"

Unfortunately I have to disagree with this because in the working world it is not the genius who generally climbs up the career ladder. They are often quite, nerdy and chaotic. It is better to be more articulate and polished with a good level of brightness and shrewdness from an employment point of view. At the end of the day we all further ourselves educationally to earn more money but often those brilliant people are not interesting as they have appalling social skills.

Interestingly my state school also used to be a grammar, I as also passed between 2 colleges so maybe they saw something in me but were not sure. The school which was not amazing when I went is now not a very good school at all.

I think Oxbridge are the most forward thinking actually as regards to applicants.

They actively encourage state school pupils to apply. Certaily the pupils they get from my DCs grammar school are of the highest calibre and would have no trouble 'catching up' if necessary. They should continue to recruit the very brightest pupils from ALL sectors.

At A level I teach the Philosophy side of Philosophy and Ethics.

I am not saying that all state schools are very good, I have taught in schools that have frustrated me immensely but it is not fair to dismiss them all.

That was 25 years ago.

flatcap - that is exactly what happend to my DW. She came form a state school but did well enough to get an interview, a sympathetic interviewer and a flash of brilliance in her General paper got her to Oxford.

She benefitted from being at a state school which had been a Grammar but had just gone Comprehensive. She severely doubts she would make it to Oxford from the same school today as the ethos changed dramatically at her school in a few short years.

Flatcapandpearls - that's very heartening to hear. What's your subject?

Am just nipping in before I get back to my marking - only 30 exam papers to go until bedtime. This is almost a replay of a discussion I had in my year 7 lesson today as a few students are off to the grammar next year, while some students who would almost certainly have got a place have chosen to stay with us.

I always find conversations about soft subjects interesting, I would have fallen under Abetadad's definition of a flash of brilliance as despite my substandard state education some 20 years ago I was offered a place at Oxford. I also took a few supposedly soft subjects in Sociology and English Language. My flash must have been quite amazing therefore to overcome that hurdle!! I was though, and still am, obsessed with my subject and that must have come through. In the letter offering me the place it did say something along the lines f there were gaps in my knowledge that needed filling as I had not been taught as thoroughly as other students but they had not doubt I could compete with their other students. But to give ny sixth form college credit I was also coached for my Oxbridge interview and had extra lessons for the entrance exam.

I do think there is little difference between an excellent teacher in a good state school, a grammar and an independant school. My top sets will not be much different to the sets in the aforementioned schools. The work ethic will be similar and the level if teaching will be the same. I certainly do not see the need for my brightest pupils to be give any preferential treatment, they are capable of holding their own. We also guide our students towards certain choices at Key Stage four and five. We do not however offer subects such as latin, Greek etc and I think that is sad and I would like to see that change.

Unfortunately too many state schools have poor expectations of their students eg those in middle groups who improve have difficulty getting into top group sets so are stuck with taking intermediate grades at GCSE. There are some teachers (and I don't think these would ever include the dedicated teachers who post on Mumsnet) who aren't prepared to lift the horizons of able pupils and recommend undemanding courses which can only lead to second rate courses at third rate higher education instituions.
Thank heavens for places like the Open University where so many intelligent people, who have been let down by the system, find themselves as adults.

Thanks swede

It's really not intentional.

I honestly truely think there are just as many averagely bright children in the state sector as in the private sector, and I think it is unfair that the 'average' child who attends a private school should get better results than the same child in the state sector and thus the places at top universities (sorry to keep repeating myself).

So, may be it is down to 'underperformance' of the state sector, does that make it any better or acceptable? I agree with bloss on that count.

I really don't know what the answer is. But I do know that 'average' children get better results from private schools, doesn't make them actually really more intelligent though.

Ahem Tatt.
Please do not accuse academics of being quite as limited as that.

I can indeed manage a business effectively (indeed run two small businesses on the side in order to bankroll my relatively underpaid academic life) and I am very handy at doing other potentially profitable and useful things, like stripping down computers, making curtains, and all sorts of other nifty things.

So can many of my colleagues.

margotfonteyn - "it's not fair on those who can't pay.I still don't see what is SO controversial(or lecturing) about that." The controversial bit was your consistent implication that the problem lies in the overperformance of the private sector, as opposed to the underperformance of the state sector.

abetadad - your friend's experience makes my point exactly. And there is a genuine dilemma here. What is the point of universities? Is it to produce the best educated person they can in the time available? Or to confer more education on the brightest? Because if it's the former, one goes for the candidate best able, at the point of entry, to exploit what's on offer. If it's the latter, one chooses the most brilliant student, even if - due to underperformance by their school - they will not achieve the same heights in the time available.

At some point, we have to (surely?) say that we want to produce the best. And if universities produce less than the best because they are busy remediating the failures by state schools, then we have all lost out.

Which gets me banging on again about the real problem: substandard state schools, which produce grossly unfair outcomes for those who can't escape by way of grammar schools or private education. I don't think the way to fix this problem is to change university entrance criteria.

I'd like to give Margotfonteyn a prize for pissing off independent school parents and comprehensive school parents. Well done Margot.

I don't lose sleep over the paying thing. I wish state schools were decent enough that I didn't feel the need to pay, that's not quite the same thing as wishing everyone else could afford to pay because that's silly. But I do wish there were excellent school places for every child, a level playing field. Most people I know trot out a load of rubbish about the brilliance of state schools, then they rapidly change their minds when their children are 10/11/12. Or they move to Bucks.

Yes, that's true Campion. I hold my hand up!

All I am saying is that it is true that a private education gives better results, and it's not fair on those who can't pay.

I still don't see what is SO controversial(or lecturing) about that. Surely, that is why people pay.

Equally a grammar school education gets better results but then those children have been selected academically in the first place so not so surprising.However, it is free so theoretically available to all, although I do accept only the ones with 'in the know' parents tend to get the places, but I wish it was truely available to all, if that's what you want. Not everyone wants a grammar school type education.

violet - you are right and it distresses my friend because she obviously want brilliant students in front of her. It is sad to think that there is a huge waste of innate talent in the state system. It is bad for our country.

That's a shame because innate brilliance ought to win hands down when it comes to looking for the brightest people.
Far more interesting to have innate brilliance than just to be well polished too!

I have a friend who is an Oxford don who does interviews of prospectve undergrads every year. She is very pro the idea of state school kids getting in. She makes strenuous efforts to make allowances for bright state school interviewees but described the following problem to me and notes it is getting more and more difficult every year to deal with it.

She says she always faces a dilemma of picking a good state school student who is poorly schooled, not fully ready to start the coures but who shows a flash of brilliance versus picking a fully finished articulate private (independent) school pupil who will hit the ground running and pretty much guaranteed to get a 2.1 degree even though they are clearly not have the inate spark of brilliance the state school pupil has.

In some cases, she says she simply doubts that the state school pupils can ever catch up enough to be handle the pace of the degree course she teaches on. She has to turn down state school pupils who show a flash of brilliance but who simply can never make the grade because their education is simply not up to level they need to do the course.

This is perhaps a big practicl part of the reason private school kids dominate the Russel Group universities. The private schools focus on churning out the finished article and prepare them well for interview -even if they do not have innate brilliance.

" Why don't we value those who achieve high standards in other areas? We should value excellence."

Been thinking about this... In what sense do we not reward them? I remember some research showing that when you took into account extended study time, tuition fees etc, then it took the average university graduate until the age of 50 to catch up in income with a plumber or builder. And other skills are rewarded. Top business people often have no university qualification but are loaded. Top athletes get incredible recognition. Musicians and artists have a precarious life anyway, but the top ones do get money and prestige... Exactly who are you thinking of when you say excellence is not rewarded? The ones I can think of - really excellent teachers or nurses, say - are likely to have gone to university anyway.

And frankly, wouldn't you WANT one of the elite operating on your very sick child?

tatt - I completely agree with you that there are many valuable skills which are outside our educational system. Absolutely. But am genuinely bemused that you think that the main outcome of a (typical?) education is to make people arrogant and argumentative. Or that the main purpose is to preserve an elite. (Something it has manifestly failed to do, as witnessed by the takeover of the middle classes.)

I think you need to give us some cold, hard facts , tatt, So far it seems like unsubstantiated opinion.

And margotfonteyn ... if you could afford to pay for an independent education ( as you say) were you not then depriving at least 2 other, poorer children of a free grammar school education? That would have been true altruism.

'a social elite wish to maintain their position.'

Back in the eighties, my Oxbridge English course had an over-preponderance of the children and grandchildren of Irish working class immigrants to Liverpool. They'd been to grammar schools. Only a few generations, if that, between them and the boats across the Irish Sea.

The only way to make private education unappealing to those who can afford it is to offer a similar standard of education in the state system. And to hell with the sports fields etc. Most of the teenagers I know do very little extra curricula stuff anyway.

people should stop complaining about private schools doing the job they are supposed to do.

It is not rocket science to know your way round the university admissions system. This does not constitute cheating or 'spoon feeding'. It is simply encouraging and guiding their pupils through a system to achieve the end result which would suit them best. Plus whilst giving them a rounded education ensuring that the relevant grades in exams are met in order to achieve the end goal.

bloss - I value excellence, just don't see that the education produces it. It produces arrogance, good debating skills and in some limited areas high standards. But those areas are not the only ones that have value. The only reason we value a particular set of skills so highly is because a social elite wish to maintain their position.

I've seen your arguments before. They are well expressed but not convincing.

tatt, if you only value education which prepares someone to run a business; or if you really think that universities don't do anything useful... then I don't think I have the time or energy to begin that particular argument.

What a funny discussion! It doesn't seem to have dawned on many people that education is not about selecting the brightest pupils and giving them the "best" education. It is about selecting a social elite - so naturally those with money look to buy their children into those positions. They are then given an education that equips them to be academics or to debate how many angels belong on a pinhead. It doesn't necessarily equip them to manage a business effectively and even less to actually make anything useful.

Oxbridge teach a limited range of subjects and although the russell group may go a little further it is still those "hard academic" subjects. Why don't we value those who achieve high standards in other areas? We should value excellence.

Was Margot's comment aimed at my post?
My DD is getting a 'better' education because I care. She went to the local comp for KS3&4 and I was dissatisfied with it so we moved for sixthform. She could have stayed at the comp which is crap at getting their kids to any Uni, never mind a good one. Instead, we looked around and got offers of a sixthform place at four different schools/colleges (all State). This course is available to most people, although I admit that we are lucky to be able to pay the commuting costs.
Like someone said a while back (scienceteacher?) pupils will flock to good sixthform so it's not surprising that entrants to RG tend to come from a small pool of schools/colleges.
If I was in admissions I would ask someone who came from a bad school, "if you are so bright, why did you stay at that place and not go somewhere decent for sixthform?"

If my children had not got into the grammar school, I would have paid for them to go to a private school. Does that make everyone feel better?

The point I am making is that they probably WOULD have got better exam results from having a private education, than from a failing state school That doesn't actually make them brighter than those who may have also not gained a place at a grammar school but who cannot afford that education. So, therefore it is not fair! Obviously they will be brighter than some, but not all.

However, those that are able to pay will probably get better GCSE and A level results, and better advice etc etc (although mine don't need it because we know about not doing meeja studies etc)and thus a place at a 'top' university.

Why is this deemed me 'lecturing' people? Surely it's just telling the truth and that is why people pay.

Doesn't make it fair though.

You can't lecture us on paying for selective schools while enjoying the benefits of free selective schools, yourself! Why should our children not have the same benefits as yours if we're prepared to work very, very hard to pay for their education?

I am not 'lecturing' anyone!

I have admitted my children are lucky!!!

I still maintain mediocre children get better results at a private school, and thus places at 'top' universities, and I, personally, feel it is unfair.

It is as much of a criticism of some state schools as private schools. I happen to think it is fundamentally wrong to have a system whereby paying gives a child a better education.

You are at liberty to disagree.

However, my children have/are having a fantastic state education, where they have the opportunity to compete with the best of private schools (yes, they even do Latin....)and I am certainly not complaining about their education. It doesn't mean I don't have a conscience about others.

I am also NOT in favour of dumbing down, as some posters seem to think I am. I actually think examinations should be harder so those mediocre students don't get the top marks.

