to not get the whole "children from comprehensives work harder to get the grades"

[Ohjustshootmenow]

An exam is an exam, right?

Agree with you Ohjust shoot... a great friend of mine has a disabled brother. He went to Eton. His brother didn't. Both are successful in chosen careers. (His brother is an actor.) My friend is lovely - I suspect having a big part in the care of his brother gave him certain emotional tools some of his schoolmates lacked. Also I know loads of examples of very wealthy, completely screwed up kids who were at private school. Mostly the real screw ups were at boarding school and had parents who wanted them away for as long as possible. NOT all boarding school kids like that - DH is one and from very different, very loving parents. But I feel sorry for my neice and nephews. Out of sight out of mind. Their mother said 'I wish I could find one that would take them from 2'. Their dad is actually pleased his youngest 'thinks of school as home which is really great'. Er...right. They are lost kids. You know the 'Dumping Ground' in Tracey Beaker. Some 'privileged' children are in the very expensive version of that as far as their emotional wellbeing is concerned. My neice, who comes to us for help, says 'I have never really known what 'home' means' and has never been in the same house for more than 3 weeks at a time. Except for her school house.

I think the education we receive from our homes and parents is the root of all of this...nowhere near just a private vs state school debate. Much more than that.

niece - maybe I should be back at school

Agree that kids from no matter what backgrounds can have issues. However that isn't really the debate is it. The question is do children from comprehensive schools have to work harder to get their grades than children from private schools? Of course there are soooo many different factors... intelligence, parental support, emotional issues, outside influences, special needs.... so many other factors that we could talk about all day!! Simply put though, on average, children from private schools WILL have an advantage, due to smaller classes and all the extras and advantages that they get that their parents pay for, otherwise what would be the point.

mrscoob you are right. There are page after page of threads on here stating that Private schools are better. People say the reason they pay is that children get more one to one time, pastoral care, better teaching etc. However, when it comes to university admissions/exam passes the same people suddenly say these children have not had any advantage at all. It is entirely nonsensical.

But as so many people have said, one of the main benefits of the independent system is the assumption that students will go on to uni and the huge support given them through the application process. Both my DSs went to selective academic independent schools. DS stayed on there to do A levels and was given huge support and advice on university application. Pretty much all the students go on to Uni with a lot of Oxbridge/medicine entrants. DS2 left school and went to a local college to do a btec diploma instead of A levels. The difference is stunning. Hardly any of the students thereare applying to uni and they are not really expected to do so. He has had far less help with the process and we have had to research the process as I was frightened he might miss deadlines. However I believe that the betec qualification he is studying for involves FAR less work than A levels and yet he gets equivalent UCAS points and entry into the system so I don't agree that it independent school pupils necessarily have an advantage.

Surely the point is that in the wider world of university and the jobs Market, admissions tutors and employers want bright, motivated young people who have the potential to direct their own learning and acquire more skills and knowledge . No one at age 18 is a finished article - its a process. And the top universities want the very brightest students.If there is evidence that taking into account the schooling of the pupil below age 18 is relevant (which there is- state school pupils with equivalent A level grades get a higher proportion of 1st class degrees than private school counterparts) then it makes sense for universities and employers to act accordingly. In the big wide world beyond school, intelligence, adaptability and all kinds of other skills matter as much as exam grades anyway. I see it as a common sense move to ensure that bright young people get the right opportunities- for everyones benefit.

the same people suddenly say these children have not had any advantage at all.

I don't think they do really - just that each child should be judged individually on their merits. They don't want their children discriminated against in a blanket fashion.

My feeling is that in the initial filtering to see who gets an interview, it might be appropriate to positively discriminate in favour of pupils from lower performing schools to up the proportion of such people they consider, and that then it may be appropriate to make differentiated offers. What there absolutely shouldn't be is any sort of quota system.

But basically the issue is that at Oxbridge they have, what, 50/50 private/state now (?)- but only 7% of kids go to independent schools, so the 50-50 cannot be right and ought to be addressed. So you do have to look at who got the same grades but in a state school. Otherwise it will never be fair.

