State Schools Eclipse Eton in rankings for A-Level Science

By the way, the vast majority of top courses simply don't interview these days.

Suits and ties are NEVER required for university interviews.

Broadsheet newspapers can be accessed for free in libraries already - and of course one can read papers such as the Guardian, the NY Times for free online.

Extracurricular activities and languages from a young age are irrelevant for most university courses.

I remain appalled that my children's independent careers convention had no less than 18 representatives from RG and Oxbridge with stalls. My friend tried to set up similar for his state schools (he has over 40) and got 0 responses except local,FE colleges.

As has been pointed out many times on Mumsnet by academics, this is completely unrepresentative.

Higher education fairs are often regional - they may be hosted by an independent school, but all students from the area are welcome to attend.

And it is completely and utterly unbelievable that universities would not respond to a request for participation in events at state schools. Universities are keen to recruit students. They send representatives to anywhere that could send them students. I just don't believe this story.

Wow the presumption that my DC lack ambition and effort simply because I would like to see a level playing field for all
Interesting illustration of biased selective reading.

We all want a level playing field but since lots start off disadvantaged and are successful (if you are measuring that by income earned) and the reverse, the logical end conclusion would be that continuing a level playing field requires clones for parents, teachers and pupils and job allocation lottery.
Focussing on those in most need when public funds are limited is the best use of money.

Absolutely agree limp lettuce. There is an obvious issue that as independents are selective they are going to see higher results. The state system does have higher number of children who are not able to achieve at same level but.....there are lots of bright children who are underperform from a very early age.
We need to be pouring resources into good early years settings and raising expectations for all at primary schools. Children should be doing a foreign language, have interesting extracurricular activities beyond short cricket and football and every child should be given good instrumental lessons in small groups.

The greatest influence is the parents and we need to provide parenting courses and supporting parental aspirations through shared learning. We need more reading cafes and adult literacy/ EAL courses.
We need to ensure secondary aged children aspire to good university and get good careers advice. I remain appalled that my children's independent careers convention had no less than 18 representatives from RG and Oxbridge with stalls. My friend tried to set up similar for his state schools (he has over 40) and got 0 responses except local,FE colleges.
We need to give poorer youngsters the soft skills to access the top courses and universities. Interview preparation and robust feedback, good UCAS support, free broadsheet newspapers they can read, specialist support form those wanting to do medicine, vets and law or armed forces officer.
We need to give them funds for getting to the interviews, schools need to run trips to open days, we need to check what they're wearing and buy a suit and tie, if necessary.
We can't make it level but we can take down some barriers.

The fact is the breakdown of society doesn't reflect those in the top universities.

Entrance to top universities, worldwide, is based on academic ability and academic achievement.

The latter is not evenly spread through society. Universities cannot correct this at 18.

Academic ability is also not evenly spread through society.

Restricting universities to take only 7% of their students from private schools would not help the country. Students from top private schools would simply go to the US and leave the country for good - thus depriving the UK of their ability. Others would be moved from private schools to high achieving state schools in expensive areas, thus pushing kids out of these schools into lower achieving schools.

Like others on this thread, I do not understand why you focus on private schools (which vary a great deal) and why you do not understand that many children from the top London state schools are at least as privileged as those from private day schools in rural areas of the UK.

The fact is the breakdown of society doesn't reflect those in the top universities and jobs. That has to change. Society isn't made up of the disadvantaged and the rich. There is a huge band in the middle who deserve to see extra numbers in these top positions too.

The simple fact is we need less privately educated people in these positions and more of everybody else. The breakdown of everybody else is being dealt with( which I applaud as much as everybody else) not seeing much to reduce the numbers of those privately educated though.

Wow the presumption that my DC lack ambition and effort simply because I would like to see a level playing field for all.

Gen how on earth does wanting the percentage of state educated kids in the top unis and jobs to reflect the percentage of state educated children in education mean I don't give a stuff about disadvantaged kids? Unless you are inferring it is the job of the middle to boost them up but not those at the top enjoying privilidges everybody else can't afford who get to do nothing.

