When parents are slagging off the local comp...

Your link shows that 0 (zero) girls chose religious studies for A level at HBS - my link shows 77 boys at Eton chose religious studies which is the 'easiest' subject for acceptance at Oxbridge.

www.hbschool.org.uk/userfiles/henriettamvc/pdf/academic-life/exam-results/final%202016/A%20Level%20Results%202016.pdf

www.hbschool.org.uk/userfiles/henriettamvc/pdf/academic-life/University%20Destinations%202016%20as%20at%2030-8-16.pdf

Most popular HBS Oxbridge subjects:

At Cambridge 9 humanities, 9 science places

At Oxford 9 places for humanities, 3 for sciences.

I can't see equivalent Eton info?

I still think subject choice is important;
www.qebarnet.co.uk/achievements/2016_school_performance_-__a__level
How many boys at Queen Elizabeth's Barnet chose A levels in religious studies, modern languages, ancient history or classics compared to Eton?
www.etoncollege.com/StatisticsALevel.aspx (nb languages mainly under Pre-U)

Eton's most popular degree subjects for Oxbridge (260 pupils per year group by the way);
www.etoncollege.com/Universities.aspx

'Easiest' subjects for Oxbridge acceptance;
www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationpicturegalleries/11639288/Top-10-easiest-Oxbridge-degrees-to-get-accepted-on.html?frame=2884799

HBS school gets just 13% into Oxbridge, whereas NLCS is on at 33%. The populations are very similar demographically.

And if you look at the study you can see the most elite grammars in Britain get half the % into Oxbridge, so it's not just about numbers.

"In some of the leading schools, there appears to be
a particular link with one of the two universities. At
Eton, for example, 133 students went to Oxford over
the three years, but only 78 to Cambridge. At Queen
Elizabeth’s School, in Barnet, north London, 59 went
to Cambridge, but only 29 to Oxford.
Independent school pupils are more than seven
times as likely as those in comprehensives to
be accepted at Oxbridge. Some 5.7 per cent of
independent school pupils went on to Oxford or
Cambridge over the three years, compared with 0.8
per cent in non-selective state schools and 3.4 per
cent in grammar schools. "

Another, more recent study for you:

" 58% of HE applicants from the 30 highest
progression comprehensive schools (with
average scores for students exceeding 3As
grades at A-level) were accepted into the 30
most highly selective universities; this compares
with 87.1% of applicants from the 30 highest
progression independent schools and 74.1%
from the 30 highest progression grammar
schools."

www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/sutton-trust-he-destination-report-final.pdf

Upthread you & others were arguing that Westminster et al get lots of kids into Oxbridge due to their amazing A level grades.

It does support my argument.

The research is done by Cambridge. It covers all RG unis, including Cambridge.

Cambridge have not said "oh, btw, we are different", and they would have a real incentive to do so.

Unless you have any evidence to back up your assertion, the only data available supports what I am saying.

The study makes clear that it covers all the RG universities. (It is BTW just one study - other studies look at slightly different questions, with slightly different conclusions.)

Of course Oxbridge are special cases amongst the RG universites: they don't just use A level grades to select, but academics spend a huge amount of time interviewing, doing pretests etc. Many/most RG courses select only on the basis of A level grades.

Why keep quoting things that don't actually support your arguments?

The research was done by Cambridge, and they don't say that Cambridge/Oxford are special cases. Do you have any evidence that they are special cases?

www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/news/state-school-pupils-do-better-at-university-cambridge-assessment-research-confirms/

The study does not apply specifically to Oxbridge, who already do their own pretests/interviews etc. It's not that surprising that across the whole of the RG state schools coming in with the same grades as private schools might do marginally better. But Oxbridge is selecting from the top of the top, using many methods to judge potential.

*Not true.

College is top of the college league tables (which measure undergraduate results), but doesn't take the highest proportion of state school students of all colleges.

Get your facts right.*

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11976195/State-school-pupils-likely-to-do-better-than-private-pupils-study-shows.html

It is true, actually. Just because your college has a lower % of state school pupils & gets good results, it doesn't mean that if you had more state school pupils you wouldn't get higher results.

Your college might have better tutoring/supervisioning (not a word) - there's no way to tell what your results would be with more state school pupils unless you remove school data from your forms.

Go on Carl :) (sorry I've been calling you Curl! It was the Hair in your name) - where have I lied?

