Is it harder to get into a selective state school or selective independent school?

The ethos of Oxbridge interviewers is to try to test candidates from schools like Westminster etc beyond practised interview skills.

Comprehensive Oxbridge entry?

Yes, I agree. I went to Oxbridge and donate to a programme at my old college to improve access for comprehensive pupils.

At the comprehensive mentioned upthread, we got 2/3 into Oxbridge every year. There is no shortage of talent, particularly amongst asylum seekers, for some reason, and although I was the only Oxbridge grad on the staff, most of the rest were very well qualified academically.

But I could have done a better job teaching them if my 'A' level set had not been less selective than my top GCSE set. It was difficult to justify going off at a tangent which I knew would benefit only two or three out of the 17 I was teaching. And there was practically no preparation for interviews, nothing like what I know goes on at Westminster.

Fortunately, the colleges, at Cambridge anyway, are well aware of this and I think are genuinely trying to make allowances as Shoooting's link shows. It's in their interest, after all, to pick the most able.

I often post this link so I apologise if others have seen it before but it demystifies and undermines some of the preconceptions about the Oxbridge admissions process. www.theguardian.com/education/2012/jan/10/how-cambridge-admissions-really-work quite rightly those students who attend schools that are good are cut less slack. My DD went to a very selective private school and the process of preparing them for the Oxbridge admissions process was definitely not one of being given the contacts and magic keys to getting in. It was more or less exactly the same as the process for the Tiffin girls. Some very bright candidates from both schools did not get in. And of course quite a few Tiffin girls who have only ever kept up via outside tutoring definitely didn't . The process in itself is intimidating and many prefer to apply to top RG unis that are often not far adrift , or actually higher than Oxbridge, in the tables. As discussed on other threads schools like Westminster are extraordinarily selective and take in a posse of very bright girls at sixth form, hence they do get a lot in, and some of those might have been applying for subjects like MFL which are not as competitive.

I entirely agree that there is a real issue in some of the comprehensives where students have no role models amongst teachers or past pupils to encourage them to apply, and no access to the cultural knowledge which would maximise their chances of success. Hence the success of mentoring charities like this one s490414095.websitehome.co.uk/acdiversity.org/?page_id=7. It is the biggest challenge facing university access schemes (not just Oxbridge) in levelling the playing field. It isn't assessing the candidates who apply, it is making sure that candidates are motivated and equipped to apply.

I think one of the explanations for the difference in Oxbridge numbers, is the differing numbers of teachers from Oxbridge in the 2 types of school.

Both have teachers who have been at Oxbridge, but schools like Westminster have a very high percentage of Oxbridge educated staff. They are 'insiders' of the system and there is a very smooth Oxbridge machine running, with personal connections to many colleges, and a very developed Oxbridge programme.

Grammar schools, I think have lower Oxbridge educated teacher percentages. There will be many in those schools from RG type Unis too. For them perhaps, Oxbridge is something they are less familiar with and less committed to. They see value in the RG Unis too, that they went to.....so there is just less of an QOxbridge culture. There will be an Oxbridge programme for the candidates, but probably not in such a developed way. I really think it is this, rather than the fact children are less clever....they are often cleverer. The expectation, on the part of the kids, the parents and the staff is perhaps less.

Equally, I expect if we were to compare the %of parents with Oxbridge degrees, we would find more in the top independent schools. This too feeds into a culture of it being the norm, what one expects to happen etc.

This also explains why many Comps have a history of never sending anyone to Oxbridge, despite the fact they may have a handful of kids who are up to it. Many Comps have absolutely no Oxbridge educated teachers on their staff. Although the Oxbridge outreach programmes try to widen access, kids in these schools just don't have access to staff with expertise about the application process. This means they don't tend to even apply and if they do, they are often not as well prepared.

Shooting I'm glad you mentioned the achievements of the comprehensives.

I live in a mainly comprehensive area. The only two grammars are superselective and take pupils from far and wide so don't really impact on the calibre of the comprehensive intake.

There are some reputable indies, but parents tend to choose the superselectives if their children get a place.