Your post really takes the biscuit, margotfonteyn. You happen to live near enough to one of the 164 remaining grammar schools in the country and have taken advantage of it. Whose children were you thinking of when you chose an elitist, selective education?

CD - your link refers to bias in favour of a really small minority of university, particularly RG, applicants I would have thought - looked after children, travellers etc. Both positions could be true, in that RG institutions could positively discriminate in favour of a small number of 'deprived' applicants while still maintaining a uneven distribution of independent to state-educated students.

and by improving access to those schools too bloss. More bursaries etc maybe?

margotfonteyn - I've only read your last post.

Yes some people get a better education by paying (unless they are incredibly wealthy they make a sacrifice elsewhere to afford the fees).

Some people get a better education by not paying or paying less (if they qualify for an assisted place).

If your children went to a top grammar school I don't think you are in a position to lecture people who don't have access to grammar schools and pay for private education.

If you regard private schools as better why not campaign for state schools to be more like private schools, rather than knocking the good private schools?

Not really any more than I worry about it being unfair that some people afford expensive cars, holidays or houses if I'm honest Margotfonteyn. Or that some people live in catchment for great state schools & others don't. Of course it's not fair, but most of life isn't and at least it gives more people the chance/choice of a decent school.

Not one of us thinks it's OK, Margot. In our case, the state school available to our children was substandard. You and we have the enormous good fortune of being able to find one of the escape routes out of substandard education for our children - pure luck, whether it's living in the right area, having bright children, having grammar schools close by, or having the income to pay for private education.

BUT... I do question the way you put the emphasis. Is the system currently unfair because private schools are expensive? Or is it unfair because state schools don't reach the necessary standard?

The gist and implication of all your posts is that it is the existence of the private sector which is the problem. I really can't agree with you. I think the real, tremendous unfairness is that state schools don't achieve the same standards. The answer is not to abolish the schools which achieve the best outcomes (but don't have universal access); the answer is to make those schools redundant by improving the state system.

I am not in the slightest bit interested in teachers going for the 'soft option'. Also my children are absolutely fine. They are/have been at 'top' grammar school, go to Russell Group universities etc. I am well aware that they have had every advantage thrown at them (including being in an area with a free grammar school education and they are bright enough to be able to attend it).

But do all of you who educate your children privately really NEVER, ever think of those who do not have the advantages your children have?

Do you really, really think it is ok that some people can get a better education because they can pay?

Do you????

(And thank god Xenia isn't here to lecture us on how one can start up a small business or something in order to pay for a private education.)

"What is so, so wrong, is that there is an underlying agenda in the admissions system whereby those 'in the know', i.e private schools, grammar schools, interested parents, some state schools, have a much bigger chance of getting into the top universities, for many reasons, too involved to go into here.
It is just so unfair on a bright child in the state system who does not have all the above advantages."

Isn't it strange that, when we normally have State v. Independent discussions, people usually say that State teachers are sooo much better than private teachers (who, it is implied, have gone for the soft option). All of a sudden it is 'unfair' that private schools give better advice about the UCAS system - let's not give them credit for being more informed than some State schools, let's try to pretend that somehow it's cheating to be better at preparing their kids for the next stage of education. What hypocrisy! We should be disparaging schools that fail their pupils, not those that succeed.

Xenia was around yesterday - on a similar thread - in which UQD was continuing a lonely struggle to reintroduce the grammar school system - and she was arguing (simplistic summary) that parents had a duty to send their children to independent schools.

On the next thread I am going to argue for the abolition of independent schools vociferously. There is a danger in being too predictable ...

where has Xenia been for the last couple of months. I haven't seen her on here and this is the sort of thread that she usually excels in.
She'd love OP idea that private schools are full of kids who couldn't cope socially or academically at their state school!

DD probably chose the 'wrong' subjects for the degree she eventually ended up doing- she was convinced she wanted to study english at university - she was & still is more interested in the language than the literature, & wanted to do separate A levels in each (which is why she left her comprehensive for the 6th form college) She also chose History, with Psychology as her 'soft' option (though in fact it's not actually on Cambridge's original list of subjects which "are a less effective preparation for [their] courses")

However she decided fairly early on that she loved Psychology and wanted to study it further - something she would never have known if she hadn't done the A level. If she'd known when she was choosing, she would probably have done a science subject, - her tutor told her that several universities require or at least prefer a science subject for Psychology. In fact she was offered AAB by Exeter, which is where she is now but it could have been a fatal mistake.

"Also, apparently, media studies graduates have a lower unemployment rate than physics graduates."

That's very interesting. I wonder what kind of jobs they are doing, though?

I think you're right, happilyconfused, I think a lot of the teenagers choosing these softer newer subjects might know some of the implications but weigh this against studying something which interests them, and knowing that they will be able to get into a university with these A-levels, though not necessarily every course in a Russell Group university.

I didn't enjoy my A levels. Chosen for pragmatic "keeping the options open" reasons. I can't believe now that persisted with A level Physics. Which has never been remotely useful. It was just a boring drag. Who needs to know about fluids going viscously or non-viscously through a tube? If I went back to 6th form now maybe I would do sociology.

Also, apparently, media studies graduates have a lower unemployment rate than physics graduates. another interesting statistic (I suspect the social skills of the average physics graduate might be the problem there).

"For example if you want to do maths then you should study maths, further maths and physics - so the approach of having a 'fun' or other interesting A level such a Media, Pyschology, Business or Art was a no no. Our kids will not be offered a place on things like classics etc because they have no Ancient Greek background."

You see, that sounds perfectly sensible to me. Presumably, the university concerned thinks with good reason that if you have not studied those subjects to the required level, you will not be able to keep up with the course. What's sad and wrong is that a lot of children may not have the option to study these subjects to the required level. My brother who was state-educated until 16 had to leave and go private for A Levels because he wanted to do Further Maths A Level (he went to Oxford to do Maths after this). And I bet most sixth form colleges don't offer Ancient Greek. I'm not sure how you can get round this, given that the take up level for such subjects is likely to be an awful lot lower than for Psychology or Film Studies.

It is also the case that the state schools offer a wider range of subjects and qualifications at KS4 and KS5. Most selective schools stay with traditional subjects at A level or offer IB.

I cannot imagine the selectives (indie or state) offering film, media, public services, BTECs etc Some of the BTECs are very good in spite of the slagging off they can get from some MNers.

Maybe we are just all too focused on Oxbridge and are failing to recognise that the world is changing and that the non RG unis offer excellent courses for the world of work today. The focus on RG is just another form of snobbery and we will be in danger of making our own children seem like failures if they fail to get in. Times have changed.

You can do the 'fun' subject as long as it is a 4th. Do state schools not have optional subjects on offer outside of the examinable ones. Can't 6th formers do an art or psychology or whatever option without taking a sodding exam in it, just to get a more rounded education.

Really, if you want to do almost any subject, maths, further maths and physics is the safest bet. Always has been. That's what I did, with French (and of course General studies). Because they were the "keep your options open" safe bet. Even back in the 80s in a state school these things were obvious, you didn't need to be that clued up to work it out.

But I am sure I would have enjoyed sociology, psychology, and philosophy A levels more. And they would probably have been more directly relevant. Those have been my subjects ever since.
So it is a bit ironic.

That's very interesting about your niece, Fennel. Perhaps it's difficult to persuade your teenagers away from A level psychology and film studies, when plenty of their friends are choosing it?

I think there would a be a marked difference in RG/Sutton 13 and Oxbridge state school application if state schools stopped offering soft subjects.

And the A level points score should be two-fold, the score they give now and the average points score per pupil excluding soft A levels.

I attended an oxbridge open day last week with some of my students and it became very apparent that my students did a mix of A levels that were not going to fit the desired criteria. For example if you want to do maths then you should study maths, further maths and physics - so the approach of having a 'fun' or other interesting A level such a Media, Pyschology, Business or Art was a no no. Our kids will not be offered a place on things like classics etc because they have no Ancient Greek background. The impression that we left with was that OB are seeking 'specialists' who can hit the ground running and will not did any booster sessions that some unis now have to run.

The point I am trying to make is that some state kids in non-grammars need more guidance in A level selection if they are interested in the Sutton or RG.

Fennel - Its funny you should say that about soft subjects. DS1 want to do Politics, Psychology and Sociolology at university. He is taking none of these, his school doesn't offer them. The top universities would probably not look too favourably on the candidate who had these 3 at A2.

I think also, in a lot of state schools, they may encourage the traditional subjects but not insist. That's what used to happen at our school. The school made it clear to the higher achievers that dropping a language at 14 was a bad move, and that an A level in Sociology (which is about as wacky as it got back then) wasn't going to be valued as much as the tradaditional subjects. But some students ignored this. Similarly, some of the brightest refused to consider Oxbridge. The school put pressure on but they didn't have compulsory subjects.

Something similar might be happening with all these new subjects. Children want to do them. My niece (not the one going to build orphanages in Africa, another one) is doing all sorts of terrible (IMO) GCSE and A level choices. I cringe, she is wasting her time on useless pseudo-qualifications. But I know that her father knows perfectly well the implications and still she's doing them. I think a lot of students want to do these soft subjects, even when they do have an idea of the implications.

it is interesting because my degree and phd and subsequent study is all in the soft subjects that aren't acceptable at A level, I wouldn't have studied them then (knowing enough about university entry) and I wouldn't recommend them to a 16 year old now, yet I have spent my adult life studying them.

I agree with Mrs G. If I, just as an interested parent, know about the system and what type of a A levels universities are looking for, then the Higher educ tutor or whatever at a decent school will know perfectly well.

In an are where there are no Grammar schools, which I thought was most of the country, I cannot see why a comprehensive which sets its pupils is not getting a high percentage of that top set into top universities. What is the block to this? I'm not asking why they can't get a high percentage of the whole school in.

Cynically, it's in a school's interest to boost it's league table position and an easy way to do that is to promote easier subjects. Perhaps league table positions based on university destinations rather than just A level results would help schools promote the 'better' universities (& the right A levels) to those who had the ability to go?

So why aren't schools clued up about subject choices and university pecking order, if they really are not? Bit of a smokescreen I supect.

Children don't have to stay on until 18 as yet, it starts with the children entering high school in September 2010 (I know this as thats when my eldest starts)

The headteacher of the high school my son will be attending hasn't had details of how this will work yet, but he seems to think it won't be too different to how it is now, children take GCSE's at 16 then have a choice of either going on to A levels, taking a further education course in something that interests them (hairdressing, sport, childcare etc) or will have to attend workbased training such as an NVQ. Basically it means children can't leave school at 16 and sign straight on the dole with no intention of ever getting a job, if they're not academic they can at least do something work focused. I personally think its a good thing.

Exactly, Fircone.
There is also the problem of what to do with all the pupils being kept on til 18!

The sister of ds's friend told me her A Level choices. She is a bright girl, with parents who came here from overseas so not 'in the know'. I tentatively said that I didn't think her subject choices were wise and she should keep her options open with more traditional A Levels. She and her parents thanked me, and said that the school had not mentioned that some A Levels were considered inferior.

I suppose a school can't say, "All dimwits sign up for Sociology, Law and Critical Thinking" but any institution worth its salt should have a quiet word in the ear of brighter pupils and warn them off some courses.

In my view there shouldn't be all these peculiar A Levels anyway, but I suppose there has to be something to occupy kids now they have to stay on till they're 18.

Also there's the teacher factor. If a teacher has Psychology A Level and a degree in Sociology and Leisure from JustFounded Uni they're hardly going to rubbish these options.

That's because those in the independent sector know that the post-1992 universities aren't seen in the same light, shall we say, as the older universities are by employers, law schools etc, and therefore 'encourage' their pupils not to apply. Those at sink state schools don't know and are fondly imagining their degrees will be seen in the same light as someone elses from an older, established university. Certainly in some cases it will, but in most traditional subjects, it won't be.

Are they "eased along with all the 'help' in the world" though, or is there just a harder working culture at those schools with more higher achieving peers that spurs people on?

There's an HMC study (from the other side of the fence) that even concludes that a good school can make you cleverer. I'm not sure about that, but I don't think you can rule it out any more than you can conclusively say better results are down to spoon feeding.

