State Schools Eclipse Eton in rankings for A-Level Science

I'm not disputing any of that, or saying that taken on a population level it isn't true. Just saying it isn't true every single time that a state educated child's grade will have always been harder to achieve, unless you are comparing children of equal natural ability.

So eg send one identical twin to a top Independent and the other to bog standard high in averageville, if they both get identical grades then of course the second twin will have worked harder. And will have done even if they get a grade lower across the board. However it's hardly the case that there are no exceptionally bright children in state schools, who will put less work into grades their less bright counterparts at private work hard for.

In boarding schools staff are paid to be the supportive background. Children are fed, watered and supported by high quality teachers in quiet study areas when doing homework. Day schools have far superior wrap around with support for prep. The state sector has none of that alongside parents trying to hold down jobs, commute, cook and run a house hold. The vast maj of parents aren't able to support secondary level homework.

Then we get onto class sizes. I have taught tiny classes and huge. The benefit for the student in tiny classes is huge. Years and years in tiny classes with the best teachers money can buy, superb study support, decent buildings and resources will have a huge impact at every level of ability. That is why parents pay a small fortune for private education.

limp that's true if you are comparing children who are of equal ability and have equally supportive backgrounds. You can't say that it is true for every individual.

I sent my child to Eton.

It wasn't for the GCSE's nor the A-levels.

Nor was it for the net-working or the status.

It was for the education of the whole person!

If I sent my child to Eton it wouldn't be for the GCSEs. Or, for that matter, the A levels.

You simply can't say with assurance said grade was nothing to do with his years at public school.

And sorry yes I do think the equivalent grade from a state school after years in the state sector in classes of 30, limited resources,zero external study support etc would be more worthy.

I doubt I'm the only one.

I like the IB and have worked at two independent schools who ran both A levels and IB. The latter was signifucantly less popular, even at the very selective school, the students perceive it to be harder work, don't know if this is true, and you have to be a strong alrounder. Very science orientated children didn't feel the science was as in depth enough especially if you wanted to do a STEM subject at a top uni and chose A levels again can't comment on how true that is in reality.

"Going to a private school doesn't make you brighter"
Limp couldn't agree more but it also doesn't mean you're not super bright.
I know Limp you want believe a independently educated child getting an A is only do so because of the school, not because they're bright but this just isn't true for all.
My DS got a D1 in 1 in one of his Pre U's (they are harder than A levels) and so a D1 is equvilant an A** and meant he got in excess of 95%, the main reason he achieved this with minimal effort on his part because he's a genius at this particular subject, not because of his schooling. I can assure there have been time during his school career when the teaching in this subject has been mediocre at best. But you think it's not a valid and believe that his achievement is less that a child in the state sector getting a A? Secondly as we live in a nice area with nice ambitious schools I've no doubt he would have achieved equvalant grades there, but from what your saying this would be better because it was a state school? He by the way looked at our local state 6th form colllege they had a gifted and talented group being aimed at top universities he was shocked by how spoon fed they were.
Rightly or wrongly he's not continuing the subject at university, but if he had, no university would have felt that his D1 was because of his school rather than his innate ability.
Fandabby Dapple I only read what's written on Facebook no degree, working at a very big name bank. As I said above another friend who works for a very famous household name FTSE as a senior partner told us only a few weeks ago that increasingly they're more and more recruiting non graduates. Apparently they struggle to keep graduates who find some of the work especially in the beginning -beneath them- not what they envisaged.

Other consideration that will skew results is that in some public schools A levels were only encouraged for the 'less academic ' with a strong preference for IB. I think something like 85% of children took IB.

Well I know at least 8 people at Eton and all of them earn over at least 250k. So you may not like it but Eton is a ticket to wealth and generally great grades. Most Etonians I have met are polite but yes they will move in their own set. So is life!

FanDabby - yes I agree, that story sounds very unlikely.

"As only 7% of children are privately educated"

I think that's 7% across all age groups. It's way lower for prep, and as high as 20% for sixth form

limp

So what about children with sn and/or learning disabilities who attend private school, should they be told to work harder and have to achieve higher grades than others to gain a uni education?

We are constantly being told on threads that the leafy comps results are as good as private and that private doesn't mean a better education. make your mind up.