I don't want easier offers for the middle just a system that ensures the breakdown in top unis and jobs reflects society as a whole. Open to any suggestions. Suggesting however that privately educated kids have no etra unfair advantages and are on a level playing field with those in the middle( the maj of whom attend the same schools as disadvantaged kids ) is not one I will pay much heed to.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/13/class-size-debate-asks-wrong-question-simplistic

The greater irony is that the very children who need the better state schools are least likely to get them.

I totally agree with this but it will fall on deaf ears because a lot of people see private schools as the main enemy.

I'm pretty sure the same won't give my DC a leg up if applying for top jobs when in direct competition from rich kids who got a better degree due to not needing to work and a top private school such as Eton on their cv.
Limplettuce firstly for employment most employers don't differentiate between firsts and 2:1s so even if more free time equates to better degrees (assuming the necessary work ethic) the advantage will be minimal for CV screening. Nowadays any sort of work experience is a plus.
Secondly being an Etonian or Harrovian or whatever in the job market is not an automatic advantage, sometimes quite the opposite.
Thirdly generallly DCs of Asian immigrants are very successful educationally even when coping with restricted socioeconomic means, large classes, indifferent teaching etc. They just seem to compensate by effort and ambition. No reason why your DCs can't do the same.

percentage of these children reaching university has increased.

The article doesn't support your argument that all state educated children should have lower university offers than independently educated children.

The point of the article is the percentage of privately educated people who have reached the top of their professions. It is very high I agree. Some of this is generational (most judges are 60+ so were at school when a larger percentage of university graduates were from independent schools). For other areas like acting, the reasons are more esoteric and no amount of tinkering with university admissions will make any difference. It would be possible to compile a list of state educated people who have reached the top too. John Major and Laura Trott spring to mind, but there are lots of others.

You are deaf to the arguments on this thread that have already been made about the net gain for our country of attracting and retaining top talent, so that high earners pay tax in this country and make interesting jobs available here rather than in other corners of the globe.

You are also deaf to the very real needs of the most disadvantaged children in our society. It is great that the percentage of these children has increased in recent years, but they represent a drop in an ocean of unrealised potential.

I am sorry to hear that you feel you battled through university by working in your free time and that you now work in a minimum wage job and feel that your children are disadvantaged by not having access to an independent education. I maintain that the best response is not to try to harm the opportunities available to others, but to take advantage of the many free and affordable ways of giving your children the best start in life. Teachers have a special place in their hearts for the children who are enthusiastic in their lessons, museums and galleries are now more child-friendly than ever before. There is so much out there for little or no cost. There is so much out there to take advantage of.

They do limp and just as soon as all the other dc in the state system, including the pp kids, have the same access to good education that mc children currently do, we can start on the woes of the mc, and how harsh their lives are.

The only objection I have to the focus on pp is that the level should be raised because the group just above the threshold are often just as deprived. And the fact bright pp children often don't get anything beneficial from the funding.

Sorry but that is clearly not the case.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-35641061

I think focusing on a tiny percentage of pp kids detracts from the much wider picture and bigger numbers of children involved.

All children matter. Not just pp kids and not just the 7% of privately educated kids who cream off the vast majority of top jobs.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I wanted to add a couple of things.

1. At present only around half of children in this country are achieving 5 A*-C grades including Maths and English at GCSE. This means any stats on A Level results are automatically 'selective' and sadly wealth plays a huge part in this, meaning that the chances of a child from a very disadvantaged background studying A Levels at all is slim.

1. Universities already receive information on students who are from very disadvantaged backgrounds, including free school meal eligibility during their schooling and the range of results that children achieve at the school they attended. This enables them to make informed decisions, including offering a reduced provisional offer to make it easier for the disadvantaged child with potential to get into university. This is as it should be, but to make this approach to admissions available to all state educated children would be unworkable and unfair on those who truly need it.