From the HMC report summary...

Finally, the report addresses the issue of whether independent school pupils perform so well because they are well prepared rather than because their education makes them better able to perform academically. Smithers and Robinson argue that intelligence is not fixed. That is, they believe that going to a good school can make you ‘cleverer'. While it is true that exams taken at 18 reflect the extent to which potential has been realised, and so some will have unrealised potential that could subsequently come out at university, Smithers' research indicates that A-levels are the best indicator of classification of degree awarded. He argues that it is a myth that independent schools pupils overperform at A-level due to their intensive coaching and that at university state educated pupils catch them up. Smithers indicates that the academic advantages accrued by 18 remain through university and beyond. He states, "To be blunt, those lucky enough to go to good schools are likely to end up cleverer."

Interestingly, the report shows how many state school students with qualifications that would get them into more prestigious universities were going to post-1992 universities instead. Very few from the independent sector do this.

Yes, Swedes, I completely agree with you. I think we are singing from the same song book here. What is so, so wrong, is that there is an underlying agenda in the admissions system whereby those 'in the know', i.e private schools, grammar schools, interested parents, some state schools, have a much bigger chance of getting into the top universities, for many reasons, too involved to go into here.

It is just so unfair on a bright child in the state system who does not have all the above advantages. Quite often they could fall at the first hurdle by dint of doing the 'wrong' GCSEs, let alone A levels.

Moving on from that, those same pupils with the SAME level of intelligence at a private school will NOT fall at the first hurdle, they will be eased along with all the 'help' in the world. Hence Russell Group universities being full of them. Which is different to private school pupils suddenly becoming super intelligent....that is the point I am trying very, very, very hard to make.

Obviously these are extreme examples but I think that is the basic premise of the OP's point, and one that I agree with (and breathe )

Sutton trust universities are supposed to be the top 13, based on average of newspaper league tables.

I've found the report here (it was 2004 not 2006) and as far as I can see says nothing about the subjects of the A levels although it is based on HEFCE statistics which might (or might not) take some account of subjects.

But it's a different slant on the OPs original gripe - rather than independently educated children taking up the RG/ST places it could be more that the well enough qualified state candidates aren't applying for them for whatever reason.

I'm certainly not suggesting state school children are dim. I think there is some evidence to show that high-acheiving parents who send their children to their local comp, don't disadvantage them. I'm sure this is because those particular parents have been university educated themselves and know the system. They feel able to say 'Oh no, don't do A level Film Studies, do English Literature A level instead because if later on you want to go to....' but not all state school pupils get that sort of advice at home.

MargotF - Not everybody has the option of a state grammar school either.

Not all state schools are quite as dim as being made out on here.

My DCs (at state grammar school) HAVE to do two foreign languages at GCSE, Latin is also available, three separate sciences, no daft subjects etc. They usually get 40+ into Oxbridge per year.

However, the point is SOME state schools are not offering the right GCSEs/A level combinations needed for top universities.

That DOESN'T mean the pupils aren't capable of taking them. This is what is so wrong with the education system. Just because people can't afford to pay they are being denied the chance of a place at a top university in some cases.

I agree it is a criticism of the state system as much as the private system. I just want people to admit they are paying for an 'advantage' and that it isn't ideal for those who can't afford to pay.

This is not a jealous rant as a) I can afford to pay but choose not to and b)My older DCs ARE at Russell Group universities and didn't want to do Oxbridge!!!!

LOL at 'recruits from four corners of surrey'.

Snorkle - Yes, but what were their A level subjects? The inpendent school applicant offers Maths, Chemistry, History and French and the state school applicant offers Maths, Film Studies, Art and General Studies. All at A grade and all the same A level points, but really not equivalent at all.

DSs' school tell them to keep as many options open for as long as possible. A min of one modern language and Latin to GCSE are compulsory. And at A level they recommend you keep at least one subject to balance - English Literature and Maths, Chemistry and Physics, for example. And they absolutely tell you in fourth form that if you want to go to Oxbridge you are going to have to get a very decent clutch of As and A*s at GCSE.

I think there was a lot of discussion fairly recently on the fact that independent schools are more likely to be optimistic when assessing predicted A2 grades than state schools. So, independent candidates are more likely to get offers - or apply to the universities that require higher offers - whereas more state school students can find they have exceeded their predicted grades but have ended up at a university which didn't require such high grades.

The Sutton Trust universities are likely to have more privately educated students than say the Russell group, it's partly how they are defined. Russell group is defined by research income and/or output, Sutton Trust includes measures of student satisfaction and so on. Which is partially dependent on things like a jolly nice location with lots of super extra-curricular activities. The sort of universities which are known for a high proportion of privately educated students.

Ones in the Sutton trust and not Russell group include I think, York, Durham, Exeter, St Andrews.

And in the Russell group but not Sutton trust you get, I think, the big redbricks with a good research output. Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Newcastle.

I work in a Sutton Trust uni at the moment, they joke that they recruit from all 4 corners of Surrey.

I have found a reference to the "needing 2 grades higher at A level" but not the original paper.

It's from Sutton Trust research in 2006 which:

"revealed that every year approximately 3000 state school students do not gain admission to the Sutton Trust universities – even though they are academically qualified to do so. This ‘missing 3000’ would make up about 10% of the 30,000 undergraduates entering this group of universities each year."

The report found that a state school pupil needs to get two grades higher in their A-levels than an equivalent pupil in an independent school to stand the same likelihood of attending a Sutton Trust 13 university.

But the implication is that many of those aren't getting in because they're not applying, rather than that there is positive discrimination towards independently educated children.

ha ha

So what's the new orphanage? Starting up an organic meals on wheels service delivered on your home-made solar-powered moped?

Snap, Lilymaid!

LOL Fennel!

Oh God don't start me on the Building Orphanages in Africa lark. The place must be crawling with eager trying for Oxbridge teens.

I think some independent (and indeed state) schools are still labouring under the impression that being the sort of fellow who will fit into your college (e.g., by being jolly good at cricket and patronising the natives) is still totally relevant.

Now, of course, there are still interviewers for whom this is true: there are hundreds and hundreds of people interviewing every December - some of them will be "old school" in this respect.

But increasingly, it just isn't true anymore. There is a lot of pressure, across the sector, and particularly at Oxbridge, to make the admissions process fairer and more transparent.

This is not to say that independently schooled students are not also "better" at writing a more intellectually appealing statement (not least because their schools often help the students to re-draft them, while for others it is obvious that their statement is entirely their own work and perhaps even the first and only draft).

gosh, yes, building orphanages in Africa is so passe, I did that in the 80s, (then, of course, it was evidence of Proper Commmitment and Initiative, not like now) and my niece (state comp) is currently raising £3000 to do that this summer.

It's just like A levels, building an orphanage in Africa just isn't worth what it used to be.

DH has done mock interviews for Oxbridge at DS1's school for years. He is always amazed that applicants will put academic interests down in their personal statement that cannot be substantiated in an interview. These applicants never get in to Oxford/Cambridge but will get into a Russell Group/1994 Group university. He can generally tell which ones will get into Oxford/Cambridge because they are really interested in their subject and able (with a little help) to discuss the questions DH asks or solve problems he poses.

Yes, I have heard conflicting views on the merits of extra-curricular activities as a springboard into Oxbridge.

I was listening to someone who said she was swamped with applicants who had been building orphanages in Africa - but knew that this was a programme particular to a number of independent schools and that appearing to be caring and altruistic doesn't come cheap.

LOL margotfonteyn. Not at all.

I have to say - and obviously I'm speaking for myself here - but the most frequent piece of advice I give (both in the past and now) to people who ask me on Open Days, etc., about how to improve their chances of getting in is, "Do not waste valuable space in your personal statement blethering on about how many instruments you play, or how many sports you compete in." The personal statement is such a short document, but it can be really important in distinguishing students from one another (when their grades look similar). The last paragraph should be reserved for any extra-curricular material the student thinks relevant to their application.

If someone can convince me in their statement of their genuine intellectual interest in their chosen subject, and demonstrate that they've also tried to think outside their school curriculum (so, so, so tedious, e.g., to ask students in interview, "So, what other poetry have you read?" - after they've trilled on about loving poetry because of all the Blake they read in 6th form. Blank stare. "None"... I don't mind per se that they haven't read more: it's more the "lie" that they love poetry. No, you love bits of Blake...), then they stand a much better chance, IMVHO.

There is a two fold thing going on here. Pupils at some state schools are being conned that the A levels they are taking will get them into a 'top' university is true, but also pupils at some private schools are being conned into thinking they are brighter than they are because their exam results are so good!

I still think if GCES and A levels were made harder it would equal things out. Only the absolutely top percentage would go to the top universities.

Fennel -

Hooray for Penthesileia!!!!!!

And tables like this of no value.

Basically it just cons those in the state sector into believing the gulf between state education and independent education isn't as scary as it actually is. And makes people complain later on when it looks like universities are favouring Independent school pupils, when in fact the reverse might be closer to the truth.

LOL BoffinMum - it just goes to show, really: I've also done Oxbridge admissions, and - on the contrary - I tried to ignore (in the main) extra-curricular achievements like music to grade gazillion, or DofE, or county level sport, precisely because not all students have access to these things, and in general, it is the more privileged students (either by wealth or by family support) who do them.

The majority of Oxbridge interviewers I know are increasingly only interested in a student's intellectual capabilities (rather than their "all-round" achievements).

I'm no longer interviewing for Oxbridge (am in a different uni now), but I still pretty much ignore these things during UCAS season: I'm much more interested, as you say, in whether a student has the ability to write essays and actually succeed at their chosen course. I'm thoroughly disinterested in whether they can dance/throw things a long way/run fast/play the tuba. Etc.

The percentage of 3 As at A level has gone up beyond recognition over the past 25 years or so. So have children today really, really become more intelligent over the years? Or have the exams become easier to pass? Or have some schools got better at teaching? And do some schools have smaller classes, more resources in order to do so?

I am absolutely NOT disputing that the pupils work just as hard, but it is patently obvious that more children of less ability are getting the top grades.

It is not their fault. There will be pupils nowadays who still would have attained the top grades years ago, but I am sure there would be many of wouldn't have (at least one of my DCs included!). So we have to look at how these pupils are getting these grades and how some are more likely to get them than others.

On most prospectuses it will state clearly what the entrance requirements for courses are and that that General Studies is not accepted as part of the offer requirements - e.g. 3 A Grades, not including General Studies (or whatever the tariff equivalent may be).
I remember doing non examinable courses in contemporary political history and philosophy and the examinable Use of English course as well as my A Levels, so these were probably equivalent to doing General Studies.

I know that at least one of DD's offers specifically excluded General Studies from the offer - it certainly wan't very rigorous - DD got an A with pretty much no effort whatsoever - she said the politics & consttution papers were simply a comprehension exercise & needed no prior knowledge to get 100%.

The 6th form college she was at insisted on all students taking General Studies as well as 4 subjects in their 2nd year - if they dropped a subject after AS they were expected to take another to AS in the second year to fill their timetable.

The Principal said that the point of this was that if students had free periods at the beginning and end of the day they would not spend them studying - the timetables were constructed so that almost all free periods came in the middle of the day & singly, so it wasn't worth the student's while to go home. The college's results seem to bear out his view that students do better if they are kept at it; even if you take out the General studies, they are impressive. Last year they trialled A* at A level in some subjects (not the ones DD did) but I'm not sure what the results were.

I seem to remember the Principal mentioning at the induction meeting that he was on some sort of consultation panel with Cambridge admissions, so he may have had some kind on inside knowledge - he was certainly keen on encouraging as many as possible to apply.

This'll make Swedes laugh. I am the proud owner of a certificate, given at our 6th form prizewinners ceremony, "To Fennel for Effort in General Studies A level". .

I have many academic qualifications, before and since, but I'm particularly fond of that one. For its utter uselessness.

For goodness sake, no-one in the state sector is applying to Oxbridge imagining their General Studies A level is equivalent to Chemistry, History, Maths or whatever!!!

Boffinmum, I would have loved to do the IB instead of A levels, it would have fitted my interests much better at the time. I've always been a generalist, always done mixed interdisciplinary subjects.