Another friends is a senior partner in a magic circle law firm she goes to a dinner party meet a man who's a senior party at a big investment bank Goldmans etc she gives his son three weeks work experience, 2 years later he gives her non university educated DS a job.

I find this incredibly difficult to believe.. I know a LOT about intern and graduate recruitment in these firms and can assure you that they have to evidence every part of the process and all decisions made.
There is no chance that a non-graduate DS was given a graduate job at an investment bank these days. No way.

As only 7% of children are privately educated then penalising them isn't going to level the playing field. How about we penalise mc dc from oversubscribed comprehensives? There are far more of them. Then we could share the state school funding equally too, rather than London first and the scraps for the rest of the country. How is havings £12k a year school conveying a huge advantage, but a state school in London with 2x the funding of some other counties isn't? I'll agree to dd needing better results for university based on private school, provided every parent whose dc have been advantaged by a mc upbringing and a state school that meets their needs are equally penalised.

Or do unfair advantages only count when they are other peoples lime?

I think the dominance of the privately educated is down to the haphazard way the state system caters to the most able. Privates maximise the potential of the most able, whereas taken as a whole the state system doesn't.

Nobody would be stopping private kids from applying,they'd just have to try harder like state students do.

Going to a private school doesn't make you brighter. Surely an A with all those advantages is the equivalent to a B in state with huge classes and limited resources.

Re maintenance grants. Richer students not having to work must be a huge advantage.

It makes sense to me too Noble.

Thanks for that link, Empress, it's good to have data to back up gut instinct

I've met few engineers doctors etc who earn that kind of money, most are (needless to say) investment bankers or something financial and didn't study STEM subjects at university

Those working in finance typically did study maths, physical sciences, engineering etc. A large fraction of my maths students go on to highly paid careers in finance.

And those in finance who didn't study STEM often did economics (following at least Maths and often another science at A level).

Limp

Nobody would disagree that it would be great to have free tuition fees, but until that happens I think it's a fair system apart from the high interest on the loans, that's disgusting.
The maintenance payment should be a grant too, rather than loan.
The fact remains though that poorer people can make it to uni now, whereas if your parents couldn't afford it you didn't go, in years gone by.

It is not necessarily easier to pay uni costs if the money has been used for school fees and circumstances change. Lots of people saved for school but didn't have enough for university on top.

I think the comment about why a young person with text speak will not fulfil their potential is key. A truly intelligent person will realise, for themselves, that this is not good enough to acquire a top job. It would not be anywhere in the world. So schools need to be very clear what expectations are in the real world. If people choose to hold themselves back by not engaging with requirements, I cannot see why privately educated young people are to blame.

As for restricting university places for privately educated young people - Why on earth would any forward-looking society do this? We need the brighter and the best in this country and not have anyone held back.

If a school, parents, community and the young person themselves are not able to see and grab the opportunities, then they really do need to open their eyes to the possibilities. However you can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink! How true that is even with all the outreach in the world, there are seriously entrenched views. Many immigrants don't hold these views though and they do very well!

Of course there is privilidge re being able to afford uni. Maintenance grants are an issue. You get them on a sliding scale according to household income £8k being the max for those on the lowest. Many kids will need either parental top ups or work. Work isn't that easier on a heavier course. Those able to pay school fees higher than your average salary will of course find funding their DC easier.

I may get flamed, but being honest my dd will probably attract a degree of nepotism in her field in the future.
I know it's not an advantage that some people like, but I don't care.
I see her struggle academically and despite trying as hard as we can to help her, there is little in the way of academic progress.
Anything at all that helps her reach her potential is ok with me.
I don't think it's anything to do with money, we don't have any.
Unless your child has sn/learning difficulties you can help to set them up for life and give them advantages that other children don't have.
A love of culture costs nothing, library books are free, charity shops are well stocked. Museums and galleries are mostly free and there are hosts of resources and youtube tutorials for all sorts of things.
It may not give the advantages that a private education might, but it may give better advantages, depending on the school and home.

I personally would look at the percentage of privately educated children and make unis ensure places are only allocated to the same percentage.

Sorry limplettuce, you did make suggestions - I missed your post.
A lot of privately educated children are already going to university abroad - were your suggestions implemented the numbers would increase - unless you think privately educated students should be prevented from applying to universities abroad.

Do universities have any way of checking whether the applicant is telling the truth about where they went to school. Presumably they do.