As others have said, the huge barrier is getting children from those very disadvantaged backgrounds to a point where they can benefit from a university education at all. For many there is already a gulf in social skills when they start school at 4 years old and by the time they finish school they are so far away from university eligibility that even a C grade in Maths and English GCSEs is beyond their ambition. It is a problem that has vexed many generations of social workers, teachers and politicians. The children from this sort of very disadvantaged background who achieve against the odds are truly remarkable and deserve every leg up that our society can give them.

1. On this basis, it is my view that MC parents who want their state educated children to benefit from similar positive discrimination are not being honest with themselves about the advantages their children already have, simply by having a reasonably stable home life and parents who are educated and interested in the world around them. There really isn't that much difference between a state educated child in a class of 30 and a privately educated child in a class of 20, so stop worrying about your child being disadvantaged. The confidence that people often talk about private school kids having can be gained through so many things - participating in the school play, joining the local cricket club, scouts or choir... Private schools off these in-house, but they are all available in the community too, often for very little money and free to children who wouldn't otherwise be able to attend. Only a very small proportion of privately educated kids have 'connections' and these connections will be through family, not through school. Ultimately, as long as we have a loving and supportive family, our future success and happiness is of our own making. It is really important our children know how lucky they are to live in a civilised and peaceful country where we can all access education, culture and sporting opportunities for little or no cost.

I make it a rule to ignore references to communism. People accuse you of wanting to introduce communism when you want them to admit that they are taking advantage of an unfair system!
We are all operating within an unfair system (which will by the laws of nature remain unfair) to do the best for our DCs.
That might mean unfairly taking up state funds when we could afford private education by sending our DCs to a state school.
Or it could be supplementing our DCs' education by outside stuff and input which deprived DCs don't have.
Or it could be avoiding our talented DCs going to a poor state school by taking up a bursary to a private school.

Or it could be removing money from the UK economy by sending our DCs outside of the UK for their private education because private schools are penalised in this country.

The richest in the private sector don't want them getting their grubby undeserving hands on the privilidges their children enjoy.

Limp could you enlarge further on that comment? Give some examples of what you mean, maybe?
That's quite a generalisation.

I don't think people are taking advantage of a fair system, I think people are trying to obtain the best education they can for their children within what the law allows that is affordable to them.

I make it a rule to ignore references to communism. People accuse you of wanting to introduce communism when you want them to admit that they are taking advantage of an unfair system!

Only in a communist society would everyone have equal access everything.

There is a lot of inequality in communist countries. In the GDR high ranking members of the government, army and the Stasi had all sorts of privileges re housing, cars and food etc that ordinary citizens could only dream about. The same applied to all Soviet Union countries and applies today in places like Cuba and Venezuela.

"Bertrand - that applies in every area of life. The children who have most need of nutritious food have no chance of getting it.
Substitute that with, housing, clothing, Medical care etc. Only in a communist society would everyone have equal access everything."

Education is a special case. Nutritious food is nutritious food, whether it's cheap or expensive. Adequate housing is adequate, regardless of cost. Ditto warm clothing. Expensive education and cheap education are not the same commodity.

gems that's entirely different. The nhs is comparable. Yes there is a postcode lottery, but what we don't do is tell people from low income homes they only deserve a failing hospital that doesn't offer the treatment they need, where they are more likely to be treated by staff without relevant qualifications and where anything but critical illness will probably be ignored because what staff they have simply have to prioritise the most desperate. Whilst allowing the mc to buy into catchment, and/ or dedicate hours to worshipping the holy medicine God in order to receive health care more akin to private than the hospital their poorer peers receive.

limp the cost of university isn't what is putting the poorest off. It's the lack of expectation from some families and some schools, and even with a child with the will to succeed the lack of suitable education and direction.

And homeless children don't need housing "more" urgently - they need it urgently. The ones in houses need to stay there "urgently" otherwise they'd be homeless too.

But if you didn't give nutritious food to the ones who aren't starving they would be starving too. The starving children will die if they don't get food but the well-nourished ones will start to starve. Every child has the same need for food prima facie.

Starving children in poverty stricken places have more need of nutritious food, for obvious reasons.
Homeless children need housing more urgently.
Sick children require more access to medical care.
Sadly, they don't always.