I'm pleased to see the IB coming in more, it's taught in our local 6th form. do you get many applicants with the IB at Cambridge?

Many things are equivalent in terms of points, but we don't rate them. For example, I had an applicant who had done loads of disco dancing qualifications, which added up to the most monumental total, but we disregarded her because it was not a dance course, but a course that requires a lot of essay writing.

I like applicants who learn languages for fun, play musical instruments at grade 5 or above, do Duke of Edinburgh awards and play sport at county level. But most of all, I like applicants who can write essays!

No, not at all equivalent for university entry. IME, the points tariff is not much used at elite universities: we are looking straightforwardly for top grades in academic subjects. If you have those, plus some extras that give you a massive tariff score, good on you but it's largely irrelevant. If you don't have the core qualifications, your tariff score is again irrelevant.

But they aren't equivalent for university entry. Surely?

I think of gen studies as like being in the debating society or running a school science club or similar, it's evidence of certain extra-curricular or more general reasoning skills, not part of a central essential qualification set.

But they are equivalent, A level points tarriff-wise. And it makes stories like this misleading.

Clearly it might be very different now, my experience of taking AS and A level general studies were a while ago.

But then, we had general studies classes, in which we discussed politics and current affairs, and helped at the local infant school, or learned bridge, or learned to cook, or all sorts of other optional classes. And the students who weren't doing an A level language took language classes. And then we did the exam, which wasn't really anything to do with the classes, and yes it was perfectly possible to pass the exam easily without going to the classes. We weren't being taught a syllabus for the A level general studies. I don't know what it's like now, though.

We have had similar experience of General Studies AS to Swedes. DS1, at selective academic independent, took it without ever attending a class (there were none)or previously seeing an exam paper (he was at a music lesson when the exam papers were handed out). He was a weak candidate as he only got 280/300. Many others in his year got 300/300. However, it is taught in local non-selective 6th Form College (the one you go to when you can't get into the selective college) and results there are very mixed.
I believe that the A2 General Studies is rather different.

This is why I like the IB.

Well of course they aren't equivalent, I'm not suggesting that. We did it as an extra, as a way of doing the debating about current affairs, and extra languages, and so on. Noone did it instead of an academic subject. It's one way of building those things into the school timetable, clearly there are other ways of covering those broader aspects of education.

Fennel - If the school gave students a proper well-rounded education, there would be no need for General Studies teaching. How is it possible that General Studies and Chemistry are equivalent? It would be impossible for DS1's whole school to pass Chemistry A level at A grade having never been taught its syllabus.

I do Oxbridge admissions.

Some facts:

1. It is definitely not the best place for all courses.
2. Students get in on their ability to debate and think through problems, etc.
3. We do look favourably on 'alternative' candidates and mature applicants if they have these skills.
4. We analyse the standards of the applicants' schools, and benchmark the applicants against this so we have a better understanding of their own abilities, not those of the school.
5. If people who fail to get in reapply the next year, we like that.
6. Lots of us were actually Oxbridge rejects but caught up later. At UG application level, it's a lottery in many respects.

I'm not saying it's essential, but there are reasons for doing general studies classes, and even exams, without it being just about doing pretend subjects to hike the A level results up.

Fennel - Judging by their Oxbridge over-representation, independent schools are managing quite well without GS. My sons' school makes them all sit a GS A level past paper at the end of Lower Sixth (just for a laff, and even though it isn't taught) and the lowest mark ever recorded is 98%. Arf.

As snorkle says, they sometimes do. But not much - the majority of the teaching is in tutorials. Quite different from a normal university.

In my subject tutorials were taken across several different colleges, you went to a tutor specialising in a particular area of the subject. But arranged by your college tutor. that was a while ago now.

Also a while ago, but when we did General Studies A level at my comp 6th form it was because they believed in a broad education, in general studies we debated politics, learned extra languages, discussed literature (for the science and maths students) and so on. The sort of thing that people further down this thread have argued that independent schools do and state schools tend not to. And in fact, the general studies A level (which I did as well as 4 highly academic subjects, so it was my 5th A level) was by far the most relevant to my Oxford course, and was quite similar in topic range to the General paper I had to take to get into Oxford for my subject.

(I liked general studies A level I was always good at general studies subjects, lots of woffle without needing to revise. excellent preparation for reading philosophy)

yes they do do lectures too - perhaps not in all subjects and more for sciences than arts. Lectures are university based and tutorials are college based.

campergirls - Please show me the evidence.

don't they do lectures then <thinks back to redious 3 hours lectures in mahoosive lecture hall>

Riven - I didn't understand it either until I went there! Basically at Oxbridge all of your learning as an undergraduate is either one-on-one or possibly two or three-on-one in tutorials with a tutor. The majority of these tutorials are with tutors who are members of your College - for particular subjects they may farm you out to another college which has someone with the relevant expertise. Lectures, as in a 'normal' university, don't exist. Obviously as the tuition is so individualised, it is intense.

So college is where you eat, sleep, socialise and do most of your work as well.

The story is quite different for those in postgraduate degrees.

Swedes, actually it holds good even if you only compare like with like - History with History say.

No doubt you will come back and say there are special easy history syllabi for state schools.

(Admissions tutor in a highly selective university speaking, so I do know what I'm talking about).

Policywonk - "I have no idea whether state schools are letting their pupils down - I just don't know. But have another look at that statistic below: 'A pupil in a state school needs to achieve two grades higher at A level to stand the same likelihood of going to a top-ranked university as his peer in an independent school.' On what basis are people saying that this is the fault of state schools? What evidence (beyond anecdote) is there of that?"

I've already said the two grades higher thing is a red herring because they aren't comparing like with like. They are comparing state school pupils' A level results which include Meeja Studies, General Studies etc, whilst the results of the independent pupils are all proper academic A levels. Many universities just don't accept soft A levels as being of sufficient value and they make this very clear in their admissions details.

The only reason state schools sit General Studies is to artificially boost their A level points tarriff. So when a year or so ago, the press ran the story that selective state schools have now overtaken selective independent schools at A level attainment, it is only true thanks to the boost from General Studies and from soft A levels (which independent schools don't offer as a rule).

I don't really care about the no. of A level points my children get, I want their education to be thorough and enjoyable. And most of all, I don't want them ruling options out by sitting subjects that are disregarded by universities.

Universities are pretty positive about Home Ed children because they know they tend to be independant learners. Friends son has got into one of the Oxford colleges to do law without any A levels or GCSE's. He went with a portfolio of interest and excelled at the interview.
(not that I understand the college system of Oxford. Is it just where they sleep but they all meet up for lectures?)

speaking for myself, we do see a lot of students who have excellent A-level results but who really struggle at university because they are not used to thinking

they are the type whose only interest in a question is "will this come up in the exam"

the type who think that getting an A at A-level entitles you to a First in your finals

the type who thinks a teacher's job is to make you enjoy every minute of the course- so when the going gets tough, or boring groundwork has to be done, they stop working and blame it on the lecturer

I have no statistics to tell me if these are predominantly independent, grammar or comprehensive products- but I wish they weren't all quite so successful in their university entrance

if they were my children I would have hoped that they could have found their way onto something more vocational course instead

little point in a university course that you're not getting anything out of

ST - 'tis typical of the levelling down' mentality in this country. Instead of looking at the other way round - ie IF indies are able to help students achive more than they could do otherwise - ie 'value add', why can't state schools do the same?
Admissions turors bend over backwards to help admit 'bright' students from failing schools, but if they require a year of remedial teaching before they can start on the degree level stuff ( eg maths, french are the two I know have friends)it is unwprkable, so they take those who are already up to the mark.A friend of mine whom I asked hen the children were small whehter we should go good state or indie, sadly replied that he woould have to say indie, for that reason. He does strive to take state pupils, but they have to runs special courses in french grammar for them, which costs, and slows tehm down

I went to Bristol University. I did not go to school in the UK and did not do O and A levels.

Even in the mid-1980s, when I applied, Bristol had a reputation for looking favourably and intelligently at applications from "alternative." schools ie outside the traditional UK system. Bristol was a pioneer university in that sense (many other universities were refusing non-traditional applicants point blank at that time) and, as a result, has today a high proportion of students with non-traditional qualifications who do extremely well there.

Yeah, it's a crazy notion that it is unfair when students do well, and the veiled advocacy that we should all be striving to be just average or even slightly below.

margotfonteyn, you phrased it as "ALL I am saying is mediocre students do better in the private system. It is unfair."

If you phrase it as "ALL I am saying is mediocre students do worse in the state system. It is unfair." - well, I think the implications shift a bit.

A lot of people mention that 7% of school pupils are in the independent sector.

However, this figure is fairly irrelevent when talking about university entrance, where you need to be looking at the proportion of sixth formers doing A-levels. The proportion of sixth formers educated privately is around double that figure.

If you are talking about RG universities, where the entrance requirement is not far off AAA at A2, then you need to look at data for students getting those grades. Last year, of all the students gaining AAA, 38% were from independent schools, 28% from comprehensives, 16% from grammar schools, and presumably the rest from sixth form colleges.

I think that there are closer to 45% of independently educated students in top universities, and I think this reflects A-level achievements when you take out the softer subjects which have a higher representation in state schools.

Private schools do have a higher ability profile than state schools and private schools also give higher 'value add' (which may be due to spoon feeding, smaller class sizes, better motivation or whatever) than state ones (all on average of course, individual schools will often buck this trend).

So you might expect more than 7% RG places to go to independent candidates even if a correction for school value add was applied.

But as it is also true that (on average) independently educated children are achieving higher GCSE results (& presumably AS/A2 results) than state educated children of the same ability (though interestingly this gap gets narrower at the top end of the ability range) then maybe there is a case for some positive discrimination towards state educated children. However, I think this really depends on why this value add difference exists. If it's purely because independently educated children are working harder then discrimination would be unfair, if it's because they're better taught it's arguable both ways, but if it's because their teachers are playing the system better & 'spoon feeding answers' then it could be justified. Unfortunately there's no way of telling why the value add differences exists.

Am I right in thinking that people are using "Russell Group Universities" as shorthand for the top universities? Looking at the Times Top Universities list for 2009, 3 out of the top 10 and 6 out of the top 20 are not in the Russell Group. Both York and Durham are not Russell Group as suggested by a previous poster. I am being pedantic as a York graduate which was in the top 10 when I went there at the end of the eighties! Surely it should be about finding the right course which interests a student at a good university,rather than all this emphasis on the Russell group?

Agree Rustybear, but again I point out, the OP was asking why are those pupils who had to 'opt out' of state education for various reasons, suddenly all able to get into 'top' universities when they weren't particularly top of the pile in the first place?

Sorry to labour the point. Perhaps whoever it was who started the post might like to help me out.....

But why are we talking about parents targeting universities? If a child is intelligent enough to go to university, they should be intelligent enough to work out for themselves, with all the resources that are available to them, where they want to go.

I just asked DD how she chose - she started by finding out which were the top universities for her chosen subject, did some research on student satisfaction, looked at which ones normally made offers at a level around her predicted grades, ruled out Durham because she didn't want to live that far north, and applied for one slightly above her prediction, three around that level & one a bit below for insurance. As far as I know whether they were Russell Group, Sutton Group, 1994 or whatever was pretty irrelevant; what she was looking for was a university which would teach her chosen subject well, which she had a good chance of getting into and where she would enjoy studying & do well. DS is not available to ask atm (he's doing the washing up) but it was a similar process. DH & I gave advice when it was asked for, but in both cases it was their decision.

They both ended up at universities in the top 10, DS at a Russell Group from which he's just got a 2:1, DD's just finished her first year at a 1994 group, & also got a 2:1 in her first year exams, so it looks like they got it about right.

The discussion is not about the brightest pupils, it is about the mediocre pupils who suddenly get 'brighter' once in the independent sector.

Think about the person you know who seems happiest/most well balanced/fulfilled/harmonious family/fulfilling job etc etc....... chances are they didn't go to Oxbridge!! Or private school for that matter!

It's so easy to get hung up on these things. And perfectly possible to have a very fulfilling life without them!

In the independent schools that are very selective it states in their inspection reports that the cohort is higher ability than those at grammar schools so the ones that are getting high % of pupils into Oxbridge are doing so because the kids are brighter.