I have given my personal experience of getting an undeserved interview
I have related the accounts of my friends at same & different schools (inc. Westminster) getting offers that they knew in advance of applying would be a certain level (BBB st. hugh's for history - every year)
I have given examples of excellent Grammar schools getting similar results - not identical - but similar - and not getting anywhere near the same level of pupils into Oxbridge

But no one can really tell me - leaving aside Westminster scholars, etc. etc. - if Westminster only gets 36% better A levels than HBS or other elite Grammars, why do they get 200%-300% more offers?

If scholars only comprise 10% of the school, how can they account for 50% of Westminster going off to Oxbridge?! They can't go to both Oxford & Cambridge simultaneously :D

I simply do not accept that all of HBS are applying to STEM or aren't applying to Oxbridge at all. Unless someone can prove this - HBS intake is very similar to private schools like SHHS, Habs. SHHS is the backup for not getting into HBS!

The sutton trust data, which no one has provided an alternative for, corroborates what I'm saying: it's harder to get in with similar results from a state school.

actually if you admitted fewer kids from private schools your college would probably be getting more firsts, as that's also what the data shows.

Not true.

College is top of the college league tables (which measure undergraduate results), but doesn't take the highest proportion of state school students of all colleges.

Get your facts right.

Again, it's great that you're not consciously biased (although your clear belief that all Westminster 6 formers are amazing seems to show that you are...).

Again you seem to be misconstruing my comment (FYI I don't work in admissions).

My point about the 'amazing' sixth-formers is that they are selected at 16 (I think?), so it's hardly any surprise that they spike the Oxbridge admissions. If the top schools all selected at 16, they'd have 100% Oxbridge uptake.

It's not 50/50% for the general W population because scholars, who comprise about 10% of the W body, will receive offers at much higher rates.

I'll just await your comment that W scholars aren't too terribly exceptional.

I don't know 100% that there is no nodding and winking going on- I suspect very little if any. But I could write you a short essay on why private school kids are more likely to get to Oxbridge than state school kids, if you like.

alyosha you've been called out on untruths by several posters. You've ignored each time. Readers can draw their own conclusions.

So why does the data show that there is a disproportionate advantage that accrues to private school kids, if it doesn't matter?

And the data all shows that you are wrong about the amazing quality of Westminster pupils - actually if you admitted fewer kids from private schools your college would probably be getting more firsts, as that's also what the data shows.

Again, it's great that you're not consciously biased (although your clear belief that all Westminster 6 formers are amazing seems to show that you are...).

But I'm sure editors at scientific journals were confident there would be no change to the % of papers admitted by women...but they were wrong.

No one is aware of their own biases...that's why it's so hard for even top Oxbridge state school grads to get jobs post-graduation. Even then their academic achievements aren't enough to break through the public school bias.

I'm 100% sure that if you no longer had information on the school applicants went to you would offer fewer places to Westminster school.

And I'm 100% sure that this would not make a difference.

The kids who would be more disadvantaged by us not knowing their backgrounds are those from families with no tradition of university education etc.

BTW repeating what I said many times upthread - many of those interviewing for my subject are not British, were not educated in Britain and don't know much about UK schools. They just don't look at the UCAS form information much -- and still score the candidates very similarly to the rest of us. The candidates they score lower are the ones from low performing state schools.

Curl - no one is saying you are getting rich off bribes!

It's a more strutural problem - you are biased in favour of public school students, because you believe they are better.

This is clear from your laudatory posts re: Westminster school.

I'm 100% sure that if you no longer had information on the school applicants went to you would offer fewer places to Westminster school.

I'm sure admissions tutors don't intentionally admit lots of private school kids; but the well known nature of these schools and the fact that lots of you think you only get the best of the best from them means you hold an unconcious bias towards them.

I'm sure editors at scientific journals don't think they favour men, but they do.

But the Sutton Trust data does not look at pretest and aptitude results as it does not have them.

If you have better data, by all means show us it.

alyosha you've presented untruths as fact in several of your posts.

Like what?

But the Sutton Trust data does not look at pretest and aptitude results as it does not have them.

And it is based on information from > 10 years ago.

"Westminster is routinely the most successful school at obtaining places at Oxbridge. It doesn't take a genius to work out why. No leg ups or old boys network necessary (academics from Westminster are rare as rocking horse shit TBH)."

Right, please explain why:

50% get into Oxbridge
Which is 3-4x, say HBS
But their results are only around 36% better
And most HBS pupils will be applying to Oxbridge
And the data (sutton trust) shows this across the sector

Is that me telling porkies or you unwilling to look at the facts?