Are State School Oxbridge Students More Intelligent?

[sarahlayton06]

Are students who attended state comprehensive schools (especially poor-performing ones) and yet managed to get all 9s in their GCSEs and all A*s at A-level and get into Oxbridge inherently more intelligent than students who got similar grades and got into Oxbridge and other prestigious universities but went to private school or to a selective grammar school?

This is as without the privilege of better education, they may not have performed as well?

No

No. I think the system of admission looks got something else in the candidate. It’s not about grades, but the quality of intellect which you can’t teach.

There’s got to be some benefit to going to schools that are far better resourced than state comprehensives ( and I exclude grammars as they tend to be able to raise more funds from parents and alumni, and don’t have to take into account such a wide variety of students when teaching. So it’s definitely easier for them). So students that excel in state comprehensives are brilliant. But that I don’t think that means they are better than those that did well in private / grammar schools.

In my experience yes. When I was there most of the people who either dropped out in the first year or ended up with a third were from public schools where they'd obviously been heavily coached. I remember one guy from a very prestigious school drunkenly confessing that he already knew what the interview questions were going to be through contacts at his school.

I suppose the only way to know if the grades people achieved were correlated to the education received, you would need to have everyone go to the same school.

Would those privately educated pupils have achieved the same grades and got to Oxbridge if they had attended the comprehensive school?

And how is intelligence defined anyway? Is going to Oxbridge / getting top grades the only measure of intelligence?

Yes, I would say so, on average. Private school teachers aren't necessarily any better than state school teachers, but they generally have less disruption to worry about (especially compared to low performing state schools) and are good at "teaching to the test" (because they are typically more focused on high A level results).

I say this as someone who attended private school (on a full scholarship) and went to Oxbridge. I think my DH and DS are just as intelligent as me, but both went to state schools and didn't get into Oxbridge.

Of course it's harder to get straight 9s and A* in the state sector.

I think there's a lot of BS about Oxbridge admissions tbqh. I have worked for 30 years now in sectors that attract a lot of Oxbridge graduates and I really can't say that they stand out.

Yes obviously.
If you grew up in a refugee camp in Darfur and got good grades, you managed to maintain focus, develop resilience and achieve well despite all the adversities. We would celebrate that child's success above a child who achieved the same grades in a British school. So why would we not recognise that environments play a huge part in the chance of someone succeeding?
Some of the comprehensives I know of are extremely challenging environments to teach and learn in. We have no idea if a child who grew up in wealth and went to private school would have achieved similar grades if they went to our local comp.

I suppose the only way to know if the grades people achieved were correlated to the education received, you would need to have everyone go to the same school.

and be in the same class. Children at the same school can have very different experiences eg. A particularly disruptive child in their class, variation in teacher quality/sickness rates/use of subs, a cohort of particular hard working children.

It is important to remember that qualifications are capped - there is only so much more a child at a high performing private school can do than a student at a poor performing state school. Eleven 9s and four Astars from both schools tell you nothing about whether the state school pupil is more intelligent to have achieved against the odds, because the private school pupil might also have been just as capable of doing this.

I think it depends, there must be some very intelligent kids at private school who go onto oxbridge. But also Boris Johnson, I mean he must have some intelligence, but also some major failings. The concept of intelligence is disputed, there isn’t an accepted definition or way to measure it, there’s an agreed concept, but specifics are difficult to pin down.

Id say state kids probably have to work harder, be more driven? But the state school landscape is vast, if you’re a middle class child of academics at state that’s very different to a child living in care.. Geography also clearly plays a part, my DDs state 6th form sends lots of kids to Oxbridge, we’re in the SE of England, hardly any kids living in the north east go.

I know a few families where one child who was intelligent but had mild sen went private where siblings who were more capable went to state. Not then onto Oxbridge, but certainly it’s easier for some kids to do well in small private schools rather than state.

I would say broadly no. Obviously if you went to a rough school from a poor background and achieved top grades then you’re probably much cleverer than private school counterparts. However most state school kids at Oxbridge are from leafy middle class areas or grammars and have professional university-educated parents. Are they disadvantaged compared to a bursary kid at a private school from a working class/ low income background with no family history of higher education?

DD tried for the local selective girls school, got in but we couldn't afford to take up the place and there were no scholarships as it was 2021 and they were (rightly) prioritising their current students.