Why is everyone so hung up about Oxbridge? They are not necessarily the best place dependant on the course you want to study, although employment prospects are probably the highest at these institutions.

Ok'interested' then

Completely agree with VioletHill, but the OP WAS asking for opinions. I notice she/he has disappeared!

I would say 'interested' not 'pushy'

Well it should be to do with intelligence not to do with how 'pushy' a parent is....

Of course, emotional well being is pretty important to most people. I don't see how it profits a person to gain top grades, go to a top University and get a 'top' job, if they are unable to hold down a long term relationship, be a happy and fulfilled person, be a good parent etc. Not that any one specific background precludes any of these things, not at all. But it certainly puts it in perspective. I feel that I have been successful in being happily married for ahem... a long time, having 3 great kids, having had a fabulous University experience and having an interesting and well paid career. Do I mind that I didn't go to a private school? Do I heck!!

It's not too surprising that private school kids fill RG places. Yurtgirl started a thread in chat along the lines of "I've never heard of RG" and lots of people chimed in. Someone even wrote "I have no idea what they are and, to make matters worse, I don't give a fcuk".
If a parent is interested enough in their DCs education to pay up to 30k p.a. for schooling then I'll bet they have researched Uni and will target Oxbridge/RG/Sutton/whatever. If other parents merrily say '"don't know, don't care" then whose fault is that?

well I hsve to disagree with you there bloss but I suppose it depends on what you mean by thrive. The amount of eating disorders in the top girls private schools for example makes me think that despite the high level of successful oxbridge students these children are not thriving.

Just as an example, Violet, my local Comp had the following numbers getting A*/A at GCSE:
French - 2
German - 5 (all A, no A*)
History - 7
Geography - 5

Maths and English were better due to the number of girls in the school.

The number of subjects where no-one got an A* was 8.

I live in a very nice area - there is no excuse for this school!

Scienceteacher:I think the trouble is you DO live and breathe it!

ALL I am saying is mediocre students do better in the private system. It is unfair.
You may think 'life isn't fair'...that is fine.

There will be very bright children also in the private system who deservedly do very well (your son included) BUT I am referring back to the OP.

The examination system at the moment is such that reasonably bright/mediocre students can, and do, get 3 As at A level, more so in the private system because they are taught in such a way to get the highest grades possible, for a variety of reasons. Pupils at not very good state schools do not get this advantage.

There is a problem with top universities finding who is the brightest of all because of the plethora of A grades. All the pupils at my DCs state grammar school get 'top' A grades so will relish the A*.

I feel sorry for children who can't afford to pay for a private school type education, it isn't their fault. They may be brighter than some at private schools and are losing out on a life changing decent university place.

I am lucky because mine go/went to a grammar school.

I wish all bright children were given the opportunity to have a good and decent education and that those who pay don't have an advantage.

What is wrong with that?

That's all I am saying. Am going to watch 'House' now. Goodnight.

Policywonk - it's not that I 'didn't like' your page. It's just that it makes a claim, in which it has a strong interest, and offers no evidence or justification for it. On that basis, I think you shouldn't particularly like it either - at least, not for the purpose of bolstering an argument like this one.

No need to worry, ra29! They thrive...

Also, policywonk, it is the norm in the US - and even more strongly in Ivy League - to treat undergraduate degrees as the preparation for the real event, which is your graduate degree. A first degree in, say, science from a US school is a completely different thing from a degree in chemistry from Cambridge. In that sense, US colleges have a chance to bring them up to standard which is not mirrored here. But they do it at the expense of requiring two degrees to get them to a place similar to where we get them with one.

<< 'They then push them very hard - for example, they are now dropping A-Levels altogether because they aren't rigorous enough. And they have lessons 6 days a week...'>>

Poor kids...
Actually makes me quite angry.

policywonk - are you not aware, then, of the extensive debates about grade inflation at American universities, in particular Ivy League?

I went to the local comp and have three degrees from three different RG univerisities (and a place at one of them to do medicine this autumn). My DH went to private school and scraped a third class degree. He tells me that his school spoon fed him to such an extent that he could not cope with studying with supervised prep!

Please be assured that state educated children can get excellent results and do get places at the best universities. We send many every year from our school.

I think that's the root of the problem isn;t it Metella. If I only had access to state schools that didn't have A*/A top sets, or if I had children who weren't bright enough for top sets, then I would be seriously tempted towards private. Not right though, is it?

MF,

I think you are way out of touch. I don't identify with the notion of being spoon fed, and I don't know where you get your stats of private school students of being brighter to begin with.

Poor me - I obviously don't know what I am talking about despite living and breathing it.

Sadly some of us live near Comprehensives that couldn't fill a class with A*/A students as there aren't enough of them.

There seems to be a lot of anxiety among some MNers that state schools are not enabling their brightest students to access Oxbridge!

IME, state schools are doing huge amounts to raise awareness and enable access to top Universities.

I still don't get why some people tend to lump 'state school' into one broad category, when the reality these days is that comprehensives set by ability, in a lot of cases from the word go, in Year 7. If your child is in the higher sets, being taught in a class of A*/A students, then the experience is not a lot different from the private school experience many people describe. My ds who has experienced both private and state education says the only difference is that his state school top sets are bigger, and that if anything, the brighest kids of all are brighter than those he came across in private. Just doesn;t seem vastly different to me.

Science Teacher: The point is, mediocre students do better at a private school on account of being spoon fed. OK?

Unfortunately, you will never agree with me as you think it is because they are Much Brighter To Start With. I disagree.

Are you serious, MF?

A* at A2 is just admitting the failure
in adhering to standards,

I am pleased that my DCs (son in l6, but also my students) are able to access this level but it is just very worrying that we introduce a new level rather than tackling real achievement.

When they bring in the A* hopefully it will sort out the top grades.

Just from my DCs contemporaries there is a pretty big range of intelligence from those who get As at A level. I imagine there is a huge difference between students from different schools/backgrounds.

I wish I knew what your point was from your 20.41 posr, MF.

Um, I'm sorry you don't like the page, bloss. It's quite simple, though. The Ivy League has been using AA for decades now. At the same time, its institutions have become globally pre-eminent. AA has not turned Harvard into Wolverhampton Poly (with apologies to any Wolverhampton Poly graduates out there ). There's no evidence - from the USA, at least - to suggest that discrimination in favour of disadvantaged candidates has an adverse effect on universities.

Sorry, I mean my older DCs DID get top grades because of school they are at. They are both at Russell Group universities now!!!

In terms of Oxbridge and mathematics, I think you're dead wrong, and I regularly prepare Oxbridge maths candidates so feel that I can speak with authority. I won't push my case further than that, although I'm skeptical that it's as unproblematic as you say.

Not the best quality source for your claim, may I suggest? (Not least because it comes from an interest group and does not provide any reference or source for its claim.) Interestingly, when, in my googling, I came across universities attempting to defend their adoption of AA, not one of them that I could find used this argument. And it's certainly not a particularly prominent argument.

Good point, guvk. I note that the new Pre-U will have two grades ranking higher than A* at A-level, so soon it will be easier for universities to distinguish between candidates who are using the new qualification.

I think there is a problem with the term 'spoon fed'.

Most independent schools (and grammar schools) teach the pupils to pass the exams, and pass them very well. They teach how to write essays, how to cover the points needed, they have endless lessons on What to Expect in the Exam, How to Do Coursework. (I don't have a personal agenda against this, my DC have/are all at 'top' state grammar school).

But I can see it is completely unreasonable that ALL bright and academically inclined children do not have the opportunity to PAY for a good education, and it is also completely unreasonable that those who do get the top university places. I honestly cannot understand anyone who does not agree with that.

I understand that my DCs will get top grades BECAUSE of the school they attend and because they are reasonably intelligent to start with. They all had to pass an extremely competetive test to get into their school. How come those who didn't pass the test BUT go to a fee paying school then get top grades, but those who didn't pass the test,DON'T get top grades and thus into top universities. It certainly isn't because the former are 'brighter', it's because they have had huge advantages in their teaching. End of story (bangs head against wall).

No-one is saying it is fair, least of all me.

So I think that those from 'failing' schools with slightly lower grades should be given a leg up into the top universities, to put it very, very simply. And those who get the top grades from a highly advantaged position should realise that it is not because they have suddenly become super brainy.

<<<'A pupil in a state school needs to achieve two grades higher at A level to stand the same likelihood of going to a top-ranked university as his peer in an independent school.' >>>

That's just a bollocly statement.

I am going through the UCAS process for the first time as a parent. DS1 is in an independent school and is on course for 4 A grades at A2 plus an extra 2 A grades at AS.

How on earth can anyone trump this by 2 grades?

My DS is targeting top universities (Imperial etc). Even his insurance offer will be AAB.

bloss, it was from this link. I'd think that things like matriculation scores are a matter of record? Anyway, nobody can argue that Ivy League colleges haven't assumed pre-eminence, globally, in the last 20 years or so (can they?)

As to preparedness - yes, I was admittedly thinking about humanities, any my own long-lost two-hour undergraduate working week <happy sigh>. But I still think that a clever, well-motivated child, wherever s/he comes from, will cope perfectly well with first-year undergraduate demands.

'A pupil in a state school needs to achieve two grades higher at A level to stand the same likelihood of going to a top-ranked university as his peer in an independent school.'

--That is a very puzzling statistic, given that admissions tutors devote most of their energy to distinguishing between an excess of students all with straight A-grades. Does anyone know anything about that statistic?

So HighOnDiesel - how can an education be excellent in the academic sense if it doesn't -prepare a student well for university? And if inferior A-Levels tell us nothing, why bother with them at all? Do we not examine their achievement at all for entry? I honestly don't understand what you are saying.

PW - I've tried to find the things that you obviously found, without success. My googling with ivy league, affirmative action, success, evidence etc is drawing a complete blank. Dare I suggest that your claim is not as widely accepted as it seemed from your post? (Am prepared to stand corrected if you can find the sources...)

I disagree strongly, though, that the quality of your secondary education makes little difference to your ability to hit the ground running. I'm a maths teacher and I've seen what Oxbridge candidates are expected to do on arrival. An able but poorly taught student would just drown if they were simply thrown into the mix. There is perhaps some mileage in making that argument for humanities, as you would not be so immediately handicapped.

ra29 - I too have had to do the things your dad describes. IME it was state school as much as private school students who did it. However, I would venture to suggest that this is highly unlikely at the level of Oxbridge candidates. They simply wouldn't be accepted in the first place.

fircone - it's no surprise that somewhere like Winchester College has such a huge percentage of Oxbridge candidates. Its entrance exam is notoriously difficult, so they start with Very Clever boys. They then push them very hard - for example, they are now dropping A-Levels altogether because they aren't rigorous enough. And they have lessons 6 days a week... what you'd expect, really.

But an 'excellent education' at a private school isn't necessarily an excellent preparation for university. So admitting students with lower A-levels might NOT affect standards negatively.

There is no evidence that admitting more kids from weaker state schools or poorer backgrounds would 'dumb down' educational standards.

I challenge anyone to find evidence that this is the case.

100x, the whole point about AA was that it involved admitting non-white students with inferior grades. In fact, I'd say it's a very similar issue - you're talking (very broadly) about students from economically deprived backgrounds who went to bad schools.

I have no idea whether state schools are letting their pupils down - I just don't know. But have another look at that statistic below: 'A pupil in a state school needs to achieve two grades higher at A level to stand the same likelihood of going to a top-ranked university as his peer in an independent school.' On what basis are people saying that this is the fault of state schools? What evidence (beyond anecdote) is there of that?

By which I mean, it seems that most selective private schools are doing pretty well in educating their children. As are grammar schools.

So surely the focus should be on the comprehensive schools which are failing their bright students? And why they are.

If it proves not to be the fault of the private schools, I think we should blame the bankers.

How does anyone think these independent schools get such high percentages in (as per Winchester etc). They are highly selective at 13 years old, then they work them bloody hard for the next 5 years. The whole atmosphere of the schools is to aim for the highest. The pressure comes from the kids themeselves. No one is happy with mediocrity, they want to do well to prove to themselves they can.

