Decision time - state grammar school or quasi-selective independent school

Actually, what she said, Violet, is that they don't look at schools - just grades.

P.S Thanks also Abby for confirming what many of us have tried to get across, that Oxbridge really don't care about lacrosse playing!

Thank you Milliways - you've specified what many of us are talking about.

And thank you Abby. My own experience as a teacher (in state and private) confirms what I have always felt. I have always found that potential Oxbridge candidates have that rare 'something special', which as you say, you can't teach. They will stand out from among the crowd, be hugely intelligent, exceptionally self motivated and be, in a sense, in a different league. You come across these students in both state and private. The type of school gives them no advantage - as I say, probably they don't need a huge amount of teaching anyway - they are often self-learners. They will get into Oxbridge regardless of whether they've been in state or private. So, pay for your child's education if you want, but don't be under any illusion it will get them into Oxbridge - it won't - if they are up to it, they'd get there anyway. On the rare occasions that Oxbridge get it wrong (Royal Family apart!!) then I think it probably does the candidate a real disservice anyway. I have one colleague who by her own admission scraped into Oxbridge, she never really believed she was good enough, and then really struggled for the next three years trying to keep up, because as Abby says, it is very, very tough.

As to why a greater proportion from private schools get in... well, you'd also find that high achieving state schools, grammar and comprehensive, will have a greater proportion getting in than lower achieving ones. I think it works like this: Highly intelligent parents are more likely to have high earning careers. They tend to (broadly speaking here!) fall into one of two camps: they will either pay for private (often because they went to fee paying school themselves) or the 'liberal intelligensia' types will pay to live in good areas with good state schools. Therefore, you are more likely to get more Oxbridge candidates from either of these two sources. What it doesn't mean, is that paying for your child's education will give them a 'better' chance of Oxbridge - because as has already been explained, they will either have the potential to get in, or they won't.

I suppose this is where the Cambridge Special Access Scheme comes in:

"Admissions Tutors are aware that some applicants may not be predicted such high grades, but will nevertheless have the potential and the motivation to follow a course in Cambridge successfully. The Cambridge Special Access Scheme (CSAS) is a University-wide initiative that has developed out of the experiences in different Colleges. It is designed to ensure that all Colleges have the information they require in order to assess accurately applicants who have experienced particular personal, social or educational disadvantage."

They also have a scoring sytem that muliplies the no of A* passes by a score for each score, with poor ranking schools given a higher score.

It has always been a game to some extent.

on the original post you've answered it yourself - many many more advantages of the private school. The state school change would come as a shock to you all and you'd regret it.

Hi, I AM an Oxbridge don in charge of admissions in a very oversubcribed subject with a success rate of 1 in 5 applicants from a very self-selected field, mostly holding 10+ As at GCSE. I can assure you all that everyone needs 3 As regardless of their school, that none of us give a monkey's about sport, gap years or being 'rounded', that you can't really be coached because not even the most expensive schools can put in what we want (poential, and you can't teach it) and that anyone from anywhere can make an appointment with a don and get advice on their application, or attend an open day ditto at a college or a faculty. I for one don't allow my admissions team to discuss schools during decision-making. I think admitting people with 3 Bs would only make for misery - the course is very difficult and the unprepared really really struggle.

Same here..hitting head on brick wall.

This has also gone very off topic from OP.

Think we will have to agree to differ. I know what I mean. I can't be bothered to waste my afternoon trying to explain it all on here, have better things to do.

Come to think of it Oxbridge and other top universities do have the BMAT, LNAT and all those other aptitude tests.

As to level playing fields....hmmm.

/hitting head off brick wall.

They shouldn't be able to get an advantage through the UCAS system though, as if they had some kind of golf handicap.

If you want a level playing field, then you need to introduce an aptitude test. Or make state schools better.

The whole point of paying for a child's education by everyone's admission is to give them an advantage: better grades, more sport, smaller classes, no disruption, making good connections. That is what you are paying for.

My children are advantaged by going to a grammar school. I knew enough about the system to find the tests in WHSmith, familiarise them, so that they had an equal chance against those from the private sector and those who had been tutored for two years. Lucky them.

Other people can afford to live in the catchment areas of decent comprehensives.

But I can still see that there are SOME children who may be as brainy as mine who MAY wish to apply to top universities who MAY have only got 3 Bs at A level because of the sink school they have had to attend,or other reasons, and who would prob get 3 As in the private sector.

A good education is increasingly becoming a 'game' to which only the well informed and well off are privy to the rules.

Getting 'help' with the personal statement on the UCAS form, doing interesting Gap year things (using those connections gained)are all subtle advantages that our children have.

I really don't see why a clever child from a terrible school and/or background shouldn't have a tiny bit of 'advantage' too.

I am certain the top universities are not going to squander their places on anyone who isn't able to keep up intellectually with all the others there.

I am not talking about pupils who scrape 2 Es. That is ridiculous.

There is nothing wrong with wanting more disadvantaged children to apply and gain places in higher education - but the current system is not designed to give them any kind of priority.

And you shouldn't punish children for what their parents do.

Also, if someone can scrape together 2Es, they will find a univeristy place - higher education is not completely denied to them.

Exactly bags. I really can't see why anyone would object either, unless they think that they have some right, by virtue of having parents who chose to fork out more money, to get into a good University!