At my comprehensive, we analysed the local indie (GDST) results for GCSE, A level and University entrance, comparing them with the achievements of our top sets. We won, hands down, even though our most able pupils were in groups of 30+ for GCSE and our A level sets were unstreamed. (V relevant when you are trying to teach across an ability range from potentially Oxbridge to C grade GCSE.)

So if your child does not get into the superselective and you can't afford indie, they may do even better at the local comp. But the fly in the ointment there, of course, is catchment sizes for the best schools.

I meant very able compared to selective private schools. That is not to say that there are very able children who don't get through the eleven plus for all the usual reasons that are often aired, including what you have just discussed.

I believe so in at least two superselective grammar school I know of compared to a selective private I know. Interesting to know what teachers who have worked in both types of school think.

Point taken matsikula

However Summerends Do you really believe that Grammar Schools are now selecting the most able? That the Head of OFSTED and all the statistics that show how unrepresentative they are of their local communities are wrong? I come at this from having gone to a very selective Grammar School, one that enabled a lot of peers from working class backgrounds to achieve their potential, but that was before tutoring became such an exploitative industry. It isn't just that the local Grammar Schools don't achieve that well in relation to the Indies, they don't even perform better than the top sets in they local comprehensives, which are filled with the pupils they rejected. I don't doubt that there are lots of bright children in state schools. I just don't think they are necessarily in the so called superselective Grammar Schools. Given that they are state funded then I think that having selection processes that favour those with the will, resources and money to tutor, moreover to tutor in way that have no educational value whatsoever, is morally wrong.

Shootingatpigeons, I was being somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but, there is definitely a league table of occupations if you are the child of an immigrant parent from a poor country -like both my husband and I are. Doctors are usually top of the pecking order. And yes, I do also know that there is a huge range in the earning capacity of both lawyers and doctors.

My original intention was simply to point out that the fact that more children go to Oxbridge from Westminster than from Tiffin does not necessarily mean that they are either brighter, or better taught. What the elite private schools can give you is a sense that more or less any career aspiration, from popstar to Prime Minister, is attainable, and pupils will choose their degree subjects accordingly, hence loads more pupils from Westminster will choose something like Philosophy at Cambridge.

The example of my husband was meant to illustrate that if you choose a private school over a top grammar, your child might end up taking a less 'safe' route. Not necessarily a bad thing of course, but scary if you can't offer them anything much to fall back on.

Shooting, I don't think it is a difference in the intake, although I do n't disagree that the private school exams and interviews can test for what you mentioned. However there are more very bright children in the selective state sector than private. I think the right private school environment does makes a huge difference even for the very bright as does the aspirations that prevail in the family and their school. The absolutely brilliant will always come through whatever.

Matzikula

A high street solicitor stuck doing conveyancing for 45k a year is not the same ilk as a high flying city partner in a magic circle or US firm on 1mln plus or a QC, same with a inner city GP vs. a leading neurosurgeon or consultant .......and like Shooting, I don't think of league tables of careers, though know there are certain cultures that do. In any case, so many of the parents who can afford private these days seem to have their own businesses of all and sundry types.

Shooting, I agree with what you say and have thought that myself and that holistic approach is also what we are after in choosing indie over the grammar even if it costs 75k to do so vs free and again, it's the extras too - the music, drama and sport that you pay for not just exam results.

And to answer OP as others have said you are not comparing like for like. The tiffin tests were narrow and though intended to identify the top 2 or 3% by ability rather than attainment they have not been invested in so that they do that job and are apparently tutorable (though I would never have put my DD through endless repetitive practising of VR and NVR tests, zilch educational value). So the pupils who end up there are evidently not in the top 2 Or 3 % of ability, they might be, or they might have spent years of endless practise to get their scores to that level. It is either that or the quality of the teaching that explains the shortfall in their results compared with the indies. I have no idea if including Maths and English in the tests will enable them to more effectively identify ability?

In contrast the indies build up a much more holistic view of a child via effective VR and NVR tests, exams that test not just attainment in Maths and English but also the way in which the applicants think, creativity , lateral thinking etc., general knowledge, and interviews and references etc.