As for being spoon fed, the teaching at these schools is based on encouraging independent learning, research into and around the subjects and lively debate in the lessons which can go way off the exam syllabus.

When the state schools treat their top sets in the same way, the same results will be achieved.

The teachers work bloody hard and are available at all hours too.

It's not a fair point though PW, because why would more black faces in ivy league colleges affect standards? It wouldn't, right.

But if you take students who haven't had the benefit of an excellent education - which however you dress it up, a kid from private school who is considering Oxbridge, has had an excellent education, which isn't a bad thing per se, indeed it's a wonderful thing, though unfair that everyone can't have one etc - then Bloss's argument about standards and universities having to do the job of schools, is a fair one?

If there does need to be a cultural change, then they should use AA. But the state schools should be doing better by their brightest students too, no?

It seems trite to blame private schools if the state sixth forms aren't addressing the needs of their bright children, or if universities discriminate against state educated children.

PW - I disagree with you so strongly.

I say let market economics work it out. I so abhor social economics. It makes me feel physically sick.

You are never going to get into a situation wher the profile of the top jobs is going to match that of the secondary school population. Jusst forget it, once and for all.

I would hate to think that we were to dumb down our educational standards so much.

How can anything be the fault of private schools?

I would agree with the comment that successful A level teaching (in terms of results) does not necessarily prepare students for university courses. Sometimes I wonder whether the opposite is in fact true <cynical>

100x, you're right about AA being about ethnicity - I was using it to make the point that positive discrimination, of any kind, needn't have a negative effect on standards.

I think the top unis, however you define them, do need a culture change. We need (IMO) to move towards a position in which the 7 per cent of children who are privately educated take up about 7 per cent of Oxbridge places, rather than 70+ per cent (?), as it is at the moment.

I have some questions, interesting thread.

Why don't state sixth forms prepare their brightest students for Oxbridge entrance then? If they aren't - which seems a bit lamentable - then I don't think it's the fault of the private schools.

OTH I tend to think AA a good thing if you need to change a culture - whether it be the tory party or SA national sporting teams. I thought AA in ivy league was about race though wasn't it rather than their public school system? I thought it sought to heal that divide? Might be wrong, will go and google.

I don't know whether the Oxbridge colleges or the Russell Group need that culture change. Do they? Or are they all prepared and keen but the state system is failing to deliver their brightest children to them? If so, why? It can't just be the fault of the private schools - unless there is a huge culture problem that needs to be addressed within the universities rather than the schools?

Agree with ra and PW that students from the best schools are not necessarily the best prepared for university.

The sort of teaching that prepares students best for A Levels is not always the sort of teaching that prepares them best for university

Swedes, I didn't mean those jobs were "chinless" I wasn't implying anything about the city jobs and the big milkround firms, but just for me, and for most of my friends, we were never going for those sorts of jobs anyway, so, though some firms recruit primarily from Oxbridge and Ivy League, it didn't actually make any difference.

that's all, wasn't meaning to suggest there was anything wrong with those jobs.

Yep, I'd be interested to know that too.

Rules me out too then, fircone! <oik emotion>

<<<more mediocre students are getting the top grades, and most of those are educately privately.>>>

Where do you get your stats from?

Oxbridge admissions has got much better I think... tutors working with state schools etc. The state school I teach in runs an annual trip to Oxford and Cambridge for prospective students etc

I think the Oxbridge admissions has got an awful lot fairer. The biggest problem is the excess of pupils getting 3 As at A level. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that they ARE easier now, the format makes them easier etc (but that is another discussion) but the knock on effect is that more mediocre students are getting the top grades, and most of those are educately privately.

This leads to the point made by the OP.

I also happen to think a mediocre student 'working very hard' to tick all the right boxes doesn't particularly equal a very bright student who can do the exams with their eyes shut as it were.

I think the "on average two grades higher" thing is a red herring. Because most independent schools don't offer soft A levels or General Studies A level, so they are not comparing like with like in A level scores.

bloss'then the universities have to begin by remediating the problems with that candidate's education. In other words, stuff that should have been taught at schools now has to be re-taught by the university. And with a limited amount of time and funding, that will ultimately mean that less is achieved in the degree... '
Well according to my dad it was the private school kids who needed the most re-educating. He said they frequently wrote in wordy pretentious ways that they had been taught to in schools- long words used without substance or meaning. He had to spend time teaching them to be concise rather than rambly. His subject was really about clear thinking and raw potential was far better than expensive education for this.
He was not remotely interested in A level results as he felt they showed very little about real intelligence and ooriginal thinking. However, the entrance exams were also very unfair as private school kids were cprepared for them and state school kids werent ...

missmem: ds played a chess tournament at Winchester College and I picked one up then. Ha ha at actively looking at Winchester College. £30 flippin' K a year to go there. Admittedly it looks wonderful. But it's not for us. [Too poor and too oiky emoticon]

Perhaps they're mailing them out randomly as part of their outreach

Fircone, how do you just "happen" to get hold of a Winchester prospectus unless you are actively looking?

Sorry, AA (Affirmative Action), not AI (Artificial Intelligence)...

bloss - I've been Googling 'Ivy League' and 'affirmative action', and that's not what has happened at all in the States - in fact, achievement (in terms of matriculation scores and standardised test scores) rose in the Ivy League colleges when AI was introduced.

Since then, Ivy League colleges have gone on to be acknowledged as the best universities in the world. All while implementing AI policies that would make a socialist blush.

I take your point about preparedness. I guess I'd argue that a clever student from a bad school is going to be perfectly capable of hitting the ground running. Attending seminars and writing essays is not terribly taxing, after all. They're much more likely to be disadvantaged by the need to work three jobs to pay the fees.

policywonk - "IMO you need to discriminate in favour of children from bad schools"

One of the problems with such a view is that intellectual standards can suffer at the very highest end. If the candidates have been properly schooled, then they hit the ground running and can get on with a very high level of work indeed. If you enter people on potential but not achievement - which is what your suggestion would involve - then the universities have to begin by remediating the problems with that candidate's education. In other words, stuff that should have been taught at schools now has to be re-taught by the university. And with a limited amount of time and funding, that will ultimately mean that less is achieved in the degree...

So under such a system the problem of poor quality education starts to infect the tertiary sector as well. You might argue that it's worth the price for achieving social justice. But it would bring down the higher end - and after all, this is the peak of the British educational system. If you can't achieve it at Oxbridge, then it can't be done in the UK at all. So it's a significant loss to the educational system of a country which is supposed to be a world leader.

I appreciate the fairness argument, but my concern is that it just allows the government to continue the problems in secondary education because there is no external, objective marker at the end of it. (A-Levels don't discriminate sufficiently.) The current system at least forces people to face up to the discrepancies between what the private sector achieves and the state sector.

Hello ra - it was in the 1980s. There was a connection between a politics lecturer at my FE college (who had been to New College to read PPE himself) and someone - don't know who - at New College. The candidates from my FE college still had to pass the Oxford entrance exam (as it was then) and attend the interview, but they always got in.

Do you know, fircone, I'm not actually surprised by that one. Which is a bit rubbish, however you look at it!

Does anyone know about affirmative action programmes in the US, and their impacts on Ivy League colleges?

pw when was that? having a parent who taught there on that course for around 30 years I find that very hard to believe. He said it was funny what schools thought about how kids got in and that they certainly did not discriminate in the way that you describe.

i have argued on numerous threads about private/state schools and think private schools are deeply devisive and would happily see them all close.

Also from Swedes's link: "half of Oxbridge entrants come from just 200 (mainly independent) schools"

I happened to get hold of a Winchester College prospectus (fees £30K per year if you're interested!) and it said that ONE THIRD of its pupils go on to Oxbridge every year.

fircone, we had a little schemozzle like that at the FE college I went to - we got a pupil in to New College to read PPE almost every year through a staff connection. I've no idea whether this still goes on or whether centralised admissions procedures have put an end to it.

(From Swedes's link) This is shocking: 'A pupil in a state school needs to achieve two grades higher at A level to stand the same likelihood of going to a top-ranked university as his peer in an independent school.'

So much for private school children being discriminated against!

Do some private schools still have 'friendships' with certain Oxbridge colleges? I know there used to be closed scholarships, whereby a number of places were reserved for pupils from what might be almost be called feeder schools. Does this practice continue informally?

When I was at a grammar school, the Head always tried to funnel pupils into applying to a particular girls' college because she had been there herself and knew the top brass.

Now this would be unfair to state school applicants. Is there still the "Oh, yes, Ponsonby Minor, we'll look forward to seeing him" factor?

Cambridge certainly make allowances for a pupil who is the first in their immediate family to go to university.

Maybe UCL and King's can't be in the same grouping in case their chancellors start duffing each other up?

Fennel "I think it's only a certain sort of employer which recruits only or mainly from Oxbridge or Ivy League, (city banking, city law firms, and similar). Most of the jobs I've ever considered wouldn't be that sort of job."

Pages 5 and 6 of this report show that it's not only chinless jobs where those who have been independently educated are over-represented. But I can see that it's convenient to perpetuate that myth.

Xpost PW - yes these groupings hugely erm vague. There is this grouping called the University Alliance. Which, according to its website, is an "Alliance of Non-Aligned Universities"

No King's? Not surprised he he <ex UCL>

I'd have thought King's College London would be on any list of elite unis. Aren't all these groups a little bit random?

IME Oxbridge candidates stand out a mile and can be found anywhere, state or private. Oxbridge couldn't give a monkey's where you've been to school - they want the very brightest students. I also think some parents do fall into the trap of seeing entry to University as the end of the process! If a student hasn't developed self motivation and independent study skills, they are going to be miserable and at risk of doing badly or dropping out of Higher Education. You really are on your own once you go off to university, and I think the best schools are ones which acknowledge this and prepare young people for it.

The Sutton Trust?

* University of Birmingham
* University of Bristol
* University of Cambridge
* Durham University
* University of Edinburgh
* Imperial College London
* London School of Economics
* University of Nottingham
* University of Oxford
* University of St Andrews
* University College London
* University of Warwick
* University of York

Ooh, I'm very excited to have been elevated again

There isn't a qualification or test in the world that's going to distinguish between raw intelligence and good schooling. It's simply not possible. So if you want fairness (and not everyone does), IMO you need to discriminate in favour of children from bad schools, as HighOn suggests.

According to the other thread, the new elite is something called the Sutton Group? Which includes Oxbridge, various London colleges, various more and also York. See PW, you're better than RG ...

I do remember an exam called S levels - which were quite a bit more stretching than A levels <old gimmer emoticon> Can't they reintroduce those or something like them? Help to sort out the sheep from the goats. What about IB which is all the rage in some circles.

But, PW, it is very dodgy when you discriminate based on assumption, chips on shoulder, etc.

If the A-level system does not discriminate adequately, then change it! Tweaking results is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Meant to add that the tutor of admissions concerned was an old-style Labour supporter who'd himself gone to a grammar school from a modest home. He was disgusted with the regression in social mobility he'd witnesed: especially in the Blair years. He said it was one of his biggest regrets: that he was seeing fewer bright working-class applicants.

Can they? You may be right.

I think people do discriminate already. The head of admissions at my old Oxbridge college told me there were one or two students there with lower A level results than he'd have liked because they came from a local comprehensive that ought to be doing better. But he realised that the students concerned were sharp cookies and couldn't not have them on the course. They were doing very, very well and he was extremely pleased with them. And the comp. concerned was sending more good candidates. For years, they hadn't had any at all. Even though the comp. was so near and the college has always been very unstuffy and welcoming and tried hard to attract state school candidates.

Abraid, can't people be coached for GMAT style exams, too?

There is no really fair way of doing this, imo. But if I were in charge of national admissions policy, I would probably lightly discriminate in favour of kids from below-par state schools - at the very least, it might encourage people to send their kids there....

I agree with margotfonteyn, and would also add that it is possible to 'buy' good results by living in the catchment area of a very good state school. In my experience, there is very little difference, either in social background, or in academic experience, between independent school pupils and pupils from the best state schools.

IF universities are going to discriminate in favour of state school pupils (and this does not happen half as often as people think it does - many universities have dropped this policy due to media pressure), it should be students from poor performing state schools, not state schools per se.