So you see no advantage at all in private education?

I mean, fair enough, I don't either - but that's why I wouldn't use it.

Frankly as you have aknowledged that the definition of a word can be different to two different people I find your post beyond rude.

All this will do is encourage people to use private education up to the 6th form and then transfer to the shittiest dump you can find where the DC's will self teach and get their A* that were always in them but it'll look as though they are products of the state system which will then remain broken because there's no incentive to fix it.

There is also the not insignificant matter of space to study. Some children have no desk etc in their room and may share a small bedroom with siblings. They may not have a dining room either. They may not, if they are from a struggling family, have the best food, nutritionally and this would also affect their health and ability to concentrate. Although this might also apply to families who cut back on everything to send their children to private school I would think that this would not be the situation for the majority of children attending private schools. Oh and trying to concentrate in some houses in noisy estates can't be easy either.

Of course it is pointless to describe a child with a learning disability as advantaged.

Having said that, the majority of parents with children with SN are not actually in a position to choose the school that is best fitted to meet their child's need: they have to take the school that the LEA offers. Plenty of children with SN in the state system too- some get their needs met, others do not.

The whole question is simply too complex to deal with in any kind of grading system.

But I fully understand why SMC is fed up with this idea that children with SN are somehow advantaged.

Another problem Oxbridge has (and does moan about, and do its best to address) is that bright State school kids may not apply. Whether because they don't think they are good enough, or because their teachers are biased against it, or their parents are negative about it.

State schools often pre-select which pupils they think will be oxbridge material, so in year 10 if they do a trip for 12 students, it will be the same type of students, but some who might be oxbridge material will not be invited.

I was at Oxford as a post-grad, and a lot of us had gone to other Universities for our first degrees, but tutors etc. didn't see why we hadn't just gone to Oxford in the first place. (There are a wide variety of reasons, and I don't think Oxford would have necessarily been better for me than my Russell group first Uni.)

What I meant to say, was that there is more to advantage than just the actual education provided.

Seriously, you think people will take their darlings out of St Blazer & Stripey Socks and send them to 'Dump Street Comp', Mama? Would you do that? Do you know anyone who would?

I doubt it a bit, tbh.

"All this will do is encourage people to use private education up to the 6th form and then transfer to the shittiest dump you can find where the DC's will self teach and get their A* that were always in them "

I doubt it. When a student applies for University, their GCSE results are part of the process, so its hardly secret material!

Did you go to a London comp? I did and it was a nightmare. I'm lucky to have the results I have and my parents paid for tutor's. Massive classes of 30, noisy, unruly. Teachers would spend most of the class trying to settle it down. My school make Waterloo Road look tame

And if the A* was always in them, why did they need to be at private school?

Self-teach, how funny. What an arrogant, unplesant attitude.

I went to a London comp too - not a particularly great intake but some fabulous teachers, and I did fine.

SWC you know me by another name and have never hurled abuse at me before. Funny that isn't it. It was totally over the top. Maybe you should re read my comments. Actually, don't bother you are clearly not the person i thought you were. No doubt you will say something vile again.

I think there are better facilities and smaller teaching groups at private schools. however you do still get some students with learning difficulties and family problems. Not everyone is a high flyer.

I wish they would leave well alone and my dc go to a comp.

also all this anti middle class rhetoric irritates me. I don't mean on this forum just in the papers etc.

Hmmmm...torn on this one.

I have a young man in my extended family who is bright, motivated and ambitious. Due to his immediate circumstances and his school, a string of A*s are most unlikely.

For him, I think it would be right for lesser grades to be accepted. Or some leeway be given for the poor subject choices he made (how was he to know?)

However, I think a blanket policy of accepting lower grades simply becasue a student attended a comp, s silly and will never be accepted by the RG unis. Too many variables as Cory has outlined.

I'd give discretion to the admissions tutors I think.

Though of course, they don't have a lot of time on their hands to sift given the sheer amount of applicants these days.