LEH say that their girls tend to be in the top 5% of the population on reasoning tests so in theory it should be harder to get into Tiffin which used to publish that to succeed pupils had to score in the top 3% (but now I gather only publishes the stats in relation to those taking the test ) but whether it successfully discerns that level of ability is another matter.... You won't get into LEH via years of tutoring.

What bizarre posts Matzikula I had no idea that what you choose to do in life had a league table. I think some of my friends who are doctors and lawyers would laugh at the idea that they are in the fields that are nos 1 and 2, especially the doctors when they were struggling with inhumane working hours and women lawyers who found that their high flying city career had to grind to a halt when they had the competing demands of a family. Surely you chose the career that is right for you, will best use your talents and has the best chance of enabling you to get what you want out of life, be that money and / or happiness. That is what I encourage in my DDs choices. Not many people coming out of banking at the moment thinking thank goodness I sacrificed my health sanity and happiness to make "loadsamoney"!!!

DD knows lots of girls whose parents pushed them down the medicine route when they didn't have the aptitude or personal qualities. Most are now on Biomed and related courses which are full of frustrated A* students who can't work out why they "failed" . Thankfully DD knew from the start that whilst she would enjoy the medicine she would hate patients so she has gone down another Science route and loves it, has Masters and PhD funding and a career she will love planned out.

My DD turned down her Tiffin place partly because, already a Science geek, she found the Science teachers uninspiring and the labs dingy and under equipped. Given all the facilities at the indies she didn't consider it as an option for very long.

Say day fees are 15k on average - private secondary through till 6th form - 75k in total (and that's not including extras.)

Compare that to a free, selective state grammar (with similar results) - it's a no brainer for most families.

Also, that's just for one child - what about siblings? You can't send one private and the other not, that's not really fair.

I think if I was given that choice or my parents had that dilemma (they didn't), I would rather have that money put aside for a house deposit or towards university.

aah i guess it depends what type of lawyer vs. what type of doctor Matsikula....hindsight is a wonderful thing ..you do wonder if your kids will think you are nuts and should have saved money for their adult lives instead of choosing private over a free grammar.

There's a line in Yes Prime Minister with Sir Humphrey talking to Bernard and he's listing all the great things about the UK...
"our universities...both of them".
I agree with TalkinPeace, there are other good universities and some courses may be better at other universities. It's a very narrow way of measuring success.

I type too slowly on my phone! X-post!

It was 20 odd years ago now but my husband's parents turned down his Tiffin place and made big sacrifices to send him to a private school. He thinks they were nuts because if he'd gone to Tiffin he would probably have ended up as a doctor. He did English instead and is now a lawyer (which is 2nd best!), but no doubt caused them plenty of angst on the way.

Oops - meant to say lots of grammar school children come from families without much in the way of money or connections to fall back on, and that means they are more likely to choose clearly-defined career paths rather than just pick a subject for love. And I expect lots will rule out the Ivy League universities as just too expensive, even though the difference is now not as big as it used to be.

no family money you mean Matsikula?....so more from grammars heading for a secure professional career for life like medicine and hence heading for London unis rather than applying for Classics or PPE at Oxford.....hmm, I think you may have something there.

Though there are a lot who sacrifice family finances to go private too.

Well, I think firstly a test that has no essay-writing element will favour a more scientific brain in the first place, but, second, lots of these children are from families where there is no family m

so how many at Tiffin Girls really get into the Ivy League Unis you mentioned... ...again as a parent whose clever child has beaten off hordes of others to get a coveted place there ...I would want easy access to that kind of info. especially if I were in the lucky position of choosing selective indie vs. selective state?

Matsikula

That's interesting ...do you think in general more children at the top grammars choose medicine as a career path than at the top indies? If so, wonder what's behind that ..

I am not "anti Oxbridge"

just pro Imperial, LSE, Edinburgh, Yale, Cornell, Stanford, McGill, Sorbonne, Berkely, Harvard, Princeton etc

piling half your kids into only two universities implies a very blinkered approach to careeers advice