Making A levels harder would disadvantage the state school pupils just as much as the private school pupils. Actually I'm all for making them tougher (I took mine in the early eighties when they were a gold standard) but I can't see it would make any difference to social equality.

What would is a GMAT type entrance test for universities, IQ-based.

I do not dispute that pupils work hard at private schools. Of course they do, as do many pupils at state schools.

The very bright will do well anywhere. They will get 3 As or whatever and their places at top universities. Equally there will be pupils who are NEVER going to achieve very much academically however much teaching, money is thrown at them.

But my problem is with the mediocre student who can, and do, get very high grades whilst not being that bright by being 'spoon fed' in the private sector. They then go on to get a place at a top university, and prob can't do the work there. There will be equally mediocre children in the state system who do not get these places. I don't think any of them should get the places!!!

I think only the brightest should have a top university place, regardless of where they are schooled. At the moment, with the present A level system, you can buy good results to a certain extent. I think A levels should be made harder if anythhing. Then lets see how many get 3 As.

Is it not, Policywonk? Mea culpa--it has been a while since I looked at the RG list. I think York is still on the milk round for this particular consultancy, though.

Thought the trend these days was to benefit state schools? At Bristol, seem to remember more state school students were admitted based on value added something or other?

ST, isn't it the usual refrain on these threads that Life. Isn't. Fair?

Surely it's more fair to discriminate in favour of those who have not had every opportunity that birth and wealth can afford them?

York isn't an RG university though...

<York graduate speaking>

My eldest ds is a RGU. He went to a private prep school, because he was not coping at the local primary school, he has aspergers, although I did not know when I made the decision to withdraw him from state school. He coped far better at private due to smaller class sizes etc. He then went to the local grammar school, where most of the other boys had been to private primary school. Now he at Reading, and most of his friends went to private school/grammar school.
But they do all work extremely hard, and most of them work full-time jobs aswell as being full time students.

'They have worked hard and deserve what they get.'

And boy do they work hard. I have children in both sectors at the moment and I can tell you that when he was in Year Six of prep school my son worked far harder, and at a more intense level, than friends who stayed in the village primary. Is this a good or a bad thing? I don't know.

'they often want a First or a 2:1 from whatever university you attended.'

Hmmn. They know that a First or a 2:1 from Durham or York is worth far more than a first from the University of the South Downs. I know this because I sometimes write copy for the HR dept. of a big city consultancy. They recruit at Russell Group universities only.

I agree with whoever it was posted earlier - people can get too hung up on this, because to be honest, if your child is clever top set material, then there is likely to be very little difference between state and private schools anyway! Of course if you look at overall raw results, then a private school may have higher grades than a comp - well, hardly surprising is it, if the comp is catering for all-comers. What would be far more relevant is to take the average grades of the classes your child is actually taught in and make a comparison. For example, I know last year, in the top English set in my dc's comp every child achieved A*/A. In Maths, there is a fast track set where the pupils do Maths a year early - this got straight A*/A, and then in the two sets below that, everyone got A*/A/B.
Those are the statistics that matter to me. The bottom sets may well average E or F, which is obviously going to affect the overall school average, but why on earth would that matter to me?! What matters is the peer group my children are taught in, the quality of teaching they receive and the outcomes they achieve.

But it is not fair to penalise the achievers for doing what is expected of them. They have worked hard and deserve what they get.

They are the future leaders of the country and we should not be putting them down.

If there is a problem with under-achievers, it needs to be dealt with separately.

Its not disregarding 'honest achievements', it's giving everyone a fair chance. At the moment, if one is reasonably bright and have good teaching it is not THAT difficult to get 3 As at A level. It is more difficult if one is not advantaged by a good school/teaching.

Unfortunately I do feel I have to justify it to some ( in fact quite a lot of) people. Friends have asked me "what is wrong" with the various state schools in the area. My answer is... " nothing" - I work at one of them. I love his confidence... I didn't have much when I was at school and maybe that was part of the decision making. He's adopted and we felt the school he is at served his needs as it has small classes and a family feel. It also has a great sense of tradition and being part of the ongoing history is nice for him. I am realising that I have gone off the thread slightly but what I am trying to say is that people have many different reasons for choosing schools and strangely enough, it's not always about academic achievement or status.

Maybe so, but it would be silly for society as a whole to disregard their honest acheivements in favour of mediocracy.

I don't think it is a question of 'justifying' educating one's child privately, it is a question of accepting they are advantaged, compared to some others.

Of course they are, that is why people to choose to pay for education, when the alternative is not 'good enough'. (sorry if doesnt make sense,am trying to watch the tennis here too!).

Unless they do change university entrance requirements and bring in an American type SATs system it will never be fair. Oxbridge in a way IS fairer because of the interview, separate unseen tests etc., but again pupils need to be 'confident' enough to apply in the first place.

Exactly, shockers.

Oh... and he's not "spoon fed"... he's encouraged to be independent!

I get fed up with having to justify educating my ds privately. I'm not saying he deserves better than anyone else's children ( I'm not even saying he gets better schooling) It's just right for HIM. If he goes to uni, I hope he chooses one that's right for him then.
We do go without luxuries to send him and I don't want a 'return' on it other than a well rounded and happy child.

You are just assuming motivation, diesel. You have no idea how motivated an independent school candidate is. They could be extremely driven.

Reading between the lines is very dangerous. If you don't feel that the A-level system is adequate (ie by allocating places based on grades), then there needs to be a different system (eg similar to the USA SAT, MAT). When we are talking about fairness, it is not fair to pupils who do all that is asked of them in the prevailing system, and them somehow lose out to students who do not achieve as highly.

By all means change the system - but don't penalise innocent victims. It is no fairer to sink school student for having a rubbish homelife vs a student whose genuine achievements are downgraded for social engineering purposes.

Well, yes, one was undergrad, one was MSc and PhD, and it was a competitive MSc course. But even so, I was surprised.

Quattro - this doesn't hold true in my case. My non-Oxbridge ug degree was infinitely more intellectually demanding that my Oxbridge pg degree.

x-posts with Fennel and scienceteacher

Very much agree with Fennel, I also have Oxbridge and non-Oxbridge degree, and found the non-Oxbridge degree (my ug degree) far more stretching and stimulating (and it wasn't at a tip top place like Manchester!)

Scienceteacher - I suppose what I am getting at is that students from less good schools have to be much better motivated to get the same results at A-Level, and in my subject, motivation is one of the main predictors of success. Which is why I love teaching mature students like retiredgoth (sorry to hear you had to drop out, RG), as they are usually incredibly well-motivated.

Fennel - were you doing undergraduate degrees at both universities? Because if doing postgrad work then you would almost certainly have had to work harder.

Sorry to use the term 'spoon feeding', I know it is a bit emotive.

Teaching students who have been to the 'best' schools - both state and private- , it is often hard to avoid the impression that they have been 'coached' and given a very clear idea of what to write for particular exam questions (e.g. a list of bullet points). They have also obviously been given intensive help with their coursework. This is not a criticism of the schools or the teachers, clearly this is the best way to get the best results at A-Level.

(This raises a whole other set of questions about what A-Level tests, but that is another thread.)

However, it does not necessarily prepare the students that well for some degree courses, where they have to work extremely independently, and write a very different sort of essay. In some cases, the very bright student who has been to a more ordinary school, and has had to work on his/her own more, will cope better.

E.g. what margotfonteyn says about teachers reading 'first drafts' - yes, this can help students with their essay writing, but when they get to university and no longer have someone to read their first draft, it can be rather disorientating and disconcerting.

That's not spoonfeeding though - that's just teaching. You really can't equate the absence of disruptive pupils to spoonfeeding. That is really sad.

It's the student that has to do the work - they are in the examination room on their own. A teacher cannot force a student to learn or to prepare - they have to be motivated to do it for themselves.

The only time I have seen too much help with coursework (ie teacher draughting) was in a grammar school, where the work was sent back again and again until it was 100%. I don't have coursework in my subject, but the most help my colleagues give is in setting tight deadlines for each stage, and obviously in setting the stage at the beginning.

I think it's only a certain sort of employer which recruits only or mainly from Oxbridge or Ivy League, (city banking, city law firms, and similar). Most of the jobs I've ever considered wouldn't be that sort of job.

I have a degree from Oxford and one from Manchester, I enjoyed both places but found my time at Manchester more intellectually demanding than the Oxford course. And for many jobs, a good degree from somewhere like Manchester will be valued similarlhy to a degree from Oxbridge.

If my dc were dithering between Oxford and Manchester, I wouldn't know which to recommend, each has advantages, and certainly I wouldn't see Manchester as academically inferior. Less traditional, yes. But I found it easy to keep up academically at Oxford and had to work harder to try and keep up with the best on my course at Manchester.

It's a shame that there is no clear way of selecting students/employees by 'who has made the most of the opportunities they have been given'.

The form the 'spoon feeding' takes is being in a small class, with no disruptive other children, being able to learn properly and probably being pointed in the right direction re coursework, first 'drafts' etc. I am sure you get the picture, and I am sure that is why people send their child to a private school rather than a crap state school. Surely you can see this is advantageous to an averagely intelligent child?

Put that same child in a 'bad' school with supply teachers, the class having to be 'controlled' before any teaching begins etc., and they are not going to achieve the same standards, with all the will in the world.

These are extreme examples but that is the basic premise behind the argument. I really don't see how it cannot be understood.

University tutors know it too.

I wonder what form this so-called spoon feeding takes....

Coming late to this too, but I don't necessarily agree that pupils who have been to independent schools will have been pushed further, and be working in more depth.

In my experience of teaching both privately and state educated university students, it is often the kids who have been to the weaker state schools who are the best - they have had to be self-motivated and find their own way through A-Levels and this stands them in good stead at university. Some (although obviously not all!) students who have been privately educated have been so well supported (some might say spoon fed) that they struggle with working independently at university.

It's not just a case of ' getting the grades' that steers parents towards independent education, though.A top class school will have a scholarly approach, an enriched curriculum, will differentiate,stimulate minds, encourage and support post A level work and will 'keep tabs' on the progress of each pupil in some depth as a matter of course. The result is that pupils can be taken further than they otherwise might have been.

A Levels have been devalued enough to make it difficult to select university candidates on grades alone.And if education is really just a utilitarian ' get the grades, get the degree, get the job' ticket then I think that's sad. Obviously there's a practical, immediate point to education but it's about so much else.Presumably Oxbridge admissions tutors are looking for that extra breadth and depth of thinking.

What I can't help wondering is, if you take one of these children who are not even in the top 30 of their state school and coach them through their A-level and into a good university, what kind of guarantee is that that they will actually be able to cope with the university course, where they will be expected to do most of the work on their own without constant support?

And what is the advantage of getting into a university if you then end up failing your degree or (heaven forbid!) are tempted into cheating or plagiarism because you simply can't keep up. These days, employers aren't just looking for evidence that somebody has been at Oxford=they're a gentleman; they often want a First or a 2:1 from whatever university you attended.

The term is just over here, and once again, exam boards are having to deal with the fallout, not just the failures and resits, but the cases of plagiarism, cheating etc. Thankfully none of mine this year, but even in my very small classes it happens on average every three years or so and it is heartrending. I would much rather my dcs didn't get in, if I didn't think they'd be able to cope with the course.

I do think if you have an average or even less able child the case for sending them to an independent school is much stronger.

I am not saying that there are not bright kids in independent schools, there are of course. But having a very clever daughter I am as certain as I can be that she will get whatever grades she needs to go to whatever university she wants. She also has the back up of a very supportive home , I never had this and had my choice of universities because I was clever. Of course I could have been better prepared for further study, that is where I was let down by my state school. But I am can fill that gap if it still exists.

I've arrived here a bit late in the day (computer broken - weep) but I kind of see where the OP is coming from. I live near her!

Anyway, two children from ds's school are going to a (selective) private school in September. Neither of these children are in the top sets for maths or English at their state school. And that is out of 90 children set across the year so they are not even in the top 30 for those subjects. So one might assume that the parents of these two children are spending £12K a year in the hope that their dc will be pushed and pulled to a higher level.

Methinks you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but I suppose shelling out a ton of money could make a kind of polyester purse.