Don't they speak for themselves in their personal statement?

When did nepotism last count for Oxbridge places?

I may be wrong, but I don't think universities can actually see which school the pupils attended. There is a box the school referee ticks to say what sort of school it is, eg grammar, comprehensive and a box to fill in re the numbers from the school who go on to further education. Thus the universities can infer from this info what sort of education the pupils have received.

Also if pupil has got GCSEs in Latin, Greek etc and certain other subjects which are USUALLY only taught in the private, and possibly grammar school, sector they can guess that they have not been to Sink Road Comprehensive somehow.

However, all of this is not specifically designed to stop clever children getting their well deserved university places. It is just redressing the balance slightly for a poor child who may come from a crap background, attend a crap school who just might be as brainy as someone with every advantage given to them all through their lives, and who, in the past, may have got a place at Oxbridge or good university because their father/uncle/second cousin once removed went there. I really, really can't see why anyone would actually object to this.

It still doesn't mean they are going to automatically get a place, it may just get them an interview where they can actually speak for themselves.

I may be wrong, but I don't think universities can actually see which school the pupils attended. There is a box the school referee ticks to say what sort of school it is, eg grammar, comprehensive and a box to fill in re the numbers from the school who go on to further education. Thus the universities can infer from this info what sort of education the pupils have received.

Also if pupil has got GCSEs in Latin, Greek etc and certain other subjects which are USUALLY only taught in the private, and possibly grammar school, sector they can guess that they have not been to Sink Road Comprehensive somehow.

However, all of this is not specifically designed to stop clever children getting their well deserved university places. It is just redressing the balance slightly for a poor child who may come from a crap background, attend a crap school who just might be as brainy as someone with every advantage given to them all through their lives, and who, in the past, may have got a place at Oxbridge or good university because their father/uncle/second cousin once removed went there. I really, really can't see why anyone would actually object to this.

It still doesn't mean they are going to automatically get a place, it may just get them an interview where they can actually speak for themselves.

I've done admissions work for clinical courses and we did look at a school's average point score. This was for our own WP research (we had a target of 25% applicants rom WP backgrounds) and was one of about 6 factors that were looked at. An applicant being assessed as "WP" (ticked yes for 3/6 of ur criteria) didn't make any difference to whether they got through to he interview stage though. Majority of those offered places were from state grammars.

I am talking about well resepected Universities Dottoressa , and courses which are oversubscribed. I agree that needlework at the University of the north east corner of Grotsville is going to be more concerned about bums on seats.

BTW, I don't agree with your implication that one can only know about something if one has done it oneself. We all gain understanding of things though a variety of means: researching, talking to people etc etc - if we all had to actually do something first hand to know anything about it, we'd be ignorant of all sorts of things. I've never stood as President of the US, but I have a fair understanding of how the election process works!

Violethill: I'm sure the admissions tutors you talk to aren't 'lying' - but in the nicest possible way, you really can't claim to know how universities admit students unless you do it yourself. Even then, you would only know about that specific university!

Universities use a whole host of criteria for admission. If a student is applying from a school that generally performs poorly, his/her teachers will tend to point this out on the UCAS form; often, this will provoke an admissions tutor to ring them for further information. However, I never, ever came across any evidence of universities looking at a school's average points score. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen; it may, though, mean that it's not common practice.

BTW, universities are odd places. The assumption being made here is that all universities want the students with the best potential. Ideally, yes! However the truth, for a lot of departments, is that they want bums on seats, as their funding depends on it...

They don't have a methodology for assessing who is the best, outside of the UCAS system. The UCAS system is not designed for delving into the background of the school. It really isn't, nor should it ever be used in this way.

If you have a tie between the candidates for your last two places, you look at their personal statements and their teacher references. If somehow their grades do not show their full potential, this is where the explanation should come from. The university should not be inferring anything about people they only know through a piece of paper.

Well I don't see why Universities wouldn't want the best candidates for each course!

But I'm clearly not going to be able to convince you of that st!

Yeah, they may say that, and then they opt for the best grades.

If they want to look at the whole school's grades, then fine. As long as they don't start making up fudge factors. Look but don't touch.

Well I don't think the admissions tutors I speak to are lying!

I'm sure they use a process that they find selects the right candidates for each course. Why wouldn't they?

But do they really look at average points for the school?

Do they also look at what subjects the points came from?

Not a robust process, I'm afraid.

I am saying that Universities look at the average points score for the school.
That is clearly not the same as saying that anyone is assuming that a candidate with lower grades is going to be better. Just that the University will quite rightly consider the candidate in a 'rounded' way. Three As at A level does not necessarily in itself indicate huge intelligence or potential to excel at degree level in a subject.
Likewise, a candidate may gain slightly lower grades than this, but have a great intellect and enormous potential.
And of course, it is in the interests of the University to select the right candidates. University is the point at which the students have become adults. They are there out of their own choice, not because their parents have decided to send them there. Good Universities are absolutely totally committed to selecting the best students for each course.

What are you saying then, Violet? You have consistently said here that universities take the name of the school into consideration ahead of grades.

The UCAS system we have at present is not appropriate for selecting on anything other than grades and the personal statement, and for in-demand courses, an interview.

If you want to select based on raw intelligence and potential (a worthy thing, btw), then you need to have an intelligence test (for example, the SAT test they have in the USA).