I'm sure she would have gotten all 8/9s had she gone to that school, as is she is on track and still predicted all 8/9s at her comp. Intelligent students who aren't swayed by their peers and have high aspirations will do well anywhere.

There were lots of not spectacularly bright people at Cambridge when I went there, but everyone had high ability when it came to conceptual thought or logic and quick thinking. The differences were more in insight and understanding the wider implications and context of thought, which I think can come from more life experience — not necessarily from a state school, but certainly from having more awareness of different lives and experiences in the world.

I discovered when I got there that most people had grown up in households where parents made them breakfast, brought them a "tea" when the arrived home from school, gave them a private room to do their homework in, etc.. It was quite an eye-opener for me as I'd grown up without breakfast/tea made for me and without a quiet space to do homework.

They are not inherently more intelligent but they have already proved their ability to work in more difficult situations and will have needed to be pretty self-motivated and independent. The equivalent private school pupil may also have there qualities but may not, so there's more of a risk of them struggling or dropping out once don't have higher levels of suport.

My kids all went to state comprehensive and one of them's at Cambridge. He's certainly bright and reasonably academic but not exceptionally so (no string of A* for a start). If anything is exceptional about him it's his interest in how the world works and his ability to synthesise and shape all sorts of information to ask interesting questions (or see the flaws in other's arguments). How useful this will be long term us anyone's guess but I guess it's something they feel they can work with.

Boris was a bright enough boy. He was a kings scholar at Eton (can't be stupid) and was expected to get a first at oxford (actually he messed up his exams and ended up with a high 2.1).

So he certainly is not thick! He does have a certain kind of intelligence.

But perhaps lacking in other kinds ...

And how is intelligence defined anyway? Is going to Oxbridge / getting top grades the only measure of intelligence?

Agreed..some state schools are extremely focussed on exams success from Year7. QE boys in London have entrance tests that where parents tutor from year 4. One parent said they have spent £400 per month for 3 years in admissions testing for QE entrance exams. They are doing so because the stats for Oxbridge at the school are incredible. This isn't about natural intelligence but hard graft and 100% focus on Oxbridge, as the end goal.

There will be equally able/intelligent/academic children in the area who haven't had the same exam focus so won't get Oxbridge.

Uni admissions have changed and diversity and finances play a much bigger part than previously so it isnt only about academics or intelligence (and perhaps never was). I know of 2 recent applications for Oxbridge, same subject and the weaker academic candidate, objectively, even measured by the colleges own admission tests, got the offer so factors other than intelligence were more important.

It’s exactly this that separates someone with a string of very good grades from someone who does get in. Good grades are ten a penny, but intellectual curiosity not so much. And it’s something that they actually look for

I think a lot hinges on the supportive family.

Ironically it is possible for a student at a poor performing comp to nonetheless have very engaged parents who value education and support the child with time and attention.

And for a child at private school to have everything money can buy in terms of education but parents who are busy, disengaged etc.

I don't think it's as simple as comp
V private.

What do exam results say about intelligence anyway. Lots of people know how to work hard and aim high and get all A stars/9s. Oxbridge is awash with them. Most are ordinarily bright - relatively few are exceptional.

So he certainly is not thick! He does have a certain kind of intelligence

Have to agree. Unless you are Royal most boys will find the admissions process for Eton super tough. Once there I heard the competitiveness is fierce so perhaps the focus leads to less rounded individuals. Maybe they need to focus on character and empathy - although tbf Boris tutor did seem to notice his negative character traits. Eton seems to be blamed for Boris personality, whereas its most likely his family of origin, mainly his Dad.

From recently having a small insight into the level of support that a private school kid gets in terms of Oxbridge entry compared to a kid at a state school like mine, even before you look at the quality of education (small class sizes, consistent, qualified teachers etc) the difference is insane.

Many people will rush to tell you that a private school actually makes no difference in terms of educational outcomes, in which case one wonders exactly what people think they are paying for.

But then again the focus needed to achieve requires a high degree of selfishness.

Yes in my experience they are

I was Far better than the snooty private educated students in my class who would often say to me 'we deserve to be here more than some of the rest of our class'

Haha well I aced all my work and got 1st place in my year

They were not exceptional
Got everything handed to them on a plate with their wealthy parents backing them and reading over every assignment

My parents worked in a factory

Exactly @nobnoblegiraffe.