'She's pushing dd1 to go to Cambridge to do English and when I said 'but what job can you get with an English degree' she said it was the university that made the difference.'
Here's what I did with my English degree from Oxbridge:

Worked in an investment bank. Boring, so I changed and worked in two marketing departments and two public relations companies in London

Published two books.

I have never been out of work. For the first ten years of my life people would give me interviews for jobs just to 'look at' me (their words). When I changed sector, from banking to marketing, I did so because people would interview me.

My English degree has given me: analytical skills, particularly the part of it which involved Anglo Saxon and Middle English. I'm a good decoder of texts.

The capacity to read vast amounts of material quickly and absorb salient points.

The ability to write concisely and logically.

The ability, through the tutorial and seminar system, to take criticism and bounce
back.

I'm sure other universities' English degrees equip people equally well.

my kids are dual nationals with the US but US universities cost a bleedin' fortune! And you have to support them with no student grant/loan. Not doable for us.

Isn't Oxbridge part of the RG?

"It seems a bit unfair that those with advantages all the way through - good school, helpful parents, money, good uni - then get advanatges in the hunt for jobs."

Yes but it's the way it is. I think it's useful to be aware of this and prepare children accordingly.

Interesting point on Ivy League - I was thinking about this on rereading the article on the Laura Spence affair. International mobility is going to be more important to our children's generation than it was to us - our generation thought it was enough to backpack around the hippy trail. Must be better to demonstrate serious mobility younger.

Most of my friends with English degrees now work in the city, they tend to be the best off financially.

Universities these days keep tabs on what happens to their students after they leave and afaik the graduates from our English department has a very high level of employment months after graduating; can't remember the exact figure but have seen it circulated recently; it's one of the things departments are graded on. So it seems there are things you can do with an English degree.

So how do you go about applying to an Ivy league university ? I guess this is not something state kids are told about ?

We are certainly considering Ivy League. Our kids are American, and the financial aid system and our family size/income means that an Ivy League education is very cost efficient for us.

But it is only a consideration - I think DS1 will still hope to get into Imperial. He is not interested in Cambridge.

Maybe it'll become a non-issue soon. I was talking to some 6th form leavers recetnly from a leading public school. Many of them them had offers from Oxbridge, Russell Gp, AND US Ivy League. So RG was third choice, Ob second, and Ivy League first. This seems to be a growing trend, so maybe there will soon be plenty of places available at all UK universities, and the OP will be able to lose her chip

it seems a bit unfair that those with advantages all the way through - good school, helpful parents, money, good uni - then get advanatges in the hunt for jobs.

DH's employer only recruits from a small number of universities (all are RG).

They only devote sufficient resources to do the milk round and intern recruiting from selected places. Those places have provided them with enough high calibre candidates over the years. There is no business reason to cast the net wider.

"why does the choice of uni matter?"

It matters to prospective employers. Some (very few but they do exist) firms actually only recruit from Oxford or Cambridge because they have a reputation for selecting the brightest and the best. Other firms will select also on the basis of the university.

<much as I hate posting in support of Riven's repulsive-sounding MIL>

Incidentally I did an English degree and the answer to what you can do with an English degree is - well anything really.

'If you're going to study for a degree you can do it at any uni and on paper a degree from Oxford is worth exactly the same as a degree from Manchester, so why does the choice of uni matter? I hate using the phrase snobbery as I appreciate not all people who are wealthy are snobs but if an employer is going to employ someone purely on the basis of the university they attended that has to be snobbery right?'

MIL, who is an academic snob (ex teacher married to uni lecturer), says a degree from Oxbridge is more valuable because of where it is from. Its not neccassarily better but it is considered better. She's pushing dd1 to go to Cambridge to do English and when I said 'but what job can you get with an English degree' she said it was the university that made the difference. Then said nasty sneery things about the fact I went to a Poly and she hoped I didn't send my kids to former polies as they were shit (clearly not truem UWE, for example, has a international reputation in AI and robotics)

I don't buy into all this 'unfairness', re private school pupils getting better grades.

It is the child that gets the grade because they have worked for it. They have been studious in class, done all their homework, asked for extra lessons, revised well, etc.

Why should their efforts be always put down? Their parents may pay, but they are doing their bit too.

you can be very academic but not very good at normal ways of presenting thought. there is something very important about colleges who admitt through interview and portfolio as well as grades.
the support for example cambridge now give to students with aspergers,is brill both at a social and accademic level.

Just out of interest, what faculty do you work in? You dont have to tell me if you dont want to, just I'm interested in speaking with tutors who teach the social work degree, I'm working on behalf of domestic violence victims and trying to highlight changes that I feel need to be made to social workers bearing in mind DV cases account for 70% of their workload I want to get together as many views from as many different people as poss before putting together my report

It's basically not a national curriculum. In my faculty even the undergraduate course components will be decided to some extent by what members of staff we currently have and what their specialities are. So if university X has a specialist in medieval monasteries they will run a course on medieval monasticism where university Y will run a course on military history because they happen to have an expert on the crusades on their pay list. The advantage is that you get taught by people who really know their stuff - and of course the careful student checks out which university is really strong in his or her particular subject/area of interest before applying.

Thanks for that, it was just something I wondered

Kazzi, I would hope that my dcs go to university (if they go at all) for what they will actually learn there, not for the snob value. And what you will learn will not be the same at different universities. The tuition system at Oxbridge is quite different from other universities for a start. And exams are different; it's not like A-levels where everybody across the country sits the same exam. Universities set their own exams. Universities who get the best students can afford to push them harder and get them further and demdand more of the students who get a first. Employers know this. So not necessarily snobbery.

I'm a bit uninformed on this one so maybe someone could help me out, I don't understand why some universities are classed as top universities and more importantly why is it so important to get into one? If you're going to study for a degree you can do it at any uni and on paper a degree from Oxford is worth exactly the same as a degree from Manchester, so why does the choice of uni matter? I hate using the phrase snobbery as I appreciate not all people who are wealthy are snobs but if an employer is going to employ someone purely on the basis of the university they attended that has to be snobbery right?

I think that poor but bright children who are well motivated will always do better than children who are average but well-tutored.

The difference is in the margins, I think and I agree that that is unfair.

Whether it's any more unfair than getting better results because your children are catholic or jewish or because your parents are wealthy enough to live in a leafy suburb, I don't know. What about the children of graduate parents who themselves have a massive advantage nomatter where the children are educated? There are lots of different inequalities.

Yes, that is true Cory. And yes, Quattrocentro there are people who still would never educate their children in the state system.

However, for those that do, they do get better results for an average student and thus an advantage in the university application system.

There will always be students who aren't 'academic' enough to gain a university place but it will also always be that an 'average' student who is able to take advantage of an independent school is more than likely to get better 'results'due to the smaller classes, less disruption, peer pressure, music lessons....ie all the reasons parents choose to send their offspring to those schools.

Fair enough.BUT it is not fair on those who can't afford to pay and it DOES NOT make those children intrinsicly more intelligent. They will get better exam results though. A poor but bright child, given those advantages, would also get the results and place at 'top' university but they don't get the chance in the first place.

"then they miracuously get places at 'top' universities....job done."

nope, job not done until they have actually passed their university finals

Even if the OP did live in a grammar school area (of which there are precious few in the UK) I still don't buy that statement. There are still people in GS areas who just wouldn't send their children into the state system just because ... of sports and music and stuff. Or even better academic results. Think the OP's sample size is limited.

Schools can't turn a sow's ear into a silk purse but I do think, considering the constraints applied to the current GCSE/A level examining system, they can turn average students into A grade students. In fact I KNOW they can because several of my DCs contemporaries who did noteven pass the test(let alone gain a place) to the local highly selective grammar schools did suddenly end up with fantastic GCSE results, and I doubt they would have achieved that at a bog standard comp (NOT, I hasten to add at our local outstanding comp).

The point I am making is that 'average' students do get better results from independent schools, which is presumably what one is paying the money for.

Doesn't make them any more 'intelligent' though, just gives them better results, which isn't fair on those who can't pay.

I completely get the OP's statement. In our area, only the ones who don't get into the grammar schools tend to opt for the private sector and then they miracuously get places at 'top' universities....job done.

However, I do accept that this is particular to my area and there are many people who choose to send their children to independent schools for many and varying reasons, including those who wouldn't ever dream of using the state system,it wouldn't even enter their minds (eg generations who have always gone to Eton etc).

also let's bear in mind that it's not just a case of them getting into Russell Group universities

they've got to come out too

and preferably not too soon....

Children have a certain (differing) amount of abilities in a range of disciplines. I think that perseverence and hard work will make a significant difference to how far that talent can go. What difference does a school make? Well schools can encourage, direct and point the way. Good schools can also supply a quality peer group which is interested in learning. What schools absolutely can't do is turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

A good school should enable every child to reach his or her full potential, if a child is not very academic then I doubt that a private school could magically change this to them getting straight A's (although I accept I could be wrong on that)

Not all children are academic, nor does being academic interest all children, some prefer to concentrate on sport or drama etc. If one of my children was average academically but a talented sports player I'd rather they were encouraged to shine at sport than be forced to sit in a classroom learning something that didnt interest them, just my opinion, if they were capable of getting straight A's then theres no reason why they cant achieve this at a good state school.

Builde makes a very good point. But I still think the difference between the results of AVERAGELY intelligent pupil at a not v good state school and an independent school is depressing, ie the independently educated will get better results, and therefore place at 'top' university just by dint of their parents paying which isn't particularly fair.

Presumably this is why parents DO pay for their average child to go to a private school.

"When you go round your local comp. ask them about their Oxbridge entrance."

This seems to assume that we have some choice in where they are sent for Secondary.
A child is in school from Y7 to Y13 so a school 'generation' is 7 years. Our local comp hasn't sent anyone to either Oxford or Cambridge for two generations.

Instead of having a rant about there being so many private school pupils at the top universities why is no one picking up on the other side. ie. what to do about the smaller percentage of state school pupils (not selective grammer schools).

Thanks for that info Scienceteacher. He is going to a college open day at cambridge where you meet the director of studies for your subject and the tutors. He'll go on his own so i don't let him down by saying something stupid!

And that tip about a follow up letter is really useful as some of the courses he's applying for differ slightly and the personal statement doesn't allow that flexibility.

OP, private education differs enormously, you can't just bunch it all together. Some of the schools are non selective and take a wide range of abilities.

The issues that needs to be addressed are the lack of appplications by state schools to the best universities and the fact that often the correct 'hard' subjects are not being encouraged/taken,which cuts down their choices.

I went to a comp. and then on to Cambridge University.

Half the people there had been to state schools. Infact, three people from my comp. went to Cambridge and loads got all As at A-level and went to the other Russell Group Universities.

You can do very well at a comprehensive school. They are setted and so - if you are in a top set - it's like being in a private school (which are generally selective) or a selective grammar school.

When you go round your local comp. ask them about their Oxbridge entrance. If some children can get all As at A-level, then you needn't worry about the teaching.

The thing that stops ALL state school children going to Oxbridge is that many of the children aren't bright enough. (Private schools will select and not take the dim children so will always be able to get a greater percentage of their children in to the 'top' universities.)

There is possibily also an expectation issue...a few of my class thought they weren't bright enough and wouldn't apply. I had more confidence because my parents had been to Cambridge and I always thought I was as able as them.

I went to a Russell Group/ Sussex Trust Uni with a state education.

DH went to a Russell Group/ Sussex Trust from a public school background - he got to go to that school with a bursary because he is exceptionally bright (got a first, year awards and a PhD at Uni), but his parents couldn't afford to pay the fees. He got his Uni place by damn hard work (and having a large brain to start with) - and also damn hard work from his dad (a tradesman) to pay his share of the fees.

I really don't think the OP stands up as an argument.

i went to universities no. 3 and no.4 in the times 'good university' guide.

all from a rough inner-city comp.

when i got there i found some super-posh but not very bright students from private schools BUT mostly (in my subject) discovered that my straight-As were nothing in this new world and that i was actually only 'average' and that there were far far brighter people than me around (and most of them had been educated in private schools).

Not another "independent" schools thread.

I wish there really were such a thing...